You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ahmadinejad at Columbia - where's the love for the non-moonbat speakers?
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
Quote from hapaboy:
You never explained how you were supposedly misquoted in the first place!!
Why?
BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T MISQUOTED, THAT'S WHY!
Typical loozzer moonbat obfuscator...
For the last time retard:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misquote
Comprende?
If you liked Silverstein's admission to pulling building 7 you will love this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc
George Bush says when talking about WTC and I quote "He told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a point high enough to prevent people from escaping ..."
US Army special forces says and I quote "in 2001 after the WTC bombing ..."
Rumsfeld when talking a about the 911 attacks says and i quote "they shot down the plane over Pensilvania ..."
Again Siverlstien admits that he was asked to pull building 7 on the day.
When John Kerry was questioned regarding the Silverstein admission he says and I quote "they made a decision based on the danger that it would destroy the other buildings so they did it in a controlled fashing ..."
Staggering admissions by those involved.
For the last time retard: Did you or did you not make those statements I quoted you as saying?
Answer: Yes you did.
Conclusion: Claiming you were misquoted is assinine. Therefore you are following moonbat procedure to a T.
Quote from hapaboy:
For the last time retard: Did you or did you not make those statements I quoted you as saying?
Answer: Yes you did.
Conclusion: Claiming you were misquoted is assinine. Therefore you are following moonbat procedure to a T.
What are you trying to do here, bore me into submission?
Ok I'm bored. Good enough for you? Happy?
Hapaboy, you are depriving a villiage somewhere of an idiot.
For all you doubters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc
George Bush says when talking about WTC and I quote "He told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a point high enough to prevent people from escaping ..."
US Army special forces says and I quote "in 2001 after the WTC bombing ..."
Rumsfeld when talking a about the 911 attacks says and i quote "they shot down the plane over Pensilvania ..."
Again Siverlstien admits that he was asked to pull building 7 on the day.
When John Kerry was questioned regarding the Silverstein admission he says and I quote "they made a decision based on the danger that it would destroy the other buildings so they did it in a controlled fashing ..."
Staggering admissions by those involved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc
George Bush says when talking about WTC and I quote "He told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure the explosives went off at a point high enough to prevent people from escaping ..."
US Army special forces says and I quote "in 2001 after the WTC bombing ..."
Rumsfeld when talking a about the 911 attacks says and i quote "they shot down the plane over Pensilvania ..."
Again Siverlstien admits that he was asked to pull building 7 on the day.
When John Kerry was questioned regarding the Silverstein admission he says and I quote "they made a decision based on the danger that it would destroy the other buildings so they did it in a controlled fashing ..."
Staggering admissions by those involved.
"Another little âcoincidenceâ -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against âterrorist attacksâ."
I'm not surprised he would insure against terroist attacks, could have been mandatory for a loan, but that is not my point. Silverstein is real estate as is Trump. Trump published a book in 2000 I think it was titled "The America We Deserve" There was a chapter on terrorism worth a read, imo. My point is, those in real estate were probably more concerned about terrorism and an attack on NYC than the govt long before 911.
I might add, Trump world towers near the UN is one of the few if not the only residence which was built in restricted air space because of its proximity to the UN, a good selling point.
Additionally, the presence of the nypd in various countries around the world leads me to believe that nypd has little faith in the feds to protect the city.
I'm not surprised he would insure against terroist attacks, could have been mandatory for a loan, but that is not my point. Silverstein is real estate as is Trump. Trump published a book in 2000 I think it was titled "The America We Deserve" There was a chapter on terrorism worth a read, imo. My point is, those in real estate were probably more concerned about terrorism and an attack on NYC than the govt long before 911.
I might add, Trump world towers near the UN is one of the few if not the only residence which was built in restricted air space because of its proximity to the UN, a good selling point.
Additionally, the presence of the nypd in various countries around the world leads me to believe that nypd has little faith in the feds to protect the city.
Hmm, not really. The discussion was about WTC 7 only and I wanted to know government motives behind the alleged demolition of the third building. After both towers had already collapsed the government assuming your conspiracy theories are correct achieved all objectives it could possibly have. Give me one good reason why the government needed to demolish WTC 7 later that day when it involved significant risk and no visible benefit.Quote from I.Q.:
You want to know why they decided to demolish three large New York City skyscrapers? You want motive?
And I am still waiting for an expalanation of why Silverstein decided to "admit" the conspiracy, why he was calling the shots and giving orders to the FDNY and why the FDNY was charged with the job of demolition when it's clearly not their area of expertise. I would still like to know how it could be planned, organized and pulled off with no one in the building and entire Downtown Manhattan noticing. Still waiting....
Quote from nutmeg:
"Another little âcoincidenceâ -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against âterrorist attacksâ."
I'm not surprised he would insure against terroist attacks, could have been mandatory for a loan, but that is not my point. Silverstein is real estate as is Trump. Trump published a book in 2000 I think it was titled "The America We Deserve" There was a chapter on terrorism worth a read, imo. My point is, those in real estate were probably more concerned about terrorism and an attack on NYC than the govt long before 911.
I might add, Trump world towers near the UN is one of the few if not the only residence which was built in restricted air space because of its proximity to the UN, a good selling point.
Additionally, the presence of the nypd in various countries around the world leads me to believe that nypd has little faith in the feds to protect the city.
Looks like you quoted one of the psychos that I have on ignore. Here's some truth about the WTC insurance-
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html
The story...
The WTC did not have insurance coverage for terrorism. Silverstein took out the policy for terrorism with a double indemnity clause. The ink was not dry on the contract when the towers fell.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
Our take...
Some people have suggested that terrorism cover was unusual at the time, and therefore having the WTC explicitly covered against terrorist acts was suspicious. Especially as it happened just before the attacks. But is this claim supported by the facts?
Well, the first problem with it is that we already know the towers were covered against terrorism in 1993, because the bombing of that year cost insurers so much:
Insurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34211,00.html
But did the insurance industry then apply specific terrorist exclusions? Apparently not.
"Even after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the
Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, insurers in the United States did not view either
international or domestic terrorism as a risk that should be explicitly considered
when pricing their commercial insurance policy, principally because losses from
terrorism had historically been small and, to a large degree, uncorrelated. Thus,
prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism coverage in the United States was an
unnamed peril covered in most standard all-risk commercial and homeownersâ
policies covering damage to property and contents"
http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/05-03-HK.pdf
Other articles tell the same story.
"Some leading U.S. and European insurers say that the destruction of the World Trade Center was not an act of war, and therefore covered under most insurance policies. If other insurers
take the same view, that means insurance companies around the world will have to pay out the $30 billion or so in claims expected by industry experts from the attack...
Claims would not likely be disallowed under terrorism exclusions either, Porro said. ``Terror damage has to be covered because insurance polices, especially in the United States, do not mention this as a rule,'' he said"
http://www.sure-net.com/board/messages/480.html
So it seems terrorism cover was the norm, not the exception. Without more information it's hard to see why cover for the towers was at all suspect.
Quote from dddooo:
Hmm, not really. The discussion was about WTC 7 only and I wanted to know government motives behind the alleged demolition of the third building. After both towers had already collapsed the government assuming your conspiracy theories are correct achieved all objectives it could possibly have. Give me one good reason why the government needed to demolish WTC 7 later that day when it involved significant risk and no visible benefit.
And I am still waiting for an expalanation of why Silverstein decided to "admit" the conspiracy, why he was calling the shots and giving orders to the FDNY and why the FDNY was charged with the job of demolition when it's clearly not their area of expertise. I would still like to know how it could be planned, organized and pulled off with no one in the building and entire Downtown Manhattan noticing. Still waiting....
Yes I asked the same question. This is the most realistic explanation of the motives that I have seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0
Also take note: Buildings 3,4,5,and 6 which were right below the twin towers and actually between the twin towers and building 7.
They acted as a buffer between the twin towers and building 7 and as such took a hell of a battering from fire and debris from the tower ... they were burned black the next day.
Interestingly, they all remained standing, with steel frame completely intact.