Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-09-2011, 06:44 PM   #41
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by razorbill View Post
This is actually a very good question.

Why would Muslim terrorists want to commit 9/11 at all?

Good analysis here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWqNJI8Mjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWqNJI8Mjo
This is really deviating from the original question, which I understood. Assuming the terrorist cover-story was going to be used, then why would terrorists want to hit WTC 7, which was insignificant compared to WTC 1 and 2. WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon were all significant targets that were meant to elicit shock and awe from the American public, but WTC 7 is an admittedly odd choice of a fourth target. If they wanted maximum shock and awe with a fourth plane, then why not target the White House or the building that houses Congress or any of the other much more significant targets in the area? It is an anomely, but one that would shed light on the entire 9-11 events if it were to be understood.

WTC 7 is not like the others. There was a good reason why they wanted WTC 7 to be gone, but it was not for shock and awe like the others were. There was some other reason why it had to be destroyed. The most compelling reason I can think of is that WTC 7 was the military control center for all of the other 9-11 "attacks". If that was the case, then as part of the cover-up it had to be destroyed.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 05-09-2011 at 06:47 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 06:47 PM   #42
ragnarok
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Humanchester
Posts: 16,494
Likes: 5 (5 Posts)
Default

One of the arguments against there being a controlled demolition in towers 1+2 in the early days was "How did you think it was going to fall? Did you think it was going to topple over like an axed tree?", followed by loud guffawing.

The funny thing is, part of one of the towers HAD to topple sideways for it to have caused debris to reach WTC7. So, gravity pulls stuff straight down, except when it doesn't.

My theory is that WTC7 should have come down shortly after 1 and 2, and obscured by all the dust, but something went wrong and they had to demolish it later and then cook up a "scientific sounding" explanation.

Last edited by ragnarok; 05-09-2011 at 06:48 PM.
ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 06:51 PM   #43
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
WTC 7 is not like the others. There was a good reason why they wanted WTC 7 to be gone, but it was not for shock and awe like the others were. There was some other reason why it had to be destroyed.
Even if there was no other reason, I think Silverstein would have stipulated it as part of the deal. He'd be rebuilding on the site and he wouldn't want to be saddled with 47 storeys that had to be dismantled floor by floor.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 06:54 PM   #44
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
One of the arguments against there being a controlled demolition in towers 1+2 in the early days was "How did you think it was going to fall? Did you think it was going to topple over like an axed tree?", followed by loud guffawing.

The funny thing is, part of one of the towers HAD to topple sideways for it to have caused debris to reach WTC7. So, gravity pulls stuff straight down, except when it doesn't.

My theory is that WTC7 should have come down shortly after 1 and 2, and obscured by all the dust, but something went wrong and they had to demolish it later and then cook up a "scientific sounding" explanation.
My understanding is that steel beams and other debris from WTC 1 and 2 were thrown outward by the force of the explosions (demolition), and that this caused the damage in WTC 7. You saw the videos of the steel beams sticking out of adjacent buildings after the attack. Obviously an explosive force pointed outward caused that.

Notice that there were other smaller buildings all around WTC 1 and 2 that were very severely damaged, much more severely damaged than WTC 7, and yet none of those other buildings collapsed. There was no reason for WTC 7 to collapse with the amount of damage it had and only small fires in parts of the building. It should not have collapsed at all if it were due to natural causes and it most certainly should not have collapsed straight down exactly mimicking a controlled demolition.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 05-09-2011 at 06:56 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:07 PM   #45
bully2100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 750
Likes: 84 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarok View Post
One of the arguments against there being a controlled demolition in towers 1+2 in the early days was "How did you think it was going to fall? Did you think it was going to topple over like an axed tree?", followed by loud guffawing.

The funny thing is, part of one of the towers HAD to topple sideways for it to have caused debris to reach WTC7. So, gravity pulls stuff straight down, except when it doesn't.

My theory is that WTC7 should have come down shortly after 1 and 2, and obscured by all the dust, but something went wrong and they had to demolish it later and then cook up a "scientific sounding" explanation.
id go along with that one.

one other question. if wtc7 was the "hub"for taking down 1&2 , then what was the hub for 7?

Last edited by bully2100; 05-09-2011 at 07:07 PM.
bully2100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:23 PM   #46
bully2100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 750
Likes: 84 (42 Posts)
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
This is really deviating from the original question, which I understood. Assuming the terrorist cover-story was going to be used, then why would terrorists want to hit WTC 7, which was insignificant compared to WTC 1 and 2. WTC 1, 2 and the Pentagon were all significant targets that were meant to elicit shock and awe from the American public, but WTC 7 is an admittedly odd choice of a fourth target. If they wanted maximum shock and awe with a fourth plane, then why not target the White House or the building that houses Congress or any of the other much more significant targets in the area? It is an anomely, but one that would shed light on the entire 9-11 events if it were to be understood.

WTC 7 is not like the others. There was a good reason why they wanted WTC 7 to be gone, but it was not for shock and awe like the others were. There was some other reason why it had to be destroyed. The most compelling reason I can think of is that WTC 7 was the military control center for all of the other 9-11 "attacks". If that was the case, then as part of the cover-up it had to be destroyed.
i think we all agree why it was bought down and what was in there, and who gained what, all i was questioning was the failure of the plane to hit it which some were suggesting was part of the plan but failed.

i dont think a plane was supposed to hit it.

if a plane were to of hit it then it would of been a obvious inside job lol.

the argument of whether it was a controlled demolition or what silverstein said but didnt mean ,i think is also pointless.

The BBC said it had fallen down before it fucking did for christ sake!
bully2100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:25 PM   #47
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bully2100 View Post
id go along with that one.

one other question. if wtc7 was the "hub"for taking down 1&2 , then what was the hub for 7?
Why would they need a hub for it? If it was the control center for taking down WTC 1 and 2 as many suspect, then destroying it was just covering their tracks. Of course they could not leave the control center standing.

I don't agree that WTC 7 had to come down at all. I contend that its damage was not so significant as to lead to a collapse of any kind. Other buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2 suffered much worse damage and yet did not collapse. Look at the videos again if you doubt this. The damage to WTC 7 does not justify its collapse.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:36 PM   #48
oiram
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost Oz "Unless they oppose it, they will be blamed for it. If they defend it, they are part of it."
Posts: 9,951
Likes: 9 (9 Posts)
Exclamation Wtc 7 .. An enormous insurance scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
They meant for something to happen that would explain WTC 7 collapsing in on itself. Of course they had WTC 7 pre-wired for demolition, just as they had WTC 1 and 2 pre-wired for demolition, but they needed something that people could visually see to explain the collapse. Shock and Awe of the American population was one of the major purpose of 9-11, but whatever was supposed to happen to WTC 7 did not happen, and now they had a building that was wired to be demolished and no logical reason for it to be demolished.

Hours into the event, the decision was made to pull the building, just like Silverstein said. And they pulled the building. Who was meant to see that interview? How can that interview be explained in terms of the official explanation? He said there had already been too much loss of life. Did you ever wonder what the fuck he meant by that??
Always Follow the Money with these types!

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS COLLAPSE AS
AN ENORMOUS INSURANCE SCAM.



On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous to the World Trade Center demolitions, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium (Larry Silverstein, Westfield America Inc and Lloyd Goldman) led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out, are close to zero, but the court case drags on. Here are few articles concerning the World Trade Center deal and consequent legal wrangle.


Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?


Bloomberg News

NEW YORK - Larry Silverstein, who acquired the lease to operate the World Trade Center in July, is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center - twice the amount insurers say he can claim.

The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate "occurrences" for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein said.

Companies that insured the building, including Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Allianz AG, Ace Ltd. and XL Capital Ltd., said that because the attack was coordinated it counts as only a single occurrence.

"This is something that's going to be debated for a very long time," said Julie Rochman of the American Insurance Association, a trade group representing Chubb and the other insurers.

Mr. Silverstein, who has vowed to rebuild the complex, is liable for more than $100 million a year in lease payments to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre (6.5-hectare) site, the spokesman for the property company said.

About 13.4 million squre feet (1.2 million square meters) of office space was destroyed in the attacks and an additional 15 million square feet in nearby buildings was damaged, according to Insignia/ESG, the largest New York real-estate brokerage firm. The collapse of the towers caused the destruction of buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the World Trade Center. The office complex was the largest in the United States.

As an industry, insurers have decided to treat the attacks as a single occurrence, said Keith Buckley of ratings group Fitch Inc., an organization that grades the financial health of insurers.

Nicholas Jones, a spokesman for Willis Group Holdings, which brokered the insurance on the trade center, said, "We are of course aware of Silverstein Properties' position in this matter, and we are working with Silverstein and the insurers and underwriters to bring this matter to an amicable solution as quickly as possible."

Executives of the insurance market Lloyd's of London, Swiss Re and other insurers of the buildings either declined to comment or were not available. "We don't talk about individual situations," said Glenn Montgomery, a spokesman for Chubb, based in Warren, New Jersey.

This article appeared in the International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-10, page 16.

Full http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...rance-scam.htm

*******************

APPENDIX D:
9-11 INSIDER DEALING

Per: September 23, 2004

Executive Summary:

1. As yet unidentified market participants with very likely CIA affiliations skimmed off billions of dollars through insider trading in certain derivatives (options) due to obvious and apparent foreknowledge of the events of 9-11.

2. Larry Silverstein, a New York real estate magnate, gained several billion dollars through insurance coverage for the destroyed buildings of the World Trade Center. The entire nature of Silverstein’s jackpot transaction in the weeks before 9-11 is extremely suspicious, and it indicates clear and distinct foreknowledge of the events of 9-11. Moreover, it indicates foreknowledge of the fact that the government would falsify and suppress certain facts relating to the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9-11-1.

PART ONE: 9-11 INSIDER TRADING

Source URL for the following article by Michael C. Ruppert: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading lead directly into the CIA`s Highest Ranks

CIA Executive Director "Buzzy“ Krongard managed Firm that handled „put“ Options on UAL

by Michael C. Ruppert

FTW Publications, 9 October 2001
Centre for Research on Globalisation, globalresearch.ca, 20 October 2001

Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That evidence also demonstrates that, in the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options“ on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. "Buzzy“ Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee „private client relations.“ In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.


The Scope of Known Insider Trading

A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?“ documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:

• Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options... Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders“ would have profited by almost $5 million.

• On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;... Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders,“ they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

• [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]

• No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days
immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

• Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.

• Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by „insiders,“ their profit would have been about $5.5 million.

• European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]

On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, „Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.

"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes.“ They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.

"... October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put“ options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.“

Full http://www.american-buddha.com/911.9...rtgrossman.htm



My Personal notes:
Woe, Woe, Woe Perfect!.... To many times to just be coincidental.
Are my actions connected, related or synchronized with Symbolic number meanings?
My Posting No. 4033 = 10 & a 33 what does it say Symbolically?
http://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu10.php

Quote:
Properties of the number 10

Symbolism
According to R. Allendy, "this number shows the free activity of the being in the organization of the world. (...) It shows the free creature related to the plans of the Creator by links of justice and love or by the providential intermediaries". This number is seen thus connected to the Karma - 3 + 3 = 6.

This number is a multiple of 11 of which the two antagonistic units have increased to the harmony by developing each one in a ternary, thus moving away the danger of the temptation, according to Lacuria. R. Allendy adds that the activity of the individual is added harmoniously to the cosmic realization of the Archetype: this is why 33 would never have unfavorable meaning.

In Japan, 33 is a sign carrying misfortune because it says SAR-ZAN, which means also "misfortune without way out".
http://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu33.php

Last edited by oiram; 05-09-2011 at 08:50 PM. Reason: * * * *My Posting No. 4033 = 10 & a 33
oiram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:40 PM   #49
bully2100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 750
Likes: 84 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
Why would they need a hub for it? If it was the control center for taking down WTC 1 and 2 as many suspect, then destroying it was just covering their tracks. Of course they could not leave the control center standing.

I don't agree that WTC 7 had to come down at all. I contend that its damage was not so significant as to lead to a collapse of any kind. Other buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2 suffered much worse damage and yet did not collapse. Look at the videos again if you doubt this. The damage to WTC 7 does not justify its collapse.
its easy to confuse me , and i think you just have
bully2100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:41 PM   #50
bully2100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 750
Likes: 84 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiram View Post


Always Follow the Money with these types!

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS COLLAPSE AS
AN ENORMOUS INSURANCE SCAM.



On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous to the World Trade Center demolitions, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium (Larry Silverstein, Westfield America Inc and Lloyd Goldman) led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out, are close to zero, but the court case drags on. Here are few articles concerning the World Trade Center deal and consequent legal wrangle.


Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?


Bloomberg News

NEW YORK - Larry Silverstein, who acquired the lease to operate the World Trade Center in July, is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center - twice the amount insurers say he can claim.

The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate "occurrences" for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein said.

Companies that insured the building, including Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Allianz AG, Ace Ltd. and XL Capital Ltd., said that because the attack was coordinated it counts as only a single occurrence.

"This is something that's going to be debated for a very long time," said Julie Rochman of the American Insurance Association, a trade group representing Chubb and the other insurers.

Mr. Silverstein, who has vowed to rebuild the complex, is liable for more than $100 million a year in lease payments to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre (6.5-hectare) site, the spokesman for the property company said.

About 13.4 million squre feet (1.2 million square meters) of office space was destroyed in the attacks and an additional 15 million square feet in nearby buildings was damaged, according to Insignia/ESG, the largest New York real-estate brokerage firm. The collapse of the towers caused the destruction of buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the World Trade Center. The office complex was the largest in the United States.

As an industry, insurers have decided to treat the attacks as a single occurrence, said Keith Buckley of ratings group Fitch Inc., an organization that grades the financial health of insurers.

Nicholas Jones, a spokesman for Willis Group Holdings, which brokered the insurance on the trade center, said, "We are of course aware of Silverstein Properties' position in this matter, and we are working with Silverstein and the insurers and underwriters to bring this matter to an amicable solution as quickly as possible."

Executives of the insurance market Lloyd's of London, Swiss Re and other insurers of the buildings either declined to comment or were not available. "We don't talk about individual situations," said Glenn Montgomery, a spokesman for Chubb, based in Warren, New Jersey.

This article appeared in the International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-10, page 16.

Full http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...rance-scam.htm
he was paid twice
bully2100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 07:48 PM   #51
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiram View Post


Always Follow the Money with these types!

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS COLLAPSE AS
AN ENORMOUS INSURANCE SCAM.



On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous to the World Trade Center demolitions, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium (Larry Silverstein, Westfield America Inc and Lloyd Goldman) led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out, are close to zero, but the court case drags on. Here are few articles concerning the World Trade Center deal and consequent legal wrangle.


Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?


Bloomberg News

NEW YORK - Larry Silverstein, who acquired the lease to operate the World Trade Center in July, is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center - twice the amount insurers say he can claim.

The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate "occurrences" for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein said.

Companies that insured the building, including Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Allianz AG, Ace Ltd. and XL Capital Ltd., said that because the attack was coordinated it counts as only a single occurrence.

"This is something that's going to be debated for a very long time," said Julie Rochman of the American Insurance Association, a trade group representing Chubb and the other insurers.

Mr. Silverstein, who has vowed to rebuild the complex, is liable for more than $100 million a year in lease payments to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre (6.5-hectare) site, the spokesman for the property company said.

About 13.4 million squre feet (1.2 million square meters) of office space was destroyed in the attacks and an additional 15 million square feet in nearby buildings was damaged, according to Insignia/ESG, the largest New York real-estate brokerage firm. The collapse of the towers caused the destruction of buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the World Trade Center. The office complex was the largest in the United States.

As an industry, insurers have decided to treat the attacks as a single occurrence, said Keith Buckley of ratings group Fitch Inc., an organization that grades the financial health of insurers.

Nicholas Jones, a spokesman for Willis Group Holdings, which brokered the insurance on the trade center, said, "We are of course aware of Silverstein Properties' position in this matter, and we are working with Silverstein and the insurers and underwriters to bring this matter to an amicable solution as quickly as possible."

Executives of the insurance market Lloyd's of London, Swiss Re and other insurers of the buildings either declined to comment or were not available. "We don't talk about individual situations," said Glenn Montgomery, a spokesman for Chubb, based in Warren, New Jersey.

This article appeared in the International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-10, page 16.

Full http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...rance-scam.htm
In a fair world, it should have been considered one coordinated event, which it was, but we live in an unfair world and our legal system is bought and sold.

But if you are saying that the need to get rid of these buildings and for Larry Silverstein to profit from their destruction was the primary motivation for 9-11 then I disagree. It was undoubtedly a fringe benefit of the "attacks" but the primary motivation lies elsewhere. Silverstein and his associates are undoubtedly part of the cover up, but this is much bigger than them.

As for WTC 7 having to have been demolished just to save Silverstein the cost of demolishing it himself, I don't buy this. How much does it cost to demolish one of these buildings? It may be a great deal of money, but not enough for them to risk the entire 9-11 conspiracy unravelling because they got so sloppy as to demolish WTC 7 the way they did, and then people would also quickly realize that WTC 1 and 2 were also controlled demolitions. They would never take that risk. There is another reason.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 05-09-2011 at 07:52 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 08:10 PM   #52
oiram
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost Oz "Unless they oppose it, they will be blamed for it. If they defend it, they are part of it."
Posts: 9,951
Likes: 9 (9 Posts)
Exclamation This Larry Silverstein is a 100% suspect & insider

Quote:
Originally Posted by anyhoo View Post
But if you are saying that the need to get rid of these buildings and for Larry Silverstein to profit from their destruction was the primary motivation for 9-11 then I disagree. It was undoubtedly a fringe benefit of the "attacks" but the primary motivation lies elsewhere. Silverstein and his associates are undoubtedly part of the cover up, but this is much bigger than them.

There is another reason.
I did not say this was his only primary motivation ..... they are you're presumptions & words.

Mafia business types; with the right connections will always have more then only one reason!

The insiders always trying to make profits on many different levels at the same time! Maximum efficiency & profits on all levels and for all Family cabal members!

Also not forgetting the major profit coming out of illegal Wars, drug business & murdering millions of innocent people by the time all this is over!

And the Hoaxed Terrorist trillion dollar scam ..etc.

This Larry Silverstein is a 100% prime suspect & insider knowing exactly what was planned ahead of time & should be on the stand as a prime suspect & witness permanently until he spills his dirty guts! .... IMO

So why is this not so!

Well they are all one big world wide Mafia Family for the last 200 years! ... IMO


Quote:
SEC Investigates 9/ 11'Short' Stock Sales Profits
by TBRNEWS.ORG

Editor's Note: Who made money on the 9/11 attack of the World Trade Center? Investigations by SEC, DoJ and FBI have mysteriously stopped dead in their tracks. Who called off the dogs and why?)

Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission as Israeli citizens, sold 'short' a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks.

These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be "in the millions of dollars."

Short selling of stocks involves the opportunity to gain large profits by passing shares to a friendly third party, then buying them back when the price falls.

Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it is an indication of foreknowledge.

It is widely known that the CIA uses the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades as a possible warning sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious economic behavior.

Rumsfeld Calls for New Terrorist Attack on US by BABYLONSFALLING
Osama & the 9-11 Illusion:Patsies & Beneficiaries by DEAN HENDERSON
WTC Hard Drives Show $100 Million Transfers by YOU TUBE
9-11 WTC Gold Heist: $300 Billion in Bars by LOOSE CHANGE
Guess Who Made Money in 9-11 Conspiracy? by YOU TUBE
9-11: Silverstein Wanted WTC Double Insurance Scam by HISTORY COMMONS .ORG

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...contentid=2111
Quote:


There's No "Theory" in Criminal Conspiracy

9-11: Who Benefits? Channel
Channels

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...id=2111&page=2

http://reinvestigate911.org/

Twelve New England Towns Demand 9/11 Reinvestigation
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com...investigation/

http://reinvestigate911.org/


Last edited by oiram; 05-09-2011 at 08:49 PM. Reason: * * * *My Posting No. 4034 = 11
oiram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 08:17 PM   #53
bully2100
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 750
Likes: 84 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiram View Post

I did not say this was his only primary motivation ..... they are you're presumptions & words.

Mafia business types; with the right connection will always have more then only one reason!

The insiders always trying to make profit on many different levels at the same time!

This Larry Silverstein is a 100% prime suspect & insider knowing exactly what was planned ahead of time & should be on the stand as a prime suspect & witness permanently until he spills his dirty guts! .... IMO

So why is this not so!


id go along with that also, but we know the primary reason for the attacks, justification for war?
larry wanted the towers gone, people that would benefit from the wars were happy to oblige. so whos idea was it? not george jnr, something tells me hes not up to it, although when you see how badly its was done, maybe it was.
bully2100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 08:20 PM   #54
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiram View Post

I did not say this was his only primary motivation ..... they are you're presumptions & words.

Mafia business types; with the right connection will always have more then only one reason!

The insiders always trying to make profit on many different levels at the same time!

This Larry Silverstein is a 100% prime suspect & insider knowing exactly what was planned ahead of time & should be on the stand as a prime suspect & witness permanently until he spills his dirty guts! .... IMO

So why is this not so!

Why is there not another investigation of 9-11, a real one this time, even though so many people want it? The answer to this is that there is an official cover-up at the highest levels of the U.S. government about 9-11. There will never be an investigation because they don't want one. They want all those skeletons to stay buried in the closet where they put them.

You believe we live in a basically honest world where an atrocity of the magnitude of 9-11 could not be allowed to happen. The fact that it has happened and is covered up shows we don't live in that type of world, no matter what you may think. Its time to drop the illusions and recognize that. We live a world that is secretly controlled by gangsters who have no morality whatsoever. What are 3000 lives to these people who run things behind the scenes? Nothing at all. 9-11 reveals a bigger picture of the way things really are that is normally completely hidden from us.

The real crime to me is that members of our own government willingly allowed such an atrocity to happen on U.S. soil. These traitors of the Bush Adminstration should all be hanging from gallows.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 05-09-2011 at 08:23 PM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 12:08 AM   #55
isuncertain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 291
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

9/11 was multi-pronged, always is with these monsters. Often "events" serve many purposes, its wheels within wheels within wheels.

The primary goal was to brand terrorism and embed a fear yet felt in a nation for a great while. I forget which lacky, but in the immediate aftermath he said America was now embroiled in a 100 year war against terrorism.
If you can hypnotise a populace into a mindframe of fear then you become the winning team.

Crash through the deception crush the fear.
isuncertain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 12:21 AM   #56
anyhoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by isuncertain View Post
9/11 was multi-pronged, always is with these monsters. Often "events" serve many purposes, its wheels within wheels within wheels.

The primary goal was to brand terrorism and embed a fear yet felt in a nation for a great while. I forget which lacky, but in the immediate aftermath he said America was now embroiled in a 100 year war against terrorism.
If you can hypnotise a populace into a mindframe of fear then you become the winning team.

Crash through the deception crush the fear.
I interpret you are saying that the Illuminati are responsible for this. If so, I want to say this. I don't know if the Illuminati even exists. To blame the Illuminati for 9-11 is to point to some shadow organization that can never be investigated. Any investigation into them will go nowhere. So I don't want to focus on them, whether they actually exist or not. I just want to focus on what we know and what we can speculate from what we know.

But I agree that 9-11 was meant to serve multiple purposes. Some of these were:

1. To cause fear in the American people.
2. To allow TPTB to crack down and restrict freedoms and individual liberties.
3. To get rid of the Asbestos-filled twin towers that would have cost upwards of a billion dollars to fix.
4. To put a lot of money in Silverstein's pocket at the expense of the insurance companies.
5. To allow the Bush Administration and PNAC to do what it wanted to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
6. To destroy Al Queda and OBL.
7. To secure the oil fields of Afghanistan and Iraq for America's energy-dependent future.
8. To get the oil pipeline built through Afghanistan which the Taliban refused to allow, also for America's energy dependent future.

I am sure there is more I am missing. Please help me add to this list.
__________________
Lies are weapons that they use against us. Belief in those lies are the chains they use to bind us. This includes Fear. Knowledge is the key to unlocking those chains and is also a shield that makes their weapons useless.

Last edited by anyhoo; 06-09-2011 at 12:29 AM.
anyhoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 05:49 AM   #57
302bluefog
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by razorbill View Post
Anyhoo, you are looking for the planned cover story for the building 7 collapse.

I think your guess is right, the Shanksville plane was meant for building 7, at least as an official story
This cant be true b/c everyone knows that WTC 7 is to low to the ground and could not be hit by planes like WTC 1 & 2 which are tall and easy to hit up high.

No plane could ever get low enough in NYC to hit building 7 because any air craft that big would hit other buildings first...

As for why they pulled it, just look at the Tenants...C I A, IRS ect..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World...Center#Tenants

^^^

Last edited by 302bluefog; 06-09-2011 at 05:54 AM.
302bluefog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.