Building demolished from the top down.

[aggle-rithm]

Hold on to it to use as a very extensive set of evidence in a very lengthly court case to stall the payment?

Who got the money from selling all that steel?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if millions of people became billionaires as a result of 9/11; that in itself is no basis for blaming anyone but Al Qaeda for the attacks.

At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you were just playing "devil's advocate". Now, you're in full-blown truther mode.

The thread topic is building demolition. You are trying to change the topic to something you are prepared to defend. Just like Dylan Avery and all the other truther dimwits do.

Sorry, but even if it were relevant your arguments fail.

 

[aggle-rithm]

IIRC, I was NYC Sanitation department, as they are the ones who actually cleaned it up.

My God...the conspiracy is deeper than we imagined!

It's the dreaded Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Popular Science/NYC Sanitation cabal!

 

[Sabretooth]

Is it me, or is Java just deliberately trying to derail the thread?

Even if Silverstein did "make out like a bandit"...it would require that he had knowledge of the attacks prior to the events.

Unless there is evidence of the above, the insurance payout and any profit/loss discussion is completely moot.

I think Java is just upset because the video in the OP just destroyed another piece of the toofer movement delusion.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Is it me, or is Java just deliberately trying to derail the thread?

Even if Silverstein did "make out like a bandit"...it would require that he had knowledge of the attacks prior to the events.

Unless there is evidence of the above, the insurance payout and any profit/loss discussion is completely moot.

I think Java is just upset because the video in the OP just destroyed another piece of the toofer movement delusion.

That's exactly it. He has no answer to the video, so he tries to steer the discussion in what he sees as a more favorable direction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is it me, or is Java just deliberately trying to derail the thread?

Even if Silverstein did "make out like a bandit"...it would require that he had knowledge of the attacks prior to the events.

Unless there is evidence of the above, the insurance payout and any profit/loss discussion is completely moot.

It's moot to the question of whether al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, for sure, because Java Man's entire line of argument relates primarily to financial affairs after the fact of the attack. However, it's very germane to what I can best describe as the wilful irrelevance of truthers.

Java Man claims that he has irrefutable evidence, compiled entirely from public sources, that Silverstein Properties made a claim on its insurers for a sum greater than its consequent losses as a result of the attacks. This, if true, constitutes an open-and-shut case of insurance fraud, irrespective of who was responsible for the attacks. No new investigation with wide-ranging subpoena powers is required to produce results; all it takes is for a senior loss adjuster to read the newspapers, and, if Java Man is right, the insurance companies - who, let's not forget, have been fighting lawsuits tooth and nail to claw back part of the money Silverstein Properties has claimed - will be able to recover billions of dollars. For an insurance company, accustomed to serious investigation of fraudulent claims many orders of magnitude smaller, this would be a no-brainer decision, and - again, if Java Man is right - the ensuing court case and convictions could open up a route to the wider investigation of 9/11 that the truth movement like to pretend they want to bring about.

So what does Java Man do, when he finds himself in possession of the key to cracking 9/11 wide open? When all he has to do is make a few phone calls to bring down one of the villains of 9/11, reviled and abused Larry Silverstein? He comes here, argues about the whole thing where it can't make any possible difference, then makes excuses when I suggest he actually does something, even when that something involves a couple of free phone calls. The reward-to-risk ratio is astronomical; exposing a billion-dollar fraud will make rich and powerful insurance companies very grateful, and their way of expressing that gratitude has zeroes on the end. Not to mention the kudos he'll get amongst truthers, as the man who brought down Silverstein.

I can think of one explanation, and only one, for all this. Java Man is well aware that his entire line of argument is empty posturing, on this topic as much as all the others. He knows that, if he phones up these insurance companies, he will get a polite dismissal at best. And he knows this because he knows he's wrong. The only reason to pass up such a great reward-to-risk, the only reason not to make that call, is the same reason I don't make it myself: because the probability of Silverstein actually having defrauded the insurance companies in such a crude and obvious way as Java Man suggests, without those companies detecting the fraud before the ink was dry on the claim forms, is absolutely zero.

So it's vitally important to Java Man that he should not do anything but spout nonsense on this forum. If he tried to achieve anything, to become relevant, he'd be forced to admit that he's got nothing. By making excuses and running away, he can preserve the fiction, in his own mind at least, that he could change the world, but, like the rest of the truth movement, he just doesn't want to change it today.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Even if Silverstein did "make out like a bandit"...it would require that he had knowledge of the attacks prior to the events.

Obviously, it wouldn't be a conspiracy otherwise would it? You figured out that part on your own or did Bill O'Reilly whisper it in your ear?

 

[Java Man]

The thread topic is building demolition. You are trying to change the topic to something you are prepared to defend. Just like Dylan Avery and all the other truther dimwits do.

On the contrary, like I said the topic is something that benefits the truther movement as it shows that very little explosives are necessary to initiate the collapse. Actually hydraulic jacks replacing the chains seen in the video could do the job quite well too. Just weaken the key points of certain floors and put pressure to snap the rest. Or apply some type of corrosive agent or whatever.

The key point that was is initially perceived as a pro debunker argument actually counters your position if analyzed closely. What can not be proven by debunkers is that (and folks, please take note that I'm acknowledging the existence, usage and impact of aircraft) the two airplanes that hit did so in such a way to create the necessary preconditions for a vertical collapse. The preconditions being, but not limited to, exterior and interior damage due to the impact and structural weakening due to fires. All three are quite random and unpredictable and actually different from one building to another. We can not claim that both impacts are the same or that the fires were the same as there is no guarantee that the fuel sources were laid out the same way in both buildings. Yet both buildings collapse in the same way.

 

[Java Man]

Java Man check out this webcam currently showing the WTC rebuilding. Note that on the bottom is where Silverstein is building his new buildings and that two of them are still just holes in the ground. That means that ten years and $1 billion in lease payments later he still has holes in the ground because the Port Authority took forever building the $1 billion basement excavation. So that's $2 billion lost right there just to get some holes in the ground dug. With what money was left Silverstein has elected to build one building and is trying to get loans to build the other two.

Why did the Port Authority take forever to build the $1B basement excavation with Silverstein's money? Unless it did it with its own money in which case it could set its own timeline. Thus it seems by your words that Silverstein isn't putting his money into the hole, but rather the Port Authority's. Contrary of course to the contract. But we all know how these fellas love to jump loops and get away with it.

 

[carlitos]

also off topic

Why did the Port Authority take forever to build the $1B basement excavation with Silverstein's money? Unless it did it with its own money in which case it could set its own timeline. Thus it seems by your words that Silverstein isn't putting his money into the hole, but rather the Port Authority's. Contrary of course to the contract. But we all know how these fellas love to jump loops and get away with it.

Why aren't you posting in your very own personalized thread on 9/11? This stuff would be on topic there.

 

[Dave Rogers]

On the contrary, like I said the topic is something that benefits the truther movement as it shows that very little explosives are necessary to initiate the collapse.

Nope. The truther position has always been that explosives or thermite must have been involved. The problem has been reconciling this with the lack of explosions in the former case, and of feasibility in the latter. If the arguments in favour of explosives are shown to be specious, then the explosives segmant of the truther position vanishes.

The key point that was is initially perceived as a pro debunker argument actually counters your position if analyzed closely.

Wrong. The key point is that arguments against truther positions will always be carefully misrepresented by truthers so as to appear to support those positions. Unfortunately, we've seen through this one. If your argument is that the collapses couldn't have happened without explosives, and you then claim that this argument is supported by evidence that the collapses could have happened without explosives... well, as the saying goes, we're not laughing with you.

What can not be proven by debunkers is that (and folks, please take note that I'm acknowledging the existence, usage and impact of aircraft) the two airplanes that hit did so in such a way to create the necessary preconditions for a vertical collapse.

Given that this video shows that it is clearly possible, given highly asymmetric boundary conditions for collapse initiation, to cause a collapse with a very small lateral component of the direction of collapse propagation, we can however state with reasonable confidence that there is no inconsistency between collapse initiation caused by the highly asymmetric damage profile caused by impacts and fires, and the collapses, which had a very small lateral component of the direction of collapse propagation. In the absence of any other plausible cause of collapse, the presumption is that the impacts and fires were the cause.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thus it seems by your words that Silverstein isn't putting his money into the hole, but rather the Port Authority's. Contrary of course to the contract. But we all know how these fellas love to jump loops and get away with it.

Since it's all so obvious, I presume you've phoned some insurance companies and claimed a reward by now.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

If your argument is that the collapses couldn't have happened without explosives, and you then claim that this argument is supported by evidence that the collapses could have happened without explosives... well, as the saying goes, we're not laughing with you.

Wrong, my argument is that in the video the collapse is clearly initiated by the tractors pulling the cables/chains. Since its too high up in the WTC to use said chains, not to mention the attention that would have brought, it is reasonable to suppose another way to trigger the collapse. One such way is explosives. Of course it isn't the only one. Just about anything that breaks the links between the floor elements and the outer and inner walls will do. Once you get one or two floors falling down the pancake collapse model takes on from there. The more you prove that great devastating power from explosives is NOT needed the more you prove a controlled demolition can be done without leaving the remains of explosives in the rubble. All you manage to prove is that truthers are wrong in requiring explosives to do the job, but in no way does it exclude the possibility of a conspiracy around the WTC incident.

Given that this video shows that it is clearly possible, given highly asymmetric boundary conditions for collapse initiation, to cause a collapse with a very small lateral component of the direction of collapse propagation, we can however state with reasonable confidence that there is no inconsistency between collapse initiation caused by the highly asymmetric damage profile caused by impacts and fires, and the collapses, which had a very small lateral component of the direction of collapse propagation. In the absence of any other plausible cause of collapse, the presumption is that the impacts and fires were the cause.

Dave

Oh it's not the collapse initiation that's got us all intrigued its the vertical fall and failure to topple over that's intriguing us. Not to mention the upward collapse of the structure to the upper floors.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong, my argument is that in the video the collapse is clearly initiated by the tractors pulling the cables/chains.

Different point. The truther argument has always been that the WTC1 and 2 collapses could not have occurred without explosives.

The more you prove that great devastating power from explosives is NOT needed the more you prove a controlled demolition can be done without leaving the remains of explosives in the rubble. All you manage to prove is that truthers are wrong in requiring explosives to do the job, but in no way does it exclude the possibility of a conspiracy around the WTC incident.

Since the status quo is a consensus that there was no such conspiracy, the absence of one specific point of evidence against it is of no more concern than the absence of evidence against the existence of Russell's Teapot. If truthers are wrong in requiring explosives to do the job, then yet another truther argument proves to be specious.

Oh it's not the collapse initiation that's got us all intrigued its the vertical fall and failure to topple over that's intriguing us. Not to mention the upward collapse of the structure to the upper floors.

Which are the aspects of the collapse that the video suggests could very easily result from an arbitrary, asymmetric distribution of damage initiating the collapse.

Phoned any insurance companies yet?

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Different point. The truther argument has always been that the WTC1 and 2 collapses could not have occurred without explosives.

Excuse me. Are you going to reply to the content of my posts or totally disregard said content and play your standard debunker response based on your idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Excuse me. Are you going to reply to the content of my posts or totally disregard said content and play your standard debunker response based on your idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying?

Well, I thought it would be rude not to join in.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Well, I thought it would be rude not to join in.

Dave

It's not the not joining in part that's rude, it's the joining in and then totally disregarding my comment as if I'd written something entirely different and on top of that make references to historical positions held by truthers. Which is no way the position I'm showing in this conversation.

 

[aggle-rithm]

All three are quite random and unpredictable and actually different from one building to another. We can not claim that both impacts are the same or that the fires were the same as there is no guarantee that the fuel sources were laid out the same way in both buildings. Yet both buildings collapse in the same way.

Collapse wasn't a necessary component of the attacks. It was a tragic consequence for us, a big win for the terrorists, but the attacks wouldn't have been much less devastating if they didn't happen.

Also, they didn't collapse in the same way. Predictably, the building with damage lower in the structure, which had more mass above the damaged area, collapsed much more quickly than the one with the same damage higher up. Exactly as one would expect given the differences in the crashes.

It would be extremely difficult to set up any kind of explosive device so that the buildings would collapse EXACTLY AS SHOULD BE EXPECTED given the damage, not least because the area where the collapses started was ON FIRE, and there were no shock waves that would indicate an explosion.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why did the Port Authority take forever to build the $1B basement excavation with Silverstein's money? Unless it did it with its own money in which case it could set its own timeline. Thus it seems by your words that Silverstein isn't putting his money into the hole, but rather the Port Authority's. Contrary of course to the contract. But we all know how these fellas love to jump loops and get away with it.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

 

[A W Smith]

Wrong, my argument is that in the video the collapse is clearly initiated by the tractors pulling the cables/chains. Since its too high up in the WTC to use said chains, not to mention the attention that would have brought, it is reasonable to suppose another way to trigger the collapse. One such way is explosives. Of course it isn't the only one. Just about anything that breaks the links between the floor elements and the outer and inner walls will do. Once you get one or two floors falling down the pancake collapse model takes on from there. The more you prove that great devastating power from explosives is NOT needed the more you prove a controlled demolition can be done without leaving the remains of explosives in the rubble. All you manage to prove is that truthers are wrong in requiring explosives to do the job, but in no way does it exclude the possibility of a conspiracy around the WTC incident.

Except it does not fit the observables
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh it's not the collapse initiation that's got us all intrigued its the vertical fall and failure to topple over that's intriguing us. Not to mention the upward collapse of the structure to the upper floors.

If you find that intriguing, you should talk to a few structural engineers (I mean real working engineeers, not former engineers long ago fired for incompetence).

They will tell you that it is silly to build extra structural supports into a building to allow it to withstand the lateral forces that occur when it begins to topple. What on earth would the point of such supports be? What is the benefit of keeping part of the building intact until it hits the ground and is shattered?