web analytics

The day Ends

By Patrick Van Roy On September 12th, 2017

Not a delightful day, an anniversary of a horror committed by Animals, and then to be filled with the conspiratorial ramblings of the deficient and insane…. well you can’t fix stupid and that’s why the insane are called insane. No matter what you say, they will always be in that grassy knoll.

Well if they can live in fantasy Land so can I

In my fantasy Liberals actually have values, they are still nuts but they understood the underlying value they would be to the world if they actually practiced what they preached.

This Fantasy, this “Decent” Liberal does have an example model….. Ladies and Gentleman…. I give you Alan Shore defending a homeless man of Cannibalism.

156 Responses to “The day Ends”

  1. Well if they can live in fantasy Land so can I

    It’s called your comfort zone Troll.

  2. By the way, it wasn’t all bad news…

    https://order-order.com/2017/09/12/brexit-bill-passes-second-reading-326-290/

  3. Troll’s ‘comfort zone’ is very narrow with no room for thinking.

  4. I hope a couple of people watch the clip, it literally is a pure delight.

  5. // to be filled with the conspiratorial ramblings of the deficient and insane….//

    Has anyone else noticed that they’re all British?

  6. lol

    did you watch the clip Noel?

    If you have five minutes watch it. Boston Legal was a great show.

  7. // to be filled with the conspiratorial ramblings of the deficient and insane….//

    Has anyone else noticed that they’re all British?

    Yes, none of the Americans or Irish here believe in this goddamned bullshit.

  8. Boston Legal was drily hilarious Troll.

  9. I just watched the clip. Very good. I’d never heard of that guy.

    //none of the Americans or Irish here believe in this goddamned bullshit.//

    I don’t believe I’ve ever heard any “truther” crap out of the mouth of an Irishman. The Irish have too much savvy.

  10. It is amazing that 16 years after the event that some of these guys are carrying on like this.

    The truth is the last thing that they’re interested in – on 9/11,7/7, Boston, Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, Oklahoma City, anything.

  11. I often wonder what the psychological element is which attracts people to such claims.

  12. I have thought long and hard on that question Paul.

    In some cases, I think that the truth of some things in such world is so sinister that one thinks that it can only be something super sinister that caused it, not merely some bastards with box cutters or a smiling guy who delivers a bomb in a backpack, etc .

    Guys like Alex Jones, who is at the center and main popularizer of all of these theories, are IMO 100% evil. They lie and they know that they lie, and they intentionally deceive the feeble minded, the sheep who think that they’ve really discovered ” what they don’t want you to know “

  13. Guys like Alex Jones, who is at the center and main popularizer of all of these theories, are IMO 100% evil. They lie and they know that they lie, and they intentionally deceive the feeble minded, the sheep who think that they’ve really discovered ” what they don’t want you to know “

    Lol!

    😁😁

  14. I don’t know if Alex Jones is evil Phantom but he certainly is clever in exploiting weakness, naivety and insecurity to build his reputation / feather his own nest.

  15. Alex…who?

  16. Paul

    I think that Alex Jones has made beaucoup coin doing what he does, but that he could have much more successful financially if he had not gone down his path.

    I think that he is smarter and funnier than the likes of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and Levin, with better communication skills, but Jones can’t be considered for truly national cable TV or radio gigs, for the reasons stated.

  17. I often wonder what the psychological element is which attracts people to such claims.

    It’s not psychological. It’s technical. It’s engineering. Allan is an engineer. Harri is in a technical discipline.

    An engineering mind knows that things must be connected. It knows that if you do something to A then B will result. So this kind of mind looks at what’s happened and if the outcome fits with the connections and the actions.

    Humanities types, arts grads and liberals, they swallow any old shit because their minds haven’t been stretched and educated. They cannot think. They haven’t been taught how to think. They know nothing so they question nothing.

  18. Phantom and Alex Jones, appear to be joined at the hip.

    This Alex bloke, doesn’t need any advertising, Phantom is his number one fanboy. 😊

  19. Humanities types, arts grads and liberals, they swallow any old shit because their minds haven’t been stretched and educated. They cannot think. They haven’t been taught how to think. They know nothing so they question nothing.

    Precisely.

    You can’t fix stupid.

  20. I believe that the huge majority of top architects and engineers think that Trutherism of the Controlled Demolition variant is utter imbecility.

    Allan apparently thinks that when a 767 loaded with fuel smashes into the building of a skyscraper that it should have no effect on the building’s structural integrity. I don’t think that there are too many architects that think that.

  21. Allan apparently thinks that when a 767 loaded with fuel smashes into the building of a skyscraper that it should have no effect on the building’s structural integrity.

  22. And building 7?

  23. Allan apparently thinks that when a 767 loaded with fuel smashes into the building of a skyscraper that it should have no effect on the building’s structural integrity.

    It doesn’t turn concrete into powder, and cause steel to molten.

  24. We’ve talked about that.

    And you guys have never given the slightest semblance of a proper argument for the controlled demolition yarn on the other buildings. And Allan definitely was flogging that donkey on these pages.

    Apparently, when planes hit buildings it is supposed to make the buildings stronger. Or something.

  25. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 4:21 PM Said:

    I often wonder what the psychological element is which attracts people to such claims.

    Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 4:36 PM Said:

    I have thought long and hard on that question Paul.

    The psychological element is when one does not look at the facts, and the key fact is that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition as seen below. The psychological element is the refusal to look at the facts, defined by Orwell as ‘crimestop’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

    To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.[1] Crimestop is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.

    Here is the collapse of building 7 shwoing the freefall acceleration as it was ‘pulled’ (term used by Larry Silverstein – owner)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

    Physics teacher David Chandler uses simple scientific software to understand and show the freefall demolition of WTC7, WTC 7, Building 7.

    Here is demolition expert, the late Danny Jowenko, describing controlled demolition:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

    The psychological element of 9/11 is why would anybody NOT look at the evidence which is contrary to the official narrative? Is it ‘crimestop’?

  26. Allan

    You no longer think that One and Two WTC were controlled demolitions?

    That’s progress.

    Good boy.

  27. We’ve talked about that.

    If you believe “talking about that” means mentioning your buddy Alex…whatsisname Evey five minutes, then you are sadly in denial.

  28. Harri

    Its been 16 years.

    Please declare your thoughts on what brought down one and two WTC.

    What caused it.

  29. Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 5:53 PM Said:
    Apparently, when planes hit buildings it is supposed to make the buildings stronger. Or something.

    You’re just making that up, aren’t you 🙂

    And as one sees from the recent thread linked below, making things up is part of Phantom’s armoury:

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=70455#comments

    Phantom should do astro-physics. They just make things up and give each other prizes for the biggest piece of BS

  30. Phantom –

    Surveys have shown that people who tend to disbelieve the official 9/11 narrative are technically-minded. They tend to be engineers, architects, builders, surveyors etc.

    I.e., they are people in a world of right and wrong, where your calculations and actions matter. Liberals don’t understand this world.

  31. Demolition charges.

    As described (but ignored) by the many NY Police and fireman first responders, hearing loud explosions in sequence.

    They were bought down, as was building 7.

  32. Allan

    Demolition charges.

    If not mistaken, this is your theory as well

  33. You’re just making that up, aren’t you 🙂

    Phantom used the same template time after time, that’s why it’s generally laughed off.

  34. All three buildings were steel, all three came down in “sequential collapse” – they fell into their own footprints.

    They were bought down.

  35. Did the plane collisions effect the day’s events and if so how?

  36. Harri, you stated on another thread that you believed the US wanted war with Iraq and that was the reason the towers were brought down. I asked you your reasons as to why you thought the US wanted war with Iraq and your answer was:

    Destabilising, and regime change look pretty good idea.
    Who knows what the New World Order drones are really up to?.

    That’s hardly a compelling argument?

  37. Phantom.

    The twin towers were built to withstand an aircraft crash.

  38. That’s hardly a compelling argument?

    It’s the one you got.

  39. Did the plane collisions effect the day’s events and if so how?

    And building 7?

  40. A smaller 707 was contemplated.

    They were not built to withstand a 767 crash.

  41. Phantom – when WTCs 1 and 2 were destroyed, the explosions were of such force that people were smashed to tiny pieces, and concrete was pulverised. This is what ended up in the lungs of emergency service personnel and the consequential cancers and lung diseases. Do you accept that people who were in WTCs 1 and 2 were blown to tiny pieces? If so, what could have caused it?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/15/september11.usa

    About 300 human bone fragments have been found on the roof of a skyscraper damaged by the collapse of the World Trade Centre, officials said yesterday.

    Workers had been removing toxic chemicals and dust from the former Deutsche Bank building. The bone fragments, most less than 1.5mm long, were found during the past four days in gravel on the roof of the 41-storey skyscraper, said Ellen Borakove, spokeswoman for the city medical examiner’s office.

    They will be taken to a laboratory for DNA testing and given to families or stored at a memorial.

    What happened to the occupants of WTCs 1 and 2?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/01/911victims/

    In every building collapse in history, all of the victims’ bodies have been recovered more or less intact. That is because falling buildings crush human bodies. They do not shred them into tiny pieces, or cause them to vanish into thin air.

    Yet on September 11th, 2001, the most famous “building collapses” in history somehow caused the bodies of more than 1,000 victims to magically disappear. Not even a shred of skin, a fragment of fingernail, or a shard of bone from any of these bodies was ever recovered, despite meticulous “sifting and bucketing” efforts.

    But that’s not the only mystery. Hardly anything was left of the 1,634 WTC occupants who did not completely vanish. Most of the human remains discovered and DNA-identified were in the form of tiny, shredded pieces, not intact bodies.

  42. Why were there nano particles of thermite found in the twin towers dust?.

  43. Phantom – I’m interested in the psychological aspect of believerism. I’ve posted two links of short duration at 5.56pm which are not of a high technical difficulty. Could you give a short summary as to why you refuse to look at them and confirm Orwell ‘crimestop’?

  44. Yet on September 11th, 2001, the most famous “building collapses” in history somehow caused the bodies of more than 1,000 victims to magically disappear. Not even a shred of skin, a fragment of fingernail, or a shard of bone from any of these bodies was ever recovered, despite meticulous “sifting and bucketing” efforts.

    Magically, and by some incredible miracle, against all odds, a passport of one of the terrorists managed to survive unscathed?.😏

  45. It’s the one you got.

    Fair enough, then the foundations of your theory are built on sand.

  46. Please advise who taught you that buildings are not harmed by huge planes flying into them

  47. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

  48. Paul McMahon,

    I often wonder what the psychological element is which attracts people to such claims.

    Hi Paul.
    That’s an interesting question. I’ve also been seeking an answer to this.
    I think there are multiple reasons why people believe this stuff. Apparently, you’re more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if you have an average or low IQ.

    https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/04/05/why-more-highly-educated-people-are-less-into-conspiracy-theories/

    But there are a minority of people with high IOs who believe this nonsense.
    It could also mean you’re a selfish and narcissistic person if you’re into conspiracy nonsense.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3482408/Believe-conspiracy-theories-probably-narcissist-People-doubt-moon-landings-likely-selfish-attention-seeking.html

    It has been shown that many believers feel safer believing they know exactly who and/or what is behind a horrible event. Their belief that the government is behind those evil deeds, along with their explanations of how they did it, rather than the simple truth that some previously unknown terrorists, living amongst us did it probably makes them feel safer and more in control of their lives.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4JwGwwclsXGvxl2LfQPqk58/why-do-our-brains-love-conspiracy-theories

    But who knows for sure mate.

    I’ve had conversations with moon landing deniers in the past, and even if you show them how they’re wrong on one belief, they just move the goalposts to a different conspiratorial belief. I actually asked a moon landing denier once, what would convince him the Apollo program was real? And he said; ‘nothing can convince me!’ That’s a red flag right there. A truly open mind accepts new evidence. I asked this guy what if they actually took you to the moon in the future and showed you the landing sites? His reply, ‘I still wouldn’t believe it because they’d just fake the landing modules and footprints in advance.’
    They’re to invested in their beliefs to ever change their minds.

  49. Er, and building 7.?

  50. Hi Harri

    Why don’t you believe in a God?

  51. That’s an interesting question. I’ve also been seeking an answer to this.
    I think there are multiple reasons why people believe this stuff. Apparently, you’re more likely to believe in conspiracy theories if you have an average or low IQ.

    Lol!
    😁😁

  52. Why don’t you believe in a God?

    I have no interest.

    Even though it’s the biggest conspiracy theory known to mankind.

    Dave.

    Why do you believe in a God?.

  53. My own personal opinion would veer towards the narcissism of your second point Dave.

    The ‘I know better than you’, ‘I know because I’m more intelligent than you’, ‘I know something you don’t’ aspect.

    And even if you show them how they’re wrong on one belief, they just move the goalposts to a different conspiratorial belief.

    Of course that would never happen on ATW Dave! 🙂

    More than a few times I’ve commented on threads of how when one theory is disproven it is simply cast aside and replaced with another.

  54. Harri,

    I have no interest.
    Even though it’s the biggest conspiracy theory known to mankind.

    So you don’t believe in a God, even though more than half the people on this planet do, But you do believe a tiny minority of ‘architects’ that tell you the twin towers where brought down by explosives and not the planes and fires, even though the vast majority of architects don’t.
    Interesting.

    Dave.
    Why do you believe in a God?.

    I don’t. As I’ve told you before.

  55. They’re to invested in their beliefs to ever change their minds.

    Dave, one could argue, if one wasn’t an apatheist, or suggest that maybe Heaven and Hell are only real for those who believe in them and everyone else just dies.

  56. So you don’t believe in a God, even though more than half the people on this planet do, But you do believe a tiny minority of ‘architects’ that tell you the twin towers where brought down by explosives and not the planes and fires, even though the vast majority of architects don’t.
    Interesting.

    Dave,

    I think you will find the number of people who believe that the official narrative of 9\11 stinks to high heaven, is rather more than a few engineers.

  57. Paul McMahon,

    My own personal opinion would veer towards the narcissism of your second point Dave.
    The ‘I know better than you’, ‘I know because I’m more intelligent than you’, ‘I know something you don’t’ aspect.

    I would agree this is true in some cases mate. I find the conspiracy theorist who ridicule and insult you when you question or show their statements to be untrue tend to fall into this category.

    And even if you show them how they’re wrong on one belief, they just move the goalposts to a different conspiratorial belief.
    Of course that would never happen on ATW Dave!

    Certainly not on days of the week with an X or Z in them.

    More than a few times I’ve commented on threads of how when one theory is disproven it is simply cast aside and replaced with another.

    You and me both mate. It’s why I’ve mostly given up trying these days.

  58. Harri

    I think you will find the number of people who believe that the official narrative of 9\11 stinks to high heaven, is rather more than a few engineers.

    But they’re still a tiny minority Harri. And people having a belief does not automatically equate to truth Harri. As I tried to show with my point about belief in God.

  59. Dave.

    I have never felt the need for religion, I just don’t feel the need to have someone watching over every move I make, I feel better working alone, I don’t need a supervisor.😁

  60. Harri

    Dave, one could argue, if one wasn’t an apatheist, or suggest that maybe Heaven and Hell are only real for those who believe in them and everyone else just dies.

    Maybe that’s the case Harri. We’ll probably never know.

  61. But they’re still a tiny minority Harri

    Not in America their not.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

  62. Harri,

    Not in America their not.

    True. But those Yanks are just crazy. They listen to Alex Jones FFS. 🙂

  63. Alex…who?.

  64. Phantom, Dave, Paul – I’m interested in the psychological aspect of believerism. I’ve posted two links of short duration at 5.56pm which are not of a high technical difficulty. Could you give a short summary as to why you refuse to look at them and confirm Orwell ‘crimestop’?

    No goalposts shifted at all – they are exactly where they were years ago because the facts haven’t changed, and still no response from any of you on the content of these short and highly explanatory videos:

    Allan@Aberdeen, on April 23rd, 2013 at 6:20 PM Said:

    For me, it comes back to building 7 of 9/11. The events of 9/11 were so enormous as to cause critical faculties of examination to be disrupted. But it was only about 2008 that I actually heard of building 7 and then I saw the footage of its collapse. A physics lecturer produced a time-frame of its collapse which showed beyond all doubt that it collapsed vertically into its own footprint AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION – controlled demolition. The problem with the herd is that its members don’t understand the simple physics as shown here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0

  65. Phantom.

    Er, building 7?.

  66. Harri – whether the majority believe the official narrative or not is of no consequence. What matters are the facts and many of these have been placed before our opponents who, for reasons of Orwellian psychology, refuse to look at these facts. This aspect is almost as fascinating as the demolitions themselves.

    Facts posted today without dispute from the ‘believers’ are:

    6.21pm Occupants of WTCs 1 and 2 were blasted to smithereens: collapsing buildings cannot do that
    5.56pm Building 7 collapsed under freefall acceleration into its own footprint. Only controlled demolition can do that

  67. He said the official narrative

  68. collapsing buildings cannot do that

    Who told you that?

    Concrete can fall from 110 stories high and not be smashed?

    There were many parts larger than smithereens. I saw them. Even after the huge hot raging fires that burned for more than two weeks.

    https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/wtcpile2.jpg

  69. Absolutely nothing about 9/11 makes sense not one iota of the official story adds up.

  70. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/20/september11.usa

    The fires actually burned for 100 days.

    They did a lot of damage.

  71. Phantom – I must request that you read what your interlocutor has written, otherwise you shall look very stupid.

    I wrote…..

    Occupants of WTCs 1 and 2 were blasted to smithereens: collapsing buildings cannot do that

    You wrote…..

    Who told you that?

    Concrete can fall from 110 stories high and not be smashed?

    There were many parts larger than smithereens. I saw them. Even after the huge hot raging fires that burned for more than two weeks.

    I shall emphasise – OCCUPANTS OF WTCs 1 AND 2…….

    This was linked at 6.21pm

    Would you also note that I’m interested in the psychological aspect of believerism. I’ve posted two links of short duration at 5.56pm which are not of a high technical difficulty. Could you give a short summary as to why you refuse to look at them and confirm Orwell ‘crimestop’?

  72. Allan

    There was a collapse from 110 stories high

    And then there was a 100 day very hot fire.

    Please take these facts into your calculations

  73. There are technical questions being asked here which I simply can’t answer because I don’t have the technical expertise to answer them.

    What I question is that if there are technical questions to be answered about the attacks why does it automatically equate to a theory of something more sinister and if that’s the case who caused the attacks and what was the motive?

    Anytime I’ve asked these questions the narrative has went along these lines:

    Who was responsible for the attack then?

    – The USA / Israel / New World Order / Iluminatti etc

    What was the reason for the attack?

    – Mumble, mumble, mumble. Something, something, something Iraq. Who knows?

    So there we have it. It was an attack by X for some reason or other.

  74. No goalposts shifted at all

    Yeah, true enough. I’ve never said when one theory is disproven it is simply cast aside and replaced with another – nothing must detract from the narrative here at all.

  75. There was a collapse from 110 stories high

    And building 7?

  76. Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 7:35 PM Said:

    Allan

    There was a collapse from 110 stories high

    And then there was a 100 day very hot fire.

    Please take these facts into your calculations

    Phantom – you’ve just been an idiot so the least that you can do is to engage and not ‘shift the goalposts’. You’ve been believing more than 110 stories. A collapse of 110 storeys driven by 15 storeys and leaving fires which burned for 100 days and could not be put out? What kind of fires could those be – has that question ever occurred to you?

    Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 7:43 PM Said:

    when one theory is disproven

    Paul – show me

  77. I don’t think that anyone here has any special technical expertise or that has the slightest experience as respects the structural issues of huge skyscrapers.

    Paul, you are as qualified as anyone else here. Do not be bashful

  78. Building 7

    https://youtu.be/kqG6v7KZ_s8..

  79. Phantom – you can look outside and tell me what the weather is like yet you are not a qualified meteorologist. But you should know why you do something and why you don’t do something. I’ve posted two links of short duration at 5.56pm which are not of a high technical difficulty. Could you give a short summary as to why you refuse to look at them and confirm Orwell ‘crimestop’?

  80. Paul – show me

    Serbian rape camps

    IRA volunteers dying so not to turn Ireland into Africa

    The POTUS not knowing his television co host was married

    A university campus sociology survey indicating that women secretly want to be raped.

    (((Youtube)))

    Rubbishing psychology and sociology and then using psychology and sociology links as ‘evidence’

    If you want to dispute this do your own Googling as I really couldn’t be arsed.

  81. Phantom,
    I don’t think that anyone here has any special technical expertise or that has the slightest experience as respects the structural issues of huge skyscrapers.

    That’s true in my case also.
    However, my father is a lifelong steelworker, (who still wont retire at 73.) He’s helped build many steel buildings in the UK and Ireland.

    My neighbour, (now retired), was an architect and architectural engineer who has designed and overseen the construction of many buildings in the UK and around the world.

    Neither of these vastly experienced people see a problem with the collapse of the buildings on 9/11. As do the vast majority of similarly experienced professionals worldwide.

  82. Dave

    Correct. We don’t have the expertise but we can speak to those that do.

    Allan and the little Allans don’t seem to be aware of the fact that planes hit the towers.

    And they make up yarns about explosive charges being deployed.

    It is all clueless fantasy, a big Sandy Hook.

  83. Would anyone like to forward their theory if the the TT fellings were more sinister who was responsible fr the attack and what was the reason?

  84. It’s my understanding that the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects are a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation and that an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories. Is that correct?

  85. That is my understanding.

    ( Technically it is FDNY )

  86. The problem is, all of this nutty conspiracy nonsense distracts people from the real conspiracies happening in government.

    Here, I present you with a little, possibly fictitious scenario I’ve written.

    SSGA = Super secret government agent.

    SSGA1 ‘So SSGA2, do we have a plan to get the people to support a war in the Middle East?’

    SSGA2 ‘Sir we have two plans.’

    SSGA1 ‘Nice. Lets hear them.’

    SSGA2 ‘First plan. We use our deep cover operatives in al-Qaeda to convince some Saudis sympathetic to the cause to fly planes into the World Trade Centre, Pentagon and White House. And we turn a blind eye to their presence here before the attacks.’

    SSGA1 ‘Not bad, not bad. And the second plan?’

    SSGA2 ‘Well…. We rig the world trade centre towers with thermite to cause a floor by floor freefall collapse, (even though this would be almost impossible to achieve with thermite), and then do something similar to building 7, but have that collapse from the bottom instead. Then we’ll make it look like planes hit the world trade centre, or perhaps use real planes but with no passengers. Then we fly a missile into the Pentagon but say it was a plane. We’ll get a load of fake eyewitnesses to say they saw a plane. Then we’ll have a plane or something crash in a field in Pennsylvania with nobody on board. We’ll also do something with all the people who are supposed to be on those flights. Maybe kill them or just let them go with new identities, we haven’t decided yet.
    Of course, this plan involves hundreds of people being involved in, and knowing the terrible truth but never revealing it.’

    SSGA1 ‘Hmmmmm. Lunch?’

    SSGA2 ‘Lovely. I’ll drive.’

  87. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 8:11 PM Said:

    Would anyone like to forward their theory if the the TT fellings were more sinister who was responsible fr the attack and what was the reason?

    Paul – it’s here, at 47.50. The towers were making enormous losses, yet could not be demolished or dismantled without enormous cost to the owner because of asbestos.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

  88. The buildings had just been sold.

    And any big building in NYC and in most other places built before say 1972 had / has asbestos in it.

    Undisturbed asbestos harms no one.

    Very many of us who own old houses have asbestos in the basement, by the boiler / steam pipes.

  89. Why would asbestos in place make a building unprofitable?

    The buildings were very heavily occupied and were making money. That’s why Silverstein bought them.

  90. Are you seriously trying to suggest that The Silverstein Group who had leased the towers from the NYPA in March 2001 collapsed the towers because of asbestos?

    And the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories? Does their expertise count for nothing?

    Well, at least now we seem to have moved from the old US / Israel / New World Order / Iluminatti collapsing the buildings to private business inteests flying two jumbo jets into them because they had asbestos?

  91. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 8:17 PM Said:

    It’s my understanding that the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD…..

    Here is a ‘truther’ from NYFD and he describes in detail the failings of the fire forensics, indeed these were criminal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVgLt27AD0k

    Now that 53% of the public disagree with the official narrative, I’d wager that firemen, engineers, pilots etc are among them. Of the emergency service personnel who were in the area of the WTCs, they all state that there were explosions from within the buildings prior to and following the destruction – at 3.52.00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBMrzibEwZA

    As a humorous aside, at 14.57 the self-styled debunkers (of those conspiracy theories) advance the Incompetence Theory as to why the USAF failed to intercept any single one of the hijacked aircraft in one-and-a-half hours of meandering over the eastern US

  92. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 9:42 PM Said:

    Are you seriously trying to suggest that The Silverstein Group who had leased the towers from the NYPA in March 2001 collapsed the towers because of asbestos?

    Paul – all you have to do is open the link as presented and watch the evidence, then you can ask questions on the basis of what you and I have seen. Then again, if you ask the question at 8.11pm yet refuse to look at the response, that invokes ‘crimestop’:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

    To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.[1] Crimestop is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.

  93. He bought the buildings in order to blow them up with the tenants inside.

    What a sinister guy he was.

    Maybe he will blow up his other buildings next.

  94. Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 9:24 PM Said:

    Why would asbestos in place make a building unprofitable?

    The buildings were very heavily occupied and were making money. That’s why Silverstein bought them.

    Phantom – see 9.51pm. The link is below so open at 47.50. The towers were making enormous losses, yet could not be demolished or dismantled without enormous cost to the owner because of asbestos.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

    As soon as you and Paul have seen the relevant footage, we can have a basis for discussion. If not, then you can give a short summary as to why you refuse to look and thus confirm Orwell ‘crimestop’?

  95. I’ve opened the link at 47.50 and watched it for approximately 8 mins.

    So,

    Are you seriously trying to suggest that The Silverstein Group who had leased the towers from the NYPA in March 2001 collapsed the towers because of asbestos?

    Just to be clear, have we moved on from the old US / Israel / New World Order / Iluminatti collapsing the buildings to private business inteests flying two jumbo jets into them because they had asbestos?

    You’re only partially quoting my ‘truther’ question:

    It’s my understanding that the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects are a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation and that an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories. Is that correct?

    Is it? and if so do the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories? Does their expertise count for nothing?

    That’s three questions I’d like you to answer.

  96. No.

    You make the point without your stupid wee youtubes.

    Silverstein is one of the smartest real estate guys in the US.

    He bought the profitable buildings so that he could make a profit for his company with them.

    Asbestos again is in very many small and large buildings built up to say 1972. There’s nothing wrong with asbestos that is in a place where it won’t be disturbed.

    Why would he want to dismantle or demolish a building that he just bought? Even by Allan standards this does not compute.

  97. //I believe that the huge majority of top architects and engineers think that Trutherism//

    My wife’s an architect and at the time of the attacks was working for a large, modern firm of architects. Her office also had several structural engineers. A few weeks after 9-11, the boss called them all together and they went through all the details of the tower buildings: the materials, the core structure, volume etc. Not one of them ever doubted that the official story is true; they all agreed that the official explanation makes perfect sense.

  98. A few weeks after 9-11, the boss called them all together and they went through all the details of the tower buildings: the materials, the core structure, volume etc. Not one of them ever doubted that the official story is true; they all agreed that the official explanation makes perfect sense.

    There wasn’t an official explanation a few weeks after 9/11. The NIST Report came out years later.

  99. Let us accept for the sake of argument that the twin towers, buildings 1 and 2 were destroyed by controlled demolition. Can someone answer why the demolitionists would have also needed to rig building 7 ? If you were aiming to achieve the spectacular of seeing the twin towers topple while also flying planes into them why the hell would it matter what happened to the auxiliary buildings ? Why would anyone go to the effort of also rigging them with explosives ?

  100. Yes, and then there is the little detail of why no one noticed them rigging hundreds or thousands of explosives.

    It takes days and maybe more to rig much smaller buildings ; its a very visible thing.

  101. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 9:58 PM Said:

    I’ve opened the link at 47.50 and watched it for approximately 8 mins.

    48.32 – when the WTC was bombed in 1993, it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically ‘smart’ buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity.

    48.47 – to maintain the trade centre as class ‘A’ office space commanding top rents, the Port Authority would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electro-communications and cooling systems

    49.04 – biggest problem with twin towers was the large amount of asbestos that they contained

    49.13 – 400 tons of asbestos had been used for fire-proofing

    50.10 – cost of asbestos removal at each refurbishment sky-rocketing

    51.00 cost of asbestos removal floors 41/42/75/76 WTC1 and 75/76 WTC2 $868,000
    51.07 cost of asbestos removal floor 40 WTC2 $650,000

    How many floors in each tower?

    51.30 – December 2000 condition assessment, from 1986 to 1999, $58.2 million spent on asbestos ‘abatement’

    52.00 elevator shafts with asbestos

    52.25 – asbestos abatement costs to be up to $1 billion (the same cost as a brand new tower)

    For those who believe that the twin towers were commercially profitable, please watch the footage exactly as described

    52.47 – 4 months before 9/11, the Port Authority lost its 10-year court battle with insurers to get some money back for asbestos costs.

    53.09 – only option for Port Authority is to dismantle towers at astronomical cost

    53.18 – in steps ‘lucky’ Larry Silverstein

    54.15 Larry takes out insurance policy for $3.2 billion covering the towers for total destruction

    54.30 Larry goes to Twin Towers every morning – but has the day of on 9/11, (as did his son and daughter)

    55.44 Larry pockets $4.5billion

    55.55 Larry pockets $800million for WTC7

    Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 9:53 PM Said:

    He bought the buildings in order to blow them up with the tenants inside.

    Silverstein is one of the smartest real estate guys in the US.

    He bought the profitable buildings so that he could make a profit for his company with them.

    Yes, and he made a huge profit. Such monsters exist

    It’s my understanding that the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects are a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation and that an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories. Is that correct?

    Is it? and if so do the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories? Does their expertise count for nothing?

    Is it?

    Unlikely given the number of people who disagree with the official narrative.

    Does their expertise count for nothing?

    The expertise of the NYFD is simply the witness testimony of those who were there on the day, and they all heard explosions before, during and after each demolition.

    Paul – you really should allow the video to continue.

  102. Explained here Colm:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9mBIYTs20

  103. 48.32 – when the WTC was bombed in 1993, it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically ‘smart’ buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity.

    48.47 – to maintain the trade centre as class ‘A’ office space commanding top rents, the Port Authority would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electro-communications and cooling systems

    49.04 – biggest problem with twin towers was the large amount of asbestos that they contained

    No.

    I worked there and was very familiar with both towers.

    First, while not new, the buildings were desirable to tenants. Companies liked the spacious open floors unencumbered by too many pillars

    The rents were no longer any immediate concern to the Port Authority since Mr. Silverstein had taken out a 99 year lease on them. He paid the PA $3.2 billion for that right. The PA had already made its money

  104. The buildings were pretty much fully occupied. There were large crowds in the ground floor concourse during all work hours and more. The stores there did great business. The future of the buildings was bright.

    Allan doesn’t know anything about this subject. He not only reaches wrong conclusions, he is utterly clueless, doesn’t know where to begin, as one of us might be if we were to try to teach a Japanese how to speak Welsh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_2_World_Trade_Center

  105. Let’s deal with the placement of explosives because, how could it happen?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoMCQPTd9A

    0.00 onwards – Placement of explosives

    7.54 John Skilling, designer of WTCs 1 and 2 states that the buildings could be demolished by a top expert

    8.58 Firefighters reporting explosions before, during and after demolitions

    9.35 100 emergency respondents stating that there were explosions in the buildings before and during demolitions

    10.17 explanation of preliminary explosions prior to main demolition explosions

    13.11 big explosion in basement of WTC1 BEFORE hit by plane

  106. So, what you’re suggesting is that the TT were brought down by Larry Silverstein in an elaborate insurance fraud? Is that correct?

    I’d like to hear your explanation about Arabs hi jacking jumbo jets, Al Q, the Taliban and how it was arranged.

    The expertise of the NYFD is simply the witness testimony of those who were there on the day, and they all heard explosions before, during and after each demolition

    Again you’re only partially answering the question. The full question with salient points in italics:

    It’s my understanding that the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects are a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation and that an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories. Is that correct?
    Is it? and if so do the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories? Does their expertise count for nothing?

    So there are actually three questions there:

    Are the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation?

    Do an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories?

    Does the expertise of the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories count for nothing?

    Unlikely given the number of people who disagree with the official narrative.

    We’re talking specifically of first responders and those with professional specialist knowledge of structural engineering such as engineers of various disciplines, architects etc not the general public.

    And please:

    Have we moved on from the old US / Israel / New World Order / Iluminatti collapsing the buildings to private business inteests flying two jumbo jets into them because they had asbestos?

    A simple yes or no would be sufficient for the last one.

  107. 48.32 – when the WTC was bombed in 1993, it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically ‘smart’ buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity.

    48.47 – to maintain the trade centre as class ‘A’ office space commanding top rents, the Port Authority would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electro-communications and cooling systems

    49.04 – biggest problem with twin towers was the large amount of asbestos that they contained

    Oh yes – and you would have seen the source documents for asbestos expenditure if you didn’t suffer from ‘crimestop’. Orwell had you sussed.

    Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 10:54 PM Said:

    Yes, and then there is the little detail of why no one noticed them rigging hundreds or thousands of explosives.

    It was noticed for certain – see 11.19pm above. This would require breach of ‘crimestop’ to actually look at evidence of ideas contrary to your own fixations.

    Can you give a short summary as to why you refuse to look and thus confirm Orwell ‘crimestop’? This refusal to look at evidence that an opponent cites in his case is fascinating.

  108. Why are you using the repetition ‘crimestop?’- Three times in the last comment.

    Is it some kind of mantra or attempted subliminal suggestion?

  109. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 11:21 PM Said:

    So, what you’re suggesting is that the TT were brought down by Larry Silverstein in an elaborate insurance fraud? Is that correct?

    Who gained? Many people lost their lives that day and yet many profited. Silverstein gained most of all yet he and his children were absent from their usual places in the WTCs on that day. so yes, that’s what I’m suggesting.

    We’re talking specifically of first responders and those with professional specialist knowledge of structural engineering such as engineers of various disciplines, architects etc not the general public.

    The first responders are seen at 11.19pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoMCQPTd9A

    8.58 Firefighters reporting explosions before, during and after demolitions

    9.35 100 emergency respondents stating that there were explosions in the buildings before and during demolitions

    Do an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories?

    I don’t know. As for ‘miniscule portion’, it doesn’t matter how many engineers or scientists are for or against: it’s the evidence and the argument that is of concern and nothing else.

    Does the expertise of the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories count for nothing?

    How many engineers and architects have examined the destructions of the WTCs to be in a position to disagree with the alternatives to the official narrative? Until I looked at it, I acquiesced with the official narrative just as one usually does/did e.g. reasons for invading Iraq. One thing is for certain: NIST is lying

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  110. What floors were the charges planted in?

    Hurry, make something up.

    Allan, the kooky end of the internet was made for you, son.

  111. Sigh. The facts are immaterial to Allan types. You are giving him his happiest day since Aberdeen abolished pay toilets.

  112. Paul McMahon, on September 12th, 2017 at 11:37 PM Said:

    Why are you using the repetition ‘crimestop?’- Three times in the last comment.

    Is it some kind of mantra or attempted subliminal suggestion?

    A seen many times on this thread alone:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

    To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.[1] Crimestop is a way to avoid crimethink by immediately purging dangerous thoughts from the mind.

  113. mahons, this is a guilty pleasure if it is pleasure, of actually engaging with the crazy man in the subway car at four AM.

    Cheers

  114. Phantom, on September 12th, 2017 at 10:54 PM Said:

    Yes, and then there is the little detail of why no one noticed them rigging hundreds or thousands of explosives.

    It takes days and maybe more to rig much smaller buildings ; its a very visible thing.

    Indeed, which is why it was noticed……

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoMCQPTd9A

    0.00 onwards – Placement of explosives

    7.54 John Skilling, designer of WTCs 1 and 2 states that the buildings could be demolished by a top expert

    8.58 Firefighters reporting explosions before, during and after demolitions

    9.35 100 emergency respondents stating that there were explosions in the buildings before and during demolitions

    10.17 explanation of preliminary explosions prior to main demolition explosions

    13.11 big explosion in basement of WTC1 BEFORE hit by plane

    Mahons, on September 12th, 2017 at 11:44 PM Said:

    Sigh. The facts are immaterial to Allan types.

    The facts are the most important part. That’s why I’m presenting them.

  115. Allan

    I asked you what floors the charges were planted in

    List them now for each major building in detail if you please.

  116. So yes, that’s what I’m suggesting.

    Okay, in that case I presume we have moved on from the old US / Israel / New World Order / Iluminatti collapsing the buildings.

    Now if you could just explain your theory re Silverstein and Arabs hi jacking jumbo jets, Al Q, the Taliban and how it was arranged.

    I don’t know. As for ‘miniscule portion’, it doesn’t matter how many engineers or scientists are for or against: it’s the evidence and the argument that is of concern and nothing else

    Actually it does. If 100 engineers and architects examine facts and 99 agree on a set narrative with one disagreeing it’s highly probable that the larger group’s consensus is correct.

    So,

    Are the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation?

    Do an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories?

    Does the expertise of the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories count for nothing?

    And please, this time, no evasion.

  117. And while you’re at it, why the need for charges if massive airplanes were going to be flown into the buildings.

    Didn’t you guys used to believe that the buildings were not hit by planes.

    C’mon step it up

  118. Are the ‘truthers’ of the NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects a minuscule portion of these professions who agree with the accepted explanation?

    No

    Do an even tinier portion of this minuscule portion subscribe to the more sinister theories?

    I don’t know

    Does the expertise of the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories count for nothing?

    How many engineers and architects have examined the destructions of the WTCs to be in a position to disagree with the alternatives to the official narrative? Until I looked at it, I acquiesced with the official narrative just as one usually does/did e.g. reasons for invading Iraq. One thing is for certain: NIST is lying

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

  119. Does the expertise of the vast majority of NYPD, NYFD, engineers and architects who disagree with these theories count for nothing?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWoMCQPTd9A

    8.58 Firefighters reporting explosions before, during and after demolitions

    9.35 100 emergency respondents stating that there were explosions in the buildings before and during demolitions

  120. Mahons,

    Sigh. The facts are immaterial to Allan types. You are giving him his happiest day since Aberdeen abolished pay toilets.

    LOL.

    Allan’s ramblings make no sense whatsoever.

  121. Dave

    Ja.

    A crazy man does not know that he is crazy.

    I suppose that these conversations are an insight into… Something

  122. Can someone answer why the demolitionists would have also needed to rig building 7

    Building 7 held records of the missing Pentagon 2.3 trillion “missing” Dollars.

    Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

  123. Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

    The plot thickens. What does Rumsfield have to do with Silverstien’s alleged massive insurance fraud?

  124. Obviously he was Silverstein’s secret lover. We might as well bring a gay conspiracy theory in to add to all the others 😋

  125. PS – Harri

    Wouldn’t it have been easier to just remove the records. ? You don’t have to blow the bloody doors (and walls and ceiling) off 😛

  126. Colm, on September 13th, 2017 at 8:35 AM Said:

    Obviously he was Silverstein’s secret lover. We might as well bring a gay conspiracy theory in to add to all the others

    Silverstein… Oy vey ! 😉

  127. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM

  128. How many engineers and architects have examined the destructions of the WTCs to be in a position to disagree with the alternatives to the official narrative?

    I don’t know but as the number of FDNY and NYPD personel, engineers and architects that have expressed concern over the explanations is minuscule in comparison to the people in these professions who have not it’s a reasonable assumprion that, like the architects in Noel’s wife’s architectural firm, most agree with the accepted narrative.

    Silverstein… Oy vey !

    Ah, I was wondering when it was going to reveal itself 🙂

    Does this mean that you are now on board with Al’s elaborate insurance fraud theory and the Iraq theory has been cast aside H?

    And, again, what does Rumsfield have to do with Silverstien’s alleged massive insurance fraud?

  129. As someone with family members in both FDNY and NYPD I would advise you to be very careful to whom you spout that truther crap to in either organization everyone of them has a connection to someone who died there, and they don’t take kindly to this nonsense.

  130. Troll.

    Oh, you old truth denier you. 😉

  131. Just for you Troll..

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/04/heated_controversy.html

  132. No answers to the two questions at 10.48 H?

  133. Harri there are idiots in every group as we can see in this thread.

    The majority of FDNY and NYPD officers get very upset at these wingnut theories. You can also find FDNY and NYPD that support BLM which supports the assassination of Cops.

    Just because you can find wackos in any group does not mean they represent the group. As stated in the article you link the advisors on the film were very upset about truther nonsense from the star and then to DISMISS those firefighters being upset it points to the few loons that can be found FDNY that will like you and Alan believe anything.

  134. One thing is for certain: NIST is lying

    NIST ‘lies’

    https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

    Larry Silverstein obviously paid off the NIST, the GW Bush administration, the various secret service and intelligence agencies, the jumbo jet hijackers, Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc.

  135. I don’t know but as the number of FDNY and NYPD personel, engineers and architects that have expressed concern over the explanations is minuscule in comparison to the people in these professions who have not it’s a reasonable assumprion that, like the architects in Noel’s wife’s architectural firm, most agree with the accepted narrative.

    Paul – it’s not so. As seen from links above, police and emergency personnel who were present at the WTC area on 9/11 state that they heard explosions before, during and after the demolitions whereas the official narrative is that there were no explosions at all other than the plane impacts. As for engineers, those to whom I’ve presented the evidence, particularly the piece that shows the NIST report as a lie, agree that the narrative is BS. Perhaps if the architects at Noel’s wife’s firm watched the explanatory footage linked below, then they would change their minds:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

    On Silverstein, being a zionist jew, he was very ‘linked-in’ with Benny the PM and spoke to him every day (the ha’aretz site is down at time of writing but persevere):

    http://www.haaretz.com/up-in-smoke-1.75334

  136. Colm, on September 13th, 2017 at 8:42 AM Said:

    PS – Harri

    Wouldn’t it have been easier to just remove the records. ? You don’t have to blow the bloody doors (and walls and ceiling) off 😛

    Colm – the location hit in the Pentagon was the offices where the investigation into the missing $2.3trillion was being conducted. Rummy admits the facts on 10th September 2001 – and nobody cares…..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

    At 1.08.52 and 1.32.19, astonishment by air traffic controllers and pilots that a civilian plane can fly like a military plane, towards the Pentagon:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ppQDmId9M

  137. And as always, the biggest crimes have a money trail just as WW1 and WW2 had a money trail…..

    https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/

    In 1998, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to privatize the World Trade Center, the complex of office towers in Lower Manhattan that they had owned and operated since their construction in 1973. In April 2001 an agreement was reached with a consortium of investors led by Silverstein Properties and on July 24th, 2001 Larry Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center Building 7, signed a 99 year lease for the Twin Towers and Buildings 4 and 5.

    The lease was for $3.2 billion, and was financed by a bridge loan from GMAC, the commercial mortgage arm of General Motors, as well as $111 million from Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre, individual real estate investors. Silverstein Properties only put down $14 million of its own money.

    The deal was unusual in a variety of ways. Although the Port Authority carried only $1.5 billion of insurance coverage on the WTC complex, which earlier that year had been valued at $1.2 billion, Silverstein had insisted on doubling that amount, insuring the buildings for $3.55 billion. Silverstein’s insurance broker struggled to put that much coverage in place and ultimately had to split it among 25 dealers. The negotiations were so involved that only temporary contracts were in place for the insurance at the time the lease was signed and by September the contracts were still being finalized.

    Silverstein’s group was also explicitly given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and even to expand the amount of retail space on the site if rebuilding did take place.

    In the end, Silverstein profited from the 9/11 attacks to the tune of $4.55 billion and counting.

    Larry Silverstein is a very lucky man – profiting like that, taking the day off, children taking the day off too….

    But that’s the 9/11 insurance heist you saw. There was a much deeper, more complex, and well-hidden heist that was taking place behind closed doors on September 11, 2001, deep in the heart of the World Trade Center itself.

    Marsh & McLennan is a diversified risk, insurance and professional services firm with over $13 billion in annual revenue and 57,000 employees. In September of 2001, 2000 of those employees worked in Marsh’s offices in the World Trade Center. Marsh occupied floors 93 to 100 of the North Tower, the exact area of the impact and explosion.

    In the year prior to 9/11, Marsh had contracted with SilverStream software to create an electronic connection between Marsh and its clients for the purpose of creating “paperless transactions.” SilverStream had already built internet-based transactional and trading platforms for Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Banker’s Trust, Alex Brown, Morgan Stanley and other financial services firms that were later involved in 9/11, but this new project was unlike anything that had been attempted before.

    At the time of 9/11, Marsh’s chief of risk management was Paul Bremer, the former managing director of Kissinger and Associates who went on to oversee the US occupation of Iraq. On the morning of 9/11 he was not in his office at Marsh & MacLennan, but at NBC’s TV studio, where he was delivering the official story of the attack.

    NBC4 ANCHOR: Can you talk to us a little bit about…about…who could…I mean, there are a limited number of groups who could be responsible for something of this magnitude, correct?

    PAUL BREMER: Yes, this is a very well-planned, very well-coordinated attack, which suggests it is very well-organized centrally, and there are only three or four candidates in the world really who could have conducted this attack.

    NBC4 ANCHOR: Bin Laden comes to mind right away, Mr. Bremer.

    PAUL BREMER: Indeed, he certainly does.

    Yes – it was OBL, from a cave in Afghanistan which had become the Maginot Line

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, Rumsfeld’s War on the Pentagon’s Bureacracy did not yield the results he promised. By 2013, the unaccountable money in the Pentagon’s coffers had reach $8.5 trillion.

    $8.5 trillion is $8,500,000,000,000 and that’s at 2013. This is nearing the end of 2017 and the Pentagon’s missing money is probably enough to pay off the entire debt of the US.

  138. Paul – it’s not so

    Of course it’s so. The vastly overwhelming majority of NYPD and FDNY personel along with the vast majority of engineers and architects have no problem with the accepted narrative.

    They heard explosions before, during and after the demolitions whereas the official narrative is that there were no explosions at all other than the plane impacts.

    I don’t know about before however I suggest that ignition of combustible and electrical elements as the plane collision reverberated around the buildings would cause explosions.

    You are obviously a man who likes to research and investigate. Here is the NIST FAQs regarding the WTC investigation:

    https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

    Why not satiate your curiousity about unanswered questions and get the answer from the horse’s mouth here:

    Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation Contact: Michael E. Newman, michael.newman@nist.gov

    And let us know how you get on.

    On Silverstein, being a zionist jew

    Straw man?

    I’m fairly sure that the only person to allude to Silverstien’s Jewishness, (although tbh I knew it was only a matter of time), was co believer Harri.

    I would however be interested in hearing your explanations as to how Silverstien got the NIST, the GW Bush administration, the various secret service and intelligence agencies, the jumbo jet hijackers, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and presumably the insurance company which paid out to complicitly cooperate in his elaborate insurance fraud.

  139. I would however be interested in hearing your explanations as to how Silverstien got the NIST…….

    I’ll just stick to what I know, because what I know is sufficient to conclude on controlled demolition. After all, there’s no need to move the goalposts, but a good summary of the money-trail is below

    https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/

    Within hours of the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11th, Silverstein was on the phone to his lawyers, trying to determine if his insurance policies could “construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one.” Silverstein spent years in the courts attempting to win $7.1 billion from his $3.55 billion insurance policy and in 2007 walked away with $4.55 billion, the largest single insurance settlement ever. As soon as the deal was announced Silverstein sued United and American Airlines for a further $3.5 billion for their “negligence” in the 9/11 attacks, a claim that was struck down by the courts but is still on appeal.

    Perhaps even more outrageously, in a secret deal in 2003, the Port Authority agreed to pay back 80% of their initial equity in the lease, but allowed the Silverstein group to maintain control of the site. The deal gave Silverstein, Goldman and Cayre $98 million of the $125 million they put down on the lease, and a further $130 million in insurance proceeds that were earmarked for the site’s rebuilding.

    In the end, Silverstein profited from the 9/11 attacks to the tune of $4.55 billion and counting.

    That’s what we know – all duly linked within the link above. And, as one would see, there were many others who benefitted from the events of 9/11.

    The vastly overwhelming majority of NYPD and FDNY personel……

    Not so – those who were there heard explosions which conflicts with the official narrative as contained in your link to the NIST Q&A.

    The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

    That’s because seismics don’t pick up the explosions – but the acoustic record does, and the NYFD personnel there at the time confirm pre-explosions as linked in previous posts for you to look at. You haven’t looked, have you?

    However, the majority of emergency personnel are now afflicted with lung diseases and impairments from the asbestos dumped into their lungs:

    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/16/9-11-death-toll-rising-496214.html

    The average age of rescue and recovery workers is approaching 54, says Andy Todd, co-deputy director of Mount Sinai’s World Trade Center Health Program. More than 86 percent of them are men, and more than half are suffering from multiple World Trade Center–related illnesses. Fewer than 10 percent have cancer right now, Todd says, but as these people get older, both he and Crane expect that number to steadily rise. “If you were down there, and especially if you were a responder,” Crane says, “you need to be seen.”

    Gerasimczyk, the retired cop, vividly recalls standing feet away from the south tower when it fell. “We were right by St. Paul’s Chapel when the first building came down,” he says. “A nightmare. I thought, We’re already dead.” He had been dispatched downtown as soon as the planes hit. One of his supervisors, Timmy Roy, an NYPD sergeant, was radioing for help from the base of the towers. In the days that followed, Gerasimczyk and his colleagues searched the rubble for Roy and put him on the list of the missing. “We never saw Timmy again,” he says. “They found some bones. And they found his gun. It had melted.”

    I’ll assume that the gun was made primarily of steel – what could cause steel to melt?

    https://www.cannonsafe.com/blog/a-look-at-gun-materials-and-production/

    The foundational material in any gun is steel.

    The stuff that caused a policeman’s gun to melt – would it be the same stuff that caused girders and beams to melt?

  140. I’ll just stick to what I know,,,,, ROFLMAO

  141. O\T..

    Here we go again..

    FRANCE TERROR: At least 7 injured after being attacked by man ‘shouting Allahu Akbar’

    SEVEN people have been attacked in the French city of Toulouse by a man allegedly shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/853758/france-toulouse-man-attack-allahu-akbar-terror-police-latest

  142. I can’t understand why all these demolition companies spend a fortune, time and effort planting explosives to bring down tower blocks, and other buildings.

    Why don’t they just set fire to them?

  143. Why don’t they just set fire to them?

    They need ‘special fires’ – fires that are inextinguishable and burn for 90 days, and incendiary stuff that can melt a policeman’s gun

  144. Troll believes his government don’t lie to the plebs…ROFLMAO

  145. Why don’t they just set fire to them?

    I’ve heard of jewish lightning but 9/11 was just ridiculous

  146. I’ll just stick to what I know

    You have suggested that 9/11 was an elaborate insurance fraud and if that is indeed the case their would have had to have been at least hundreds if not thousands of other actors, (no pun intended), complicit in the fraud in order for the scam to be successful, not least of all the insurance company that paid out to the fraud.

    Not so – those who were there heard explosions

    It’s my understanding that a handful of FR’s, in single figures, say they heard explosions prior to the collapse of the towers. Apart from the fact that these single figures were a minescule portion of the FR’s there that day here’s a more technical explanation:

    Assertion # 4, P.6

    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

    What you ‘know’ is a few unanswered questions that you and others like you have fashioned into an international murder plot motivated by elaborate insurance fraud involving terrorists, governments, security and intelligence services, emergency services etc AND the insurance company that were allegedly defrauded.

    I have provided a contact for for you to submit your unanswered to with the possibility of receiving answers – I’ll be surprised if you follow up on the investigative research in the pursuit of ‘facts’ that you seem to enjoy so much

  147. Allan

    You keep running away from my simple question

    You say with some certainty that there were charges placed in the towers by the government, the owner, the Port Authority, God knows who else. Well a) name your source b) tell me which floors the charges were placed on c) tell me who planted the charges.

    And while you are at it, if there were demolition charges there, why go to the trouble of flying massive planes into the buildings, Surely some overkill

  148. Which group physically placed the charges?

    The CIA, US military, the Mossad, the Rosicrucians, who?

  149. Phantom, on September 13th, 2017 at 6:49 PM Said:
    Which group physically placed the charges?
    The CIA, US military, the Mossad, the Rosicrucians, who?

    How the f… Is anyone supposed to know that information?

    You are just being silly now.

  150. And while you are at it, if there were demolition charges there, why go to the trouble of flying massive planes into the buildings, Surely some overkill

    And say what…bought them down?

    No planes, no boogeyman, no war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    It’s quite simple.

  151. You’ve been saying the nonsense for 16 years and have no idea who did it?

    This would have likely involved hundreds of technicians all intent on mass murder and none of them talked to anyone else over the 16 year period, and no tenant or staff saw any of them? And no one can identify the floors where it was done?

    This is what you believe.

  152. You’ve been saying the nonsense for 16 years and have no idea who did it?

    You have been duped, and believing the official fairytale nonsense for 16 years, and still haven’t really got a clue who done it.

    Whoever did do it, has gotten clean away on their heels.

  153. Harri

    You’re a good man but you follow false Scottish and American prophets on this one.

  154. FRANCE TERROR

    Alex Jones. (as you consistently accuse Phantom of bringing up Alex Jones everytime you introduce an unrelated themmuns comment into the conversation I’m gonna bring up Alex Jones too).

    So you’re back Harri, good man.

    Do you share this humongous international fraud theory too or are you sticking with the mumble, something Iraq version?

  155. Anyway, you don’t need too much thermite explosives, it just needs to be placed in the correct places.

    Like it was in building 7

  156. Alex Jones. (as you consistently accuse Phantom of bringing up Alex Jones everytime you introduce an unrelated themmuns comment into the conversation I’m gonna bring up Alex Jones too).

    Arghhh!

    Please excuse me while I bang my head on this table.😏

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.