Last time I checked, it was aorund $3bn to rebuild JUST the freedom tower. In addition, it's been reported that it is not going to be completed until 2013. So he ain't taking SHIT in for the next 7 years. "Tens of billions annually" - where the fuck did you get that bullshit :roll:
Last time I checked, it was aorund $3bn to rebuild JUST the freedom tower. In addition, it's been reported that it is not going to be completed until 2013. So he ain't taking SHIT in for the next 7 years. "Tens of billions annually" - where the fuck did you get that bullshit :roll:
Casiotech and Icebergslim, I just want to know how John Titor fits in all this? Surely he would have the answers!
A witness to something is a person who WITNESSED the event. How can a person WITNESS us NOT landing on the moon?
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Yes. Assuming he nets zero, or even loses money in his plot to kill thousands and destroy buildings, what does he stand to gain when the towers are finished? He already had a 99 year lease on some of the most valuable office space in the world. So under your theory he decided to kablooey the buildings because at 30 years old he felt the twin towers weren't up to snuff??
Factor in all the previous comments about the perils of, oh I dunno, treason, contacting a foreign terrorist power, avoiding all detection from every agency around the world who monitors such communication, hoping the terrorists don't tell anyone they have a rich American financier helping them, and the fact that an otherwise ridiculously rich law abiding husband, father, and life long new yorker had no problem with committing one of the largest mass murders in history and risk being labeled for all time as the greatest traitor in his country's history, all for a few more bucks.
It all makes zero sense.
PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
Maybe he should go confront Buzz Aldrin about walking on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
Who wants to see Buzz Aldrin punch out CasioTech?
lol......yes of course he was personally meeting with a terrorist organization right and making calls to al quaeda from his cell phone!! sure dude no problem!!
In your world this is how it would have worked I'm sure:
OPerator: Hello How can Help You?
Silverstein: Yeah put me through to Al quada please
Operator: Please hold
Al quada: praise allah how can I help you
Silverstein: yeah I got some money to help you with your errr umm attack....
Al quada: Oh great who are you?
Silverstein: My name is larry silverstein from nyc
Al quada: just send me half a million wester union
Silverstein: Sounds great expect it tommorow.
1000's of dirt poor mexicans run across the border daily avoiding detection. You don't think a billionaire can make moves undetected.....seriously? In your world all criminals must have the brain capacity of Arthur Fonzarelli
Not to mention the plot wasn't undetected there were plenty of warnings ignored.
Originally posted by: irishScott
Video 8:
Finally, completely out of context.
More specifically: "Both the producer and the director noted that Walters was in perfect shape". So they're doctors now are they? Did they give him a physical? The guy was 85 years old (according to the French newspaper clipping shown in the video). He died from a stroke. Strokes are not that uncommon among people his age.
CasioTech, you are seriously messed up if you believe this shit. I've heard some moon landing conspiracies that actually makes some twisted false sort of sense. This was a bunch of pure unsubstantiated, blatantly wrong historically inaccurate by any definition bullshit.
In any case, I'm pretty sure the only reason you posted those videos was to provide irrefutable support for your argument. Irrefutable because you probably thought that no one on these forums would be bored enough to go through it. You were wrong, I win. Have a nice life.
you didn't win shit.
'durrrrrrrrrrrr, I don't have anything to say about this great documentary... I know... IT WAS ALLLLLL OUT OF CONTEXT AND BS! i win.'
:thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: irishScott
Video 5:
1. See previous.
2. I wonder how an Ex-KGB agent without a given background is suddenly an expert on the equipment used on the moon, the nature of the lunar surface, physics, and other areas relatively outside the purview of an intelligence operative?
2a. IE: The video clearly shows that the flag wasn't "waving in the wind". Atmosphere or no atmosphere, the flag is attached to a pole that is shifting position. By any laws of physics It's going to move. Given the way it's mounted, it's probably going to move around a vertical axis (the pole maybe? :shocked
3. The narrator contradicts himself. If all photos were destroyed, how did he come across an undeveloped roll of film?
4. Ambrose Chapel. Who the hell... As far as I'm concerned he's just another guy with no proof. He says a lot with nothing to back it up.
oh and btw, whether or not he's a 'physics' expert, you have NOTHING to say about the key points he brings up such as the spotlights and lighting among all the other inconsistencies.
Originally posted by: CasioTech
Originally posted by: irishScott
Video 8:
Finally, completely out of context.
More specifically: "Both the producer and the director noted that Walters was in perfect shape". So they're doctors now are they? Did they give him a physical? The guy was 85 years old (according to the French newspaper clipping shown in the video). He died from a stroke. Strokes are not that uncommon among people his age.
CasioTech, you are seriously messed up if you believe this shit. I've heard some moon landing conspiracies that actually makes some twisted false sort of sense. This was a bunch of pure unsubstantiated, blatantly wrong historically inaccurate by any definition bullshit.
In any case, I'm pretty sure the only reason you posted those videos was to provide irrefutable support for your argument. Irrefutable because you probably thought that no one on these forums would be bored enough to go through it. You were wrong, I win. Have a nice life.
you didn't win shit.
'durrrrrrrrrrrr, I don't have anything to say about this great documentary... I know... IT WAS ALLLLLL OUT OF CONTEXT AND BS! i win.'
:thumbsdown:
:roll:
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,455
- 19,924
- 146
I wonder what it is that compels a small, but significant percentage of the population to buy into obviously contrived and logically impossible conspiracy theories?
It's as if they NEED the conspiracy to be true. They WANT it to be true and will ignore facts to believe it.
Are conspiracy theories the new religion?
It's as if they NEED the conspiracy to be true. They WANT it to be true and will ignore facts to believe it.
Are conspiracy theories the new religion?
Originally posted by: CasioTech
Originally posted by: irishScott
Video 8:
Finally, completely out of context.
More specifically: "Both the producer and the director noted that Walters was in perfect shape". So they're doctors now are they? Did they give him a physical? The guy was 85 years old (according to the French newspaper clipping shown in the video). He died from a stroke. Strokes are not that uncommon among people his age.
CasioTech, you are seriously messed up if you believe this shit. I've heard some moon landing conspiracies that actually makes some twisted false sort of sense. This was a bunch of pure unsubstantiated, blatantly wrong historically inaccurate by any definition bullshit.
In any case, I'm pretty sure the only reason you posted those videos was to provide irrefutable support for your argument. Irrefutable because you probably thought that no one on these forums would be bored enough to go through it. You were wrong, I win. Have a nice life.
you didn't win shit.
'durrrrrrrrrrrr, I don't have anything to say about this great documentary... I know... IT WAS ALLLLLL OUT OF CONTEXT AND BS! i win.'
:thumbsdown:
Stop posting troll.
ATOT we just need to let IBS, Casio, and Alkemyst have their own little conspiracy theory board.
I'm going to go suggest that I will bbl, expect a new forum for just those 3 to talk about these effed up ideas they have.
I'm going to go suggest that I will bbl, expect a new forum for just those 3 to talk about these effed up ideas they have.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: CasioTech
Originally posted by: irishScott
Video 8:
Finally, completely out of context.
More specifically: "Both the producer and the director noted that Walters was in perfect shape". So they're doctors now are they? Did they give him a physical? The guy was 85 years old (according to the French newspaper clipping shown in the video). He died from a stroke. Strokes are not that uncommon among people his age.
CasioTech, you are seriously messed up if you believe this shit. I've heard some moon landing conspiracies that actually makes some twisted false sort of sense. This was a bunch of pure unsubstantiated, blatantly wrong historically inaccurate by any definition bullshit.
In any case, I'm pretty sure the only reason you posted those videos was to provide irrefutable support for your argument. Irrefutable because you probably thought that no one on these forums would be bored enough to go through it. You were wrong, I win. Have a nice life.
you didn't win shit.
'durrrrrrrrrrrr, I don't have anything to say about this great documentary... I know... IT WAS ALLLLLL OUT OF CONTEXT AND BS! i win.'
:thumbsdown:
Honestly, you're an idiot. 90% of those quotes were either not cited, taken completely out of context or otherwise manipulated to say something the speakers didn't intend. I guess when someone refutes your argument you really have nothing to fall back on besides trying to make fun of them.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
I thought I shredded the idea that Silverstein had anything to gain from the WTC attacks?
It sucks when you're wrong, huh? Or do I need to spell it out in really simple English for you?
Well, here goes.
Silverstein invested money with other people into buying the WTC. He got 3.2 billion dollars together, including 14 million of his own money. He filed for a 1.5 billion dollar insurance policy, which is investors balked at. He then wanted a 5 billion dollar policy, but ultimately settled on a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy, which was granted by about 25 different agents. At the time, however, he was warned that 3.5 billion wouldn't cover the costs of reconstruction (which his lease legally obligated him to undertake) if the WTC came crashing down. IF the towers came down, it's not as though Silverstein would walk away with 3.5 billion dollars. Technically, his investment group would split that money and could do what they pleased with it, HOWEVER their contract OBLIGATED them to foot the bill for rebuilding the WTC if something should happen.
RECAP THUS FAR: Silverstein invests big bucks into WTC. If bad things happen to WTC, Silverstein's group must pay to rebuild it. Insurance money < cost of rebuilding.
CONSPIRACY QUESTIONS:
- If Silverstein had wanted to destroy the WTC for profit, why did he not seek the 5 billion dollar claim and instead settle on a number less than the estimated cost of rebuilding?
- In fact, why would he have destroyed buildings (1) knowing that he was legally obligated to pay for their reconstruction and (2) knowing that he could not afford to do so under the insurance policy?
When the planes hit the WTC, there were NO ACTIVE INSURANCE policies on the buildings. There were agreements in place, but the policy wasn't technically active. The insurance companies did not dispute the claim because the insurance agreement was basically in place, even if not technically active. The insurance companies did get upset when Silverstein tried to claim there were two separate attacks, and he should be entitled to 7 billion dollars.
RECAP THUS FAR: Silverstein had no active insurance on Sept. 11, 2001. Insurance companies had agreements in place, no contest about paying the owed monies. Insurance companies get upset when Silverstein claims there were two separate attacks. Ultimately, Silverstein won that claim and was awarded 7.2 billion dollars. HOWEVER, his investment group will only see about 4.6 billion worth of that payout.
CONSPIRACY QUESTIONS:
- If Silverstein was helping Osama attack the WTC, why would he risk everything by scheduling the attack before his insurance policies were active? Even though there was no contest by the agents, they could have tried to make a big stink in saying that the damage occurred before their coverage was extended. By pushing the attacks into October or November, Silverstein would have guaranteed the insurance agencies would pay up.
The costs of rebuilding the WTC have been much higher than expected. It is estimated that the total cost could near $15 billion dollars, of which Silverstein is on the hook for nearly all of it. In fact, Silverstein's group does not have the money to finance the complete reconstruction and has won nearly four billion dollars in federal loans. In return, however, Silverstein has relinquished control of the Freedom Tower and of one other building.
RECAP THUS FAR: Silverstein now is forced to pay billions up billions in reconstruction costs and has accepted federal money to do so.
CONSPIRACY QUESTIONS:
- If Silverstein is planning on rolling on dough for the next eighty years, he's off on the wrong path. Combining his $120 million / year leasing costs with the interest payments he now owes the government, he is paying them somewhere in the neighborhood of $240 million dollars per year. If Silverstein has pocketed billions from the WTC disaster, then why has he relinquished control over the most profitable (long-term) building in the complex -- the Freedom Tower? Why has he accepted federal money, which he owes interest on, if he could simply walk away with billions?
Summary:
Silverstein pays 3.2 billion dollars for the WTC.
He takes out a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy (after originally seeking a 1.5 billion dollar policy), which doesn't go into effect until after 9/11/2001.
This policy is claimed 2x for the WTC, but Silverstein needs money, so he settles for a 4.6 billion dollar payout.
Silverstein accepts federal loans to help complete the WTC rebuilding and now is on the hook for 6% interest on over four billion dollars plus 120 million dollars per year for the life of his lease.
Silveerstein, as a condition of the loans, gives up control over the most lucrative building in the complex -- the Freedom Tower -- to secure the loans.
Anandtech idiot-friendly summary:
Step 1 - Pay 3.2 billion for building
Step 2 - Take out 3.5 billion insurance policy
Step 3 - cost of rebuilding > 3.5 billion
Step 4 - Take ~ 4 billion in government loans @ 6% relinquish control over most profitable building and still owe 120 million per year
Step 5 - ...
Step 6 - Profit?
Sometimes I feel as though they don't even believe in the shit they are just trying to get a rise out of people the sick sadistic fucks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter