Who the hell is Barry Jennings?

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: I mean, it couldn't possibly be the man who made a cool $4.55 billion from an insurance claim for buildings he leased only two months before the towers fell. Why would he lie about what happened?

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Podman

demonspawn wrote: »

Jennings was obviously a liar and had an ulterior motive. Duh!!

Edit: I mean, it couldn't possibly be the man who made a cool $4.55 billion from an insurance claim for buildings he leased only two months before the towers fell. Why would he lie about what happened?

Silverstein gets his money/new plaza

Bush gets his war

The US government gets a police state

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Oh, and before you claim that the beam was cut by workers. That angle shown in the photo is consistent with the angle needed in all controlled demolitions to ensure the beam slides sideways and down to ensure it doesn't get caught and stop other parts of the building from falling. The cuts made by the workers do not resemble this whatsoever.

nah - no resemblance whatsoever.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Apparently the jet fuel melted the beams and both buildings pancaked in the exact same fashion. :rolleyes:

Shocking that buildings built in the same way would collapse in the same way. Don't recall anyone saying steel melted other than the Ct'ers.

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in the timeline that Jennings is Discussing

BOTH TOWERS WERE STILL STANDING

So how could it be damage from the collapsing towers that caused the fires and instability in B7???????

Because he was confused. The fact that he was confused is evident from the other claims he makes, so why not on the sequence he presents? It's a fact that debris from WTC1 hit the north side of WTC7 - causing exactly the sort of damage he related, and it's also a fact that no-one else heard (or recorded) any explosion inside the building that couldn't be accounted for by the collapse of WTC1.

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

Apparently the jet fuel melted the beams and both buildings pancaked in the exact same fashion. :rolleyes:

Care to point to anyone (other than CTers) claiming that steel was melted anywhere in the wtc on the day? 100% straw man.

demonspawn

alastair wrote: »

nah - no resemblance whatsoever.

No, nothing even remotely similar. That cut is not straight, as you can plainly see. The picture I linked all cuts are perfectly straight, because the charges used to melt steel beams are very rigid. Try again.

In fact, that picture looks like it was photoshopped. How did melted material get onto that thin strip of metal yet that strip isn't cut? Surely if the cutter was powerful enough to push molten metal onto that strip, it would be powerful enough to cut it.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

No, nothing even remotely similar. That cut is not straight, as you can plainly see. The picture I linked all cuts are perfectly straight, because the charges used to melt steel beams are very rigid. Try again.

In fact, that picture looks like it was photoshopped. How did melted material get onto that thin strip of metal yet that strip isn't cut? Surely if the cutter was powerful enough to push molten metal onto that strip, it would be powerful enough to cut it.

Sorry you think that explosive charges will l cut a neat straight line across a steel girder? Exactly like a cutting torch would?

You also noticed this isn't a finished cut right?

alastair

demonspawn wrote: »

No, nothing even remotely similar. That cut is not straight, as you can plainly see. The picture I linked all cuts are perfectly straight, because the charges used to melt steel beams are very rigid. Try again.

In fact, that picture looks like it was photoshopped. How did melted material get onto that thin strip of metal yet that strip isn't cut? Surely if the cutter was powerful enough to push molten metal onto that strip, it would be powerful enough to cut it.

So just to be clear - it's nothing like another angle cut beam, and even if it is, it's obviously photoshopped. :rolleyes:

demonspawn

Let's see what the experts say.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Let's see what the experts say.

Ah change the subject... I don't think anyone is saying WTC7 didn't fall like a controlled demolition, because clearly it did fall like a controlled demolition.

However we have a dilemma. If explosives were used they would show up on the seismic record but they don't, nor did people hear the very distinctive sounds of it. Where in we have thermate being used and the CT world inventing a new way for demolition that no one has ever used or has proven to work properly in the situation.

They estimate to get thermate to work, assuming you could actually keep in under control would take 45kg's per beam. But sure no would notice the walls being stripped and truck loads of a odd substance being brought in or the cables being run. etc.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

Ah change the subject... I don't think anyone is saying WTC7 didn't fall like a controlled demolition, because clearly it did fall like a controlled demolition.

However we have a dilemma. If explosives were used they would show up on the seismic record but they don't, nor did people hear the very distinctive sounds of it. Where in we have thermate being used and the CT world inventing a new way for demolition that no one has ever used or has proven to work properly in the situation.

If this is as big a CT as everyone thinks then seismic records can easily be doctored or fabricated.

,nor did people hear the very distinctive sounds of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

And if you bothered to actually watch the video I posted you will see that the demo expert clearly states that it could easily be done with the right team in a very short time using existing methods. You keep lining them up and I keep shooting them down.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

If this is as big a CT as everyone thinks then seismic records can easily be doctored or fabricated.

Thing is, why would they bother saying it fell naturally if they did it under a controlled explosion. Why would they risk a controlled explosion on the same day and then tell everyone it fell naturally, when they could have just left it standing and carried out a controlled demolition within the next few days, and tell everyone that it need to be domolished because it was unstable and posed a safety risk?

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

If this is as big a CT as everyone thinks then seismic records can easily be doctored or fabricated.

You know this kind of stuff brings a smile to my face... so as long as we believe that literally thousands of people are in on it and not one speaks out even after all this time then the CT makes sense. My experience of governments is they are inept and couldn't keep the weather forecast to themselves. Even Nixon a US president wasn't able to stop himself being found out and he wasn't accused of killing 3000 (mostly) Americans.

demonspawn wrote: »

And if you bothered to actually watch the video I posted you will see that the demo expert clearly states that it could easily be done with the right team in a very short time using existing methods. You keep lining them up and I keep shooting them down.

So existing methods would involve explosives? Which no one saw being brought in or the wiring or the damage to the walls to place them, in a full building with thousands of people in it. And then have the all the people who run the seismographs in on it. You see at this point it sounds like the plot of a bad movie, one that we'd all laugh at if we saw it on the TV.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

Sigh... I have looked into this in great detail. I haven't however read every single last stupid theory. To be honest some of them make my brain hurt as they make no sense whatsoever. Some people read Mills and Boon and good luck to them but I don't. So if you could get off your high horsey for a moment and make your point.

Heaven forbid that anyone might string the various contradictory 'theories' into a logical sequence of events. Nah - why expose the ludicrous nature of each and every fantasy. Much better to quickly pass over the glaring cracks in these propositions and instead mutter darkly about omnipotent forces that lurk behind every corner.

xone

meglome wrote:

Sigh... I have looked into this in great detail. I haven't however read every single last stupid theory. To be honest some of them make my brain hurt as they make no sense whatsoever. Some people read Mills and Boon and good luck to them but I don't. So if you could get off your high horsey for a moment and make your point.

In order for silverstein to collect insurance, all 3 buildings part of the trade center had to be destroyed.

he spent $3.2 billion acquiring buildings 6 months before the attacks which never made any profit and had to be subsidized by the government.

It required $200 million in renovations and some of the materials used in the construction were considered hazardous, is he stupid? i wouldn't think so.

Silverstein insured the trade center for terrorist attack and low and behold he makes a net profit of $1.3 billion settling with insurance company in 2004.

not a bad profit for 3 year investment.

meglome

xone wrote: »

In order for silverstein to collect insurance, all 3 buildings part of the trade center had to be destroyed.

he spent $3.2 billion acquiring buildings 6 months before the attacks which never made any profit and had to be subsidized by the government.

It required $200 million in renovations and some of the materials used in the construction were considered hazardous, is he stupid? i wouldn't think so.

Silverstein insured the trade center for terrorist attack and low and behold he makes a net profit of $1.3 billion settling with insurance company in 2004.

not a bad profit for 3 year investment.

Unfortunately doesn't appear to be true.

http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

The story...

The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.

Our take...

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems...

alastair

xone wrote: »

In order for silverstein to collect insurance, all 3 buildings part of the trade center had to be destroyed.

You are aware that there were 7 buildings in the centre? And that it wouldn't really matter how many of the buildings were destroyed for an insurance payout?

meglome

xone wrote: »

meglome, what do you think?

the response on that website are the opinions of others.
i have my own opinions based on what i've read.

Of course anything we read we have to form our own opinions on. However the links on that 911myths site use actual articles from the time and before for reference. Now either i assume all the external links are faked (though using archive.org i can see they are not) or that part of the CT about Silverstein doing it for the money simply isn't true and is provably not true. It's one of the major problems I have with CT sites, they all parrot each other and not one of them actually bothered to really check the details. Better to blame the Jew.

Podman wrote: »

Don't waste your breath xone, trying to get through to those children isn't worth the effort.

Your being drawn into a downward spiral, quit while your ahead.

hehe Yet again we look at the fine details and they don't actually show what is claimed in the CT. But way easier to call people names than accept the evidence. I'm wondering when i'll be put on ignore as anyone who puts people on the spot in here is likely to be.

xone

meglome wrote:

Of course anything we read we have to form our own opinions on. However the links on that 911myths site use actual articles from the time and before for reference. Now either i assume all the external links are faked (though using archive.org i can see they are not) or that part of the CT about Silverstein doing it for the money simply isn't true and is provably not true. It's one of the major problem I have with CT sites, they all parrot each other and not one of them actually bothered to really check the details. Better to blame the Jew.

You're deriving opinions from other sceptics and pro-war, neo-conservative websites.

Citing references to other sceptics and then assuming anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of nutjob.

meglome

xone wrote: »

You're deriving opinions from other sceptics and pro-war, neo-conservative websites.

Citing references to other sceptics and then assuming anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of nutjob.

Em no... I'm using articles from before and around 911 from several different publications, on different WTC topics. These show that Silverstein is very unlikely to have orchestrated 911 for the money. The links are linked from a well researched 'sceptics' site but i have gone and checked them and they all appear fully legit. The CT sites on the other hand make claims about Silverstein but they don't back them up like this at all. They usually have one CT site parroting another and all after fact. So if i have to choose one to believe I'll choose the one that has the best evidence every time.

I didn't call anyone names however I'd have to wonder about people's agenda or state of mind when it clearly appears Silverstein didn't do it for the money yet people still choose to believe it. Science, logic and evidence have bought us a long way it would be a shame if we stopped believing in them. Feelings and intuition are all well and good but they shouldn't get in the way of provable reality.

demonspawn

I'd like to point out that the only reason Silverstein is not getting the full amount of the insurance payout is because the insurance company smelled a rat and took Silverstein to court over the wording of the contract. Some parts of the contract were still incomplete I believe. That's the only reason Silverstein settled for a lesser payout.

It's not too different to how insurance companies will investigate a claim for a car to see if the owner deliberately destroyed the car. I bet if anyone knows the real truth it's the insurance company. So please stop quoting that ridiculous 911myths website, it was set up to debunk every single theory and nothing more.

Also, there's a very good possibility that Silverstein got a very large envelope for his assistance to the United States government. The insurance money is chump change compared to what they could have given him. Alternatively he could have simply been threatened and told to keep him mouth shut and accept whatever he got.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd like to point out that the only reason Silverstein is not getting the full amount of the insurance payout is because the insurance company smelled a rat and took Silverstein to court over the wording of the contract. Some parts of the contract were still incomplete I believe. That's the only reason Silverstein settled for a lesser payout.

I believe you'll find he failed to complete policy negotiations and sought to have the attack classed as two separate events, one for each plane/building. So he got half of what he wanted... not very smart for a guy who's in on it. So there's no smelling a rat, it's quite clear why they didn't want to pay the full amount.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's not too different to how insurance companies will investigate a claim for a car to see if the owner deliberately destroyed the car. I bet if anyone knows the real truth it's the insurance company. So please stop quoting that ridiculous 911myths website, it was set up to debunk every single theory and nothing more.

You think the insurance company would have paid him 3.6 billion if they had any reason not to?

Oh you mean the site that uses proper references for everything it says. The site that shows from articles of the time that the CT with Silverstein doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I mean why get in the way of the CT with fact, silly of me really.

demonspawn wrote: »

Also, there's a very good possibility that Silverstein got a very large envelope for his assistance to the United States government. The insurance money is chump change compared to what they could have given him. Alternatively he could have simply been threatened and told to keep him mouth shut and accept whatever he got.

He had to get Liberty bonds from the government or would have been bankrupted. Maybe you should actually read the links I provided and see for yourself in detail.

You seem to have this idea that some of us are here to just debunk everything you say for the laugh. The Silverstein story doesn't stand up to any scrutiny and those of us who actually keep an open mind get tired of listening to the same made up crap.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

Oh you mean the site that uses proper references for everything it says. The site that shows from articles of the time that the CT with Silverstein doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I mean why get in the way of the CT with fact, silly of me really.

You do realize that every CTer sees mainstream media as the propaganda machine for the government, right?

Well, I'm not asking you to believe any of this. Why would I? I don't care what you believe to be quite honest. You live you life with blinkers on and you're free to do so, life's much easier when you can only see straight ahead.

It's difficult to question the official story because many times you'll be frustrated and you just want to give up. I'm not the type to give up so easily. Debunk all you want, it wont change my mind. I've done more research than you on this subject and I'm confident with my conclusions.

If you think you can come here and make me doubt myself with simple refutation then I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

You do realize that every CTer sees mainstream media as the propaganda machine for the government, right?

Well to be fair here the CT world eye's mainstream media with suspicion except where the story agrees with the CT in some way, then they don't seem to be suspicious at all.

demonspawn wrote: »

Well, I'm not asking you to believe any of this. Why would I? I don't care what you believe to be quite honest. You live you life with blinkers on and you're free to do so, life's much easier when you can only see straight ahead.

Ah back to the name calling and sheeple references. I'll believe what can be proven within reason. Which is why I don't believe that Silverstein did it for the money.

demonspawn wrote: »

It's difficult to question the official story because many times you'll be frustrated and you just want to give up. I'm not the type to give up so easily. Debunk all you want, it wont change my mind. I've done more research than you on this subject and I'm confident with my conclusions.

The official version may not be perfect but it has a number of things over the CT. It uses logic, science and evidence... it even has a consistent story... all of which are sadly lacking in most of the CT. It's amazing how you know you've done more research than me on this topic, all without the slightest proof of that. Well you're consistent I'll give you that.

demonspawn wrote: »

If you think you can come here and make me doubt myself with simple refutation then I'm afraid you're wasting your time.

I haven't the slightest desire to make you doubt yourself. However I'd be delighted if you could see that many aspects of the CT make no sense, have no evidence and blatantly contradict each other. Personally I don't assume anything... sometimes governments are good and sometimes they are bad, since they are made up of individuals who can be good and bad. I don't assume CT sites good, and governments bad... both are well capable to lying to me. I have no agenda whosoever, I post here because I'm interesting in the CT's but these vast conspiracy's don't work for me. Every time you ask a critical question you're told "oh they are in on it". For 911 to work as the CT's outline thousands of people would need to be in on it, many thousands. History and human nature tells me you cannot keep that secret. And that's aside from the fact the details never match up.

demonspawn

Ok man, how's about this. You list the reasons why you think the terrorists did it and I'll list the reasons why I think the U.S. government and their business buddies did it. Deal? You'll have to wait until tomorrow because I'm heading to bed and don't want to spend the next two hours searching the interwebs for evidence to back up my reasons. I have it, it's all true, I'm just a bit tired atm.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

History and human nature tells me you cannot keep that secret.

What an arrogant and to be honest pointless thing to say. Your claiming in absolutes that you are aware of ALL secrets made by large groups in history. History hasn't shown you how many secrets have been kept from you and to which you have no idea about, for the very reason that they are secrets.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What an arrogant and to be honest pointless thing to say. Your claiming in absolutes that you are aware of ALL secrets made by large groups in history. History hasn't shown you how many secrets have been kept from you and to which you have no idea about, for the very reason that they are secrets.

And we're back to the faith-based foundation of the CT. I'll put my stake behind logic and science before the fairy stories. Not one of the 911 theories actually makes an ounce of sense when you put the patchwork together (ignoring the reality that most of the patches don't either). That's where the real blinkers come into play.

humanji

Enough of the bickering people. I've deleted a few nonsense posts and I don't want to have to keep doing it. If you can't post politely, then don't post.

Soveriegn

meglome wrote: »

I haven't the slightest desire to make you doubt yourself. However I'd be delighted if you could see that many aspects of the CT make no sense

Of course, unlike the official fairy tale.

It was the brown foreigners from the cave. They couldn't fly jets but they did anyway. They flew them into 2 buildings in New York, 3 buildings pancaked to the ground due to fire. There were explosions in building 7 prior to the towers collapsing though, but ignore that. The hole in the pentagon was to small to have been made by a large plane, even one with no wings. The other "plane" went nose first into the ground and vanished. Apparently the plane was found deep underground, yet debris was found scattered for miles. Good old NORAD were on a training mission that day, they were practicing for just such an event, planes hitting skyscrapers in NY city, 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ? Funny the exact same scenario happened on 7/7, London (they were training for several bombs in the underground) another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence. Anyhow....
First time in history jet liners are flown into skyscrapers, first time in history that skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, but 3 times in one day !!!! :eek: Another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ? Oh and the terrorists were not on the flight manifests (that's weird).
The pentagon wont release pictures or video footage of the "plane" hitting it because of "national security" reasons, why wouldn't they just put this to bed (if they could)....
Wasn't bush caught bullsh!tting about what he saw on the tv that day ?
Then there is all that steel that was illegally removed from the crime scene immediately after the collapses, to be melted down.
Then there is Bin Laden's poster on the FBI website which states noting of 911 (because they have not enough evidence linking him to it) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Perhaps they would have more evidence if they didn't destroy the evidence, oh and move all of his relatives out of the country a couple of days after 911, one would think they would be interviewed.
Incidentally didn't Bin Laden's family construction help build the twin towers ? yeah, that's another weird coincidence...
Wasn't there some incredible phone calls made from the planes when it was not possible to make calls at those altitudes, yup.
Wasn't Jed Bush head of security at the towers at the time of 911 ? That's a weird coincidence inst it.. Didn't many important figures call in sick that day, cancel flights etc etc... Some people got mysterious warnings etc etc almost like some people (aside from bin and the guys) knew of a pending attack. Didn't the BBC predict the collapse of building 7 ??? 20 or so minutes before it collapsed :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw

The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

(don't reffer me to your debunking911 or 911myths bible please, I don't buy that sh!t)

Here are 300+ other funny coincidences..

http://oldmanjoe.tripod.com/9-11_probabilities.htm