Well it is substantiated what I said. He did take control of WTC, they did go into the documentation of the insurance summary and include 'being attacked by an airplane'. I just didn't take the time to go through and post actual links of what I was talking about, which I just covered in my second post.

I'm not even trying to convince people of anything, but rather to just make people skeptical. I could care less if anyone else believes what I do in the entire "9/11 scenario", but would rather summarize what I think and leave it at that. And at the same time, I'm not disagreeing with you on not liking misinformation, because it does derail legitimate, structured arguments to where they become completely opinionated.

When you add all of the pieces of the puzzle together, they don't exactly fit together. That's all. Everything else that surrounded 9/11, IMO, could be argued completely that the 'terrorist' attacks brought the buildings to pieces; However, when you look at building 7 there is something wrong with the picture. They claim the sprinkler system hadn't been working which is why, after burning for roughly 5 hours the 45+ story building collapsed perfectly onto itself at a freefall rate.

You have not substantiated this claim in any way. You have not shown that Larry Silverstein "took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11." You have not shown that the policy was changed to include "terrorist attacks" either. If you think you have, please point out to me specifically where you did so. Oh wait, you said yourself that they're unsubstantiated claims.

..... September 11th - July 24th = 48 days, maybe I rounded down a bit. My mistake!

Meaning that, when he renewed his insurance/lease on July 24th, the new documentation included 'the scenario of an aircraft hitting one of the WTC towers as one of the 'maximum foreseeable losses'. I'm pretty sure this little word called intuition would include that of a plane crashing into a building on purpose as a terrorist attack, if I'm wrong on my definitions, feel free to correct me.

I do understand the point you're going for. I do understand that, hey, this guy is probably just some greedy asshole and it's 100% commonplace for a business man like himself to be insuring his investments. That's completely understandable.

My point is, this guy is a very intelligent man. Right? I mean, who could take a 14 million dollar investment and turn it into 17 billion dollars? That's obviously a great investment.

I mean lets not forget, had 9/11 never occured that would've probably the worst investment of all time; However, he was lucky enough for 9/11 to happen and make the biggest cash swaps, probably ever. I mean the building was full of asbestos, (which was the reason they couldn't demolish the buildings to begin with). The buildings were not up to date, had vacancy problems for years and lacked most of the modern communication devices at the time.

This doesn't say that "aircraft strike" was added to the insurance policy or anything along those lines. A property risk assessment is done any time you acquire a property which you intend to insure. If you were to buy a house on the side of a mountain, you likely wouldn't need flood coverage on your insurance, or at least your flood coverage would be incredibly cheap/free because of the low risk. Tall objects are susceptible to being hit by aircraft, obviously. I suspect most buildings/communications towers/wind turbines/etc have the same or similar coverage, and the WTC likely had that sort of coverage prior to the PRA.

In regards to your statement that "the guy that owned the Twin Towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on each building a month before 9/11", DUH. He (read: his business and another, separate business) ACQUIRED the property and insured it, shortly before 9/11. Are you suggesting that they should have done it sooner, or not at all?

On a similar note, I'm fairly skeptical about the holocaust. Now, I'm not saying it never happened, but there are many reasons to be skeptical about it. For instance, in 1988 upon examination of the gas chambers where Jews were allegedly gassed a leading specialist found no evidence for Cyanide, where there should have been some. Three years later the polish government repeated these tests in order to disprove our leading specialist but could not find any evidence of Cyanide either.

Also, these alleged gas chambers are extremely faulty. These rooms have ordinary doors and windows which are not sealed!!! If the Germans tried to gas anyone in these rooms, they would have died themselves, as the gas would have leaked out.

Though six million Jews allegedly died in these so-called gas chambers, not one of these bodies have been autopsied.

Now, I'm not saying the Holocaust never happened.

The Germans kept meticulous detail of everything they did. But there is no documentation on anything about gassing Jews!!!

Even if we threw out all this undeniable evidence and assumed that the Germans did gas the Jews in their gas chambers, accounting for every gas chamber it would have taken 68 years to kill 6 million people!!!

Even Anne Franke's diary is a hoax!!! Parts of the diary are written in ball-point pen, which were not in use at the time!

Now why would people set up such a massive hoax? Because of the evil Zionists of course. Israel receives trillions of dollars as restitution for these alleged gassings. If the evil Zionists were not taking all of our monies, every family in America would be able to afford a BRAND NEW MERCEDES BENZ!!!

I'm not even trying to convince people of anything, but rather to just make people skeptical. I could care less if anyone else believes what I do in the entire "holocaust scenario", but would rather summarize what I think and leave it at that. And at the same time, I'm not disagreeing with you on not liking misinformation, because it does derail legitimate, structured arguments to where they become completely opinionated. When you add all of the pieces of the puzzle together, they don't exactly fit together. That's all.

Tell that to the pissed old man with the bar code on his arm.

I dunno, but it seems to me, especially with the Holocaust imitation breakdown, that the argument seems to be in the details. Okay, perhaps a terrorist organization decided to fly a plane into a couple of buildings. But that doesn't explain why Building 7 collapsed. If it received damage, why didn't other surrounding buildings, aside from windows breaking?

What I'm trying to point out is that, perhaps, someone felt that with a single attack, it would be an isolated incident. With the 2 planes, it seems bizarre, but still believable. No, if you want to rally your countrymen, you need fear of imminent and organized attack, which came with the attack of the Pentagon, the 4th plane (United 93 or whatever) and WTC7. Now, all of a sudden, we need to act quickly and irrationally because we may not live to see another rational thought. Woe is us...

Which is why the details seem sketchy... as for a plane attack being common insurance terms, somebody should check the policies of other skyscrapers, pre-9/11, as well as how often planes have hit buildings. I would imagine single digits, if any in the history of aviation in America. The specials I have seen on planes state that a craft crashing is usually due to the pilot believing his guages are faulty and trying assume his own coordinates, or by the gauges actually being faulty. There are bizarre mishaps (Hudson river landing), and I'm sure those are exponentially more often than a plane hitting a building.


I think its funny how people believe the first thing they are told, and make everyone else have to find evidence to prove otherwise, when there wasn't very concise evidence to prove something in the first place...

This is all I was trying to portray, but did so in a less eloquent way. And like i've said before, we probably will never know what took place. There are plenty of instances of 'coincidences' involved that would make people, but since magazines like popular mechanics and other 'science' journals have published being that the buildings have fallen due to the fires, everyone that is skeptical is wrong from that point forward. Money is the devil.

Too bad religion isn't correct, or else this would mean something.

How would you possibly know that?

Regardless of any situation surrounding 9/11, building 7 is the smoking gun. Be it that nothing abusrd took place outside of the 'terrorist attacks'; However, if something did take place, it will be the weak spot where the potential truth could be uncovered. It just doesn't make sense, is all.






all of the thoughts, phrases, sentences, paragraphs are the sole opinion of d3v and do not represent, reinburse, endorse, or collectively reflect the thoughts of Zelaron, the members of Zelaron, the owners of Zelaron or any collective thinktank associated with Zelaron. d3v has opinions that are solely his own, and may be based on nothing substantial at all

Yes, the building fell in 6.5 seconds, into its own 'footprint' without damaging surrounding structers and this was caused by a few floors burning over a few hour timespan.

Also, no steel was used from WTC 7 for investigation as it was all recycled. Why did building 3, 4, 5 and 6 all directly under the Twin Towers all suffer much more torrential damage fall? Building 3 was almost completely destroyed but was actually split in half, but still stood completely fine. This shit is 7th grade physics.

Saying Building 7 fell straight down, in perfect formation, took the route of MOST resistance and fell into itself from fires only is absolutely ludicrous.

If actually read what the link points to, it doesn't say anything about it being "only" fire.

So damage on 10 floors, combined with a few office fires is enough to make all of the support structures throughout that entire building simultaneously collapse? It's like you read my argument and only pick out portions that you can slightly argue against and then turn the entire argument into that. It's pretty annoying.

What I would do, is pick the other part and argue about that, using unrelated topics. What would you perfer, D3V? Me? Or K_A?

I wasn't making an assessment either way, nor was I making an argument for or against you. I was simply pointing out that the facts say that it wasn't "just fire" like you keep saying, and suggesting that you do further reading to inform yourself of things you might not know.

Which, still, is avoiding the point. Does all of that combined constitute the entire structural integrity of the building, the 47-story skyscraper and have it all simultaneously fall to the ground, at free-fall speed?

Obviously it was enough to bring it down, as it fell.