• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

wierd/ dumb WTC theory

Given that there was a prior terroristattacks against the WTC, given that there had been several city officials advising against locating the OEM there and given what we know about Rudy's behavior towards women, why is this even a question?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
what made wtc7 a more convenient love nest than any other location?
Click to expand...

It's so close to city hall he could [eat] at the WTC 7 and get back within an hour. ;)

The nation will soon learn why he had the likability of salmonella poisoning on 9/10/2001.

I would like a rational, logical reason why Rudy would put the emergency responce offices at the 1993 GZ. I know it wasn't because he wanted to look like a hero on 9/11/2001 and a moron on 12/1/2007. But campaign contributions and his love obsession is as logical as any I've heard. Given Rudy's government bungaloo mansion. Not that I care what he does on his personal time but at least Clinton had Lewinski come to him. :P
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
The most bizarre WTC “conspiracy” theory so far has to be the suggestion that Rudy Giuliani located the cities emergency operations center in WTC 7 simply because he wanted a convenient love nest for his secret trysts.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/29/04654/054
Click to expand...

It is typical CT reasoning to infer causation from co-incidence.

The most likely senario is that the OEM was located where it was because R.G. was paying friends off with contracts and that later it was a convienient place to dine. More convenient would have been a nearby apartment but that would require paying for one and leave a paper trail that a divorce lawyer could pick up in a flash.

On a political note, given all the dirt on Guliani and his obvious non-observance of 'traditional family values' or conservative moral standards , I find it really odd that he is given as the GOP front runner. Is the rest of the pack so bad that he looks like a good alternative? The Dems will have a feild day with him on the ticket.

soft on abortion
soft on immigration
not even attempting to adhere to Judeo-Christian beliefs
cheating spouse on multiple occassions (the GOP wagged their finger at Clinton)
bad judgement re:Kerrick, I mean really, really bad
bad judgement re: locating the OEM
failed to implement measures to improve NYFD communications after the WTC bombing
 
jaydeehess said:
Great view and a couch. What more does one need?
Click to expand...
well if the argument is that the OEM shouldnt have been there because it was in danger of being a terrorist target (or next door to one anyway) i dont see why the only alternative is he thought this would be a good place to be with his pants (literally) down in case of that same terrorist attack

ETA: also, i think labeling WTC7 as a bad place for the OEM is based on hindsight, im sure they expected the WTC to attacked again but did they expect it to be destroyed? would it be possible that rudy figured an office near both city hall and a potential emergency would allow for better management of the situation? (not saying he didnt see the location as the best of both worlds, i just see many emergency-related advantages to the location)
 
Last edited:
Ask yourself where you would want to be in the sort of disaster NYC could have expected?

In a building on a substation and full of emergency power generation equipment doesn't sound like a bad place. You would not want to be below grade because the disaster might be a flood down the Hudson or a tsunami. You'd want it to be a mechanically strong building because the disaster might be an earthquake or a hurricane. You'd prefer being able to look out a window and at least see some of the city. You'd want to be convenient to transportation. You'd want to be where there was a plaza of sufficient size to land a helicopter.
 
Another example of how the folks who the CTs claim all conspire together actually hate each other's guts. Giuliani was unhappy when he discovered that the location that worked for his OEM was owned by Silverstein. Silverstein had supported Koch in 1989 (although Koch was kayoed in the Democratic primaries by David Dinkins), and backed Dinkins in his unsuccessful reelection effort in 1993 against Giuliani, reportedly because Silverstein's daughter was upset that Giuliani sided with the groups running the St. Patrick's Day parade who were not allowing a gay group to march in the parade.
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
giuliani is a politician, since when do they listen to what experts have to say?
Click to expand...

DUH! You're right.

And since when do politicians care who a donor gave money to in a previous election? They usually give money to both parties in one election. I would like to see the article which says rudy hated Silverstien. I'm sure that lasted till the check cleared. Then it was "What can I do for you Mr Silverstien?" That would be the first time a politician took something like that personal. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I need to see it to believe it. Especially since he didn't give the money back.

While I'm sure Clinton would have done the same thing I bet Bush would have made Silverstien homeland security chief. But that's a cheap shot. :P
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom