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 Nutter
Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you prove he lost money or just repeat it?
I would also like to see a business timeline showing just how Mr. Silverstein is loosing money.
Don't forget to include future earnings.
Originally posted by thedman
Silverstien could not have ordered the fireman out
It was at this point that Silverstein was called informing him that the fires were out of control and that WTC 7 could not be saved
Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
I already saved you the trouble and showed you how he gets to turn a multi-billion dollar initial investment into a 7 billion dollar settlement. Did it confuse you?
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nutter
Silverstein is not lying
When informed of the FDNY decision to abandon WTC7 all he could do was
concur with what was already done. As stated before Silverstein had
no authority over the FDNY.
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein
Originally posted by Nutter
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein
A total contradiction to what you and Chief Nigro have said.
How is that NOT a lie?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Both agreed it was a losing battle trying to contain the fire. The wounded building was crumbling. The danger to firemen would increase if they continued.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Both agreed it was a losing battle trying to contain the fire. The wounded building was crumbling.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
mmmmichael, you're so full of it, your eyes are brown.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael
Photos don't lie. You do.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael
Photos don't lie. You do.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael
Photos don't lie. You do.
People who select a couple photos and claim they are proof of something happening that did not - are liars.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Done all the time by Truthers frustrated by the lack of tangible evidence of the controlled demolition they desperately need to believe in.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Add the reality that there is no point in taking huge risks blowing up buildings already destroyed by the collision of two airliners, spilled fuel burning and uncontrolled fires weakening structural support to the point of unsustainability.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Life goes on. The sane world deals with the fact that self-confessed Muslim extremists attacked the US in 2001.
Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 96528 responses
67% Yes.
27% No.
5.4% I'm not sure.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.
"Lightly damaged" You know how damaged it was because some guy in a trailer park said so.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.
"Lightly damaged" You know how damaged it was because some guy in a trailer park said so.
Nope, I know how damaged it was because that's what the photos show.
Only you would continue to dismiss photographic proof.
Originally posted by mmiichael
In fact a complex forensic by structural engineers reported in STRUCTURE magazine
.The National Construction Safety Team Act will ensure that the mishandled evidence and in-fighting that hobbled FEMA’s World Trade Center investigation never happens again.
"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.