Follow The Money

[Deepbluediver]

I just know I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but....

The real thorny problems are the ones you keep avoiding, namely the very real factual dilemma of the WTCs destruction and the avoidance of science and physics that clearly point to something else having helped their destruction in such short time.

Could you maybe summarize sort of the science and physics arguments that seem to indicate the towers could not have collapsed from aircraft impact alone? I'm not really a conspiracy buff and usually avoid these sorts of things, but this seems like it would be the easiest to support of deny.

 

[Mr. Jones]

This is probably the BEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT against most of the 911 conspiracy theories.

How do you figure it is the best possible evidence against the counter theory that discredits the official theory.

I figure that insurance companies have the means and the motive to refute the evidence if it turns out to be bogus.

And because they are ruled against, this somehow means that the unprovable theory that NIST provided is somehow correct? That this somehow is a valid reason to dismiss the actual science, and physics that show NIST theories are extremely deficient?
Or the scientific evidence that shows the physical impossibility of the stated demise of the WTC buildings is not valid, because cases that were brought to court regarding 9-11 were ignored, thrown out, and had severe conflicts of interests. Explain how this injustice eliminates these facts from the equation? Or you admit you are unable to?

And tthoise "facts" are exactly the "facts" that are in contention.

What I am saying here is that given our inability to actually TO KNOW what facts are real, we are looking for additional arguments to either support or refute those two dimetirically opposing narratives.

You mean given YOUR inability to know or understand facts. Speak for yourself..
We have supplied information that refutes the NIST narrative, that goes above and beyond any work NIST and those they relied on when they created their reports, have done.
Just because you can't or refuse to understand the facts we present to solidify our beliefs, does not dismiss the facts that we present and you can automatically declare them out of bounds, as much as you would hope be the case...You want to discuss 9-11?
Then muster the guts to do so without leaving anything out. You don't get to do that and you don't get to set the rules. Get it?

"That have been made to show..." (to you who believes it)

The information and body of work I speak of, do show and back up a very workable hypothesis, that shows NIST is full of shit.

The same is true for trying to explain that the science and physical laws are of no consequence because it is supposed that "too many people, and someone would have talked because of extreme guilt" BS..

The issue ofkeeping a large conspiracy secret is, of course, still another issue that suggests that the conspiracy theory might be wrong.

And this speculation of yours once again in no way diminishes the scientific, and physical facts regarding the destruction of the WTC, that SHOW how and why NIST is wrong.

The successful insurance fraud only proves the power the criminals have and the leverage they wield and have at their disposal..

Your logic is circular.

How so? What other explanation do you have that makes it NOT insurance fraud?
Do you not think that justice can be brought? Or that a friendly judge would not ever circumvent, prevent, or ignore pertinent information that would hurt a friendlies case on purpose? That the judicial system always works in the pursuit of truth and justice?
Your naivete regarding reality is obvious..and juvenile.

YOu believe what you believe, and therefore, what you believe discounts anything that puts those facts (that you believe) into discredit.

No I am open minded, grounded in realty and sincere enough to research what I find to be important, as opposed to someone like you who apparently does not so much as look into what the main objections of the NIST and OCT narrative are, and assume they are baseless on the grounds of a successful insurance fraud and that too many people would have to have been involved, therefore someone would have talked.
See, the thing is that these things that you site are speculative, and what I site are known scientific and physical facts that can be observed, analyzed, and calculated. You are encouraged to check them and reply with what you find objectionable about them anytime..
You have nothing to substantiate what you believe in other then BS speculation, and a naive perception of the reality regarding many aspects of the nation you live in, and the world in general. Fraud and corruption are a very common occurrence.
How many people were involved in the banking scandal that rocked the world economy?
How many kept what they knew quite for years until the bubble exploded?
How many went to ******* jail??
Same can be said regarding the not Federal Reserve...Why don't more people know about that huge scandal?
You logic is an epic fail...
How old are you? I would think you would be a little more grounded in reality that is readily observable to most adults by now..

Like you I have my doubts about the offical narrative.

Oh please expound on the reasons why? This outta be good for some laughs!

But unlike you, I am not taking the engineering evidence either for or against the offical narrative into account.

Then you can't have a rational discussion on the topic of 9-11. You can not avoid the very first and the main reasons why their is opposition to the OCT and the NIST narrative. This is why you come off as..well... rather....stupid.

As I am not qualified to accept or reject that engineering evidence, I am seeking other issues (like the insurance issue) to evaluate this story.

Like I said this reasoning is stupid, and avoids the main reasons why there is opposition to the 9-11 OCT fable. Are you not qualified to look into the facts regarding the opposition to the OCT or NIST, and only qualified to nit pick the side issues that are speculative at best then?

Ifr anything I have just written confused you?

Not at all. The only thing that is confounding to me is the extent of your failed logic, and the great lengths you go to in order to avoid the main objections to the NIST and OCT. You avoid any of the technical issues and do not do anything that advances your wild conspiracy theory official or not.

Than you are truly unqualified to discuss this issue at all.

Look into a mirror as you repeat this to yourself, it is quite fitting for you.
So by your logic, insurance fraud and judicial corruption can now trump laws of science, physics, and the properties of fire and steel! Wow...can it do windows too??

I'll ask you again...Are you not qualified to use even a little bit of your mental capabilities and look into the facts regarding the opposition to the OCT or NIST, and only qualified to nit pick the side issues that are speculative at best then? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a PHD to get the basics down, but I wont hold it against you if you are somehow mentally handicapped...

 

[Mr. Jones]

I just know I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but....

The real thorny problems are the ones you keep avoiding, namely the very real factual dilemma of the WTCs destruction and the avoidance of science and physics that clearly point to something else having helped their destruction in such short time.

Could you maybe summarize sort of the science and physics arguments that seem to indicate the towers could not have collapsed from aircraft impact alone? I'm not really a conspiracy buff and usually avoid these sorts of things, but this seems like it would be the easiest to support of deny.

For starters the 9-11 narrative as told by official sources is it self a conspiracy theory.
The problem is that when the destruction of the WTC buildings was analyzed, credible people found things did not make sense. The news anchors that were covering the event
were not the only ones to mention on air, that they had the appearance of a CD...
Others concurred and sought to analyze how these massive steel behemoths could come crashing down in just over a few seconds longer the FF time...

In the surprisingly quick time of only 2 days after this, never before in history occurring event, the men whose work would make up the majority of the NIST report and explanation, supposedly produced the answers...It is known as the Bazant/NIST theory.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ww6CKr_3bY4RZKOYKt0iwfQ&bvm=bv.42553238,d.aWc


Shortly thereafter, others wrote rebuttals to the Bazant/NIST theory. in which they claimed that the Bazant theory was not accurate for various reasons, one of which are the laws of physics not being applied properly....
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

There are other sources that substantiate the errors that they perceive are within the Nist/Bazant theory of collapse, this is just a short video that quickly gets to the point of the matter..It is made by the same high school physics teacher that pointed out that FF had indeed occurred at the WTC 7 , and forced NIST to include this in their report on building 7. They did but wihtout even explaining how this could be so, after telling everyone that FF would be impossible due to the massive buildings resistance to collapse by the underlying structure..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

More here..
Introduction: Notes on NIST | The Science of 9/11

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not certain I understand the video's conclusion. Could it not be that a section of the tower, after the damage by the impact/fires, gave way, and the impact of the top section hitting the bottom section is what caused the collapse? The video seems to dismiss this, but it seems reasonable if a large section in the middle gave way, allowing for the top section to fall for a bit and gain momentum before contacting the bottom section.

Whether you agree that such a collapse of a decently-sized section of the tower is plausible or not, if that were the case, the conclusion of the video seems incorrect to me.

 

[SAYIT]

It is stated that-
The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion on July 24, 2001. Silverstein put up $125 million, only $14 million his own money.

And-
It would cost $800 million just to upgrade the electrical, electronic, and cooling systems.
And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive.

Why would Silverstein, a knowledgeable real estate developer, pay millions of dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic, was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion problems?

My thought about this, is that, it was a perfect target for the PNAC plans of a new Pearl Harbor event, right in Americas biggest city, and financial center. It was quickly blamed on the evil Alqaeda, and the US went off to eliminate Israel's enemies..It was a near perfect plan on paper but mistakes were made that upon further examination reveals a more likely scenario, especially when attention is payed to who the people were in positions to facilitate this crime, and where their loyalties are....



March 2008: Larry Silverstein joined in a suit by the Families of the Victims of 911 and is seeking $12.3 bn. in damages from airlines and airport security companies. He filed the claim in 2004, saying the airlines and airport security companies failed to prevent terrorists from destroying the WTC. The $12.3 bn. represented $8.4 bn. for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings [that he declared for insurance purposes as $3.9 bn.] and $3.9 bn. in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the PA and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings. Judge Hellerstein expressed skepticism about Silverstein's claim and asked why he had not stemmed his losses by just "walking away. Any trials in the case appear to be more than a year away.

[Judge Hellerstein also played an important role in the 911 Victims lawsuits, judicially "blackjacking" them into settlements rather than lawsuits.] He ruled out testimony from top government officials raising serious questions as to why the judge would cover up and potentially obstruct government testimony and evidence under oath by key players when it would be in the interests of both parties to the suit.

An atmosphere of intimidation was apparent when an attorney for the victim families explained that his clients wanted a trial not a settlement, to which Hellerstein retorted, "Sit down." The judicial coercion continued, attorney Schiavo told Hellerstein that she was also experiencing problems with "difficult clients" who were adamant about going to trial with full discovery and government witness testimony, to which the judge said, "This is the way it's going to be. Go back and you tell them we are going to settle, period."

Conveniently you forgot to post the source of that screed ... probably for good reasons.

That, and the huge presumptions, ie that everyone knew for over a decade the WTC was a huge asbestos trap but companies remained even though there were massive lawsuits bankrupting companies at the time.

The claim is so ridiculous. They're going to risk their multi billion investment on the whims of one judge in insurance court. What planet are these nutters on?

It's not just another planet, it's a whole 'nutter dimension ... The Twilight Zone.

 

[KissMy]

It would cost $800 million just to upgrade the electrical, electronic, and cooling systems.
And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive.

Why would Silverstein, a knowledgeable real estate developer, pay millions of dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic, was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion problems?

This whole time you 9/11 Truthers have been saying there was no corrosion problem & these buildings were structurally sound. When will you idiots ever get your stories straight. You idiots keep throwing shit against the wall hoping something will stick.

If there was a conspiracy it was in allowing the attack to happen, not rigging the buildings with explosives or thermite that leaves evidence & witnesses.

 

[Deepbluediver]

Holy Matzo-balls Batman, thats a lot of math!

OK, before I get into this, I just want to say that I have no vested interest in either side, and I fully admit that this had been studied by many people smarter and more knowledgable than I. I am unlikely to uncover anything new, and really just want to clear up a few things. I've never been a conspiracy fan, but I'm not exactly in the governments corner either. Generally, I've just avoided reading about it one way other the other, so please no wild acusations.


I skimmed most of the rebuttal to the NIST paper; I'm still working through the original. It is longer and more technical, and I'm not an engineer or a physicist.
The response paper and the video seem to make sense with what they are saying, and from what I can gather, it basically boils down to this:

The top section of the tower collapsed smoothly, accelerating continuously until it disappears into the dust cloud. If it had impacted the bottom section of the tower at any point, it would have slowed down. The tower collapsed at practically free-fall speed, meaning that the lower portion of the tower didn't "get in the way" of the top section. This indicates that something else destroyed the lower section of the tower.
The paper further stipulates that the lower section of the tower was strong enough to withstand anything except a large-scale impact by a solid section of the top part of the tower.

All of this seems to rely on the assumption that the portion of the tower below the impact zone was undamaged, and therefor was at or near full strength, necessatating either it's desctruction or weakening by pre-planted explosives.

What I am having trouble confirming is the "11 seconds" that it took for the north tower to collapse (I'll assume that the math is correct, and 11 seconds is about how long it would take to impact the ground from the roofline).
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N2JdWyynLY"]Video[/ame]
This is the best video of the north-tower collapse I have found so far. I certainly did not break it down frame by frame like the paper describes, but just by watching it looks like the collapse starts at the 3-4 second mark, and you can still see falling debris and hear the rumbling at the 19-20 second mark. Even with a hefty margin of error, thats longer than the 11 seconds at free-fall speed the paper and the video mention.

How was it determined that the tower collapsed in only 11 seconds? I can't see much of anything behind that dust and smoke.

 

[KissMy]

This is the best video of the north-tower collapse I have found so far. I certainly did not break it down frame by frame like the paper describes, but just by watching it looks like the collapse starts at the 3-4 second mark, and you can still see falling debris and hear the rumbling at the 19-20 second mark. Even with a hefty margin of error, thats longer than the 11 seconds at free-fall speed the paper and the video mention.

How was it determined that the tower collapsed in only 11 seconds? I can't see much of anything behind that dust and smoke.

Also remember the building piles were still really tall, so they did not fall all the way to ground level. They count WTC-7 as totally collapsed when it disappeared behind other really tall buildings even though it continued to fall a long ways after that. They also tweak the video frame rate to accelerate the collapse. The truthers will believe anything but the truth if it fits their theory.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s"]Gravity Collapse[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

Quote=Editec
Your reasoning is circular

How so? What other explanation do you have that makes it NOT insurance fraud?
Do you not think that justice can be brought? Or that a friendly judge would not ever circumvent, prevent, or ignore pertinent information that would hurt a friendlies case on purpose? That the judicial system always works in the pursuit of truth and justice?
Your naivete regarding reality is obvious..and juvenile...

Just because a judge CAN distort justice does not prove that it occured in the matter of 9/11. Fully 11 years after the attack no evidence of judicial impropriety has been found, none of gov't complicity or cover-up, no evidence of demo rigging or controlled demo have been produced, nor has anyone with hard evidence come forward to blow the whistle.
Frankly, you're just pissing into the wind and getting really wet. Enjoy.

 

[SAYIT]

This is the best video of the north-tower collapse I have found so far. I certainly did not break it down frame by frame like the paper describes, but just by watching it looks like the collapse starts at the 3-4 second mark, and you can still see falling debris and hear the rumbling at the 19-20 second mark. Even with a hefty margin of error, thats longer than the 11 seconds at free-fall speed the paper and the video mention.

How was it determined that the tower collapsed in only 11 seconds? I can't see much of anything behind that dust and smoke.

Also remember the building piles were still really tall, so they did not fall all the way to ground level. They count WTC-7 as totally collapsed when it disappeared behind other really tall buildings even though it continued to fall a long ways after that. They also tweak the video frame rate to accelerate the collapse. The truthers will believe anything but the truth if it fits their theory.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s"]Gravity Collapse[/ame]

And if this board's Nutters do nothing else, they distort, truncate or fabricate "facts" to suit their needs. Pathetic, really.

 

[SAYIT]

when you seek to follow the money you have to truely LOOK at it

The idiot that started this thread has been torched and exposed for the troll that he/it is.

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

 

[Mad Scientist]

when you seek to follow the money you have to truely LOOK at it

The idiot that started this thread has been torched and exposed for the troll that he/it is.

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

Of course it's been debunked, that's why you spend so much time here trying to debunk it.

What, what?

 

[SAYIT]

The idiot that started this thread has been torched and exposed for the troll that he/it is.

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

Of course it's been debunked, that's why you spend so much time here trying to debunk it.

What, what?

Do you see me bothering to refute your silliness, Princess? You can't get me to engage in it because smarter, more knowledgeable professionals have already reduced you 9/11 CTs to carnival freaks. How does it feel?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Holy Matzo-balls Batman, thats a lot of math!

OK, before I get into this, I just want to say that I have no vested interest in either side, and I fully admit that this had been studied by many people smarter and more knowledgable than I. I am unlikely to uncover anything new, and really just want to clear up a few things. I've never been a conspiracy fan, but I'm not exactly in the governments corner either. Generally, I've just avoided reading about it one way other the other, so please no wild acusations.


I skimmed most of the rebuttal to the NIST paper; I'm still working through the original. It is longer and more technical, and I'm not an engineer or a physicist.
The response paper and the video seem to make sense with what they are saying, and from what I can gather, it basically boils down to this:

The top section of the tower collapsed smoothly, accelerating continuously until it disappears into the dust cloud. If it had impacted the bottom section of the tower at any point, it would have slowed down. The tower collapsed at practically free-fall speed, meaning that the lower portion of the tower didn't "get in the way" of the top section. This indicates that something else destroyed the lower section of the tower.
The paper further stipulates that the lower section of the tower was strong enough to withstand anything except a large-scale impact by a solid section of the top part of the tower.

All of this seems to rely on the assumption that the portion of the tower below the impact zone was undamaged, and therefor was at or near full strength, necessatating either it's desctruction or weakening by pre-planted explosives.

What I am having trouble confirming is the "11 seconds" that it took for the north tower to collapse (I'll assume that the math is correct, and 11 seconds is about how long it would take to impact the ground from the roofline).
Video
This is the best video of the north-tower collapse I have found so far. I certainly did not break it down frame by frame like the paper describes, but just by watching it looks like the collapse starts at the 3-4 second mark, and you can still see falling debris and hear the rumbling at the 19-20 second mark. Even with a hefty margin of error, thats longer than the 11 seconds at free-fall speed the paper and the video mention.

How was it determined that the tower collapsed in only 11 seconds? I can't see much of anything behind that dust and smoke.

I do not agree with these towers coming down at FF. FF would have been in about 9.20 seconds, and clearly they took a little longer then that. However given that the lower parts of these hirises were built with thicker, stronger and thus more robust components, it severely puts into question these behemoths even collapsing in the more reasonable estimates of 11, 12-15 even in some estimations 20 seconds.
It is theorized that each floor would have taken about 1/2 to 1 second to be overcome by the falling top mass. This would put the time close to 50-60 seconds.

One has to take into consideration not only the fact that these were built in a tapered manner, thicker towards the bottom and thinner components rising upward, but the fact that we can see a great deal of the falling upper mass being ejected away from the collapse fronts, and therefore can not be calculated as part of the mass that NIST/Bazant assumed would be a part of the "crushing down" smaller mass.

Take into consideration that NIST did their own testing on the steel, specifically the truss assmblies, and could not get them to sag to the degree that would have made the outer perimeter walls "bow in". On the contray, we see these huge perimeter outer walls as pieces that were laterally ejected for great distances, AWAY from the buildings.

Originally Bazant, using his pile-driver theory of collapse of the Twin Towers, glibly asserted that the top block would remain rigid and act as a hammer, destroying the lower unheated, undamaged portion of the tower, storey by storey. When that was finished the top block would destroy itself. He called the first phase “crush down” and the second phase “crush up”.
As already stated, this explanation must be false as it flies in the face of the observed disintegration of the top section before the lower section started to move. It also fails to take into account Newton’s third law, which states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite.
We can deduce from this that if the impact is sufficient to destroy the upper storey of the lower section it will also destroy the lower storey of the upper section. Apparently Bazant became troubled by criticism of his earlier work and in 2008 brought out a paper which made a number of adjustments to his original explanation.

Firstly he backed away from his earlier assertion that a temperature of 800 degrees C occurred. Instead he made claims that viscoplastic creep could cause failure when substantial loads were applied for long periods at moderate temperatures. He was hoping this would would get him past the obvious lack of evidence for 800 C to initiate the collapse. This is clearly far-fetched as we have a photo showing a woman leaning against a column shortly before the building collapsed. The steel could not have been more than comfortably warm. Even if the core, out of sight, had been red hot at that time, and there is evidence indicating otherwise, the outer columns, with a design safety factor of 5, would have held the building up by themselves.

Secondly Bazant allows that at the first impact there will be some effect on the upper block but asserts that it will be negligible and that only the lower portion of the building will be damaged in the crush down phase. He is thus still denying that Newton’s third law will be operating.

Dissatisfaction with Bazant’s explanations has been widespread. Numerous writers have pointed out their failings, as can be seen in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and elsewhere. The most recent is a paper by Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns, submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) in May, 2011. Without touching on the mechanistic impossibility of the Bazant pile-driver concept, they dispute his paper by showing that it contains several incorrectly calculated inputs and thus cannot produce a correct result.

I agree that this is a complicated matter, but remember that the unusual manner in the way these towers, (and 7) came down was apparent even to novice news anchors who watched the event. It stands to reason then that archetects, engineers, steel and construction people would take a more closer look into this, and they have.
This is the main reason that objections to the official narrative came to be questioned.
Suspicions were further validated when in many instances NIST was observed ignoring, and fudging the data. They do not take into consideration the properties of the massive steel components and how they react to temperatures induced by fires.

They said that FF would be impossible because of the resistance provided by the lower structures, and when FF at 7 was made obvious to all, they mentioned FF in their report
BUT did not say how this was NOW possible....After declaring it totally NOT possible.
In another instance, and in order for them to declare the "new phenomena" of thermal expansion in the 7 building, the deliberately removed in 2008 the many shear studs that were in place.
This after declaring an abundance of them in an earlier 2004 report...
Their reports are full of questionable things, and to make matters worse they do not even acknowledge these discrepancies and pretend they don't exist, or don't matter!

They count on you believing them because they are an official government agency, an authority that you can trust, and count on you not having the will to look any further into this..."Oh it's the government for Christ's sake, why would they lie?" and move along.

I am no engineer, but I have worked in fabrication of steel and metal components. I've also worked with extreme fire and heat on steel and metal, using torches of various sizes, and used welders, so I know only a little bit, but enough to know how fire and steel react together. This along with the doubts of people with vastly more knowledge got me started in checking into what the fuss was all about, and I didn't take the words of NIST or their spokesman for granted anymore.

It's really telling, when NIST will not reveal their computer simulation data for 7 and make it available for replication. What are they hiding? You'd think it would be made readily available, when the public safety they are entrusted to protect is taken into consideration.....

Once these details about the WTC destruction is analyzed, and accepted (because NIST wont even defend their own theory by ignoring the objections) then one can move on to
other particulars, like what could have used to remove the resistance and facilitate the rapid collapses, who was in control of the buildings, the security, the allegiances,and ask if there is historical precedents for such attacks, and so on etc...But until one at least understands what the fuss is all about in the first place it is no use to speculate on the rest, or try to waive the mentioned facts away with the logic that insurance companies, or that the whole scenario would have been exposed by the presumed vast number of people that would have been involved etc..etc..

 

[Mr. Jones]

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

Of course it's been debunked, that's why you spend so much time here trying to debunk it.

What, what?

Do you see me bothering to refute your silliness, Princess? You can't get me to engage in it because smarter, more knowledgeable professionals have already reduced you 9/11 CTs to carnival freaks. How does it feel?

And again your trustful nature is what makes you such a gullible and uninformed person.
It is YOUR CT that has been exposed as the lie. You really are a sad naive person, that runs around beliveing in anything that he/it is told. All one has to do is put on an air of superiority from an "official" government source and you'll roll over and expose your belly like a lap dog. LOL!
You do not take into consideration that other knowledgeable professionals have an opinion regarding this topic as well.
If their knowledgeable input tramples your wild CT it is ignored in your quest to believe the impossible. You present yourself as the screeching looney conspiracy theorist that you rave about in your many posts, even though the sources that you use to confirm your nutty CT can not substantiate their positions with verifiable data, or real world science, or even common sense!
You would have been perfect for a part in this true movie.
Compliance - Rotten Tomatoes

You're the type of person that probably does not question any other things of great importance like the Fed Reserve, or the banking scandal and it's worldwide implications, or many other instances throughout history.
You go with whatever authority tells you, and never ever question it even if it does not make any sense. They are in charge and all you have to worry about is diverting yourself on the weekends and complaining about your hang overs...

It doesn't matter that the nation you live in is fucked up on many fronts, you comfort yourself with willful ignorance that THEY are in charge, not giving a 2nd thought that THEY are criminals or not. THEY are there for you.....

 

[Mr. Jones]

It would cost $800 million just to upgrade the electrical, electronic, and cooling systems.
And it was well-known that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. Plans were made in 1989 to completely dismantle the WTC not only because of the asbestos problems but also the electrolytic corrosion problems. Apparently, the plans were dropped because they were considered prohibitively expensive.

Why would Silverstein, a knowledgeable real estate developer, pay millions of dollars to get control of a building that was uneconomic, was an environmental basket case, and had serious corrosion problems?

This whole time you 9/11 Truthers have been saying there was no corrosion problem & these buildings were structurally sound. When will you idiots ever get your stories straight. You idiots keep throwing shit against the wall hoping something will stick.

If there was a conspiracy it was in allowing the attack to happen, not rigging the buildings with explosives or thermite that leaves evidence & witnesses.

The corrosion problems were well documented as well as the plans to demolish the WTC.
The problem of corrosion and the asbestos, that people in the investment real estate business had to have known about, further calls into question why Silverstein would invest in such a problem property.
But if there WAS a problem with the aluminum skin layer, certainly "collapsing" the towers under the guise of a "terrorist" attack for insurance monies and rebuilding would've certainly been the way to go..Brilliant really.
I wonder why these problems were not mentioned by NIST or FEMA to help them at least throw another guess into the equation of their collapse theory??? Maybe because it would have cast more suspicion on Silverstein, combined with his statement about deciding to pull 7 and people would wonder a little more strongly about how such a brilliant real estate man could be so dumb as to invest in these problem properties that deconstructing plans and estimates were made for..and scrapped as being too costly to undertake. Turns out he and his cronies were actually brilliant scam artists, and the destruction of the WTC made money for alot of people in the end. The lives lost are no big deal and probably viewed as necessary collateral damage in regards to the PNAC military objectives and the security of Israel....Did you know that the most involved players in the 9-11 conspiracy are Israeli, their Sayanim, or Israeli loyalists? Or that the only nation that actually benefited directly from the "attacks" was Israel?

Anyway,
This corrosion problem that involved the outer "skin" still does not explain the the tons of material ejected laterally AWAY from the buildings up to 500 feet away and imbedding themselves into other buildings. They weren't hazardous enough to make the PA close
and condemn them either apparently....If they were in that bad of shape.....
Regardless, these problems would not be a cost effective fix, and they had to be brought down, and they were by way of the "terrorist" attacks on 9-11.

The speculation of the planning is really fascinating and interesting when the people involved are looked at closer along with their connections and affiliations, and the days events that caused so much confusion....We can get to that later but if you don't even think that the WTC buildings were assisted in their demise by something other then kerosene and plane damage it's not worth getting into really..

 

[Mr. Jones]

when you seek to follow the money you have to truely LOOK at it

The idiot that started this thread has been torched and exposed for the troll that he/it is.

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

So says the idiot who doesn't have a clue what the issues are, because he/it admits being too dumb to understand any of it, including the side of the issue he/it claims to be fully in support of...This folks is classic willful ignorance, and sheeple mentality, with complete authority worshiping nutsack hugging on full display as well...

This is the type of mentality that brings the Jonestown massacre "victims" to mind....and helps explain it...

 

[SAYIT]

Of course it's been debunked, that's why you spend so much time here trying to debunk it.

What, what?

Do you see me bothering to refute your silliness, Princess? You can't get me to engage in it because smarter, more knowledgeable professionals have already reduced you 9/11 CTs to carnival freaks. How does it feel?

And again your trustful nature is what makes you such a gullible and uninformed person.
It is YOUR CT that has been exposed as the lie. You really are a sad naive person, that runs around beliveing in anything that he/it is told. All one has to do is put on an air of superiority from an "official" government source and you'll roll over and expose your belly like a lap dog. LOL!
You do not take into consideration that other knowledgeable professionals have an opinion regarding this topic as well.
If their knowledgeable input tramples your wild CT it is ignored in your quest to believe the impossible. You present yourself as the screeching looney conspiracy theorist that you rave about in your many posts, even though the sources that you use to confirm your nutty CT can not substantiate their positions with verifiable data, or real world science, or even common sense!
You would have been perfect for a part in this true movie.
Compliance - Rotten Tomatoes

You're the type of person that probably does not question any other things of great importance like the Fed Reserve, or the banking scandal and it's worldwide implications, or many other instances throughout history.
You go with whatever authority tells you, and never ever question it even if it does not make any sense. They are in charge and all you have to worry about is diverting yourself on the weekends and complaining about your hang overs...

It doesn't matter that the nation you live in is fucked up on many fronts, you comfort yourself with willful ignorance that THEY are in charge, not giving a 2nd thought that THEY are criminals or not. THEY are there for you.....

Aren't you the idiot who posted links to Iran's state-run PressTV and Holocaust "revisionist" Gordon Duff's Veterans Today in support of his stupidity? Boy, you're a tough nut to crack.

 

[SAYIT]

The idiot that started this thread has been torched and exposed for the troll that he/it is.

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

So says the idiot who doesn't have a clue what the issues are, because he/it admits being too dumb to understand any of it, including the side of the issue he/it claims to be fully in support of...This folks is classic willful ignorance, and sheeple mentality, with complete authority worshiping nutsack hugging on full display as well...

This is the type of mentality that brings the Jonestown massacre "victims" to mind....and helps explain it...

If anyone here has been sucking the Kool Aid it's you and your fellow CT loons.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I realize this will be difficult for you to accept but you and the 9/11 CT movement have been so thoroughly debunked and exposed that you have been reduced to mere carnival freaks who haven't the lucidity to recognize your own silliness. Carry on, Princess ... I would be entertained.

So says the idiot who doesn't have a clue what the issues are, because he/it admits being too dumb to understand any of it, including the side of the issue he/it claims to be fully in support of...This folks is classic willful ignorance, and sheeple mentality, with complete authority worshiping nutsack hugging on full display as well...

This is the type of mentality that brings the Jonestown massacre "victims" to mind....and helps explain it...

If anyone here has been sucking the Kool Aid it's you and your fellow CT loons.

So says the idiot who doesn't have a clue what the issues are, because he/it admits being too dumb to understand any of it, including the side of the issue he/it claims to be fully in support of.