So Larry Silverstein *did* want WTC7 demolished on 9/11. Discuss.

This Shapiro guy is pretty unequivocal in his opinions. I rather like him.

“Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks

To dispute the conventional historical account [of 9/11] is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical

there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks

I found no evidence of any conspiracy other than the one hatched by Al Qaeda that was later confirmed by the 9/11 Commission

I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You say you like him, then post a substance-less, vitriolic rant.

Sounds about right to me.

Originally posted by thedman
If you look at top line of article it says "OPINION"

Not fact, opinion which is based heavily on hearsay.

Actually he says he was there that day and remembers clearly what he heard. See:

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.

This would go beyond "opinion" if not true, and would become "lying."

Who were the mythical Con-ED workers?

You've never heard of the Con Edison substation inside WTC7?

Now it's a myth?

I can't even tell who the "conspiracy theorists" are supposed to be anymore.

How did they happen to overhear Silverstein with all the ambient noise?

Did anyone confirm that Silverstein was even there?

Funny thing about opinions they are like a rectum in that everyone has one and usually full of crap....

Best question of all.... How would I know?

Think about this genius, I'm reading the same freaking article you are.

If you have additional questions, contact the guy who wrote it.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by bsbray11

 

It is you who are avoiding the issue

How does one demolish a 47 story building in 2 hours ?

Much less in front of numerous cameras.....

You posted that Silverstein CALLED HIS INSURERS

As I pointed out such cases often end up in years of litagation


Even if Silverstein insurers said go ahead

HOW YOU DO DEMOLISH A SKYSCRAPER IN 2 HOURS!

That's right, how do you? Now go forth and try to answer your own question.

Theories include:

-Building was already wired for demolition - as many believe the 2 towers were as evidenced by the nano-thermite particles found on-site.
-Building was wired on-site and due to existing damage did not require the full compliment of demolition charges.
-Building was "pulled" based on new technology that is implemented quickly and does not rely solely on cutter charges.
-Design and architecture of building 7 did not require anything other than demolition of main/core shaft to fell.

I could go on and on here. The point is that simply because you say it is impossible does NOT make it impossible.

reply to post by bsbray11


I just posted excerpts from his article. An article on which you are - somewhat weirdly - basing the premise of this thread.

Is this what it's come to? Underwhelming "revelations" from obscure online pieces, the authors of which think you're nuts?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by bsbray11


Except of course he hasn't "validated something you've been saying for years".

Your claim is that this third-hand report of a conversation means that when Silverstein spoke of "pulling" he must have meant the building. This can only be logical if you really, really want it to be true. And boy, you really, really want it to be true, don't you?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Except of course he hasn't "validated something you've been saying for years".

You forgot the fact that Larry Silverstein did want to demolish WTC7.

Before this article, that was not established, though the brighter amongst us were able to interpret as much from his "pull it" quote, whether or not you think that was a valid way to reach this conclusion.

Your claim is that this third-hand report of a conversation means that when Silverstein spoke of "pulling" he must have meant the building.

No, it's that he wanted to demolish the building. That is the claim that has been verified by this article.

Larry Silverstein, DID want to demolish WTC7. Before this article -- "no evidence" you would say. Now -- read the freaking article.

And boy, you really, really want it to be true, don't you?

You really, really don't, don't you?

Originally posted by bsbray11
You forgot the fact that Larry Silverstein did want to demolish WTC7.

Before this article, that was not established, though the brighter amongst us were able to interpret as much from his "pull it" quote, whether or not you think that was a valid way to reach this conclusion.

Okay. So you trust the guy writing the article? You think he's a worthwhile source? Despite his views elsewhere - notably of people who share your views - and the fact that his report is pretty vague.

Furthermore you consider it "proven" now. To the point of it being a "fact".

If that's your standard of evidence required for "proof" then it's worrying that you're amongst the "brighter" amongst us.

Before this article -- "no evidence" you would say. Now -- read the freaking article.

I "would say"? You don't know that. You're employing a straw man to make it look as though you're discovered something particularly revelatory.

For you this is about satisfying some sort of animosity with your interlocutors, particularly with "debunkers", about gaining the upper hand in some way. Why else would you elevate a minor online article to such prominence? Why else would you try so desperately to make it say something it doesn't?

You really, really don't, don't you?

QED.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. So you trust the guy writing the article? You think he's a worthwhile source? Despite his views elsewhere - notably of people who share your views - and the fact that his report is pretty vague.

Yeah, this is so much different than all of Fox's other articles.

Furthermore you consider it "proven" now. To the point of it being a "fact".

If that's your standard of evidence required for "proof" then it's worrying that you're amongst the "brighter" amongst us.

Aww you're just jealous because he slips up and verifies something we've been saying instead of getting away with another worthless vitriolic rant that any diseased rat could type up.

Even now you can't even make up your mind about whether or not you should even believe what the guy remembers, even though you apparently love his miserable rant you posted above.

I'm not here to feed adolescent egos. I've made my point. Enjoy your next rant, it's on the house.


Edit to add -- Larry Silverstein wanted to demolish (pull) WTC7! Now confirmed. Lots of people on the ground knew about it, just take the word of your own beloved filth-mouth!

[edit on 11-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why are all your stupid questions directed to me? Since when is it my duty to babysit you and answer all your nagging questions?

The title of YOUR OP, truther, is what?

So Larry Silverstein *did* want WTC7 demolished on 9/11. Discuss

The questions I ask ARE in fact, relevant. Silverstein was not even at ground zero on 911.

The journalist gives ZERO names and offers nothing but hearsay.

DEAL WITH IT!


You started this thread asking us all to discuss and you don't even have you facts straight.

Grow up.

Seems I struck a nerve with you. Sorry, Brian.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why are all your stupid questions directed to me? Since when is it my duty to babysit you and answer all your nagging questions?

The title of YOUR OP, truther, is what?

The title of this thread, brownshirt, is what the article says.

If you have issues with the credibility of the guy who wrote it, email him, don't cry and whine to me, because you should already know that I don't know the guy.

The questions I ask ARE in fact, relevant. Silverstein was not even at ground zero on 911.

The article doesn't say he was, it says he was on the phone.

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
...
I was there.

I know what happened

www.foxnews.com...

The journalist gives ZERO names and offers nothing but hearsay.

DEAL WITH IT!

See how you react when you are unable to cope with such a simple statement?

It is no more or less verified than most everything else Fox or any other MSM reports. It is no less verified than the stupid excuses you yourself argue here! But you can't stand the fact that this article proves we were right, and Silverstein did want that building demolished, and not only that, but people on the ground were talking about it. People who were there.

You started this thread asking us all to discuss and you don't even have you facts straight.

You trying to smear his credibility based on nothing doesn't amount to not having my facts straight. Sorry.

Grow up.

Seems I struck a nerve with you. Sorry, Brian.

Is this CameronFox/ImaPepper again? What was that moderator policy about trolls coming back under multiple new accounts? Do I smell another banning in the air?



[edit on 11-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you have issues with the credibility of the guy who wrote it, email him, don't cry and whine to me, because you should already know that I don't know the guy.

You posted the title. You said discuss. Now, please stop stalling and answer the question.

Was what he reported indeed factual or was it hearsay.

The article doesn't say he was, it says he was on the phone.

u

Really.... and please thrill me.... you are buying this?? You call US sheeple?

Is this CameronFox/ImaPepper again? What was that moderator policy about trolls coming back under multiple new accounts? Do I smell another banning in the air?

Never heard of them.

I will remind everyone one more time before someone gets Banned..

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

The 9/11 forum is a volatile forum. People have passionate feelings on this topic. So much so that the Terms and Conditions of Use are ignored. ATS has attempted to curtail this trend in the past:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It didn't work. There was ignorant childishness displayed in that thread that was there to let the posters know that decorum on the board is necessary. Seeing as some members that post in this forum do not or will not get the concept that Courtesy is Mandatory the staff has discussed this blight on the board and has come to the conclusion that we will have to enact a "zero tolerance" policy in this forum.

If you post and insult you will be post banned(pb'd) or perma banned. If you troll you will be pb'd or perma banned. Some will think, "that's OK, I'll do what I want and just reregister if I get banned." Let it be known that the staff is VERY good at detecting past banned members and those accounts WILL be terminated. Is it not easier to just abide to the T&C?

Zero tolerance folks. Post inside the T&C, which you agreed to upon registering to ATS or you WILL face actions against your account. This is not open to debate. Most 9/11 posters will probably welcome this action. If you do not, that's not our issue, it's yours. As already said, you agreed to the T&C upon registration. It's unfortunate that this action had to be implemented but this forum WILL regain ATS standards.

The next insult gets a Post Ban Time Out or a Banning of their account.

No one is kidding here people!

Semper

Originally posted by Six Sigma
You posted the title. You said discuss. Now, please stop stalling and answer the question.

Was what he reported indeed factual or was it hearsay.

According to what he said, it's factual. He says he was there, he knows what he heard, what he saw. Get over it.

For me to tell you that what he says is true, would be hearsay, because I only go by what he wrote. He says he is perfectly confident in what he remembers. NYPD officers and Con Edison workers told him this. The journalist says he experienced this first-hand, and it is a fact. It is his testimony to the facts of what happened.

You want me to call him a liar? I don't see any reason to? I thought it was your job to sling mud and make it personal whenever you don't like what somebody says? That's why I say, address your concerns to him, not me, if you want to tell him he made it all up. He wrote it.

The article doesn't say he was, it says he was on the phone.

Really.... and please thrill me.... you are buying this?? You call US sheeple?

Are you serious? Larry already said himself that he was on the phone with people in Manhattan that day, in the "Rebuilding America" DVD. Remember? Why do you think NYPD officers would make this up? Why do you think the guy in the article, WHO WAS THERE, and while trash-talking "truthers," would just MAKE UP the fact that they were talking about demolishing the building?? How does that make sense to you??

Is this CameronFox/ImaPepper again? What was that moderator policy about trolls coming back under multiple new accounts? Do I smell another banning in the air?

Never heard of them.

Riiight.... Well I'll be sure to point it out to the people who monitor IP addresses and all that here.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by bsbray11]

Come on guys. Who can deny this now? The way the building fell, what Silverstein said, what we now know with regards to him actually wanting to destroy the building, the guys on video telling people to watch the building, that its coming down, the list just goes on. I haven't even got into the CIA and other 'secret' things being in the building.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This Shapiro guy is pretty unequivocal in his opinions. I rather like him.

“Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks

To dispute the conventional historical account [of 9/11] is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical

there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks

I found no evidence of any conspiracy other than the one hatched by Al Qaeda that was later confirmed by the 9/11 Commission

I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies

LMAO-

Yet another truther classic case of them thinking that they're supplying some type of source that backs their claim of a need for "another investigation", only to have it blow up in their face when the person quoted clearly thinks they're loony.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
LMAO-

Yet another truther classic case of them thinking that they're supplying some type of source that backs their claim of a need for "another investigation", only to have it blow up in their face when the person quoted clearly thinks they're loony.

It's not 'blowing up in my face' when I knew he was trash-talking us the first time I read the article.

There is a difference between his trash-talking, though, and what he recollects as in fact happening. I realize this still hasn't completely sank in for you. I'll give it a few months or years, no pressure.

reply to post by bsbray11


SO was the guy reporting heresay?

Yes or no?