The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

reply to post by airspoon

Semantics my dear, semantics. In fact, the lenders would only require the buildings to be insured for the amount borrowed, since he would only need to pay off the borrowed amount for the lease.

Semantics? Insured for the amount borrowed huh?

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

www.forbes.com...

So his insurance....doesnt come close to the costs of rebuilding....then there is the little matter of him still having to pay in excess of 100 million dollars a year to the Port Authority...on a property that is generating ZERO income.

reply to post by airspoon

The buildings were plagued with vacancies and it was far too much office/retail space offered. In addition to that, it would far too expensive to demolish the buildings due to the asbestos, though there isn't any proof (that I'm aware of) that the Port Authority actually looked into the option. The lenders would be served much better for those buildings to come down, as a more efficient space could be erected, thus promising a more 'concrete' return.

New York Times, May 31, 1998......

''In January 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said Cherrie Nanninga, director of real estate for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga...

www.nytimes.com... =print

Doesnt sound like its "plagued by vacancies" to me.

Then there is this, February 2001.....

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

And this from the same article...

Sales at the trade center's retail mall also have risen dramatically. In 1996, the mall's retail establishments averaged approximately $500 per square foot. Today, sales have doubled, and are expected to reach $900 per square foot by the end of this year, which is expected to make the trade center mall the third most profitable in the country. And major national retailers, such as Banana Republic, Coach and Godiva have opened stores in the trade center mall to cater to a daily audience of 40,000 employees and thousands of visitors

Port Authority Press release dated Date: February 12, 2001


Again, you seemed to be a bit lacking in your research. The WTC wasnt a money losing white elephant.

reply to post by airspoon

This was the whole point of the thread. How on earth would you know what lead to 9/11? The truth is, you don't know any better than anyone else and judging by the rest of your post, I would actually say you know less than many, due to your lack of understand how things work, or you are simply misinformed, though probably a combination of both. I urge you to research the situation from the little pieces of evidence that are floating around, then build the bigger the picture on your own. Don't allow certain websites, committees, books or people build that picture for you.

LOL. As Ronald Reagan once said, "There you go again" in your case spouting off about someone that you have no clue about. Over twenty three plus years spent in the service, seeing just how badly our intelligence/military had been emasculated by our elected officials. And also how much they ignored the threat from terrorists like Bin Laden...

You speak of researching the "little pieces of evidence" that are floating around. Ive lived it. I've spent a large chunk of my life in places like Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon...praying...begging...that we would be allowed to take care of business....only to see our elected leaders wimp out..most times when targets were literally in our sights.


So stuff your condescension, it only makes you appear pathetic.

reply to post by pteridine

Now for the problem with the "red-chips-are-paint-on-thermite" theory. In figure 20, the red chips are still there with the spheres attached. The red chips ignited and made the spheres but didn't burn completely. This behavior is not the behavior of any thermite, nano- or macro-. It may also explain why ten tons of unburned red chips are estimated, by Jones, to be in the dust.

Please reread Jones reports again, I have taken the liberties of posting the parts in questions for you. The red material in question is not really known yet.
Red paint chips? Jones clearly makes the claim they really do not know what the red material is until further study is done.

We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are
many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
must wait for a future study

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Please publish photographs and other evidences proving otherwise. In other words let’s see a comparison of real “super na-no Thermite with red chips compare with Jones’ Please don’t bother showing standard commercial Thermite, let’s see the real thing.

Where in section # 20 in Jones paper he calls this red material red paint chips in this particular study? He does not, they do not know what it is until further studies are done.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by impressme]

WOW...theres a lot folk here really tryin' to derail this thread....the Usual Suspects I call 'em....

Welcome to reality airspoon....Its good to see Ex- Servicemen hold their hands up and say it as they see it regarding 9/11..!!

Ive seen a lot of very thoughtful threads penned by you and you always struck me(although I dont know you from a bar of soap....) as a balanced and fair person...its good to see you have turned your attention to 9/11 and the ridiculous FairyTales that took place that day...

You may have noticed a few hecklers in the crowd here....they are here all the time and constantly rattle off anything that distracts.

They also enjoy name-calling and, quite frankly, they lie....

Check ANY 9/11 thread from the last few months and They are the Attack Dogs, always sent in when someone posts something salient...something that might make somebody else take note of the words, or re-think the events again..

....and you thought the Palestine/Israeli threads were hard work....jeez...you aint seen nothing brother!!



[edit on 3-8-2010 by benoni]

Originally posted by benoni
They also enjoy name-calling and, quite frankly, they lie....

Bet you can't give one example of an out-and-out lie by any of your "Usual Suspects".

Go ahead. Try.

reply to post by thedman


It seems, thedman, you have missed the entire point point of my post. Might I suggest you re-read it with a more open mind so that the important bits aren't filtered out by your belief system? This is the classic OS believer mentality I mentioned in the post you are referring to.

Damage beyond initiation zone?

The impact zones covered 6 floors - Is that enough damage for you?

You quoted me as saying airplanes did indeed crash into the towers, but this did not cause much damage beyond the initiation zone. I know how large the initiation zone was. What has this got to do with anything?

The aircraft impacts not only caused severe structural damage - destroying supports coumns - remember exterior wall panels were part of the building support system. Set multiple floors on fire, destroyed sprinkler/standpipe systems and blasted fire proofing off steelwork exposing it to fire.

Is that enough damage for you ?

I'm not concerned with how damaged the initiation zone was. If my point didn't go way over your head you would have known that the initiation zone could have suddenly ceased to exist as far as my argument is concerned.

Top section accelerated through damaged section?

Where did you get that from? Make it up?

Are you serious? Did you even look into 9/11 for yourself at all before you decided to believe the OS? The OS admits acceleration by the way. Are you saying the top section decelerated or maintained a constant velocity? Or do you disagree with NIST adopting Bazant's pancake model of collapse?

unfortunately someone forgot to extend the fireproofing to the corners.

LOL

Heat caused beam to dislodge from the junction initiating collapse

I'm aware of how the OS has described the initiation of WTC7's collapse, and it does not affect my argument. What has that got to with the point I made?

Fireproofing was designed for 2 hours, enough time to evacuate and for
fire department to begin extinguishment. Sprinklers are designed to hold the fire in check until FD gets there. At WTC 7 sprinklers were knocked
out by collapse of towers. No sprinklers and building left to burn for 7 hours with no firefighting.

Does extensively describing the amount of fire damage that occurred make the OS easier to buy for you? Again, my argument is unaffected by any of this. Debate me on the physics I raised if you think I have made a mistake or am incorrect.

Reason buildings don't collapse from fire is that sprinklers hold the fire in check and FD arrives to put it out - both were absent at WTC 7

Again, nothing to do with my argument. Why do unsprinklered buildings not collapse? Because people such as myself design them not to.







[edit on 3-8-2010 by Azp420]

Stay on topic tricky.....

You are attempting to derail.....

reply to post by Danbones

6 out of ten 911 commisioners claim 911 investigation is a fraud

No they don't. And how is this related to the NIST report? Try and focus.

heh heh you can try if you want to
but because the final report is based on a mathematical model that they won't release to the public you wont get very far.

Actually, it did get pretty far already. The matter of the fact is it has been years since the release and tens of thousands of engineers and designers are using the recommendations that resulted from the NIST report. None of them are crying about not seeing model forumulas or input files.

Originally posted by benoni
Stay on topic tricky.....

You are attempting to derail.....

Hang on. You accused a group of people of lying habitually.

As I suspected you have absolutely nothing to back this up.

If you really think it's off-topic (even though you introduced it) then send me the evidence of lies by U2U. You won't, because you don't have any.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Now for the problem with the "red-chips-are-paint-on-thermite" theory. In figure 20, the red chips are still there with the spheres attached. The red chips ignited and made the spheres but didn't burn completely. This behavior is not the behavior of any thermite, nano- or macro-. It may also explain why ten tons of unburned red chips are estimated, by Jones, to be in the dust.

Please reread Jones reports again, I have taken the liberties of posting the parts in questions for you. The red material in question is not really known yet.
Red paint chips? Jones clearly makes the claim they really do not know what the red material is until further study is done.

We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are
many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
must wait for a future study

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Please publish photographs and other evidences proving otherwise. In other words let’s see a comparison of real “super na-no Thermite with red chips compare with Jones’ Please don’t bother showing standard commercial Thermite, let’s see the real thing.

Where in section # 20 in Jones paper he calls this red material red paint chips in this particular study? He does not, they do not know what it is until further studies are done.

Jones says he knows that the chips are thermite. That is the point of his paper. The title is "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." Jones analyzed the material and claims he knows what it contains. On page 29, he writes "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Unfortunately for his followers, he does not prove his point. He claims a "highly energetic" material. It is so energetic that it extinguishes itself after he ignites it.
Jones did compare data from the red chips and a nanothermite. Figure 29 shows a comparison of the DSC's of the red chips with a xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite [an actual nanothermite]. They are not similar.
On page 26 he discusses paint-on thermite hence my reference to paint. In fact, his analyses say plain red "paint" more than anything else.

Jones has not published anything in over a year and, based on the Bentham paper, has yet to show any thermitic activity. If he desired, he could easily replicate the DSC under inert atmosphere and vindicate himself. That he has not published the results of such a test is telling. I am not hopeful that he will, given Henryco's results.

The only conclusion is that Jones found red paint chips until he proves otherwise.

Ironic that I can actually point out a falsehood - I wouldn't go so far as to call it a blatant lie, but it's certainly not true - perpetrated by your icon Jones.

He said his new paper was coming out in the early part of this year and that it would lay all these criticisms to rest. As Pteridine points out he has not made good on this promise.

So maybe it's the TM that needs to have a look at its, er, ability to tell the truth.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Ironic that I can actually point out a falsehood

Yes, that would be ironic, considering you represent a bunch of them here everyday and turn the same blind eye to them, every day.

I was asking this on another thread but it's relevant to this one too, what we know and what we don't. Do you think the ultimate causes of the collapses of both buildings (any specific "failure mechanisms") have been demonstrated physically? Because I was looking for where anyone has actually tested these truss assemblies and recreated the failure NIST hypothesized.

Originally posted by hooper
Actually, it did get pretty far already. The matter of the fact is it has been years since the release and tens of thousands of engineers and designers are using the recommendations that resulted from the NIST report. None of them are crying about not seeing model forumulas or input files.

There have been a number of FOIA requests but NIST refuse to release their models, claming it would "jeopardize public safety". Rinky dink. Oh really? Essentially, it amounts to NIST saying "our models are fine, but you don't need to see them". Until NIST release their models for independent verification why trust them? How do we know they're based on good science? We don't, until they're verified by third parties. It's a central tenet of science that once a paper is published, the raw data, methods and all related information are made public, so anyone who wants to repeat the work and validate the methods can check it. All reputable Journals have this written into their charters, NIST however seem the exception to this case. They'd rather keep their methods to themselves and just expect everyone else to believe them. Feeling religious? Why believe models that haven't even been independently audited, especially when we have good reason to suspect that the models might not be accurate? Their model for WTC7 shows that two thirds of the core columns were intact as the building fell through itself at freefall and their WTC model stops at the "initiation collapse" and doesn't bother documenting how the towers actually collapsed. It's pretty amazing to see the amount of people on this forum who are zealously defending the OS even though it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Ironic that I can actually point out a falsehood

Yes, that would be ironic, considering you represent a bunch of them here everyday

Point me to a lie or falsehood that I've represented.

and turn the same blind eye to them, every day.

Actually - with double irony, if such a thing is possible - you're turning a blind eye to the assertion above that I'm a liar. Notice that he's got no evidence for it.

But that's Truthers for you.

I was asking this on another thread but it's relevant to this one too, what we know and what we don't. Do you think the ultimate causes of the collapses of both buildings (any specific "failure mechanisms") have been demonstrated physically? Because I was looking for where anyone has actually tested these truss assemblies and recreated the failure NIST hypothesized.

Do you honestly need to be told the difference between this and a falsehood? Or a lie for that matter?

reply to post by benoni


Still nothing?

Colour me unsurprised.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Instead of making this about you, why don't you show me what I asked for?

Second line.

6 of the 10 commissioners who held that enquiry have gone on record to say that the official story is a lie.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people.

here is some

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

here is some

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

here again

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

again

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest”.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.. This is not spin. This is not true.”

www.darkpolitricks.com...




[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


Nice long post, but when are you going to show us where 6 out of 10 commissioners think that the "official story" (19 hijackers hijacked 4 planes and flew them into the towers of the WTC, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA) is a lie?

Show me just one quote from one commissioner that says he thinks WTC 1,2, and 7 were brought down with controlled demolition.

Show me just one quote from one commissioner that says he thinks no plane hit the Pentagon.

Show me just one quote from one commissioner that says he thinks no plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

Show me just one quote from one commissioner that says he thinks the hijacked planes were steered to their respective targets using remote control.

Show me just one quote from one commissioner that says he thinks that the towers of the WTC were coated with nano-thermite.

You can't.

Listen, people aren't as stupid as you would hope. They know what the commissioners were talking about when they made those statements. It had nothing to do with the magic tricks being promoted by these conspiracy fantasies. They were talking about the frustrating CYA culture in the military and intelligence communties. Don't forget the primary focus of the panel was to investigate the security apparatus and suggest improvements accordingly, not to account for every scrap of metal that fell of the South Tower.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The fact that they have to be strong enough and massive enough to hold themselves up makes that result inevitable.

This is obviously new territory to you, so let me try and explain things slowly and clearly.

Buildings are designed to suit the purpose and desire of the owner.

Buildings are designed to withstand loadings and forces that would NORMALLY be experienced during the expected economic life of the building.

Just because you can carefully stack "B" on top of "A" without "A" falling down, does not mean that you can DROP "B" on "A" and achieve the same results.

So PROVE it. LOL

Build a physical model that can support its own weight but can then completely collapse
because the top 15% is dropped on the 85%.

The LOGIC OF PHYSICS does not give a damn about the so called logic of rhetoric.

If the levels above the impact point have the same structure as the levels below and have either the same strength per level or get weaker higher up then the falling portion must crush itself in the process of trying to crush the mass below. EVERY SKYSCRAPER MUST get stronger and heavier toward the bottom. And that is what dictates that the collapse cannot occur.

So the engineers and physicists at all of our engineering schools have the problem of not having emphasized this in almost NINE YEARS. They can't even tell us the weight of a floor assembly. But we are supposed to listen to physicists talk about Black Holes and the Big Bang. They can't make physical models of those so we have to put up with nothing but talk and mathematics. But that is not the case with skyscrapers.

So where are the physicists and structural engineers with real models?

Is this the best they can do? ROFL

video.google.com...

One thing we KNOW is that skyscrapers must hold themselves up.

psik

[edit on 3-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]