B
BlueMoose
Guest
andbna
Simple proof that there was no conspiracy involving Silverstien:
Axioms:
1. Insurance companies don't want to have to pay out money
2. Insurance companies only insure the value of the building, thus it's loss is of no actual gain to Silverstien (If you get 20,000$ for your 20,000$ car that was stolen, you didnt gain anything.)
3.In case of fraud involving Silverstien: ie they were planning on the building being destroyed, insurance companies would not have to pay.
4.These huge insurance corporations have VERY GOOD lawyers, who will find any way they can to not pay.
-One is for sure real fool if thinking that if there was conspiracy behind it that it was done to benefit Mr. Silverstein only.
Thus, if there is a tone of evidence, the lawyers would have realised this, found it, uprooted it, and the insurance companies wouldnt have had to reimburse Silverstien. Simple as that. So why didnt that happen? Because theres no proof of conspiracy, It's all in your under-educated, overactive mind[.
-Well, your Over-Educated mind swallows just what it was programmed to swallow.
Isnt it fun when we go to personal attacks ?
The only other posibility is the those companies were in on it too.
So tell me, why would a bunch of insurance companies, who have been the loosers of this ordeal, decide to go in on a conspiracy?
Or tell me then why have they not have uncovered all of this 'evidence' hmm? And if your answer is: "Because they didnt have it at the time." Then, why arent they filling lawsuits as we speak, why arent they supporting these CT's?
There is only one realistic answer: There is no conspiracy.
-Again, it did have nothing to do with insurance money.
No more than lighting a match makes the room colder.
This matter is "blown away" because the high pressure of the gases is causing them to expand outwards untill there is an equal amount of preassure, not a vaccuum.
What its by 'imploding a building' is that the building falls in on itself, and creates a mess only inside its own perimeter, as opposed to the Twin Towers which exploded debris in all directions (like that which made the hole in tower 7.) It does not reffer to the preassures inside the building.
-Blaaa blaa blaaa blaaa...so how was it possible that the building collapse in freefall speed, just like in controlled demolitions ?
I didnt see anything that resembled an explosion. I also didnt hear anything meaningfull.
-Ok, thats your opinion.
Also, howcome the windows didnt burst outwards with the alleged explosive detonations, or how come they didnt burst inwards with the alleged implosion? Perhaps because it wasnt rigged with bombs?
-You have nearby footage of it ? At those distances presented I cant say if there is flying window particles or not.
Either that or they take the time necessary to figure out what happened, rather than jumping to conclusion based off a 3 minut low resolution video, which doesnt actualy show why the tower collapsed, just that it did infact collapse. They also kinda had their hands full these passed few years, or did you forget about the twin towers and the pentagon? Oh, and no they dont "havnt a clue" They have a very good clue, and plan to have a draft report ready before '08. You see a report of the destruction contains a very large amount of detail, it is fairly specific, and they must have proof for their claims. It also requires a long time to gather specialists (you know, those guys who atualy know what they are talking about, not the layman CT's) and do thourough research.
-Blaaa blaa blaaa...start a thread about pentagon and other 911 events if you want, I´m not intrested at the moment. All that was irrelevant considering the topic at hand.
No, that's out of context, they stopped fighting the fires (remeber that "Pull It" line? Guess what it was reffering to?)
hence, they burned on unfought.
-Well, it was at least simplyfying or twisting the thruth since the firemans were fighting against the fire earlier in that day, the comment debunker uses leave us under impression that the fire hasnt been fight at all.
Finaly I'd like to state somethings:
First, the explosives could not have been inserted in between the time of the attack, and the time of the collapse. There simply wasnt eanough time (not to mention, lack of detcord carrying people.)
Thus if they existed, they would have had to been placed in advance. Impossible stealthy logistics for this put aside, let's say they were planted and ready to be blown.
A plane crashed into a tower, the tower collapsed and it's debris smashed a nice big hole in building 7. How what? Our explosives are screwed up.
-Stop right here, if you want a demolite building you take out the supporting colums, in this case those werent anyway near of outerwalls where the alligated hole were.
The debris, and fires, have no doubt ruined detcord, and several of the bombs. The perfectly crafted demolishion plan is scrwed. It is doubtfull they would have actualy been able to detonate most of, if any, of these bombs. Furthurmore if the building's neat collapse can only be attributed to a well thought out controled demolision, it would not have happened. Our demolishion wasnt controlled anymore!
-Assumptions, we cant know where fire was raging and where not.
The debris coulnt reach where the supporting columns were.
Thus you see, the shrapnal from the twin towers would have ruined any thought of a controlled demolishion.
Now let's factor in the fires, think they might cause any to go off? Think they could burn up detcord? Think they might ruin any radio-operated detonation circuits?
I think so.
A controlled demolishion idea whent out the window when the twin towers collapsed.
-Same goes for here, assumptions all together.
So then, the real question is what are you going to do about it?
-Andrew
-No, the real question goes, (if you live in US) what are you going to do about it ?
Simple proof that there was no conspiracy involving Silverstien:
Axioms:
1. Insurance companies don't want to have to pay out money
2. Insurance companies only insure the value of the building, thus it's loss is of no actual gain to Silverstien (If you get 20,000$ for your 20,000$ car that was stolen, you didnt gain anything.)
3.In case of fraud involving Silverstien: ie they were planning on the building being destroyed, insurance companies would not have to pay.
4.These huge insurance corporations have VERY GOOD lawyers, who will find any way they can to not pay.
-One is for sure real fool if thinking that if there was conspiracy behind it that it was done to benefit Mr. Silverstein only.
Thus, if there is a tone of evidence, the lawyers would have realised this, found it, uprooted it, and the insurance companies wouldnt have had to reimburse Silverstien. Simple as that. So why didnt that happen? Because theres no proof of conspiracy, It's all in your under-educated, overactive mind[.
-Well, your Over-Educated mind swallows just what it was programmed to swallow.
Isnt it fun when we go to personal attacks ?The only other posibility is the those companies were in on it too.
So tell me, why would a bunch of insurance companies, who have been the loosers of this ordeal, decide to go in on a conspiracy?
Or tell me then why have they not have uncovered all of this 'evidence' hmm? And if your answer is: "Because they didnt have it at the time." Then, why arent they filling lawsuits as we speak, why arent they supporting these CT's?
There is only one realistic answer: There is no conspiracy.
-Again, it did have nothing to do with insurance money.
No more than lighting a match makes the room colder.
This matter is "blown away" because the high pressure of the gases is causing them to expand outwards untill there is an equal amount of preassure, not a vaccuum.
What its by 'imploding a building' is that the building falls in on itself, and creates a mess only inside its own perimeter, as opposed to the Twin Towers which exploded debris in all directions (like that which made the hole in tower 7.) It does not reffer to the preassures inside the building.
-Blaaa blaa blaaa blaaa...so how was it possible that the building collapse in freefall speed, just like in controlled demolitions ?
I didnt see anything that resembled an explosion. I also didnt hear anything meaningfull.
-Ok, thats your opinion.
Also, howcome the windows didnt burst outwards with the alleged explosive detonations, or how come they didnt burst inwards with the alleged implosion? Perhaps because it wasnt rigged with bombs?
-You have nearby footage of it ? At those distances presented I cant say if there is flying window particles or not.
Either that or they take the time necessary to figure out what happened, rather than jumping to conclusion based off a 3 minut low resolution video, which doesnt actualy show why the tower collapsed, just that it did infact collapse. They also kinda had their hands full these passed few years, or did you forget about the twin towers and the pentagon? Oh, and no they dont "havnt a clue" They have a very good clue, and plan to have a draft report ready before '08. You see a report of the destruction contains a very large amount of detail, it is fairly specific, and they must have proof for their claims. It also requires a long time to gather specialists (you know, those guys who atualy know what they are talking about, not the layman CT's) and do thourough research.
-Blaaa blaa blaaa...start a thread about pentagon and other 911 events if you want, I´m not intrested at the moment. All that was irrelevant considering the topic at hand.
No, that's out of context, they stopped fighting the fires (remeber that "Pull It" line? Guess what it was reffering to?)
hence, they burned on unfought.
-Well, it was at least simplyfying or twisting the thruth since the firemans were fighting against the fire earlier in that day, the comment debunker uses leave us under impression that the fire hasnt been fight at all.
Finaly I'd like to state somethings:
First, the explosives could not have been inserted in between the time of the attack, and the time of the collapse. There simply wasnt eanough time (not to mention, lack of detcord carrying people.)
Thus if they existed, they would have had to been placed in advance. Impossible stealthy logistics for this put aside, let's say they were planted and ready to be blown.
A plane crashed into a tower, the tower collapsed and it's debris smashed a nice big hole in building 7. How what? Our explosives are screwed up.
-Stop right here, if you want a demolite building you take out the supporting colums, in this case those werent anyway near of outerwalls where the alligated hole were.
The debris, and fires, have no doubt ruined detcord, and several of the bombs. The perfectly crafted demolishion plan is scrwed. It is doubtfull they would have actualy been able to detonate most of, if any, of these bombs. Furthurmore if the building's neat collapse can only be attributed to a well thought out controled demolision, it would not have happened. Our demolishion wasnt controlled anymore!
-Assumptions, we cant know where fire was raging and where not.
The debris coulnt reach where the supporting columns were.
Thus you see, the shrapnal from the twin towers would have ruined any thought of a controlled demolishion.
Now let's factor in the fires, think they might cause any to go off? Think they could burn up detcord? Think they might ruin any radio-operated detonation circuits?
I think so.
A controlled demolishion idea whent out the window when the twin towers collapsed.
-Same goes for here, assumptions all together.
So then, the real question is what are you going to do about it?
-Andrew
-No, the real question goes, (if you live in US) what are you going to do about it ?
Last edited by a moderator: