Do any of you 911 conspiracy tarts even know how much time and planning it takes to bring down a building in a controlled fashion?

It's not something that is done in a few hours. Seriously you guys are morons if you think they set all the explosives up with out anyone noticing in only a few hours.

my promise to you gfyers is to ask the tough questions when i attend the bilderberg retreats. my first question is going to be

why the fuck was john kerry in on this?! are you fucking stupid? that guy blabs like a schoolgirl. erverybody knows that. tighten up people. who the fuck's in charge? what'd we need kerry for?


that is my vow to you.


/

This thread is full of win... and fucking nutters LOL controlled my ass /facepalm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S...urance_dispute
Insurance dispute[edit source | editbeta]
The insurance policies for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.
The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[20][21] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[22] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[23] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[24] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[25] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.
In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers, for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority, for the World Trade Center complex, requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]

A poll taken by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe al-Qaeda carried out the attacks.

46 percent of those surveyed said al-Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.

The summary of the poll noted that "Though people with greater education generally have greater exposure to news, those with greater education are only slightly more likely to attribute 9/11 to al Qaeda." Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, commented "It does not appear that these beliefs can simply be attributed to a lack of exposure to information. "Of those who said the United States was the perpetrator, Kull says many believe it was an attempt to justify an impending U.S. invasion of Iraq.

You do realize building 7 is NOT one of the towers.. Its the building across the street from the towers that was damaged. The way this is making it sound is that building 7 was one of the ones hit by the plane. It was NOT. It was the third building that was taken down and not much about it since it was evacuated and there was no one in it by the time it was pulled.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104wtc.jpg

if any of them even tried to have a basic layman's knowledge of controlled demolition, then they'd drop their stupid theories. Or they probably wouldn't because they're immune to logic and fact.

Demolishing a building in a controlled fashion takes weeks/months of preparation and execution in a building with unfettered access. It's not done by having ninjas sectretly dropping a few sticks of dynamite behind some desks.

You are correct. It was not hit by a plane.

It suffered a massive earthquake at it's base, and then was hit by millions of tons of falling debris when the towers fell.

No reason for it to fall over at all.

I do think it was a controlled emergency take down. I do not know how it was done exactly but I do not think it would have been tough to take down an already burnt out and extremely damaged building by all reports. I am also guessing it was for the safety of all of those around it if it was going to possibly cause more damage or injury trying to save it.

People conveniently forget that the US created the Taliban and have been caught arming al qaeda in Syria and North Africa.

3000 lives would mean little or nothing to such a government... They prove that war after war.

From a business standpoint it worked out well for Silverstein who was going to be tasked with cleaning up the asbestos in the towers. A massively expensive project.

fiddy explosions

BOOM! 51 :winkwink:

And it was on fire for an extended period of time.....

Every poster here is a fake nick / troll and we're all conspiring against you. We wait around all day for you to arrive and then the party starts :1orglaugh

Great, now he is onto us. :(

If you nutbar conspiracy theorists (I'm looking at you wehateporn, bft3k, richard) actually believe this bullshit then I'm not sure how you can justify not taking direct action against the perpetrators. Why are you not exercising your second amendment rights and setting things right?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

we don't 'believe'. we see applicable people stating things, and a wild mob screaming 'idiot! lunatic! nutbar!' whenever we try and share that info.

the equivalent here is you screaming 'witch', whenever you see something you don't understand.

history has a place for you.

if you don't like the internet, log off.

Expected one-liner that says nothing but tries to make the poster looking smart : failed !!!

I am sorry for you that senelity is taking such a grip on you :Oh crap

You either need subtitles or one of these http://www.hearingcenterusa.com/stor...om-pr-249.html :1orglaugh (no affiliate link so you know the advice is honest)

that is fucking awesome:thumbsup

The collective denial of what happened on 9/11 is interesting. It shows how far some people will go to pretend the USA is still a democracy. For the average ex-military military 50 year old man to believe that that his government sacrificed 3,000 of it's citizens is just not something he will ever let himself do. That wold mean he has been living a lie all of his life and that his military "service to his country" was all a huge lie. People like that have too much invested and they will never admit the truth.

That's how I saw that shit going down. Pretty sure the FBI killed Sonny Bono too.

Excellent analysis VikingMan, it's easier just to continue believing the lie. I remember it hurt me the first time I looked into 9/11 around a 8 years ago, but coming from a Math background I go with logic over emotion.

Now that I accept 9/11 was a big lie, it's hard to trust anything from the mainstream, by default it's lies or manipulation unless it can be proven otherwise. I probably never would have started researching vaccines if it wasn't for realizing that 9/11 was a lie, vaccines eventually turned out to be a lot more disturbing and an even bigger lie than 9/11. :2 cents:

The truth is often somewhere in the middle.
 

I can easily believe that something like this went down.

The Gov had some spy knowledge that something was going down at the twin towers. Most likely they were figuring to let it happen so they could use it as a way to grow the military industrial complex. I would assume they expected the scale of the attack to be way smaller. Maybe 30 to 50 casualties and some repair work to the buildings. They did not know of the scale and preparedness of the attack and they clearly did not expect it to be so big that it could bring down the towers.

Once it happened they said fuck lets roll with it. Back to Iraq to insure our interests in oil.

I don't think this is a grand leap to believe the above.

i wonder how many 50 year old ex-military men there are in the population, maybe .0001% ? .00001% ?

i doubt that group is representative of any significant *collective denial*.