patrick.net

REpro says

I had an opportunity to meet Mr. Silverstein a few weeks after. He appears to be excited and happy.

That's impossible, because he was at my house drinking beer. And he told me he didn't talk to you.

REpro says

Homeboy says

Actually, I'm the world's foremost authority on controlled demolitions, and I can tell you positively that those were not controlled demolitions.

Can you tell the same with building #7 Collapsed in the same way. Magic?

I headed the investigation on Building 7. It collapsed because the structure was weakened due to debris hitting it and from fire. It might seem like magic if you're an idiot, but it wasn't.

Fox it up, they don't call it programming for nuttin homey!

coriacci1 says

thank you for the the detail. but you know what I meant. what about norad?

Norad pre 9/11 only tracked inbound nuclear warheads and drug smugglers in light planes. United Airlines commercial boeing jets don't qualify on either count.

Do you ever read anything other than 911truth.org?

Zlxr says

Follow the Money

Larry Silverstein was only leasing the buildings. But he had special Terrorist Insurance.

I question why he was the one paid Billions since the insurance had to pay twice since it was considered 2 incidents since 2 planes. He got legal help to force the insurance companies to pay double.

Why wasn't the owner of the buildings paid? Or was he?

Wow, don't bother with facts much do you?

Special terrorist insurance? It was part of the policy, nothing special about it.

Paid double? Final payment May 2007 4.55 billion, no double payment.

The owner of the property was the Port Authority. Silverstein was leasing. The terms of his lease make him on responsible for rebuilding to the tune of about 7.5 billion, which is why he gets the insurance. Tough to pay 7.5 out of 4.55 billion insurance payment. Politico's are still jerking around with what to build and how Silverstein is going to finance it.

Whoops, didn't finish typing before submitting.

Paid double? Not really, the 25 insurance companies were separated into 2 groups depending on the language on the policy. One group of 11 was found to only owe one occurence by the policy, this group held be bulk of the insurance liability. The other 14 lessor companies owed double. The face total value on the policies was 3.55 billion, the payout was 4.55 billion so the excess for the double payout was 1 billion.

Homeboy says

It collapsed because the structure was weakened due to debris hitting it and from fire. It might seem like magic if you're an idiot, but it wasn't.

Hahahahaha Very funny.

Zlxr says

With regards to records missing in the fires etc. I did see a video where Rumsfeld said there was $5 billion missing from the Pentagon just before 9/11. And then Lo and Behold something hit the Pentagon and destroyed part of it. I heard it was the Accounting Dept. Well that would be the easy way to get rid of all the Accounting Errors - If that is really what happened.

If the FBI had offices in the Twin Towers - it stands to reason that something got destroyed. Did each individual tenant also have to have terrorist insurance to cover their losses (body losses and loss of data). How can they follow up on investigations if they don't have their data anymore? Or do they save every little bit of info offsite somewhere? And do all the investigators record their thoughts every day as well?

Obviously you've never heard of off site backup. It's been around a very long time. Where do you work that doesn't back up their data and store copies off site?

Of course tenants have insurance, why would anyone even ask such a question? There isn't terrorism insurance. You add a terrorism endorsement to your regular insurance policy. Standard stuff.

Zlxr says

I didn't say I knew everything - but when one leases a building - doesn't it still belong to the original owner? Therefore - why wasn't the money given to the original owner to decide how to rebuild the building? Even if Silverstein is required to buy insurance - wouldn't he still owe the owner since it happened on his watch

http://www.answers.com/topic/larry-silverstein

It depends on what is in the lease. Obviously rebuilding was in Silverman's lease. Silverman and Port Authority renegotiated the lease in 2006 so the Silverman would build 3 buildings on the edge of the property and the PA built a tower. It was in all the papers, did you not catch it?

I have to ask, are you a college student or something? Your questions about what are common business practices indicate you've never worked day to day as a business person. There's nothing at all sinister or unusual anywhere in all this.

Jesus Christ! You guys have it all wrong.

The towers were brought down by a Decepticon attack lead by Starscream. Megatron wanted to use the towers as a space bridge to Cybertron to transfer the energon that Swindle obtained from the Iraq War. Luckily the Autobots managed to stop them before the space bridge was opened.

Zlxr says

If building 7 fell down by itself - then why did Mr. Silverstein say that he made the decision to "pull it"?

I don't know if you are just screwing around here, but on the off chance you are actually serious, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that Silverstein faked the 9/11 attacks, and that it wasn't actually terrorists who did it? Or are you saying that he somehow had the building he was leasing wired with explosives for no particular reason, and so he just happened to be able to blow it up when the terrorists attacked? And then are you saying he first admitted that he blew up the building when he said he told them to "pull it", but then later claimed that wasn't what he meant? If this was some sort of insurance scam, why would he admit it and then turn around and deny it?

Your theory makes absolutely no sense.

Zlxr says

I'm not saying Silverstein faked 9/11. All I'm saying is that according to a video I saw where he said he made the decision to pull the building because of the damage - and because it was a little late to go into the building and set up the explosives on 9/11 - that they must have set up the explosives ahead of time. Or he needs a better explanation of what exactly he did. Generally demolition experts don't go into burning buildings to set explosives. Everybody who is guilty almost always says they didn't do it. So - what - now we just take their word for it?

So then what are you saying? Are you saying he teamed up with bin Laden so he could get insurance money? Then why bother to fly planes into the buildings? Why not just blow them up and say bin Laden did it? And AGAIN you have not answered the question of why Silverstein would ADMIT he blew up the buildings after he did it.

It just doesn't seem like you're thinking this through. "I saw a video on the internet" isn't necessarily a good reason to believe something ridiculous.

Zlxr says

I don't know why you're going on about how there would have to be thousands of people in on it if it "was an inside job". Why would you say that and then believe that OBL and 20 guys or so could do it better?

I didn't say it would take thousands of people to destroy the buildings; I said 1,000's would have to be in on it. All the occupants, firefighters, police, engineers, inspectors, politicians, etc. who would have to be involved in order to pull off a controlled demolition with a terrorist attack as a ruse, would number in the thousands.

And again, if Silverstein gave an order to demolish the building, why would he admit that to the whole world?

Flat!

On this side of the pond its seems pretty clear to me.
A small proportion of Americans are in such deep denial about the way that the USA is seen by much of their worlds population that they would sooner believe that their own government did the deed..rather than reflect on the reason that much of the world's population holds that view.

honestly ... there is almost as much engineering involved in carefully bringing down a big building as there is in building it.

To suggest that bad guys cant get in and make the required reduction in support system members is not being honest. After the last bombing there was ALOT of work going on. But, nobody knows how much pre-lim work had already went on BEFORE that first bombing attempt. MAYBE, just maybe, the bad guys had done 75% of the required support system reduction when the first bombing took place, and that is why the WTC did not waver. Or, maybe that truck was supposed to be three trucks. At any rate, when the planes hit we tend to see a single event - instantanious. Please keep in mind that the crazy arabs declared war on America and Isreal in 1970, 71, 71, and every year up to today. The powers of arab evil work slow and deliberate .. alot like progressive liberalism does. Just look how deep the cancer of liberalism has infected America's soul. The evil side is playing a long term game.

Zlxr says

If there is one that needs to be torn down then I would like to see if they can make it fall straight down using an airplane and a fire as in 9/11. I want to see an actual demo that shows that steel can conduct heat that fast all the way to the bottom and collapse a building as fast as 9/11 and not leave any of the steel structure up in the air.

The towers didn't fall from the bottom, they fell from the area where the planes hit them. The steel didn't "conduct heat all the way to the bottom." Are you just making this stuff up?

You do have one thing right, though - if the goal were to make it look like a terrorist attack, then for someone to go to all the trouble to rig a controlled demolition for no reason, would be nonsensical. If it's supposedly so hard to make a building fall straight down, then why did they bother to do so?

Let's see if you tinfoil heads have the guts to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/G8yfNLSp_Pw

Zlxr says

You're also assuming that OBL liked to raise millions of dollars just to lose it all destroying our country (While he's sitting in a cave no less). What did he get out of it? It got a whole lot of his innocent countrymen killed. But it sure seems like he did a big favor to a bunch of people over here though. How can you be sure he didn't have friends here? He's been a business partner with the Bush family before.

To quote Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove: "He's gone madder than a bloody march hare", looks like Zlxr has finally gone totally off the deep end.

Osama Bin Laden was a business partner with the Bush family?? When did that happen? That's the nuttiest thing posted yet. OBL went to Pakistan right after college, then on to Sudan, and Afganistan. At what point was he a business partner with the Bush family? What innocent countrymen? The only Saudi's killed were the ones hijacking the planes. What big favor did he do for a bunch of people over here other than give a bunch of conspiracy whack jobs lots of things to talk about?

Paranoia will destroy ya.

The bin Laden FAMILY made an investment in Arbusto Energy, a company organized by Bush. This investment was made through James Bath, former BCCI (famous drug smuggling bank) director and fellow Texas Air National Guardsman who defended the Gulf Coast from the North Vietnamese, on behalf of the bin Laden family. No Osama bin Laden himself.

Zlxr says

Generally you have real investigations with real and probable causes and then go about finding out what's true and what's not.

I was just playing the Devil's Advocate and now you're all pissed off.

Pissed off, not at all, Laughing my ass off is the true situation. You're my daily dose of humor at this point. At least until Honest Abe gets back into posting.

Let's look at paranoia du jour.

"real" investigation. I guess all the investigations to date were unreal.

The bin ladin "family" / the bush "family". Wow, bin ladins are a large very wealthy family heavily involved in the oil industry especially in Saudi Arabia - bush family a large very wealthy family heavily involved in the oil industry especially in Saudi Arabia. I agree, it's very suspicious that these two groups had any dealings with each other in a small country like Saudi Arabia.

Buildings sharing space with airplanes. That's great stuff, very funny. All buildings above zero height share space with airplanes. Eliminate buildings and airplanes will never crash into them. I'm writing my congressman about this today. I'm starting the get rid of all buildings to prevent airplane crashes movement.

Bernie Madoff? You forgot the mafia, the grassy knoll, fidel castro, and the federal reserve. Come keep up the the conspiricies.

The experts have told us, go read it. There are several very detailed engineering analysis of the structure of the WTC and the collapse available on line. There's a very cool program called Google to search for them, Check it out.

Very good post thunderlips. I like the part about defending the gulf coast. Funny. When I lived in south Texas there were some (ok maybe a lot) that felt the TANG should have defended the gulf coast from the South Vietnamese, but that's a very different story.

This is so much fun.

Zlxr says

All I really was saying is that the way the buildings came down has defied my whole understanding of what steel is and how strong it is and how a building that tall and so strong could fall like it had no structure whatsoever.

Why? Did you think steel was magic, and that it couldn't soften or bend? How do you think they MAKE things out of steel?

I need Myth Busters to show me the truth.

No, you just need to pull your head out of your ass.

Haven't you ever been curious or ever doubted what you hear?

Yes, have you? Because cold hard scientific facts do not seem to dissuade you from your ridiculous belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

IF they actually fell as we have been told - then I have a problem with the idea that it's ok to build sky scrapers that are up in airspace shared with airplanes. We need to think again about using steel for long bridges and such since it maybe isn't a very good building material. That's IF it happened as told. I'm picturing holes melting in bridges the next time an oil tanker crashes and catches fire.

Seriously - are you kind of slow? The steel in the WTC didn't melt. It got hot. Steel weakens after it reaches a certain temperature. It failed because the steel weakened, plus the planes had already knocked out some major columns that held the building up.

Bridges can fail too. Part of the Oakland/ SF Bay bridge collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Yes, steel can break. What would you rather build bridges out of? Kryptonite?

Steel is a good building material. You seem to think it's supposed to be supernatural.

So you think we shouldn't build tall buildings out of steel because 3 of them fell? About 2600 people died as a result of those buildings falling. Do you know how many people die in auto accidents every year in the U.S.? About 40,000. If you want to stop building things because someone might die, it would make more sense to stop building cars. I'm quite sure more people die in their own bathtubs than die in high-rise disasters.

Sheesh....

Zlxr says

Why can't the experts agree on what happened?

They should be able to tell us what about the building materials caused a collapse like that.

They did. The NIST prepared a report. It explains EXACTLY what happened. I even provided a link to it earlier. Have you read it?

Or if it was explosives they should be able to identify it and the supplier/manufacturers should know who bought it.

It wasn't explosives.

If purple unicorns did it, they should be able to identify and find the purple unicorns. So what? Purple unicorns didn't do it.

And if they DID look for explosives, you nutjobs would say, "They're looking for explosives. Ah-HA!" Doesn't matter what happens, you are determined to believe in your fantasy.

Zlxr says

If I make your day you must be bored half to death.

That's your first accurate post in this whole thread.

interesting contribution by x bush insider.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/uhkacBSlvvU&feature=player_embedded

let's not forget the Italian perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8XRMrMdn0NQ

then there's the danish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qq3wPOvhjp8

another contribution.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/YbOXo81mxm4&feature=related

Proof indeed! I think it was the music that convinced me.

While I don't necessarily believe any of the current theories, I still firmly believe something very nefarious was going on in at least some parts of our government. Too many strange things happened surrounding the events and somebody is the US govt is covering up something.

I have a feeling they knew about it and then just let it happen as to have the public behind an invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan. Big business, big money.

"Fighting for our freedom" is the biggest joke of the 21 century. I hope the soldiers realize they're fighting and dieing for the US business machine and nothing more.

Also, to think the Mossad didn't know before hand is laughable as well. Of course they did, they're smart like that. Why they didn't tell us (or did they?) is beyond me. Maybe they're happy we're more involved in the region than ever before.

The only other thought I had was that I was disappointed the planes missed Goldman Sachs headquarters. Innocent people don't deserve to die, but that company (as well as Halliburton, BofA, Morgan Stanley, Exxon, etc.) all deserve to DIAF.

People wonder why other countries hate us. Our big businesses and financial institutions are terrorists that use the US military as police enforcement. There's a reason they flew planes into the World Trade Centers in the first place.

Zlxr says

Well all I can say is I've seen bigger fires at the refinery and it hasn't melted or fallen down yet.

So what if I'm retarded - it's what the rest of the world thinks that matters more than what I think.

Steel does not heat up that fast when only one end has a torch on it. It might bend but it doesn't pulverize itself or melt that easily. That's why we use kilns and such to fire things to high temps instead of open fire pits.

Nobody in the official investigation EVER claimed that the steel melted, yet you keep saying that, even after I have corrected you several times.

Troll.

Did you see this in Vanity Fair

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/10/kurt-eichenwald-500-days

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/10/kurt-eichenwald-500-days-excerpt

http://www.booksnreview.com/articles/1003/20120911/new-9-11-book-500-days-damning-evidence-george-bush-terrorist-attacks.htm

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/the-third-building-which-collapsed-on-911-was-not-hit-by-a-plane.html

Duh, gee Mom - I can cut & paste a bunch of crap from 911truth.org all by myself, and nobody even helped me.

Homeboy is the obvious troll in this thread.

Let's just call a spade a spade shall we? Anybody who SERIOUSLY watches all of the video evidence and uses their critical thinking faculties, cannot possibly conclude that the "official version" of the 911 story is true. Rather, it's painfully OBVIOUS that all 3 buildings came down with a LOT of extra help!! (explosives, thermite, etc).

BTW, WTC 1, 2 and 7 (building 7 was NEVER hit by any plane) are the ONLY steel reinforced buildings in the entire history of the world (before or since 9/111) that EVER came down due to "fire". And there have been plenty of examples of buildings that burned far longer that did NOT come down! So only the weak-minded sheeple who don't take the time to investigate could ever believe such lies. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

Truth Seeker says

Homeboy is the obvious troll in this thread.

Let's just call a spade a spade shall we? Anybody who SERIOUSLY watches all of the video evidence and uses their critical thinking faculties, cannot possibly conclude that the "official version" of the 911 story is true. Rather, it's painfully OBVIOUS that all 3 buildings came down with a LOT of extra help!! (explosives, thermite, etc).

BTW, WTC 1, 2 and 7 (building 7 was NEVER hit by any plane) are the ONLY steel reinforced buildings in the entire history of the world (before or since 9/111) that EVER came down due to "fire". And there have been plenty of examples of buildings that burned far longer that did NOT come down! So only the weak-minded sheeple who don't take the time to investigate could ever believe such lies. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

Yeah, Homeboy is clearly the troll for believing the vast and overwhelming body of evidence in favour of the official explanation of events. Clearly he should be swayed by a couple of videos posted by conspiracy nuts, all of whom have spent decades working in the related fields and have been published widely in international journals. Or not. Experts one and all. Google experts.

9/11 was a sophisticated deception.

Just FOLLOW THE MONEY if you really want to know why it was perpetrated upon the American people.

$$Trillion dollar wars were started in the Middle East (the longest wars in our history and still bleeding), oil prices tripled, massive new security spending for updated scanners and personnel in every airport in the world, also courthouses, sports stadiums, convention centers, etc .

In short, unbelievable profits have been made since 9/11 by the military-industrial-complex (Eisenhower was right!). When you follow the money, just about everything comes into focus and suddenly makes sense.

Truth Seeker says

Let's just call a spade a spade shall we? Anybody who SERIOUSLY watches all of the video evidence and uses their critical thinking faculties, cannot possibly conclude that the "official version" of the 911 story is true. Rather, it's painfully OBVIOUS that all 3 buildings came down with a LOT of extra help!! (explosives, thermite, etc).

It's not painfully obvious to me or an awful lot of other people. What qualifies as "all" the video evidence?Just what's on 911truth.org or can we include the huge body of video evidence that conflicts with what's on 911truth.org? What qualifies as seriously watching?

Truth Seeker says

BTW, WTC 1, 2 and 7 (building 7 was NEVER hit by any plane) are the ONLY steel reinforced buildings in the entire history of the world (before or since 9/111) that EVER came down due to "fire".

Not true, read my earlier post. 1,2,7 wtc weren't steel reinforced buildings, they were steel buildings. The buildings were built out of steel columns. Perimeter steel columns for the outside walls and a square bank of steel columns to form the core around the elevators. Steel trusses connected the outer columns to the inner core. This stuff isn't hard to look up and the engineering is detailed many places. It's very helpful to try to know a just a little about what you are talking about. Try it sometime.

How many screen names do you have anyway?

Bigsby must be another one of those people who believes in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy!

"Experts" can just as easily be bought off as politicians and "blue ribbon panels" who make up organizations like the 911 Commission, the Warren Commission, etc.

Do you honestly believe that a steel reinforced building like World Trade Center Building 7 could actually collapse when it was never even hit by a plane ? It too, came down EXACTLY like a controlled demolition! How is that even possible??

Answer: it is ONLY possible with the use of explosives!! Don't kid yourself, otherwise, pal !

I've only got one screen name. How many do you have Bigsby/Bob2345 ??

You said it yourself, "a square bank of steel columns to form the core around the elevators."

Here is an expert take on it from the following link:
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html

" The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total. Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect explosives."

Again, these are the ONLY buildings in the history of the world to EVER come down due to fire. (fire? yeah, right!)

And are you forgetting that WTC 7 was built differently from the other two, in fact it was a conventional building with the standard, steel reinforcement. Yet it also "mysteriously" came down after suffering relatively modest damage from falling debris!

Truth Seeker says

Bigsby must be another one of those people who believes in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy!

And you must be another one of those internet experts - camped in front of your computer in your underpants, proudly wearing your tin foil hat. You put your trust in a handful of conspiracy nuts, the vast majority of whom have little or no knowledge of the actual science involved and even less of the actual information gathered. And yet here you are laughably chastising people who prefer to rely on a wide body of scientific research done by, amazingly enough, actual experts in their field.
Your views are rather like people having hundreds of years of research on the heliocentric nature of the solar system, and then you dig up a book that's a couple of thousand years old that states the earth is the centre of the universe. And which do you believe? Ten fucking guesses.