Charlie Sheen's Statement to the London Guardian on 9-11


aeon
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not


Well then call the insurance company, I'm sure they will be glad to hear your theory, they might actually give you a couple of million for saving them billions. Get a grip dude.

I don t care if larry stole money from the insurance compagny, what i care, is that there is 3000 innoncent american who are dead that day, that is my concern.And that claim from larry proved that the official story on 9-11 is a total joke.
 
I think not
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not


Well then call the insurance company, I'm sure they will be glad to hear your theory, they might actually give you a couple of million for saving them billions. Get a grip dude.

I don t care if larry stole money from the insurance compagny, what i care, is that there is 3000 innoncent american who are dead that day, that is my concern.And that claim from larry proved that the official story on 9-11 is a total joke.

The point is, that the isnurance company WOULD NOT pay Silverstein the money if they thought insurance fraud was involved, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
 
aeon
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not


The point is, that the isnurance company WOULD NOT pay Silverstein the money if they thought insurance fraud was involved, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


Here you have a little portion of your answer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein


Larry Silverstein, backed by a number of investors, signed a 99-year lease for the World Trade Center complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The deal was described in a press release on July 24th, 2001, as:
"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion Ė the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history.[1]"
The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th.
Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack. Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. Most of the insurers prevailed in a trial (Silverstein was never granted an additional $2.3 billion in extra insurance money as a result) while others are still in litigation[citation needed].



and here.....

Silverstein is known among Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 for a statement he made on a PBS documentary in which he stated that he and others had decided to "pull it" in reference to WTC Building 7, following fire damage, which many interpreted to mean he had ordered the demolition of the building given the manner of its collapse. Silverstein's office responded that no such order was given.
 
I think not
#64
You don't understand or you're just playing stupid.
 
mabudon
#65
The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)
 
aeon
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

You don't understand or you're just playing stupid.

Come on, the reason why insurance didnt see the frraud, is because larry sylverstein office denied that such order was given, read it.


Silverstein is known among Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 for a statement he made on a PBS documentary in which he stated that he and others had decided to "pull it" in reference to WTC Building 7, following fire damage, which many interpreted to mean he had ordered the demolition of the building given the manner of its collapse. Silverstein's office responded that no such order was given.


I am not here to play smart ass with anyone, i am here to share what i know of the event, simple as that.
 
Jay
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."

 
mabudon
#68
Oh okay, then it was 19 dudes
Too bad I didn't read all the flagrantly partisan stuff before I read the scientific piece, thanks for de-bunking all the points too
 
EagleSmack
#69
Do you people who claim that Bldg. 7 have any clue what it takes to take down a building via explosive charges?

That would mean that demolitions experts would have to work in the building for months setting charges. But before they set the charges they would have to pretty much gut the building. That means removing walls, ceilings to expose beams. Each charge would have to be wired to explode at the same time.

ALL OF THIS UNDER THIS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE EVERYDAY!

But I guess they were all in on the conspiracy.

Spotty fires! That building was totally gutted by fire.

I recently met with a firefighter from NY who was there on 9/11. He arrived after both buildings were down. He informed me that fires raged all over the disaster site and there just wasn't enough firemen to handle everything. I asked him (reluctantly because I didn't want him to think i was crazy) about Bldg. 7.

He said it was insane to think that that building was dropped on purpose. He said that fires raged through that building unchecked and that it was written off to save building that could be saved. He also mentioned that it was already damaged by a good chunk on the Towers collapsing upon it. That is why it collapsed.

But what does he know.
 
aeon
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."


and what is your point??
 
aeon
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack

Do you people who claim that Bldg. 7 have any clue what it takes to take down a building via explosive charges?

That would mean that demolitions experts would have to work in the building for months setting charges. But before they set the charges they would have to pretty much gut the building. That means removing walls, ceilings to expose beams. Each charge would have to be wired to explode at the same time.

ALL OF THIS UNDER THIS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE EVERYDAY!

But I guess they were all in on the conspiracy.

Spotty fires! That building was totally gutted by fire.

I recently met with a firefighter from NY who was there on 9/11. He arrived after both buildings were down. He informed me that fires raged all over the disaster site and there just wasn't enough firemen to handle everything. I asked him (reluctantly because I didn't want him to think i was crazy) about Bldg. 7.

He said it was insane to think that that building was dropped on purpose. He said that fires raged through that building unchecked and that it was written off to save building that could be saved. He also mentioned that it was already damaged by a good chunk on the Towers collapsing upon it. That is why it collapsed.

But what does he know.


strange as it is, building 7 was 2 block away from the twin tower, there was building right next to the twin tower, that still stand to day, why is that?? why building 7 and not those?? also to mention , there wasnt much fire in building 7.
 
Jay
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."


and what is your point??

The point is they would need demolition crews to go in scope the place out and do a ton of work to blow up these buildings as you are claiming. It didn't happen.

I think that is plain obvious, but I could be wrong.
 
EagleSmack
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


When Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" he meant pull the attempts by the FDNY to save WTC 7 because it wasn't worth it risking any more lives that day on 9/11.

America Rebuilds:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/


So you finally admit, that world trade center 7 was demoslish with explosives.good.

Haha I didn't admit WTC 7 was destroyed by demolishing. You can't read?

Johnny... Don't you get it?

When aeon has no facts and is presented with facts he tries to put people on the defense or put words in their mouths.

Common tactic... however futile.
 
EagleSmack
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."

Hey Jay... quit using logic, physics and common sense.

And the constant use of facts is making them sad.
 
EagleSmack
#75
aeon... you are out of your tree. The area around the Twin Towers was an absolute wasteland.

Look at the damn pictures!

Or are they CIA and FBI doctored photos!
 
I think not
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

You don't understand or you're just playing stupid.

Come on, the reason why insurance didnt see the frraud, is because larry sylverstein office denied that such order was given, read it.

Ring Ring

Larry Silverstein's Office: Hello, Larry Silverstein's office, how may I help you?

Insurance Company: This is your insurance company regarding WTC 7, we heard that your boss intentionally blew up the buildings for whatever reason, is this true?

Larry Silverstein's Office: No! It's all false! They are smearing his name.

Insurance Company: Just as we thought, the three and one half billion dollar check will be in the mail tomorrow, have a nice day

Larry Silverstein's Office: *snickers*
 
Johnny Utah
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


When Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" he meant pull the attempts by the FDNY to save WTC 7 because it wasn't worth it risking any more lives that day on 9/11.

America Rebuilds:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/


So you finally admit, that world trade center 7 was demoslish with explosives.good.

Haha I didn't admit WTC 7 was destroyed by demolishing. You can't read?

Johnny... Don't you get it?

When aeon has no facts and is presented with facts he tries to put people on the defense or put words in their mouths.

Common tactic... however futile.

Oh I understand the game his kind play. They are the Alex Jones Kool-Aid Drinking Moonbats who believe all the 9/11 Conspiracies from the Planes were flown by remote control, no plane never hit the Pentagon to there were no Jews at the WTC on 9/11 as it was a Mossad Operation.

They are the mental midgets of the World.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#78
Jay said
"Ithink that is plain obvious, but I could be wrong."

Jay could you clarify this for me, which way are you leaning here? I think you are plainly obviously wrong.
 
aeon
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay


The point is they would need demolition crews to go in scope the place out and do a ton of work to blow up these buildings as you are claiming. It didn't happen.

I think that is plain obvious, but I could be wrong.

Bingo,couple days before the event, the 48th floor and above the power was down, for 24 hours,apperently for cable upgrade , never happened before.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#80
Do you not think that anyone would have noticed, aeon , someone cutting through nine-tenths of the support structure on dozens of floors, even if only for twenty-four hours?
 
Jay
#81
"Whats that buzz saw noise?" asked Sally

"Nothing! Now get back to work!" said the bad man.
 
aeon
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Do you not think that anyone would have noticed, aeon , someone cutting through nine-tenths of the support structure on dozens of floors, even if only for twenty-four hours?



Not really , if the power is down, no camera are on, means, a lot of people can get in and out withouth being filmed.
 
I think not
#83
It is not possible to wire up a building with explosives in 24 hours, you're beginning to look like an idiot aeon, use your brains for crying outloud.
 
mabudon
#84
Yes, and the owner of the company who did the work just makes it a bit odd,too- it's no week-long thing, but computer models and stuff could serve as a good enough "casing" of the place if it were absolutely necessary, since SOME "collateral" damage was totally anticipated by whoever planned it out, would have had to have been

And I am NOT suggesting Bush DID it, I just don't believe that the official story is anywhere near the truth either
 
I think not
#85
With the press of a button at 5:47 PM on October 24, 1998, Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer dropped the J.L. Hudson Department Store from his cityís skyline and into the history books and record books.
Hudsonís was the tallest department store in the country and was second in square footage only to Macyís anchor Store in New York. It dominated the retail market in the city through the 1970ís before closing its doors in 1983.

The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.

In the fall of 1997, the Downtown Development Authority of Detroit (DDA), retained a joint venture of Walbridge Aldinger and Jenkins Construction of Detroit to manage the project. Walbridge/Jenkins took bids for asbestos abatement of the structure and the contract, which took three months to complete, was performed by Loyalty Environmental of Chicago.

The demolition contract went to a joint venture between Detroit based Homrich, Inc. and Boston based North American Site Development. They, in turn, retained Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) and the Loizeaux Family of Phoenix, Maryland to design and perform the tricky implosion of the Detroit landmark.

No structural drawings of the facility were available, making structural analysis and implosion design a considerable task for CDI. The interdependency of the 12 different construction stages, with differing construction and variable column flange directions and bay widths created what CDI calls differential natural failure modes in each section of the structure which CDIís demolition program had to cope with. These factors created an implosion design, preparation and dynamic control challenge for the 2nd and 3rd generation of a family recognized as the international founders of the commercial implosion industry (see ENR cover story October 1972).

Hudsonís was bordered on four sides by streets filled with critical infrastructure and flanked on 3 sides by poorly maintained, turn-of-the-century structures with huge sand-cast glass windows that occasionally broke in high winds. Lastly, Detroitís elevated "People Mover" paralleled the east face of the 439 ft. tall structure just 15 ft away.

Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudsonís the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the buildingís 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDIís 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDIís implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudsonís internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDIís 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDIís implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."

When the button was pressed at 5:47 PM, assembled officials, contractors, former Hudson patrons and an estimated crowd of 20,000 watched the store begin to pivot at its southwest corner. The controlled collapse moved north and east through the structure, folding the walls inward.

When the dust cleared, a debris pile averaging 35 ft tall and as high as 60 ft tall where the tower had stood was all that remained of the venerable Detroit department store. Woodward and Farmer Streets were clear of debris , while it would take a couple of days to clear the pile of debris hanging over narrow Grand River Ave.

There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion, according to Dave Miller of Schnabel Engineering, the third party geotechnical firm hired to do pre/post blast surveys and record the vibration from the blast. Miller said that the vibration from the fall of the structure was well within allowable limits as recorded at adjacent properties. There was no apparent damages to underground utilities.

Pile up of debris during the fall of Hudsonís pushed four steel columns against and two columns over the post-tensioned concrete elevated People Mover Tramway near the south west corner of the structure. Cosmetic; minor structural and control cable/rail damage was found once the debris and protective cover was removed. Authorities hope repairs can begin during the two week down time previously scheduled for maintenance of the system to parallel the demolition of Hudsonís.

The Homrich/NASDI joint venture expect to take five months to clear the debris, placing select material back in the hole as structural fill.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com...20030225133807

-------------------------------------------

The WTC was over 100 stories high, any questions?
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Do you not think that anyone would have noticed, aeon , someone cutting through nine-tenths of the support structure on dozens of floors, even if only for twenty-four hours?

Good one.
 
aeon
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

It is not possible to wire up a building with explosives in 24 hours, you're beginning to look like an idiot aeon, use your brains for crying outloud.


http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/108539.php


Quote:

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTCís first occupants after it was erected, and that a ďpower-downĒ had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) Ė approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTCís security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.


It takes weeks of preparations, but that weekend were just the final touch of the set up.
 
Jay
#88
The onus of proof that the building was being filled up with explosives is on you. You accually have to prove the who, what, when, where and why on this.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

It is not possible to wire up a building with explosives in 24 hours, you're beginning to look like an idiot aeon, use your brains for crying outloud.

They had since at least since 1994 to do the work, that's when it is thought the WTO plan was hatched by the bad guys, so the good guys did have an identified target (WTO) that they knew for sure would be a bad guy target, and you will remember the first attack.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#90
Where is all the people saying "gee, we had funny "power downs too".

Aeon does know that bankers and FBI agents probably dress similar, right?
 

Similar Threads

2
8
Who will defend Charlie Rangel
by DaSleeper | Oct 20th, 2009
5
Guardian Angels Watching Edmonton
by Johnny Utah | May 9th, 2006
1
charlie is found!!
by galianomama | Jul 28th, 2004