patrick.net

i think that those companies were exempted in subsequent legislation.

That's what happens when politicians have chats without their staffers.

Silly senator.

(How did your neighborly "neighbor" vote on that one?)

Wrong. He was talking about the WTC towers.

"Soon after the September 11 attacks, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event. A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion,[2] which was not as much as Silverstein had sought. Silverstein also ran into multiple disputes with other parties in the rebuilding effort, including with the Port Authority. In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") would be owned by the Port Authority, as would Tower Five, which it would have the option of leasing to a different private developer and having redesigned as a residential building."

I can't recall how my neighbor voted, but I can tell you how Ron Paul would have.

Yes.

I think the 9/11 legislation that gave payments to victims also had language to take those companies off the hook.

If you wanna "prove me wrong" go ahead, I'm not gonna spend the time to do it. But that's what I recall about it.

bgamall4 says

In a court of law people are identified by what they look like. An implosion
looks a certain way. WTC7 was an implosion, period. If you can't see that you
are either afraid to know the truth, a shill for the neocons, or just
stupid.

And if you were an expert on implosions, then your opinion might have weight.

The Professor says

Do any of you deniers have any evidence to refute the evidence of the planned
demolition of the three towers?

What evidence??????????? Seriously--what evidence do you have that it was a planned demolition. Some white smoke? BGa saying it "looks" different? That's not evidence.

The Professor says

Witnesses heard explosions

Is that surprising? I'd be surprised if they didn't hear explosions.

The Professor says

Residue of explosive

link please?

The Professor says

Official explanation contorted to fit the pre-conceived story

Not evidence.

The Professor says

Towers fell in a way that defies the laws of physics.

Not true.

Care to try again? Because the so called evidence is weak to say the least.

The Professor says

tatupu70 says

The Professor says

Residue of explosive

link please?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

I tried to follow your link to the actual "scientific paper" but it didn't work. Do you have the link to the paper? Becauese I give that website zero credibility.

I suggest you check out this site

http://www.911myths.com/indexold.html

The Professor says

How about this:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

OK--that doesn't seem to support your contention. Was there a specific portion that you wanted to highlight?

The Professor says

Your turn. Can you name another large steel framed building that completely
failed and ended up in a pile of broken steel and a cloud of pulverized concrete
caused by "fire-induced progressive collapse."?

Interesting logic there. So, your contention is that if something hasn't ever happened, it therefore is impossible?

I'm glad the Wright Bros. didn't think that way...

The mechanism was described by NIST. Was there a specific part of the explanation that you disagree with? Some factual or scientific errors?

The Professor says

So you believe that office fires (desks, carpets, paper) heated up a beam,
which sagged, and caused the "progressive collapse" of over 400 structural
connections per second in the time it took for WTC7 to free fall to the
ground?

Nope--because that's not what anyone is suggesting happened.

You'll notice that another part of the explanation indicates that the interior of the building started collapsing prior to the exterior--so your timeline for how long it took to fall is way off...

The Professor says

I just asked you to provide ONE example of "fire-induced progressive
collapse'" and you admit that it never happened before or since 9/11/2001.

Yep. There are lots of things that haven't happened since 9/11/2001. Can you give me an example of a tsunami that caused a nuclear power plant to lose cooling since 3/11/2001? Should we be looking for explosives in the nuclear plant?

The Professor says

Can you explain why NIST did not even test for explosives considering the ear
witness testimony of explosions?

Can you explain why they didn't test for fairy dust? Or unicorn horns?

The Professor says

Can you admit that the government investigation was flawed?

Nope. Can you admit that it didn't matter what the investigation found--that your mind was already made up?

bgamall4 says

Why don't you give it up Tatupu? You have it wrong.

Not sure how a video of the OUTSIDE of the building rejects the explanation that the inside fell before the outside.

bgamall4 says

If something has never happened it is likely impossible in the world of
physics.

That is utterly ridiculous.

bgamall4 says

And notice the building fell absolutely symetrically. That is impossible
without detonation. I think you are being dumb.

Obviously it's not impossible as the video proved. You think a lot of things--unfortunately most of them are incorrect.

The Professor says

Read the NIST report. It has NOT been peer reviewed and is full of holes.

OK-outline the holes then. I asked you that once already. Point out the poor science. Point out the incconsistencies. This should be easy--it's FULL of holes as you say.

bgamall4 says

Notice that WTC7 was over a football field long. Notice that the top left
point and the top right point collapsed at exactly the same time. And then talk
yourself into believing it was not detonated.

In other words, two points at the top collapsed at exactly the same time a
football field apart. 329 ft to be exact.

Yep--I'm not the least bit concerned by that.

tatupu70 says

bgamall4 says

And notice the building fell absolutely symetrically. That is impossible

without detonation. I think you are being dumb.

Obviously it's not impossible as the video proved. You think a lot of things--unfortunately most of them are incorrect.

Most? When's he been correct? Link please.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Most? When's he been correct? Link please.

You don't even know that Parliament doesn't control the square mile. You are the dumbest brick in the wall Bigsby.

And you can't explain two points over a football field apart falling together at the exact same rate, by any sort of pancake theory.

Oh, it's 'doesn't control the square mile' now, is it? It used to be 'doesn't answer to parliament.' How many times have I asked you to explain what you mean by that? Not one answer. Are you still trying to read your conspiracy websites to formulate some sort of response?
And I'm not going to feed your stupid 9/11 bollocks any more. You've heard the explanations. You don't believe in the science. You think you're more of an expert. Yes, yes, we get it, but how many times do we have to hear the same thing repeated over and over? Your recycled points are beyond a bloody joke now.

@Tatupu - just leave them be with their 9/11 nonsense.

bgamall4 says

No financial law is passed without the approval of the Square Mile. If they don't want it, it isn't passed. The Square Mile fancies itself as the rebirth of the Roman Empire. It even has Roman Ruins! lol. And it has Roman soldiers, Gog and Magog who protect it. The Square Mile is the center of an empire overwhich the sun never sets, and is from all four corners of the earth, north, south, east and west. It is everywhere and it makes financial war against the poor and will experience the wrath of God.

One vapid sentence after another. Conspiracist gibberish. I asked for an explanation of what you meant and that is what I got. Paint me unsurprised.

And just so you know (and don't keep repeating it), Gog and Magog are not Roman soldiers. Try reading one of the many available explanations of the statues (rather than a one liner from your conspiracist website):
http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/history/gog-and-magog

I don't have time to sort through all of your videos. Can you or can you not detail it in a written post?

The Professor says

If you don't have time to look at the evidence or find your own, what are you
doing here?

If you presented evidence, then I'd watch. Those videos are NOT evidence.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby, you didn't finish reading your article:

"Another version of the story has it that these two giants were the last two survivors of the sons of the thirty-three infamous daughters of Diocletian, who were captured and kept chained to the gates of a palace on the site of Guildhall to act as guardians. However they got there, we do know that by the reign of Henry V there were carved giants guarding the gates of Guildhall. In 1554 they appeared in the Lord Mayor's Show, and in 1605 the Pageantmaster of the day alluded to the giants who appeared in the Procession on Lord Mayor's Day as Corineus and Gogmagog."

Oh, I did. Perhaps you could point to the bit where it says they were Roman soldiers.

bgamall4 says

Diocletian was a persecutor of the church. He was in a long line of emperors in the empire God hated. For the British to reconstitute the empire that God hated is simply arrogance that knows no bounds.

Now that kingdom is a financial juggernaut, from the four corners of the earth. And it will be destroyed by God.

http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/p/essential-blog-articles.html

What a blathering load of complete and utter nonsense. You have lost the plot.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

And just so you know (and don't keep repeating it), Gog and Magog are not Roman soldiers.

Yes they are Roman Soldiers:

Which means that the seat of evil is the Square Mile:

I wrote about it on Business Insider here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/is-our-world-financial-system-the-final-manifestation-of-the-roman-empire-2012-6

No, they aren't.

'Which means that the seat of evil is the Square Mile.' WTF. I really think Patrick should add smileys. Your comment is a LOL and face palm rolled into one.

And as for your 'article'... well, I really don't think I can find the words to describe its absolute idiocy. It did make me laugh though.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Oh, I did. Perhaps you could point to the bit where it says they were Roman soldiers.

They are dressed in Roman Soldier uniforms. They are Romans according to tradition. http://gleeb-livinginengland.blogspot.com/2012/01/gog-magog-sculptures-and-walk.html

I seriously think you don't have any blood flowing to your brain Bigsby.

They aren't Roman soldiers and weren't born in Italy by tradition, so... Is it utterly impossible for you to admit you are wrong? Nowhere except in your stupid article are they described as Roman soldiers. The two bloody articles you link to as proof explain that they AREN'T Roman soldiers.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

They aren't Roman soldiers and weren't born in Italy by tradition, so...

It is the symbolism. They are statues. What is wrong with you. They stand for Roman Soldiers. The Square Mile fancies itself as the continuing manifestation of the Roman Empire.

Good grief. This is just so perfect as a representation of how blind, stubborn and stupid you are as represented in all your conspiracy guff. You posted links that pointedly state they aren't Roman soldiers. And yet here you are... Enough already.

bgamall4 says

Here is the Roman uniform:

http://gleeb-livinginengland.blogspot.com/2012/01/gog-magog-sculptures-and-walk.html

and here:

http://gleeb-livinginengland.blogspot.com/2012/01/gog-magog-sculptures-and-walk.html

Duh! What exactly do you think would be a potential reference point for someone who wanted to sculpt mythical giants back then? If you dress up as Albert Einstein, does that make you intelligent? It doesn't matter what you think they look like because they aren't bloody Roman soldiers as is clearly stated in every article about them (except, surprise, surprise, yours). You are just making a fool out of yourself now.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

It doesn't matter what you think they look like because they aren't bloody Roman soldiers

But it does matter what the Square Mile thinks of them. And that is where you are missing the point. The City of London, the Square Mile, boasts of the Roman Ruins within the City as well. They truly believe they are the heirs of the Roman Empire.

So it doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what the Lord Mayor and the 14 guys who are in charge of the Crown think.

Oh right, so your argument was:

a. They are Roman soldiers.
then
b. They look like Roman soldiers.
and finally
c. It doesn't matter what they are; it's what the square mile thinks of them.

Ha, bloody, ha.

And now because there are Roman ruins in that area that somehow means... (add your blather). There are Roman ruins all round the UK and Europe you plum.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

a. They are Roman soldiers.

then

b. They look like Roman soldiers.

and finally

c. It doesn't matter what they are; it's what the square mile thinks of them.

Jesus used the physical to teach of the spiritual. I was merely using the physical to teach about the symbolic. I don't see a sin in that.

And I have always maintained it is what the Square Mile thinks of itself that matters. Now, a literalist like you would say the Square Mile can't think. But then I would have to say I was talking about the leaders of the Square Mile.

Your literalism is a sickness. Surely you can find some medicine for it. :)

There is no cure for your conspiracist nonsense.

You make assertion after assertion to back up your leaps of fancy. Then when someone points out that your facts are wrong, you initially deny, deny, deny. Then you start changing your story. And now we have this post. You were wrong, but then when someone argues that the City of London is trying to recreate the Roman empire because, amongst other things, it has two statues that are supposedly Roman soldiers (wrong) and that there are Roman ruins there (incredible!), then they are clearly not firing on all brain cells.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

There is no cure for your conspiracist nonsense.

The Lord Mayor admits to the conspiracy and here is his account:

The Lord Mayor's account of Gog and Magog says that the Roman Emperor Diocletian had thirty-three wicked daughters. He found thirty-three husbands for them to curb their wicked ways; they chafed at this, and under the leadership of the eldest sister, Alba, they murdered their husbands. For this crime they were set adrift at sea; they washed ashore on a windswept island, which they named "Albion"—after Alba. Here they coupled with demons and gave birth to a race of giants, whose descendants included Gog and Magog.[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog

Is that supposed to be a joke? Exactly what conspiracy did he admit to? The common explanation of the story of the two statues? A conspiracy indeed!

Bgamall goes to the fridge. There is no milk. It's a conspiracy!
Bgamall has a shave. The blade is blunt. It's a conspiracy!
Etc. etc.

You are bat shit crazy.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Exactly what conspiracy did he admit to?

He believes in a fairy tale whereby Gog and Magog are descended from demons and Roman women who are descended from the Roman Emperor!

He truly believes it and does not say it is myth. He truly believes that the Square Mile is being protected by the power of the Romans, by the giants wearing Roman soldier garb. The square mile can claim it is a continuance of the Roman Empire which, as Eusebius said, early Christians testified that God hated.

So God hated the Roman Empire above all others but the Square Mile and the British Empire is supposed to be the heir to that. It is, I maintain, the Heir to God's wrath as well.

He truly believes in it? He was recounting the story not bloody saying he believed in it you complete and utter dimwit. And now you're adding a bit of religious nonsense to the mix. How completely messed up are you?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

He truly believes in it? He was recounting the story not bloody saying he believed in it you complete and utter dimwit. And now you're adding a bit of religious nonsense to the mix. How completely messed up are you?

Make sure God doesn't strike you down for not listening to the truth about the Empire God hates.

Of course he believes the story. It gives legitimacy to the Square Mile. You come up with proof that the Lord Mayor doesn't believe the story and you will make your case.

But understand this, Bigsby, the purpose of the Square Mile is to drive up prices and oppress the poor. And God hates that oppression as the Bible says not many mighty or with means are called. So most Christians who are really called in election are not wealthy and are directly impacted by the Square Mile.

You are completely insane. So God will now strike me down because I don't fall for the completely moronic gibberish you spout on here? Let's just say I'm not going to lose any sleep.

And of course the Lord Mayor doesn't believe in its literalism. You are stating as a fact that he believes there was a race of giants that descended from the 33 daughters of Diocletian. I don't have to disprove your bloody assertion. You have to prove it. I'll be waiting.

And it's very good of you to tell us all what God thinks. Have a direct line, do you?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

. So God will now strike me down because I don't fall for the completely moronic gibberish you spout on here? Let's just say I'm not going to lose any sleep.

I never said he would. I just said He could.Bigsby says

Have a direct line, do you?

http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/p/new-covenant-theology-doctrine.html

I don't make a point of sharing these things on Patrick.net. But the alternative is militant Zionism and I view it as a false quasi religious political movement.

I'm an atheist. I'm not overly worried about what you think your God could do to me.

And the only alternative to your religious beliefs is militant Zionism, is it? How very strange you are.

Your conspiracy gibberish is bad enough. I really don't want to be confronted by your even more non-sensical religious guff.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Your conspiracy gibberish is bad enough. I really don't want to be confronted by your even more non-sensical religious guff.

You can't understand the dynamics of what is happening in the middle east any other way.

I'm afraid there's rather a lot more going on in the ME than just your take on zionism (though what this particular tangent has to do with what was being discussed I really don't know - you aren't trying to distract from your Roman soldiers nonsense, are you?). And really, for someone who doesn't even know what Qatar is, you are not exactly best placed to be discussing the highly complex political reality on the ground.

bgamall4 says

You are incorrect, Bigsby. This is what the middle east is all about.

Here is the Yinon Plan in PDF. Just scroll down with your mouse:

http://syria360.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east.pdf

Yes, yes, the ME is all about the Yinon plan because errr, ummm... and the City of London is the new Roman Empire because of a couple of statues and some ruins.

You are entirely divorced from reality.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Yes, yes, the ME is all about the Yinon plan because errr, ummm... and the City of London is the new Roman Empire because of a couple of statues and some ruins.

And there is a strong connection between the Square Mile and the Yinon Plan. Rothschild, Cheney and Murdoch are that tie through a company that stands to make millions in the Golan Heights if Syria is broken up.

Sigh.

The Professor says

What would you consider evidence that the official story is flawed?

Factual errors in the report, scientific errors in the report, something that you can point to as a mistake.

Heck, if you can even show me a poor inference or poorly though out deduction, I'd be surprised.

Anything besides--"it doesn't look right", or "it's never happened before". Those are not compelling arguments.