The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[psikeyhackr]

Another Youtuber Venting
What Really Happened on 9/11 and Why It's Still a Secret
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDIYC0TeCjI

psik

[felltoearth]

43 minutes of a nasally raving lunatic. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.

[quas]

Good response.

What's more likely, that a septuagenarian octogenarian got a date wrong in a one and a half hour speech or that he intentionally blew up his own building so he can collect insurance, lose rent in the meantime and rebuild.

Solid plan that second one.

It's like you don't even give the thirty seconds it takes to think through the stupid illogic of these posts.

Edit : Larry's age

Yes. he loses rent in the meantime, but how do you know it's not more profitable in the long run?

Landlords typically increase their rent over time, it would be difficult to increase rent if your buildings is too old while new buildings are constantly being built nearby. If it doesn't cost anything to rebuild (compensated by insurance money), how can you know that he loses money in the long run?

What data do you have available that allows you to make this cost-benefit analysis? Because you actually have data, right? Not just assuming?

[proudfootz]

Good response.

What's more likely, that a septuagenarian octogenarian got a date wrong in a one and a half hour speech or that he intentionally blew up his own building so he can collect insurance, lose rent in the meantime and rebuild.

That's why arson by landlords never happens, right? They might lose rent.

It's like you don't even give the thirty seconds it takes to think through the stupid illogic of your post.

Solid plan that second one.

It's like you don't even give the thirty seconds it takes to think through the stupid illogic of these posts.

Edit : Larry's age

What I thought was good about your response is that you couldn't imagine an innocent reason why Silverstein might want to remove his own building and put another in its place.

There isn't any evidence he read the date wrong while reading his speech off a piece of paper.

One possible innocent reason - he did plan on replacing WTC7.

That would explain the quick turnaround in the building of a new WTC7 before the year was out since 9/11.

[proudfootz]

My favouite part of the genious behind those figuring out the conspiracy is that apparently Silverstein had the brilliance to pull of the destruction of multiple buildings in plain site of the world, but couldn't put together a legal team to make sure the insurance coverage for such and event was rock solid.

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S ... ce_dispute

$4.5 billion return on a $115 million investment?

No one would even stoop to pick that up off the sidewalk.

[psikeyhackr]

43 minutes of a nasally raving lunatic. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.

Yeah, he's a pain to listen to. I turned up the speed 50% He never really said squat about the physics which is why I went through the whole thing. But I agree with his attitude about dismissing conspiracy theories without adequate evidence as bullshit.

psik

[aban57]

Just stumbled on that. How serious is it ?

[felltoearth]

Just stumbled on that. How serious is it ?

Note From The Editor

This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is su ciently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

Some? Lots of unattributed assertions, like this one.

Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact of the airplanes were gravity and re (there were no high winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the Twin Towers completely collapsed.

Many engineers? Citation? Structural engineers?

[psikeyhackr]

Just stumbled on that. How serious is it ?

I call it an uninformative waste of time.

The case of the Twin Towers

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower....this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” —nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.”

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles ... 474p21.pdf

psik

[quas]

My favouite part of the genious behind those figuring out the conspiracy is that apparently Silverstein had the brilliance to pull of the destruction of multiple buildings in plain site of the world, but couldn't put together a legal team to make sure the insurance coverage for such and event was rock solid.

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S ... ce_dispute

$4.5 billion return on a $115 million investment?

No one would even stoop to pick that up off the sidewalk.

Where did you get that 115 million figure from?

[proudfootz]

My favouite part of the genious behind those figuring out the conspiracy is that apparently Silverstein had the brilliance to pull of the destruction of multiple buildings in plain site of the world, but couldn't put together a legal team to make sure the insurance coverage for such and event was rock solid.

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S ... ce_dispute

$4.5 billion return on a $115 million investment?

No one would even stoop to pick that up off the sidewalk.

Where did you get that 115 million figure from?

It could have been less:

Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sil ... ade_Center

[quas]

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

tl:dr version
No one knows whether he profits or not.

[proudfootz]

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

tl:dr version
No one knows whether he profits or not.

Maybe I'll see him using foodstamps at the grocery, then we'll know for sure.

[Wilbur]

[Wilbur]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories to AVOID

the credible research

[Wilbur]

SEN. BOB GRAHAM, FMR. CHAIR, U.S. SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks:
Now coming back to the question of Bandar, the 28 pages discussed the fact that one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates, a man named Abu Zubaydah, was captured in Pakistan shortly after 9/11. Among his effects was a notebook of telephone numbers. Two of those numbers related to Prince Bandar. One of them was to his mansion/second home in Aspen, Colorado. The other was to his bodyguard in Washington, D.C. That's all we know about those numbers. The second is that Bandar was alleged to have provided funding for an intermediary who was close to one of the persons in San Diego who was providing assistance and support to the three hijackers who lived there.


From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House]

[felltoearth]

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

tl:dr version
No one knows whether he profits or not.

Maybe I'll see him using foodstamps at the grocery, then we'll know for sure.

The whole concept of the Controlled Demolition "Theory" is that Silverstein made out like a bandit. Doing the math it doesn't work out that way.

Silverstein Properties, upon signing the lease for the WTC site just prior to 911 were on the hook for 120M $US a year with some liabilities on the properties themselves (hence having insurance).

As of 2009, Silverstein properties had paid out 2.75B US$ to Port Authority for reconstruction plus 1B US$ in base rent. This is before any liabilities they have to their tenants out of lease obligations. Who knows what this.

So before the plus plus and the initial cost to sign the lease Silverstein is in for 3.75B US$ and WTC5 hasn't even been built yet.

I wouldn't say he's hemorrhaging money at this point but the idea he destroyed his own buildings for profit is not just ridiculous, it's bat shit crazy.

[proudfootz]

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

tl:dr version
No one knows whether he profits or not.

Maybe I'll see him using foodstamps at the grocery, then we'll know for sure.

The whole concept of the Controlled Demolition "Theory" is that Silverstein made out like a bandit. Doing the math it doesn't work out that way.

Silverstein Properties, upon signing the lease for the WTC site just prior to 911 were on the hook for 120M $US a year with some liabilities on the properties themselves (hence having insurance).

As of 2009, Silverstein properties had paid out 2.75B US$ to Port Authority for reconstruction plus 1B US$ in base rent. This is before any liabilities they have to their tenants out of lease obligations. Who knows what this.

So before the plus plus and the initial cost to sign the lease Silverstein is in for 3.75B US$ and WTC5 hasn't even been built yet.

I wouldn't say he's hemorrhaging money at this point but the idea he destroyed his own buildings for profit is not just ridiculous, it's bat shit crazy.

It's a simple question of math.

How much did they put in, and how much did they realize in the insurance settlement?

Money they invest in building a bigger and better WTC is still their equity, isn't it?

[felltoearth]

The answer to your question is in my post.

Why the fuck would anyone got through that headache to not even be ahead of where they started. It doesn't make sense, like most of the 911 conspiracy crap.

[proudfootz]

If they put 3 billion in and get 4.5 billion out, it sounds like batshit insanity to think they're worried about a headache.