Evan Burton

Union Carbide should foot the bill.

Totally agree.

Considering your obvious detachment from reality (which I illustrated in my previous post) I wouldn’t bring up the subject of metal health if I were you.

Len,

I consider that a personal attack on Paul. One warning only. Just address facts.

Thank you.

Randy,

I take your point, but unless you can speak to everyone yourself, I think it is reasonable to at least quote a source. BTW, there is a reasonable amount of first hand evidence:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Unite...3_-_Phone_calls

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Unite...lines_Flight_93

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=18...szvAw&hl=en

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfR4YchCwLQ&hl=en

There is also the exhibits submitted as evidence. If you are not going to accept them - at least to discuss whether they are correct or not - then you are saying that nothing in the judicial system is acceptable unless you, personally, spoke to the witness / saw it yourself.

http://www.911myths.com/flight93.transcript.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

You are mixing up a couple of opinions here, IMO, Paul.

Did the US government use 9/11 as a pretext for Afghanistan and Iraq? Yes, I would agree with that.

Did the US government cause / allow 9/11 to happen in order to have a pretext? No, I would strongly disagree with that.

I'm not sure how others view those points.

Seems Richard Gage has agreed to debate Mark Roberts on 'Hardfire' 18 JUN.

This will be very interesting... if he turns up. So far 9 prominent people - who believe there is some type of conspiracy - accepted invitations then backed out at the last minute. I note that Prof Fetzer is one that DID appear on the show.

The story...

The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.

Our take...

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:

Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.

On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.

“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.

The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.

The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?s...3&aid=60290

There have been other costs, too:

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.

www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm

$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).

That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:

The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."

Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.

http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article...91836-3,00.html

There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):

Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...

The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...

It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?

Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.

Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.

With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm [broken, try...]

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_n...ng_downtown.htm

So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.

And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:

After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.

The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.

Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.

The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricte...DA90994D9404482

Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?

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

Soooo - have we heard an outcry of MIT people in support? No?

Wonder why that would be - perhaps because it is unsupportable? Hmmm?

So far, all of the disputes with the NIST report, and the CTs proposing other than Tower collapse caused by jetliner impact and subsequent fire, have been soundly debunked in several venues.

I don't have experience in the area of building engineering, but this is what seems apparent. None of the 'other' theories are supported. In fact, many of the 'other than official 9/11 theory believers' seem to fight with each other over "protecting" their own theories (thermite / laser beams / no planers / etc).

There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can’t help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

I agree about the side issues. My opinion is that the so-called 'truth movement' is doing more harm than good because it refuse to accept basic truths, and thus important questions like "why were warnings about possible attacks not given a greater status?" and "how big a part did the reduction in military / emergency response capability play in the events?" and "Were any of the reactions by responsible people on that day shown to be incompetent or severely lacking, and those people have not been held to account for their actions?". That last one does not include LIHOP claims; it means that some people may have been unable to be able to carry out their duties due to lack of ability or showed an unjustifiable dereliction of their duties for political or other reasons APART from LIHOP / MIHOP.

Just think - if these people were not so concerned with proving a fictional 9/11 conspiracy, how much more force could they be adding to the call to have US operations in Iraq reduced and eventually finalised?

It isn't really clear what is emerging from the south tower, Evan is right that it is unlikely to be the fuselage because it seems to disperse a few frames later.

Another non-answer.

Jack

Sorry Jack, but it IS an answer.

(Sorry to hijack your thread, Randy)

If a basically intact fuselage came through the building, then we should be able to see that intact fuselage flying through the air and landing somewhere.... but we don't. Where did it go? Perhaps a better question is - is the assumption of a fuselage correct in the first place, when it is not supported by the visual and physical evidence?

On the other hand, if we we assume it is parts of the fuselage, debris, etc... along with the central core of one of the engines flying through there, does anything support this?

We can see an object consistent with the size of an engine trail away on a ballistic trajectory, and the remains of an engine to be found in the predicted impact area; we can see pieces of fuselage and debris found on buildings, etc.

The facts fit the second theory, not the first.

It is an answer, Jack - just one you are unwilling to acknowledge.

The CROPPED video shows one corner of the building collapsing, BUT DOES NOT

SHOW WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING. Of course that corner collapsed when the whole building collapsed, but from this cropped video clip NO CONCLUSIONS MAY BE DRAWN about what else was happening. The point is irrelevant anyway, since it was impossible for the entire building to collapse AT FREE FALL SPEED as if there was NO RESISTANCE from the floors below. That is impossible. This is basic physics.

Jack

I'll concede that it does not show what else is happening; that much is true. I'm not sure if I would call it 'cropped' though, because the camera was zoomed towards that area at the time. Nothing has been removed from the original image / footage - it simply does not show everything that is going on.

What it does show at least is that the area in question buckled inwards, causing a collapse at that corner. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the collapse continued in the same fashion that it started - especially when we see footage from other angles and see nothing that would lead us to believe the collapse would not have continued.

The claim of "free fall" is by no means supported - in fact, it is widely disputed:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail. An early analysis explains that the kinetic energy of the upper portion of the building falling onto the story below exceeded by an order of magnitude the amount of energy that the lower story could absorb,[19] crushing it and adding to the kinetic energy. This scenario repeated with each successive story, crushing the entire tower at near free-fall speed.[20]

[19] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf

[20] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/466.pdf

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...ld_Trade_Center

Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, "only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?"

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don't understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.

http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

A good book to 'catch on to Colby' with is Praise From A Future Generation [about the early JFK researchers and critics of the offical fraud version of the JFK Assassination]. The book covers very well 'Colby-types' in the early days who were either in denial or there to cast doubt and to obscure for the very persons who were complicit in the events. His 'points' above don't even deserve a response - they are so off the mark and false. All have been dealt with on this Forum before and are for anyone on the internet. The excuse-makers for those complicit, like to constantly repeat and repeat the lies [the old canard by propaganda types] In denial or in cahoots? Time will tell.

I notice the same reaction as always: don't try to refute the points, just dodge them and attack the person who makes them.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes Peter.

This is a rather long video, about 28 mins, but well worth watching. Pay particular attention to the sequence at about 11 mins.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82...50&hl=en-CA

I originally thought that a Obama / Clinton ticket was the way to go... but I'm beginning to wonder if she would be a liability.

Another good video at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1edxEbf4WOQ&...feature=related

Now, this so-called fuselage coming through.

If that is a fuselage emerging as a largish object, then where did it go to in the subsequent footage? We don't see anything like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhXioCl5AjU

On the other hand, if it is part of the engine, then we do see it continue to exit and follow a ballistic trajectory.

I wonder what would happen if we compared the size of the object exiting, as compared to the known size of the fuselage? I believe we'll find that the exiting object does NOT match the size of the fuselage.

This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC

Nothing of the sort.

Jack

Then you must be blind. You see the corner buckle inwards and the top collapse.

This video clearly shows WTC 1 suffering a buckling and collapse at the impact site, without the need for any demolitions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...41151&q=WTC

Check this:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-t...to-hit-wtc.html

Very persuasive. Killtown has the most comprehensive website on the net re 911.

Jack

Hahahhahahahaha! Stop it, Jack, you're killing me. You are such a comedian. Killclown.... hahahah!

What? You MEANT it?!

I don't think that is correct at all, Jack. I'll show why in the next post.

Randy,

"In Plane Site" is consider by most of the truth movement to be government disinformation, ridiculous propaganda to meant to discredit the truth movement because it is so obviously false.

That will give you some idea of the film's credibility. I watched it once and couldn't keep up with noting down all the errors.

As is apparent, I am a basic "official theory" believer. The one aspect of Flt 93 I am prepared to consider is that the aircraft was shot down by a US fighter, in order to stop it reaching it's intended target, and subsequently the US government does not want that act made public. The facts don't seem to support that theory, but I consider it to be somewhat plausible.

it was cleared up some time ago, Apollo 8 IIRC, when a returning astronaut was asked if the Moon was made of green cheese. He replied "No, it's made of American cheese!"

Must be awfully moldy by now if it was!

And reference this:

"... and the night before the launch the cable was cut so they couldn't get any pictures on launch day of the SRB strut area.

Yeah, he says the Moon has an atmosphere, and is covered in green (or was it blue) grass.

One look through a telescope should tell you what a loon this guy is.

That's right; I intended to move a couple of threads to Political Discussion, because there was no conspiracy involved per se. John said they should remain because they were interesting discussions, and that a lot of members don't go over to Political Discussion but will often visit Political Conspiracies and JFK.

North Queensland was the site of a number of chemical tests during WWII. The test subjects were all Australian Army volunteers, who knew what would happen, but they never got any compensation for their sacrifices - which I find wrong. They were subjected to blister agents, and then asked to perform activities including obstacle courses. The tests were designed to trial protective salves / anti-blister cremes, and to see how long the men could be 'effective' if attacked.

There was also an island in Queensland, North Brook Island, where mustard gas was also tested during WWII.

I didn't know about Innisfail; I often went swimming in the area when I was based in Cairns. The government will have to be prepared for a big compo payout if the cancer rates are indeed higher than normal; Agent Orange in the area is bound to be the culprit. The area was mainly used for banana and sugar cane farming. I can't remember any type of industry in the area that might possibly been to blame.

Oh - okay. I misunderstood. Sorry!

I can see the benefits, but the ethical aspects require detailed investigation. IMO, medical science is coming up with new techniques such that transplant parts from animals will no longer be needed in the near future.

Just reference the image:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/family.asp

Len is correct. Some of his posts were set invisible (notice invisible, not deleted. Moderators can see what has been set invisible, and if it is decided so, they can be made visible again).

I tried to avoid - successfully, I think - any post that actually had something relevant to the thread. The only posts that were made invisible were the to and froing between you and Len. A little bit of heated exchange is understandable, but a certain point I'll switch it off. I didn't berate anyone; I simply made the posts invisible, hoping that the point would be understood. It seemed to have worked.

Nonsense. Arbitrarily making a post INVISIBLE is censorship and for all practical

purposes of members viewing it amounts to deletion. Semantics.

Jack

Poppycock. Deletion means that the post is gone. Invisible means that John, Andy, and moderators can view the post to ensure that the correct decision was made. If a reversal is called for, it is made.