yep no controlled demolition of bld 7 or lost libertys since 9/11 alright

[SAYIT]

As if one can get lower than posting "poop" from Mommy's basement. If you really want to help ol' Hand Job, get him a life.

He's honest and has integrity. But you, well you're just an average Sock Troll asshole. You cannot be trusted or respected. But hey, we all look forward to another one of your fresh & original 'Tin Foil Hat' insults. Keep up the bad work dummy.

Hey paid agent troll sock puppet SAYIT.your the one posting from mommys basment.You take money handoffs from your handlers and sell your soul down the drain for money which you will regret in the end when you burn in hell after you die.something i actually feel sorry for you on.

posting poop is the ONLY reply that your worthy of and that any truther should ever give you around here since your such a chickenshit coward who has to use a sock puppet and who cowardly runs off with his tail between his legs like a chickenshit coward ....:

 

[SAYIT]

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc. Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.

You start out with some marginally logical speculation (for instance, why wasn't the Pentagon also rigged for demo?) and abruptly shift into "conspiracy nut" mode, jumping to your "Of course controlled demolition was involved" conclusion.
You ignore the fact that no one observed the rigging, not one demo worker questioned why they buildings were being rigged and none came forward after to tell the tale. If you consider what would have been required, that's just not likely.
There is no evidence of rigging and none that the buildings were felled by controlled demo.
None.
The "facts" you've picked up in your Internet investigation are just grist for your vivid imagination. Enjoy.

There's nothing imaginary about tons of evidence being recycled prior to a complete investigation:

"Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble.

"Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!"

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal

Some was sold as scrap. Some is still around. The last column was removed from the site on May 29, 2002 ... a full 8 months after the attack. As always you base your conclusions on CT BS.
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

 

[georgephillip]

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey.

"The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly.

"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. "

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal

You're naive enough to believe Lamar Smith's willing to investigate 911?
That's BS.

 

[SAYIT]

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey.

"The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly.

"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. "

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal

You're naive enough to believe Lamar Smith's willing to investigate 911?
That's BS.

I believe you feel compelled to dismiss anything which does not conform to whatever is your 9/11 CT of the day. I believe there are many people and institutions -some with significant resources - whose best interests would be served by finding real proof of a 9/11 CT. So far you have nothing and if you did you'd be in court in the morning.

 

[MysticPhD]

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc. Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.

In short, there was a coverup alright and that is evident, but the cover up attempt was put in place with the intention of providing cover for the perpetrators of the crime, not for national security reasons. Incentive to keep quiet was most likely provided in the form of monetary incentive, threats, or as we have seen, by giving promotions.
The power of those behind the crime of 9-11 is evident, and those we have charged with protecting our nation have been compromised, while those with the courage to speak out are eliminated threatened, or silenced.

Your suggested interpretation of the cover up is plausible ONLY if you have no faith in the legitimate concerns of the government (and whatever other entities were effected in the Towers). SayIT is right . . . Insurance is often predicated on adequate measures being provided for security to mitigate and minimize any covered damage in the event of a disaster. They would need assurances that whatever measures were taken were legitimate.

If you think that the only "companies" involved in national security are in Langley or Washington . . . you are somewhat naive. If you think that the prior botched attack on the Towers in the heart of our financial centers didn't raise many red flags and cause the institution of protective measures (self-destruct) in the event of another attempt . . . you are really naive. If you think that they would ever let the public know exactly who, what and how many were affected and compromised by the attack . . . you are super naive.

 

[SAYIT]

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc. Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.

In short, there was a coverup alright and that is evident, but the cover up attempt was put in place with the intention of providing cover for the perpetrators of the crime, not for national security reasons. Incentive to keep quiet was most likely provided in the form of monetary incentive, threats, or as we have seen, by giving promotions.
The power of those behind the crime of 9-11 is evident, and those we have charged with protecting our nation have been compromised, while those with the courage to speak out are eliminated threatened, or silenced.

Your suggested interpretation of the cover up is plausible ONLY if you have no faith in the legitimate concerns of the government (and whatever other entities were effected in the Towers). SayIT is right . . . Insurance is often predicated on adequate measures being provided for security to mitigate and minimize any covered damage in the event of a disaster. They would need assurances that whatever measures were taken were legitimate.

If you think that the only "companies" involved in national security are in Langley or Washington . . . you are somewhat naive. If you think that the prior botched attack on the Towers in the heart of our financial centers didn't raise many red flags and cause the institution of protective measures (self-destruct) in the event of another attempt . . . you are really naive. If you think that they would ever let the public know exactly who, what and how many were affected and compromised by the attack . . . you are super naive.

Security, as the insurers define it, would definitely not be "self-destruct" unless they were guaranteed a free pass in the event such action was taken. Self-destruct as you describe it merely protected what you call sensitive info and cost the insurers BILLIONS of dollars. You've argued yourself into a corner. Do you have the courage to admit it?

 

[MysticPhD]

In short, there was a coverup alright and that is evident, but the cover up attempt was put in place with the intention of providing cover for the perpetrators of the crime, not for national security reasons. Incentive to keep quiet was most likely provided in the form of monetary incentive, threats, or as we have seen, by giving promotions.
The power of those behind the crime of 9-11 is evident, and those we have charged with protecting our nation have been compromised, while those with the courage to speak out are eliminated threatened, or silenced.

Your suggested interpretation of the cover up is plausible ONLY if you have no faith in the legitimate concerns of the government (and whatever other entities were effected in the Towers). SayIT is right . . . Insurance is often predicated on adequate measures being provided for security to mitigate and minimize any covered damage in the event of a disaster. They would need assurances that whatever measures were taken were legitimate.

If you think that the only "companies" involved in national security are in Langley or Washington . . . you are somewhat naive. If you think that the prior botched attack on the Towers in the heart of our financial centers didn't raise many red flags and cause the institution of protective measures (self-destruct) in the event of another attempt . . . you are really naive. If you think that they would ever let the public know exactly who, what and how many were affected and compromised by the attack . . . you are super naive.

Security, as the insurers define it, would definitely not be "self-destruct" unless they were guaranteed a free pass in the event such action was taken. Self-destruct as you describe it merely protected what you call sensitive info and cost the insurers BILLIONS of dollars. You've argued yourself into a corner. Do you have the courage to admit it?

Sure. I can be wrong and have no problem ever admitting it. But the insurers pay not based on the ultimate level of destruction incurred by any subsequent security induced self-destructs . . . but on the original destruction . . . which was more than substantial. Besides it is in this arena that government power would definitely be exerted behind the scenes to ensure secrecy and compliance.

 

[georgephillip]

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey.

"The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly.

"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. "

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal

You're naive enough to believe Lamar Smith's willing to investigate 911?
That's BS.

I believe you feel compelled to dismiss anything which does not conform to whatever is your 9/11 CT of the day. I believe there are many people and institutions -some with significant resources - whose best interests would be served by finding real proof of a 9/11 CT. So far you have nothing and if you did you'd be in court in the morning.

If it can be proven the US government collaborated in the terror attacks of 911, Lamar S. Smith and the Republican Party vanish from US History:

"Lamar Seeligson Smith (born November 19, 1947) is the U.S. Representative (Republican) for Texas's 21st congressional district, serving since 1987. The district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin, as well as some of the Texas Hill Country. He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)..."

"Some of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin" might find things heating up in their 'hoods, as well, particularly if any economic gains their citizens have acquired since 911 have come from the "War on Terror."

Expecting corporate tools like Smith to explain how office fires "caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese," is about as likely as AIG discovering the physics that explains how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers.

Apparently you oppose a full independent investigation of 911 for exactly the same reason you deny the survivors of the USS Liberty their day on CSPAN? What would that be, Troll?

9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy

 

[SAYIT]

Your suggested interpretation of the cover up is plausible ONLY if you have no faith in the legitimate concerns of the government (and whatever other entities were effected in the Towers). SayIT is right . . . Insurance is often predicated on adequate measures being provided for security to mitigate and minimize any covered damage in the event of a disaster. They would need assurances that whatever measures were taken were legitimate.

If you think that the only "companies" involved in national security are in Langley or Washington . . . you are somewhat naive. If you think that the prior botched attack on the Towers in the heart of our financial centers didn't raise many red flags and cause the institution of protective measures (self-destruct) in the event of another attempt . . . you are really naive. If you think that they would ever let the public know exactly who, what and how many were affected and compromised by the attack . . . you are super naive.

Security, as the insurers define it, would definitely not be "self-destruct" unless they were guaranteed a free pass in the event such action was taken. Self-destruct as you describe it merely protected what you call sensitive info and cost the insurers BILLIONS of dollars. You've argued yourself into a corner. Do you have the courage to admit it?

Sure. I can be wrong and have no problem ever admitting it. But the insurers pay not based on the ultimate level of destruction incurred by any subsequent security induced self-destructs . . . but on the original destruction . . . which was more than substantial. Besides it is in this arena that government power would definitely be exerted behind the scenes to ensure secrecy and compliance.

Simply put, if the insurers could have found a couple of credible witnesses, perhaps those who rigged the WTC for demo, they could have busted the case in court and saved BILLIONS. The number of peeps required to pull off such a stunt - rigging, for instance - would have taken dozens of workers at least a dozen weeks of hard labor plus tons of equipment and hazmats for each building and would have required labor union coop and silence of all involved - would have made exposure of the plot a lock. Is it possible that some of the many competing CTs contain some truth? Of course, but the probability that 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy and cover-up is about the same that Pluto is made of Swiss Cheese.

Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR (M-W Dictionary Online)
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

 

[SAYIT]

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey.

"The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly.

"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. "

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal

You're naive enough to believe Lamar Smith's willing to investigate 911?

That's BS.

I believe you feel compelled to dismiss anything which does not conform to whatever is your 9/11 CT of the day. I believe there are many people and institutions -some with significant resources - whose best interests would be served by finding real proof of a 9/11 CT. So far you have nothing and if you did you'd be in court in the morning.

If it can be proven the US government collaborated in the terror attacks of 911, Lamar S. Smith and the Republican Party vanish from US History:

"Lamar Seeligson Smith (born November 19, 1947) is the U.S. Representative (Republican) for Texas's 21st congressional district, serving since 1987. The district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin, as well as some of the Texas Hill Country. He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)..."

"Some of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin" might find things heating up in their 'hoods, as well, particularly if any economic gains their citizens have acquired since 911 have come from the "War on Terror."

Expecting corporate tools like Smith to explain how office fires "caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese," is about as likely as AIG discovering the physics that explains how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers.

Apparently you oppose a full independent investigation of 911 for exactly the same reason you deny the survivors of the USS Liberty their day on CSPAN? What would that be, Troll?

9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy

I have never expressed opposition to any investigation, I do not oppose further investigation if warranted and I do believe you just made my argument stronger. Thank you. If those who hate the GOP and Lamar Smith, and they are legion, or the insurers whose interest is less political but more financial, could prove gov't complicity - foreign or domestic - in 9/11, they could bust the case, bust the GOP, bust Lamar Smith, and recover BILLIONS for the insurers (for which they would pay handsomely). In addition, consider the fame, fortune and glory which would accrue to any CT or group of CTs who could make that case in an American civil court. The motivation to do so is real and ever-present. You are wasting valuable time here, Princess. Get busy!

 

[georgephillip]

Why are you here?

 

[paulitician]

Why are you here?

He or she is a warped Sock Troll asshole. The Sock really feels compelled to loiter here 24/7 pushing Government Propaganda. This is its latest Sock creation. But there will be more to follow. At first we all just assumed he or she was a paid Big Brother Troll, but now we realize it's just a demented stooge. I mean, i could understand getting paid to be such a stooge. But doing it for free is just plain bizarre. But hey, waddayagonnado, right?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Security, as the insurers define it, would definitely not be "self-destruct" unless they were guaranteed a free pass in the event such action was taken. Self-destruct as you describe it merely protected what you call sensitive info and cost the insurers BILLIONS of dollars. You've argued yourself into a corner. Do you have the courage to admit it?

Sure. I can be wrong and have no problem ever admitting it. But the insurers pay not based on the ultimate level of destruction incurred by any subsequent security induced self-destructs . . . but on the original destruction . . . which was more than substantial. Besides it is in this arena that government power would definitely be exerted behind the scenes to ensure secrecy and compliance.

Simply put, if the insurers could have found a couple of credible witnesses, perhaps those who rigged the WTC for demo, they could have busted the case in court and saved BILLIONS.

Of course they could have, but all that needed to be done
was install your own loyal "security" firm, which is what they did.

The number of peeps required to pull off such a stunt - rigging, for instance - would have taken dozens of workers at least a dozen weeks of hard labor plus tons of equipment and hazmats for each building and would have required labor union coop and silence of all involved - would have made exposure of the plot a lock.

Again this goes back to having their own security firm and personnel and their own people to rig their buildings under the pretense of "renovations" and elevator repairs. Are you that stupid to think they would hire legit union workers for such a secret and criminal endeavor? Maybe run a help wanted add for union labor?
As for the equipment..it is thought that due to the cancers in GZ workers, among other reasons I'm currently going to look into, and the way the buildings seemingly exploded, that mini nukes may have been used, thus eliminating the need for tearing up the buildings to the extent that may be required in planting other devices.
But regardless of what was used or how it was done, the outcome does not fit the fire and plane damage, or a fire only one in WTC 7, that one can be assured of.

Is it possible that some of the many competing CTs contain some truth? Of course, but the probability that 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy and cover-up is about the same that Pluto is made of Swiss Cheese.

BS. The US government has been lying and doing some really nasty things throughout the course of its history, and continues to do so. It is not the benevolent entity you naively assume it is.

Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR (M-W Dictionary Online)
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Right..and your adherence to the OCT dogma goes against this, fucking idiot, but you don't care, it's just a job right?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc. Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.

You start out with some marginally logical speculation (for instance, why wasn't the Pentagon also rigged for demo?) and abruptly shift into "conspiracy nut" mode, jumping to your "Of course controlled demolition was involved" conclusion.
You ignore the fact that no one observed the rigging, not one demo worker questioned why they buildings were being rigged and none came forward after to tell the tale. If you consider what would have been required, that's just not likely.
There is no evidence of rigging and none that the buildings were felled by controlled demo.
None.
The "facts" you've picked up in your Internet investigation are just grist for your vivid imagination. Enjoy.

You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand?
They didn't put help wanted adds in the papers or Career Builder either you unimaginative troll..And...evidence from this crime scene was carted away and shipped off....AND people got paid off, silenced, promoted, or eliminated. See the crime of 9-11 was done by fucking criminals who do not play nice or by the rules, as you seem to think.

Good God...you'd think they would at least send in someone who had a fucking brain and some knowledge about the topic...

 

[Montrovant]

So now 9/11 was not only planned and executed by the US government, but they used nuclear weapons to do it?!?!?!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc. Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.

In short, there was a coverup alright and that is evident, but the cover up attempt was put in place with the intention of providing cover for the perpetrators of the crime, not for national security reasons. Incentive to keep quiet was most likely provided in the form of monetary incentive, threats, or as we have seen, by giving promotions.
The power of those behind the crime of 9-11 is evident, and those we have charged with protecting our nation have been compromised, while those with the courage to speak out are eliminated threatened, or silenced.

Your suggested interpretation of the cover up is plausible ONLY if you have no faith in the legitimate concerns of the government (and whatever other entities were effected in the Towers). SayIT is right . . . Insurance is often predicated on adequate measures being provided for security to mitigate and minimize any covered damage in the event of a disaster. They would need assurances that whatever measures were taken were legitimate.

If you think that the only "companies" involved in national security are in Langley or Washington . . . you are somewhat naive. If you think that the prior botched attack on the Towers in the heart of our financial centers didn't raise many red flags and cause the institution of protective measures (self-destruct) in the event of another attempt . . . you are really naive. If you think that they would ever let the public know exactly who, what and how many were affected and compromised by the attack . . . you are super naive.

I'm not naive enough to understand that there is a continuing cover up, and that the truth regarding the 9-11 attack will effect this nation and the world, which is why an honest and sincere search for it is adamantly being silenced.
My stance on this remains, which is that if the US government, and the other players involved in planning, facilitating, and carrying out this crime, want to side track, derail, or avoid anything that comes close to the truth about this attack, it will do so, including stopping insurance carriers and their investigators. They've managed to stop all others so far, and Sayits position that because insurance fraud took place, and was successful,
therefore the official bullshit story is legitimate, is well....bullshit and a way to avoid the real issue regarding the objections to the OCT fable.

My point on the entire mater also remains intact, that these other side issues, while deserving research and consideration, can not be used to discredit the fact that, when science and physics are applied to the destruction of the WTC complex buildings, something else assisted them in being destroyed, and until people like sayit and others, face this fact, it doesn't matter who what why, or even if Daffy fucking duck was involved somehow....jumping to another topic about 9-11 will NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE DELIBERATELY DESTROYED....ON PURPOSE...and THE EVENT WAS PLANNED AND ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

And no group of insurance companies can be allowed to reveal the truth either.

In Silversteins case tho, it pays to have friends in high places-
In May 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a jury decided, with respect to 10 of the remaining insurers were bound by the Wilprop form and only one occurrence had taken place and therefore were only obligated for $2 bn. rather than $4 bn. The jury said that three others insurers were bound by other forms and had to pay double on their claims. Thus, by the Fall of 2004, about $2.4 or $2.5 bn. in insurance proceeds had been awarded to Silverstein. The remaining claims were for either $1.1 or $2.2 bn.

In December 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a second jury held that the remaining nine insurers were not bound by the Wilprop form, thus two occurrences had taken place, holding all nine insurers collectively liable for $2.2 bn. By the dawn of 2005, then, $4.6 bn. was awarded in insurance settlements. This is a far cry from what Silverstein wanted ($7 bn.), but much more than what many pundits thought he would recover ($3.55 bn.). Brooklyn-Queens Congressman Anthony Weiner vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up. [The WTC is in Manhattan.] Both sides appealed.

[A judge can greatly influence a jury by regulating the evidence they receive and the final instructions that guide their decision. The second jury was obviously and totally confounded and overwhelmed by the mass of conflicting evidence and the burden of having to reconstruct the intent of the various parties years after the fact and very dependent on Mukasey's "shepherding".]

In October 2006, the Court of Appeals (Judge Walker) in a 70 page opinion affirmed Judge Mukasey and wrote, "Judge Mukasey did a masterful job shepherding this complex, hotly contested case through both phases of a lengthy jury trial."

Judge Walker opens his opinion with, "whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whereby two jetliners separately crashed into the WTC, destroying both buildings, constituted one or two "occurrences" under...multiple insurance contracts." And concludes with, "The jury had before it evidence that none of the remaining nine insurers were bound to the WilProp form... their hours limitation clauses did not specifically refer to losses caused by fire, aircraft, or acts of terrorism...and the destruction of the WTC was caused by separate fires, resulting from separate collisions by separate aircraft into separate buildings."

[Persuasive evidence was allowed from a Silverstein expert as to trade customs in the insurance industry as well as testimony by a Travelers executive as to other claims against Travelers which were treated as separate occurrences. Reading this lengthy opinion, one is struck by the absence of Weill's Travelers as the replacement insurer when the news reports are filled with it.]

Silverstein had spent about $100 million paying lawyers, which critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should have been used for rebuilding but that $100 million produced an additional $1.1 bn. And Silverstein made a huge profit. The Port Authority, after Silverstein won the second case, quietly filed its own lawsuit seeking double indemnity on its own insurance policy.

In 2003, Spitzer, then NY Attorney General, got involved behind the scenes and in the courts, filing a amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief on Silverstein's behalf [after the Martin decision in 2002]. The courts ended up agreeing with Spitzer and Silverstein. Spitzer helped mid-wife a fat compromise and an eventual $4.5 billion payout for Silverstein. Requests for comment from Governor Spitzer were ignored.

Not one single September 11 Victim lawsuit has been permitted to proceed to a public trial by jury with testimony by major government officials, complete and unhindered discovery of documents and interrogation by career prosecutors despite meritorious evidence of prior knowledge of the attacks by the Bush administration.

The truth about the 9-11 attacks can not ever be allowed to surface, and all attempts to to bring it to light and being heard are met with resistance at every level.

In 2008 Mukasey, an Israeli citizen, was installed as US Attorney General at the urging of Senators Schumer and Feinstein where he will "shepherd" the prosecution of AIPAC for treason and/or espionage just like Kissinger was chosen to head the 911 Commission and replaced by Zelikow. Former Attorney General Gonzalez came under intense pressure to resign from Senators Schumer, Feinstein and Spector. The deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general also resigned clearing the way for more Mukasey shepherding. [Got the picture yet?]

Who Destroyed The WTC?

 

[georgephillip]

Why are you here?

He or she is a warped Sock Troll asshole. The Sock really feels compelled to loiter here 24/7 pushing Government Propaganda. This is its latest Sock creation. But there will be more to follow. At first we all just assumed he or she was a paid Big Brother Troll, but now we realize it's just a demented stooge. I mean, i could understand getting paid to be such a stooge. But doing it for free is just plain bizarre. But hey, waddayagonnado, right?

It is hard to understand why some posters feel obligated to accept and endorse the official explanation of how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers. If that crime isn't reversed, the American Experiment is destined for a bloody, ignoble ending.

 

[Mr. Jones]

So now 9/11 was not only planned and executed by the US government, but they used nuclear weapons to do it?!?!?!

Using the term "US government" is highly misleading, as it would not entail the entire US government to carry out a false flag attack, but only requires a handful of strategically placed individuals to call the shots, as is what appeared to have happened on 9-11.
The theory of mini nukes is one I am going to be looking into with interest to see what these people who posit this are saying and what they have to substantiate such a theory.

At this time one can not tell if it is a reasonable theory , or just another disinformation tactic to muddy the waters and make any search for the truth, look like a "kook" movement instead of a legitimate search for the truth about the 9-11 attacks.
One thing is for sure, and that is that the WTC could not have been destroyed or explained the way NIST has said.

 

[georgephillip]

"Conclusion

"As anticipated by Kissinger, the destruction of the WTC and the loss of thousands of lives resulted in the demolition of the American Constitution; the American people did unite behind Bush and endorse wars of aggression and genocide on the nations of the Middle East and the theft of their resources for the benefit of Israel..."

"Reportedly, even the National Institute for Standards and Technology has repudiated the 'collapse initiation' theory of its 10,000 page report, 'We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.'

"Well, nearly everybody else on the planet can. "

Who Destroyed The WTC?

 

[SAYIT]

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc. Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.

You start out with some marginally logical speculation (for instance, why wasn't the Pentagon also rigged for demo?) and abruptly shift into "conspiracy nut" mode, jumping to your "Of course controlled demolition was involved" conclusion.
You ignore the fact that no one observed the rigging, not one demo worker questioned why they buildings were being rigged and none came forward after to tell the tale. If you consider what would have been required, that's just not likely.
There is no evidence of rigging and none that the buildings were felled by controlled demo.
None.
The "facts" you've picked up in your Internet investigation are just grist for your vivid imagination. Enjoy.

You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...

Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows!
How convenient!
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess?