Larry Silverstein designed NEW WTC-7 in April of 2000

a reply to: Another_Nut

So the architects must be in on it too then?

Hi All...New here and couldn't sleep and thought I might chime in.

Maybe I have had too much latte this morn but something has struck me as being quite odd about all of this.
We are led to believe that it is virtually impossible for this to be an "inside job" because of all the people involved and
somehow, somewhere, someone would have spilled the beans and messed the whole plan up. Just like chemtrails and UFO's and JFK, there would have to be SO many people involved that word would have to leak out somehow and ruin
the whole thing.

I guess something that I have never thought about is....How did 19 hijackers keep their plans so secret for so long??
It's not like they came up with the plan overnight....

It has me quite baffled....I am enjoying the read nonetheless.

I sometimes wonder what would come out of the mouths of Silverstein, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush if they happened to be waterboarded...

Just my demented mind at work....sorry...

The simple fact is no one is going to believe anything on the table bar the same two groups who have been arguing the same points until they have become stale, the usual will happen with this thread and it will be closed, I'd hate to see any one on either side banned because of the rehash of old much chewed stuff.

So either get the stuff that is classed above top secret from the government or produce a totally trustable source otherwise this is going to end up with the inevitable closure and possible bans..

Paul...

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: gladtobehere
And no mention of him deciding to "pull the building", how strange.

Not strange at all, as he never said to "pull the building"!

So you think "pull it" means to tell firefighters to leave the building ?

That is not what he said, but nice that you think it was!!!

Why would a building contractor use that term , which is used to describe completing destruction of a building, not to mention something that would not have been his call ANYWAYS, IF it was about the firefighters.....

It is most entertaining to see the ways in which you can justify yourselves, when Larry does not back you up!!

Maybe he meant to say "pull out"? I somehow doubt that though as the BBC reported the building's collapse well before it occurred. Why would the BBC even think it would come down? Office fires? Really?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Chadwickus

If you listen to more than just the snippet it becomes quite obvious.

But that doesn't comply with the conspiracy code of conduct.

I think the real conspiracy here is all the conspiracy backers tring to keep us occupied while the real conspiracy is going on.

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
Why would the BBC even think it would come down?

Why ignore the fact that the FDNY had a transit on the building, saw it was bulging and creaking, and knew it was going to collapse?

a reply to: hellobruce


Is there a link for that somewhere?
I looked and did a search and all I came up with was this article at 911truth and I don't know if they are taboo or not.

www1.ae911truth.org...

I don't know how to link and all yet, will learn that soon enough..sorry...

That would make the most sense that they would have a transit on it to get "precise" measurements
as to it's deformation..

One would also think that with all the cameras and recording equipment in NY in 2001, not one single incident
of 911 could have gone undocumented...yet we still have questions to this day....

thanks..

originally posted by: jabbathehut
a reply to: hellobruce


Is there a link for that somewhere?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.911myths.com...

a reply to: hellobruce


Thanks.

Let me ask another question..

Hayden said, "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

How in the world does a building "bulge" without there being significant damage immediately? If I was walking down the
street and saw a building "bulging", I would get the heck away from it pretty quickly. Didn't WTC 1 and 2 have some bulge going on in some of the videos? Would make sense why they collapsed....

Thanks for the link....

a reply to: wildb

Mr Silverstein might have been planning a replacement for WTC 7 in the normal course of his business. Plans for a rennovation or replacement dated 2000 do not in and of themselves serve to confirm that Silverstein was read-in on the 9/11 job. This information however is troubling in the extreme and may account for WTC-7 having within it live demolition materials while people were occupying it!!!

How many people were involved in the Manhattan Project/A-Bomb development and talked about it......

originally posted by: TXRabbit
How many people were involved in the Manhattan Project/A-Bomb development and talked about it......

I don't think it was as big a secret as you might think.
There were 19 sites in North America working on different parts of the project.
To the average Joe back then the word nuclear meant nothing.
So if you heard plant 'A' was working on triggers for bombs you thought TNT.
Your ears didn't perk up because what they were doing meant nothing to you.

A plant to produce plutonium was built southwest of Chicago.
To the average Joe plutonium was just another metal used in airplanes. Not a topic of conversation.
Just another plant to help the war effort.

Plus there's this quote from WIKI.

Despite the Manhattan Project's tight security, Soviet atomic spies still penetrated the program.

Think of it in modern day terms.
Elon Musk is building a battery production plant in Nevada.
Are you thinking of super secret unobtainium batteries ? No
Because your frame of reference comes from his cars and laptop batteries.

So now we have evidence of
****Larry Silverstein saying that plans for a NEW WT7 building go as far back as April 2000
****Indian foreign secretary Niaz Naik, who said he was told MONTHS prior to 9/11 that the United States would invade Afghanistan in October 2001.
****”Project for A New American Century” written before 9/11 telling how the United States needed a “New Pearl Harbor” to oust Saddam Hussein. A document describing how American military badly needed rebuilding.
****BBC on camera LIVE on 9/11, saying how WT7 ‘collapsed’ 30 minutes before it DID collapse.
****an explosion before WT7 collapsed (on video)
****WT7 collapsing at freefall speed for at least 2.5 seconds (evidence in itself of explosives used)

****Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department discussing explosions in WT7, that when he went into WT7 on 9/11, upon arriving at the OEMEOC, everyone was gone. I saw coffee on the desk, half eaten sandwiches. When I called (on the phone) several individuals, one of them told me to leave and leave right away. It was only me and Mr Hess up there and when I saw Mr Hess he told me that he doesn’t know what’s “in here” and that we have to leave and leave right away”

When he reached the 6th floor walking downstairs “there was an explosion and the landing gave way”…. “I was there hanging, and then had to walk back upto the 8th floor”. “On the 8th floor it was dark and very hot. I took a fire extinguisher and smashed the windows because it was so hot” THIS WAS BEFORE THE FIRST TOWER CAME DOWN. THIS GUY WAS IN THE WT7 BUILDING AS BOTH TOWERS WERE FALLING. “All this time I was hearing explosions”. “When I was on the 8th floor, BOTH buildings were still standing.

“I’m confused about one thing, and one thing only. Why did World Trade Center 7 go down in the first place? I’m very confused about that. I know what I heard, I heard explosions. The explanation I got was that it was the fuel tank. But I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel tank, it would have been one side of the building. When I got to that lobby, the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had come through it and stepped on it. It was so destroyed that I didn’t even know where I was. It was so destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall. A makeshift hole that I believe the fire department made to get me out.” …. “The key thing was, when the police officer came to me, he said ‘we’re got more reports of explosions so you have to run’”

“I was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission about WT7 and I told them everything.” (The 9/11 Commission Report ignored Building 7 I it’s report”

****WT7 mimicking a controlled demolition that when shown to demolition experts, who were not familiar with WT7; said it was controlled demolition.
****Larry Silverstein saying we decided to “pull it”…..”And then we watched the building (WT7 collapse)

I don't buy the OS at all. Having said that, I don't see anything here. It's weak, very thin. One little sentence that could easily be a mistake. This is fluff.

Also, I'm not repulsed by the guy. A lot of people here making personal cuts against him. Honestly, he seems like a decent enough guy. It challenged me actually, that he seemed so likeable. BUT, people can be likeable and still criminals so who knows.

I see nothing here of value. Definitely not a smoking gun. Side note at best. But even as a side note, it implies worse than the actual video.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I don't buy the OS at all. Having said that, I don't see anything here. It's weak, very thin. One little sentence that could easily be a mistake. This is fluff.

You could be right, but what is interesting is that Larry is clearly reading from a paper.

He turns the page, and looks up at the audience and says "And the first design meeting was".... (LOOKS DOWN AT PAPER)....IN APRIL OF 2000.

So it's not like slip of the tongue. This is actually reading from a paper. The notes are right there infront of his face.

a reply to: hellobruce

I do not know if you are aware that www.911myths.com... is a bias website that only supports the Official Story of 911.

The fact is, the website does not accept real science, or technical papers outside of the government narratives.

I do not find 911 Myths a credible source when it comes to debunking 911 facts.

a reply to: Debunkology

So it's not like slip of the tongue. This is actually reading from a paper. The notes are right there infront of his face.

Did you ever have a typo ?
Did you ever say one thing when you meant to say something else?

a reply to: Informer1958

I do not know if you are aware that www.911myths.com... is a bias website that only supports the Official Story of 911.

And Richard Gages site doesn't accept anything.
So what's your point ?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Debunkology

So it's not like slip of the tongue. This is actually reading from a paper. The notes are right there infront of his face.

Did you ever have a typo ?
Did you ever say one thing when you meant to say something else?

Okay then. Let's look at this objectively. Contruction of the New WTC7 officially began in May 7th 2002. Larry Silverstein said in his speech "And construction began in 2002"....He got that one right!!. He did not mention a month, but he mentioned the year. Him solely mentioning just the year means that it began in a different year to the year it's planning began. ... If it was April 2002 (which would be incredibly short time to plan a building just days before it's construction) .... Then why did Larry Silverstein simply not say....."And planning began later that year?".... or "a few weeks later"

So if Larry Silverstein did not mean to say "April 2000"..... Did he mean "April 2001?" OR..... Was it such a bad typo that they even got the month AND year wrong?

Reality is the state of things that actually exist rather than an notional or idealistic idea of it.

The evidence points to the fact that Larry Silverstein said that planning of new WTC7 began in April 2000. Everything else is just your opinion of what he meant or whether it was a typo. An idea, rather than the reality. Which seems to be the case when people argue the case for the Official narrative.

a reply to: Chadwickus

He even says construction started almost immediately once a plan was decided upon (paraphrasing).

Actually...he states...FIRST design meeting was in april 2000...he doesn't mention when they got the final designs, or how many meetings were in between getting the final design, upon which they started construction shortly after. You could argue that there was just one meeting and the final design was presented right then and there...no objections or changes...in order to fit the april 2002 story. From planning to construction in a month.

Now you need faith...