So was 9/11 an inside job or not? (merged)

[Kalimantan Gull]

I have said before I was a claims broker for Willis Towers Watson ( are you watching Titcomb - it’s gone six years now) and I collected millions on behalf of Gulf Insurance in relation to their £10m xs £10m excess of loss protection re their Silverstein liability.

There was something unusual about the way Silverstein had increased his cover and the endorsement precedent to liability that determined each tower would constitute two seperate events.

That is all.

Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion. What isn't mentioned is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. The total cost of the attack was in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.

The World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

That is all.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

No it didn't, it clearly wasn't explosives. I've explained this to you before (maybe even this thread), with videos of how buildings really come down with explosives - with really loud explosions and collapsing from the bottom, not the top.

How old are you?

Yeah loud explosives of which there is footage of fire fighters with the bangs going off in the background
https://youtu.be/jKtU01qcZBM
Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Hang on, I've not said the government crashed the planes, for all we know they could have known it was gonna happen and let it happen? ]

Oh you've certainly implied they are involved. Not long ago I answered one of your posts implying that the towers fell because of a controlled explosion, that the pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane - be consistent man

 

[dadams2k11]

Yeah, I did all this six months ago. Its earlier in the thread.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories. Hypothetical questions are posed as if there is no answer, and therefore the only truth is the conspiracy. When of course all these questions are either misleading completely irrelevant, not scientifically sound, or have been satisfactorily answered many times other. But conspiracists only have to pose the misleading questions, then sit back and watch everyone debate themselves into oooh, I'm not sure....


....

but OK:

why was the steel removed before anyone could examine it? - This question is false, as part of the steel was indeed kept for examination and the rest was removed and ultimately recycled, there were about 185,000 tonnes, of course you don't test it all. The question then implies there are conclusions that can be reached only by testing it all, which is of course not how science or investigations work

How many other steel framed buildings before and since have completely fallen into their own for print after a fire for a few hours? Well, some have, but this question implies that all buildings are built the same, when most older buildings are heavier with different load-bearing structures; secondly it ignores the unique circumstances of this disaster, the huge impact energy from a jumbo jet hitting the building at velocity and the huge loads of jet-fuel contained. No similar accident has occurred before or since. Comparing this fire to other fires is designed to mislead.

Then we get to the classic 'completely fallen into their own footprint impossibility' line of questioning. This question posits that the buildings fell in a way that they actually didn't - in fact debris was scattered over a huge area, including WTC 7 1,370 feet away - it was that debris that caused WTC 7 to come down. Then the question supposes that these are the first steel-framed buildings to collapse in this way - not true. The questions states that the pancake effect is the theory on why the buildings came down - not true, pancake theory was officially rejected, the cause of the collapse was the perimeter support columns being damaged and detaching from the floors, which then fell into and through the tower

The Pentagon question is cunning, as it asks us to assume that there would have been a high-res video camera trained exactly on the point the plane hit. In today's day and age of CCTV, we might assume that as a given. But there wasn't, in fact what there was was a time-lapse camera and the freeze frame shots are all that camera ever took. But the question is asked in a way to mislead us and get us pondering why the footage wasn't released - when there isn't, and never was, any footage. We then might fail to ask why that in itself is supposed to prove that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, when there are numerous eye-witness accounts, footage of debris outside the Pentagon, light posts taken out by the wing, bits of plane scattered all over the lawn..


and so on and so on and so on.

Ok. Some very good answers but there is still things that bug me about it.

What about the other CCTV cameras around the Pentagon. The Gas station for instance that was pointing right at the point of impact? Why was that tape remove within minutes of impact and never been shown? Surely that would clear it all up rather than 5 grainey shots?

I accept what you say and thank you for not being abusive about it? Very refreshing.

 

[dadams2k11]

Oh you've certainly implied they are involved. Not long ago I answered one of your posts implying that the towers fell because of a controlled explosion, that the pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane - be consistent man

Hang on. Re read the post. Of course I think from all the un answered questions that they had a part of it. What you're missing is I don't think they hired someone to crash them Into the buildings but maybe had prior knowledge that it was going to happen.

To have no official word about Building 7 speakers volumes as well.

EDIT:BBC News reported that building 7 has fallen down 20 mins before it did. The thing that bugs me about that is you could clearly see the building behind the left shoulder of the female reporter. How did they know it was going to fall down?

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but quite a few years ago I was very near an incident in London although not aware of it at the time.

When the CCTV was finally released I am nowhere to be seen.

Won't go into the boring details but I should be there.



Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

Yeah loud explosives of which there is footage of fire fighters with the bangs going off in the background
https://youtu.be/jKtU01qcZBM

Thanks, you've just shown one of the usual explosions of things within the building (oil or gas etc) that hasn't resulted in the building coming down. Completely different to when all the explosions go off and a building immediately drops in a controlled demolition.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Thanks, you've just shown one of the usual explosions of things within the building (oil or gas etc) that hasn't resulted in the building coming down. Completely different to when all the explosions go off and a building immediately drops in a controlled demolition.

The fire was 1) not hot enough to bring the building down and 2) if it was it wouldn't have fallen the way it did

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but quite a few years ago I was very near an incident in London although not aware of it at the time.

When the CCTV was finally released I am nowhere to be seen.

Won't go into the boring details but I should be there.



Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

There are very rich, very powerful people that control us.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[dadams2k11]

There are very rich, very powerful people that control us.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Thanks pal. You got me on one again about this arrgghhhh.. I need to step away. Probably best you do too. [emoji16]

 

[Triggaaar]

The fire was 1) not hot enough to bring the building down

Yes it was.

and 2) if it was it wouldn't have fallen the way it did

Yes it would, and did.

It's clearly fallen in a different way to when buildings are demolished with explosives.

 

[beorhthelm]

Don't forget the molten lava at the bottom of that rubble?

apparently there was some sort of fire and concreate is a very strong insulator. what do you think molten "lava" proves?

To justify the invasion of countries for their gas/oil?

same tired old ground, but once again they went off to Afganistan with neither of those things, and despite attempts to spin it in to other resources or pipelines, no substantial economic output has come from the country in th 15 years since.

 

[Eeyore]

Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion. What isn't mentioned is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. The total cost of the attack was in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.

The World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

That is all.

Beats me how he didn't register that thought before he made his comment.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Ok. Some very good answers but there is still things that bug me about it.

What about the other CCTV cameras around the Pentagon. The Gas station for instance that was pointing right at the point of impact? Why was that tape remove within minutes of impact and never been shown? Surely that would clear it all up rather than 5 grainey shots?

I accept what you say and thank you for not being abusive about it? Very refreshing.

I don't know about that camera, why don't you look it up. All of the information I posted was freely available and easily searchable, its not like I have that information in my head. This is the point I'm making, people post suspicious questions and leave it at that. If you really wanted to know the answer, just go and find out.

Hang on. Re read the post. Of course I think from all the un answered questions that they had a part of it. What you're missing is I don't think they hired someone to crash them Into the buildings but maybe had prior knowledge that it was going to happen.

To have no official word about Building 7 speakers volumes as well.

EDIT:BBC News reported that building 7 has fallen down 20 mins before it did. The thing that bugs me about that is you could clearly see the building behind the left shoulder of the female reporter. How did they know it was going to fall down?

Another question. The fire-crew told Reuters they were very worried about WTC 7 collapsing, this then passed like Chinese whispers to the BBC who reported that it had already collapsed. Nothing particular surprising about that on a day of chaos and confusion.

Perhaps stop throwing questions out there and research the answers

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The fire was 1) not hot enough to bring the building down and 2) if it was it wouldn't have fallen the way it did

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

although of course the fire was 1) hot enough to bring the building down, and 2) made the building fall the way it did. So how do you answer that, eh?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

There are very rich, very powerful people that control us.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

and sowing confusion through conspiracy theories is one of the ways they control us. If you aren't complicit in this, then you are a very willing pawn

 

[The Camel]

How many people are "in" on this conspiracy then?

Why have none of them talked about it?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Thousands of tonnes of undamaged steel and concrete just turned to dust, It doesn't make sense, if the steel did give way the top floors would've disintegrated before hitting a resistance point

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Thousands of tonnes of undamaged steel and concrete just turned to dust, It doesn't make sense, if the steel did give way the top floors would've disintegrated before hitting a resistance point

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Oh you're right, it wouldn't make sense. However that didn't happen, so you're good. 180,000 tonnes of steel removed from the site

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Oh you're right, it wouldn't make sense. However that didn't happen, so you're good. 180,000 tonnes of steel removed from the site

The steel that wasn't reduced to nothing was sent to China to be melted down before proper tests could be done

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk