Not joined yet? Register for free and enjoy features such as alerts, private messaging and viewing latest posts and topics.

World Trade Centre Dustification

Discuss anything non Z4 related here
Post Reply
User avatar
Marlon
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 10899
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:13 am
Location: Lancs.
Contact:

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by Marlon » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:26 pm

dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:07 pm It’s easy to mock anyone who doesn’t agree with the official narrative but the “facts” are damning, wether you like to believe them or not.

Nobody is saying they believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden or agree with every conspiracy theory out there.

There have been a lot of polls done on who were the perpetrators and it’s clear that a lot of people have similar thoughts.

One such poll found that nearly half of the New York residents questioned, “believe individuals within the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
Certainly there is evidence of prior knowledge.

Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of American Airlines and United Airlines in great volume in the week before the attack.

Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL).

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines just days before the attack surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average. The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.

When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share.

And then there are the financial services corporations:

Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack.

Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.
Image
Gone: 3.0si 2008 E85
911 997 Carrera S

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:39 pm

It's not about slavishly believing the 'official' story, it's about the balance of probabilities. The sheer number of people who would need to be involved in such a conspiracy means it would be impossible to keep it covered up.
And none of you have managed to put forward a convincing reason why it was carried out - why sacrifice your own people, when any number of less destructive events could have produced the desired shift in public opinion. Don't forget we went to war over disputed evidence of WMD - if the point of that was regime change in the middle east, it was achieved without blowing up a western city. Who benefited from 9/11?
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:46 pm

Marlon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:26 pm
dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:07 pm It’s easy to mock anyone who doesn’t agree with the official narrative but the “facts” are damning, wether you like to believe them or not.

Nobody is saying they believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden or agree with every conspiracy theory out there.

There have been a lot of polls done on who were the perpetrators and it’s clear that a lot of people have similar thoughts.

One such poll found that nearly half of the New York residents questioned, “believe individuals within the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
Certainly there is evidence of prior knowledge.

Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of American Airlines and United Airlines in great volume in the week before the attack.

Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL).

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines just days before the attack surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average. The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.

When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share.

And then there are the financial services corporations:

Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack.

Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.
Why is that evidence of prior knowledge? Thousands if not millions of financial transactions are carried out every day. Unless you have evidence of who placed those put options and it can be proved that they had a connection to the 9/11 events, you are just isolating patterns in normal business and linking it to an event after the fact.
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

dans6490
Member
Member
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:28 am

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by dans6490 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:13 pm

z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:39 pm Don't forget we went to war over disputed evidence of WMD - if the point of that was regime change in the middle east, it was achieved without blowing up a western city. Who benefited from 9/11?

WMD was one of the reasons that swayed public belief for a war in Iraq but 911 was the catalyst. The sense of the need to correct a mistake from the first gulf war became all the more potent after 9/11.

Lots of people, organisations etc benefitted after 911.

One company that benefitted is The Carlyle Group. They are an international private equity firm, almost solely made up of current / ex government officials (including the Bush family). With massive stakes in some of the world biggest arms companies and middle eastern building companies, to name two. Carlyle is America’s 11th largest defence contractor......so you could argue that Bush and his cronies profited massively. Some of the biggest building contracts, given out to rebuild Iraq were given to companies that had huge investments in them owned by....The Carlyle Group.

john-e89
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 11026
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:27 pm

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by john-e89 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:14 pm

THE AIRLINE IMPACT

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).

THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
Figure 3
Figure 3. A cutaway view of WTC structure.
Figure 4--Web Link
Figure 4. A graphic illustration, from the USA Today newspaper web site, of the World Trade Center points of impact. Click on the image above to access the actual USA Today feature.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Figure 5
Figure 5. Unscaled schematic of WTC floor joints and attachment to columns.
WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web.5
M roady...OEM CSL’s, strut brace, Remus back boxes, ZHP
MR2 MK 2
E89 35i project car...mapped 365bhp, M4 stoppers & wheels, KWV3’s, H&R front ARB, M3 front arms, strut brace Eisenmann cat back race exhaust, VRSF downpipes inbound
E89 35is
G29

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:19 pm

thanatu55 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:13 pm And the third?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/n ... gle.co.uk/

They managed to model the beams which collapsed and ultimately brought the building down.
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:32 pm

dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:13 pm
z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:39 pm Don't forget we went to war over disputed evidence of WMD - if the point of that was regime change in the middle east, it was achieved without blowing up a western city. Who benefited from 9/11?

WMD was one of the reasons that swayed public belief for a war in Iraq but 911 was the catalyst. The sense of the need to correct a mistake from the first gulf war became all the more potent after 9/11.

Lots of people, organisations etc benefitted after 911.

One company that benefitted is The Carlyle Group. They are an international private equity firm, almost solely made up of current / ex government officials (including the Bush family). With massive stakes in some of the world biggest arms companies and middle eastern building companies, to name two. Carlyle is America’s 11th largest defence contractor......so you could argue that Bush and his cronies profited massively. Some of the biggest building contracts, given out to rebuild Iraq were given to companies that had huge investments in them owned by....The Carlyle Group.
McAlpines benefited massively from reconstruction contracts, rebuilding after World War 2, but I don't think they were in league with Hitler to bump up their share price and dividends. The fact that a defence company benefits from a war is hardly surprising or grounds to assume they had a hand in starting the conflict.
Inferring that shareholders can have a direct influence on an event such as 9/11 to manipulate share values just shows a lack of understanding of how corporate governance works.
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

User avatar
Nictrix
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by Nictrix » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:37 pm

Ducklakeview wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:19 pm I for one don't believe the "official version" of events.

For one, those buildings were apparently designed to withstand an impact from a plane much larger than those allegedly flown into them.

Secondly, they way in which they came down was WAY too much like a "controlled" demolition.

Just two of my own personal thoughts on the matter..

Mike
They were apparently built to withstand multiple impacts from a plane. This was the spec after the empire state building was hit by a plane.
And as you say about controlled demolition, thats exactly what experts in that field say when shown footage of the towers coming down that it was a controlled demolition.
Do people think it was luck that they fell into their own footprint?
E89 2014 35i M Sport Black with Black leather :)

User avatar
Marlon
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 10899
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:13 am
Location: Lancs.
Contact:

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by Marlon » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:39 pm

z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:46 pm
Marlon wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:26 pm
dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:07 pm It’s easy to mock anyone who doesn’t agree with the official narrative but the “facts” are damning, wether you like to believe them or not.

Nobody is saying they believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden or agree with every conspiracy theory out there.

There have been a lot of polls done on who were the perpetrators and it’s clear that a lot of people have similar thoughts.

One such poll found that nearly half of the New York residents questioned, “believe individuals within the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
Certainly there is evidence of prior knowledge.

Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of American Airlines and United Airlines in great volume in the week before the attack.

Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL).

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines just days before the attack surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average. The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.

When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share.

And then there are the financial services corporations:

Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack.

Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.
Why is that evidence of prior knowledge? Thousands if not millions of financial transactions are carried out every day. Unless you have evidence of who placed those put options and it can be proved that they had a connection to the 9/11 events, you are just isolating patterns in normal business and linking it to an event after the fact.
You're missing the fact that it wasn't 'normal business'. I am looking at patterns and finding abnormal business resulting in huge financial gains.
Image
Gone: 3.0si 2008 E85
911 997 Carrera S

User avatar
thanatu55
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:50 pm

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by thanatu55 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:44 pm

z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:39 pmt's not about slavishly believing the 'official' story, it's about the balance of probabilities. The sheer number of people who would need to be involved in such a conspiracy means it would be impossible to keep it covered up.
And none of you have managed to put forward a convincing reason why it was carried out - why sacrifice your own people, when any number of less destructive events could have produced the desired shift in public opinion. Don't forget we went to war over disputed evidence of WMD - if the point of that was regime change in the middle east, it was achieved without blowing up a western city. Who benefited from 9/11?
George Bush quotes on Saddam Hussein and Iraq -

"Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans"

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,"

"I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat, (he was) a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."

Thus creating numerous links between Al Qaeda (accused of 9/11) and the war on terror (in effect due to 9/11). These links were never proven and demonstrate a clear use of 9/11 fever to further their agenda on Iraq and the failed persuit of WMD. He later went back on these claims.
Last edited by thanatu55 on Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:50 pm

So what I'm getting from all this is that the Carlyle Group is SPECTRE and George Bush is Blofeld...
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

dans6490
Member
Member
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:28 am

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by dans6490 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:56 pm

z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:32 pm
dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:13 pm
z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:39 pm Inferring that shareholders can have a direct influence on an event such as 9/11 to manipulate share values just shows a lack of understanding of how corporate governance works.
That’s not my understanding of how corporate governance works, it’s a widely reported theory.

Your question was “who would benefit”. My answer was the president, a major shareholder, along with other senior politicians.

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:05 pm

dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:56 pm
z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:32 pm
dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:13 pm

That’s not my understanding of how corporate governance works, it’s a widely reported theory.

Your question was “who would benefit”. My answer was the president, a major shareholder, along with other senior politicians.
He's a rich man with a huge share portfolio. Moreover he's a republican who probably sees it as a patriotic duty to invest in defence organisations. Doesn't mean he instigated the war. He might have shares in chicken farms and benefit if McDonald's put the price of nuggets up, but that wouldn't make it a conspiracy.
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

dans6490
Member
Member
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:28 am

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by dans6490 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:17 pm

z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:05 pm
dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:56 pm
z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Doesn't mean he instigated the war.
Considering they didn’t find any WMD, I would say that’s exactly what he did

User avatar
z4pilot
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 pm
Location: Lytham, Lancs

World Trade Centre Dustification

Post by z4pilot » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:27 pm

dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:17 pm
z4pilot wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:05 pm
dans6490 wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:56 pm

Considering they didn’t find any WMD, I would say that’s exactly what he did
You're taking that quote slightly out of context. He may have gone to war through a belief in failed intelligence over WMD. It doesn't follow that he invented WMD intelligence to enrich himself.
Now Gone - 2008 Coupe, Montego Blue, Champagne leather and Piano Black interior, Eibachs & Koni Sport shocks, Style 230 19s, Eisenmann Quad - approaching perfection...

Post Reply