CB_Brooklyn

In this new paper (still under construction) Dr Wood exposes the information Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins want kept hidden:


"Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt"

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/dirt1.html


Let Dr Wood walk you through the paper in these recent interviews:

23 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Jim Fetzer (second half of mp3)
on "The Dynamic Duo"
(image numbers have been updated since this program)
http://tinyurl.com/2zhjjn

25 May 2007
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest of Ambrose Lane
on "www.weourselves.org"
Listen: One 25 min segment (mp3)
http://www.frankferg.com/a-lane-5-25-07-jwc.mp3



I'll bet Dr Wood is onto something, especially since many are trying to silence her.

She lost her 9/11 research student (murdered)

She lost her job as Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University

She lost her instructors at Virginia Tech (murdered) where she graduated

shakran

Dr. Wood is a nut. In the first place, she compares smoke to dust (dust is much heavier), and then gets surprised when smoke rises and dust doesn't. Not much of a mat-eng now is she?

In the second place, if the bad men shot lasers from space at the WTC, are you telling me NO ONE would have noticed the thermal bloom? when a high energy laser passes through an atmosphere it heats up the air. You can see it. It's very, VERY obvious. I can maybe understand no one noticing it on the first tower, but after the first one went EVERYONE was staring at the second one. Why didn't anyone notice a brightly glowing shaft of superheated air?

Bill O'Rights

I am surprised at you, Shakran.

Clearly...it was disguised by mass hypnosis, brought on by the rap music.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

shakran

ohhhhhh. Thanks for clearin' that up. How silly of me

Dilbert1234567

Dr. Wood makes holocaust deniers sound like rational people...

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Jinn

Batshit crazy.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

fastom

I don't get the laser beam stuff. Certainly the fine powder dust was caused by something other than a simple collapse. Some sort of very powerful explosion energy.
The truckloads of dirt in that first link are very interesting. They were supposed to be looking for survivors those first few days so why are they dumping dirt? It sure looks like topsoil and not like the pale grey powder that covered all the streets and vehicles.

CB_Brooklyn

Very interesting indeed! The dirt does look like topsoil.


Here's some evidence for directed energy beams:


Round Cylindrical Holes in WTC 5



Clean slice of North Wing of WTC 4, in line with north side of WTC 2:




Unexploded gas tanks, missing engine blocks:

MSD

Some 9/11 conspiracy theories merited discussion until facts proved that one side of the story or the other was plausible. I held on to my conspiracy theories longer than I should have because of my political ideology, but I came around and decided to look at it all again rationally. I believed some of the theories, I no longer do aside from being open to the possibility that a terrorist bomb or USAF missile may have brought down Flight 93.

This is written with a complete disregard for physics (rust, nanodust, "fuzzy balls" that are just clouds of fine powder kicked up by footsteps, to name a few.) There are several instances where the pictures and the conclusions made in the captions make no sense or directly contradict each other. This does not merit serious discussion, but I will leave you to discuss it if you wish.

fastom

But MSD, are you just going to ignore the rest of the evidence and buy the official story at it's two-face value?

Concrete turning into fine powder on it's own is highly irregular. In a normal collapse that concrete would be broken into chunks and some large sections of the slabs would be held together by the rebar.

The debris from building 7 is more like that... and what do you suppose happened to make that one collapse?

So if you think a missile or bomb brought down Flight 93 it means you are disbelieving at least part of the official fable.

shakran

Some of us require actual evidence instead of wildassed theories being spread by mental patients calling themselves doctors.


There is absolutely nothing normal about a 100+ story building being hit by a large jet full of fuel. There is even less normal about 2 100+ story buildings right next to each other being hit by two large jets full of fuel. You're looking at this highly abnormal method of building destruction and you're expecting it to behave like Lincoln logs being knocked down by a kid. What amazes me is that the heat was incredible, the forces involved with having the top half of the building hit the bottom half of the building at high speed, not to mention the structural damage potential of a nearly 150,000 pound object full of fuel slamming into it at hundreds of miles an hour, and yet people still think we have to have Star Wars weapons in order to bring the building down.

Gee, think your house might collapse if two 110 story buildings came down on top of it? Or would that also be caused by space lasers?

He doesn't think that. He's open to the possibility because the concept of an airplane being shot down by a missile isn't batshit crazy. The concept of some evil organization bringing down a building with space lasers and no one noticing is absolutely, uncompromisingly, insane.

mr_alleycat

Well, I'm not buying the offcial story either.

More likely they knew, and let it happen, and arranged for our military to drop the ball.

fastom

Shak, if two 110 story buildings landed on my place i expect it wouldn't stand several more hours then suddenly collapse.

The jets full of fuel, intense heat... maybe those people were waving out the windows to cool themselves off?

It sounds like you and many others have heard all the buzzwords but not fully grasped the whole story.

Intense heat, jets full of fuel , melting steel , etc. The official story is just a theory too.

And on the plane being shot down... that does contradict what Dubya is telling you. You saying a politician lies?

shakran

True, but your house is probably not made of steel.

What?

And you have heard crazy conspiracy theories and taken them as gospel because. . why? They sound cooler than the official version?


No, we know the jets were there, we know they were full of fuel, we know that when kerosene burns it gets hot. That's a whole lot more plausible than death rays from outer space.

MSD

That's a bit of a loaded question. You've been around here for years, if you look at the older 9/11 threads, you'll see that I initially believed many of the conspiracy theories, then researched them and came to the conclusion that the most logical explanation is that a hijacked plane was intentionally flown into each tower and the Pentagon, and that all damage caused by the attacks was a result of the plane impacts and resulting structural damage. If you'd like me to recap my issues with any of the theories, I can do that for you. Thousands of people saw planes crash into the towers and hundreds, including public servants, military servicemen, and pilots, saw a passenger jet crash into the pentagon. A simple analysis of the damage shows that it could have been caused solely by those impacts; if the simple explanation of what happens is plausible, then elaborate theories involving directed energy weapons are unnecessary and implausible, especially considering that the energy weapons required to cause that kind of damage do not exist.

Concrete turning into fine powder when crushed under millions of ponds of debris falling the height of a skyscraper is perfectly plausible. A normal collapse doesn't involve the sudden, unplanned structural failure of two 100-story buildings.

The south side was damaged by falling debris from the towers, FEMA reports and on-the-scene interviews stated that between a quarter and a third of the depth of the building was "scooped out." When structural columns were damaged, the weight shifted to other columns, overloading them. A pressurized diesel fuel line running to a generator on the fifth floor kept the fire burning long and hot enough not to melt, but to weaken and warp these overloaded columns. Since the building had been evacuated earlier in the day, firefighting efforts were halted because the building was already a total loss and would have had to be demolished.
The first thing I have to point out is that there is no video footage, few eyewitness accounts, and not a lot of physical evidence to go by. In a dismal time of national tragedy, people needed good news. The idea that a group of heroes sacrificed themselves to save others, true or not, was an uplifting story. I don't think anyone who's still alive knows for sure what happened on board. We do know that passengers told their loved ones that they were going to try to overpower the hijackers. If a bomb really did bring down the plane, it was probably detonated because the passengers had rushed the cockpit and they wouldn't have been able to complete their mission anyway. If it was shot down by the Air Force, what good would it have been to admit it? Although we know that it would have saved lives on the ground, I don't think that people would be willing to accept that our government killed hundreds of civilians. Again, the hero story is something that

mr_alleycat

I was a block away from a six story building that was imploded. It was a brick and mortar building. The dust created by the collaspe looked much like what happened that day. I can assure you it was generated by the collaspe, not the small charges that brought the building down.

Sorry, but there would have been several safety devices that would have cut off the line pumps to the generator. These would have been both electrical, and mechanical safety's.

Agreed, people don't want to think the government would sacrifice hundreds of citizens, but that was exactly what they did when the rewrote the EPA's report of the toxic nature of the dust. Removing precautions needed when cleaning up the mess. That act alone will cost thousands of lives, we will not know just how many lives that cost, but it will dwarf the lives lost that day

Martian

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

An unwarranted assumption. Unless you've had a chance to study the necessary documents (and/or the relevant fuel line itself) you have no way of knowing what, if any safety measures were in place. It's likely there was some form of safety cutout in place, but the exact nature of that cutout and whether it was designed to handle that sort of a situation is impossible to know without the necessary evidence.

I try to stay out of these discussions, really I do. I don't fool myself into thinking that I can sway any opinions on an internet message board. I just get so frustrated by people who are willfully ignorant. I find it mind boggling that some people seem to be so determined to find a conspiracy that they'll twist or even outright ignore evidence that discredits them. The principle of parsimony is your friend, folks.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Sticky

Martian, I had to look that up.

Wow, that is a good word.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

CB_Brooklyn

shakran, who is claiming the beam weapon came from space? And what does that have to do with the "hard evidence"....the dirt?


It's only logical if one just wants to believe the government and corporate media without question. I don't think this would be safe, especially when the Washington Post reveals that the military is targeting the "US Home Audience" with a "propaganda campaign". Sure, it may be limited to reports about Iraq. But maybe not.

I have yet to find evidence of "thousands of people" saying they saw planes crash into the towers. This evidence just does not exist. I have found evidence of people reporting missiles!

There just isn't any evidence of planes crashing on 9/11. At the Pentagon, what we have is a round hole through multiple layers of concrete. I don't think an airplane could do that.... but a missile can. No damage to the building where the wings supposedly struck, and of course no sign of the wings, or most of the rest of the fuselage for that matter. No luggage. No sign of the rows of seats people were sitting in. Yet they were able to identify all the passengers from their DNA? This doesn't add up.

Besides, Rumsfeld is on record as saying that a missile hit the Pentagon. Here's his quote and a link to the website of the Department of Defense for verification:

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptID=3845

Wouldn't it be something if it turned out there were no hijackers and that the whole story was a lie from beginning to end...

There's a report from a local Cleveland station that Flight 93 landed safely after a bomb scare.
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm

And flights 11 and 77 weren't listed in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics database.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

shakran

So. . . what. . .Rumsfeld stood on the Empire State Building and fired his blaster at the towers?

Some guy claiming he saw what "looked like" topsoil in a dump truck is not evidence, much less hard evidence.

Someone glancing at an aerial picture of the WTC and claiming "yep, uh huh, that sure does look like top soil" is even moreso not evidence.

No one's advising that. But we are saying that if you ARE going to decide the government or the "corporate media" is lying to you, you should maybe have some actual credible evidence instead of a gaggle of dumbasses claiming shit like a star wars style laser cannon and dump trucks that "look like" they have topsoil in them.

If you want to start talking about how Bush & Co. rigged at least one election I'll listen - -but then we have credible evidence that this occurred, not the least of which is the president of the company that makes the voting machines promising to deliver the election "for president Bush" in Ohio.

If you want to talk about how the government knew or at the very least damn well should have known that the terrorist attack was coming, I'll listen too. But then we have actual evidence that points that way as well - - the Clinton administration warned Bush about bin Laden, the CIA warned Bush about bin Laden, and both were ignored.

But if you want to start talking about death rays and things that look like dirt you're gonna have to come up with some actual evidence to back that crap up. Claiming that some guy saw a dump truck carrying what looked like topsoil is crazy. 1) maybe it was. The WTC had landscaping. 2) Maybe it was - who says that particular dump truck came from the WTC site. 3) Maybe it looked like topsoil but wasn't. Hydrochloric acid looks like water, but that doesn't mean it is.

I have news you might find upsetting. When 110 stories of steel glass and concrete collapse, there's going to be a lot of particles left over. There will be big particles, there will be small particles. Microscopic particles and chunks the size of a car. There will be brown particles and black particles and white particles and gray particles and particles that are all the colors in between. And since there was a lot of fire involved, there's going to be a lot of soot, which, surprisingly, when mixed with other small particles looks shockingly like topsoil.

This idiot in the original link, "Dr." Wood, is convinced there's a conspiracy because, among other things, the smoke was 2 different colors. Well I've covered about a jillion house fires in my career and even house fires emit different colored smoke. Does that mean that there's no such thing as a house fire, and Cheney is hiding behind a tree shooting lasers at all the houses? Please. Every single shred of "evidence" "Dr." Wood puts forth is either scientifically stupid (hence the "Dr." in quotes - I'm becoming more and more convinced she got her Ph.D out of a vending machine), contrary to reality, or completely not an issue. She is either a moron or a nut. Or both.

Find someone else to back up your desire for a government conspiracy if you want anyone to take you seriously.


(edit: addendum)

She's upset because the gas tanks in burning cars didn't explode. Clearly she gets her science from the movies. Gas tanks VERY VERY rarely explode. To blow up gasoline you have to atomize it. You can drop a lit match into a pool of gasoline and it won't blow up. It won't even burn - it'll put the match out. I have covered plenty of car accidents that resulted in fires in my career as well. I have NEVER seen a gas tank explode. Occasionally the shocks will blow up if the fire's hot enough because the air in them expands and bursts the shock, but the gas in the tank remains unburned.

CB_Brooklyn

If I don't understand it, it obviously can't exist. Otherwise I'd have to admit I was ignorant. Is this your line of thinking?


btw, what do you think of these videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRh4U2BlhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzA



To respond to your earlier comment.... the beam did not heat air because it was phase conjugated

shakran

No. I understand it. It's impossible. That's what you need to understand.

I understand witchcraft fiction too but that doesn't mean I think you can turn me into a newt.


Well the first one promised the spire would turn into dust, and it didn't, so I'm underimpressed.

I'm not sure I know what I'm supposed to be looking for in the second.

As for the phase conjugated bit, care to explain how a technique for holography is useful in shooting a building down?

mr_alleycat

I was referring to the dust clowd

I know by the fact the building passed city inspections.

I understand how you feel, I find it "frustrating" when people refuse to do their own research.

Martian

Again, not sure of the relevance. What does a "dust clowd" [sic] generated by the controlled demolition of a small building have to do with the events of September 11th, 2001? I don't really see how there's any connection to be made between the two aside from the fact that some buildings collapsed and even then I don't know what that was meant to support. Are you saying that the completely unrelated demolition you happened to be near provides evidence supporting the web sites posted, or discrediting them? And if so, how? Making a random statement proves nothing.

See? Nothing proven, aside from the colour of my feline companion.


Are you a building inspector in New York State? Or maybe an architect? A lawyer even? Can you claim any sort of familiarity with the building codes of New York, city or state? If not, then how can you use that as support of an argument? You make the valid assumption that the building passed inspection and was therefore up to code. Do you have any idea what that entails in terms of generators and pressurized fuel lines?

I assume this was meant as a barb at me, so I'll address it. The thing is, I've done my own research. As soon as I heard about a possible conspiracy theory I started researching the issue. I went to the library. I checked websites on both sides of the debate. I did all of this four bloody years ago and I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any compelling evidence that supported a conspiracy theory. Ever since then, I've watched the so-called 'truth seekers' rehash the same tired old arguments while taking quotes from nearly any and every figure of authority out of context, misinterpreting evidence and occasionally blatantly ignoring anything that contradicts their pet theory(-ies). I'm exercising my own form of willful ignorance in attributing this to a lack of understanding and not outright malice.

Again, for emphasis. Parsimony. I don't even have to tell you to look it up, since there is now a definition right here in the thread (thanks, Sticky!). So just try to remember that in the absence of any other factors, the explanation with the fewest unknown entities is almost always the correct one. If your cookies go missing and I'm in the room, you'll probably blame me and not cookie ninjas. Towers collapsed after being hit by speeding jet liners; me, I think terrorists and not death rays.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

mr_alleycat

It was a response to people who say the dust clowd, could only be generated by a controled demolition, and the collapse of the towers.

I'm not a building inspector in New York, or an architect. I am one who would install, and maintain such a system. I also know if you didn't have safety systems in place, you wouldn't get an insurance company underwrite a policy.

Really?
Them getting their "New Pearl Harbor", obstructing any investigation, loading the commission with people that CYA, and sacrificing thousands more New Yorkers by rewriting the EPA report, doesn't ease my mind any.

Glad you cleared that up, I was starting to thing you just skim threads.

Agreed, but given the lack of military response, they may have gotten a little help from their friends. I mean OBL could not have placed those false blips on radar screens.

MSD

I looked into it further, and according to transcripts of Flight 93's black box recording, the hijackers intentionally crashed the plane before the passengers could break into the cabin. The tapes were played for the victims' families and none of them has come forth to dispute this transcript, so I now consider that issue settled.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
This thread from one of the most well known conspiracy-minded forums covers, in detail, why the official story of the Pentagon crash is plausible.
There are videos from many angles of the second impact, and I've seen at least two of the first plane hitting. I don't know what "evidence" you're looking for, and I don't know how you can look for evidence and not conclude that planes hit the towers, but the claim that missiles hit the towers is so absurd that if you don't believe planes hit them, there's no point in trying to convince you.

I don't mean this personally, but there are no words to describe how fucking sick I am of this argument. I'll give you a basic summary of it.

The Pentagon is the headquarters of our Department of Defense; it is designed to stand up to whatever an enemy throws at it. A plane striking an armored building will not punch a plane-shaped hole in the side of an armored structure like Bugs Bunny charging through a door. If you've ever been in a plane's window seat, you probably have seen the wings flexing and shaking in turbulence. They're not solid extensions of the fuselage and expecting them to stay rigid instead of folding back on impact is like holding your thumb and pinky out from your fist and expecting them to punch through rather than break as you punch a 1.5" firewall. If you've been in a plane, you've also seen that the top two thirds of the fuselage isn't much more than plastic and aluminum surrounding empty space. The backbone of the plane is under the floor, and that big steel beam is what punched the hole in the armored wall of the Pentagon. We think of planes being huge, and while the published height of a 737 is 44 feet, that's hangar clearance. The plane itself is little more than You can see scorch marks on the walls to the sides of the main hole, and you can see a gigantic generator (I think it was reported to weigh 40,000 pounds but I could be off,) that was pushed toward the outside wall by the impact of the wing, not outward by an explosion. You also have to ignore the eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the building, including a professional pilot, and the photos of light poles knocked down by the incoming plane.

So we can't trust a word of the official story, but a slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld proves a wild conspiracy theory? You can't pick and choose the bits that support your theory while disregarding the other 99%


An article full of uncited sources and broken links from a site known to publish just about any conspiracy theory, regardless of merit. If you honestly believe that Rense is a valid source, then I'm done with this discussion.

[/quote]
"NOTE: Data are available from January 1995 through April 2007. "
What point are you trying to make? they're not in a database that contains no information for a period beginning almost 7 years before, and ending almost 6 years after, the incident in question. It seems like you're grasping for anything that backs up your unsubstantiated claims.

I see two videos of a spire falling and leaving behind a cloud of dust that had settled on it.

Please explain to me how phase conjugation would prevent an energy beam weapon from heating air.
I work in a building that has passed inspections despite code violations that should result in it being shut down. There are firewalls cut of 6 inches above the suspended ceiling, miles of wiring run by unlicensed workers through walls with fireproofing not installed, A/C filters that aren't on the replacement list and are either clogged or missing, a gas leak that's dealt with by a fan venting to outside, defective fire doors, and a plethora of other violations. It's still open and occupied by 1700 people per day.

mr_alleycat

If it is in a major american city, either someone is getting paid under the table, or the maintenance personnel don't have a clue what a safety check list is.

However TWC 7 is a completely different kettle of fish. I've had experience with GSA space jockies, they're always moving people around forcing utility changes, and each time the systems have to pass city building inspections.

Your local fire marshall's a crook, and for your own safety you might think about changing jobs.

Jack Ruby

I'm as suspicious about 9/11 as anyone but I don't think the solution is going to come from someone with a Tripod page.

I suggest hot-headed people on both sides of the fence read this excellent Brainsturbator article for a reality check

__________________
You don't know what you don't know.

Martian

Okay.

I currently as a hobby and at some point in the near future as a career will be maintaining and operating motor vehicles. This in no way makes me qualified to talk about safety legislation in California and I don't pretend that it does. Do you see the analogy here? It's a bit like suggesting that someone who has flown a Cessna knows how jetliners handle. The two are only peripherally related.

I don't think anyone has suggested that there were no safety measures in place in the building, but I don't know the nature of those measures. Was there a valve in the line? More than one? Thermal insulation? Fireproofing? Was there a cut-out in place in the event that the line ruptured? Can you answer any of these questions? I would posit that if you can't, if you don't know what the actual system was, you're not qualified to comment. Safety measures in any mechanical system are designed to counteract foreseeable circumstances. There was nothing foreseeable about that day.

The phrase "New Pearl Harbor" is highly sensationalistic, but doesn't prove anything. The unspoken implication of comparing the World Trade Center attack to Pearl Harbor and then arguing that the World Trade Center attack was some form of conspiracy is that Pearl Harbor was also a conspiracy. Is that what you mean to suggest?

It could at best be deemed circumstantial. As to the rest, do you have any documentation to back that up? You're making some pretty outrageous claims, standard practice in that situation is to provide proof.

What false blips? Do you have any documentation of those?

In my reading I was lead to understand that the lack of military response was, at the time, pretty much the norm. I'll see if I can dig up supporting evidence tomorrow, but regardless that doesn't actually prove anything other than that there was a lack of military response.

This is why I try to stay out of these discussions. When a person is totally convinced that he is right, he tends to try to shape the evidence to support his viewpoint. It is very important to keep an open mind about things. Of course, that goes both ways and if anyone were to provide me with new evidence proving any of the claims made about the attacks I might reconsider my position. I state this every time I enter such a discussion, yet to date, nobody's been able to do it.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

mr_alleycat

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
I'm not a building inspector in New York, or an architect. I am one who would install, and maintain such a system. I also know if you didn't have safety systems in place, you wouldn't get an insurance company underwrite a policy.


Sorry your anology doesn't work in this case, no matter hobby or career, California is going to require an operating braking system.
It's interesting that you chose Cessnas and jetliners for your point in a thread about 9\11.

They may, or may not have foreseen the exact circumstances of the event, but a fuel line can be ruptured by many things including a faulty hose.
I will limit my answer to the pressurized fuel line feeding the fire in WTC 7.
There would be a cutoff valve operated by a drop in pressure on the line. It would be mechanical, and not depend on electricity to operate. There would also be an operational inspection done monthly requiring an activation of the valve. There would also be a cutoff valve that is activated by the fire alarm system with a battery backup in case of electrical failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
Really?
Them getting their "New Pearl Harbor", obstructing any investigation, loading the commission with people that CYA, and sacrificing thousands more New Yorkers by rewriting the EPA report, doesn't ease my mind any.


Firstly your assuming I'm saying there was a conspiracy by the government.
That is not what I'm saying. My point is there may be, and we need a real investigation. Not one run by what may well be the perps.
You also said you did your research, if you had done an indepth look, you would know why "New Pearl Harbor" has quotation marks.

Well they did some outrageous things. Bush admitted having the EPA drop cautionary language from their report. As a result many of the workers at ground zero have become victims as well. Some are even added to the official victims list. Thousands more will have their lives cut short by trusting the administration, and not taking safety measures cleaning up the mess.

Why do you think the military had to rely on the FAA to track the airplanes?
Listen to the NEADS tapes.

The administration wouldn't have it anyother way.

I have an open mind regarding what happened on that day. Hell, I even liked Bush, and gave him a pass until he started acting like a perp. Then I started doing my own research, and I have come to realize there may be something rotten in Denmark.

The_Jazz

As an insurance professional who deals solely in high risk corporate insurance, I can tell you that this is patently false. It is in no way shape or form any version of the truth. There is an entire industry, generally referred to as Excess and Surplus Lines, that exists solely to insure things of this nature. I specialize in casualty coverages (liability) in this industry, but I have coworkers who specialize in property coverages. They find coverage all the time for buildings that lack safety systems, including plastics manufacturers in unsprinklered buildings with no water hookups or nearby bodies of water and served by volunteer fire departments.

It is much cheaper to have these systems in place, but the lack of them in no way makes them uninsurable. There is no such thing as uninsurable, only unaffordable.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

mr_alleycat

Oh please Jazz,
We are talking a building like WTC 7 in a major American city. Though I admit I may have made an error by not saying reputable insurance company.

shakran

Hey gang it's time for Shakran's Blunt Hour!

Alleycat, you have no idea what you're talking about. Jazz is right. You could get fire insurance on napalm if you wanted to, as long as you had enough cash to cover the premiums. Being reputable or not has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you're going to try and pull thinly veiled insults, at least be right about them.

mr_alleycat

Originally Posted by The_Jazz
"As an insurance professional who deals solely in high risk corporate insurance, I can tell you that this is patently false. It is in no way shape or form any version of the truth. There is an entire industry, generally referred to as Excess and Surplus Lines, that exists solely to insure things of this nature. I specialize in casualty coverages (liability) in this industry, but I have coworkers who specialize in property coverages. They find coverage all the time for buildings that lack safety systems, including plastics manufacturers in unsprinklered buildings with no water hookups or nearby bodies of water and served by volunteer fire departments."


Jazz is an insurance broker, not the companies underwriting policies. So that in no way reflects an insult on Jazz. Given WTC 7's nature, and use, they would be operating illegally without these safety systems, in any major city in the USA.
What reputable insurance company would knowingly insure an illegal operation?

trickyy

i have heard a lot of conjecture about 9/11.
a lot of the ideas seemed stunning until i bothered to fact check

i don't understand how one can trust a source of ideas that has proven to be unreliable. if multiple assertations of the "truth" movement have been discounted, why continue to trust them?

here is a good site to read instead of speculation from people of questionable capacity -- http://debunking911.com

The_Jazz

Mr_Alleycat, yes, I'm the broker, but I'm the guy charged with finding the insurance company. They would not be acting illegally unless they went outside of code. And there's an entire subset of Property coverage called "ordenance coverage" that potentially covers the cost of bringing a structure up to code, should it be required after construction is completed and the building is occupied.

Obviously, you don't know much about insurance, and that's fine. Here's a short list of companies that would cover what you're describing. Maybe you're familiar with some of them: AIG, Travelers, Chubb, XL, IPC, CNA, Hartford.... All these companies have divisions that write Excess & Surplus Lines Property coverage.

If we can find coverage for buildings in Key West or oil platforms out in the Gulf or the Superdome (both pre- and post-Katrina), then we could find coverage for a building out of code. It's the municiaplity's responsibility, not the insurance carrier's. The carrier that's willing to write it isn't going to be pushing for changes since they're going to get a much bigger pound of flesh without them.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo