WTC Collapses

[John99]

eh? no it wasn't. you saying something doesn't make it so.

ooh right, i forgot we are in the world where "debunked" has been changed to mean "responded to". sorry mr orwell.

have you ever had a conversation with a brick wall? because that seems to be what i am doing here. if you are going to be so blatantly disingenuous then at least have the decency to add a smilie.

 

[scott3x]

nanothermites were discussed and debunked at another forum you visit. did you forget, or didnt like the responses there?

eh? no it wasn't. you saying something doesn't make it so.

God that point bears repeating, laugh . I'm still waiting for his alleged evidence that Silverstein would have still gotten his $500 million profit from his insurance company if WTC 7 hadn't collapsed .

 

[John99]

you already admitted taht, for some reason, you dont know how insurance works. that admission alone speaks volumes.

 

[John99]

ok boys time for homework. school tomorrow.

 

[Headspin]

you already admitted taht, for some reason, you dont know how insurance works. that admission alone speaks volumes.

insurance is a contractual issue between two parties. there is no "how insurance works". it depends on the individual agreement.

 

[scott3x]

i think you guys may be high school age so from now on i will be more dainty.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but neither Headspin or I are "high school age". As I mentioned earlier (not sure if you caught it), i'm around 2 1/2 years older then you are if your profile is accurate.

 

[Headspin]

ok boys time for homework. school tomorrow.

if you can't present a counter argument against two school children....what does that say ?

 

[scott3x]

you already admitted that, for some reason, you dont know how insurance works. that admission alone speaks volumes.

I said 'let's assume' that I didn't know how it worked. I thought I had an idea and that you were mistaken, but I had no hard evidence that you were, indeed, mistaken. So what I had wanted was for you to cough up the source of your alleged knowledge that Silverstein would have gotten his $500 million profit from WTC 7. You played the tease for a while, but ultimately it appears you were just bluffing.

 

[Headspin]

john99 - something fell out of your pocket:

 

[John99]

if you think all this was so someone can collect on buildings that was very valuable and sellable before they were destroyed then you are wasting my time here.

 

[scott3x]

you already admitted taht, for some reason, you dont know how insurance works. that admission alone speaks volumes.

insurance is a contractual issue between two parties. there is no "how insurance works". it depends on the individual agreement.

That's what I thought. And ofcourse there's also this, from 9/11 Research's "Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center" article:

The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3

 

[Headspin]

This is a non issue because explosives could not be planted in the building that would have caused this damage. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning. Obviously would have taken a very long time.

you are claiming that it is impossible for bombs to have been planted in wtc7 because:

1. People would have known and seen the explosives long before the event happened.
2. This would have required a great deal of effort and planning.

yet conditions (1) and (2) did not transpire in the 1999 moscow apartment bombings and the wtc 1993 bombing.

so why do you believe (1) and (2) apply to wtc7, but do not apply to 1999 moscow and 1993 wtc?

** bump **

 

[John99]

so now we have come full circle and discovered why i called you an ******** the other day.

 

[John99]

now i will go out to my wood shed where i have a stockpile of termite and will reproduce the effects of it on wood. i will post the results and the video on googoo.

 

[Headspin]

if you think all this was so someone can collect on buildings that was very valuable and sellable before they were destroyed then you are wasting my time here.

businessmen are minded to profit from a situation that they foresee.

If i, as a businessman, know there is going to be great depression followed by hyperflation around the corner, i would sell my business and put all my money into gold and silver. this doesn't mean that i caused the great depression so i could profit, it only means that i knew what was coming.

 

[scott3x]

if you think all this was so someone can collect on buildings that was very valuable and sellable before they were destroyed then you are wasting my time here.

It's only one strong possibility. There are more as I've mentioned in this thread before and which can also be seen here (search for "online journal"):
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

And there's certainly no reason why there couldn't have been more then one motive.

 

[John99]

oooohhhh K:huh:

 

[Headspin]

so now we have come full circle and discovered why i called you an ******** the other day.

it doesn't have to be like that john, grouphug?

 

[John99]

scott, is that you in this video-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxH39QlRuhg

 

[scott3x]

john99 - something fell out of your pocket:

I loved that, laugh . I've been experiencing the 'stall direct answer', re: the alleged evidence that John99 claims he has regarding the idea that Silverstein would have obtain his $500 million profit regardless of whether or not WTC 7 collapsed for some time now ;-).