Controlled Demolition for what reason??

reply to post by rush969


You left out

4. to save billions on the required retrofitting of the two towers that was to be required for each building at a cost that far exceeded the insurance payoff from their destruction.

So, lets see, it was going to gost BILLIONS to keep the buildings, would have cost BILLIONS to tear them down, but...they fall and it no longer costs but is a windfall.

Not pointing any fingers here, just reminding what the facts are.

Originally posted by A W Smith

. what if. Saddam Hussein. instead of balking, said. OK, Come on in. inspect my country for WMD's I have none. he single handedly would have diffused the potential for war.

I am so glad that you brought this up. So...to go on your premise, there is no need for conspiracy theorists to make this crap up because there would have simply been no war had Saddam let the inspectors in....what do you then have to say about the conspiracy theorists when you go back in your history book and see that the inspectors were allowed in. They were in Iraq, on the ground, INSPECTING. I myself sat here and watched them on CSPAN. Side by side with our own government saying that we would have to go in because the inspectors were not allowed in. Right there on the split screen were the inspectors wondering what the hell our government was saying.

So, Saddam had let them in, they were allowed to look, our government says they are not there, not allowed in, so we must attack. Somehow you are using this to disprove conspiracy theories? Thanks for reminding us that our own government lied to in more ways than we remember about this war. Thank you very much for bringing that back up.

I am interested in your new theory now that you cannot hang it on Saddam's unwillingness to let them in.

posted by A W Smith
what if. Saddam Hussein. instead of balking, said. OK, Come on in. inspect my country for WMD's I have none. he single handedly would have diffused the potential for war.

posted by angel of lightangelo
I am so glad that you brought this up. So...to go on your premise, there is no need for conspiracy theorists to make this crap up because there would have simply been no war had Saddam let the inspectors in....what do you then have to say about the conspiracy theorists when you go back in your history book and see that the inspectors were allowed in. They were in Iraq, on the ground, INSPECTING. I myself sat here and watched them on CSPAN. Side by side with our own government saying that we would have to go in because the inspectors were not allowed in. Right there on the split screen were the inspectors wondering what the hell our government was saying.

So, Saddam had let them in, they were allowed to look, our government says they are not there, not allowed in, so we must attack. Somehow you are using this to disprove conspiracy theories? Thanks for reminding us that our own government lied to in more ways than we remember about this war. Thank you very much for bringing that back up.

I am interested in your new theory now that you cannot hang it on Saddam's unwillingness to let them in.

posted by A W Smith
. . . . . You may recall that the US, the most powerful country on earth. Some conspiracy theorists say so powerful as to successfully create a huge false flag operation killing almost three thousand of its own citizens. somehow failed to plant a single WMD. Why is that?

*SNIP*

According to the gag-ordered agents Valerie Plame and Sibel Edmonds, there was an effort by the CIA to plant WMDs in Iraq with a US Military team accidentally killing all the CIA agents and capturing the enroute WMDs. But maybe that is just a rumor or not the entire story. Besides the Bush Regime never actually needed any real evidence to substantiate its lies before did they? Remember the Iraqi missile silos aimed at US cities which turned out to be Iraqi chicken coops?

Or Iraqi missiles can hit US cities in 15 minutes? Or the Iraqi WMDs under the Oval Office desks? Remember how many times Bush said publicly 'Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11' and 'acting against Iraq was consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001'? Really tough to keep your lies straight Mr pResident? I lost track; was it hundreds or thousands of times?

Doublethink. Simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. Controlled insanity. Brainwashing of the American people. Deliberately seeking cognitive dissonance. We do not need any more of that here Mr A W Smith.

*SNIP*

[edit on 12/4/08 by SPreston]

Mod edit: Removed off topic comments.

Please stay on topic!

[edit on 12/4/2008 by Hal9000]

Reply to "Angel":

1.- Ok. So another reason for a demolition is to "SAVE MONEY".
Save money to whom? Silverstein?
I would have to ask.
a) How many people could be SO INTERESTED in saving Mr. Silverstein a few million, AND DO IT LIKE THAT!!!
Doesn´t it seem like a bit of a strech to you?
b) How much would it cost to run such a covert op. to carry out the attacks and then the demolition?
c) Who would be willing to act like this, just for money, and kill so many? d) And if they hadn´t known what was going to realy happen, then how could so many remain quiet after seeing what they had been part of?

2.- This is one of the CLASSICS when discussing 9/11 conspiracies.
Saddam Hussein!! But you know what? Saddam is not related to the war that the U.S. started after 9/11. The U.S. Gov. announced to the world that the main suspect for the attacks was Osama Bin Laden, and that he was being offered refuge in Afghanistan. Then they demanded the Afghan Taliban Gov. to stop protecting O.B.L. and to have him deteined and extradited to the U.S. The Taliban didn´t care for U.S. demands so the U.S. gave them a deadline after which they announced troops would be sent into the country to search for and dettain or kill OBL.
This is how I remember the events inmediately after 9/11. Saddam although he was in the agenda because of problems with nuclear weapons inspectors from the U.N. was not a big problem at the time.
The problems with inspectors in Irak date to the end of 2002 when they were let in the country to "inspect" but they were not allowed into some areas they wanted to look at, and this issue was the one that was making the U.S. Gov. unconfortable. In the beginning of 2003 the U.S. made it´s case at the U.N. security counsil for going into Irak to search for WMD.

reply to post by rush969


You are missing the big picture. Silverstein would not or could not pull this off on his own no matter what. The point is, that in order to pull this off, the government needed to do some pretty serious damage that we all could see and be upset by. Now, lets find someone who owns some big buildings, has loose morals, and could be convinced that he would be losing money by the millions if he did not go along. "Hey, Larry, we have a plan brewing and if you help us out with part of it, we will save you soooooooooooo much money."

The problem with posts like yours is that you are replying to me as if I just explained the entire secenario by saying he stood to profit more by losing them than keeping them. Sorry, it does not work that way. This was a huge operation that required more than one person who stood to gain and more than one person who could pull it off. This thread is about the demo of those buildings specifically. I was adding to that area of discussion. If you want to dismiss the whole CT idea because you do not think Larry did it all by himself, fine with me. I do not think that either but then again, I also understand and look for context. Try it.

"to save billions on the required retrofitting of the two towers that was to be required for each building at a cost that far exceeded the insurance payoff from their destruction."


Is this about the asbestos problem? If so, it is one of the hundreds of factoids truthers try use out of context.

One building, lower 38 floors had asbestos. To alleviate this common situation, wall panels are removed, the exposed asbestos is sprayed with a chemical sealant to prevent flakes from getting into the air. That's it!
No removal, no retrofitting. A routine procedure that cetainly doesn't cost billions.

Get a quote online.


MF

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
The point is, that in order to pull this off, the government needed to do some pretty serious damage that we all could see and be upset by. Now, lets find someone who owns some big buildings, has loose morals, and could be convinced that he would be losing money by the millions if he did not go along. "Hey, Larry, we have a plan brewing and if you help us out with part of it, we will save you soooooooooooo much money."

I have a little to throw in. Those buildings were commissioned by David Rockefeller, a very wealthy banker and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, while his brother Nelson Rockefeller was governor of New York. The Rockefeller family fortune comes down from J.D. Rockefeller and his oil empire, but it was revealed years ago when he died that he only actually owned about 20% of the stock in his own company, and the Rothschild family owned the rest of it. The Rothschilds are the banking family that has their name stamped all over the gold at Fort Knox. It's a big name, and if you aren't familiar with it you should look it up.

Anyway, the Rockefeller brothers had those buildings built (they were originally going to be called "David" and "Nelson" instead of just Tower 1 and 2, but the idea was scrapped -- didn't want to be associated?) and then the Port Authority had control over them until only a very short time before 9/11, when Silverstein leased them. I believe Silverstein also owned Building 7 or had a lease on it from the start.

The Port Authority had been considering ways the towers could be destroyed since at least the 1980's.

Read this:

The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).

From here: www.historycommons.org...

I also made an ATS thread on it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It might be worth bumping just to remind people that this actually happened.

And btw, don't say this was just a study for improving security, because they didn't improve security, and the very basement levels they found most insecure were bombed only a few years later. By a vehicle parking in the Secret Service area. And witnesses said there was already a van/truck parked there, and as soon as it pulled out, one looking exactly like it pulled in. And that's the one that exploded.

Larry was just brought in from the outside after the fate of those buildings had already been decided, imo. It had been in planning for years and he was granted a lease at virtually the last minute.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by rush969

c) Who would be willing to act like this, just for money, and kill so many?

The same people that ship HIV tainted blood to other countries because they cannot sell it here. The same people that allow poisons in childrens toys because that is cheaper than inspecting them. The same people that put out millions of pills a year only to have to answer the lawsuits of dead patients years later because the over all profit margin is still higher than the loss from law-suits. The same people that would allow syphillis to kill black people while lying to them about getting treated for it just to see what happens. The same people that thought "Operation Northwoods" or any of the other false flag operations in our past that required the taking of innocent lives in order to "rally the troops at home!"

Honestly, I could fill this thread going on like this but you ar an ATS member, surely you are not so naive as to believe there are not people out there willing to let you die so they can earn or save a buck. Look around you, there is no shortage os people with moral loose enough to make this all make sense. Just look at the 3 automaker guys flying private jets to DC to beg for money, all while they lay off working class families and send them into the street. What for? Because they so desperately needed to fly in 3 seperate private jets or because people with money and power seem to really not give a crap if you live or die, let alone 3000 more of you.

Originally posted by mmiichael


"to save billions on the required retrofitting of the two towers that was to be required for each building at a cost that far exceeded the insurance payoff from their destruction."


Is this about the asbestos problem? If so, it is one of the hundreds of factoids truthers try use out of context.

So you assume what I am speaking of and then continue to debunk it? Did I say anything about asbestos? NO. Please refrain from correcting people on things they have not said. It makes one seem, well, ignorant as well as far to eager to defend Bush for no good reason. Just lurk until someone does use that argument, and then you can whip it back out at them.

Well "Angel" you only bothered to answer one part of one question that I made. I gues we can all agree that "anything is possible", but look at those questions I posted before. And stop to think for a moment. How come nobody ever in 7 years came forward to "acuse" "point the finger" at some of the perps, saying "I was fooled, deceived into taking part of this and I didn´t know the truth, and these people are murderers, and here´s proof, contracts, papers, whatever? How come?
And would like very much if you or anybody would answer the questions!
Thanks.



[edit on 6-12-2008 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
Well "Angel" you only bothered to answer one part of one question that I made.

I am not sure exactly what the other thing that I was supposed to answer was. I responded to the part that seemed like a question and seemed relevant. If there is something else that you would really like me to answer, please rephrase it or something.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Well, I´d really like to know your opinions on this matters:

I would have to ask.
a) How many people could be SO INTERESTED in saving Mr. Silverstein a few million, AND DO IT LIKE THAT!!!
Doesn´t it seem like a bit of a strech to you?
b) How much would it cost to run such a covert op. to carry out the attacks and then the demolition? And who would pay for it?
c) Who would be willing to act like this, just for money, and kill so many?
(This one you answered allready.)

d) And if they hadn´t known what was going to realy happen, then how could so many remain quiet after seeing what they had been part of?

AND ABOUT SADDAM:
2.- This is one of the CLASSICS when discussing 9/11 conspiracies.
Saddam Hussein!! But you know what? Saddam is not related to the war that the U.S. started after 9/11. The U.S. Gov. announced to the world that the main suspect for the attacks was Osama Bin Laden, and that he was being offered refuge in Afghanistan. Then they demanded the Afghan Taliban Gov. to stop protecting O.B.L. and to have him deteined and extradited to the U.S. The Taliban didn´t care for U.S. demands so the U.S. gave them a deadline after which they announced troops would be sent into the country to search for and dettain or kill OBL.
This is how I remember the events inmediately after 9/11. Saddam, although he was in the agenda because of problems with nuclear weapons inspectors from the U.N. was not a big problem at the time.
The problems with inspectors in Irak date back to the end of 2002 when they were let inside the country to "inspect" but they were not allowed into some areas they wanted to look at, and this issue was the one that was making the U.S. Gov. uncomfortable. In the beginning of 2003 the U.S. made it´s case at the U.N. security council for going into Irak to search for WMD.
I think all here would appreciate your comments on these issues, although they may appear a bit off topic. Thanks.

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

Well, I´d really like to know your opinions on this matters:

I would have to ask.
a) How many people could be SO INTERESTED in saving Mr. Silverstein a few million, AND DO IT LIKE THAT!!!
Doesn´t it seem like a bit of a strech to you?
b) How much would it cost to run such a covert op. to carry out the attacks and then the demolition? And who would pay for it?
c) Who would be willing to act like this, just for money, and kill so many?
(This one you answered allready.)

d) And if they hadn´t known what was going to realy happen, then how could so many remain quiet after seeing what they had been part of?

How did you not see my answer to all of those questions in my aswer to any one of those questions? How much do you think it costs to manufacture millions of HIV infected vaccines. What do you think the added cost is of the legal wrangling they went through before ultimately sending them overseas to be used at a profit? How much do you think project Northwoods would have cost compared to what they thought they would gain? You do realize that money was earned by many people that day due to what happend, instead of money lost or spent as it was going to have to be. Please explain to me what confuses you about my answer that does not cover one of your specific questions.

I am mostly confused because you claim I did not answer the rest but you reposted all four. Please be specific, one at a time here and we will see if I can clear up your confusion.

As to SH and OL, I am not particularly interested in discussing them on a thread about controlled demolitions of WTC. I do not really think they have much to do with this topic aside from being used as motive but we can get to that later.

AND ABOUT SADDAM:
2.- This is one of the CLASSICS when discussing 9/11 conspiracies.
Saddam Hussein!! But you know what? Saddam is not related to the war that the U.S. started after 9/11. The U.S. Gov. announced to the world that the main suspect for the attacks was Osama Bin Laden, and that he was being offered refuge in Afghanistan. Then they demanded the Afghan Taliban Gov. to stop protecting O.B.L. and to have him deteined and extradited to the U.S. The Taliban didn´t care for U.S. demands so the U.S. gave them a deadline after which they announced troops would be sent into the country to search for and dettain or kill OBL.
This is how I remember the events inmediately after 9/11. Saddam, although he was in the agenda because of problems with nuclear weapons inspectors from the U.N. was not a big problem at the time.
The problems with inspectors in Irak date back to the end of 2002 when they were let inside the country to "inspect" but they were not allowed into some areas they wanted to look at, and this issue was the one that was making the U.S. Gov. uncomfortable. In the beginning of 2003 the U.S. made it´s case at the U.N. security council for going into Irak to search for WMD.
I think all here would appreciate your comments on these issues, although they may appear a bit off topic. Thanks.

When I hear about the asbestos and the billions involved I feel like exploding.

Asbestos is not removed, panels are opened and it is sprayed with a sealant to prevent flakes from getting into the air. It is an inexpensive procedure done all the time.

Asbestos-based fire protection had been applied only to 38 floors of tower 1. About half of that had been removed as of 9/11. There was no requirement for the rest to be removed: its replacement was voluntary.

A quick phone call to any local company doning asbestos removal will confirm this.

This is one of so many Truther outright lies. There more of a buck and ego boost in discovering that there was a conspiracy than in the real truth. So the same BS is just repeated and added on to endlessly.

Journalists, researchers, reporters, at least make some attempt to check their facts. Conspiracists accept anything that's typed.


MF

reply to post by mmiichael


Who are you responding to as the asbestos idea has already been dismissed at most.

Sorrry, was wading through the thread and just dashed off a reply to one mid-way.

I notice disaster paranoia sites ore often cited, and more probing debunking ones ar readily dismissed.

There are people who have gone through the Truther versions and used more credible sources to demonstrate fallacies and outright disinformation.

This is one:

www.debunking911.com...


I'm probably not a good candidate for this forum, even though it's 100 times better than ones on the dozens of totally vile conspiracy sites out there.

I worked in publishing and still am connected to that world. Though newspapers and media do hide and distort much of what goes on, there are many thousands of honest and dedicated people who work hard, often risking their careers and even lives to get to the the truth and get it published.

Then there's a veritable army of nobodies, not talking directly to critical people, not looking at first hand documents, not applying critical faculties - who pick holes in the official versions of anyything, concocting wild stories with their own petty ego and financial agenda.

There are inaccuracies in the official 9/11 version of events, and they're worth seeking out. But to dismiss what tens of thousands of people watched happen, that professionals reviewed the evidence for, with a lot of pseudo-factoids that arouse interest is just complicit with the people behind the atrocious act of murdering thousands of Americans.
It just lets them off the hook by pointing to the Usual paranoia suspects of the US governemnt, CIA, Mossad, those ‘eternally conniving Jews who run the world secretly’,
etc.

Having the main centre of commerce in the US and the headqurters for defence attacked is about as serious as things get. It’s of course far more complex than a war with the Muslim world. If the US wanted an excuse to invade the Middle East, a few bombs in high profile but irrelevant places, with manufactured evidence would have done just fine. You don’t gut off a leg to get you needs known.

The dynamics of such an attack are worth examination, but it needs to be done in a serious and scientific manner, not by incorporating any and all incomplete and manufactured data.

Much more I’d like to say, but am not in the mood for the usual barrage of hostility wheneve I write something like this.


Mike F

Originally posted by mmiichael
Though newspapers and media do hide and distort much of what goes on, there are many thousands of honest and dedicated people who work hard, often risking their careers and even lives to get to the the truth and get it published.

This is the problem. For every 100 honest and legitimate journalists out there, there is one Sean Hannity that is reaching a much broader audience.

Well, to get back to the subject being discussed here what I would kike to say to svtman is:

Use you common sense and stop to think for a moment and try to find a logical explanation to things.
If you read the posts by A W Smith, miichael, and chp1955 among others, you will understand how and why those buildings collapsed through structural failure. Not controlled demolition.

Have a looK at this link all of YOU who believe in the demolition this is posted on another site (that thinks that way) look at the e-mail shown

www.serendipity.li...

After the first paragraph they have this sentance

That the towers were demolished in a controlled manner was noted immediately by some astute observers:

Read the e-mail sent by David Rostcheck-David Rostcheck one of the SUPPOSED astute observers

Please read his e-mail can you spot THE MISTAKE he makes!

First few lines

If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:

- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:

- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ..

REINFORCE CONCRETE NO! BOMB ?!

Now if people DONT even know HOW the building is made YET they all seem to be able to spot explosives going off!

DONT THINK SO

[edit on 7-12-2008 by wmd_2008]


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Hal9000]

reply to post by wmd_2008


I don't know who you're talking about, but a number of sources reported the WTC having a concrete core, both before 9/11 and right afterwards. So the media could be at least partially responsible for that one.

A good example is the BBC's misrepresentation of the WTC core after 9/11:



The History Channel did a whole documentary proposing the other extreme: that the towers were "hollow tube" designs and that the exterior columns supported all the building loads, and that's why after one floor started falling it was unstoppable.

Oxford University also published this in 1992:




Of course this was all corrected when federal agencies started telling us how the towers were built, even though we never got to see the original structural documents.