Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 35
87
<< 32  33  34   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


This post made me laugh so hard my stomach hurt. Your understanding of financial crisis seems to be about as limited as your understanding of false flag attacks. When you are the one causing the crisis, you stand to gain enormously. A beautiful example is Goldman Sachs, who's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by "betting" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities. Lehman Brothers (a rival) went into bankruptcy, and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp. These banks (who caused the crisis), gained huge, huge profits, then after the fact, they were bailed out for billions by their trusted pawns in the White House.

""Goldman Sachs received a $10 billion preferred stock investment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2008, as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).""

14+ billion dollars of declared profit (from one tiny sector of their company), at a time when most banks were going bankrupt....

"" The Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), the first Fed facility ever to provide overnight loans to investment banks, loaned Goldman Sachs a total of $589 billion against collateral such as corporate market instruments and mortgage-backed securities. The Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), which allows primary dealers to borrow liquid Treasury securities for one month in exchange for less liquid collateral, loaned Goldman Sachs a total of $193 billion.""

They borrowed $782 billion dollars, at a time when most banks were going bankrupt....

Here is why.... :Former employees include Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson who served as United States Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, respectively, as well as Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of Canada since 2008, Mario Draghi, governor of the European Central Bank and Mario Monti, the Prime Minister of Italy.

Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, Mark carney, Mario Draghi....

All the main people who were responsible for deciding who failed, and who rose to the top during the crisis, were in their pockets. They manipulated the market from outside, and from within. Never standing to loose a penny, since they had full control over the influx of the "American" market. While I understand you are an apologist for corrupt government, and corporate institutions, you cant honestly think this clear manipulation of politics, and financial/economic misuse is good for the country in which you live. Most of all, you cant be ignorant enough to honestly think that certain people don't stand to gain from this financial crisis, I would hope you aren't that dumb.




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


This post made me laugh so hard my stomach hurt. Your understanding of financial crisis seems to be about as limited as your understanding of false flag attacks. When you are the one causing the crisis, you stand to gain enormously. A beautiful example is Goldman Sachs, who's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by "betting" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities. Lehman Brothers (a rival) went into bankruptcy, and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp. These banks (who caused the crisis), gained huge, huge profits, then after the fact, they were bailed out for billions by their trusted pawns in the White House.


So let me get this straight? Goldman were in on it but Lehman and Merrills were not?

What I love about you guys is your ability to decide who was running the show afterwards, judged by who has the money at the end. Before the financial crisis all bankers were running the world. Afterwards it's suddenly only some of them.

Goldman's 4 bn was small beer in terms of the losses by the way. Howie Hubler at Morgan Stanley lost 9 bn on subprime bets.

Your contention seems to be that some of the bankers - although not all - wanted to lose this money so that they could have it partly refunded in the form of equity loss via TARP. Why on earth would they want to do that?


""Goldman Sachs received a $10 billion preferred stock investment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2008, as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).""

14+ billion dollars of declared profit (from one tiny sector of their company), at a time when most banks were going bankrupt....


Oh man. Are you just adding the 10 bn to the 4 bn and coming up with 14 bn profit? Do you even understand how financially illiterate that is? And are you pretending that a stock investment for equity is a profit?

Jesus.


"" The Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), the first Fed facility ever to provide overnight loans to investment banks, loaned Goldman Sachs a total of $589 billion against collateral such as corporate market instruments and mortgage-backed securities. The Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), which allows primary dealers to borrow liquid Treasury securities for one month in exchange for less liquid collateral, loaned Goldman Sachs a total of $193 billion.""

They borrowed $782 billion dollars, at a time when most banks were going bankrupt....


So you're saying that they prefered not to make money, but instead to borrow it?




All the main people who were responsible for deciding who failed, and who rose to the top during the crisis, were in their pockets. They manipulated the market from outside, and from within. Never standing to loose a penny, since they had full control over the influx of the "American" market. While I understand you are an apologist for corrupt government, and corporate institutions, you cant honestly think this clear manipulation of politics, and financial/economic misuse is good for the country in which you live. Most of all, you cant be ignorant enough to honestly think that certain people don't stand to gain from this financial crisis, I would hope you aren't that dumb.


Only a handful of Wall Street institutions didn't lose heavy sums. That they were bailed out by loans makes little difference - they weren't just given the money, as you would see from your own quotes if you understood them.

I am aware that people gained from the financial crisis. Just hardly anyone in Wall Street banks. Those banks in some cases went under, and in others had to submit to humiliating bail outs that cost them equity (and that would ultimately cost the American taxpayer far less than the S&L crisis, for example). That you can thik that they would find this desirable speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. That you can select the (very) few winners and pretend they were somehow preordianed speaks simply of a CTers need and predilection for pretending that the winning horse was preordained.

I'd like to say I laughed at your post, but sadly I'm afraid I found it rather depressing.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
STOP THE MADNESS!

Terminal Velocity

Speaking to no one in particular, but everyone in general, let's please cease the personal commentary and snarky tone.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





So let me get this straight? Goldman were in on it but Lehman and Merrills were not? What I love about you guys is your ability to decide who was running the show afterwards, judged by who has the money at the end. Before the financial crisis all bankers were running the world. Afterwards it's suddenly only some of them. Goldman's 4 bn was small beer in terms of the losses by the way. Howie Hubler at Morgan Stanley lost 9 bn on subprime bets. Your contention seems to be that some of the bankers - although not all - wanted to lose this money so that they could have it partly refunded in the form of equity loss via TARP. Why on earth would they want to do that?


Correct, now you are learning. If you would have read the whole post, you would notice that I posted all the individuals who have worked for Goldman Sachs, and are now within high positions within several national administrations. Lehman, and Merill were not nearly as connected as Goldman, so they fell.

They didn't lose any money, they were bailed out, and made billions at a time when most banks were failing. Which seems insignificant, and unimportant to you for some reason. Here I was thinking that Capitalism was about free markets, and not bailing out those who fail to properly operate their businesses...

The documentary "Inside Job" produced by Sony Entertainment, details how rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poors, Fitch), falsified their ratings to make it seem like certain mortgages, loans etc.. were better rated then they actually were, which netted firms like Goldman huge profits.

"Goldman-Sachs sold more than $3 billion worth of CDOs in the first half of 2006. Goldman also bet against the low-value CDOs, telling investors they were high-quality"

This is known in some country's as predatory lending, but in "America", its businesses as usual.

How funny that " Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner decided that Lehman must go into bankruptcy", Paulson, who was previously a CEO of Golman Sachs, decided to bail out his old corporation, while letting the Lehman Brothers who were a rival of Goldman fail. I guess that doesn't strike you as suspicious at all, just business as usual, right? Also the fact that Goldman Sachs handed out billions in bonuses to its employee's right after being bailed out, which begs the question of what exactly they needed to be bailed out for? If they didn't need the money to invest back into their bank, then it seems like they need to be bailed out so that they could afford new yachts....

"The big bank said Thursday it rewarded employees with $16.2 billion in salaries and bonuses for 2009."




Oh man. Are you just adding the 10 bn to the 4 bn and coming up with 14 bn profit? Do you even understand how financially illiterate that is? And are you pretending that a stock investment for equity is a profit? Jesus.

So you're saying that they prefered not to make money, but instead to borrow it?


It was a rudiment, and altogether underestimation of the profits they made, no doubt they made much more, and I understand the difference between stock, and raw profits. Considering as stated by the huffington post "The $4.79 billion profit was the biggest quarterly gain ever for the New York-based bank.", they made a quarterly gain of $4.79 billion, I would say my estimate for their gains during 2008 wasn't that far off. Another interesting point, "In 2008, Goldman set aside 48 percent of its revenue to pay employees."...

Ah, now you are being the financially illiterate one, you honestly don't understand what an investment/loan shark, can do with borrowed tax payer money? Their turn around was probably phenomenal, all with money they didn't need, and which they bet on CDO's, and invested in CDS, which were falsely rated for them by the rating agency's.

I think you largely missed the point, the fact that one of the "very few banking firms to come out on top", was the one who had its former CEO as the secretary of the U.S. treasury during the crisis... They gave their employee's billions of dollars, how is that not desirable? They BET against loans they KNEW would fail, and made billions on that, how is that not desirable? They CREATED the crisis, and USED it to their advantage, how is that not desirable? The FACT, that they had "insiders" who previously worked for them, and one of Obama's largest campaign contributes was Goldman Sachs speaks volumes....

You seem to be living in a fantasy world where everyone is a peachy kind Capitalist hero, who want's nothing better then to help the poor farmer/worker along. The truth is stunningly different if you would take the time to look around you. Heck, like I previously stated, their predatory loaning is considered a crime in most country's. In "America", its just business as usual...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Hi,

Sorry to say, I have not read the whole thread due to its Size, I was wondering if anyone here thinks the structure was demolished with explosives, and if so how this was done?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gyrocopter

Also if it were something as simple as momentum transfer I'm pretty sure NIST would have figured that out instead of trying to ignore the issue entirely. maybe they should have hired you sooner haha


I wonder what would happen if some of the collapsing structure pulled on the rest of the building, causing it to fall at free-fall acceleration for a short period of time (2.5 secs)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Basically it is impossible for a building to collapse in near perfect symmetry without the aid of explosives of some kind.

You mean like hundreds of tons of fuel filled airliner at hundreds of miles an hour type explosives?

Or...






Sorry am I missing something? When did "hundreds of tons of fuel filled airliner at hundreds of miles an hour type explosives? " hit building 7 ?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
Your right, this IS beating a dead horse.

Where is all the oil imports from Iraq? years later why are gas prices so high?
What I find strange is when Oil went from 55gal barrels from 50 bucks to 150 bucks all time high and gas shot up in the states to about 5 bucks why is it now the barrels are somewhere between 20-30 now (I believe that's what I heard) and gas is still 4 bucks a gallon? it's all BS, I mean anyone should have the rights to ask for what they want but if it's a conflict of interest product and there is enough competition then one would think you get them to lower the cost. "Demand" is BS. bulk usually results in reductions of price. Just like electronics. Electronics have dropped so much in price yet there is a massive demand for flat screen TVs. so how can you say the same for Gasoline. And the plastic to make TV frames is made from the same barrels of Oil. So the fuel issue is a big LIE



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Taggart
 


Sorry am I missing something? When did "hundreds of tons of fuel filled airliner at hundreds of miles an hour type explosives? " hit building 7 ?

Collateral damage from the impacts fire and collapse of those two big buildings across the street did that (eventually). I mean... after burning unchecked for hours on end and all.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stew4media
So the fuel issue is a big LIE


They didn't go into the ME to access their oil, they went to keep the oil in the ground.

Oil became expensive because the war created artificial scarcity, a method used by capitalists to keep prices inflated.

It's not the first time this has been done...


It began with a character known as "Mr. 5%"-- Calouste Gulbenkian -- who, in 1925, slicked King Faisal, neophyte ruler of the country recently created by Churchill, into giving Gulbenkian's "Iraq Petroleum Company" (IPC) exclusive rights to all of Iraq's oil. Gulbenkian flipped 95% of his concession to a combine of western oil giants: Anglo-Persian, Royal Dutch Shell, CFP of France, and the Standard Oil trust companies (now ExxonMobil and its "sisters.") The remaining slice Calouste kept for himself -- hence, "Mr. 5%."

The oil majors had a better use for Iraq's oil than drilling it -- not drilling it. The oil bigs had bought Iraq's concession to seal it up and keep it off the market. To please his buyers' wishes, Mr. 5% spread out a big map of the Middle East on the floor of a hotel room in Belgium and drew a thick red line around the gulf oil fields, centered on Iraq. All the oil company executives, gathered in the hotel room, signed their name on the red line -- vowing not to drill, except as a group, within the red-lined zone....


Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Moving the goal posts.

Also you posted a video of Hydraulic demolitions, nice but how does that even fit in to this
question? They were still 'gimmicked' whether they used explosives or not.

How many buildings have fell symmetrical due to fire before and since 9/11? which is what is being discussed. or are you suggesting they used hydraulics. lol.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Taggart
 


Also you posted a video of Hydraulic demolitions, nice but how does that even fit in to this
question? They were still 'gimmicked' whether they used explosives or not.

What "Hydraulics"? Theres no hydraulics. Gravity. "Gimmicked"? What gimmick? The French "explosive-less" is similar to 911 in that once a floor is removed (for whatever reason) then the weight of floors above push down on the next and the next and so on, all the way down. Or did you actually watch the video?


How many buildings have fell symmetrical due to fire before and since 9/11? which is what is being discussed. or are you suggesting they used hydraulics. lol.

"Symmetrical", lol. That one again? Okay... whatever. No other building in the world was built like twin towers. They were a compromise of height, cost and materials to build them so high. That was their weakness. They knew that. Thats why the buildings were hit so high ( to prevent fireman from reaching up that high), and just low enough, so the weight of the upper floors would add to the pressure and initiate collapse after sufficient time for the impact and fire to weaken the floors affected.

Go ahead with whatever your point of view is, I am no longer trying to convince some that yah, big planes go boom, make fire, then towers fall make big mess... whatever you think is fine with me.


Personally, nowadays I am trying to expose the real lies of 911 (excuse for Empire building) where the US used this event to foment war all around the Middle East. How many countries have we invaded for that and who's next? Thats my concern, not how "the buildings were made to fall". I'm giving this issue a rest already.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I did watch the video, the description says "This is achieved with hydraulics that push structural members out of alignment, allowing the top portion of a building to then demolish the structure below via gravity alone,"

So that is where I got Hydraulics from. That to me is 'gimmicking'

Then you go back to Planes and BOOM yet we are discussing Building 7.

As for NO buildings were built like the towers, Back to building 7 are you saying it was unique in its build?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
What "Hydraulics"? Theres no hydraulics. Gravity. "Gimmicked"? What gimmick? The French "explosive-less" is similar to 911 in that once a floor is removed (for whatever reason) then the weight of floors above push down on the next and the next and so on, all the way down. Or did you actually watch the video?


That method of demolition does not work on steel framed buildings. Also if you pay attention they drop 50% of the building on 50% of the building. The 15 floors of the North tower was not even 15%.


"Symmetrical", lol. That one again? Okay... whatever. No other building in the world was built like twin towers. They were a compromise of height, cost and materials to build them so high.


Yes all three buildings fell symmetrically. As in no side of the buildings fell at a difference rate. Look at pics of WTC 7 the majority of the rubble is in the footprint, all four outer walls can be seen folded on top of that debris.
A natural collapse could not do that.







Of course the towers were too tall and skinny to be collapsed into their footprints, and is why the rubble was spread in a 360d arc.

No the WTC towers were not a unique design.


The system can be constructed using steel, concrete, or composite construction (the discrete use of both steel and concrete). It can be used for office, apartment and mixed-use buildings. Most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed since the 1960s are of this structural type....


Tube (structure)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That method of demolition does not work on steel framed buildings. Also if you pay attention they drop 50% of the building on 50% of the building. The 15 floors of the North tower was not even 15%.


To be fair, there's a difference between "never been tried" and "doesn't work." I'll agree that Verinage style demolition has no precedent in steel buildings, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the mechanism altogether. The material that is collapsing on the above portion cannot simply disappear. That would be a violation of the conservation of energy law. That means it still bears down weight, and it is obviously containing a great deal of potential/kinetic energy.

The question is this: Can the static, undamaged structure withstand the force of the falling mass?

If we're going to then focus on Building 7, then that's an entirely different manner of collapse. It seems like a progressive failure across the building, starting with the penthouse side and moving to the opposite end very quickly. As the supports become damaged, the structure as a whole can no longer support its weight, and the building comes down altogether. That's my opinion, anyway.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Where is the buckling of the structure ? There is none . The Steel structure does not just break apart into little pieces . The Penthouse wouldnt collapse the whole building into a uniform freefall . I don't know what you have experience in but it's not in structural matters .



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 007Polytoks
Lehman, and Merill were not nearly as connected as Goldman, so they fell.

They didn't lose any money, they were bailed out, and made billions at a time when most banks were failing. Which seems insignificant, and unimportant to you for some reason. Here I was thinking that Capitalism was about free markets, and not bailing out those who fail to properly operate their businesses...


You'll find no argument from me against the latter. Note that you have utterly misunderstood my position: I am not saying that the bailout was fair, or desirable. I am saying that it is absurd to look at the financial crisis and impute a wide-ranging conspiracy behind it, because its effects were undesirable for everybody. Just mildly less undesirable for some.

It's like looking at a car pile up that kills 15 people and leaves one in traction with huge medical bills, and then saying that the whole thing was masterminded by the guy in hospital.



This is known in some country's as predatory lending, but in "America", its businesses as usual.


Yes. Which is why your country badly needs to stop letting the financial industry tell you what to do. And in order for that to happen you have to stop pretending that capitalism is without fault.


How funny that " Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner decided that Lehman must go into bankruptcy", Paulson, who was previously a CEO of Golman Sachs, decided to bail out his old corporation


I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, I imagine ex-Goldman employees favoured their old shop. This is probably undesirable, and the bonuses are a disgrace.

What I am arguing is that it is impossible to look at the financial crisis and impute a wall street-wide conspiracy behind it all, a plan that designed the failure to profit from it. Nobody profited - at least not to the extent they had in the years before. You even pointed to this above when you showed how much money they were making from CDOs. They would have far rather this continued - and their supernormal profits continued - than see the market wrecked.

If the crisis proves anything it is that a pre-determined conspiracy is impossible. Vastly overpaid executives blundered into a credit apocalypse that only a tiny handful foresaw. To pick the ones who got away least worst and pretend they caused the whole thing on purpose is absurd.




It was a rudiment


It wasn't a 'rudiment'. You added an equity investment to a profit number and said that was the profit. Say you have a business that earns 250k a year, and I buy half of it for 1.5 million, do you claim to have made 1.75 million this year?


Ah, now you are being the financially illiterate one, you honestly don't understand what an investment/loan shark, can do with borrowed tax payer money? Their turn around was probably phenomenal, all with money they didn't need, and which they bet on CDO's, and invested in CDS, which were falsely rated for them by the rating agency's.


I do indeed understand it. Unfortunately you don't. The market for CDOs was broken by this point, or at least a shadow of its former self. The debt-based financial wizardry that had been possible a couple of years before was unavailable to them - the game was over. Their subsequent profits were from trading stuff like commodities. And yet you persist in pretending that they wanted this to occur, that they somehow thought it desirable.

Note that once again, I am not defending bankers or bail outs or bonuses. I am arguing specifically with the notion that somebody sat down and designed the financial crisis in order to gain from it.


They BET against loans they KNEW would fail.


They did indeed bet against the loans but not until the absolute end of the crisis when they had already lost a pile. Why else do you think they needed the bail out? If their profits were fine why the need for cash?

The banks caught on to the situation before everybody else and were in some cases able to adjust their positions. But to suggest Goldman engineered, on their own, a vast market in debt, is preposterous. How did they do it? Why did they participate in it in the same way as other banks instead of just betting against it from the start? Why did they need a bail out if they had made money?

Why did they sell CDSs to people like Michael Burry and Steve Eisman? How did they keep their plan from other banks? Literally dozens of Goldman employees will have left and been fired in the timescale you're describing - somehow they kept all of them quiet? It's ridiculous.


You seem to be living in a fantasy world where everyone is a peachy kind Capitalist hero


Er, no. I think the US financial system is a joke. I just have some understanding of how it might be fixed. And that doesn't involve pretending that somebody designed everything to go wrong. The truth is much more frightening



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
if you look at the debris field WTC7 was covered in it, and was damaged .
edit on 20-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)


Covered in it and was damaged??

You might want to take a closer look at this photo. Appears to me that building 7 is in a pile while both buildings on either side are completely intact and sustained very little damage.

edit on 31-7-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I certainly don't think the conspiracy is very wide ranging, its actually quite small, and centered around Goldman Sachs, a couple other investment banks, their employee's, and the rating agency's who falsely rated the CDO's as "low risk". I would strongly agree that they did not even themselves expect the crisis to go as far as it did, however, that was not the point I was trying to make. They profited off the crisis, and by all means they were one of the main causes of the crisis, if not conspiracy, then they are at least guilty of criminal negligence.

Huffington Post on Goldman Sachs finacial crisis

"Goldman Sachs executives deceived clients in order to profit off the brewing financial crisis and then misled Congress when asked to explain their actions, concluded a top lawmaker who led a two-year investigation into Wall Street's role in the meltdown."

"Senate Probe Goldman Planned To Profit From Meltdown "



There is even an article from the Foreign Policy newspaper that claims they helped create the food crisis before the 2008 crisis even happened.

How Goldman Sachs created the food crisis


This article from the Guardian also seems to give lots of evidence towards the idea that Goldman was complicit in the crisis.

Guardian: "Heist of the century"

A quote from this article:

"It is no exaggeration to say that since the 1980s, much of the global financial sector has become criminalised, creating an industry culture that tolerates or even encourages systematic fraud. The behaviour that caused the mortgage bubble and financial crisis of 2008 was a natural outcome and continuation of this pattern, rather than some kind of economic accident."


Certainly the biggest problem here was their baking practices, and the use of rating agency's/government funding to falsify/pay their bets/debts. Either way, it clearly shows that they were involved, and that they knew that their actions would cause at least a minor collapse of the market, which stood to profit them quite well.





new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 32  33  34   >>

log in

join