Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 *NEW INFO*

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 NEW *INFO*

www.infowars.com

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffr

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 23-4-2010 by Vinveezy]

Here is the video where Silverstein says he pulled building 7


Now, Their is such a massive amount of evidence proving that we where lied to on 911. Dr. Steven E Jones (The father of Cold Fission Technology) Tested samples taken from Ground zero and found a substance called "Nana-Thermate" A military grade explosive. It was found in abundance in at ground zero




That above video exposes free fall in building 7.

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Again with the "TRUTHER MOVEMENT" why does everything need to be so pejorative. As if all the questions asked about 9/11 automaticly fall in to a category and label.

This is very touchy, society doesnt like conspiracies, so they label everything that doesnt agree with it. I mean there is nothing wrong in wanting the truth about what happened on 9/11. Can you imagine all the famillies that never got any anwser whatsoever on their lost loved ones.

And furthermore, tell me that your governement can be trusted with anything. They never tell the truth. Nothing they do is ever even accountable. And yet those seeking the truth are labeled TRUTHERS.... If you want to label it something, label it something cool. Soldiers of truth would sound much better....

Interesting world we live in....

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


I on the other hand think that 9/11 is the key to unlock averages joe's mind
and im thankfull to all Truthers for thier work.

What this sounds like to me is that maybe explosives had already been pre-planted in the building. Could possibly have been done by the government agencies occupying the building so that if any type of terrorist or other situation had arisen, they could take the building out.

Either way, this just gives confirmation of Larry's conversation where he says:

"There's been such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

So Larry is now confirmed to have asked to bring the building down with explosives and then admits to someone making that decision. That can only mean the building was pre-rigged before 9/11. One can speculate that WTC 7 was rigged specifically for 9/11 or rigged for some other unforeseen scenario. Either way, the pieces are coming together.

And for you debunkers that will attempt to say that Larry was talking about pulling out the firefighters, that's not what he said. He said pull "it". "IT" means the building. Larry did not say "pull the firefighters", "pull them", "pull back". He said pull the building (it).

If fire could do this, controlled demolition companies would be using fire. But they don't, they use explosives:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by Vinveezy

Here is the video where Silverstein says he pulled building 7...

And, yet again, the misunderstanding is being repeated.

This seems to be a never-ending canard, and it keeps fooling people, BECAUSE of the garbage being spread and repeated by junk sites like "InfoWars".

Watch Silverstein over, and over...until it sinks in what he actually means, by the term "pull it".

(Hint: He's not tallking about controlled demolition).

"InfoWars" keeps doing this, taking snippents out of context, and some people keep falling for it.

Critical thinking, and a more thorough understanding of ALL events, in context, will lead to better comprehension.

Oh, and the "Dr." Steven Jones nonsense? One only has to peruse any of the many threads on that subject, right here at ATS.

Steven Jones' methods do not stand up to peer review scrutiny (but, of course, some websites with certain agendas don't want that knowledge revealed. They are VERY selective, and spin as needed...)

I would wager that the PTB wishes Silverstein would just shut up. LOL this guys gives more ammo for a conspiracy on that day than any anyone else.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by LDragonFire]

reply to post by Vinveezy


I think that pound of flesh is coming.

Little by little the truth is leaking out.

Obama would be reelected if it can be shown that the GWB and his gang of Republicans where involved.

I know the Democrats are just as dirty but imagine this:

Obama is dragging in the polls, his popularity is down because of all that has happened in the past 2 years and suddenly indictments start coming down on an secret investigation 3 years in the making.

It turns out those crazy Truthers were not so wrong after all and Bush is put on a "trial" that results in a fake hanging (he just retires to his estate in Uruguay) and Obama is a hero again.

Tea Party republican brown noses must not only hang their heads in shame but must shut their mouths as well since nobody wants to
associated with the party of treason.

Tea Party will be D.O.A, and I don’t give a flying Focker about it, they supported the people that killed my friends.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


This is aonly an assumption, and it cuts to the crux of the issue:

And for you debunkers that will attempt to say that Larry was talking about pulling out the firefighters, that's not what he said. He said pull "it". "IT" means the building.

"IT" could have easily meant the "firefighting efforts". "IT"....are you going to do "IT"?


This is what is called "context". "Such a huge loss of life".

What did that mean? Why, the collapse of the Twin Towers, of course. He (Silverstein) was being warned by those on site of the danger that WTC 7, after its debris impact damage, and subsequent fires, could collapse.

They knew that many FFs were trapped inside the Tower that collapsed so unexpectedly. They didn't want any FFs near #7. They already knew that everyone was out. Fighting the fires became lass important than protecting, and preventing, any more deaths.


For all of the (and I expect this to come up, eventually) claims about "No steel building has ever collapsed"...etc. Ad nauseum.

I wonder what any construction and design engineers on ATS think about the oil rig off the coust of Louisiana. I heard this morning that it just sank.

Oil rigs. In the ocean. Built from steel, I would imagine? Yes?

Fire, uncontrolled, burning and fed by diesel products, and crude oil. WTC 7 fires fed by diesel fuel.

Oil rig, made of steel, 'collapses'...right? Why else would it sink?

I'd like to learn more about this conundrum.

reply to post by LDragonFire


especially when it came out that he got 2billion in insurance money (1 for each tower) just a few weeks after he insured the buildings against the same kind of incident that happened that day
So basically he was the sole benefactor from the death of 3000 people.

Way to go Larry S.

Mike Singh was on the same path as you when his thread about the 9/11 was labeled a hoax. Man I miss that guy, his theories really made you think hard about the dis-info.

The whole "pull it" comment is never going to go away. To me "it" means the building, to others it means the firefighters. Nothing will convince either "side" any differently. No doubt this thread will go around and around like the many others before it.

reply to post by Curio


If you consider that this building was full of black-ops evidence (receipts and bills, tax files etc.) it would be pretty convenient to make this whole # dissappear, by collapsing the building. They just needed a reason so they instantly created the myth of the "severly damaged" WTC7, that had to be pulled. All evidence gone in an instant.

So "it" pretty much meant the building. (thats my deeply biased opinion)

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
reply to post by Curio

 

If you consider that this building was full of black-ops evidence (receipts and bills, tax files etc.) it would be pretty convenient to make this whole # dissappear, by collapsing the building. They just needed a reason so they instantly created the myth of the "severly damaged" WTC7, that had to be pulled. All evidence gone in an instant.

So "it" pretty much meant the building. (thats my deeply biased opinion)

I agree. A-lot of important Tax information and money documentation was lost. Then what was lost may never be found and they get paid for it, Wow, what a great way to make money....

People who can't see the cover-up now, will never see it, or is a Miss-info agent, like some people I see on the 9/11 threads.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Such a huge loss of life".

What did that mean? Why, the collapse of the Twin Towers, of course. He (Silverstein) was being warned by those on site of the danger that WTC 7, after its debris impact damage, and subsequent fires, could collapse.

Exactly. Instead of the building collapsing unexpectedly and unpredictably, "they made that decision to pull" and had the building controllably brought down.

That's the whole point of this thread. That Larry was trying to get permission to have the building brought down with explosives. Somebody made that decision. That would also mean the explosives were already in there somehow.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I wonder what any construction and design engineers on ATS think about the oil rig off the coust of Louisiana. I heard this morning that it just sank.

Oil rigs. In the ocean. Built from steel, I would imagine? Yes?

Of course somebody would bring this up. It sank 48 hours after the explosion and subsequent fires. 48 hours. This wasn't an office fire in an enclosed building with less oxygen. This was a fire fueled by oil and open air.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
WTC 7 fires fed by diesel fuel.

This claim is either deliberate and blatant dishonesty, or you didn't read the NIST WTC 7 report which specifically states that the diesel fuel did not fuel the fires that brought WTC 7 down. NIST says that regular office fires brought WTC 7 down. You should go read the report.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Diesel fuel, and WTC #7 is still up for grabs, (what about the reports of the diesel tanks, and pressurized lines, in the building? But, you cited NIST....seems, if NIST reports something that is favored, then it is used?).... but let's say the fuel source for the fires was the office furnishings.

(BTW, it would be a good idea to look into NIST some more. Everyone likes to throw horse dung at them, but maybe they were in over their heads, a bit? Political pressures....NOT to "cover-up", don't take this wrong way. BUT, just to "hurry-up" and finish. Mistakes are bound to be made, careers hang in the balance, egos to protect, that sort of thing...)

Nevertheless, there WAS substantial damage inflicted, and too many "Truth" sites neglect to remind people of that, as it's inconvenient to their "story".

That would also mean the explosives were already in there somehow.

Again...YOU have researched this a great deal more than I, so indulge, please.

You said explosives "...in there somehow". A bit vague. It really amounts, then, to only an opinion. Short on facts, though.

So, if still indulging, I ask these questions, because the LOGIC still escapes me:

The building was burning. Many experts, viewing from outside, saw signs of structural problems developing, to indicate a risk of collapse.

Since it was already burning, the contents were bound to be totally destroyed, and building gutted (like that hotel in...where was it, China?)

WHY "demo" it?? IF the intent was to "destroy files" (Which, BTW, I saw a source -- can't find it atm -- that said MOST files were recovered, from back-up hard drives, off site, and from court records).

Also, given its location, there was certainly no guarantee that Tower 1 debris would impact WTC 7, and without that as a reason, there was no reason for the fires in the first place, and certainly no valid excuse to "demo" it.

(OK...what was that? Four total. Maybe only three, as some cross-over...)


I see this as too much "after-the-fact" supposition, and it never seems to end, just gets recycled (well...tribute to "Earth Day", maybe...)


Ya know, the best thing I've done lately is start checking out my local libraries. The Internet is handy, no doubt, but it is infected with very much disease....BAD information. Everyone knows, once ANYTHING is written into cyberspace, it never goes away...lies, truth, or just misunderstandings.

Just go to a library, and look for the many, many books about 9/11, especially as pertains to NYC.

Quite a few journalists were there, from day ONE....photo-journalists too, with some stunning photographs you NEVER see on the Internet. Copyrights, and so forth get in the way of that....

THIS IS WHY the Internet is not supposed to be the sole source of "information"!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Nevertheless, there WAS substantial damage inflicted, and too many "Truth" sites neglect to remind people of that, as it's inconvenient to their "story".

And since you haven't read any of the NIST reports, then it's natural you would make such a claim as above. Allow me to quote NIST, again:

"while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

In other words, the damage sustained to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 was structurally insignificant.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf9a4c7ba108.jpg[/atsimg]


Nope, no significant structural damage there. In fact, most of the south face is intact.

Great stuff TS. Glad you posted this. I can't believe how obvious it is that 9/11 was a false flag black op. It is almost patronizing how badly done the black op was. How lazy they were. They just left copious amounts of evidence everywhere scarier still is that mainstream journalists have no conscience and continue to aid in the cover up.

BIG FAT STAR AND FLAG for you sir

All of it REEKS of conspiracy, WHO...tell me WHO takes out a HUGE insurance policy against *specific* events weeks before such events occur, the one who's aware of what could happen!

That's the ONE thing I love about GREED, it causes you in your rush to attain more, to lose everything else you have while you're chasin after the next big score. Poor misguided fool, MONEY cannot, will not, nor has it ever meant ANYTHING!

I have but one regret in life, that I was once on an island with no way out, I called on years of training, established shelter, found water and food...my mistake...being RESCUED!....

While I was only on that island just shy of a week, I learned something that decades of 'normal' life in the city had not taught me...money is not everything, in fact it's nothing! Even if I had all the money in the world, under the circumstance of being stranded...it would not have made a bit of difference.

I enjoyed the peace, nature and for once in my life I was truly HAPPY! You talk about stress relief, that had to be the BEST thing there is in the world for it. I see some terrible pains in the time to come where we all are pulled from our belief that MONEY is what matters, into an existence where PEOPLE are what matters.

Those I see failing are the ones who absolutely cannot live their lives without money, lusting after it amassing it like some life saving thing that really holds no meaning whatsoever. They will be the ones without understanding and certainly will perish, for those 'lesser' people who through their lives had little or no money, they will know how to truly survive and prosper.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Vinveezy

 

Here is the video where Silverstein says he pulled building 7...

And, yet again, the misunderstanding is being repeated.

This seems to be a never-ending canard, and it keeps fooling people, BECAUSE of the garbage being spread and repeated by junk sites like "InfoWars".

Watch Silverstein over, and over...until it sinks in what he actually means, by the term "pull it".

(Hint: He's not tallking about controlled demolition).

"InfoWars" keeps doing this, taking snippents out of context, and some people keep falling for it.

No reason to shoot the messenger, they were just reporting about a piece on FoxNews.

The article in the OP is about a Fox News journalist, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was at ground zero, stating that he heard that Silverstien was talking to the insurance company about controlled demolition. This has never been reported before. From the horse's mouth:

I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

FoxNews

How do you explain Shapiro's statement and with that in mind, what do you think Silverstein actually meant by, "pull it" ?