• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Silverstein's 4.5 Billion

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Now we all know that NIST could have proven that explosives were used on the 3 trade center buildings in order to facilitate the collapses, but they deliberately did not because it was a cover-up.
The insurance companies that held Silversteins policies, however, had every right to do their own investigation if doing so could prove that terrorism alone did not completely destroy the buildings, did they not? Is it possible the insurance carriers were prevented by the government from conducting their own investigation for reasons of "national security"?
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,394
Reaction score
2,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Now we all know that NIST could have proven that explosives were used on the 3 trade center buildings in order to facilitate the collapses, but they deliberately did not because it was a cover-up.
Well we don't know that at all but I'll accept it as an assumption for the purpose of the question.

The insurance companies that held Silversteins policies, however, had every right to do their own investigation if doing so could prove that terrorism alone did not completely destroy the buildings, did they not? Is it possible the insurance carriers were prevented by the government from conducting their own investigation for reasons of "national security"?
It's possible I guess though it would only open new questions, notably how "the government" would make the insurance companies pay out so much money without question and it would just introduce yet more people who would be aware that something was untoward yet none of them have apparently made a peep about it.

Isn't it also possible that you're mistaken about explosives having been used, that the insurance companies did carry out their own investigations and that they independently concluded it was a terrorist act and thus a legitimate claim?
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Well we don't know that at all but I'll accept it as an assumption for the purpose of the question.

It's possible I guess though it would only open new questions, notably how "the government" would make the insurance companies pay out so much money without question and it would just introduce yet more people who would be aware that something was untoward yet none of them have apparently made a peep about it.

Isn't it also possible that you're mistaken about explosives having been used, that the insurance companies did carry out their own investigations and that they independently concluded it was a terrorist act and thus a legitimate claim?
It's a terrorist act. Terrorists number 1 MO is bombs. That's one reason. Another reason to perform tests on the materials from ground zero to see if explosives were used is that it had become a controversy - experts were saying that the collapses displayed every characteristic of controlled demolition.

As if that were not enough, when NIST released their preliminary findings, families of the victims demanded that they perform these tests. Even amidst the controversy, NIST refused to comply, thus failing to complete the investigation and leaving the victim's families in total anguish, which, to the government, is better than performing the tests and finding the nanothermite residue, which they knew they would find. How can this not be viewed as an admission of guilt? There is no excuse, period.

But, in the same way that OJ lost the civil suit but was acquitted in the criminal trial, I thought maybe the insurance carriers.....but who am I kidding, the government hindered and obstructed anyway they could so it's very likely they would pull the national security card. It's alarming to me that the government can pull something so blatant, and americans are so ....help me find a better word than just plain STUPID. Cowardly?
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,394
Reaction score
2,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well that was a nice rant but it wasn't really a response to my post now was it?
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now we all know that NIST could have proven that explosives were used on the 3 trade center buildings in order to facilitate the collapses, but they deliberately did not because it was a cover-up.
The insurance companies that held Silversteins policies, however, had every right to do their own investigation if doing so could prove that terrorism alone did not completely destroy the buildings, did they not? Is it possible the insurance carriers were prevented by the government from conducting their own investigation for reasons of "national security"?
More likely, the insurance companies themselves were in on the scam. Shareholders might have taken a loss, but the company itself maybe not so much.

As I recall, one of the major insurers at WTC was Houston Casualty Company, and one Bush sat on that board, perhaps Marvin Bush.
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
1,080
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why wouldn't the insurance companies pay for a loss? Do you think they might have evaluated the situation and decided that there was little evidence of an inside job and proving it THEN would have been quite the task as the truth movement has not made a dent in this (although they think they have) in 12 yrs. It's pretty difficult to prove a CD job and the conspiracy to do it and cover it up... but easy to assert it.

Assertions are the bedrock of the truth movement.... assertions with little to no foundation.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why wouldn't the insurance companies pay for a loss? Do you think they might have evaluated the situation and decided that there was little evidence of an inside job and proving it THEN would have been quite the task as the truth movement has not made a dent in this (although they think they have) in 12 yrs. It's pretty difficult to prove a CD job and the conspiracy to do it and cover it up... but easy to assert it.

Assertions are the bedrock of the truth movement.... assertions with little to no foundation.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it to a person in denial.

To an open-minded and curious person, it doesn't take much proving because the evidence is so obvious.
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
1,080
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it to a person in denial.

To an open-minded and curious person, it doesn't take much proving because the evidence is so obvious.
You are not serious with this comment are? You are the ultimate example of a person with confirmation bias.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No Jeffrey, I am an excellent example of a person who has embraced both sides in his life. It's not really an opinion anymore, it's factual and certain.

That is, I have defended the same position you do now (sorta), and always felt like I was trying to put the square peg into the round hole, ya know?

Defending the simple truth is quite easy compared to your task.
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's a terrorist act. Terrorists number 1 MO is bombs. That's one reason. Another reason to perform tests on the materials from ground zero to see if explosives were used is that it had become a controversy - experts were saying that the collapses displayed every characteristic of controlled demolition.

As if that were not enough, when NIST released their preliminary findings, families of the victims demanded that they perform these tests. Even amidst the controversy, NIST refused to comply, thus failing to complete the investigation and leaving the victim's families in total anguish, which, to the government, is better than performing the tests and finding the nanothermite residue, which they knew they would find. How can this not be viewed as an admission of guilt? There is no excuse, period.

But, in the same way that OJ lost the civil suit but was acquitted in the criminal trial, I thought maybe the insurance carriers.....but who am I kidding, the government hindered and obstructed anyway they could so it's very likely they would pull the national security card. It's alarming to me that the government can pull something so blatant, and americans are so ....help me find a better word than just plain STUPID. Cowardly?
The purpose of NIST is to improve building standards, not to appease the whims of conspiracy theorists, but they certainly did address "Hypothetical Blast Scenario's" in NCSTAR 1_9, Appendix D.

As for the insurers of Silverstein Properties yes they conducted their own engineering analysis before paying any claims. But really, we just need to put this whole thing to bed once and for all. The $4.6 billion could ONLY be used to rebuild on the same site, a project which is projected to cost about twice that amount. Then there is 11+ years of lost rental revenue and the fact that none of this can possibly explain the attacks on Washington DC. While I realize Silverstein fulfills the necessary "Evil Jew" role in the plot, the idea that this was all some overly-elaborate money-making plot is stupid beyond words.
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Well that was a nice rant but it wasn't really a response to my post now was it?

Isn't it also possible that you're mistaken about explosives having been used, that the insurance companies did carry out their own investigations and that they independently concluded it was a terrorist act and thus a legitimate claim?
Anything is possible...but when you have NIST going from "not investigating" to "REFUSING to investigate" amidst controversy, you've now gone from incompetence to malice, and it essentially becomes an admission of guilt.
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Why wouldn't the insurance companies pay for a loss? Do you think they might have evaluated the situation and decided that there was little evidence of an inside job and proving it THEN would have been quite the task as the truth movement has not made a dent in this (although they think they have) in 12 yrs. It's pretty difficult to prove a CD job and the conspiracy to do it and cover it up... but easy to assert it.

Assertions are the bedrock of the truth movement.... assertions with little to no foundation.
If it wasn't for the abuses of power, like pulling the "national security" card to stop investigations by some of the brighter people who had it rather quickly figured out, we would have seen how fallible assertions like yours are when you say how difficult it would be to prove. For one thing, the mere act of blocking investigations and issuing gag orders is......I mean...nobody finds that the least bit incriminating?

I expected the government to do everything in its power to really find out what happened, but instead we see them do everything in its power to thwart the investigation. Some of us aren't fooled, and we know a controlled demolition when we see one. It would have been very easy to prove. It's pretty easy to say we're crazy while blocking the investigation, but that is how they operate, and that is the kind of BS you are defending.
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Some of us aren't fooled, and we know a controlled demolition when we see one.
Apparently no, you don't since what happened on 9/11 in no way resembled a CD except that the buildings collapsed in the direction of gravity. As I keep pointing out to people they collapses don't even resemble each other, let alone a CD and if it were a CD where is the BOOM BOOM BOOM of explosive detonations which ALWAYS immediately preceeds a CD? Each should have registered a deafening 130-140 dB even 1 km away. Why were the people below now showered with high-velocity ejecta from those explosions? How did the explosives get planted without anyone seeing them on the exact floors where the planes hit? How did they survive the impacts? How did they survive the subsequent fires? Why wait nearly an hour or more to set them off? Heck, why bring down the buildings at all? What possible purpose does that serve the plot?
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
1,080
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
IIt's pretty easy to say we're crazy while blocking the investigation, but that is how they operate, and that is the kind of BS you are defending.
I seem to be unique in taking the position that the towers had what I call are engineering flaws... or questionable design decisions which in effect allowed them to collapse. Buildings DO have reserve strength in their frames. but there are aspects of the design which appears to me to be similar to an Achilles heel, a weak link in a chain... such that if the entire thing can fail of the link fails... the heel falters. Seven was essentially built to span over a power station with massive load transfer structures on floors 5,6&7... If those structures failed the floors above with drop like a lead sinker.
The twins had column free long span light weight floors which spanned between a structural facade and a rather typical but large footprint core. Both the core and the facade were dependent on the floor system to remain standing. When the floors were crushed by the tens of thousands of tons of the upper floors dropping on them.. the columns had no role in resisting this assault and quickly became the victim as the bracing was ripped from the frame making the too tall columns too unstable to stand... and the columns broke at their relatively weak seams from what is known as Euler stresses. It all held together as long as the floors were intact and bracing the steel frame. It was the collapsing floors which did in the frame. And this was particularly unique to long span column free floor spaces. There was no way to arrest the runaway floor collapse. Once the floors were gone there was no way the flame could stand on its own. Robertson understood this. But of course did not want to take the heat from his novel concept which was driven by the developers who wanted flexible open floors and very cheap construction.

The so called technical investigations dodged all the crazy engineering design decisions and treated these structures as if they were typical office towers... they were far from that. All those involved in the design decisions never were placed in the hot seat... never faced any accountability for what they did. All responsibility was placed on the terrorists.

All? I question that.
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Apparently no, you don't since what happened on 9/11 in no way resembled a CD except that the buildings collapsed in the direction of gravity. As I keep pointing out to people they collapses don't even resemble each other, let alone a CD and if it were a CD where is the BOOM BOOM BOOM of explosive detonations which ALWAYS immediately preceeds a CD? Each should have registered a deafening 130-140 dB even 1 km away. Why were the people below now showered with high-velocity ejecta from those explosions? How did the explosives get planted without anyone seeing them on the exact floors where the planes hit? How did they survive the impacts? How did they survive the subsequent fires? Why wait nearly an hour or more to set them off? Heck, why bring down the buildings at all? What possible purpose does that serve the plot?
You must be a 911 newbie if you have to ask. There are definitely answers to all of these questions but I don't have the time today.
 
Last edited:

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The purpose of NIST is to improve building standards, not to appease the whims of conspiracy theorists,.
Well then who was hired to investigate and use the evidence available to determine exactly what happened? I could have sworn it was NIST. I remember because they were supposed to allow a completely independent investigation but they pretty much said it's NIST or nothing. This was the key to getting away with it because NIST is not "independent" and it quickly became apparent when we saw how they went about the investigation. They left no stone unturned in all of the areas where they knew the answers would not be found.

A truly independent investigation would not have bothered with any of that, and would have gone straight to where they knew the answers would be found: the materials and rubble at ground zero. They would have performed the tests that NIST refused to do. The presence of nanothermite residue would have been confirmed, and this would have proven that explosives were used and that it was indeed controlled demolition. From there it would be determined who would have had access to the buildings to be able to rig them. It would then be revealed that only the security company that was contracted to provide security for the complex could have had access. Marv Bush is head of that company. That would have been a proper investigation - hardly the "whim of a conspiracy theorist", as you so wrongly put it.


While I realize Silverstein fulfills the necessary "Evil Jew" role in the plot, the idea that this was all some overly-elaborate money-making plot is stupid beyond words.
This was not a money plot, the money was just a by-product of the whole thing. While Silverstein did fulfill his role, it's not necessarily evil jew...or is it? He ate breakfast every single morning at the top of the trade center (except for on 911 he had a doctor appointment) and his 2 sons worked in one of the towers every day, except for on 911 (no doctor appointment - they just didn't show up that day).

but they certainly did address "Hypothetical Blast Scenario's" in NCSTAR 1_9, Appendix D..
I don't see the significance or why we would care about blast modeling. This is all meaningless filler designed to make you think they addressed the issue of testing ground zero for evidence that explosives were used....
 
Last edited:

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I seem to be unique in taking the position that the towers had what I call are engineering flaws... or questionable design decisions which in effect allowed them to collapse. Buildings DO have reserve strength in their frames. but there are aspects of the design which appears to me to be similar to an Achilles heel, a weak link in a chain... such that if the entire thing can fail of the link fails... the heel falters. Seven was essentially built to span over a power station with massive load transfer structures on floors 5,6&7... If those structures failed the floors above with drop like a lead sinker.
The twins had column free long span light weight floors which spanned between a structural facade and a rather typical but large footprint core. Both the core and the facade were dependent on the floor system to remain standing. When the floors were crushed by the tens of thousands of tons of the upper floors dropping on them.. the columns had no role in resisting this assault and quickly became the victim as the bracing was ripped from the frame making the too tall columns too unstable to stand... and the columns broke at their relatively weak seams from what is known as Euler stresses. It all held together as long as the floors were intact and bracing the steel frame. It was the collapsing floors which did in the frame. And this was particularly unique to long span column free floor spaces. There was no way to arrest the runaway floor collapse. Once the floors were gone there was no way the flame could stand on its own. Robertson understood this. But of course did not want to take the heat from his novel concept which was driven by the developers who wanted flexible open floors and very cheap construction.

The so called technical investigations dodged all the crazy engineering design decisions and treated these structures as if they were typical office towers... they were far from that. All those involved in the design decisions never were placed in the hot seat... never faced any accountability for what they did. All responsibility was placed on the terrorists.

All? I question that.
Sure, the cone within a cone is the weak design they chose to build the trade center. A building they knew might one day be subject to a large plane hitting it. I'm not sure but I think to make up for the design, they put extra thick steel columns. The jet fuel burned up quickly. Also, I don't think building 7 had the same type of structure as 1 and 2.That all becomes irrelevant because if CD explosives were not used, and they actually collapsed because of weakened steel, then with nothing to hide, the government would not need to block and hinder
 

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
1,080
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Sure, the cone within a cone is the weak design they chose to build the trade center. A building they knew might one day be subject to a large plane hitting it. I'm not sure but I think to make up for the design, they put extra thick steel columns. The jet fuel burned up quickly. Also, I don't think building 7 had the same type of structure as 1 and 2.That all becomes irrelevant because if CD explosives were not used, and they actually collapsed because of weakened steel, then with nothing to hide, the government would not need to block and hinder
Since when has the government held corporations such as BP, Exxon, PANY or LERA responsible for their failures and incompetence? They usually do nothing and there is no accountability and those injured might get some compensation from the government to essentially buy their silence.

The twins were not cone inside of a cone design. You clearly have no conception of the structural strategy to deal with gravity and wind shear.... extreme height and a large footprint meaning lots of occupants per floor. The core itself was almost like a typical office frame.. but it would need diagonals to counter the wind shear. The facade were 4 large vieredeel trusses to counter wind shear and support one side of the floor. But the floors braced the facade and the stiff core also was part of the wind shear strategy. Clearly the floor structure was the Achilles heel. When they went south, the entire building was a goner.

Seven was different but it also had long span column free floors but used wide flange girders and beams to support the floors. The Achilles heel were to load transfer structures on flrs 5,6&7 which were more like a Rube Goldberg..." is best known for a series of popular cartoons depicting complex gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways." Once the transfer structure started to fail... they took the core with them... and this included the braced frames which supported the facade up to floor 8... the facade structure and curtain wall came down with no resistance from floor 8 until it slammed into the ground collapsing in itself.

The extra thick columns in the twins had nothing to do with the collapse and most of the columns in both towers were hardly damaged at all... breaking apart at their connections.

Progressive collapse... a failure of connections!
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Apparently no, you don't since what happened on 9/11 in no way resembled a CD except that the buildings collapsed in the direction of gravity. As I keep pointing out to people they collapses don't even resemble each other, let alone a CD and if it were a CD where is the BOOM BOOM BOOM of explosive detonations which ALWAYS immediately preceeds a CD? Each should have registered a deafening 130-140 dB even 1 km away. Why were the people below now showered with high-velocity ejecta from those explosions? How did the explosives get planted without anyone seeing them on the exact floors where the planes hit? How did they survive the impacts? How did they survive the subsequent fires? Why wait nearly an hour or more to set them off? Heck, why bring down the buildings at all? What possible purpose does that serve the plot?
Please note that there is a video showing the firefighters explaining how they heard "Boom, Boom, Boom ..." when the towers started to "collapse" , also there is a LOT of evidence to indicate that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" airliners never existed, the images on video were FAKE. the "crash damage" was actually done by explosives. The MSM is spoon-feeding the masses total BS!
The ONLY way to get the WTC buildings to "collapse" as they did, as fast as they did, is with an additional source of energy, that is explosives ... or would you prefer black magic & witchcraft?
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Please note that there is a video showing the firefighters explaining how they heard "Boom, Boom, Boom ..." when the towers started to "collapse"
That's really thin, even for you. So you are saying "boom, boom, boom" can only be explained by CD? Or can that be explained by some other mechanism? After all, lots of things can go boom that have nothing to do with explosives or explosions. We already have one far more obvious explanation for that observation and one that is backed up completely by the audio, video and forensic evidence and it has nothing to do with explosives.

An explosive device would have registered at around 190 dB at the source and still been audible at a deafening 130-140 dB at 1 km distant. So why was nothing remotely like that recorded on any of the scores of audio and video recording devices that were running at the time? Explosives send high velocity ejecta out in all directions for hundreds, even thousands of meters. So why was the population of lower Manhattan not showered with lethal fragments? The blast waves from explosives would have blown out every window for blocks. Again, nothing. But really, we are getting ahead of ourselves. If you want to declare that pre-planted explosives brought the towers down you have to explain how they got there in the first place without anyone noticing. It is after all a very destructive, highly invasive process. Then you have to explain how the aircraft managed to hit the exact floors where the explosives were planted (I'm going to pretend for a moment you are not a no-planer). Then you have to explain how they survived the impacts without cooking off or having their leads destroyed. Then you have to explain how they survived for an hour or more in raging fires. Then you have to explain why anyone would wait for an hour or more to set them off. Heck, you have to explain why it was necessary to bring down the towers at all! Then you have to explain how, in the intervening 12 years not a single one of the thousands of people who would have to be in on it has ever got a guilty conscience, spilled the beans over a bit to much at the corner pub or taken up a lucrative book and movie deal and appearance on Oprah.

, also there is a LOT of evidence to indicate that the "FLT11" & "FLT175" airliners never existed, the images on video were FAKE.
No, no there isn't. You can keep repeating that as much as you like but it doesn't make you any less wrong. I notice you never bother to present any of this alleged evidence.


The ONLY way to get the WTC buildings to "collapse" as they did, as fast as they did, is with an additional source of energy, that is explosives ... or would you prefer black magic & witchcraft?
Wrong again. Zdanak Bazant was able to show within 48 hours of the attacks his calculations which proved that once the failure occurred total collapse was inevitable. And he showed his math. You show yours, and not any of that nonsense from that high-school teacher Tricky Dick Gage uses because I'll just tear that to shreds too.
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
"Zdanak Bazant" has been debunked, as for "FLT11" and "FLT175"
where is the PROF that either of these flights ever existed at all?
 

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,560
Reaction score
493
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Since when has the government held corporations such as BP, Exxon, PANY or LERA responsible for their failures and incompetence? They usually do nothing and there is no accountability and those injured might get some compensation from the government to essentially buy their silence.

The twins were not cone inside of a cone design. You clearly have no conception of the structural strategy to deal with gravity and wind shear.... extreme height and a large footprint meaning lots of occupants per floor. The core itself was almost like a typical office frame.. but it would need diagonals to counter the wind shear. The facade were 4 large vieredeel trusses to counter wind shear and support one side of the floor. But the floors braced the facade and the stiff core also was part of the wind shear strategy. Clearly the floor structure was the Achilles heel. When they went south, the entire building was a goner.

Seven was different but it also had long span column free floors but used wide flange girders and beams to support the floors. The Achilles heel were to load transfer structures on flrs 5,6&7 which were more like a Rube Goldberg..." is best known for a series of popular cartoons depicting complex gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways." Once the transfer structure started to fail... they took the core with them... and this included the braced frames which supported the facade up to floor 8... the facade structure and curtain wall came down with no resistance from floor 8 until it slammed into the ground collapsing in itself.

The extra thick columns in the twins had nothing to do with the collapse and most of the columns in both towers were hardly damaged at all... breaking apart at their connections.

Progressive collapse... a failure of connections!
Moot point. The physics don't matter anymore. The fact that the government hired a non-independent company to do a mock investigation tells us what we need to know. As I've said before, they did a spectacular job analyzing every aspect of it where they knew answers would not be found, but then avoided (to the point of scandal) going where the evidence was.

The evidence was:
1. The collapses were identical to a controlled demo. As Dan Rather put it - "Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

2. Hundreds of eyewitnesses (including FDNY, police, and emergency responders) reported bombs going off consistently up until the collapses.

3. It had been determined that the attacks were carried out by terrorists. Terrorists, as we all know, are notorious for their use of bombs

Given these circumstances, here is what NIST had to say:

1. NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.
2. NIST did not conduct tests for explosives residue as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.

Both of these statements are absurd. On top of that, how about just performing the tests for ****s and giggles, you know, if not just to appease the grieving families who were demanding they perform the tests? Nope.

Do you see what I'm saying now? THAT right there is the smoking gun that saves us from having to discuss the actual collapses and jet fuel and structural engineering. So, again, I say going from "not investigating" to "REFUSING to investigate" amidst controversy, you've now gone from incompetence to malice, and it essentially becomes an admission of guilt. To ignore these telling facts, you're only fooling yourself.
 
Last edited:

SanderO

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
1,080
Location
NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
1. NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.
2. NIST did not conduct tests for explosives residue as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.

Both of these statements are absurd. On top of that, how about just performing the tests for ****s and giggles, you know, if not just to appease the grieving families who were demanding they perform the tests? Nope.
I am not an apologist for NIST. However, if they saw nothing in the steel and debris they examined which was consistent with the presence of explosives... why should they test for them? Certainly some test would have ruled them out if they were conducted and found to be negative. But I am sure that people would still not be satisfied. I think they assumed (correctly or not) that explosions of a a certain number, frequency and intensity had to have been witnessed for there to have been CD bombs placed. Does the steel show signs of being exploded? What are the signs in the visual debris evidence which suggests bombs and CD? (not Dan Rather who has never seen a building collapse which wasn't a CD).
 
Top Bottom