It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
This is only one of the thousands of pieces of evidence. Anyone not convinced by now never will be, unless all the news stations suddenly start reporting it, and even then I wonder.
soulwaxer
originally posted by: savemebarry
if nothing else, I find that extremely disturbing that he's not, or wasn't, in a nursing home.
spit that gum out young man... yeesh..
originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
Ever consider the simple fact that Silverstein simply misspoke and confused the dates...?
Conspiracy types are infamous for taking quotes out of context, conflating them with other details to build their
elaborate conspiracy fantasies
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
Did Obama say there was 52 states? What is that conspiracy about?
Or is this really a case of the Mandela Effect.
The truth movement, what a joke.
Note, Obama said he went to 57 states with one to go....
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States
youtu.be...
originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
Ever consider the simple fact that Silverstein simply misspoke and confused the dates...?
Conspiracy types are infamous for taking quotes out of context, conflating them with other details to build their
elaborate conspiracy fantasies
Did you read my post?
Of course I considered that. But A. He glanced at his notes. And B. He said April 2000. Was he wrong on the month and the year after looking at his notes? Because the only year the month of April could fit in the timeline is 2002. But they started construction in May of 2002.
Not sure if you're familiar with architectural process, but 30 days on a skyscraper is about 18 months too soon. The plans go through Framing, plumbing electric, HVAC, structural engineering, data drops, energy savings, etc. All those things have to be approved by the city each step. It's literally impossible that he misspoke given the timeline.
AAC
Soon after the September 11 attacks, in 2001, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event.[2] A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion,[3][4] which was not as much as Silverstein had sought. Silverstein also ran into multiple disputes with other parties in the rebuilding effort, including with the Port Authority.In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") would be owned by the Port Authority, as would Tower Five, which it would have the option of leasing to a different private developer and having redesigned as a residential building
Silverstein's insurance "scam" Rebuttal?
rationalwiki.org...
What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]
We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings.
originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: neutronflux
What are you talking about? I posed a real anomaly regarding this subject. Silverstein DID NOT misspeak. That did not happen.
So, if he did not misspeak, then how the hell did he know he's need a new plan for a building in 2000?
And if you're not going to directly answer the question, please don't reply. I'm a critical with zero agenda. I just covet truth. If you cannot look at your enemies reasonings to better understand your enemy then you are a weak soldier. Pardon the Sun Tzu paraphrase.
AAC