"the quote is indeed out of context, but the implications are clear as day."
What implications? That these guys are apparently smart enough to hide and carry out this massive conspiracy, but they're so dumb that they wrote a paper that winkingly tips off the whole world that they're the culprits? Think about what you're saying here. Why the hell would they do this?
"but i also believe that the internal military structures of different nations are interconnected by theories, stratagies, aims and goals; aside from mere defense of their respective countries... as do i also believe that the intellegence agencies globally are functioning not primarily to gather intelligence but to fabricate and formulate thus creating international/civil conflict/fear for the purpose of spinning money and control from the the target countries/regions... i know this sounds obvious, but i believe it to be the habitual motive of the intellegence network coz the results directly fund the military."
Well, this is just uber-c0nspiracy stuff though, and I'm not sure I even understand what you are saying. If you think all militaries and all intelligence agencies are in on some sort of global conspriracy (have any evidence of this besides coincidence and interpretation?), then there isn't much I can say. So who runs this thing? How did they get all the governments and militaries on board and together collectively working to screw the rest of the world? Are all international conflicts faked? Once again, carry out the implications of what you're suggesting and it starts to get pretty impossible pretty quickly.
"for instance: America have just deployed a battle ship with the intension of an Iran assult. Iran have just bought a host of military equipment from Russia that will intercept incoming missiles and will kit them out with as much as they need... now Russian and American ties have never been amicable, but this would appear from a fence position as an allie has been secured for Iran if the get bombarded by the Yanks... clearly not the case and not guna happen, but a military structure is profiting."
That's what we deployed a battleship for? Assaulting Iran? Where did you hear this announcement - because that's nto very good diplomacy on the part of the US. Strange that it wasn't in the news as well . . . Anyway, many of Iran's weapons are American purchased, including a defunct but wholly US produced fleet of F-14 hornets. I'm not sure why you mention Russia selling them weapons as significant. Along with the US, Russia has probably produced the alrgest number of weapons in foreign armies, mostly culled from the Cold War build up. So every international conflict is staged for profit making by the weapons manufacturers? It seems like this is what you're suggesting. So when did this take effect? Were cannon manufacturers running the show in the 18th century? Were the World Wars staged to beef up profits for weapons producers? Once again, I don't think I can argue with you on this topic because I don't believe that your belief in a massive globo-conspiracy is based in any sort of rational thought or evidence - it's just general mistrust and paranoia, and it seems like you've abandoned reason in order to embrace it.
"as ive said, the Oil and weapons big dogs run America. America as a country may bank rupt from war but the Oil and Weapons leviathans keep stackin' it up... its like giving everything you have, and your family have, and what you can get your hands on to your best mate, then you go live with him and he sustains you. your best mate is now fucking loaded and you have as much money as humanly possible to make waves to conquer the world."
Not really. They're big business - weilding influence and running the show are two different things. All big corporations and commercial sectors peddle influence, it's an understood reality fo the democratic political process in a capitalist society. If big oil is so powerful, then why did Congress just approve some major ramping up on their taxes? Why are there ever cuts in weapons manufacturing - why do weapons compnaies lose contracts? If these guys are in charge, then why does anything bad ever happen to them? If they can control world poltiics as you claim, surely it would be a snap to stop Uncle Sam from regulating them? No offense, but you're not presenting any evidence here, just repeating some dogma that people involved with guns and oil are all evil conspirators and murderers bent on global domination. Corporations are often unethical and greedy - doesn't mean they're running the planet. This is tin foil hat stuff.
"war is the system to bleed a nation in blood, and to bleed a nation in money; LEGALLY.
where America crumbles the New World Order rise - this is what i think."
I don't know what to say about this - obviously you believe that wars are falsley set up to profit corporations. I'm not going to lie - this pretty whacky. I guess every political science professor, foreign policy expert, military general, statesman, geez I can't even think of all the people - pretty much everybody - are all just idiots that can't see the forest for the trees. That's basically what you're saying here - I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's basically the implication of it.
The New World Order stuff I have no comment on - as I have mentioned before, that's super-conspiracy stuff and I find it fairly sili.
"as for Larry, it is easy to slip out a booboo as could anyone. i think his comment makes a case for its self when coupled with the outragous coincidence surrounding his investments in wtc7, the manner in which it fell, and the subsequent government reports.
additionally i'd like to add that Larry fought tooth and nail to have the plane attacks classed in the eyes of the courts as two seperate incidents. he failed. it is possible this wasn't accounted for, and as i understand had come as quite a shock for him as he would have stood to have recieved over $9.1billion in insurance payouts."
I've already posted at length about Silverstein. You know, many websites point out that controlled demolition experts don't even use the term "pull it" as conspiracists claim; and by the way all the top demolition experts in the world happen to think that the conspiracy "controlled demolition" idea is patently wrong, but anyway, about the insurance, which I have also previously discussed:
The story...
The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion.*With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.
Our take...
As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs?*Not such a great deal, then.*What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money.*As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:
Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.
On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.
“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.
The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.
The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=60290
There have been other costs, too:
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm
$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).
That was a 2004 article, but problems continued.*Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:
The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."
Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1191836-3,00.html
There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion.*Is that the profit?*This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree.*Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):
Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...
The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...
It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?
Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.
Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.
Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.
But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.
With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61352.htm [broken, try...]
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost_dooming_downtown.htm
So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds.*Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here.*Is this true?*We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what.*However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.
And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:
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.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money.*He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained.*And that’s not the only problem.*Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:
After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.
The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.
Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.
The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.
Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30B10F73D550C708EDDA90994D9404482
Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred.*As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document.*Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?
So, there's that. As I've said before, it shows the fundamental lack of reserach and understanding that conspiracists operate under when they equate Silverstein and towers with some guy torching his newsstand for a little insurance payout. On the scale of billions of dollars, finance doesn't work that way, and obviously the towers coming down wasn't a good thing for Silverstein.
I'll have a look at the Nazi links, but I'm not sure what they have to do with any of this. I must warn you, if it's stuff about a global conspiracy/new world order/ or any of this anti-semetic "jewish bankers" type stuff, I'm probably going to stop watching.
I suppose the one thing that really burns me up about the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that you all believe that thousands of ordinary government employees and all the other people that would have been involved with the conspiracy are just completely fine with murdering thousands of their fellow citizens for something that really doesn't even benefit them in any way. So all these people are just flat out evil or at the very best unbelievably cowardly for not coming forward? It's fairly insane, and I find it offensive.
