ChezGiven

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.

Afterwards on Irish TV they said it was within the rules but my understanding was that if you wanted to take it quickly you said so to the referee and then took the kick immediately, otherwise you waited for the whistle. Last night the kick wasn't taken immediately so I can see why Lille are so pissed off. That was my understanding too, you ask the referee if you can take it quickly and it was up to the opposition to be paying attention. I thought he then needed to signal or whistle though, which he didnt. The ref nods and its taken straightaway.

Was the goal within the rules? The french players claimed that it was against the rules in the press. I said to a few irate fans last night that i'd seen Thierry Henry do it plenty of times. Seemed to defuse their tempers a bit.

There's a hell of a lot of fuel burning outside the tower there EDIT: By the way, Tower 7 was a controlled demolision, because they couldn't contain the fire. Pre-rigged with explosives then?

Not your best post, just a load of waffle about whether i could concieve of a world where governments or officials allow terrorist acts to take place for political capital. Well, I was asking the question as it seems to fit the statements in that post. Have you yet to make you mind up on it, or is it to be left an open question? You deny knowing anything about the Russian attacks and then say you knew about them all along after Rob posted up the story. Hmmm. Renton: What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? You: E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. Me: What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? You: The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow Me: Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory? That's what happened above. I didn't deny I knew of the attacks, I was unaware that the Russians were being blamed for them. I was asking if this was a proven conspiracy, in the same veign as Renton. I read the Independant comment you posted, it supports nothing more than the barbarous attacks I had already mentioned above. No mention is made of false flag terrorism operations, and even introduces doubt as to the ultimate power behind the attacks, be it rogue elements of the FSB or Putin himself. This relates to the issue of Bush's knowledge of the CIA plot. If I recall correctly as reported after the event, the CIA could not provide the intelligence to justify invasion, and it was other areas of the administration that were more 'up for it' That is the basic idea behind what i am saying. There. is. a. precedent. Evidently you're basing your precedent for a CIA mass-murder plot on an article in a newspaper. RobW didn't even make clear whether the men jailed for the building bombings were Russians or not, let alone who ordered it, merely another allegation of security service involvement based on another 'man in the know' . I haven't read Litvinenko's book so obviously I can't comment, suffice to say, one unfounded allegation does not reinforce another unrelated allegation, as either or both could be wrong. Trying to find some inconsistency around 'numbers of CIA' operatives as some sort of official theory that i am signing up to is just shite tbh. It doesnt matter nor is it important. Nothing i have said is predicated on numbers of agents involved. I haven't found it, it's there in in your posts, I merely pointed it out and asked for clarification. Like I say, I can hardly argue against a conspiracy where these beliefs are not fleshed out, much like I can't refute Parky's 9/11 theories if he offers none, only more questions. Given the points above about justification for invasion, and your line diagram below, it is more than relevant. Nothing i have said is predicated on ... morality (still dont see the irrelevance of this point do you?), I see it as a central point to the argument given the lack of evidence and the human element to such conspiracies and duality of purpose of so called instruments of state security; but I accept this is a dead end if you can't see that, I've put my point in as many ways as I can think of. Nothing i have said is predicated on ... the ability to prevent such attacks. You have continually attributated failings in planning, prediction, intelligence gathering and action, to some alterior motive, as if any failing of the CIA could never be down to the nature of their work, i.e. the waffle from me up there about surveilance etc As for this 'boundless' task of preventing terrorist attacks, you seem to be confusing Birmingham in 2007 with New York in 2001. Not boundless as in number of opponents, boundless as in ability to achieve complete success against every attack. There were not 1000s of homegrown sleeper cells all over the eastern seaboard, all trying to blow themselves up. Did I give that impression? That was not my intention. There were a few known operatives in the US at the time. Only one of the 9/11 hijackers was known to the CIA, and he was lost after entering the country. As for the masterminds, funders etc, you still haven't made it clear whether you believe the CIA are in collusion with them on an ongoing basis, given your statements about both WTC attacks These are the facts tbh: 9/11, War on Terror, Axis of evil, Iraq. In that order numbnuts. Thank you for breaking it down for me. SSH such a well thought out post deserves a reply. I need to go out so will answer your first and last questions. I can conceive of a world of false flag terrorism. No, i dont believe the CIA planned it, i have my suspicions (and no more) that they could have let an attack go ahead, with one caveat. They didnt see the size of what was coming. More musings on scenario planning by the WTC security team post the mid-90s attack later. Heres a taster... (Question circa 1994 - "So if they manage to blow up WTC how do we prepare for the clean up operation and get NYC back on its feet the quickest?" Answer - "Mr Silverstein, it would be best all round if we could get it to collapse in its own footprint" )

Not your best post, just a load of waffle about whether i could concieve of a world where governments or officials allow terrorist acts to take place for political capital. You deny knowing anything about the Russian attacks and then say you knew about them all along after Rob posted up the story. Hmmm. That is the basic idea behind what i am saying. There. is. a. precedent. Trying to find some inconsistency around 'numbers of CIA' operatives as some sort of official theory that i am signing up to is just shite tbh. It doesnt matter nor is it important. Nothing i have said is predicated on numbers of agents involved, their morality (still dont see the irrelevance of this point do you?), or the ability to prevent such attacks. As for this 'boundless' task of preventing terrorist attacks, you seem to be confusing Birmingham in 2007 with New York in 2001. There were not 1000s of homegrown sleeper cells all over the eastern seaboard, all trying to blow themselves up. There were a few known operatives in the US at the time. These are the facts tbh: 9/11, War on Terror, Axis of evil, Iraq. In that order numbnuts.

I had my pancakes last night, the M&S ones with Lemon sauce therefore no flipping took place. I might cut back on lager.