It is important to note that is a natural gas pipeline. Pumping liquids great distances and up and down mountains is a hugh waste of energy and in some cases makes an oil pipeline worthless. Also a natural gas pipeline kind of defeats the blood for oil arguement.


I've lived in TX for twenty years now and have never heard that.


Also where does Clinton fit into all of this? The first attacks starting during his time in office.

Blood for Natural Gas sounds more like a digestion problem.

DERIVATIVE WACKO. Whether you agree with the man or not, this is uncalled for.

It certainly is.

Revenant Archetype, you need to review and abide by the forum rules. Ad-hominem attacks are not allowed here.

3-silverstein purchases a white elephant in towers 1 and 2;damaged from a previous bombing and never achieving even a 70% occupancy

Silverstein didn’t own the buildings, The Port Authority did. Silverstein owned the lease on the building. Most such leases require the lessee to maintain the structures and return them in similar condition at the maturity of the lease. The destruction of the buildings is a devastating blow to his ability to perform under the lease. Whether the lease was a good business decision depends on the revenue versus expenses. If you don’t know the payments on the lease, the maintenance costs of the buildings and the rent it generated, then you don’t know if it was a good business or not.

22-silverstein files for his isurance payoff and tries to get two awards of 3.5 billion for his initial 200mil investment claiming each attack as a seperate event

This is factually incorrect. Silverstein’s contention is that the attacks were one event for insurance purposes. If this were held to be the case he would be responsible for only one deductible under the insurance policy. The insurance companies, understandably, contented that each crash was a separate insured event thus there would be two deductibles. The jury sided with the insurance companies and this decision lessened the insurance liability by several million dollars.

When buying property and casualty insurance, one does not make an investment, one pays a premium for coverage during a set period of time. In the event of a loss during the coverage period, the insurance company must compensate the policy holder for that loss, according to the contract. The WTC is similar to homeowners insurance, only on a larger scale. If I by a $300,000 house today, pay an annual premium of $1000 and the house burns down next week, the insurance company will be required to reimburse me for my loss according to the policy. That payment may be $250,000 but this is not a return on an investment or any profit to me because I have suffered a loss in value of my property.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Blame it on The Onion and that dastardly "Professor Cornbread."

It looks like Skolnick's story was inspired by the March 8, 2000, satirical Onion story. Rayelan Allan of Rumor Mill News spoke to Mr. Skolnick in August 2000:

Unless someone can tell me the name of the "local prosecutor" that supposedly investigated Bush for six months, I see no reason to continue.

Politics is a very dirty business. I can't believe that with all the dirt that opposing parties try and dig up about their oppenent, that this never came up. And not just during one, but on two elections? If there was even the slightest hint of somethingf like this, it would have come out during the campaign/election rallies. It would have buried any chance at running for office.

I sometimes wonder about AMTer's rational.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

The thing I like is that if the many organizations relevant to stopping airliners on 9/11/2001 (FAA, Pentagon, USAF, DC/ANG, and National Command Authority) had done their job before the Pentagon attack, the CTs would probably have said that was proof of a conspiracy. They almost never have any appreciation for how things actually work in large agencies, and especially how they work among large agencies, and even more especially in a sudden emergency.

BTW, my subscription to Fire Engineering seems curiously devoid of any further thundering away at the eevil gubmint coverup. I guess Bill Manning was replaced with one of the Illuminati/Mason/Bush 7-foot tall aliens from Nibiru or something.

I saw this article on the pentagon crash and it has some nice answers and questions for the WTC CTs.

Not to mention that the US was already going to post a trade embargo on Japan because they had invaded Southeast Asia. That is hardly a neutral act when you remember that the US had no territory that was threatened.

__________________
Don't be paranoid, because that's when they getcha!

3-silverstein purchases a white elephant in towers 1 and 2;damaged from a previous bombing and never achieving even a 70% occupancy

So Silverstein couldn't have thought he could improve the situation? Businessmen take risks. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

OT:
The embargo had been in place since the previous year (for steel, iron and aviation fuel), and had been extended in the summer of '41 to cover all oil. An embargo is a legitimate tactic for a neutral power to take.

As for territory, you're right, they didn't have any territory threatened immediately, however Japanese dominance of the South East Asia and Western Pacific would have threatened the Phillipines.

Sorry for side-tracking.

I'm surprised no one brought this up, and I apologize if someone did in the several threads about the WTC (I did look)...

A wonderful example as to how even controlled demolitions (even without airplanes crashing in to them) can go not as planned
CNN.com

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

So we did not see jet planes hit world trade center towers?

Given that planes hit trade center towers, failure analysis account for failure of towers as observed.

You know, every time I tell my boyfriend about one of these conspiracy theories, he pretends to believe it just to annoy me, or tell me it can't be proved wrong, or some such. Not even he can convincingly pretend to believe that this one is right. (And one of the people at my birthday party Saturday had to have the concept explained to her several times before she even got that there were people who didn't believe, you know, buildings hit with planes; buildings fall down.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It was, without a doubt, an extremely profitable business venture for Silverstein. He had only become the owner of the property two months before 9/11. You don't even need to consider whatever income was generated. Compare two months of expenses for the lease and maintenance versus the insurance payout - it's not too difficult to realize the bottom line is a ten figure net profit.

http://911review.com/motive/docs/insurance_scam.html


Actually, the original post was correct - Silverstein contended that the attacks were two separate events, and the insurance companies argued it was only one event. The jury sided with Silverstein's contention that it was two separate events. The decision increased the insurance companies liability payout. See links for details...http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20030929r.asp
http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/06/120...acescan06.html

I think the court decision was ridiculous. The insurance policy was for the entire WTC complex. There was not a separate policy for each building. The decision is really an awarding of the insurance policy holder with "double dipping" to the max. To draw up an analogy, let's say you have your house insured for earthquakes. One morning, an earthquake hits and completely levels your house. The house and all it contained are destroyed. An hour later, an aftershock occurs and makes the rubble that remains of your house shake a bit. Two separate events and two payouts for the policy holder? Try and make that argument stick in the courts! I don't think I've ever heard of this argument being successful before, except for the Silverstein case.

It is partially correct and my memory of the issues surrounding the law suit was faulty. Thanks for pointing to the Forbes link.

It was, without a doubt, an extremely profitable business venture for Silverstein. He had only become the owner of the property two months before 9/11. You don't even need to consider whatever income was generated. Compare two months of expenses for the lease and maintenance versus the insurance payout - it's not too difficult to realize the bottom line is a ten figure net profit.

This is completely wrong because it ignores the reality of leases for the buildings. It is important not to characterize Silverstein as the owner of the building, because he was not. In a common use of the word he might be considered the “owner,” but in a strict and accurate use he was the leaseholder. He was a principle in Silverstein WTC Properties that though subsidiary held a 99 year lease on the buildings. The Port Authority of NY and NJ was the owner. The contract required him to maintain the structures and return them in a similar condition to how they were when the lease was signed. So the port authority has a significant stake in this process as well and a stake in the allocation of insurance proceeds because of their loss in the collapse. Funds from that settlement do not necessarily go to Silverstein WTC Properties, but must be used to replace the structures. Do you propose that the owners of the WTC (The Port Authority) signed a lease that would allow this and are just going to walk away from the multibillion dollar loss in the destruction of three buildings, and let Silverstein take all the cash? Also insurance will only compensate him for actual losses, not some notional contract figure. The people as Swiss RE, General Electric, and other insurance companies are not so stupid and evidence of fraud could greatly reduce their liability. After you present convincing evidence that Silverstein actually gets to keep the money and that the insurance industry is so blind as to ignore these fantasies you present, I’ll start to take you seriously.


Edited to add:

The destruction of the buildings does not release the leaseholder from obligations to make lease payments of $100 million per year to the Port Authority.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Issue of profitability is separate from cause of collapse. If someone make money off fire set on building, does not prove. arson.

Well, he's got a bit of an issue to deal with on that one then...

Yes, it's correct he was the leaseholder for the WTC complex, not owner, which I knew but erred in my post. Thanks for noting that. The entire issue has yet to play out, and won't be finalized for some time, as the link notes..
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-316469c.html

The above link notes that his "expected insurance payout of $4.65 billion is contingent on his replacing the 10 million square feet of office space lost on 9/11."
Silverstein is also "trying to get $3,345,000,000 in tax-free Liberty Bonds to help pay for his construction plans."

NYC Mayor Bloomberg also seems to still want to give ol' Larry the boot from the WTC rebuilding project, but it would cost the taxpayers of New York big bucks before Silverstein would agree to accept his walking papers!

Funds from that settlement do not necessarily go to Silverstein WTC Properties, but must be used to replace the structures. Do you propose that the owners of the WTC (The Port Authority) signed a lease that would allow this and are just going to walk away from the multibillion dollar loss in the destruction of three buildings, and let Silverstein take all the cash? Also insurance will only compensate him for actual losses, not some notional contract figure.

No, I never said the final decision from litigation would only result in a cash payout to Silverstein from the insurance companies. I said he would profit greatly from the settlement. That includes allocating the cash payout into fixed assets, in this case the rebuilding on the WTC properties.

And as to your claim these are all "fantasies" I'm making up, perhaps you should read this....
The British Financial Times wrote an article, later re-posted by The American Reporter, that there was an "escape clause" written into the insurance contract. Silverstein appears he will not opt to act on this clause, but it is worth noting...

If the buildings are struck by "an act of terrorism," the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks.

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00162.html

However it all eventually unfolds, I'm still completely confident that Silverstein will end up making himself a huge profit on his initial investment.

Turbonium, you've gone on and on about this "Silverstein stuff" yet I'm still waiting to see how this "connects" in any way with the idea that the WTC was brought down not by the airliners which struck it, but by some kind of controlled demolition...

Silverstein ends up profitting...so what...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

First, I didn't bring up the "Silverstein stuff", I replied to a post (#95) regarding the insurance settlement. The subsequent posts have further discussed this point.

Second, I have not mentioned any connection between Silverstein and the WTC collapse theories in the thread.

I don't know what, if any, involvement Silverstein had in 9/11. I see it as more of a peripheral issue, and not likely to help support the controlled demolition view because, at present, it lacks provability and solid evidence. I focus on more substantial issues instead, such as physical evidence and the NIST and FEMA reports.

The official account of 9/11 has concluded that the people who were guilty of involvement were 19 Arab hijackers, Osama and al Qaeda. The official cause of the collapses is fire and plane impact. Only new investigations would be able to look at other possibilities.

If new investigations provided concrete evidence of controlled demolition first, then that would be followed with trying to find out "who did it". Establishing suspects would obviously include determining "who benefitted" (motive), among other criteria, and could progress from that point.

Why would anyone want to further investigate something that's already been adequately explained? New, credibile investigations carried out by qualified groups in the 4 years since 9/11 have repeatedly turned up no evidence, concrete or otherwise, to suggest that the collapse of the towers could have been a controlled demolition. Many of you can't, or won't, seem to grasp this...

How many more investigations will it take before you're satisfied; ten, twenty, one hundred?

It's JFK all over again.

I do not understand.

Two jet planes fly into two towers, buildings collapse. Failure analysis show mode of failure consistent with impact of planes containing full load of jet fuel. Where is mystery Tolls?

Many people study failure analysis, including people at university. They see no mystery, I see no mystery.

For many of those who refuse to accept the opinions of these experts, it is simply a matter of ideology more often than not, in my opinion.

Is not only matter for experts. I follow much of analysis. I am not "strength of materials" expert.

And like most of us, you probably don’t check for conspirators under your bed at night. There are some driven by ideology or psychology to fantasize about conspiracies. They are the ones that push this nonsense.

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Oh come on, it's easy. It requires exactly as many inquiries as it takes to get one that agrees with the CT's. Any that disagree are obviously baised, telling lies and forced by the Evil Government to fabricate their results.

It's like this tree we had in a city I used to live. The City Council wanted to remove it so that hired an expert to do a report. He reported that the tree was fine and no danger, so they hired a second expert. After hiring -9- experts to do reports on the tree, they finally found one who said it was in danger of falling over and so they then proceeded, against protests, to cut it down.

The CT's are the same way. There will never be enough inquiries or reports until one comes to the same conclusion they already have decided on.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Eactly, there is no mystery.
With JFK it is quite clear that Oswald was the one and only assassin, but that hasn't stopped people drawing up elaborate conspiracies around it. The same applies to the WTC where it is quite clear that the buildings were brought down by the planes, at least to me and an awful lot of people who seem to be qualified in this sort of thing. Hence my comment, "it's JFK all over again".

Actually, there is one mystery. Why do people produce this stuff? Then again, I suppose we all need a hobby.

Edit:
Just thought of something else, if people are still spouting about Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbour beforehand (saw it somewhere round here this past month or so) 64 years on, I doubt we'll see the end of WTC consipracies in my lifetime.