Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#247784 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: The Spoilers are more or less the brakes, your mindless claim is the rough equivalent to claim one can fully drive a car though remote control via only having control of the brakes.
Spoilers kill lift.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#247785 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Bill Northwoods wrote:
Seaside Heights
Funny,"gramps" was from Joisey.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247786 Nov 29, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoilers kill lift.
And can induce or slow roll, I take it you are in the industry, all other variables remaining the same though, killing lift through drag will slow the plane down correct?
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247787 Nov 29, 2012
I should add slower than without the spoiler deployed, clearly in a dive you might accelerate but the spoilers would have some effect on slowing acceleration (given you were not upside down)?
Rick Rosser

Fairbury, NE

#247793 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Under the deal with the PA, Silverstein has enough cash and public funding to complete Tower 4 and to build the five-story podium for Tower 3. He would have to privately raise $300 million to finish Tower 3 and another $2 billion for Tower 2.
Well, That is a good reason to blow them up, to acquire new debt.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Banff, Canada

#247794 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>Funny thing. I was actually looking for the truth all along. I see what you mean though. When I present the questions which did not fit and could not be answered, they conspiracy proponents ran away, made personal comments or presented red herrings. None have addressed the issues I brought forward.
That's pretty typical behavior from them. They expect any and all their questions answered in full to their satisfaction yet can't answer a question themselves.

Push them and they just change the subject.

It's the way twoof survives.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247795 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
"The costs for the overall site, which includes two buildings, rights for two more towers, a memorial and museum and a $3.4 billion transportation hub, have largely been borne by the Port Authority, which is funded by both airports and toll payers of the region's bridges and tunnels.
Well, That makes sense since the Port Authority owns much of the land and buildings and leases them to Larry. Do your landlord charge you with construction of your apartment?

The Port Authority owns the site's land (except for 7 World Trade Center). Developer Larry Silverstein holds the lease to retail and office space in four of the site's buildings.[2]

The World Trade Center site (ZIP code: 10048), previously known as "Ground Zero" after the September 11 attacks, sits on 16 acres (65,000 m2) in Lower Manhattan in New York City.[1] The previous World Trade Center complex stood on the site until it was destroyed in the September 11 attacks; Studio Daniel Libeskind, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Silverstein Properties, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation oversee the reconstruction of the site. The site is bounded by Vesey Street to the north, the West Side Highway to the west, Liberty Street to the south, and Church Street to the east.

While the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is often identified as the owner of the WTC site, the ownership situation is actually somewhat complex and ambiguous.[3] The Port Authority indeed owns a "significant" internal portion of the site of 16 acres (65,000 m2), but has acknowledged "ambiguities over ownership of miscellaneous strips of property at the World Trade Center site" going back to the 1960s. It is unclear who owns 2.5 acres (10,000 m2) of the site, being land where streets had been before the World Trade Center was built.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247798 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Larry Silverstein is not the owner, he is a 60/40 partner with the NYC Port Authority.
HE DEMANDED that he be allowed to rebuild. NYC PA was going to let him out of that clause, but he demanded to be allowed to rebuild.
LOTS, and LOTS and LOTS of federal tax money, and, Obama Stimulus money, all from US taxpayers going into the rebuilding. Silverstein brought in his own Architect and demanded re-doing the Port Authority's design.
Larry, the JEW, made a hell of a lot of money off of 9/11. If he was going to lose money, the bastard would never be rebuilding.
Show your math, he lost 1.7 billion when the fell as he was under insured as as you pointed out he is in debt on the new project.

If they never fell he would not be out 1.7 billion due to under-insurance and in debt on the new structure.

But we get it Hitler, He's a Jew, You hate Jews, so he must be guilty.

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247801 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Nutless wrote:
...., as, and Obama stimulus money that Larry, the JEW got from all of us...
Again... Larry, the Jew, made out just fine as a result of Operation 2001.
So tell me, Dave, was Larry ever registered as a sex offender?
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247802 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Larry Silverstein didn't have 3.5 billion in each of the Twin Towers, he had only made a very small lease payment, something like $133 million, or, so... in JULY, 2001.
False and prove it.

Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild (since 2001).

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.

www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverste...

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money,$6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:

Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.

On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.

“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.

The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.

The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp...
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247803 Nov 29, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell me, Dave, was Larry ever registered as a sex offender?
Ah, Did I miss something?

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247804 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, Did I miss something?
Dave has a little secret.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#247805 Nov 29, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave has a little secret.
I wonder what a poll would reveal, one such as "Would you rather live next to a Jew or a Registered Sex offender"

Never mind, the results are obvious, I take it the "How would I know she was 11, she told me she was 13." defense did not work.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#247806 Nov 29, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell me, Dave, was Larry ever registered as a sex offender?
Sounds like a story...
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#247807 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
I should add slower than without the spoiler deployed, clearly in a dive you might accelerate but the spoilers would have some effect on slowing acceleration (given you were not upside down)?
Sure, drag a-plenty.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#247808 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
How much did they pay him, any proof at all, thought not!
You thought! That's a change.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha h aha ha ha
.
That's also funny huh eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247810 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
WasteWater,
You said that I made a "claim" that the planes were flown by remote control. I did not. I merely said that they were capable of being flown remotely.
That is why, I posted my original post along with my response. Wanted you to see that I made no such claim.
I was not "repeating" myself as you said, I was just showing you, that I had not made that claim.
It could have been done remotely. I may have not been done remotely.
I do not know. Neither do you, nor, anyone else, except who ever was involved in the attack.
It's all a moot point. The planes were all hijacked and flown by hijackers as the phone calls show and Air Traffic Control shows. Even if there was remote control possibility, no commercial planes are rigged for RC. Are you maintaining the planes were tampered with? To what purpose?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247811 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
False and prove it.
Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild (since 2001).
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverste...
As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).
$4.6 billion in insurance money,$6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:
Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.
On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.
“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.
The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.
The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp...
So why would Larry destroy his own buildings? It would have been in his enlightened self interest to protect them wouldn't it?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247812 Nov 29, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
You thought! That's a change.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha h aha ha ha
.
That's also funny huh eh !
Yea really funny. Jet fuel destroyed 1,400 vehicles and spread the fire to numerous buildings. Of course the jet fuel burned out but there was obviously plenty of flammable stuff which became ignited by the intense and concentrated heat. Here is an article describing the various principals involved.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eag...

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#247813 Nov 30, 2012
1) Silverstein was already worth Billions
2) Silverstein paid the $100 million a year lease on the WTC for 10 years without collecting a penny in rent
3) if Silverstein's last name was Jones nobody would care
Operation Northwoods wrote:
WASTEWATER...
You posted...
"That's my conclusion also.
1. Larry Silverstein. Too much risk exposure.
2. The telephone calls negate all theories of modified or substitute aircraft.
3. Rigged buildings is also too much risk exposure."
On each one of these, you presume way too much.
How the hell do you know what risk Larry Silverstein was willing to take to make Billions, plus, ultimately get his original lease payment of $133 million refunded to him?
There is no way that you are capable, nor, I, nor, anyone else capable of calculating what was an acceptable risk to the actors in your points..#1,#2, and #3 above...
It is just your assumption, your opinion, not a fact that you have stated about "risk."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 hr Liam 637,902
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 hr pusherman 968,864
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 hr Thinking 29,733
Leslie Van Houten's parole hearing August 2009 (Jul '09) 12 hr ted 1,573
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 12 hr An NFL Fan 38,028
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 12 hr Memorial Day Sock 617,961
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 hr X Pendable 181,939
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 14 hr Not religious 43,895
More from around the web