Do you believe that by now, some 5 years since 9-11...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Poll question: Do you believe that by now, some 5 years since 9-11...

...given the videos and other related evidence, that we should at least have been able to reach a broad consensus that WTC 1,2,and 7 were clearly demolished?

And secondly,

Are you beginning to doubt the veracity/sincerity of those who continue to argue otherwise?

On edit please note:

For the purpose of this poll "demolished" means brought down by some kind of explosive charges.

[greyl]

1. Poorly worded poll.

I think being more careful with the language would help.

edit: to explain, I think we should have been able to come to a consenses, yes. The fact that we haven't, means there's a lack of education to combat the myths and the possible presence of disingenous people trying to keep the bullshit alive. (like dylan avery, korey rowe, steve e jones, tarpley...
Do you want me to count as a "yes and yes" answer?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Is it really the wording you don't like?...

...or is it the questions themselves? If it's the wording, how would you have worded the questions?

If it's the questions themselves you don't like, please explain why.

[greyl]

3. Thing is, I'm not sure

how I'd re-word your first question, because I'm not sure what you're trying to find out.

edit: maybe it's just me reading too much into it.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. I think this poll is, for the most part, a reflection of...

...my frustration at the fact that so many still don't acknowledge what, to me, seems as plain and obvious to see as the nose on anyone's face. I guess maybe I'm trying, in my own clumsy way, to find out if it's just me, or do others share this frustration.

Maybe that's how I should have worded it: "Hey people, are you frustrated like me?"

[greyl]

7. Heheh, to that I'd answer "YES!" ;) nt

[jberryhill]

32. what, to me, seems as plain and obvious

That frustration is not unique to people with all kinds of strongly-held beliefs.

With 9/11, the unbelievers are "government shills", dishonest (as you suggest in the poll), etc.

With, say, religious beliefs, the unbelievers are hell-bound victims of Satanic deceit, and so on.

Lots of folks disagree on things that "seem plain and obvious" in their opinion. That's nothing new. Greyl's reaction to the first question is pretty much the puzzler that struck me. Yes, I think if it were that plain and obvious, there would be a widespread consensus by now. But the other way to read the questions is "don't you agree most folks should believe it was an inside job by now", in which case my answer would be "no".

Also, when you look at something as simple as the administration trying, and failing, to keep the lid on something as simple as uncomfortable observations made by the doctor who examined Pat Tillman, after they had run out and made him a propaganda piece then, with something as complicated as 9/11, no leaks in these several years is just outstanding.

Don't you believe that after X number of years, the human race should have a widespread consensus on the correctness of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and what have you? Well, we don't, but those beliefs are as earnestly held as are the "plain and obvious" beliefs in creationism, UFO's, ghosts, and whatever else.

48% of Americans believe in ghosts.

All of these folks, the religious ones included, have all sorts of evidence which, to them, clearly proves their respective strongly and earnestly held beliefs. Most of them manage to get by without calling those who differ "liars".

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

52. You sure read a lot of nonexistent BS into the OP...

...seems to be a pretty consistent pattern with you, Jberry.

[greyl]

64. I read it as his taking the time to actually think about the OP rather

than going off half-cocked. He's talking about circumstances that exist in the real world.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. My first response was prior to seeing your edit...

You'd have to use your own judgment on being a "Yes, and Yes" or "Yes, and No." Certainly you could vote "Yes, and Yes" knowing that there are some who honestly don't believe, for whatever reason, that the buildings were demolished. Those who argue that they weren't are presumed to have at least looked at the videos of the collapse(s) and some of the other available evidence (explosion testimony, seismic data from that day prior to collapse etc, etc) and don't come under the heading of "uninformed" or "ignorant."

I don't know if that answers your question or not.

[greyl]

6. Ok.

I don't think you answered my question, but I'll presume it's my fault. ;) Sorry for mucking up the thread.

Do you expect people who are certain that un/controlled demolition brought the buildings down to answer the first question a particular way, and those that believe damage and fires brought them down to answer the other way?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. You're not mucking up the thread at all...

...I appreciate the feedback. I would guess those who believe any kind of demolition brought them down would answer yes to the first part, and those who think it was fire would surely answer no.

[greyl]

9. Ah, now see that's the problem.

I would answer "yes", because I would expect(hope) there would be a consensus of opinion that the buildings were demolished if they were demolished.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. I should've defined demolished as:

..."brought down by some kind of explosive charges."

[greyl]

12. Yeah, I understood that much.

That's how I was using "demolished", too.

There's still 10 minutes to edit the OP and replace all these posts with pictures of kittens.:)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. Don't tempt me.

[greyl]

14. :) nt

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. I don't really like updating a poll after votes...

...have been cast but I think you raised an important consideration. Thank you.

[salvorhardin]

15. Other

Yes, I would think that the broad majority of the 9-11 Truth community should have come to a consensus after five years. Instead, I see the same old misinformation, half truths and (occasionally) lies recycled and attempt after attempt to shoehorn the available data to fit the hypothesis of controlled demolition.

Your second question is problematic. I assume you mean those who argue against controlled demolition. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, but as the philosopher Harry Frankfurt says in On Bullshit, sincerity itself is a form of bullshit. To base your opinion of someone solely on your judgment of their sincerity is sort of fruitless, don't you think? Maybe you're not judging their level of sincerity properly, or maybe they're really good at projecting a false aura of sincerity. Either way it doesn't tell you anything about the facts.

Also, much of the arguing go on is not so much against controlled demolition as it is correcting that same misinformation, half truth and occasional lie. A further percentage of the arguments could be classified as poking holes in the various controlled demolition theories (i.e. Professor Jones could not have demonstrated the prescience of thermite because...). That's not arguing against a theory, that's demanding adequate demonstration of the veracity of a theory. I know that seems like semantics to some, but maybe it's best summed up by the analogy that I don't believe in controlled demolition of WTC 1,2,7 in the same way I don't believe in god -- I just haven't seen adequate evidence of either.

So I can't really answer your second question.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. As to the second poll question...

...you make a fair assumption, I meant to refer to those who would argue the buildings were not brought down by pre-placed explosive charges. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I like the Harry Frankfurt quote, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with the question:

To base your opinion of someone solely on your judgment of their sincerity is sort of fruitless, don't you think?

Do you mean: To base your opinion of the validity of one's argument solely on a perceived assessment of their sincerity is flawed in that it does not seek to analyze/evaluate the actual merits of their argument? If this is your question my answer is yes, but I would disagree with the notion that my second poll question implies that this is a valid/appropriate way to evaluate an argument. My intent was simply to find out whether people believe that those who continue to argue against demolition truly believe the buildings were not demolished. That's all.

Admittedly, my strong bias in the construction of this poll shows through clearly and I don't seek to hide it. When I look at the collapse videos, in conjunction with other evidence, I'm reminded of the Latin phrase and legal doctrine, res ispa loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." It is inconceivable to me that those buildings were not demolished---I think it's glaringly obvious that they were. That said, I'm not suggesting there is no need to even investigate, on the contrary, I see great need for a properly funded, REAL, and thorough federal investigation of this and all other important 9-11 questions. Unfortunately, such an investigation has not been done and appears unlikely anytime soon.

I think a more appropriate analogy in considering the demolition question would be to posit whether or not it was reasoned and rational to assume/believe the Titanic sank due to a gaping gash along the side of her hull caused when she collided with an iceberg before the sunken vessel could be examined? To me, the obvious answer to this question would be yes, and they didn't have any video of the event, only survivor testimony.

I'm guessing you must have some thoughts about what brought those buildings down. I wonder if you could answer this question:

Based on the information/evidence and arguments you've reviewed on the collapse question, what would you say the likelihood is that the buildings were brought down by pre-placed explosives, let's say, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being "highly unlikely" and 10 being "highly likely?"

[Nozebro]

17. The issue is whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, and you can't prove

THAT one way or the other by engaging with OCT partisans in technical arguments where the issue is whose opinion should be believed. Focus on the BIGGER, more important issue of whether 9/11 was an inside job and you'll make more progress. OCT'ers have a harder time trying to undermine those exploring THAT.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. I believe establishing wide consensus that...

...the buildings were demolished is very important and would be a big step toward getting many more people to seriously entertain the idea that 9-11 was an inside job.

Once it is widely accepted that the buildings were in fact demolished it follows that the question of "Who?" must be revisited in a new light. It is not believable by any stretch that al Qaeda operatives could possibly have had the kind of access required to place demolition charges for those three buildings, given the level of security WTC 1,2, & 7 were known to have.

I believe this is why the 9-11 Commission refused to acknowledge what is obvious, that the buildings were demolished (WTC 7 didn't even get a mention in their report, how credible is that?)---they simply didn't want any part of the question of who could have secured that kind of access. The question, in and of itself, screams inside job---the 9-11 Commission knew this, so they conjured up the slam bang, zero credibility, explanation of collapse due to heat from burning jet fuel (utter nonsense), thus, avoiding altogether the single most important question: Who was actually behind 9-11?

I think members of the 9-11 Commission disgraced themselves and performed an immense disservice to our nation.

Note: I don't mean to suggest here that al Qaeda did not play a role in 9-11, I believe it's clear that they did.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Yes, but no air defense for an hour and a half screams inside job even

more.

With the evidence destroyed from the three buidings, physical eveidence of planned demolition is going to be hard to come by.

So wide acceptence of planned demolision may also be hard to come by.

The real question is a political one, not a scientific one. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job is macro question that is more impotant to ask.

When enough people say yes, we may be able to get some answeres to all the other questions, such as what brought the buildings down.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. You have a point...

...The idea that a 90 minute window of such total vulnerability could happen for surrounding airspace of the Pentagon without inside participation is not believable.

Regarding WTC 1,2, & 7, I do feel that the collapse videos alone provide more than ample evidence of planned demolition.

I certainly agree that the inside job question is the most important one, and by no means am I suggesting we shouldn't poll people on it (we should), but I wonder if getting the larger majority of citizens to entertain it seriously might first require reaching consensus in other areas, i.e. the demolition question, or the 90 minute absent air defense question, or something else that literally screams INSIDE JOB!!!

[John Q. Citizen]

21. There is no magic bullet, but we are on the move certainly. Just observe

the sudden interest in push back by the Big Corporate Media.

They ignored us for almost 5 years.

Now they are ridiculing us. Believe it or not, that represents major progress. Next they will fight us, and then we will win.

(Gandhi proposed that stagiation for movements, and he knew what he was talking about, having driven the British Empire out of India.)

The video evidence does suggest planned demolitions do the eyewitness evidence of molten metal that persisted for weeks at ground zero. But video evidence and eyewitness evidence shouldn't be confused with physical evidence. They aren't the same thing.

Do you know about the circumstances when bush flew out from Florida after reading My Pet Goat? While in the air they received credible threat's against Air Force one, but the goddamn president of the United States couldn't get a fighter escort for over an hour.

What's up with that?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. When ignore doesn't work they ALWAYS turn to

...ridicule next. And you're right it's actually a good sign of progress.

You're correct that physical evidence and witness testimony are not the same thing, but I would argue that the videos are sufficiently compelling for a definitive conclusion of collapse due to some kind of planned demolition, even if they do not come under the heading of physical evidence. Physical evidence is, of course, preferable.

Bush's behavior, and the fact that they (his handlers) were seemingly unconcerned, not the least bit alarmed, regarding his personal safety speaks volumes also:

[rman]

27. It would still be an inside job even if the buildings were not CD-ed

my chain of reasoning is not so much

physical evidence => CD => inside job

but more like

'political evidence' => inside job => CD very plausible (where CD is only one of several issues, and not necessarily the most important)

Though of course WTC7 in and of itself is extremely suspicious.
I think much of the other physical evidence does not exclude the possibility of CD, but it also is not conclusive to CD.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. kick for larger sample

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. kick for larger sample.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. Kick for a larger sample.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. kick for larger sample.

[HamdenRice]

28. No and no

1. I believe in at least LIHOP, but I don't base it on demolition theory. I'm open to it, but it seems to me that we could argue about physical evidence for ever. There are a couple of LIHOP/MIHOP blogs that have compared demolition to the JFK magic bullet theory. One of them quoted a JFK prosecutor who has been working on the assassination for all these 40 odd years and said that he wished he had focused on the intelligence and political connections rather than the physical evidence because basically physical evidence is and will always remain ambiguous. You can argue about the magic bullet for ever, but if you stand back and look at the big picture, it's obvious that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy.

Similarly, with respect to 9/11, you simply cannot prove controlled demolition, although in the context of all the other evidence, it is certainly a possibility.

So, no, I wouldn't at all expect a consensus to have emerged.

2. Not everyone who disagrees with the CD hypothesis is an OCTer or OCTabot. I do question some the motives of some OCTers and OCTabots, but not of LIHOPer/MIHOPers who do not believe in CD.

But two blogs that are far, far more conspiratorial than I am, Cannonfire and Rigorous Intuition (DU's Minstrel Boy), have basically washed their hands of CD and all no-plane theories. In fact, Cannonfire has taken an agressively anti-CD position, while embracing the Hopsicker flight school/drug/intelligence angle.

Although videos of WTC 7 got me interested in 9/11 truth issues, I no longer believe that it is a conclusive case or for that matter it is the best, or even an efficacious, way of proving governmental complicity.

[dailykoff]

30. Here are some differences between 9/11 and JFK:

1. There's about 10,000 times more evidence of the 9/11 demolitions.

2. Engineering is a widely understood science, unlike bullet forensics.

3. Anyone with knowledge of civil engineering can see that the gov't reports are full of #@%*.

4. Although the WTC construction documents remain under lock and key, a lot had been written about them before 9/11, as they were highly unusual and celebrated structures, so work like Jim Hoffman's is verifiable and credible.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. Agreed. nt

[defendandprotect]

42. The JFK evidence -- "Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments and probably

also for the FBI" --
That was the conclusion of the Tunnheim Panel -- Discovery Channel/A&E --

Evidently, now, they are just destroying information --
presumably at this point much of the evidence is being held hostage by violence.

And, violence from beginnng to end in all of these events has to be considered --

[dailykoff]

29. Yes and yes, in most cases.

CD is beyond a doubt an absolute indisputable certainty. It's hard to understand how anyone could pretend otherwise at this point. The evidence for it is in every photograph and video of the event and its aftermath, and there is no remotely credible evidence to contradict it.

However, based on HamdenRice's comment above, I suppose it's possible for some to still believe selected parts of the official story, i.e. building collapses caused by fires and planes, although frankly those are the least credible elements of the tale.

As for the OCTers I'll say nothing at all.

[Flatulo]

33. Huh?

> CD is beyond a doubt an absolute indisputable certainty.

Go prove it in a court of law.

The problem is we can't repeat the experiment. There is no way to experimentally recreate how the WTC towers would fail given the same structural damage and fires.

This is why academics are creating FEA simulations. The simulations so far have shown that the 767s would have breached the perimeter columns and damaged the core columns. They have not shown that the fires would have weakened the structure to the point of failure, and they have not yet simulated the actual collapses.

I believe it will take many years before we get a thorough simulation.

[jberryhill]

35. That's actually a good point, Flatulo

Go prove it in a court of law

Imagine how much money an enterprising attorney could make by pursuing wrongful death claims on behalf of the surviving families.

[Flatulo]

36. Thankfully we have that standard to fall back on.

Which brings up another good point... I damn sure hope I never get any Troofers on *my* jury.

"Why of course he's guilty. I mean, just look at him?" :)

[defendandprotect]

43. Read Breitweiser -- NJ widow -- that's the point . . ..

They moved to get everyone to sign on to STOP suits which would search for truth in courts --

If you took the $, you couldn't sue in future --

[quickesst]

34. Without even....

reading past the first reply, I am wondering at what point does common sense and logic cease in a person's brain functions. The first thing I read on these polls is " it's a bad poll" it's a biased poll" it's always something. What is wrong with using common sense and logic to figure out what people are asking? For me, it implies nothing but a built in excuse to not answer simple questions, and to berate the pollster. Grow the fuck up, would you? Thanks.
quickesst

On edit: Excuse my use of the f word. It just gets to be too goddamn much to stand sometimes. Oops!

[MrMickeysMom]

37. Have you ever questioned the very rapid way the debris of WTC was carted off?

There are very few pictures, some on the many pages of the web (st911.org), others in books on 911 published in 2001.

Let me try to clarify- I haven't seen much discussion on this, though I've only recently joined this section. I understand that much was carted off in rapid order. There is no reason in the world to have done this. When you consider evidence, this material would have answered a lot of questions. Just this week, we see how important the physical evidence is in drawing a timeline and understanding the nature of "how did this structure move?".

If engineers and scientific probes are integral in predicting with high probability the "how" of the MN collapsed bridge, then why did practically all of the WTC debris get carted off, I believe much was on a barge within DAYS before any possible analysis? While I"m at it, was that legal?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. The ONLY reason for them to have done that...

...was to prevent the investigation that would have confirmed what most everybody already knows -- controlled demolition brought the towers down.

I don't see how that could have been legal. Obstructing what should have been a very thorough on site investigation of a crime like that can't be legal.

[MrMickeysMom]

39. I think that's acurate, but I see how much push back that gets even here...

... of course, there's no accounting for the personal agenda of whoever posts here and everyone's got an opion, but this is a bitter pill for some to swallow.

No cover up is perfect, and that keeps me going...

[AZCat]

40. No, the only reason...

you can think of is that.

The rest of us can think of perfectly good reasons that have nothing to do with controlled demolitions.

[defendandprotect]

44. Just think of the advanced planning involved in all of this --

[Falconlights]

47. What Are These People Afraid Of?

I wasn't registered at the time the poll was set up so I can't vote, but if I could vote, I would vote yes, and yes.

It is indeed curious why the debris was carted off so quickly. What are these people afraid of? Afraid we might find out that the OCT is full of it?x(

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

48. Too many people learning the truth about 9-11...

... (and we certainly don't know everything -- probably never will) does inspire fear in them.

The tsunami backlash of awakened and angry citizens could be more than they're equipped to manage.

[defendandprotect]

41. I think we have a broad concensus that it was DEMOLITION --

and it naturally follows that the "hijackers" didn't have access to the towers to do this work which would take at least two weeks.

As for the doubters . . . I think usually they are poorly informed and, IMO, naive.

Basically, neither do I think they understand the steel structure vs fire argument --
they're just not ready to get it -- and perhaps they are afraid of being ridiculed . . .

we get a suggestion of that in the often repeated phrase "tinfoil hat" --

but they should understand that there are conspiracies throughout the world -- always have been --
and the same things happen in America. This is not conspriacy-free America.

They should also understand that our system of law provides for CONSPIRACY charges --
and, in fact, what our founders say about impeaching/suspending the president AND Vice President suggest that they understood that they could work to create conspiracy and cover up.

[defendandprotect]

45. PS: Think we have so much corruption -- elections, etc -- that it's all difficult to deal with --

So much destruction by this administration past 6 years . . . and Republicans over past decades --

it's like Bush drives by every day and drops bombs off the back of his pick-up truck that we

all have to deal with --

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

46. I think you're right. I didn't accept CD until 2004...

... 9-11 being an inside job is painful to come to terms with.

[HamdenRice]

49. No and yes

I think there is some evidence of demolition and the collapses were clearly anomalous, but there is not yet conclusive evidence. At any rate, why the buildings collapsed does not seem to me to be the most fruitful way of investigating what happened on 9/11.

As for the second question, at least one of the most persistent web-based debunkers has been conclusively linked to defense contractors and a federal military-industrial-space center, so it's pretty obvious what's going on. One is not permitted to say more about this on DU. But as you can see from my post months ago upthread, since that time, certain evidence has been presented elsewhere that changed my mind about some of the so called debunkers. Obviously, this does not mean that everyone who disagrees with CD is a "shill" but to me it's been proven that at least some are.

[AZCat]

50. One is permitted to say more about what?

Perhaps it is not as obvious as you think (although my morning coffee has not yet percolated through my gray matter - that might also have something to do with it).

[HamdenRice]

54. It would reveal personal info

therefore it's against DU's rules. But I believe we've discussed this before by pm's.

[AZCat]

58. Damnit...

now I'm going to have to go back through all the PMs. I don't remember talking about it, but they say memory is the second thing to go. :)

[defendandprotect]

51. Demolition is clear + you also seem to be in denial re advance warnings by most of the world -- !!!

There's no way they didn't know what was going to happen --

[HamdenRice]

53. Huh?

Have you ever read this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x678886

Just because I don't believe demolition has been conclusively proven doesn't mean I believe the OCT or that I'm "in denial" about warnings from other countries' intelligence services.

[dailykoff]

60. ... and there's no way they didn't make it happen.

:thumbsup:

[greyl]

55. Your post includes falsehood, what a shock.

HamdenRice said: "...at least one of the most persistent web-based debunkers has been conclusively linked to defense contractors and a federal military-industrial-space center, so it's pretty obvious what's going on. One is not permitted to say more about this on DU."

The bolded part of the quote is totally false. This was explained to you in the thread in R/T. Your posts there were deleted because they contained uncivil personal attacks and because they were off-topic, not because you were blowing the lid off of some clandestine operation that the DU administrators are helping to keep quiet.
As for the non-bolded part of the quote, it is very misleading, partially false, and hyperbolic. It depends on how you define "linked to", but perhaps more importantly, it's ridiculous to assume that anyone linked to a so-called "federal military-industrial-space center" has a particular political position or is shilling for the Bush admin by debunking absurd conspiracy theories. I think it's more likely that people who want to harm the Democratic/progressive cause would do so by spreading absurd theories.

Please, present your case for what you perceive to be "pretty obvious". If you're smart about it, it won't get deleted.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

57. Your post is a half-decent source of smiles over morning coffee, and

for that I thank you.

I'm going to point out 2 of the several falsehoods in your post, and they are:

1."there was personal info about that DU debunker, showing that he/she/it/they were on the military industrial payroll" and 2. "As a result, that post was deleted."

Hasty conclusions probably due to confirmation bias, and Invincible Ignorance. Again, your post in R/T was not deleted because it revealed personal info.

To clarify something else, were you being serious when you said this?: "As to your larger point, as to whether an individual who works for the military industrial complex necessarily has a particular political point of view, I actually agree with you."

edit: formatting

[dailykoff]

59. Demolition is absolutely incontrovertible.

The evidence is clear in every photograph of the WTC collapses and aftermath. They fooled all of the people some of the time but sorry LIHOPers and limited-hangouters, the cat is outta the bag.

[greyl]

61. Please become familiar with the meaning of "incontrovertible".

I bet you know your post can't be taken seriously.

[Flatulo]

62. Not so clear to the insurance companies?

dailykoff said:

> Demolition is absolutely incontrovertible.

If this is so stunningly and obviously clear, why not just prove it and become a rich man.

Do you believe insurance cmpanies pay out multi-billion dollar claims if there is *any* doubt as to the nature of the claim?

One town over from me, a woman (probably) had her husband whacked 15 years ago. The insurance company will NOT pay out on his life insurance, and that is only $150K. The woman has never been charged in the crime but the company will not pay. They plan to investigate it until she is old and gray.

[petgoat]

65. Do you believe insurance cmpanies pay out multi-billion dollar claims

if there is *any* doubt as to the nature of the claim?

I believe that when insurance companies are faced with the prospect of
anthrax contamination to skyscrapers they fall in line with anybody
who promises to deal with that threat.

Imagine anthrax dust on a cart from the mailroom or the vending machine,
guy or just sprinkled on the elevator floors in morning rush hour.

Anthraxed offices could destroy any institution, decontamination would
cost a fortune, and the prestigious address might be forever blighted.
Maybe they'd need to take the building down.

[Flatulo]

66. Do you believe that the insurance companies faced extortion by anthrax?

Do you have any proof of this claim?

On the face of it it seems ridiculous. Anytime someone wants a few billion just threaten anthrax and presto! the checks in the mail.

I call BS.

[petgoat]

67. Of course they faced extortion by anthrax.

The stuff was in the mail.

Some nut had enough USDA Grade A Fort Detrick anthrax to
cause a lot of trouble.

[Flatulo]

68. Yeah, anthrax was in the mail... so what's the connection to

extortion of insurance companies? And what's your proof?

Or is this just something that you figured out on your own and it sure feels like it should be true?

[petgoat]

69. Proof is beside the point.

When an insurer writes a policy on your car, he or she has
no proof that you are or are not going to have an accident.

The risk was real. Mail facilities were contaminated.
That newspaper office in Florida had anthrax tracked into
every room so it had to be abandoned.

[Flatulo]

70. OK, now you've totally lost me.

Explain to me again how anthrax somehow forced insurance to pay off on the WTC towers.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. I'll get the popcorn started. n/t

[dailykoff]

72. This does not seem unreasonable.

Personally I'm inclined to think that the insurers were happy to save themselves hundreds of billions of dollars in asbestosis awards by forking over a couple of bil to Larry.

[SidDithers]

63. .

Sid