| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: Debunking 911Myths.com |
 |
|
There are few typos here, but this has some good points.
Debunking 911Myths.com
Jim Fetzer has requested that we put together an essay debunking the
claims made at 911Myths.com.
Please focus on one specific claim made by 911Myths.com per post, so we
can easily organize into a single essay.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Morgan and I already thoroughly scrutinized the greening model posted on
his site with our article
Refuting
Demolition Debunkers
Do you want more?
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
They try to downplay the money silverstein won by claiming that he will
have to pay 8 billion to rebuild
911myths.com/html/windfall.html
Unfortunatley, the source they cite just throws that money out there
without any actual company behind it. It could just be made up.
Also, he doesn't HAVE to rebuild. He can take that money and walk away
right now, sell the prime real estate, and the let the next person pay.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
The example they use to debunk a progressive collapse
911myths.com/html/progres...lapse.html
was from a building that wasn't even fully completed
911research.wtc7.net/cach...biance.htm
quoting
The workmen were tack welding wedges under the ninth, tenth, and eleventh
floor package to temporarily hold them into position when they heard a
loud metallic sound followed by rumbling. Kenneth Shepard, an ironworker
who was installing wedges at the time, looked up to see the slab over him
"cracking like ice breaking." Suddenly, the slab fell on to the
slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn
fell.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Their analysis of molten steel
911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
Doesn't include the new footage we have of the liquid pouring out the WTCs
They merely look at the cleanup pic from steven's paper and claims there
is no proof this is from the WTCs. That's fine in itself, as it could be
from another site. But the liquid pouring out the WTCs in the vids and
pictures is unmistakeable
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
911myths.com/html/madrid_...tower.html
They attack the windsor proof by saying the bottom floors were concrete.
This ignores ALL other fires... and attempts to tackle the strawman. What
is neglected is the fact that others sustained these temps as well.
Another crucical mishaps in the following.
quote
Quote:
It's a little puzzling that so many people seem to think this is a
significant point, not least because there are major differences between
the two situations.
No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn't
sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning.
and neither did WTC7!
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
imstacke
I agree. the word "molten" is a loaded word and should be
dropped for "liquid metal" and the like.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
911myths.com/html/collapse_time.html
Attacking the straw man by answering a different question. If the towers
did experience a natural iniation event (and they didn't) they south tower
would have fallen faster because it had a larger dropping block...
I actually don't see a single 9/11 truth seeker asking why WTC2 fell
faster than WTC1. It's a moot point.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
911myths.com/html/put_options.html
The put options. Notice they conveniently ignore the fact that NOBODY has
been investigated about the put options.
We are to attribute this to just coincidence/blind luck?
If so... release the names of those lucky devils
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Passanger list BS'ing
911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html
And notice, he only focuses on flight 77 when there were no hijackers
listed on ANY flights.
They cop out saying they didn't have DNA to indentify them... but
amazingly there were able to indentify them from passports and airport
photos before hand... why wouldn't they then appear on the list?
perhaps a red herring... but they aren't actually disproving this.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
The "4000 Israelis failed to show up at work"
911myths.com/html/4000_israelis.html
He only attacks the number "4000"... but who cares if it was
4000 or 400 or 40. When only (allegedly) 1 Israeli is claimed to have
died... it brings up suspicion
Israeli victims
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001...page9.html
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
I'm going to stop at this point...
Almost all of their rebutalls begin with "our take on it..." and
then they offer some fairly speculative stuff.
Eeeeeverything is just an amazing coincidence to them
![<img src=]() " src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" width="15" height="15">
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
I emailed to Jim yesterday regarding 911myths and the need for a reponse
-- and I appreciate the comments. (Thank you, Rick, in particular.)
What boosted the concern is this: A writer for the Chronicle of Higher
Education is writing a piece on the 9/11 truth effort and the Scholars
group in particular. (I spoke to him at length yesterday.) He seems
sympathetic/willing to investigate. He mentioned the 911myths as providing
more meaty objections than found elsewhere, and I thought-- we need to
respond.
He also noted that web activity regarding 9/11 took a big jump in Jan-Feb,
just as the Scholars group and web site came on line -- and he attributes
the jump to our group.... Quite a compliment IMO. (SJones)
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Very important that this Chronicle article be fair and honest!
Do we know when it is slated to appear? This is a weekly publication, yes?
Too bad most schools are "out" now, as the place I always
encountered the Chronicle was in the faculty lounge, not my own mailbox.
During school, 10x the number see it as when school is out.
The fact that the st911.org site has achieved #1 status in visits among
all 9/11 sites is just an amazing testament to 1) Jim and Steve's grat
work and 2) to thje fact that we are getting maybe more traction than we
realize.
nice work all. Rick, your energy and good work make a big difference. You
ard I do not always see things from the same angle, but none can deny your
great commitment to this important work, nor the power of your
contributions.
I have not had the time this morning to open the links (a problem you have
noted elsewhere), but will try to get back to this task. There IS some
VERY sloppy stuff on the myths site...
![<img src=]() " src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif" width="15" height="15">
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Great idea, Rick -- let's discuss more at the Conf. See you there. This
Chronicle writer will also be there he told me.
Expect this conf to open some major media outlets. Rick-- be prepared to
talk to reporters there (look for them even).
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
rattler mentioned the put options. Some obscure law gave Bush the ability
to exempt companies from SEC accounting and securities disclosure for
national security reasons. Could that be what happened to the
investigation of those put options?
www.businessweek.com/prin...tm?chan=db
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Something interesting about the put options.
SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING
LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA'S HIGHEST RANKS
CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR "BUZZY" KRONGARD
MANAGED FIRM THAT HANDLED "PUT" OPTIONS ON UAL
by Michael C. Ruppert
[© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications,
www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted or distributed for
non-profit purposes only.]
FTW, October 9, 2001 - Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S.
media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions
in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the
case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million
prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on
United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in
the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence
Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard had been Chairman of
the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust
in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of
Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl
Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last
position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee "private client
relations". In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with
some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized
banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other
investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George
Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in
March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined
firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche
Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11
attacks.
THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at
the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New
York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has
long monitored such trades - in real time - as potential warnings of
terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests.
Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis
software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand
the significance of these trades, "selling short" and "put
options".
"Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current
market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for
some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is
entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock
after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash
price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months.
"Put Options" are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell
stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00
per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give
the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a
price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000
it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American
Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated
to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when
the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for
$50 and immediately sell them for $100 - regardless of where the market
then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in
effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy
Institute for Counter terrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's
Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades
connected to the September 11 attacks:
- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw
purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call
options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with
advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders"
would have profited by almost $5 million.
- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on
the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news
at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of
these options trades represent "insiders", they would represent
a gain of about $4 million.
- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times
higher than normal.]
- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in
the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the
World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the
three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27
contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell
from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000
of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the
approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2
million.
- Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade
Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days
before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been
252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's
shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts
were bought by "insiders", their profit would have been about
$5.5 million.
- European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re,
Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with
exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than
25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double
whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the
major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have
yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options
in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks,
according to a source familiar with the trades and market data".
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose
identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance
knowledge of the strikes". They don't dare show up now. The
suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible
to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started
looking.
"October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly
unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a
total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each
representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000
shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are
still 2,313 so-called "put" options outstanding [valued at $2.77
million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options
Clearinghouse Corp".
"The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank
Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche
Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these
options" This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently
as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of
insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and
brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening
implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA,
Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in
CIA's history.
Clark Clifford - The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark
Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and
one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of
First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the
corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His
profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles - These two brothers "designed" the
CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW
II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met
frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany.
John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower
and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later
fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this
day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey - Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as
chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard
Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession:
Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange
for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush - President from 1989 to January 1993, also
served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid
consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in
the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard - The current Executive Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank
A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration
currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's second largest
bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented
laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a
Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin - This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's
board.
Maurice "Hank" Greenburg - The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of
the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a
possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long
connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part
series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11.
AIG's stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks. To read
that story, please go to
www.fromthewilderness.com...rt_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is
now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop
them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is
clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who
died on September 11.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:42 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Yup... pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
![<img src=]() " src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" width="15" height="15">
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
I am already half way through my first pass of the entire website. The 2nd
half will probably take me an additional 10 hours.
At that point, I'll probably get the comments inserted within the HTML of
the site, and post privately for scrutiny, cleaning up grammar, comments,
etc.
I figure within a week and a half, we can have a legitimate rebuttal.
Now bear in mind, there are some items in this site that are actually good
questions/science. But when you stand back and look at their claims as a
whole, it becomes obvioius that they are doing anything and everything to
make sure that they knock down the easy straw men and muck up the waters
on all the other things.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
That was my feeling as well, alot of time and resources went into making
that site. Its the web version of Popular Mechanics.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Delighted to hear that Rick and yes I accept that some of the claims are
pretty solid. There are a number of others working on pieces, I know not
of what calibre, that I could get in contact with you via Myspace, people
from Anti-neocons.com that provided the PNAC links and some other truth
groups. Probably not to your taste but let me know. I love your comparison
of the collapse theories piece btw. Another solid piece of work.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
911 myths, in my opinion, is far too large a site of info to be done by
one person. That said, my rebuttals I've been able to go through quickly
only because I know the material fairly well. However, there is a LOT of
text to sift through.
Anyway, I would gladly look at the critiques of others, but want to see
their analysis first before just letting them jump in (gotta watch out for
wolves in sheeps clothing)
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
I am done with my first pass analysis of 911 myths.
This was no minor task... even just a first pass, writing down notes
analysis took me ~ 8 hours.
However, the more I think about it, I no longer think a point by point
refutation is required or even advantageous. The reason is there are many
many red herrings put in the website. Arguing to death about exactly how
much profit silverstein may have had is irrelevant until the question of
controlled demolition versus pancake is answered.
The site is also immensely verbose. As I mentioned before, I can't imagine
it is just one person putting together the entire thing.
I will (within the next 20 minutes) post up a pdf of my critiques so far.
I certainly didn't have the time to HTML it all up to make it look nice
and purty.
What I need from y'all is input in strategy. I'm thinking a refutation of
10 key facts, as well as examples of how 911myths supports one theory on
one thread, and another on the next, etc. It will be a fools game to
respond to everything...
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Just went through your draft Rick. Summary : Home Run
![<img src=]() " src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" width="15" height="15">
All seems logical and spot on to myself. I particularly like the WTC7
"well you accept the bombs and we'll accept the damage to the south
face testimony"
![<img src=]() " src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" width="15" height="15">
Seems solid on what youve covered. Ill get those others to get in touch
with thier email addresses so you can correspond with them privately if
you like over whatever they have achieved?
Regards
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
I found an interesting archive, hope it's useful.
newsmine.org/
Quote:
An hour later, the tower collapsed, following what eyewitnesses describe
as a series of 15 explosions inside the building. Half an hour after
that, the second tower fell, leaving southern Manhattan covered in a
pall of smoke and dust.
www.forbes.com/2001/09/11...tack3.html
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Tried earlier to write a semi-response and my computer turned itself off!
Basically, this was too long for me to manage to read more than about 1/4
of, mostly the 1st 1/4 but skipping and hit or miss. I certainly do not
have the gumption to read the stuff this rebuts. Rick, power to you, but
please bring a proofreader along with you.
At least you SAID this was a "VERY rough" draft... I will not
favor you with any specific corrections, because it's all too rough. I am
not saying it aint any good. Somebody needs to do it, I guess. Do you
spread yourself too thin?
Still admire the energy. Carl (don't appreciate NH)
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
I have exchanged several e-mails with "Mike Williams" of
911myths.com
I have actually forced him to change certain things on his Bin Laden
section.
He is an intel op. I am convinced of that.
I will list a few debunks I did on him.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Debunking
911myths.com/html/windfall.html
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.
Quote:
Our take...
It seems these claims are based on a dubious understanding on profits.
For example, 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.
Silverstein was trying to get coverage as two seperate attacks on the two
towers.
From Wikipedia...
As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center,
Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001
attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two
incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it
were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion
and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued
the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of
Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers,
declaring it to be two "occurrences". [5] However, in a previous
trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly
favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [6]
At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the
application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which
documents.[7]
In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance
money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [8
]. In April 2006, rebuilding cost was estimated to be $6.3 billion. [9]
So in total, he was awarded $5 billion for THE TWO TOWERS attack on the
center. 1.5 billion more than the agreement entitled him to.
In April 2006, the *estimated* rebuilding cost was $6.3 billion
Mike prefers to leave an astronomical number on his page:
Quote:
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein(That "maximum 4.6
billion", which was actually 5 in the end). The money is being
provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's
quite expensive.
To rebuild the W.T.C. office space, it will cost Silverstein and his
investors at least $8 billion
www.downtownexpress.com/d...point.html
Hmmm, the "W.T.C. office space". They are not talking about the
TWO TOWERS, they are talking about the entire WTC COMPLEX, all buildings
included in the original lease, which included 1, 2, 4, and 5. He already
built and owned WTC7.
Quote:
The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two,
Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of
retail space.
Mike at 911m goes on to say...
Quote:
Hmm, hold on. Isn't that more than he's getting paid in insurance terms?
Fortunately there will be Government funding, too, but then again that's
not Silversteins only costs
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). Doesn't sound like too great a deal to us, and the
article suggests his problems may continue.
360 million for three years? The rent is being paid out of Insurance
Proceeds? You mean the $5 billion dollars in insurance that he,
ultimately, ended up with?
Well like the article said, it would be "draining the amount
available for rebuilding." Poor Larry.
As he says, the article suggests his problems may continue...
Quote:
Some Port Authority officials dispute whether Silverstein can afford to
erect the Freedom Tower and the four other planned office buildings
while continuing to pay the bi-state agency the rent it owes according
to his July 2001 lease. That lease envisions a rent increase in August
2006 to $138 million a year.
The Port Authority and Silverstein are also battling over who will pay
the $1 billion to $2 billion to construct the site's underground
backbone, including delivery ramps, walkways and mechanical systems that
will support both the office buildings and the site's cultural, memorial
and transit functions. Those familiar with the negotiations say the
sides are far from an agreement.
It's unclear when a deal could be hatched, but lack of an agreement
isn't slowing the first phase of construction. There is enough insurance
money and federal aid to build the first elements, including the Freedom
Tower and the transit hub. But once that money is spent, the rest of the
office towers' development will depend on Silverstein being able to
attract tenants.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/...6dec04.htm
Then Mike goes to misdirect with a strawman about Silverstein trying to
buy cheaper insurance. Whatever irrelevant.
The point of the above article is that it was still developing. that was
12/04.
Let's fast forward to the more recent outcome of this situation...
Quote:
Negotiations to rebuild at the World Trade Center site
Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild office buildings including
the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site and while the site is
unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
After several months of negotiation in April 2006, he yielded
some of those rights back to the Port Authority.
Ground was broken on the construction of the Freedom Tower on April 27,
2006. [1
![0]](http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif)
What had prevented the construction from starting earlier was the lack
of financing. The proceeds of the insurance payments from the
destruction of the previous buildings alone were insufficient to cover
the cost of rebuilding all the planned buildings.
So now we have the Port Authority involved. HE had the legal right to
rebuild and he's still paying that $120 million a year presumably out of
his $5 billion dollar insurance settlement. 5 years later, 600 million out
of $5 billion wouldn't seem too bad if he didn't have to rebuild. But it
doesn't end there...
Quote:
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States
Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund
development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates.
$3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower
Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor
Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of Governor
George Pataki.
Negotiations were held to obtain concessions from Silverstein in
exchange for allocating the Liberty Bonds to the World Trade Center
rebuilding.
The concessions were to give back to the Port Authority: rights
to build and operate the Freedom Tower and another office tower, a share
of the insurance payments, and not to contest the allocation to the Port
Authority of Liberty Bonds.
The Port Authority, a public agency, already has the ability to issue
its own tax-exempt debt. The Port Authority will have its proposal in
final form in September 2006. In return,
the Liberty Bond funds were allocated to Silverstein
and government agencies will be anchor tenants in his three office
towers. This allows construction to commence.
So he gets a substantial portion of $8 billion in Liberty Bonds for
conceding...
-The Freedom Tower (Tower 1)
-Tower 5
...And giving the Port Authority a cut of his $5 billion in insurance AND
not protesting the fact that they are also getting some of the liberty
bonds.
And the proposal isn't going to be in "final form" in September
of this year, 2006. Making this story FAR FROM OVER.
Quote:
In summary, Silverstein retains rights for
Towers Two, Three, and Four
. The Freedom Tower (designated as Tower One) will be owned by the Port
Authority as well as Tower Five which may be leased out to another
private developer and redesigned as a residential building.
So he retains rights to...
Tower 2
Tower 3
Tower 4
Which will house gov't agencies again. Making sure rent is paid and more
than likely at higher rates.
-He recieved a 5 billion in insurance claims,
-Paid 600 million in rent for 5 years.
-Had $8 billion in tax-empt liberty bonds
-And didn't have to pay for the rebuilding of Tower 1 or 5
Going back to the question of a "Windfall". Let's go back to
July, 24 2001. Less than 2 months before 9/11:
Quote:
The deal was described in a press release on July 24, 2001, as:
"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will
lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth
approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever
and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history. [2]"
The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two,
Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of
retail space.
Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money
[3].
So Larry Silverstein only put up $14 million, and 2 months later,
subsequently 5 years later, turns into 5 billion dollars in insurance
money, 8 billion dollars in tax free gov't bonds. And only having to
rebuild 3 buildings instead of 5 towers. While maintaining lucrative
rental agreement fees.
On a sidenote, he also didn't have to pay for clean-up costs...
Quote:
Silverstein and the building owners, the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, were spared having to pick up the costs of the $10 billion
actual clean up costs when federal taxpayers picked up that tab in 2001
(along with a proviso in which survivor families signed waivers
promising not to sue in exchange for million dollar plus cash
settlements).
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Quote:
Small note regarding building and the Liberty Bonds:
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.
www.time.com/time/insideb...-3,00.html
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Excellent Merc. Thanks for the input.
I haven't started my "top 10" yet... so I'll go through your
material and see what I may have missed.
Also. I don't really think any wikipedia article on 911 can really be that
credible. Wikipedia has lots of people on it that will change information
in a heart beat, lying in the process. That said, it's still useful, ya
just gotta be careful
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Hey thanks guys,
Yeah I agree Rick. But it is great for a quick summary of everything that
is the public record.
Mike relies on old info, misdirection, strawmen arguments. He is quite
sly.
I will put up the Bin Laden one soon.
I had Mike quite engaged for a while. As he did me.
The hijacker one is a good one also.
Re: Debunking 911Myths.com
Indeed. If I hadn't spent so much time on 9/11, I would conclude that he
is corret on a lot of things. That is because he withholds just the right
information that destroys his case.
And of course, there are actually things that he does prove to be false
that I agree with. It's a way of getting the low hanging fruit and also
appear credible.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The dirty liars behind websites like 911 Myths should have their houses burnt down as a punishment for sheer spiritual negligence. They are nothing but demons masquerading as human beings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Have any of these 'de-bunk merchants' attempted to claim the $1M prize from billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter by "proving" explosives were not used to bring down the twin towers or WTC7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there any way of finding out who funds the 911myths.com web site? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey wrote:
| Quote: | Sog and/or CTS, your always promoting 911myths on away ground so lets hear what you have to say about this ............the balls in your court!
|
The case against Silverstein is probably the least important of the claims made by CTs regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. At worst, it would show he had a motive to profit from the collapse of the towers. But establishing motive is one thing, proving that he acted to deliberately cause the towers to collapse is quite another thing. I have plenty of motivation to turn to crime to make a lot of money, but the police have yet to come to my door to charge me with anything, or even to tell me I was under suspicion of being a criminal. OK?
Mike Williams may have got his arguments wrong over Silverstein (I am not saying he has because I have not followed through his arguments nor the CT counter arguments), but that does not alter the other substantive arguments put forward to debunk the other CT claims.
It is typical of CTs to try to weaken major arguments by trying to discredit a minor part of a case while ignoring the major parts.
OK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | | It is typical of CTs to try to weaken major arguments by trying to discredit a minor part of a case while ignoring the major parts. |
What incredible hypocrisy. All of a sudden it is the major details that CT's apparently fail to see.
Mmmmmm...now let me think.
3 buildings collapse into their own footprint in one day re-writing the building collapse rule book.
Another building is allegedly hit by a large passenger aircraft yet stays standing for 30 minutes with a small hole in its facade and wreckage of said aircraft is nowhere to be seen. One reporter even clearly states live on US tv that there is no plane.
America's skies remain largely undefended for 1hr 40 mins defying military protocol regarding aircraft that change course without cause. This protocol had seen fighter jets deployed immediately on such occasions more than 60 times between January and September of 2001 except on 9/11.
I can go on......
Come on CTS, first you claim that all these major issues should arouse no suspicion by CT's then you claim that it is the major issues that should be investigated.
Are the above examples big enough for you and should they not ring massive alarm bells in the mind of any sane human being? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
James C wrote:
| Quote: | ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
It is typical of CTs to try to weaken major arguments by trying to discredit a minor part of a case while ignoring the major parts.
What incredible hypocrisy. All of a sudden it is the major details that CT's apparently fail to see.
Mmmmmm...now let me think.
3 buildings collapse into their own footprint in one day re-writing the building collapse rule book.
Another building is allegedly hit by a large passenger aircraft yet stays standing for 30 minutes with a small hole in its facade and wreckage of said aircraft is nowhere to be seen. One reporter even clearly states live on US tv that there is no plane.
America's skies remain largely undefended for 1hr 40 mins defying military protocol regarding aircraft that change course without cause. This protocol had seen fighter jets deployed immediately on such occasions more than 60 times between January and September of 2001 except on 9/11.
I can go on......
Come on CTS, first you claim that all these major issues should arouse no suspicion by CT's then you claim that it is the major issues that should be investigated.
Are the above examples big enough for you and should they not ring massive alarm bells in the mind of any sane human being? |
James C
I'm not going to go through all the evidence yet again.
Please read the debunking sites. Your objections are fully dealt with there.
If you want the websites again, feel free to ask and I will give them to you.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why the hell do we need to read the de-bunking sites? What for, to get the truth? So come hell or high water, CTS will NEVER change his mind. Hardly objective investigating, or isn't he in that game! Answer: No, he's not! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So called debunking sites have only served to renforce my position regarding the NY false flag op.
Such sites only fuel the unanswered questions.
In particular the 'popular mecanics' 'debunking' is a real good laugh.
_________________
www.wytruth.org.uk
www.myspace.com/truthleeds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
CTS, you are entitled to your opinion but you are being naive if you believe it be the one and only true theory.
I think your time has come to shoo away and discuss another topic with someone else. It can't be doing your health much good to exert such stress on your mind. You won't win here! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It is typical of CTs to try to weaken major arguments by trying to discredit a minor part of a case while ignoring the major parts.
|
No its not:
Its typical of human beings: period
This kind of mentality is encountered ALL the time by these "CT"'s (whatever they are: I'd call them "people who arnt suckered by authority" myself)
It is a manifestation of the fruit loops that the human ego runs round:
If anyone has a belief to defend and a rigid polarised conciousness: its a psychological defence against mental dissonance
Isnt it CTS? (and SoG and a cast of thousands upon thousands of thousands throughout the web and across the world beyond)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | James C wrote:
| Quote: | ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
It is typical of CTs to try to weaken major arguments by trying to discredit a minor part of a case while ignoring the major parts.
What incredible hypocrisy. All of a sudden it is the major details that CT's apparently fail to see.
Mmmmmm...now let me think.
3 buildings collapse into their own footprint in one day re-writing the building collapse rule book.
Another building is allegedly hit by a large passenger aircraft yet stays standing for 30 minutes with a small hole in its facade and wreckage of said aircraft is nowhere to be seen. One reporter even clearly states live on US tv that there is no plane.
America's skies remain largely undefended for 1hr 40 mins defying military protocol regarding aircraft that change course without cause. This protocol had seen fighter jets deployed immediately on such occasions more than 60 times between January and September of 2001 except on 9/11.
I can go on......
Come on CTS, first you claim that all these major issues should arouse no suspicion by CT's then you claim that it is the major issues that should be investigated.
Are the above examples big enough for you and should they not ring massive alarm bells in the mind of any sane human being? |
James C
I'm not going to go through all the evidence yet again.
Please read the debunking sites. Your objections are fully dealt with there.
If you want the websites again, feel free to ask and I will give them to you.
CTS |
That is truly a lazy, pointless and insulting post CTS
In case you missed the point of this thread, it is about debunking (or in your case supporting) the debunking sites such as 911myths and to this end Andrew Johnson kicks this off with pointing out some of the many flaws in the 911myths site.
In other words it is about exploring the actual evidence and claims on the site.
To just refer readers back to the debunking sites with the claim that all objections are dealt with there whilst acknowledging that you haven't looked into the detail is bs and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
To say you are "not going to go through all the evidence yet again" is to pretend that you have been through it all already which we both know is nonsense. You have done no such thing.
Unless you are willing to engage with the evidence and facts and the specific points raised by Andrew Johnson, don't bother posting.
And just so we give you a fair chance to present your case would you care to say what are the major parts of the argument (as presented on 911myths) that you claim we are ignoring
One last thing. You should remember that the case for "an inside job" is cumulative. That means that even if a handful of the literally hundreds of smoking guns are disproven/debunked, this does not debunk the whole 9/11 truth movement case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know that Ian does not need anyone to help him make his case.
However I cannot resist adding my tuppence worth as I find the disingenuousness of CTS's posts disgusting.
This recent post is copied from another thread but is basically saying the same as Ian, if a little less politely.
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: |
My reply has been posted on Debunking911myths.com |
No it hasn't. You have never engaged in any serious detailed argument with anyone who disagrees with the line you promote.
There is no credible explanation for the collapses of the towers other than controlled demolition. Apologists for the official line present wild and highly implausible theories for the initial collapse but have never addressed the simple impossibilty of such massive destruction and energy dissipation taking place WHILE THE TOWERS (1 and 2) WERE IN FREE-FALL.
During free-fall ALL the available gravitational energy is converted into kinetic energy (otherwise it would be falling more slowly). The heat energy (from the burning fuel) stored in the building before collapse was negligeable and can be ignored. As the initial gravitational energy was (according to the official line) the only energy available, there being no explosives in the building, where did the enormous amounts of energy come from that:
1) Cut the massive steel beams in thousands of places.
2) Pulverised hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete to fine dust.
3) Ejected huge 'dreadlock' plumes of dust and steel beams hundreds of feet sideways AND, if you look carefully at the TV footage, upwards.
All this occurred before the building hit the ground, while gravitational was converting solely to kinetic energy. There was little or no energy available that was not being used in accelerating the falling mass. The whole scenario is too ridiculous....Of course huge amounts of energy were needed to smash up the building so it could fall. Where did this energy come from?
Self-powdering aluminium panels?....Is that it? Is that ****ing it?
Where is the response to Stephen Jones finding 'Thermate' (Thermite and Sulphur) on the WTC steel debris? Where is..........oh, forget it.
There are NO sensible answers to these points. There are ONLY LIES from the liars who tell them and the witless creeps like CTS who can only refer people to the desperate nonsense that these liars generate.
The liar is a traitor to his own soul. Pity him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey wrote:
| Quote: | | By the way there is no need to pm me on the website to inform me you have made a response. Please would you refrain from this practice which no-one else appears to do! |
Pikey
Instead of broadcasting your reproof, don't you think it would have been courteous and considerate to send me a private message?
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey,
Because, I believe I can promise you, CTS will not understand what you are talking about. He does not care or think that deeply |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pikey asks:
| Quote: | P.S So why would the authorities pressurise Prof Steven E Jones to redirect his research in explaining the building collapse?
|
Can you please tell us which particular authorities are pressurising Prof Jones to redirect his research?
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | Pikey asks:
| Quote: | P.S So why would the authorities pressurise Prof Steven E Jones to redirect his research in explaining the building collapse?
|
Can you please tell us which particular authorities are pressurising Prof Jones to redirect his research?
CTS |
Do some research! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: |
Can you please tell us which particular authorities are pressurising Prof Jones to redirect his research?
|
Why don't you undermine some of the insults that have been thrown in your direction and for once YOU answer some questions?
You've been asked, over the past week or so, to personally respond to many evidential challenges re the collapses of the three towers. To take just one...If the towers fell with almost exactly free-fall acceleration where did the energy come from to pulverise hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and cut ALL the massive steel beams at thousands of points and eject debris hudreds of feet upwards and sideways?
Come on then, we are all waiting with bated breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now I haven`t had much interaction with CTS`s post or non posts,
I think IMO to be balanced here I want to say this.
I have been trying to find the source of the `funding` article and as of yet have not found a direct quote from the PTB. (I`m not saying it doesn`t exist it`s just `I` have not seen the source myself).
That said though I feel it is just nit-picking at the periphery.
There is now a lot of credible people who have come forward to find out
what the truth is, IMO the `funding` issue is not dealing with the facts of 9/11 as a lot of people are seeing them. IMO more smoke and mirror to delay the truth just a bit longer. (on the part of die hard sceptics).
Like all people trying to find the truth it`s research of the
facts that will win the day.
While we`re on Prof. Steven Jones and demolition stuff has anyone seen
the home page of `Kingstar`.
http://www.kingstar.co.uk/
Well they do something called `Silent Concrete Crushing and Bursting`
Just wondering if all demo firms use this method or does anyone know what it entails.
_________________
TRUTH IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kbo234 asks:
| Quote: | Why don't you undermine some of the insults that have been thrown in your direction and for once YOU answer some questions?
You've been asked, over the past week or so, to personally respond to many evidential challenges re the collapses of the three towers. To take just one...If the towers fell with almost exactly free-fall acceleration where did the energy come from to pulverise hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and cut ALL the massive steel beams at thousands of points and eject debris hudreds of feet upwards and sideways?
Come on then, we are all waiting with bated breath. |
I am not afraid to answer your questions.
Some points:
1. Videos of the collapse of the twin towers show dust and debris falling faster than the rate of collapse of the towers. Therefore, they were falling somewhat slower than free-fall rate. Various estimates have been made for the times of collapse, and, if memory serves me right, they range from 10 to 12 seconds.
2. I have seen a good number of collapses of buildings brought down by deliberate implosions or even without any prior implosions, eg, Fred Dibnah bringing about the collapse of old industrial chimneys by knocking out some brickwork on one side of the chimney at ground level, and then setting off a huge fire in the hole created; and letting the heat create further weakness in the brickwork. In every case, there were huge clouds of dust produced by the collapse of the buildings. The Twin Towers were exceptionally tall towers. It is therefore unsurprising that the clouds of dust produced were exceptionally large.
3. There must have been a huge pressure wave travelling downwards ahead of the collapsing floors because they were acting as pistons forcing the air that had been inside the building downwards. The squibs can be entirely explained as the ejection of dust forced out at points of weakness - or maybe at lines of vents designed into the building.
OK? Any other questions?
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CTS says, with respect,
"2. I have seen a good number of collapses of buildings brought down by deliberate implosions or even without any prior implosions, eg, Fred Dibnah bringing about the collapse of old industrial chimneys. In every case, there were huge clouds of dust produced by the collapse og the buildings. Thew Twin Towers were exceptionally tall towers. It is therefore unsurprising that the clouds of dust produced were exceptionally large."
Help me out here you have just admitted that `deliberate implosions`
produce huge amounts of dust.
( yes I know you said it in context "even without prior implosions").
My point is that you cannot now discount `deliberate implosion` of the twin towers.
_________________
TRUTH IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see now change the wording is that the way you debate?
CTS`s edit....
"2. I have seen a good number of collapses of buildings brought down by deliberate implosions or even without any prior implosions, eg, Fred Dibnah bringing about the collapse of old industrial chimneys *by knocking out some brickwork on one side of the chimney at ground level, and then setting off a huge fire in the hole created; and letting the heat create further weakness in the brickwork. In every case, there were huge clouds of dust produced by the collapse of the buildings. The Twin Towers were exceptionally tall towers. It is therefore unsurprising that the clouds of dust produced were exceptionally large."
*edited within a minute or so because I was replying to the original answers.
Geoff.
_________________
TRUTH IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | I am not afraid to answer your questions.
Some points:
1. Videos of the collapse of the twin towers show dust and debris falling faster than the rate of collapse of the towers. Therefore, they were falling somewhat slower than free-fall rate. Various estimates have been made for the times of collapse, and, if memory serves me right, they range from 10 to 12 seconds.
2. I have seen a good number of collapses of buildings brought down by deliberate implosions or even without any prior implosions, eg, Fred Dibnah bringing about the collapse of old industrial chimneys by knocking out some brickwork on one side of the chimney at ground level, and then setting off a huge fire in the hole created; and letting the heat create further weakness in the brickwork. In every case, there were huge clouds of dust produced by the collapse of the buildings. The Twin Towers were exceptionally tall towers. It is therefore unsurprising that the clouds of dust produced were exceptionally large.
3. There must have been a huge pressure wave travelling downwards ahead of the collapsing floors because they were acting as pistons forcing the air that had been inside the building downwards. The squibs can be entirely explained as the ejection of dust forced out at points of weakness - or maybe at lines of vents designed into the building.
OK? Any other questions?
|
You seem to be presenting thoughts of your own which makes a change. Yes there were huge clouds of dust when Fred Dibnah's chimneys collapsed but you miss the 2 main questions put to you entirely:
1) The huge dust and debris clouds created when the twin towers fell were produced long before the towers hit the ground. The energy for Dibnah's dust clouds came from the loss of kinetic energy (which went from maximum K.E. to zero) of the falling building or chimney as it hit the ground (the lost kinetic energy was then transferred mostly into creation and expansion of dust cloud). The 'dreadlocks' of debris were being formed while the twin towers were in free-fall and seemed to begin when they had only dropped a few floors. So, firstly your rebuttal presents no analogy to the collapse of the twin towers because for WTC's 1 and 2 major debris was created before the buildings hit the ground.
2) Accepting the possibilty that the acceleration was slightly less than free-fall, where did the HUGE amount of energy come from to pulverise the concrete and cut the steel (both actions happening during the collapse, when energy was being almost completely converted from gravitational to kinetic)? Simple question....where did this energy come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
GEFBASS wrote:
| Quote: | Help me out here you have just admitted that `deliberate implosions`
produce huge amounts of dust. |
GEFBASS
I do think you have missed the point, as I guessed some people would miss the point, despite my attempts to prevent people from missing the point by telling them about Fred Dibnah, who did not use explosives to bring buildings down; despite that, huge clouds of dust were produced when the chimneys collapsed.
The point is that it is not the use of explosives that causes pulverisation of concrete or brickwork or gypsum or anything else when buildings collapse but the release of enormous amounts of energy as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. All caused by the force of gravity - not explosives.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I notice the good intent of this thread has been hijacked.
Here is some information for those who find it hard to grasp the obvious:
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have also seen those videos of Fred Dibnah knocking down chimneys in that manner and I have also seen relatively little dust coming down with the chimney and crowds of people standing nearby with no problem as the dust quickly settles leaving!!!!!...... wait for it ...... drum roll .......masses of BRICKS AND LUMPS OF CONCRETE. In BIG LUMPS!!! Piles of them!!! That is what the chimney was made from and that is what was left. NO EXPLOSIVES means they were not pulverised into dust. The WTC towers had well over one hundred and fifty floors between them not damaged by planes or fire but were reduced to next to nothing. That is because they did not just collapse like those chimneys. Just as the chimney only had a fire at a small part of its structure and therefore the 90% that fell by gravity remained as solid so should the WTC towers. The chimney didn't keep burning for weeks either and there was no molten metal found there six weeks later. Thanks for helping prove that explosives MUST have been used CTS. Your next move is to say that there WAS a huge amount of solid chunks of the WTC buildings. Keep up the lies - its all you have going for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
