I will die having been materially rich but spiritually poor, and for this I am angry.
Naaaah.
The old way of BAU is toast, sure. If you're adaptable and clever (and your presence here suggests both and more!), then you oughta have *decades* in which to be materially poor and spiritually rich.
Nature can come back much further and sooner than we think, I believe. Not in the forms we might be familiar with/miss/mourn. But if you learn to love what comes...instead of mourning what was lost...
VIVA -- Sager
I don’t disagree in principle. It’s just that I know the chances of me or mine making it through the discord and Mad Max stage in exceedingly low, despite our attempts at preparation. Only in Hollywood movies does the protagonist make it, and I recognize that every zombie in The Walking Dead was some poor fucker who lost the cosmic game of odds. So, that’s what I’m angry about.
But, sure, if I live through it then I’ll learn to live happily in a future of less.
But, sure, if I live through it then I'll learn to live happily in a future of less.
Well, we could all certainly be fertilizer by this date in 2021. I admit the possibility of swift, sharp, catastrophic collapse.
But I think it much more likely we will continue to see various rear-guard actions by TPTB, never actually fixing the problems but doing *just* enough to soothe the symptoms (and prevent generalized armed uprisings [distinct from the Yellow Vest uprisings which, for all their verve, are more or less ticked off middle class and working people busting some sh!t up on the weekend, trying to get the attention of TPTB]), accompanied by the general population's willingness to cede their autonomy/privacy (can you say "the end of cash"?) for more handouts (or gubmint cheese as they say over at 0Hedge), and a slow ratcheting down of living standards, hopes and aspirations (assuming you're not one of the lucky connected few)... TPTB are playing for time, and the erasure of memories of better times, freer times, times with greater opportunity. Remember: kids now in high school have no memory of the world before the internet, or 9/11. This strange and awful string of events is their *baseline*.....
One man's $0.02....
VIVA -- Sager
Notwithstanding that I don’t think a lot of the physical claims of truthers are correct, I do find that there is evidence of something stinking in the state of denmark.
Or whatever.
So I’m not sure whether I’m a truther or not; that said, I find this very interesting. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/hackers-threaten-expose-911-documents-1380…
Michael,
There’s no need to concern yourself over the events of 9/11/2001 as long as you think the official report completely covers all relevant issues. Once you start noticing chinks in the official report armor and start looking deeper, you’ll see more and more holes. Soon, the armor will be so thread bare that you’ll actually see the emperor’s new clothes.
This article has a little more information than the one you linked: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-02/fbi-probing-theft-18000-documents-linked-sept-11-attacks. My favorite part:
Silverstein Properties says that the company is investigating the claims, and that "e are aware of claims of alleged security breaches at firms involved in the five-year insurance litigation following the attacks of 9/11," adding "To date, we have found no evidence to support a security breach at our company. We have spent the last 17 years fulfilling our obligation to deliver a magnificent and fully rebuilt World Trade Center. We will not be distracted by 9/11 conspiracy theories."
Recall that Larry Silverstein had the incredible foresight to insure his holdings in the World Trade Center against terrorist attacks less than a week before 9/11. (Likely, his first insurance payment wasn't due until the end of the month.) He then argued in court that since 2 separate planes crashed into the Towers that it was 2 terrorist events and collected double. He collected several $billions. What a guy!
I certainly hope the hackers collect lots and lots of ransom munny (bitcoin) and then release the documents anyway. After all, can you really trust an unknown and unseen hacker who is paid off in anonymous bitcoin? Then again, if even 1 satoshi (1/100,000,000) of a bitcoin is paid, the hackers will continue to milk them dry by upping the ransom under new threats of releasing the data. I'd rather that no ransom munny is paid and the hacker(s) release the documents soon. Either way, the last batch released will be the most damning.
After all, if the official story captures everything completely and perfectly, there's no reason for anyone to be concerned.
Grover
I noticed the chinks I did, and found them significant; other things that others claimed to find significant, I didn’t.
While I think that there likely was conspiracy, I didn’t find the waterfall effect you described.
Now, that said, (1) in a way, I suspect this conspiracy here may be more to the norm… for example, suppose these documents showed that the insurance claim was secretly filed after the event, postdated? That would be fraud, and very likely conspiracy. (2) Even though such an event could take away one of your claims, when things start breaking out, sometimes they break out more. (3) if nobody reads the docs, and nobody uses the key if published, then even released doesn’t mean released. As TIME noted for this year’s new year’s party, the Journalists Dropped The Ball (and yes, on New Years Eve, that was the way the headline actually read. It looks like someone …umm… fixed it since then). http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5490488/new-years-eve-ball-drop-journalists
They are very good at that, it seems. But can just anyone see the docs? Can anyone download them and later the key?
Depends on whether climate chaos/environmental collapse comes crashing down before the financial and economic systems implode (which would likely result in a complete break down of society and civil unrest that makes living not very fun, to put it lightly).
Either way, due to our inaction, it’s reached a point of when, not if.
Enjoy life while you can…
“You, too, had to keep your lips zipped over the holidays lest the strained family small talk and opening of cheaply-made forgettable gifts be ruined by any talk of ‘reality’.”
Chris, can’t tell you how good it was for my state of mind to read that. After 26 consecutive years of visiting the in-laws over for the holidays–who are terrific, btw–it became unbearable this year. 9 days of meaningless small talk chit chat w people you pretty much see once a year, everyone dancing around reality or anything controversial. Managed to have two meaningful conversations this year: one w a hunter who didn’t think he should have to give up his ability to enjoy semi-automatic guns just b/c some people can’t use them responsibly, and the other w a PhD in physics who believes the long term sustainable carrying capacity of Earth is 50 billion people (that’s not a typo!). It’s becoming quite a challenge to maintain sanity in this world.
P.S. Decided next year I’ll visit for 3 days, not the usual 9-10.
He then argued in court that since 2 separate planes crashed into the Towers that it was 2 terrorist events and collected double.
Not really. Some insurers paid out for two occurrences, but others for only one. The aggregate result was nowhere near double.
The face value of the insurance was $3.55 billion per event. So double across the board would have been $7.1 billion. Many, many dollars rode on the fine points of wording in various contracts. A series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein) $4.55 billion is not 2X, it's more like 1.28X.
Quote:
Recall that Larry Silverstein had the incredible foresight to insure his holdings in the World Trade Center against terrorist attacks less than a week before 9/11
I'll take that at face value, but how is it different from what any prudent management would do when taking over new holdings? Recall that Silverstein had signed the lease for the WTC properties only a few weeks earlier, on July 24, 2001. (Also recall that he only had the opportunity because someone else's deal fell through.) To me it would be far more incredible if there were no insurance in place that covered terrorist attacks, especially given the WTC's history.
Even in the boondocks of Manitoba our insurance coverage includes terrorist attacks.
Michael,
Rest assured that whatever is released will be read. It could be a sham. It could be significant. The hacker’s motive is extortion. As long as the targets feel potentially vulnerable, they may pay up. That’s a calculation the targets have to evaluate for themselves. If they do pay up, they can expect to be extorted by the same group again and again until the targets balk or the vulnerability disappears. I wonder what a game theorist would suggest each side do.
Yoxa,
Thank you for correcting me. I won’t quote the double any more. I read that years ago and I haven’t bothered checking up on it. With lawsuits, “final” isn’t ever really final. Even if a court makes a legally binding decision, it can be undone by a higher court or new information brought to light. (The hacker may reveal new information.)
I wrote post #178 on the thread, Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. (The link looks good, but it takes me to the beginning of page 6 of the comments. Post #178 is about half way down on page 4.) My post was in reply to Doug’s post #115 where he links to several files - many are behind pay walls. One was a court summary of an appeal to one of the lawsuits involving Silverstein. The link to that summary is dead; however, I was able to find this link that looks like the same thing from what I remember. (At least, it has the dissenting opinion that I copied.)
I’m no legal expert. I try to stay as far away from court as I can. I’ve been involved in a few cases over my engineering career. This one just seemed bizarre. There were 6 experts testifying for one side (all independently supporting the NIST conclusions and all saying that the building fell due to poor design/construction.) There were no experts for the other side. I’ve never heard of that happening - especially when so much money is on the line. Typically, all sides go shopping for experts. The lawyers parade their experts in front of the court and the court has to decide how much credence to assign to each expert’s testimony.
The case was tried by a Tribunal of Judges, POOLER, PARKER, and WESLEY. Two of the 3 made the decision. Wesley objected. Here’s his dissenting statement.
1 WESLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting
2 Plaintiffs’ experts have articulated a standard of
3 care: high-rise buildings must be built to withstand a fire
4 that cannot be extinguished by the efforts of firefighters.
5 Plaintiffs’ experts have also identified a deviation from
6 that standard: the building was designed and erected in such
7 a way that it was subject to failure if a fire broke out
8 that could not be quelled. They have tied that standard and
9 its deviation to the injury for which they seek recompense.
10 Lastly, plaintiffs’ experts have offered opinions that 7WTC
11 did not collapse as a result of structural damage from
12 falling debris.
13 One would think that, on this record, the majority,
14 would want to hear from defendants’ experts on why 7WTC
15 collapsed. It may well be that causation, be it proximate
16 or in fact, can be decided as a matter of law in the
17 district court after a careful review of all expert
18 submissions or that a trial will result in a defendants’
19 verdict, but that is not the path the majority has chosen
20 for this case. I would remand the matter to the district
21 court for trial. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Getting back to terrorist insurance - I'm sure that the boondocks of Manitoba are a veritable hotbed for terrorism. /sarc If you wanted to purchase it, you could get it dirt cheap. You could probably purchase earthquake insurance at a much lower rate than someone in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Remember that the World Trade Center was the target of high profile terrorism in the past. Insurance companies aren't in the business to lose money. (Even a paltry $4.55 billion is more than chump change for them.) I can imagine that the price was pretty steep.
Of course, it is prudent to insure for these things. It raises an eyebrow but doesn't prove anything that Silverstein insured his holdings against terrorism less than a week before the event. If the hacker reveals that Silverstein had inside information, that's a different deal.
Grover
It raises an eyebrow but doesn't prove anything that Silverstein insured his holdings against terrorism less than a week before the event.
Acquiring the WTC holdings would necessitate either new insurance policies or modifications to existing policies. Maybe some of each. Before raising an eyebrow I'd want to know how Silverstein's WTC coverage compared to the coverage on his other NYC properties. I'd also wonder how it compared to whatever coverage was in effect under the previous management. Were there any substantive differences? Was anything actually new other than whose name was on the policies?
Re hazards in Manitoba, you're right that earthquakes and terrorism are low on our list. Tsunamis, too. But we have winter. Don't ask me about frozen car batteries ...