http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/augus...armechanics.htm

Nice article.


I dont know whether to laugh or cry over this...

Thanks and I'd say a little of both. I laugh because well...I know people actually believe it and I cry because well...I know people actually believe it

Yeah.
I love that "liberated" thing.

They do not want to accept the truth because in believing the lies it makes them feel they can protect themselves just through voting and investigations of government offices and officials in the West.
This includes everyone from the averge Joe up through accademia whose psyches cannot handle the reality.

Michael Moore?

I could only get through about 7 paragraphs until the lies, overexaggerations, and transparent slander got to be too much for me. Of course, when confronted, CTers tend to (over)react very defensively. That's exactly what this article is doing in the first few paragraphs - slandering an entire respected publication because of one article. The author even goes so far as to bring up a fictional character in his effort to slander the magazine (and, of course, if the magazine wrote a piece supporting the CT cause, they'd exalt PM to the heavens):



Talk about a deperate and childish attempt to discredit a publication.



And here's our first CT rallying lie. If Benjamin Chertoff is related in any way to Michael Chertoff, it's news to him ( http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html ). And, even if he is related, that fact doesn't make the facts stated in the piece untrue.



Unparalleled? Reaching much?



If, by "numerous", he means "one", he's right. And any one who listened to those tapes could plainly see that they were confused for only a couple seconds, then fully realized what was happening.

Check it out for yourself:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01



All of these points have been exhaustively explained in detail. Yet it doesn't stop CTers from yelling out the same questions over and over and over.

I could go on, but why bother?

**EDITED FOR FORUM VIOLATIONS**

TruthBearer, please read the PM I am sending you.

Okay, if that's not a personal attack, than I don't know what is.

Hey, "Truth"bearer - what's it feel like to spit on the graves of the people who lost their lives that day? Feel proud about that?

Give me a single shred of evidence. Show me an expert in structural engineering that supports your claims. Anyone.

You may think I'm spitting on their graves but I'm not pissing on them like you are.




I first use the Madrid building as my reference point towards building 7 and then you right away compare the Madrid building to the North and South towers and say

"BUT THE MADRID BUILDING WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE!!! HAH!!"

Which COMPLETELY avoids the FACT that NO PLANE EVER HIT BUILDING 7 and then it's right back to your ignorant defence of "WELL UHH DEBRIS HIT IT!!". You would make even John Kerry envious of your flip flopping skills. I have no interest in debating with people that avoid and alter arguments to suit their purpose.

You are disgustingly ignorant.

That's enough out of the both of you. You have both been warned. Take a step back from this thread and do not post again until you can speak in a civil manner.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...5groundzero.htm

There TK, watch and learn a little.

Doesn't convince me at all.

What part of the prisonplanet.com article do you feel is most compelling?

Probably the part where they have to actually create an article to tell people to stop being so naive and ignorant.

Other than that, perhaps these two quotes.

Your first quote is an argumentum ad hominem attack; it attempts to discredit the PM article by attacking PM, not by dealing with the points in the article. Even if such a link does exist it does not automatically discredit the points of the article; those need to be dealt with in order to debunk the article.

Your second quote is just wrong. Here is what Benjamin Chertoff has to say on the matter Additionally, this point falls into the same category of logical fallacies as your first quote; that being, it attempts to debunk the article through ad hom attacks.

Cool, more lies and insults!



You certainly did. And I responded. Perhaps you missed my response, so here it is again (I'll even make it red so you can really see it):





Hmmm....lemme scan my original reply to you once again......nope, don't see anything in there of the sort. Perhaps you would like to make up a quote from me or something, you know, to support your lie?



Excellent! The straw man speaks! For the record, I never said anything about WTC7 not getting hit by a plane, but I am enjoying watching your imaginary conversation with me.



Now we get to what I actually said - debris from the towers hit WTC7, and caused the massive hole in it's south side and the ensuing infernoes. I never flip-flopped to arrive at that point. It was my original point, straw man.



Pot, kettle. I guess now you understand the difficulty of arguing with you.



And you are one hell of a model American.

I don't see why we can't discuss this in a mature way. Actually whenever I read a post and people are calling each other names and attacking one another it really stops the growth of such issues.

There are issues with 9/11 that need to be brought to the publics attention and discussed openly between neutral sides. Both sides of the argument have alot of things to back up their claims...but when it comes down to it I would rather trust an average person with no ties than what was printed in the report.

They don't know what happened to the building....just like they don't know where osama is.

The order was given to pull the building...which means demolish. And there is alot of speculation as to what "pull it" meant that day...but if you investigate a little you'll find it's not hard to believe at all.

Anywho, to say debris from one building fell and caused another building to fall in the exact same manner that the first one did is not a good enough.

Why didn't they just state that in the report if it was so obvious?

The first 2 towers collapsing were crushing any large debris that could have fell to another location...had the towers toppled over in any direction I could see it to be true

I apologize for reacting badly, but I found it impossible to hold my anger at bay when almost every insult in the book was slung my way as an alternative to actually replying with facts. Take a look at what I quoted in my response.

Either way, it was wrong of me to stoop to his level, and so I humbly apologize.



Honestly, I see a lot of facts and data backing up the official story version and a lot of claims backing up the CT version.



Well said, and I agree.



Which building? I believe "they" know precisely what happened to each building, and their explanations have held water since they were first presented.



Maybe, in the CD (controlled demolition) world. But these were firefighters, and pull it to them means to evacuate the building. i.e. "pull" everyone out.



Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say "pull it" actually is a firefighters term for wiring up an building and demolishing it, when do you suppose the firefighters ran in there and wired it up? Do you suppose they had the time, since under normal circumstances it takes weeks to do so? And what was the motivation? Insurance money? Why would the fire department willingly participate in insurance fraud?

They were planted by professional demolition men probably in advance to 9/11 proving an inside job. And the fact that you think this is just about insurance fraud makes me feel sorry for you.

Silverstein is seeking $7.2billion insurance, signed the deal just seven weeks before.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...urance-scam.htm

Try doing some research about the insurance policy that exired SIX weeks before September 11th.

It was worth $5.9 Billion, and had been in effect for six years. It was due to expire, and HAD to be replaced.

Sorry, increasing insurance coverage happens ALL the time - ESPECIALLY when an existing policy is expiring.

Oops! Sorry, that doesn't fit with the CTers... I guess the owner kissing his wife and saying "Goodbye!" that morning is damning evidence of a conspiracy as well.

Methinks your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight.

A ) I didnt say anything about the insurance, I was just stating a fact. how much it was in fact. The insurance had nothing to do with the towers coming down, it was just a bonus.

B ) Try responding with just statements and not personal attacks, it totally degrades your argument.

C ) Try buying bigger underwear. If its too tight it will give you migrains and make you uptight and grouchy.

Silverstein may be seeking 7.2 billion but the courts had last put the payout at 4.6 billion. It is estimated to cost over 6 billion to rebuild (that estimate has come down, it used to be over 8 billion). He also tried to buy less insurance at first and had to be talked up to the higher amount by his insurers and still chose a figure less than what he could have obtained.
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

This is only speculation on your part. Nothing more.

“Richard J. Spanard, Beta Tau '93 (Slippery Rock University) is a U. S. Army captain and commander of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal company based in northern New Jersey. On the morning of September 11, he was enjoying breakfast at a deli 50 feet from the World Trade Center twin towers when the first plane hit. General hysteria inundated the deli. Spanard decided that he and the three soldiers with him should move to number 7 World Trade Center, where they had a scheduled meeting.”
http://www.sigmataugamma.org/Read######the######...GA/winter02.pdf

“Richard J. Spanard, Beta Tau '93 (Slippery Rock University), and his wife Bobbi Ann celebrated the birth of their first child, Jacob Tyler, on Aug. 18 at Wierzburg Army Hospital in Germany. Spanard is a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army.”
http://www.sigmataugamma.org/Read######the######...er97/Alumni.htm


He heads the 754th ORDNANCE COMPANY
http://www.monmouth.army.mil/754ord/index.htm
Richard.Spanard@mail1.monmouth.amy.mil

Anyway, back to Silverstein..

Larry A. Silverstein was appointed a director of Westfield America in May 1997. Since 1979, Mr. Silverstein has been President of Silverstein Properties, Inc., a Manhattan-based real estate investment and development firm which owns interests in and operates over 10 million square feet of office space. Mr. Silverstein is a member of the New York Bar, and a Governor of the Real Estate Board of New York, having served as its Chairman. He is a trustee of New York University and is the founder and Chairman Emeritus of the New York University Real Estate Institute. He is Chairman of the Realty Foundation, Vice Chairman of the South Street Seaport Museum, and a board member of the Museum of Jewish Heritage.



BLACKSTONE ACQUIRES DEBT ON 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER
New York, NY October 17, 2000: Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, the global real estate investment and management arm of The Blackstone Group, L.P., announced today that it has purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by 7 World Trade Center, a commercial office complex controlled by real estate developer Larry Silverstein”
http://www.blackstone.com/news/press_relea...de_oct_2000.pdf


“But before the building can rise further than the substation, major financing issues have to be resolved by Larry Silverstein, who controls the long-term lease on 7 World Trade Center as well as the World Trade Center complex. The good news for Mr. Silverstein is that the company that insured 7 World Trade, Industrial Risk Insurers, has indicated that it will make a full payment under its $861 million policy. But it's not clear whether Mr. Silverstein can use those proceeds to start building without first reaching an agreement with the mortgage holder on 7 World Trade Center, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors.”
http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/bricks...710-bricks.html


And this excerpt from http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/back..._westfield.html
The regional mall REIT partnered with New York City-based Silverstein Properties to gain control of the downtown New York City office complex, and that effort was rewarded when the partnership signed a 99-year lease worth $3.2 billion with the previous owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The authority still owns the land where the complex is located. When completed this fall, the deal will put control of the largest U.S. office complex into private hands for the first time since it opened 30 years ago.

Silverstein Properties will control the office portion of the 10.6 million-square-foot complex, which includes the 100-story Twin Towers and two nine-story office buildings. Silverstein already owns one of the buildings in the complex, a 48-story office tower built on land owned by the Port Authority, called 7 World Trade Center.


And look here to read about the profit made off the collapse of the building
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html

Your last link ends by saying that he will collect $4.6 billion. He can't just pocket that money. It has to be used to rebuild. Last I checked they were estimating a $6 billion cost to rebuild. How is negative $1.4 billion a huge profit? That is also not considering the $120 million he owes each year in rent to the Port Authority. The link also makes a big deal about the towers not being profitable before. So investors can't be optimistic and take risks? Just because it hadn't been profitable doesn't mean it would always be that way.