Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Tower

It was also built incredibly cheap. Too small of rudders for the size and no separation for the hull. OOOOPS

Things aren't always built as well as they should be?
Specifications are sometimes exaggerated?
Bizarre situations of fantastic circumstances were overlooked in design?
Someone... somewhere at sometime has made a mistake?!

Alert the media! Conspiracy!!1

[mikey_the_redneck]

Here is a video of WTC7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6UgPODo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Why do you think they collapsed the buildings perfectly in their own footprint?

I'm sure it would be easier and far less suspicious to knock them over or at least bring them down some other way.

Well then you're talking about destroying all of Manhattan.
They wanted to get Wall Street going again as soon as possible. You see, towers 1 and 2 were costing Silverstein alot of money and they were ordered to do 1 billion plus worth of asbestos removal.

Quote;
Jesse Ventura postulated that the WTC buildings were brought down because WTC 1 and 2 were “white elephants,” that is to say the cost of the buildings exceeded their usefulness. “They were losing money, they had asbestos in them, and they were required by law to do over a billion dollars worth of asbestos removal.”
“It was an insurance job?” asked Stern.
Ventura continued. Larry Silverstein had insured the buildings against terrorist attacks for $7 billion dollars, “of which he settled for four.” Again, Stern and crew were incredulous, although Stern said he would have to read Ventura’s book, Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me. Jesse urged him to do so.

Anyways the 9/11 disaster workers were told that the air was safe to breathe..........well it wasn't and many of them are bleeding from the lungs. They had to get wall-street running ASAP.
I think WTC7 had to come down so Silverstein could get the full value of his insurance money.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Things aren't always built as well as they should be?
Specifications are sometimes exaggerated?
Bizarre situations of fantastic circumstances were overlooked in design?
Someone... somewhere at sometime has made a mistake?!

Alert the media! Conspiracy!!1

On this hearsay? P3, have you heard of the structural integrety of this building? If it would fall... because of flames, it would not be the building that was built to withstand massive earthquakes.

And for the record. My wife was heading there THAT DAY for another view from the top. She took the wrong train and arrived to see the towers get struck, fall and get stuck in a foreign country with panic on the eye's of everyone. I was lucky (even though know we are divorced) but for the poor people who are not. They deserve a true account. Reports have been sent with out a true investigation. Nobody is investigating because Major business cartels now have their war. The Major business cartels are running the show. Not compassionate people voted in office to serve the people. This office is just a place to make more money and gain more control.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Larry Silverstein.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sep...c7_charges.htm

Quote;
Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties strangely remained upright

And on top of Silversteins situation, Bush then uses the incident to make massive foreign policy changes and go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as putting the Patriot Act and Homeland Security into place.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Here is some detail of Larry Silversteins "pull it" comment.
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-hit-piec...y-tricks-scam/

Interesting.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well then you're talking about destroying all of Manhattan.
They wanted to get Wall Street going again as soon as possible. You see, towers 1 and 2 were costing Silverstein alot of money and they were ordered to do 1 billion plus worth of asbestos removal.

Quote;
Jesse Ventura postulated that the WTC buildings were brought down because WTC 1 and 2 were “white elephants,” that is to say the cost of the buildings exceeded their usefulness. “They were losing money, they had asbestos in them, and they were required by law to do over a billion dollars worth of asbestos removal.”
“It was an insurance job?” asked Stern.
Ventura continued. Larry Silverstein had insured the buildings against terrorist attacks for $7 billion dollars, “of which he settled for four.” Again, Stern and crew were incredulous, although Stern said he would have to read Ventura’s book, Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me. Jesse urged him to do so.

Anyways the 9/11 disaster workers were told that the air was safe to breathe..........well it wasn't and many of them are bleeding from the lungs. They had to get wall-street running ASAP.
I think WTC7 had to come down so Silverstein could get the full value of his insurance money.

Larry Silverstein did not insure the buildings for 7 billion dollars. He insured them for half of that. He tried to claim that the 2 planes constituted 2 different events thus he would get 7 billion the insurance companies knowing he was behind the attacks disagreed. The court went somewhere in the middle and gave him 4.6.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Larry Silverstein.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sep...c7_charges.htm

Quote;
Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties strangely remained upright

And on top of Silversteins situation, Bush then uses the incident to make massive foreign policy changes and go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as putting the Patriot Act and Homeland Security into place.

Except for 3 World Trade Center

But I should just assume you think that this building looks good too.

[nik-]

That building looks fine to me!

You would think it would be ground into dust and then blasted into space!

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Except for 3 World Trade Center

But I should just assume you think that this building looks good too.

Plenty of structural integrity left in her.
I'd lease some office space in it.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Larry Silverstein did not insure the buildings for 7 billion dollars. He insured them for half of that. He tried to claim that the 2 planes constituted 2 different events thus he would get 7 billion the insurance companies knowing he was behind the attacks disagreed. The court went somewhere in the middle and gave him 4.6.

.......which I did provide a quote that said he collected 4 billion.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by nik-

That building looks fine to me!

You would think it would be ground into dust and then blasted into space!

You have really contributed so much to this discussion.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Tower

On this hearsay? P3, have you heard of the structural integrety of this building? If it would fall... because of flames, it would not be the building that was built to withstand massive earthquakes.

Right. A much larger building collapsed next to it, knocking a huge hole in the side of it and damaging its supporting columns and of course its ability to be indestructible is unchanged.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Right. A much larger building collapsed next to it, knocking a huge hole in the side of it and damaging its supporting columns and of course its ability to be indestructible is unchanged.

Unchanged enough not to collapse in on itself by fire you are correct as supports are throughout a building and not just one location. It isn't unchanged.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You have really contributed so much to this discussion.

The level of discussion warrants the appropriate response level. You said the same thing about a building that was totally ravaged, sorry, that means you get mocked.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Tower

Unchanged enough not to collapse in on itself by fire you are correct as supports are throughout a building and not just one location. It isn't unchanged.

Please, before you say anything else go find a civil engineer and ask him what he thinks might happen to a building after you knock out the supports on one side of a building - any building - doesn't have to be WTC7. Just in general engineering terms - is that a good thing or a bad thing?

By the way: it was designed to be earthquake-resistant not building-two-and-a-half-times-its-size-collapsing-onto-it-proof.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well then you're talking about destroying all of Manhattan.

No you aren't. That's just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think WTC7 had to come down so Silverstein could get the full value of his insurance money.

So you believe this was insurance fraud?

People who believe in this stuff always make hay about how no other buildings were destroyed. Your "conspirators" were in the process of murdering thousands of people and risking the lives of hundreds of thousands more, but they took great care and risked getting caught to minimize damage to the next door neighbour's place? Does that make sense to you?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Please, before you say anything else go find a civil engineer and ask him what he thinks might happen to a building after you knock out the supports on one side of a building - any building - doesn't have to be WTC7. Just in general engineering terms - is that a good thing or a bad thing?

By the way: it was designed to be earthquake-resistant not building-two-and-a-half-times-its-size-collapsing-onto-it-proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHV...5A9C1A&index=3

Stumbling upon themselves... Not unlike free fall.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Well pretty amusing thread. If those infowars articles present what you consider conclusive proof then I guess you'll believe almost anything. There is not enough skepticism and critical thinking being shown towards "Zeitgeist" and these inforwars articles. You wanna believe a conspiracy theory, someone makes a few questionable links and you're all over it, defending it on a messageboard even as if it were your own painstaking research.

Plenty of people are skeptical about issues with government, big corporations, how their interest might not coincide with the best interest of the people. But don't sell yourself out so cheaply to conspiracy theorists whose own work proves shoddy and just as easily repudiated as that which they seek to undermine. Give some equal voice to the "debunkers" of your precious theories and I think you can see that they cast as much doubt on the conspiracy theory as the theory does on the "official" version of the events.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Larry Silverstein did not insure the buildings for 7 billion dollars. He insured them for half of that. He tried to claim that the 2 planes constituted 2 different events thus he would get 7 billion the insurance companies knowing he was behind the attacks disagreed. The court went somewhere in the middle and gave him 4.6.

So Silverstein insured the buildings for 3.5billion(which if half of 7) and then got paid out 4.6billion??