financial motives for conspiracy

[maccy]

From a thread that's supposed to be about people who doubt the official explanation but have respectable credentials and aren't "tinhatters".

Of course they let it happen, but the reason I support the Controlled Demolition thoery is not just based on the reports of explosions, the molten metal found...but other evidence like the Port Authority loosing a 10 year battle with there insurers to get the rest of the Asbestos removed from the towers which would have cost billions. Both WTC were white elephants with loads of empy offices space and they cost a fortune to run in terms of electrity/sewage etc

Put Option, Warnings, Failure of NORAD I could go on...but it needs to be save for another time!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121024#post2121024

I know we've been over this before, but this seems to be a good opportunity to recap the financial aspects of the "who benefits" claims. So if anybody feels like chipping in here are the areas I suggest can be covered in this thread:

1. cost of asbestos removal - and who would have have paid it
2. empty office space - was silverstein losing money? How would he have gained from the destruction of the towers?
3. insurance - did Silverstein benefit?
4. gold - was there gold stolen under the cover of the attack?
5. put options - do they really tell us anything?
6. financial benefits of invading Afghanistan, was the proposed pipeline feasible and worth the expense and risk?
7. financial benefits of invading Iraq?

NB there's a thread about the NORAD stuff here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752

 

[Horatius]

There's a previous discussion of the insurance here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68462

 

[JamesB]

From a thread that's supposed to be about people who doubt the official explanation but have respectable credentials and aren't "tinhatters".





http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121024#post2121024

I know we've been over this before, but this seems to be a good opportunity to recap the financial aspects of the "who benefits" claims. So if anybody feels like chipping in here are the areas I suggest can be covered in this thread:

1. cost of asbestos removal - and who would have have paid it
2. empty office space - was silverstein losing money? How would he have gained from the destruction of the towers?
3. insurance - did Silverstein benefit?
4. gold - was there gold stolen under the cover of the attack?
5. put options - do they really tell us anything?
6. financial benefits of invading Afghanistan, was the proposed pipeline feasible and worth the expense and risk?
7. financial benefits of invading Iraq?

NB there's a thread about the NORAD stuff here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752

2. Silverstein leased the towers only 6 weeks before. The idea that he would spend years on this project to win a bid for the towers, without bothering to run the numbers to see if it would be profitable is absurd. What, was his copy of Excel broken?

3. Silverstein initially only wanted $1.5 billion, the PA wanted more, and they settled on $3.5. Nobody has ever shown he is profiting. It seems unlikely that he would based on the simple concept of indemnity. Insurance companies will generally not allow you to insure something for more than it is worth. Try insuring your 1992 Honda Civic for $40,000 sometime.

4. Yeah, someone stole $167 billion worth of gold in an hour and 20 minutes, and the people who owned the gold never bothered to complain. I think I saw that in a Die Hard movie sometime....

5. Even if you believe that every put option on UAL and AA placed the week before was part of the conspiracy, we are only talking about a few million dollars. And one of the purchasers bought the puts to hedge their long position in the stock. Hardly enough money for an international banking cabal to launch this plot over.

6. Nobody was proposing this natural gas pipeline (not oil) at the time. There is renewing talk of a project, but even 5 years later no firm plans have been started. I am still wondering how Lauro Chavez guarded it...

7. Yeah, spending $80 billion a year to invade a country so that BP and Dutch Royal Shell can pump $30 billion a year in oil is such a great bargain.

 

[JFM]

"BP and Dutch Royal Shell"

2 foriegn companies, I know we're close to the Brits, but...

Why would we enrich the investers on the London Stock Exchange?

 

[T.A.M.]

I believe Gravy Covered this fairly well in a recent post, but cant remember where.

TAM

 

[maccy]

Also, some of the responses from the thread where stundie first raised the idea of financial motives:

Are you seriously suggsting that forces in the US government carried out the biggest terror attack in history, just so they could demolish a building that was costing them money? And it wasn't even the US Federal government that was on the hook for that money!

That is just so incredibly lame I can't even come up with a comparison*.

...

*Lamer than a three legged dog who just finished the Iditarod? Nope, still lamer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121067#post2121067

Where are you getting this billions price tag from? In 1993 all public schools in NYC (about 1,000 buildings) were inspected for asbestos. Where the asbestos was found, it was abated. Even this large scale project, which kept schools closed for a month only cost $100 million.

There has been a long-standing debate on whether it's worth the risk and cost to remove asbestos from buildings rather than just leave it there.

But are you suggesting this asbestos issue is somehow related to a conspiracy?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121089#post2121089

Plus there was only asbestos in the fist 40 floors of the North Tower.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ibas/lka_...ade_center.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=25385

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121133#post2121133

But are you suggesting this asbestos issue is somehow related to a conspiracy?

It seems only fair, wouldn't want to leave them out. The conspiracy would have to include (so far): at least two branches of the military, the pentagon (civilian staff), the president and the cabinet, the police and firemen of New York, all normal (read not restricted to the internet or ham radio) news sources, thousands of scientists, rescue workers of a number of agencies, a variety of Wall Street staff, a significant number of the government bureaucracy, Norad civilian staff, all Amerian intelligence agencies, and, of course, the JREF Ninja Squad (officials). I have missed a number of people and agencies no doubt. Tack on the foreign scientists, workers, militaries, and media that would have to be involved.

He's up against a conspiracy in the tens of thousands at the very least, he needs all the help he can get. So I hereby add to the list....New York real estate agents and contractors.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121140#post2121140

I found this very amusing. The claim previously was that since the WTC towers were 'only' 70% occupied, they were 'White Elephants'. Since that time the 70% figure has been removed from arguements. Why?

Because in NYC, a Commercial Skyscraper with a 70% occupancy rate would be in dreamland. Take a look at the Chrysler Building, which has had occupancy rates as low as 17%.

The 'WTC was a White Elephant' comes from people who have no clue about Business Real Estate issues.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2121167#post2121167

 

[Horatius]

That is just so incredibly lame I can't even come up with a comparison*.

*Lamer than a three legged dog who just finished the Iditarod? Nope, still lamer.

I'm still trying to come up with something. Lamer than a musician explaining Death Beams? Nope....

 

[stateofgrace]

All I see from 911 is loss, loss, loss. Here is an interesting article from the Guardian.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waron...776451,00.html

It outlines the losses all round. Within the article is this on the economic losses.

Amount of money 500 relatives of 9/11 victims are suing the Bin Laden family company and Saudi princes for in an effort to bankrupt terrorism: $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion)

The financial cost
Value of US economy: $11 trillion

Estimated cost of attacks to US based solely on property losses and insurance costs: $21billion

Estimated total losses to the world insurance market from the World Trade Centre: £25bn-£50bn
Amount of office space lost, in square feet: 13.5m

Estimated number of jobs lost in lower Manhattan area following 9/11: 100,000

Number of jobs it has been estimated will be lost in the US as result of the attacks by the end of 2002: 1.8m

Number of jobs lost in US travel industry in last 5 months of 2001: 237,000
Amount it has been estimated that US commercial insurance premiums will rise by to cover the potential cost of future terrorism between 2002 and 2004: 50% Amount allocated by Congress for emergency assistance to airline industry in September 2001: $15bn

It doesn´t seem like a win ,win situtaion to me.

Here is another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,786326,00.html

The terrorist attack of September 11 could cost New York up to $95bn (£60bn), according to the city's own independent financial watchdog, making it more expensive than America's largest ever natural disaster.

The perps really had a head for figures on this one

 

[Oliver]

We are talking about the financial side but what about the
theorists claims that there were ideological goals involved
that leads to financial goals in the end.

CT´ists claim that the democratization of the middle east
makes it much more easier to cooperate with these states.
And they claim that this is one goal of the neocons.

Since i don´t know much about the neocons secret goals:
Is this a possibility?

 

[maccy]

There's a previous discussion of the insurance here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68462

some relevant posts from that thread:

Aye, the asbestos garbage is a common one. I've seen idiots claim it would have cost $15bn to remove it. They always neglect to state, or are ignorant of the fact that only WTC1 had asbestos, upto floor 38.

I did some back of envelope figures on it, extrapolating from the clean up cost touted for Tour Montparnasse in Paris (€4 per floor) and came up with a $481 million cost.

Debunking 9/11 has more on the asbestos and the occupancy, which was at 98% in February 2001: http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

One argument tends to run that the Port Authority "got lucky" with 9/11 because they didn't have to pay the costs of dismantling the towers. Of course this is never actually accompanied with any evidence that the towers needed to be dismantled, and the Port Authority financial statements (http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/InvestorRelations/AnnualReport/) show they didn't get lucky at all. Apart from the obvious initial material costs of 9/11, they point to other effects, like this:

The terrorist attacks shocked an already weakened U.S. economy into recession by sapping consumer confidence, causing demand for air travel to deteriorate. At the three major airports, passenger traffic, which was projected to achieve new highs, dropped by a total 11.5 percent for the year, the largest decline in our region’s history. Aircraft movements declined by 7.1 percent and cargo volume fell 23 percent from the prior year. Airport parking revenues were also down, by about 30 percent. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, more stringent security measures at the region’s airports posed challenges as airlines followed new federal mandates for passenger screening and baggage handling.

At the bistate region’s interstate tunnels and bridges, annual traffic volumes declined for the first time since 1994. Eastbound traffic for the year 2001 totaled 121.9 million vehicles — 3.5 percent below 2000 levels. Traffic at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels fell 10.6 percent, due primarily to the closure of the Holland Tunnel from September 11 through October 14, as well as by the single-occupancy vehicle restrictions at the two tunnels following the attacks. New York City’s ban on single occupancy automobiles remains in effect weekday mornings at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. Commercial vehicles using the George Washington Bridge are currently restricted to the upper level.

Before September 11, PATH ridership was projected to reach another new record of 75.1 million passenger trips. As a result of the closure of the World Trade Center terminal and Exchange Place station, PATH’s 2001 ridership declined to 69.8 million. Weekday ridership declined from a pre-September 11 average of 257,967 to 202,092.
http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAu...ual_Report.pdf

 

[Oliver]

We are talking about the financial side but what about the
theorists claims that there were ideological goals involved
that leads to financial goals in the end.

CT´ists claim that the democratization of the middle east
makes it much more easier to cooperate with these states.
And they claim that this is one goal of the neocons.

Since i don´t know much about the neocons secret goals:
Is this a possibility?

Weeeeeell?

 

[Gravy]

I covered the asbestos and occupancy issues here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2122044&postcount=60

 

[Gravy]

Weeeeeell?

Well, what? The idea simply makes no sense. Suppose just one "inside-job conspirator" was caught or confessed. Think of the consequences. Think of the absurdity and impossibility of such a plan. You have been reading this site, haven't you, Oliver?

 

[Horatius]

We are talking about the financial side but what about the
theorists claims that there were ideological goals involved
that leads to financial goals in the end.

CT´ists claim that the democratization of the middle east
makes it much more easier to cooperate with these states.
And they claim that this is one goal of the neocons.

Since i don´t know much about the neocons secret goals:
Is this a possibility?

Well, consider this:

The terrorist attack of September 11 could cost New York up to $95bn

And that's just the cost to New York. The toatl cost will be higher. Not sure by how much, but probably a lot higher.

If the secret goal all along was to bring democracy to the Middle East, you'd probably get more bang for your buck by just giving the $95bn dollars to Israel, and telling them, "Get the job done while we look the other way." Since neocons are often accused of being overly pro-Israel anyways, why wouldn't they just do it this way?

 

[maccy]

Being as I started this thread, perhaps I should do some of the work. So here's some information about the planned Afghan pipeline.

The first thing to note is that it is indeed a natural gas pipeline. Although it is possible to compress gas and ship it, it seems unlikely that anybody would do this to transport natural gas to the USA from Turkmenistan via a pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan, at least in the short term:

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), net imports of natural gas accounted for 15 percent of natural gas use in the United States in 2002. About 95 percent of U.S. natural gas imports are from Canada. According to the EIA, net imports from Canada equaled 3.49 Tcf, and this level is expected to decrease at an annual rate of 1.4 percent to a level of 2.56 Tcf per year in 2025.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports represent an increasingly important part of the natural gas supply picture in the United States. LNG takes up much less space than gaseous natural gas, allowing it to be shipped much more efficiently. For more information on LNG, click here.

LNG that is imported to the United States comes via ocean tanker. The U.S. gets a majority of its LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, Qatar, and Algeria, and also receives shipments from Nigeria, Oman, Australia, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the EIA, the U.S. imported 0.17 Tcf of natural gas in the form of LNG in 2002. LNG imports are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 15.8 percent, to levels of 4.80 Tcf of natural gas by 2025.

http://www.naturalgas.org/business/analysis.asp#dryng

So we're looking at a gradual shift away from importing gas from Canada to shipping it in from the rest of the world by 2025 - and imports currently account for 15% of supply. Not a huge incentive for the US to secure a pipeline for its own supply.

Nevertheless there were negotiations about a gas pipeline throughout the 90s - the idea being to supply the domestic gas market of Pakistan and perhaps India (although relationships between Pakistan and India could interfere with this). There were no plans to export the gas to the US or anywhere else. Thus the only benefit to the US would be indirect, if a US company made some money from the deal. Anyway, there's a timeline here:

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

From this timeline, it looks as if the companies vying for the contract, Unocal and Bridas, were quite keen on the Taliban taking control if it meant a stable country and good security for the pipeline:

October 1996
Unocal expresses suport for Taliban takover, saying it makes pipeline project easier. Unocal later says it was misquoted.

June 1997
Unocal says peace is necessary for construction of pipeline, otherwise the project could take years. Bridas officials meet Taliban and say that they are "interested in beginning work in any kind of security situation."

Both quotes from the timeline.

There's another, more conspiracy-orieted, timeline here: http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

Negotiations, continue until Osama Bin Laden throws a spanner in the works by bombing US Embassies in 1998. Clinton retaliates by firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan and this blows the whole pipeline deal:

During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html#transit

Interesting, then, if Al Qaeda are no threat, that Clinton wrecked this supposedly important gas pipeline deal by attacking Afghanistan.

Today, the prospects for the pipeline ever being constructed are not good:

The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.

Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan remains an obvious problem, while tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India and its large (and growing) gas market. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem for construction of the TAP line. Finally, the pipeline's $2.5-$3.5 billion estimated cost poses a significant obstacle to its construction.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html#transit

In the end, Afghanistan’s pipeline dreams may hinge on simple economics. But even if the political situations in the region could be worked out, many analysts say the pipeline’s rate of return would not be very high. "A large multinational company would get maybe a 15 to 20 percent return. This is not much compared to the geo-political risk involved," said Hurst Groves, Director of Columbia University’s Center for Energy Studies.
Oil analysts uniformly deem a trans-Afghanistan pipeline largely out of reach for now.

"Until either Pakistan requires imported gas, or Pakistan and India trust each other sufficiently to allow India to source gas imports via its neighbor," says Lee, Afghanistan will need to find another means of restoring its tattered economy.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/business/articles/eav060602.shtml

BBC News report of the deal to build the pipeline and the problems it will face: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm

So, the question remains: if this was a false flag operation, why pin the blame on Afghanistan?

Lastly, here is somebody debunking Michael Moore's version of events in Farenheit 9/11:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178920/posts

and, for what it's worth, the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

 

[kookbreaker]

I'd show how lame the claims were but sadly 'Almost Live's' "Lame List' has yet to make it to youtube as of this writing. Pity.

LAME LAME LAME!

 

[Oliver]

Well, what? The idea simply makes no sense. Suppose just one "inside-job conspirator" was caught or confessed.

Think of the consequences. Think of the absurdity and impossibility of such a plan.

Would it be much worse than all the consequences after
the incompetence concerning foreknowlede and the WMD-
faking? But kidding aside - one big claim of the conspiracy
theorists is, that the neocons used 9/11 to go into war in
iraq and we don´t know the reasons for sure - especially
because there were several "cheap" ways to get rid of
Saddam.

Well, faking evidence and get caught with the lie to go
to war is also an absurd chess move for a democratic
state but it happend nevertheless and they got away
with it - even if i thought this is impossible.

You have been reading this site, haven't you, Oliver?

Well, i did not read everything and i also missed your
WTC7 papers but the whole Neocon-issue isn´t very
present in here. So i have to believe the conspiracy
theories until you debunk me.

And after you´ve debunked me - i will set you on ignore
to destroy you.

 

[Oliver]

Well, consider this:

And that's just the cost to New York. The toatl cost will be higher. Not sure by how much, but probably a lot higher.

If the secret goal all along was to bring democracy to the Middle East, you'd probably get more bang for your buck by just giving the $95bn dollars to Israel, and telling them, "Get the job done while we look the other way." Since neocons are often accused of being overly pro-Israel anyways, why wouldn't they just do it this way?

I guess that the war is several times more expensive than
9/11 and they wanted to go to war before 9/11. I still have
some problems with this strange coincidence - beside ignored
forewarnings and knwoledge, especially about the hamburg cell.

Why attacking a sovereign State without connections to AQ
instead "removing" saddam?

Why no efforts to remove other "evil" dictators?

Why pushing a democratic system in a sovereign country?

Why instal confederate, pro-american politians at all?

Why no efforts to blaim the pakistani connections?

What are the neocon agendas?

 

[Larry Lovage]

Why attacking a sovereign State without connections to AQ
instead "removing" saddam?

Because they already knew they could kick Saddam's ass. Also, they did attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban when there was a direct connection to AQ. Afghanistan was the "revenge" war after 9/11. Iraq was Bush finishing the job that should have been finished by Bush Sr.

Why no efforts to remove other "evil" dictators?

None of the others have got Oil. And North Korea is too dangerous. And it costs too much money! The $95bn (or whatever the real figure is) may have been outstripped by the overall Iraq operation, but you can bet your life they didn't budget for anything like that amount when planning the initial Iraq war.

Why pushing a democratic system in a sovereign country?

That is the neocon agenda.

Why instal confederate, pro-american politians at all?

Wouldn't you?

Why no efforts to blaim the pakistani connections?

Are you getting to understand the fact that there is no connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war yet?

What are the neocon agendas?

Well, go to the Truth sites to find that out.

 

[gumboot]

6. financial benefits of invading Afghanistan, was the proposed pipeline feasible and worth the expense and risk?

Nice little article on Afghanistan:

Afghanistan itself has very small reserves of natural gas and virtually no oil. The country's only importance, at least in theory, is that it could serve as a transit point for energy from neighboring countries.

...

Yet oddly enough, this isn't the first time that conspiracy theorists have sought to portray Afghanistan as the energy linchpin of Western civilization. Back in 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when the Cold War was raging, the Carter administration and the press argued that the occupation had dramatically altered the world balance of power.

...

This was pure rubbish. Seven years earlier, when detente was near its zenith, The Wall Street Journal ran a rare story on Afghanistan headlined, "Do the Russians Covet Afghanistan? If So, It's Hard to Figure Why." Reporter Peter Kann, later the Journal's chairman and publisher, wrote that "great power strategists tend to think of Afghanistan as a kind of fulcrum upon which the world balance of power tips. But from close up, Afghanistan tends to look less like a fulcrum or a domino or a stepping-stone than like a vast expanse of desert waste with a few fly-ridden bazaars, a fair number of feuding tribes and a lot of miserably poor people."

...

The article basically explains that the gas pipeline deal (not oil!) was a lukewarm proposal at best. It was a result of some very specific factors to do with supply. Those factors no longer exist. For example, Russia has opened up its grid to the Caspian Sea states and is now allowing them to export their oil and gas through Russia (before they did not).

Other potential customers of the gas line (India, for example) have accquired other routes that do not involve the gas line running through Pakistan - their long-standing rival.

Lastly, oil or pipelines need stability. Afghanistan is not stable.

-Gumboot