ANZACs and war and stuff

[Katman]

Because they would have been wasting their time

That's not a very professional way to conduct an investigation into a tragedy of this magnitude though.

[Katman]

Have you come up with a good reason for destroying that particular building using a demolition technique?

There's been a number of theories put forward but maybe only Larry Silverstein knows for sure.

[Drew]

There's been a number of theories put forward but maybe only Larry Silverstein knows for sure.

Did he own all three of the buildings that came down?

[Katman]

Did he own all three of the buildings that came down?

He was the owner/leaseholder of all 7 buildings in the WTC complex. All were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.

And he received a 4.5 billion dollar payout (he was claiming for 7 billion) on a policy that had been taken out only a couple of months prior to 9/11 which specifically named acts of terror as a clause in the policy.

[Akzle]

He was the owner/leaseholder of all 7 buildings in the WTC complex. All were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.

And he received a 4.5 billion dollar payout (he was claiming for 7 billion) on a policy that had been taken out only a couple of months prior to 9/11 which specifically named acts of terror as a clause in the policy.

asbestos, too.

[Katman]

asbestos, too.

Yes.

(What Akzle is alluding to is that Larry Silverstein was facing the prospect of an enormous bill to remove asbestos from the WTC buildings).

[Kickaha]

And he received a 4.5 billion dollar payout (he was claiming for 7 billion) on a policy that had been taken out only a couple of months prior to 9/11 which specifically named acts of terror as a clause in the policy.

He probably took out the policies when he took over the lease which was only a few months before 9/11, seems the sort of thing any landlord would be expected to do

[Akzle]

He probably took out the policies when he took over the lease which was only a few months before 9/11, seems the sort of thing any landlord would be expected to do

i take it you have comprehensive terrorist insurance for your house/car/bike then?

[Ocean1]

That's not a very professional way to conduct an investigation into a tragedy of this magnitude though.

Sounds to me like they did investigate it. They asked an expert about the quantities of explosives required to produce those results.

I'd say any professional that couldn't see that secretly placing over 30 thousand tons of thermite against clad steel beams, (and re-cladding and repainting them to their previous condition) exactly where some unrelated terrorists were eventually to crash some aircraft with pinpoint accuracy was ever so slightly unlikely probably wouldn't have been professionally qualified to comment in the first place.

That, and the fact that it wouldn't actually produce the observed results.

[Katman]

Sounds to me like they did investigate it. They asked an expert about the quantities of explosives required to produce those results.

Are you saying that an article written 10 years after 9/11 was used by the 9/11 Commission investigation?

[Hinny]

He probably took out the policies when he took over the lease which was only a few months before 9/11, seems the sort of thing any landlord would be expected to do

Got the lease at a lower price than competing bids. Suspicious?

What intrigues me is the people who discount the cries for answers proffer explanations that are implausible at best.
That they continue to trot out this 'evidence' long after it has been clearly debunked is illuminating as to their mindset and values.
Ed trotting out Popular Mechanics explanation for instance. Gullible much?

Others post stuff where they are clearly unaware of the details of the 'case'.
Lack of knowledge of the construction of the Twin towers and it's exo-skeleton with small windows. Ed and others rebuking my assertion of its construction.
No Drew, that building was not constructed with columns all over the place, getting in the way. The box within a box construction provided clear space between the inner and outer skeletons. A great selling point to potential lessees.
One would imagine that the building if damaged on one side and having the floors disconnect from the exterior walls, as per the NIST explanation, would result in a partial collapse on one side like the CCTV building in CH-CH.
I can't imagine how a fire that had virtually been extinguished, as survivors who walked past the the burning floors and firefighters have testified to, could make not just a floor collapse but the entire structure, damaged and undamaged sides and the inner core all being reduced to dust - concurrently. Like being shot in the foot and both legs falling off ... and ya dick.
jonboys video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I from 0.10 shows what appears to be molten steel pouring down the side of the building.
Could this be because of thermite? Rusty iron and aluminium combining. The building was sheathed in Aluminium and the supporting skeleton was Steel. Electrolysis between these two metals is generally pretty vigorous. Could this be what caused the collapse? Clearly the official explanation does not have any legs so maybe this is the reason.

As the father of one victim said the idea that some Dude sitting in a cave in Afghanistan came up with a plan so cunning is beyond credulity.
He wanted to know who killed his son and I'm sure that if any of the believers could take the time and try and put themselves in that man's shoes they might not be so ready to accept the official story. The one that they didn't want questioned and fought to avoid any questioning of it. And are still doing so.
I would doubt that they would have to waterboard Dick Cheney 147 times before he cast light on what really happened. Hell, it wouldn't take that much for me to be the organiser of the plan.
Most believers don't bother with arguing the 'facts' of the case. They prefer to rely on the notion that any other explanation other than the official line is outside the realms of possibility. No questions need to be debated.
One merely has to believe.

[Kickaha]

i take it you have comprehensive terrorist insurance for your house/car/bike then?

I'm not dumb enough to live in Amercia

http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/04/Smetters.pdf

The Insurance Industry Prior to September 11, 2001
It has often been noted that terrorism coverage was essentially provided for “free”
before September 11, 2001 as a part of standard commercial property-causality policies
since these policies did not contain specific terrorism exclusions.
1
This claim was
3
buttressed by Warren Buffet’s admission in a letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders
that he and management did not even priceterrorism losses into its premium structure.
2
It is not obvious, however, that major insurers, much less Mr. Buffet, failed so miserably. Indeed, Buffet already had some experience with large catastrophic (cat)
exposures in the past: Just five years earlier in 1996, he underwrote a $1.5 billion catbond that provided reinsurance to the Californian Earthquake Authority.
It is especially unimaginable that any insurer of the World Trade Center (WTC) itself would have never considered the possibility of another
attack. Just 8½ years earlier on February 26, 1993, a 1,200 pound bomb exploded inside of a rented Ryder van positioned in the WTC’s parking garage, producing about $550 million in insured losses. When the attack mastermind, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was eventually captured in February, 1995, he announced his only regret: The 110-story tower did not collapse into its twin tower as planned. The entire WTC complex, therefore, was clearly a marked target for terrorists.

[Kickaha]

As the father of one victim said the idea that some Dude sitting in a cave in Afghanistan came up with a plan so cunning is beyond credulity.

That'd make a good Tui add, how long did it take to find him? they didn't have a clue where he was or what he had access to and it's not like it was planned on the day

Most conspiracy theorists don't bother with arguing the 'facts' of the case. They prefer to rely on the notion that any other explanation other than a conspiracy is outside the realms of possibility. No questions need to be debated.
One merely has to believe

[Ocean1]

Are you saying that an article written 10 years after 9/11 was used by the 9/11 Commission investigation?

Are you saying that the commission didn't review expert advice about the possible effect of explosives?

[Ocean1]

jonboys video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I from 0.10 shows what appears to be molten steel pouring down the side of the building.
Could this be because of thermite? Rusty iron and aluminium combining. The building was sheathed in Aluminium and the supporting skeleton was Steel. Electrolysis between these two metals is generally pretty vigorous. Could this be what caused the collapse?

Melting what? Actually, with better video resolution you could tell exactly what was melting from the colour and the shape of the flares.

If there's aluminium cladding in the equation then that'll melt at 650c, way way before any steel in the area melts, at 1500c. Are those cladding panels I see there, still?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/me...als-d_860.html

As for galvanic issues, aluminium is sacrificial to steel. That's why they use it to protect steel boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode

In direct contact with steel and an electrolyte the aluminium would be pretty much gone altogether before the steel began to corrode at all. So no, not likely to be a factor.

Edit: In fact if that was molten steel running from the building then how could it be still standing at that point? Steel at 750-800c is about the consistency of play-dough, given any possibly available energy source the thermal budget required to heat it to 1500c from that point would take hours to apply. So it stood for hours with it's main support columns as soft as warm toffee?

Don't really think so.