We Are CHANGE Confronts Larry Silverstein

This is one of the first times that Mr.Silverstien has been confronted on WTC 7 since 9/11.
His attempts to avoid answering certain questions,would only further the thought he is hiding something(s).

All in all,pretty good video.
Hats off to Luke and the others who tried to get answers.




[edit on 14-3-2008 by Black_Fox]

thank you , and very interesting. I am surprised there are not more comments on this.

His reactions look false to me. Silverstein looks to be hiding something.

Firstly, I'm not so sure there's much there that damages Silverstein. Kudos to the guys for getting their feet on the street to ask the questions, but he dealt with it okay I would say.

One thing that was new - maybe I've not been keeping up-to-date enough - was that the antennae caused the gouge in the façade of WTC-7 and also severed the fuel lines. This is the first time I'd heard this explanation and I did wonder what photographic or video evidence there is to support it.

Is this a foretaste of the NIST report?

Very interesting video, thanks for posting this. It's good to see relevant questions being asked about 9/11 in a civil manner from these figures without (too many) questioners being ejected from the proceedings.

As for Silverstein's responses, at least he addressed most of them, give him credit for that.

What is most interesting is his explanation that it was the antenna from the north tower that ultimately destroyed WTC 7 by piercing the building and severing conduits for fuel oil that ran to the NYC ERC bunker on floors 23 & 24 and starting fires that led to collapse.

A version of this has been his contention from the outset, but has been investigated and was found not to be a valid explanation; the magic column is the leading theory right now, FWIW.

As for the antenna, part of the mast was found and is stored with other 9/11 fragments. Hard to believe it would do all that damage and survive the collapse of 7 and end up as an artifact in storage.

reply to post by gottago

Great minds think alike, eh? But at least I read your post

reply to post by coughymachine


Lol! CM we posted pretty close together, I was typing my post up and re-watching the vid and googling and all that while you cut to the chase. Tortoise and hare...

More OT, LS's contention that the burning fuel oil brought the bldg down is really his pet theory, not supported anywhere else, and he has been saying this from 9/11 on. A friend who has unrelated dealings with him said to me soon after 9/11 that LS told him that 7 fell from the fuel oil fires. So he's fleshed this out and still holds to it. The mast is a new twist.

How a bldg like WTC 7 can be brought down by this is beyond me:

"Pull it" is an excellent distractionOP. It's 'vague and mysterious' nature makes it the subject of excessive investigation and analysis. It's now used as a crucial point. PrisonPlanet even called it the biggest revelation in 9/11 truth. Really, it is not all that important. There is much more solid evidence surrounding Building 7, like Indira Singh, the straight down collapse, the eyewitnesses, the reports, and the squibs.

When we focus on "Pull It" we are wide open to attacks, because it is to vague and inconclusive. Look at how perp Larry didn't want to go into detail about 'pull it'. Going into detail would jeporadize the quotes 'vague and mysterious' nature. If he ruins that psyop, the honest sites will lose interest and will start focusing on better evidence of WTC7 demolition.

There is already a lot against Larry. He took over the WTC 6 weeks before the attacks, got a ton of cash from his insurers, and was not there the day of the collapse. The reports of why he wasn't at work conflict. Was it a last minute meeting cancellation or a dentists appointment? These conflicting reports smell of a cover up and make everything all the more suspcious. Luke Rudowski discovered from a security guard that Silverstein was actually warned not to go to work by his security. Rudowski received threats after learning this explosive information.

See, the real point of interest in the PBS interview is the question of who called him and told them that they weren't going to be able to contain the fire. He really doesn't want to answer that one. Don't fall for the psyop. If you are going to focus on his PBS testimony, focus on the issue of who called him, not "Pull It".

I guess Larry needs to take some physics classes also. Do these people really think we're that stupid?

Does he even know most of the diesel fuel was recovered? Does he know that office fires won't cause complete global collapse of a building into its own footprint? Or he is so arrogant that he thinks because he's saying it people just believe him and not check the facts for themselves? Of course he knows, he's a real estate developer, it's part of his job.

He's obviously lying, just like the de-bunkers when a question was asked that isn't covered by the 'official lie' he clammed up.

It couldn't be any more obvious...

reply to post by gottago


Lets see - you put it on top of 110 story building - thats over 1300 feet
then drop it . Falling from that height will generate considerable
amount of force. Consider that an ordinary piece of 2x4 accelerated
to 100 mph by wind will penetrate the side of house. The antenna
section looks like built of heavy gauge sections of pipe which will
penetrate wall of building.

While there is no evidence that the antenna casued the gouge. I await NIST findings to see what their hypothisis is on this.

It goes to show how the truth movement is on its last legs. To grasp the words of a REal Estate developer to suggest he was part of this massive coverup is a simple case of grasping for straws.

The worst case... Silverstien was tooting his own horn, confabulating his roll during 911. The bloated egos of billionaires is quite evident.

We know for a fact he didn't talk to Chief Nigro. But there were at LEAST 2 other commanders that were involved in the decision of the collaspe zone. Perhaps he did talk to one of them.

READ THIS ARTICLE AND SEE THIS QUOTE:

NEW YORK TIMES

speaking on building 7

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

I really doubt he'd let himself get snookered in a public forum by answering questions in a truthful manner.
After all - how many billions did he make from the WTC complex coming down?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by gottago

 

Lets see - you put it on top of 110 story building - thats over 1300 feet
then drop it . Falling from that height will generate considerable
amount of force. Consider that an ordinary piece of 2x4 accelerated
to 100 mph by wind will penetrate the side of house. The antenna
section looks like built of heavy gauge sections of pipe which will
penetrate wall of building.

And yet it sits, with its paint still on and its flanges a bit bent but still intact, in a warehouse?

So it penetrated the building at hurricane-force speeds, ruptured the pipes, then fell out and bounced far enough away to clear the collapse, to end up on display?

This one ranks up there with JFK's magic bullet.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
After all - how many billions did he make from the WTC complex coming down?

Why don't you tell us TxRabbit. Please provide a source that shows LS made "billions."

WTC7 Claim was for 861 Million
The cost of the new building? Over $700 million.

ok... we are at a profit of 161 million so far?

Nope. There was the small matter of the existing $489.4 million mortgage, which Silverstein paid off with the insurance settlement, leaving him with a shortfall of $328 million heading towards construction of the new building.

The City of New York, desperate to see rebuilding begin downtown, saved Silverstein a bundle in financing costs by offering over $400 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, which the Bank of New York guaranteed.

That move gave Silverstein and his backers the freedom to do something unheard of in recent New York real estate history: start construction of a skyscraper without a major (or minor) tenant on board. And when the building opened in 2006? Still no major tenants. In May, of 2006 WTC 7 finally got its first possible major tenant when Moody’s Investor’s Service signed a nonbinding letter of intent to occupy 15 floors. More recently, other sizable tenants have signed on.

nymag.com...

www.nytimes.com... +VQZ+kLfe7GM3B2ITbIEg&oref=slogin


Anyway... I will not derail this thread any further and ask that if you want some facts based on the insurance, how much was made, how much was lost...etc etc... Please go here:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...




[edit on 16-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

2 sides to every story:

1. any video with rob zombie playing on the audio track is not serious reporting.

2. The first question was civil, the rest wasnt even close. If you spoke to me in that tone I would clock you.

other side:

1. He specifically says the millions of hours and dollars were spent on the twin towers research and not wtc7.

2. he avoids the questions.

Originally posted by gottago
As for the antenna, part of the mast was found and is stored with other 9/11 fragments. Hard to believe it would do all that damage and survive the collapse of 7 and end up as an artifact in storage.

Not to mention it was found ON TOP of WTC 1's debris pile.

How did it do damage to WTC 7 and then bounce back to end up in WTC 1's debris pile?

Interesting.