ChezGiven

Cabin boy Paper boy Shop Asst Delivery Van (Electrical goods) Insulation cutter for offshore oil company Balloon Act Researcher UK manager UK Team Leader European Manager.

I've always fancied it tbh. The line-up usually looks top class. Worried it might be a bit 'corporate' though. Not as corporate as everywhere else tbh. The last time i was there (cant remember exactly when), saw some quality acts but the stand out moment was on the sunday in the small open tent next to the lake, sun was shining in, i was off me nappa and these two birds came on to DJ dresssed in PVC basques, stockings, high heels etc. In my 'mmfmmf' state of mind they were clearly the fittest birds on the planet at that time. Its nowt like Glastonbury, Leeds etc but the music is super-cool. Tom Middleton is always there, his new album is out - The Trip 2, first one was amazing. Including Helter Skelter? @ the fucking state I used to get in there This place? http://www.helter-skelter.co.uk/ I wouldnt know tbh.

Aye. I've got a thing about short black bobs (and i dont mean Shinton's long lost half brother either).

Did she have a short black Bob?

I've always fancied it tbh. The line-up usually looks top class. Worried it might be a bit 'corporate' though. Not as corporate as everywhere else tbh. The last time i was there (cant remember exactly when), saw some quality acts but the stand out moment was on the sunday in the small open tent next to the lake, sun was shining in, i was off me nappa and these two birds came on to DJ dresssed in PVC basques, stockings, high heels etc. In my 'mmfmmf' state of mind they were clearly the fittest birds on the planet at that time. Its nowt like Glastonbury, Leeds etc but the music is super-cool. Tom Middleton is always there, his new album is out - The Trip 2, first one was amazing.

".... and thats a wrap everyone "

The Guardian article proves nothing at all, other than the Towers were insured apparently for less than it's going to cost Silverstein to rebuild the area, which he is doing (he isn't pocketing the cash). Seriously, this is what your demolition theory is based on? Why haven't some investigative journalists succeeded in rumbling the story yet? Is it plausible that Silverstein, already an uber rich man, would commit mass murder and risk capital punishment for this? I don't think so. I never accused Silverstein of having anything to do with the attacks. It was al qaeda that attacked the buildings. The implication is he anticipated the attacks though, so much so he rigged the towers with TNT and in the process murdered hundreds of people, in double quick time. I can't see a single shred of evidence to substantiate this. WT7 is the evidence that at least one of the towers was rigged. I agree it seems too much to believe they would pull the buildings with FDNY and people still in them who could have been rescued.

Those norks look promising.

The Guardian article proves nothing at all, other than the Towers were insured apparently for less than it's going to cost Silverstein to rebuild the area, which he is doing (he isn't pocketing the cash). Seriously, this is what your demolition theory is based on? Why haven't some investigative journalists succeeded in rumbling the story yet? Is it plausible that Silverstein, already an uber rich man, would commit mass murder and risk capital punishment for this? I don't think so. I never accused Silverstein of having anything to do with the attacks. It was al qaeda that attacked the buildings.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events? I find this one of the most interesting aspects behind the whole thing as, if true, it's very fishy. Any chance of any credible links though? Lets start here. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/ Looks like the kind of fella who gets what he wants yes? So, 'no' then. Be patient Alex....You're haste betrays your intentions. http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleF...ArticleID=10744 Mission Statement: The Four Winds and The Phoenix Archives websites are committed to giving Truth to the people of our world and to revealing the lies under which we of Planet Earth have been living for thousands of years. Fuck me, this is like shelling peas. You're throwing the peas away and putting the shells in the pan though Where did you read about Silverstein then Chez? I can't take conspiracy websites seriously as there is basically no editorial control or even a need for emphasis on the truth. I'd be genuinely interested in reading from a credible source about it though, i.e. a half-decent newspaper. Most of the basic facts about the insurance policy are available in most publications. Here is a link that needs a subscription. http://www.economist.com/finance/displayst...FTOKEN=17110313 And one that doesnt http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1368115,00.html Am sure the 'terrorism' clause is in the public domain too. All the stuff on the WTC being a nightmare piece of real estate for years is easy to find tbh.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events? I find this one of the most interesting aspects behind the whole thing as, if true, it's very fishy. Any chance of any credible links though? Lets start here. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/ Looks like the kind of fella who gets what he wants yes? So, 'no' then. Be patient Alex....You're haste betrays your intentions. http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleF...ArticleID=10744 Mission Statement: The Four Winds and The Phoenix Archives websites are committed to giving Truth to the people of our world and to revealing the lies under which we of Planet Earth have been living for thousands of years. Fuck me, this is like shelling peas. You're throwing the peas away and putting the shells in the pan though

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. What a ridiculous argument. Why? You two are good at being dismissive, but seem to have nowt beyond that.. Am I missing something? I thought they were dismissing the conspiracy theory? What else do you suggest should be forthcoming? Perhaps more cut and paste of the official story...Would look like some effort was being made. CG, Parky, why did they not make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb attack, like 1993? Seriously, why be so elaborate? I asked this a while ago but you declined to answer. Also, if it was an insurance job, who volunteered to fly the planes to certain death? eh? Al qaeda flew 2 planes into the buildings, not the US. I didnt answer as i have never taken any other position.

The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Care to name some other terrorist targets, like the ones I mentioned? Are they rigged as well? I watched an hour long documentary on the Sears tower recently but it wasn't mentioned............ What about structural engineers, and engineering community, the majority of which think the planes triggered the collapse? Is it not possible that they are right? In fact, is it not likely the experts are right and not the internet bloggers? Your documentary watching is edging you into the lead on this one Dammit, if only i'd gone for the discovery package! Didnt know that Al qaeda had already tried to blow the Sears tower up? Didnt know it was such an icon for western capitalism either? In terms of risk, as you would assess it for insurance purposes the WTC was way out ahenad of any other buildiong at the time given its history and its meaning. Tallest building in the US and yes, a cultural icon, as is the Empire State and the Chrysler. Are you now saying only the WTC was rigged? How convenient! According to my theory and my extensive research across the internet and documentary channels, my work points to the answer 'yes', as it was a known target, had been attacked before and represented US wealth like no other building. The actions of Silverstein 6 months beforehand suggest that the probability of attack was considered very high (I refer you back to the equation for why they didnt do it elsewhere).

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. As we both know, economic theory is predominantly bollocks. Escpecially when used to justify pre-rigging a skyscraper with explosives. Theory is bollocks but those equations are just simplifications of real world insurance policy as worked out by an Actuary. Thats how insurance companies work, i'm not setting tax policy here ffs.

The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Care to name some other terrorist targets, like the ones I mentioned? Are they rigged as well? I watched an hour long documentary on the Sears tower recently but it wasn't mentioned............ What about structural engineers, and engineering community, the majority of which think the planes triggered the collapse? Is it not possible that they are right? In fact, is it not likely the experts are right and not the internet bloggers? Your documentary watching is edging you into the lead on this one Dammit, if only i'd gone for the discovery package! Didnt know that Al qaeda had already tried to blow the Sears tower up? Didnt know it was such an icon for western capitalism either? In terms of risk, as you would assess it for insurance purposes the WTC was way out ahenad of any other buildiong at the time given its history and its meaning.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. What a ridiculous argument. Irrefutable logic though.

The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be.

Don't forget the airline in all of this. They have to be complicit in the disappearance of the plane. They would also have had to mock up any air traffic control messages from the pilot as well. And presumably somehow they managed to make a missile look as big as a plane on the ATC radars. Oh, and it would have to travel as slowly as a plane as well. And on the original plane's flight path. And where are the passengers? Were they exterminated? I definitely think the conspiracy theorists have the upper hand in all of this. Why would it have been hard to put explosives in the WTC? I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it"). Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed? WT7 was pre-rigged with explosives, otherwise it wouldnt have fallen down. tbf. EDIT - They didnt know it was going to be attacked but pre-rigging a building that is a terrorist target may have been a prudent move, give the difficulty of then trying to go into the WTC AFTER a plane attack and do the same job. I dont reckon it was pre-planned but i can see that a very excellent idea, post the attack in the 90s, would be to prepare for another attack. I also think the obvuious thing to do would be to find a way of bring the building down if it was damaged beyond repair and too dangerous to enter after the attack. No conspiracy here, just sensible security policy. Like what they did with WT7. Funny, you never mentioned you were a structural engineer. So who organised the rigging and detonation of these explosives then? Why wasn't the area adequately evacuated? I'm sorry, but that is a conspiracy and is utterly implausible imo. But if true, we should expect the Sears tower to be rigged in the same way, yes? And the Empire state? Should be a piece of piss to prove. Ive got nae idea but that building was pulled - Silverstein is on tape saying "we pulled it" - its the only plausible explanation isnt it? If it was "pulled" it had to be pre-rigged. Why does that need a conspiracy? Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire?

Oops, did I say Penthouse in this thread? That's my credibility in shreds then. All of the above is pure speculation CG, you haven't really shown a shred of evidence to back it up. Personally, I think it's pretty unlikely that any American authorities had fore knowledge of what was to come. You can speculate all you like, but leave me out of it. Alright touchy, just thought it was an amusing mistake. We all make them and i didnt mean it to sound like i was dis-crediting what you were saying. I was in fact trying to steer things away from the crackpot stuff into the topics in the post above. You're right, i have no shred of evidence other than the Russia thing and the all the stories on wikipedias false flag terrorism page.

I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault.

Don't forget the airline in all of this. They have to be complicit in the disappearance of the plane. They would also have had to mock up any air traffic control messages from the pilot as well. And presumably somehow they managed to make a missile look as big as a plane on the ATC radars. Oh, and it would have to travel as slowly as a plane as well. And on the original plane's flight path. And where are the passengers? Were they exterminated? I definitely think the conspiracy theorists have the upper hand in all of this. Why would it have been hard to put explosives in the WTC? I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it"). Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed? WT7 was pre-rigged with explosives, otherwise it wouldnt have fallen down. tbf. EDIT - They didnt know it was going to be attacked but pre-rigging a building that is a terrorist target may have been a prudent move, give the difficulty of then trying to go into the WTC AFTER a plane attack and do the same job. I dont reckon it was pre-planned but i can see that a very excellent idea, post the attack in the 90s, would be to prepare for another attack. I also think the obvuious thing to do would be to find a way of bring the building down if it was damaged beyond repair and too dangerous to enter after the attack. No conspiracy here, just sensible security policy. Like what they did with WT7.

Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut?

I havent been for a few years now but The Big Chill is class.

Blatant shove.