Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineleery11
I Tell You What!

Registered: 06/24/05
Posts: 5,998
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Psilocybeingzz]
    #5486330 - 04/06/06 12:01 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Psilocybeingzz said:
There are other videos that make good points as well.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/
I will watch the whole video later , I am in a cafe right now and I have to leave, but so far it looks good, and operations northwoods is th perfect example of sick state the US government is in, simply disgusting.



yar, this video + operation northwoods should pretty much convince anyone to be dubious of 9/11. they drafted plans to kill americans to wage a war on false pretenses.

its admitted in fact. why should 9/11, given the dodgy evidence, censorship, onesidedness....... etc.....be different?

umm anyway the funny thing is i don't think anyone cares about 9/11 anymore except for people related to the victims.

it's so absurd really..... vietnam war, cold war, terrorism war.... drug war..... when have the people ever seen peace? the funny thing is the people are never actually truely threatened by any of these things. sars. bird flu. the more afraid you are, the more on edge you are.... that's when they irk things like the patriot act through really really quickly... that's when they say "oooh let's just take this freedom out and modify this law so that we can do illegal shady things but get away with it" and meanwhile you aren't paying attention because you might die if a bird shits on your head.


--------------------
I am the MacDaddy of Heimlich County, I play it Straight Up Yo!

....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human......
Om Namah Shivaya, I tell you What!


Edited by leery11 (04/06/06 12:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: leery11]
    #5486777 - 04/06/06 03:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:


The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.





http://www.newamericancentury.org/


You're afraid of an educational organization?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Darcho]
    #5486882 - 04/06/06 04:08 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I responded to your lies, not the link. I didn't even look at the link because it is either incorrect (maybe, maybe not) or you can't read.

You yourself said, "If you follow the link, you will see that it is claimed that Silverstein only invested $14 million of his own money. When the buildings were destroyed, he received approx. $5 billion in insurance money. Supposedly, he took out the insurance policy not too soon before 9/11. Just search google for "Larry Silverstein" and "insurance policy".

A $4 billion plus profit is not too bad, don't you think? All it took was.., well, I think we know that part."

Silverstein has not received $5B. The insurance co.s have to pay that to rebuild the site. He has not "received" the money, he cannot pocket the money, and he is obligated to rebuild. You know what else? He's still obligated to fulfill the lease agreement because he was responsible for insuring the buildings, which he did, as soon as he signed the LEASE. See that word. LEASE. You do know what that means, don't you? Let's help you a little more with your own statements.

""The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack."

The last sentence in this quote from THE LINK implies that Silverstein owned all the world trade center buildings. He already owned building seven, implying that he now owns the other buildings."

How can it possibly imply that he now owns the other buildings when the first fucking word you quoted was, tada, LEASE. LEASE. This is the comprehension issue I speak of.

Then you quote this:

""Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5]."

The ridiculous opinion expressed that there was an "obscure clause" which may have entitled him to another 3.5B is absurd. There was nothing "obscure" about it. Nor was it the least bit clear that the insurance companies would prevail. Two planes, two attacks. It was a strong case. But not strong enough. Too bad. 5B probably isn't enough. Which is probably why Bloomberg is trying to wrest control from Silverstein by saying he doesn't have enough money to rebuild. If Bloomberg succeeds, which I don't think likely, the insurance money will go to the city (more correctly the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the OWNERS of the buildings) for reconstruction, not Silverstein.

Further, it is utterly irrelevant to emphasize that the insurance policy was 7 weeks old when that was the age of, tada, THE LEASE. What, he was supposed to insure the buildings before he leased them? This is part and parcel of the moronity of which I speak.

And finally, we come to this
""Among the items being negotiated are agreements over who will build what at the site, how much rent Silverstein will pay, and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion in insurance money Silverstein was awarded after the Twin Towers collapsed.""

And
"He definitely does not have enough money to rebuild."

He didn't get enough to rebuild, you (and Bloomberg) contend, he has to rebuild (if he doesn't he will never see one nickel of the insurance money, see "and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion"), but somehow he has realized a several billion dollar profit?

Lets do some rudimentary math shall we. 99yr lease worth 3.2B (For the foolish, that means Silverstein agreed to pay over the life of the lease 3.2B). Thats an average of 32M per year or approx. 2.7M per month. If you ask me that's an incredibly good deal that he signed. Even if he was paying the average in the first year of a 99 year lease that's still a great deal. The link says he only laid out 14M. Yeah, so what, that's 5 months rent. He only had use of it for 2.

This whole argument smacks of anti-semitic whack jobs fabricating connections and inventing implications that don't exist. "The Jew made money, he must have done it." A. He didn't make money. B. Anti-semitic and anti-everything assholes did do it.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5487170 - 04/06/06 05:49 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I responded to your lies, not the link.  I didn't even look at the link because it is either incorrect (maybe, maybe not) or you can't read.




That is your problem, for I have not lied. I have not said anything that I claimed to be true, emphasis on "I".  This is what other people are saying. Now if it is so evidently false, and you know this, then you should easily be able to link your sources or at least cite them. So far you have failed to do so.  All you produce are unsupported statements and ad hominems.  This is a sign of poor form.

Quote:


You yourself said, "If you follow the link, you will see that it is claimed that Silverstein only invested $14 million of his own money. When the buildings were destroyed, he received approx. $5 billion in insurance money. Supposedly, he took out the insurance policy not too soon before 9/11. Just search google for "Larry Silverstein" and "insurance policy".

A $4 billion plus profit is not too bad, don't you think? All it took was.., well, I think we know that part."





Yes, I said that, but I did not make the claim myself, I simply passed along information from a cited source.  Note the use of 'supposedly',  signifying that it is not absolutely true, but supposed by some (i.e. those who I cited).

Quote:


Silverstein has not received $5B.  The insurance co.s have to pay that to rebuild the site.  He has not "received" the money, he cannot pocket the money, and he is obligated to rebuild.  You know what else?  He's still obligated to fulfill the lease agreement because he was responsible for insuring the buildings, which he did, as soon as he signed the LEASE.  See that word.  LEASE.  You do know what that means, don't you?  Let's help you a little more with your own statements.




Source?

Yes I see the word 'lease', and I never denied that it was there.  However, when it is says, "[...] he already owned [...]," it seems to be implying that he now owns the others. I will admit that this is a weak implication.

Quote:


""The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack."

The last sentence in this quote from THE LINK implies that Silverstein owned all the world trade center buildings. He already owned building seven, implying that he now owns the other buildings."

How can it possibly imply that he now owns the other buildings when the first fucking word you quoted was, tada, LEASE.  LEASE.  This is the comprehension issue I speak of.




Yes, and I also mentioned that there are people out there (i.e. Alex Jones) claiming that Silverstein bought and owned the other buildings.  So there really is no comprehension issue, when I am passing along information being said by others.

Quote:


Then you quote this:

""Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5]."

The ridiculous opinion expressed that there was an "obscure clause" which may have entitled him to another 3.5B is absurd.  There was nothing "obscure" about it.  Nor was it the least bit clear that the insurance companies would prevail.  Two planes, two attacks.  It was a strong case.  But not strong enough.  Too bad.  5B probably isn't enough.  Which is probably why Bloomberg is trying to wrest control from Silverstein by saying he doesn't have enough money to rebuild.  If Bloomberg succeeds, which I don't think likely, the insurance money will go to the city (more correctly the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the OWNERS of the buildings) for reconstruction, not Silverstein.




This may be true, however it would be helpful for you to cite your source, as I have did.  You see, when sources are cited and directly quoted, information is simply being passed along.  There is never a need to shoot the messenger, a point which you seem to be unable to grasp whilst you sit upon your high-horse.

Quote:


Further, it is utterly irrelevant to emphasize that the insurance policy was 7 weeks old when that was the age of, tada, THE LEASE.  What, he was supposed to insure the buildings before he leased them?  This is part and parcel of the moronity of which I speak.




This is a good point, but again the fault is not mine, as you like to imply.

Quote:


And finally, we come to this
""Among the items being negotiated are agreements over who will build what at the site, how much rent Silverstein will pay, and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion in insurance money Silverstein was awarded after the Twin Towers collapsed.""

And
"He definitely does not have enough money to rebuild."

He didn't get enough to rebuild, you (and Bloomberg) contend,  he has to rebuild (if he doesn't he will never see one nickel of the insurance money, see "and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion"), but somehow he has realized a several billion dollar profit?

Lets do some rudimentary math shall we.  99yr lease worth 3.2B (For the foolish, that means Silverstein agreed to pay over the life of the lease 3.2B).  Thats an average of 32M per year or approx. 2.7M per month.  If you ask me that's an incredibly good deal that he signed.    Even if he was paying the average in the first year of a 99 year lease that's still a great deal.  The link says he only laid out 14M.  Yeah, so what, that's 5 months rent.  He only had use of it for 2.





You make some good points, unfortunately in combating the loaded language used in the, let us call it, "The Greedy Jew Conspiracy Argument," you use just as much loaded language, which does not accomplish anything.  If anything, what you have to say, and have said, will turn others off, and your information (which may be useful and/or important) will go unnoticed.  Wouldn't this be unfortunate?

Quote:


This whole argument smacks of anti-semitic whack jobs fabricating connections and inventing implications that don't exist.  "The Jew made money, he must have done it."  A.  He didn't make money.  B. Anti-semitic and anti-everything assholes did do it.




You must be Jewish (excuse me if I am being too assumptive).

The unfortunate thing about internet discussion is that sarcasm does not go over too easily unless it is so blatant that it defeats the initial purpose of using that sarcasm. :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Darcho]
    #5487250 - 04/06/06 06:14 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'm not Jewish. I'm an atheist of non-religious protestant descent. My wife, step-children and many friends are Jewish, some of whom are atheists. I take issue with a lot of Jewish policy but will not let pass unremarked upon what I consider to be some of the more subtle anti-semitic nonsense. The obviously anti-semitic I usually just let speak for itself.

I also live just outside NYC and have been paying a good deal of attention to this stuff. Silversetin has lost a great deal of money from this. Some of it out of his pocket and some of it from lost future revenue. Bloomberg knows this. He also knows that Silverstein signed one hell of an advantageous lease in the first place and that he would be in an incredibly good financial position if the buildings had not fallen. Any implication that Silverstein benefited from the destruction of the WTC is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Alex Jones is a complete cunt and if that's where you want to get your "reality" from, then good luck to you, because he is playing you for a sucker.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5487395 - 04/06/06 07:07 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

You're afraid of an educational organization?




I hope you are joking. This is an organization created in favor of United States globalization. They stated in their statement of principles that "we need a catastrophy- like another PEARL HARBOR" to rally the country for their cause.( this was actualy recently removed from the site). Does it frighten you that the majority if not all of the men who started this organization in 1997 for the purpose of globalization now are at the top of our government and other major organization. Jeb bush, Dick cheney, steve forbes, Gary Bauer, William Bennett, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Aaron Friedberg. Those are just the everyday names that people know. There are many more on that list who are also involved at the top.


"Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.

The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr. Hussein wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the Administration is reportedly planning military action -- a three- or four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets. But the bad news is that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in worse shape than we are today.

Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power -- if five weeks of heavy bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won't either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials admit this. "
-William Kristol, chairman of the organization. January 30, 1998


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarcho
PhysicallyDetermined

Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 426
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5487423 - 04/06/06 07:16 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I'm not Jewish. I'm an atheist of non-religious protestant descent. My wife, step-children and many friends are Jewish, some of whom are atheists. I take issue with a lot of Jewish policy but will not let pass unremarked upon what I consider to be some of the more subtle anti-semitic nonsense. The obviously anti-semitic I usually just let speak for itself.

I also live just outside NYC and have been paying a good deal of attention to this stuff. Silversetin has lost a great deal of money from this. Some of it out of his pocket and some of it from lost future revenue. Bloomberg knows this. He also knows that Silverstein signed one hell of an advantageous lease in the first place and that he would be in an incredibly good financial position if the buildings had not fallen. Any implication that Silverstein benefited from the destruction of the WTC is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Alex Jones is a complete cunt and if that's where you want to get your "reality" from, then good luck to you, because he is playing you for a sucker.




Oh no, don't get me wrong, I take everything people like Alex Jones say with a grain of salt, as they say, but this does not I mean I should ignore everything he says and it does not call for ad hominem attacks. Regardless, this does not detract from the fact that there are many people "out there" taking his word for the truth.

Now, if the truth was given to the people in the first place, then there would not be so much contradiction and such rampant conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there seem to be many holes and many people feel as if they have been lied to. Whilst conspiracy theorists all seem to have their own motives, there are similar patterns emerging or being realized from all of their theories, and each theory, although not 100% true or accurate, does have some value and something to offer. The problem, as always in the search for truth, are the ulterior motives that use the guise of truth to spread their cause.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Darcho]
    #5487554 - 04/06/06 07:44 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

nicely said


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRogues_Pierre
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5489452 - 04/07/06 10:25 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy

Full explications of each of these points can be found in Islam Unveiled. From Jewish World Review:
I was shocked after September 11th when I heard government officials say Islam is a "religion of peace". Nothing could be farther from the truth! Our President was even considering not conducting any military activities out of respect for Ramadan! I spoke with my congressman, Nick Lampson of Texas, and strenuously objected, sharing my experience and what I had learned about Islam. I explained how Islam is the greatest threat the Democracies of our world face in the 21st Century, and demonstrated how the international polity of Islam is the equivalent of the German Nazis in the 20th century. I further pointed out that Osama Ben laden is the equal to Adolph Hitler in our generation.

As result, Congressman Lampson asked me to submit to him a factual report that he could present to the Foreign Relations Committee, Congress, and the President. Some of this article is based on that report.

It must be understood that we define Moslem, as one who follows the Quran, the life of Mohammed, and the traditions of the community. There are sects called Moslems that do not necessarily abide by these rules. They can be called "cultural Moslems," some of these are Ismailis, Druze, and Sufis. Secular Moslems like many Turks have a Moslem culture but because of Turkey's history and geography have been secularized. Fundamentalists, those that accept the Quran literally, and pattern their lives after Mohammed, as well as follow the traditions of those who have historically lived this way, are a growing threat to all mankind and all democracies of the world.

Now here are some very critical misconceptions regarding Islam:

1. Islam is a religion of peace, and is not anti-Jewish.
Islam has been a violent and military movement from its beginning. The current attitude of Arab and Islamic countries towards Jews dates back to the life of Mohammed, who conducted 74 military campaigns, 24 of them personally. He unified the Arab tribes with war and assassinated or exiled Jews, therefore setting precedent for the militant and anti-Jewish practices of Islam.

The reason Mohammed was so violently anti-Jewish was because he originally saw himself as a prophet to the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. In his early reign he instructed his followers to bow down and pray to Jerusalem! The Jews of Arabia rejected him as a Hebrew prophet and he was almost killed in battle with them. He then changed the direction of prayer to Mecca.

I journeyed across Syria from Damascus to Aleppo to the Euphrates River and back to Damascus in 1999. I learned that it was a practice in Syria for Moslem fathers to make their son's swear, "I will kill a Jew before I die." In 1947 Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Many Jews were killed and thousands of Jews illegally fled Syria to go to Israel. Today there are less than 150 Jews in the entire nation.

2. Islam is just a religion.
Islam has never been just a religion in the traditional sense, in as much as the members of Democracies understand; it has always been a polity; a political organization.

Mohammed's intention was the unification of the Arab tribes and their international expansion. The state and religion are not seen as separate nor can an individual dissent from the Quran. The very word Islam means submission.

Islam is seen as a political organization, which has no boundaries. This was the intent of Mohammed in the establishment of the Umma, the community or brotherhood. Western culture perceives this to be their statement of equality for mankind, but it must be remembered; if you are not Moslem you are not equal.

In Islamic societies where Jews and Christians are allowed to exist they do not have the same rights as a Moslem, and they are required to pay a special tax.

Read it all.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005133.php


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRogues_Pierre
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
    #5489501 - 04/07/06 10:42 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Seuss]
    #5491973 - 04/08/06 04:32 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Besides the very obvious reasons why the government would blow up the WTC mentioned by beatnicknick and the insurance money mentioned by Darcho, there's also another potential reason: gold, lots of gold.

Quote:

Far beneath the shattered buildings, screaming ambulances and dazed New Yorkers on the streets of Manhattan are two of the world's largest gold depositories.

One belongs to the US Federal Reserve Bank; another to a group of financial institutions.

The Fed's gold reserve is housed 100 ft. beneath its headquarters, only blocks from the World Trade Center, whose twin towers collapsed into mammoth heaps of rubble after two hijacked jetliners were crashed into the buildings.

The Fed boasts that its gold depository spans the length of two football fields and contains more gold than any other vault on earth.

Its deposits are believed to surpass the value of the legendary Fort Knox gold reserves in the mid-1980s.


While the Fed declines to release the total value of gold on deposit, it is unofficially estimated at more than $25 billion. But the gold stored in that facility does not belong to the U.S.; it's owned by foreign nations, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

At the World Trade Center itself is another, smaller gold storage facility owned by a group of commercial banks.

When Islamic radicals bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the New York Police Department and FBI at one point thought that the attack might have been a raid on the gold depository.

The explosion eight years ago was close to the vault, which withstood the explosion. It's not known how much gold was kept in the World Trade Center vaults in 1993, but it's believed as much as $1 billion in Kuwaiti gold eight years ago.

It's also believed that the amount gold currently buried beneath the debris of the World Trade Center today far exceeds the 1993 levels. Kuwaiti officials in New York declined to discuss the matter.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewBusiness.asp?Page=%5CBusiness%5Carchive%5C200109%5CBUS20010912b.html






The only published articles about recovered gold mention only around $200 million worth of gold. :shrug:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: exclusive58]
    #5492123 - 04/08/06 07:42 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I blew it up to get the gold. Oh, well, I guess you caught me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
    #5492129 - 04/08/06 07:47 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Rogues_Pierre said:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19016





Wow! Read that link.


Quote:


Gabriel: The Christians in Lebanon always had problems with the Moslems, but we never thought our neighbors would turn on us. That situation was aggravated by the influx of the Palestinians coming from Jordan after King Hussein kicked them out in Black September. That's what tipped the scale in Lebanon. Not only had Moslems become the majority but they now also felt empowered by the presence of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat wanting to attack the Christians, take over Lebanon and use it as a base from which to attack Israel.



When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975 we didn't even know what that word meant. We had taken them into our country, allowed them to study side by side with us, in our schools and universities. We gave them jobs, shared with them our way of life. We didn't realize the depth of their hatred to us as infidels. They looked at us as the enemy not as neighbors, friends, employers and colleagues.



A lot of Muslims pored in from other Muslim countries like Iran -- the founder and supporter of Hezbollah, one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world today. They came from Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Lebanese civil war was not between the Lebanese, it was a holly war declared on the Christians by the Muslims of the Middle East.



They started massacring the Christians, city after city. Horrific events the western media seldom reported. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the Christian City of Damour where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep. The Muslims would enter a bomb shelter, see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pulled the parents apart splitting the child in half. A close friend of mine was mentally disturbed because they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand and holding her hand forcing her to cut her own son?s throat. They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the bible as toilet paper. They did so many things I don't need to go into any more detail. You get the picture.



Americans just don?t realize the viciousness of the Militant Islamic fundamentalist. I think the biggest disservice for the American people was the denial by the networks to air the beheading video of Daniel Pearl. I think we as a society need to see what type of enemy we are fighting. People have been so sheltered in this country they have not paid attention to what was going on in the last 20 some years. They were more interested in watching a documentary about Madonna than paying attention to world events.



The majority of the Lebanese army was Muslims. Christians went to universities, not to the military. The Muslims began taking over military bases across Lebanon. They combined their forces with the Palestinians and formed what they called the Arab Lebanese Army and started attacking the Christians. I lived 50 yards below the last military base left in the hands of the Christians. While attempting to bombard the military base their shells missed landing directly on my home bringing it down and burying me under the rubble. I was 10 years old.



I woke up from a dream life into a nightmare. My eyes were blinded by the bright light of the explosions. But the light faded quickly as a hot liquid started poring into my eyes burning and shutting them closed like glue. I was wounded by shrapnel, which cut the artery in my arm that was twisted on top of my face. Blood was poring over my face and into my mouth. By the time I was rescued by my parents and taken to a hospital the next morning at 8:00 AM I was on my last breath. I was put on a bench in the emergency room and operated on without anesthesia. As the nurses held me down the doctors cut my flesh with scissors and sawed into my bone to get out the embedded shrapnel. As I faded in and out of consciousness, between my screams I prayed to God to stop my torture. I ended up in the hospital for two and half months.



While there, I would ask my parents why this happened to us, they would say because we were Christians and the Moslems want to kill us. So I knew ever since I was 10 that I was wanted dead simply because I was born a Christian.



When I returned home my new home was no longer the one that I knew. We ended up living in a bomb shelter under ground without electrify, water and very little food. Little did I know that this would become my life for the next seven years. Our bomb shelter was an eight by 10 feet cinderblock room buried underground, that my father used as a storage room for our restaurant.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: beatnicknick]
    #5496881 - 04/09/06 03:04 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I agree with everything you said except for this:
Quote:

beatnicknick said: Is it not the first time that a government has so much control over corporations


It's the other way around. Corporations have control over governments, pretty much everywhere in the Western world. It's what shapes Western values and what destroys the world.



As for the main question: why would the government, if they did it, specifically blow up the Trade Center?
Well, several reasons, money being only one.
I won't elaborate here, just give some clues.

Assuming they did it, they would have wanted to make sure it worked. So there must be something wrong with the planes, possibly they were remote controlled by beacons, maybe there even weren't any terrorists on board. Anyway, something material must have been fishy, so that destruction of evidence (more thorough than from a kerosene fire) would have been desirable.
The destruction of evidence also applies for WTC7. Speculation has it that the whole operation was controlled from that building, so eventual destruction of that one was required as well. Another argument for destroying 7 would have been yet another instance of destruction of evidence. Many people have pointed out that evidence from several financial scandals (e.g. Enron) was conveniently destroyed in the attacks. Google "WTC7 tenants" for more info.
Besides, the government would have wanted maximal psychological impact, which the quick collapse seems to have provided. Also, a quick collapse meant a higher death toll than a slow collapse or no collapse at all (although I do agree the toll can be viewed as lower than expected, I won't get into this question).
Finally, it is arguable that although the administration (provided they did it) wanted a psychological impact, they were not aiming for maximal destruction. They would have decided to sacrifice 3 buildings completely, accept damage to surrounding constructions, but they would never have run the risk of an uncontrolled collapse of the towers. Imagine the Twins falling over sideways in opposite directions. The economical damage might have proven too high. Controlled demolition allowed for damage control, even if this sounds paradoxical given the circumstances.

All this is: assuming the government did do it. Assuming that, these explanations seem rational enough to me to explain why they would have demolished the buildings instead of just letting them burn.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Aldous]
    #5496976 - 04/09/06 03:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Still adding layers to your tinfoil beanie, I see.

Maybe you can answer for us some questions no other conspiracy theorist I've come across has been able to answer. This has to do with the claim that the towers fell not from the impact of the airliners and the ensuing fires, but instead from controlled detonations of explosives secreted in the buildings:

-- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed?

-- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted?

-- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above?

-- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges?

-- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions?





Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Phred]
    #5497795 - 04/09/06 08:05 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Watch the video man, it explains everything you just asked.

-- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed?

-- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted?
=workers in the building admitted in interviews that sections of the buildings were closed for maintnance during the week before 9/11...

-- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above?

---It was controlled. For a building to fall you take out the botom suports, not the top. Collision had little impact other than the spectacle it proided.

-- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges?
= They were lower in the building, there was not intense heat throughout the lower 80 floors. If there was everyone would have burned to death or had their skin melted off.


-- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions?

=Your arguement has no backup, the "official" reason for the collape was the fire melting the steel supports. It takes a while to melt....


Just watch the video


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: David_vs_Goliath]
    #5497934 - 04/09/06 08:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I'm not going to spend hours downloading yet another conspiracy video through my steam powered dialup modem.

You've seen the video, so I'm presuming the answers you gave are the ones presented in the video. Let's look at them, shall we?

Quote:

workers in the building admitted in interviews that sections of the buildings were closed for maintnance during the week before 9/11...




Which sections? The sections -- in both buildings -- immediately below the floors impacted by the planes? Different floors in each tower, remember. Got a source for that other than the video itself? A written source somewhere?

Quote:

--It was controlled. For a building to fall you take out the botom suports, not the top. Collision had little impact other than the spectacle it proided.




Gee, too bad the buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, then. It's clear as day from the tapes of the collapses that they started at the impact points and proceeded downwards from there. Both films and still shots show that extremely clearly.

Quote:

= They were lower in the building, there was not intense heat throughout the lower 80 floors.




See above.

Quote:

=Your arguement has no backup, the "official" reason for the collape was the fire melting the steel supports. It takes a while to melt....




So let's get this straight. Although YOU don't believe the towers could collapse from steel being softened due to intense heat, the saboteurs did. This is why they waited for a while before setting off the charges... so that it would look as if the collapse came from heat-weakened girders.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Phred]
    #5498785 - 04/10/06 02:56 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:

-- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed?





Heightened security alert had been lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed on 09/06:

Quote:

September 12, 2001


The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story






PLUS, security system had been knocked down due to a power down to "upgrade WTC's computer bandwith" on 09/08 and 09/09:

Quote:

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate ?power-down? on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. ? a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton ? this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York?s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC?s computer bandwidth.

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

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC?s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America?s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: ?Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ?engineers? coming in and out of the tower.?

Forbes didn?t think much of these occurrences at the time, and said that he worked until Monday morning (September 10th) to get all the computer systems back online. Due to his IT-related duties on Saturday & Sunday, Forbes had Tuesday, September 11th off, and thus watched the World Trade Center towers collapse from his apartment. While doing so, he recalled, ?I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.?

In addition, Forbes says there were other peculiarities revolving around this unreported event, including:

1) Fiduciary employees trapped between the 90-97th floors of the South Tower told family members (via cell-phone calls) that they were hearing ?bomb-like explosions? throughout the towers.

2) Video cameras positioned atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that morning.

3) A Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike.

4) Last but not least, Ann Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust and now a board member of Franklin Templeton, had just arrived at a conference hosted by Warren Buffet at the Offutt Air Force Base (home of the U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska) when the 9-11 attacks took place. Coincidentally, later that day President George W. Bush flew into this very same base on Air Force One for ?security reasons.? Even more chilling are the Offutt AFB ties to the CIA?s MK ULTRA experiments, Project Monarch, the Franklin Cover-Up, and the diabolical practices of Michael Aquino. (Type any of these words into a search engine for more information.)

In the end, Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, ?I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts.?

Obviously there are many unanswered questions to this story, and we will keep you updated as more information arrives.


http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html





So, on Friday through Tuesday morn., explosives could have easily been brought into towers.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Phred]
    #5498809 - 04/10/06 03:35 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Still adding layers to your tinfoil beanie, I see.


Nope, just giving answers to the question asked.

Quote:

-- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed?


Here's one possible explanation.

From People Magazine:
Quote:

Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.
How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual.



From New York Newsday:
Quote:

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [Sept. 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.


These are only clues, but they indicate it would not have been impossible to prepare.

Edit: Oops, exclusive58, we posted almost simultaneously. Thanks for the additional information.

Quote:

-- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted?
-- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above?


Maybe that was of no concern. The planes could have been guided by beacons, so maybe they knew exactly where they would impact.
Or maybe there were no beacons, and they didn't know exactly where the planes would impact. But anyhow, no-one can deny that a plane impact represents a substantial burden on the structural integrity of a building. If they blew up the central core at ground level, the whole building rested on the outside steel structure. So where, do you think, would it have snapped first? Right, at the impact points.

Quote:

-- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges?


I don't know. But then, I don't know everything, certainly not about explosives. But maybe some did explode on impact, but not enough of them for the buildings to collapse right away. Or, better even, if you follow what I said above: maybe the planes were remote controlled, so they knew where to place no explosives. Maybe there were explosives more or less everywhere except around the impact points.

Quote:

-- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions?


Again, I can't be sure, I didn't plan it. But I guess that would have looked very unrealistic, knowing even the Empire State building easily resisted a plane crash.

But it's a good question. There are very good questions on both sides of the argument. I just think there are more troubling and unanswered questions coming from the 'inside job' side.

My turn to ask you just one question now, Phred.
You and others have urged people, and rightly so, to take into account the eyewitness reports about the Pentagon attack. As you reported, many people saw the plane hit, many people saw debris, etc. My personal opinion about the Pentagon attack is undecided, partly because of those accounts, and I acknowledge it is certainly possible that flight 77 hit it, although a few questions remain.
But then, why do you remain completely deaf to the mass of eyewitness accounts, recorded on tape and included in several movies (I know, you've got a steam-driven modem, but that's no excuse), that consistently mention numerous heavy secondary explosions? Those accounts are from anonymous eyewitnesses, from TV reporters sent in live, from firefighters (I think they know what they're talking about), etc. Lots and lots of people who were there give very specific and consistent details of explosions that seem to match controlled demolition (bright flashes, crackling detonations, all just before collapses). Those are interesting accounts, because they were made on the spot, when no official version was available to influence, warp or censor said accounts. It's not because they haven't been rebroadcast as often as the Twin Towers' collapses (did you notice the near absence of WTC7 rebroadcasts?) that they no more exist or aren't worth looking at.

So, when will you acknowledge those eyewitness accounts?


Edited by Aldous (04/10/06 03:38 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefredyjenkins
Stranger
Registered: 10/30/04
Posts: 127
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: Loose Change video 9/11 [Re: Aldous]
    #5498814 - 04/10/06 03:42 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

This is stupid crap. If i was a conspirator (yeah right, that means a lot of people) i would nuke iran, then persuade the UN it was iraq who did it. You know? I certainly wouldnt shoot myself in the foot. That<s plain stupid. There is so many alternatives.


--------------------
-English is not my native language. So im not retarded, i'm just not very engligh articulate. Please forgive me for my bad writing! :wink: Thank you! :laugh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 9/11 Questions
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Turn 11,141 90 03/11/06 03:27 PM
by Aldous
* Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA 9/11 Involvement ekomstop 900 1 09/19/04 01:23 AM
by afoaf
* 9-11 please wake up america. this is going to happen again.
( 1 2 3 all )
clone 5,371 43 09/12/05 04:23 AM
by Los_Pepes
* 9-11 moms want answers LearyfanS 869 8 08/23/03 08:02 PM
by Cornholio
* Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission usefulidiot 1,229 4 12/18/04 11:43 AM
by usefulidiot
* Obama places second next to Chinese President Hu Jintao Forbes most powerful people Nexius 1,072 9 11/08/10 11:08 AM
by AmericanPsycho
* Guerrilla News: Propaganda Since 9/11 Video Eightball 1,222 6 07/02/02 04:44 PM
by Thor
* So now that the Justice Dept is going to release the Pentagon video
( 1 2 all )
HagbardCeline 2,348 33 05/20/06 09:30 AM
by Andy21

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
8,367 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.