How Loony are the Loons?

[uk_dave]

Previous discussion of the article written by an architectural photographer seriously out of his depth trying to make a case for corrosion at the wtc

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61940

Read it and weep

 

[RemoveBush]

"All evidence suggests they were. Feel free to post anything that shows evidence to the contrary. The key word here is "evidence"."

It does not fall on me to PROVE that those were not the planes.... It falls on the government to PROVE that those were the planes they claim.

If NTSB were to have done their MANDATED job, then they would hvae the proof! Since they did not, they are responsible for providing the evidence that those were the planes.

I don't know either way, but being a Engineer I don't CLOSE MY MIND to alternatives, like many of you here, until the evidence has been provided.

"BS. It's not true at all. The towers enjoyed extremely high occupancy rates. Perhaps you should research this topic more using the sources provided on this web site."

You mean for a software enginee in the UK???? You mean this is your PROOF???

PLEASE!

 

[Firestone]

Not according to the project manager. On tape says that he believes, not that means much, that the building would survive MULTIPLE airplane hits.

Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair.
...
Through the continual effects of wind-sheer and [flex-fatigue] this process had eroded the bolt-holds at roughly floors #7 through #25, that fulcrum-point where the lateral pressures were inherently sustained.

From RemoveBushes "source"

Seems rather contradictory ...

 

[JonnyFive]

Let's see..... A MAJOR airline crash and you think this is a question that HAS to be asked??? It is the DUTY of the NTSB to investigate EVERY plane crash. Identifying the aircraft 100% by the MANY traceable parts or the FDR's. NONE of this happened!

Please provide evidence of this.

It's not a question I have to answer, but rather the government! Specifically why they did not do their job!

I know we ask every single damn CTist this question, but: Have you read the NIST report, either in whole or in part?

Your very ignorant aren't you?

Why do you feel the need to insult other posters.

If you notice the FINAL comment in that sentence it says "I will look for it"! MORON, learn to read and comprehend!

Again, why the attacks on people? Could you please stick with factual debate. And please format your writing in a clearer manner, using the quote function and college level grammar.

Could it be that he was part of this plan?

This is baseless supposition unless supported by evidence. Please provide evidence he was "part of this plan" or withdraw this claim.

RemoveBush, you really should go through the other threads in this section and actually read them. All these things you've brought up have been discussed before, and most of the people here are getting tired of the same old BS being touted as "new evidence" that will simply blow our socks off.

If you want to have a productive discussion, then please prepare more thoroughly. You have already begun to resort to calling posters names, which does not support your argument or bolster your credibility.

 

[uk_dave]

Seems rather contradictory ...

Definately.

So what's it going to be RemoveBush?

Were the towers so structurally amazing that there is no way those planes and subsequent fires could have brought them down, or were they so corroded that they needed to be demolished and the plane impacts and subsequent fires could easily have brought them down?

Over to you sparky.

 

[RemoveBush]

"So, what evidence do you have that Larry Silverstein made all kinds of money because of this? I started a thread here about the ridiculous idea that 9/11 was done for insurance fraud.

You will find information within that thread about the costs of the attack, as well as how much Silverstein stands to gain from insurance. That is, if you care enough about it to do some basic research."

I have heard all these, subjective, ASSUMPTIONS.

Let me just make this point, which I know your gonna argue "I'm wrong"....

First! Larry, gains to get 3 Billion from ONE building! If he wins the second claim that it was 2 seperate attacks, then he gets almost 7 Billion dollars. Quite a return on your money from Several Hundered MILLION dollars.

Second, the lease agreement releases Larry from any and all, in other words the lease becomes VOID, in the event of a terrorist attack. One stipulation is that if he decides to rebuild the towers then this section of the lease is voided.

So, Larry must see a large amount of money to be made in the long run to lose his min 3 Billion max 7 Billion dollars for continuing with the lease agreement.

I guess in your research you MISSED this LITTLE FACT??

 

[Alt+F4]

It does not fall on me to PROVE that those were not the planes.... It falls on the government to PROVE that those were the planes they claim.

The dead bodies and body parts found at the crash sites match the passenger manifests. That PROVES those were the four planes in question....unless you are including the Somerset County and NYC Coroner's Offices in your conspiracy theory.

 

[JonnyFive]

RemoveBush, please learn to use the "quote" feature. It is the button labelled "reply with quote" at the bottom of each post.

The government provided the flight numbers of the hijacked aircraft. According to the FAA registry, those aircraft were both 767's. Ball's in your court now. Provide evidence the government records are incorrect.

If NTSB were to have done their MANDATED job, then they would hvae the proof! Since they did not, they are responsible for providing the evidence that those were the planes.

See above.

I don't know either way, but being a Engineer I don't CLOSE MY MIND to alternatives, like many of you here, until the evidence has been provided.

First off, what sort of engineer are you? You seem unwilling to deal with mathematics, structural concepts, or physics issues.

If you are in fact an engineer, could you talk more about the technical issues at play here? You have yet to post any kind of information about what should have happened if the towers were hit with planes, compared with information about what you believe did happen to bring them down. I'd like to see some things with formulas and calculations. Especially as we have a few technically experienced people here to evaluate anything you do post.

You believe that no evidence for the official theory exists, but you are wrong. Again, have you read the NIST report?

You mean for a software enginee in the UK???? You mean this is your PROOF???

Did you read any of the links on that page? Did you read the NY Times articles? How about the release from the Port Authority?

I'm not citing the main web page as the evidence, I'm citing the many, many pieces of evidence on that page.

 

[Horatius]

"Where were these alleged "questions" asked? I think you're serving yourself some easy questions to answer, so it looks like you'll be willing to answer questions when you're not. Please provide links to the post that presented these questions, or we'll just have to assume you faked them all."

Let's see..... A MAJOR airline crash and you think this is a question that HAS to be asked??? It is the DUTY of the NTSB to investigate EVERY plane crash. Identifying the aircraft 100% by the MANY traceable parts or the FDR's. NONE of this happened!

Why don't you "learn to read and comprehend"? I was asking about the bolded questions, which you have still failed to provide a link to. While you're learning "to read and comprehend", how about learning how to use the quote function?

"Question 1

Do you believe that two jet liners collided with the twin towers on 9/11?

Now if the answer to this is 'no' then you don't have to bother with the next question which is a bit more detailed."
Yes I believe planes hit the building. The question is what type of planes and where they the planes we are told.

"So the question is if one imagines that the government staged the event in order to advance a private agenda why did they go to what I'm sure you'll agree is a enormous undertaking in order to make the towers collapse."

It's not a question I have to answer, but rather the government! Specifically why they did not do their job!

Your very ignorant aren't you?

"Oh, how convienient, you can't remember where you heard it!"

If you notice the FINAL comment in that sentence it says "I will look for it"! MORON, learn to read and comprehend!

And why don't you take your own advice, and learn to read and comprehend? I did address your little coda:

Originally Posted by RemoveBush

I will look for that article in the mean time. I will be back later, as I have some things to do.

Sure, you just go "look". We'll be here waiting for your admission that you just made that all up.

Oh, and those links I asked for.

Perhaps you just don't read English very well? Should I start talking whackjob?

"Perhaps you could explain why Mr. Silverstein would get himself involved in a long-term lease on a property that was about to be condemned? Is he just the worst billionaire landowner in history?"

Could it be that he was part of this plan?

And could you understand that I was asking why he was part of that plan? Do you think billionaires just go around wasting billions of dollars for no good reason? If the WTC was about to be condemned, why would he get involved in it in any way? Why not just stay out of it, and keep his billions?

For someone so quick to throw around the word "MORON", you're not coming off so well. At least I can spell, and fix typos. And use the quote function.

 

[Horatius]

Do you realize that going down the "the towers were falling apart" road makes it much harder for you to argue that they should've stood up against a plane crash?

I think it's safe to say he doesn't.

 

[JimBenArm]

It does not fall on me to PROVE that those were not the planes.... It falls on the government to PROVE that those were the planes they claim.

So, what about the widows, widowers and children of the passengers that held funerals for their loved ones that never came home? How about them? What happened to them?

If they weren't on the planes, you (yes, YOU) have to come up with another explaination and evidence that backs it. You are the one making outlandish accusations, and providing no proof. No one else is obligated to prove this for you.

Of course, you won't do this, because you cannot.

Toodles, 28K. You still haven't changed!

 

[HyJinX]

It is the DUTY of the NTSB to investigate EVERY plane crash. Identifying the aircraft 100% by the MANY traceable parts or the FDR's.

Actually this is an incorrect statement. The crashes of 9/11 were considered a criminal act and not a random plane crash. Because all the debris of each plane was possible evidence in the criminal investigation of 9/11 the FBI has jurisdiction and can either accept the aid of the NTSB or dismiss them. Because it is obvious as to how the planes were destroyed, the FBI did not need to aid of the NTSB during it's investigation. The NTSB finds out why planes fall from the sky...not why they're hijacked and by whom.

 

[Pardalis]

First! Larry, gains to get 3 Billion from ONE building! If he wins the second claim that it was 2 seperate attacks, then he gets almost 7 Billion dollars. Quite a return on your money from Several Hundered MILLION dollars.

Second, the lease agreement releases Larry from any and all, in other words the lease becomes VOID, in the event of a terrorist attack. One stipulation is that if he decides to rebuild the towers then this section of the lease is voided.

So, Larry must see a large amount of money to be made in the long run to lose his min 3 Billion max 7 Billion dollars for continuing with the lease agreement.

I guess in your research you MISSED this LITTLE FACT??

Are you on a first name basis with him?

 

[Bell]

It does not fall on me to PROVE that those were not the planes.... It falls on the government to PROVE that those were the planes they claim.

You make the claim - or support the claim - that the planes were not AA11 and UA175. Why were they not those flights? What is this based upon?

I don't know either way, but being a Engineer I don't CLOSE MY MIND to alternatives, like many of you here, until the evidence has been provided.

Wearing a railroad hat, blowing a wooden wistle and going "Look at me, I'm a train on a track, I'm a train, I'm a train, I'm a chucka train, woo woo!" does not make one an engineer.

 

[RemoveBush]

"Would survive the impact I imagine. But wouldn't you agree that uncontrolled fires would eventually weaken the structure to the point of collapse?"

Well, considering that the firefighters state on the released tapes that there were only small pockets of fire and could be contained, I would say that the fire was not that large. Not large enough to cause that damage. If it would take 2 lines to put out those fires, then I guess the towers should have fallen long ago from the fires one of the WTC experienced years earlier when it took out multiple floors that took many more than 2 hoses to put it out.

"If there had been explosives used, where were they planted exactly, on what floors?"

Let me ask you this? What came first? The chicken or the egg?

This is the same type of question you are asking. You want to have ALL the answers before ANY REAL investigation has been done. That is like the police trying the husband for his wifes murder before even doing any investigation, only to find out later that he was at work and could be proven by witnesses.

First step is to perform an investigation, not jump to conclusion like FEMA and NIST did. You know like the many different reasons for the collapse? It changed what 3 times?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RemoveBush,

Am I correct in assuming that since you have opted not to respond to my critiques of your claims of "vaporization" of the towers, and the freefall times, that you concede that you were wrong on those points? A non-answer from you will be taken as a "yes" and we can then move on to other discussion points.

 

[JonnyFive]

I have heard all these, subjective, ASSUMPTIONS.

Let me just make this point, which I know your gonna argue "I'm wrong"....

First! Larry, gains to get 3 Billion from ONE building! If he wins the second claim that it was 2 seperate attacks, then he gets almost 7 Billion dollars. Quite a return on your money from Several Hundered MILLION dollars.

But the insurers successfully fought in court to have the attacks ruled as a single event for insurance purposes. Did you actually read the thread, or just skim through it? I talked about all of that.

Also, part of the problem with this assumption is that he is required to pay off the remaining mortgage on the towers. That amount was a little under 3 billion, as the several hundred million you refer to was the down payment Silverstein Properties put on the complex.

I will not simply argue that you are wrong, I am quite aware of that fact. You clearly have no experience whatsoever in finance or insurance. You are simply repeating the same old junk that all the CT web sites post without adding one grain of original experience or insight to it.

Second, the lease agreement releases Larry from any and all, in other words the lease becomes VOID, in the event of a terrorist attack. One stipulation is that if he decides to rebuild the towers then this section of the lease is voided.

Incorrect. Silverstein is responsible for paying off the mortgage on the towers, which is why he bought insurance. He is then in the clear, as the lease is paid off. However, Silverstein chose to rebuild so he could make money again.

If you were correct about the lease clause, then why would Silverstein have any insurance? Wouldn't he just have the towers destroyed in a fake terrorist attack to avoid paying any more on the lease on this horrible building?

Insurance premiums on that kind of coverage involve serious money, so I would think that he would welcome to savings. Assuming you're right about his involvement, which you haven't provided any evidence of. Oh well.

So, Larry must see a large amount of money to be made in the long run to lose his min 3 Billion max 7 Billion dollars for continuing with the lease agreement.

I guess in your research you MISSED this LITTLE FACT??

You didn't even bother to follow the court rulings on whether it was one or two events, so I don't think you're arguing from a position of knowledge on this.

As previously mentioned, he never had an "out" on the lease. That's the reason why people get insurance. If the lease actually had this kind of clause, then the insurance policy would specifically exclude terrorist acts from coverage.

I work for an insurance company, and we don't like losing money. We also are not morons, and would consider that possibility when writing coverage. Perhaps you think the insurance is simply issued automatically without an underwriting process?

 

[Bell]

I did, and I demonstrated why that ASSUMPTION was bogus. They are one in the same!

If NIST is unable to get similar results in a lab, how do you expect anyone to believe the fairytail that material in the building could cause these results? A lab is much more controlable and verifiable so it's results are more believable. Yet they could not get similar results......

You not to conserned about science it seems?

A lab setup and a 110 story building kind of have different forces working on the structure. Did the NIST truss sag, yes or no?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Dear RemoveBush:

Regarding your screen name, the gentleman will be out of office in a little over two years. What, oh what will occupy you after that?

RK

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, considering that the firefighters state on the released tapes that there were only small pockets of fire and could be contained, I would say that the fire was not that large. Not large enough to cause that damage. If it would take 2 lines to put out those fires, then I guess the towers should have fallen long ago from the fires one of the WTC experienced years earlier when it took out multiple floors that took many more than 2 hoses to put it out.

Are you a professional firefighter?