Is there any truth in this post?

reply to post by Cassius666

So which facts show it was not a conspiracy?

All of them. The real facts. Not the well known conspira-facts, like molten steel, nanothermite, Israeli directives to clear the building, etc.

We have unique never before never again events for which an explanation was given that had a chance borderlining on the impossible to occour not to mention that the explanations provided were full of holes.

Now wait - are you saying that hijackings and terrorism are unique events that never happened before?

The people who lucked out were among the supposed target demografic of islamist radicals, to which the Silversteinfamily and friends belong along with most Israelis I presume, who through lucky and coincidence all survived the attack.

So you think the hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon just to get Israelis? Wow.

An Israeli firm moved out days before the attack breaking their lease paying a fine.

Sounds really, really non-suspicious to me. If they new there was going to be an attack or event that was going to destroy the building then why move out and particularly WHY PAY A FINE??? If you know the building is going to be destroyed - THEN YOU JUST DON"T SHOW UP!

On the day of the attack Israelis employees of an Israeli firm were warned from Israel using an Israeli Service that allows to forward messages in your phonelist discriminating by nationality (if you entered it in the contact details of course). So the only people who had foreknowledge this far were Israeli.

Foreknowledge of what exactly?

Of course they did not warn their non Israeli peers. I do not know of any muslims who cheated death on that day, because of forewknowledge. After the dust Settles, Larry is 7 billion Dollar richer only 7 weeks after leasing the WTC, the first time it is in private hands. The attacks have been exploited by the administration to start 2 wars and pass acts that nullify the constitution, but that has been downplayed as a convenient excuse.

Wow - there are just so many conspira-facts in there its hard to know where to begin! You have some kind of accounting evidence that Larry is 7 billion dollars ahead of the game? Don't bother - I know you don't, unless of course its another collection of conspira-facts. How do you know that the Israelis that were warned didn't warn anyone else? Have you spoken to everyone who was not at the World Trade Center that day?

The NIST report that was not composed untill 6 years after the attack did not test for explosives or accelerants, because nobody heard them apparently.

God forbid they took their time and did it right. Also, because nobody heard them, saw them, smelled them or presented any evidence at any time that would indicate their use. Unless you happen to be of the ilk that holds the ever popular belief that all loud noises are the result of control demolition.

Thousands of professionals question the goverment sponsored report

Another very popular conspira-fact. No they don't. Professionals are represent and speak, en masse, through recognized professional organizations, none of these, in this country or abroad has question the report as to base cause and effect.

and through means of indipendent research traces of explosives and thermite have been found,

No, they really haven't. That wasn't independent research - that was a sloppy exercise in forgone conclusions conducted by a couple of confidence men trying to start a second career in selling conspiracies to the weak minded.

which means if the goverment sponsored commissions did not outright lie,

They didn't.

they were very negligent in their research,

They weren't.

which produces results, that have not been peer reviewed

Please try and get a better understanding of "peer review" I think you suffer under the misconception that everything is either peer reviewed or its incorrect.

and by their own admission are merely a report and not a scientific paper, which claims to present conclusive results obtained through the application of the scientific method.

It does.

Now Id like to hear why somebody would think we have not been lied to.

Oh, I think you've been lied to, I just don't think we agree about who is doing the lying.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So I will ask again; was Silverstein's wife involved in the coverup or not?

How would I know? I haven't interviewed her yet.

First of all, there are ways to establish an alibi using psychology.

Sometime around the first week in Sept.
Larry talking with his wife.
LS: I really should get this looked at.
LW: Yes honey, you should.
LS: I could probably get some time off the week following next. I dont think I have much on the table for Monday. But Ill have to check. I probably have a meeting in the afternoon though.
LW: Ill make the appointment for the morning, if theres an opening.

Fast forward to day of the attack:
LS: I really should go in this morning, there is some stuff I could handle.
(Being the loving and caring wife she is responds like this)
LW: No. No. No. You need to get this looked at. Ill make you breakfast, you can go to the doctor and you'll be back to work in time to do everything you have to do.

This way, he has an alibi of his wife making the doctors appointment, and making him go the day of, that she would not ever say wasn't true.
Im not saying this is how it happened, but this is just one way to form an alibi, without an innocent party knowing that their helping cover something up.

I do this all the time with my girlfriend to get out of doing something.
Plant a seed and let them run with it. Act like its something I'd really not want to do, and have them make me...all while doing what I want to do and getting an I.O.U from her.
Its quite simple.

reply to post by DIDtm


Why does he need an alibi, if, as is being portrayed, he was an "inside man' and new the time and date of the attacks, why not just go into work and be in the lobby, between buildings, or across the street for a meeting as he often was anyway? Why all the elaborate ruse just not to be in the office?

reply to post by hooper


Really? You have to ask that question?

If you know a crime is going to happen, would you want you or your children around said crime at all?
If your supposed to be in the exact place that the crime is going to happen, wouldnt you want an alibi of where you actually were, since you werent there?

Again..this is all conjecture.
Its just one more piece of many coincidences on that day.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So I will ask again; was Silverstein's wife involved in the coverup or not?

How would I know? I haven't interviewed her yet.

Then you've got a problem. If you have no proof Silverstein's wife is making the story up to protect her husband and/or going along with a cover story someone else concocted, then you're simply making asinine accusations against an innocent person without evidence. It necessarily means Silverstein really did need to go to the doctor at the request of his wife in a freak chance occurrance, and the conspiracy mongors are just using this whole bit to drum up, "isn't THAT a coincidence (wink wink)" innuendo dropping. Silverstein can't be involved without his wife being involved. It's as simple as that.

This is why I don't subscribe to these conspiracy stories. You simply can't just cherry pick one or two details and then bury your head in the sand to hide from everything else. If you're insisting one thing is true, it necessarily means a bunch of OTHER things need to be true.

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by hooper

 

Really? You have to ask that question?

If you know a crime is going to happen, would you want you or your children around said crime at all?
If your supposed to be in the exact place that the crime is going to happen, wouldnt you want an alibi of where you actually were, since you werent there?

Again..this is all conjecture.
Its just one more piece of many coincidences on that day.

Where is the coincidence? Well the coincidence is a result of combining specualtion with conspira-facts. Larry was ALMOST always in the building every WORKING day. Which means he was not in the building every day. In fact he was in the building only about 2/3 of the days per year. Which means on any given day of the year there is about a 1 chance in 3 that he WON'T be in the building. Listening to the conspiracist you would think that the guy is a hermit living day and night in the towers having only ventured out one day in the last twenty years.

Its interesting to see which threads the 911 deniers care about. Silverstein explosives thermite, they are all over these threads, when somebody makes a thread of laserbeams or nuclear devices and what not they are absent, but this trinity seems to be very important to them.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

So which facts show it was not a conspiracy?

All of them. The real facts. Not the well known conspira-facts, like molten steel, nanothermite, Israeli directives to clear the building, etc.

We have unique never before never again events for which an explanation was given that had a chance borderlining on the impossible to occour not to mention that the explanations provided were full of holes.

Now wait - are you saying that hijackings and terrorism are unique events that never happened before?

The people who lucked out were among the supposed target demografic of islamist radicals, to which the Silversteinfamily and friends belong along with most Israelis I presume, who through lucky and coincidence all survived the attack.

So you think the hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon just to get Israelis? Wow.

An Israeli firm moved out days before the attack breaking their lease paying a fine.

Sounds really, really non-suspicious to me. If they new there was going to be an attack or event that was going to destroy the building then why move out and particularly WHY PAY A FINE??? If you know the building is going to be destroyed - THEN YOU JUST DON"T SHOW UP!

On the day of the attack Israelis employees of an Israeli firm were warned from Israel using an Israeli Service that allows to forward messages in your phonelist discriminating by nationality (if you entered it in the contact details of course). So the only people who had foreknowledge this far were Israeli.

Foreknowledge of what exactly?

Of course they did not warn their non Israeli peers. I do not know of any muslims who cheated death on that day, because of forewknowledge. After the dust Settles, Larry is 7 billion Dollar richer only 7 weeks after leasing the WTC, the first time it is in private hands. The attacks have been exploited by the administration to start 2 wars and pass acts that nullify the constitution, but that has been downplayed as a convenient excuse.

Wow - there are just so many conspira-facts in there its hard to know where to begin! You have some kind of accounting evidence that Larry is 7 billion dollars ahead of the game? Don't bother - I know you don't, unless of course its another collection of conspira-facts. How do you know that the Israelis that were warned didn't warn anyone else? Have you spoken to everyone who was not at the World Trade Center that day?

The NIST report that was not composed untill 6 years after the attack did not test for explosives or accelerants, because nobody heard them apparently.

God forbid they took their time and did it right. Also, because nobody heard them, saw them, smelled them or presented any evidence at any time that would indicate their use. Unless you happen to be of the ilk that holds the ever popular belief that all loud noises are the result of control demolition.

Thousands of professionals question the goverment sponsored report

Another very popular conspira-fact. No they don't. Professionals are represent and speak, en masse, through recognized professional organizations, none of these, in this country or abroad has question the report as to base cause and effect.

and through means of indipendent research traces of explosives and thermite have been found,

No, they really haven't. That wasn't independent research - that was a sloppy exercise in forgone conclusions conducted by a couple of confidence men trying to start a second career in selling conspiracies to the weak minded.

which means if the goverment sponsored commissions did not outright lie,

They didn't.

they were very negligent in their research,

They weren't.

which produces results, that have not been peer reviewed

Please try and get a better understanding of "peer review" I think you suffer under the misconception that everything is either peer reviewed or its incorrect.

and by their own admission are merely a report and not a scientific paper, which claims to present conclusive results obtained through the application of the scientific method.

It does.

Now Id like to hear why somebody would think we have not been lied to.

Oh, I think you've been lied to, I just don't think we agree about who is doing the lying.

So your reaction is to lie, about everything. I could go through each of your rebuttals and put "this is a lie" on top of it, but I think it can be summed up as you lied about everything, or, in some cases, you do not believe the people who were there when they say what they saw.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So I will ask again; was Silverstein's wife involved in the coverup or not?

How would I know? I haven't interviewed her yet.

Then you've got a problem. If you have no proof Silverstein's wife is making the story up to protect her husband and/or going along with a cover story someone else concocted, then you're simply making asinine accusations against an innocent person without evidence. It necessarily means Silverstein really did need to go to the doctor at the request of his wife in a freak chance occurrance, and the conspiracy mongors are just using this whole bit to drum up, "isn't THAT a coincidence (wink wink)" innuendo dropping. Silverstein can't be involved without his wife being involved. It's as simple as that.

This is why I don't subscribe to these conspiracy stories. You simply can't just cherry pick one or two details and then bury your head in the sand to hide from everything else. If you're insisting one thing is true, it necessarily means a bunch of OTHER things need to be true.

WRONG!
There are many ways that Larry could be involved and his wife is not. You apparently dont understand the term 'manipulation' or how to use it. Therefore YOU cannot drum up a theory of how this could be applicable.
But Ill say it again Dave.
WRONG!

reply to post by Cassius666


Common sense tells that the story is exaggerrative (if not even false). Silverstein is probably somewhat busy businessman who cannot always be in New York, so there's probably plenty of morning in his life, when he eats his breakfast elsewhere. Lot of "probablys" eh? Well probably I don't know nothing about Lucky's life

Though I am not saying that he might not be fraudulent and malicious man. Quite likely he knew something.

-v

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by hooper

 

So which facts show it was not a conspiracy? We have unique never before never again events for which an explanation was given that had a chance borderlining on the impossible to occour not to mention that the explanations provided were full of holes.

You just don't get it. There isn't simply just a 9/11 conspiracy theory. There is a blizzard of 9/11 conspiracy theories and most of them contradict each other. Person A thinks there were secret controlled demolitions in the towers. Person B thinks there were lasers from outer space. Person C thinks there were nukes in the basement. Person D thinks the planes were all holograms. Person E thinks it was a genuine terrorist attack and the gov't allowed it to happen. Person F thinks the gov't staged the whole thing. Person G thinks it was staged by Israel. Person H thinks it was staged by secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists. Occasionally I see person I claim that UFOs were involved. And so on and so forth.

You are not keeping track. For A there is evidence, like traces of thermite and explosives. At this point an expert would have to debunk the papers composed by experts. B has been debunked by truthers, not by the deniers who were absent on those threads. C has been debunked by truthers, not by deniers who were absent on those threads. D has been debunked by truthers, not by deniers, who were absent on those threads. The numeroligy is undeniable, but so far there is no conclusion on wether it is coincidence, or not and if it is not coincidence there is no conclusion on who it can be attribuited to and the NIST report has been debunked by numerous experts.

Sooo just like the official conspiracy theory has been debunked by truthers, many of the other conspiracy theories have been debunked by truthers, by pointing out that there was no radiation, that would point to the use of nukes for example.

However there arent just theories, there are cold hard facts too, like the fact that thermite has been found.

And finally, I wonder why so many of the 911 deniers are only active on certain threads, neither you nor hooper, nor any of the other 911 deniers seem to have a problem if somebody on here thinks that it were laserbeams from outer space that took out the tower. But as soon as a thread is about explosives, thermite, or Israelis or somebody like Silverstein you are all all over the thread. Why do you feel the need to convince us there were no explosives, but do not feel the need to convince us there were no laserbeams.

Why do so many get litigious, downright hostile when the talk is about explosives and Israelis? Then you spare no effort, post after post bam bam bam bam and your friends chime in bam bam bam putting in a lot of effort a lot of effort. But if somebody makes a post about ufos you are all absent, you have no problem if somebody thinks it were ufos, you just observe the thread and when somebody opens a thread about a scientist that composed a paper that concludes thermite has been found in the residues of the WTC you are ALL back in force reminding us that somebody sometime made a post about UFOs and by that logic the paper about thermite is debunked.

Originally posted by hooper

Where is the coincidence? Well the coincidence is a result of combining specualtion with conspira-facts. Larry was ALMOST always in the building every WORKING day. Which means he was not in the building every day. In fact he was in the building only about 2/3 of the days per year. Which means on any given day of the year there is about a 1 chance in 3 that he WON'T be in the building. Listening to the conspiracist you would think that the guy is a hermit living day and night in the towers having only ventured out one day in the last twenty years.

I will write this real slow, so read it real slow.
The coincidence is.....(start reading slow) Larry and his daughter, whom have had breakfast there every working day (except July 26)since he acquired the lease DID NOT (Im emphasizing so you read it again) have breakfast there that morning. So here is the coincidence, She not only did not have breakfast before work, she was running late for work PERIOD.
AND
Larry had a doctors appointment and was NOT there the morning of the attacks. Of which he was there every day (except July 26)since he acquired the lease.

And it wasnt 2/3rds of the time. QUIT MAKING UP NUMBERS.
It was EVERY DAY except July 26 and Sept 11.
Note that July 26 is the day he took control of the lease, although he signed it on July 24.
So in fact....Sept 11 was the first and only day he did NOT have breakfast.
COINCIDENCE = ONLY DAY

Try again....you'll presumably fail again, but try again if you wish.

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Common sense tells that the story is exaggerrative (if not even false). Silverstein is probably somewhat busy businessman who cannot always be in New York, so there's probably plenty of morning in his life, when he eats his breakfast elsewhere. Lot of "probablys" eh? Well probably I don't know nothing about Lucky's life

Though I am not saying that he might not be fraudulent and malicious man. Quite likely he knew something.

-v

edit on 21-12-2010 by v01i0 because: 2345

Well in this case common sense eludes you.
He was always in New York. There was one morning (July 26 - the day he took control the WTC lease) that he DID NOT have breakfast at the restaurant, since he signed the lease (July 24)
NO PROBABLY'S.
You just made up the 'probably's' because you did NOT want to investigate you claims. Which a interview could be found with LS regarding this with a simple Google search.

Okay to sum it up, since he signed the lease he spent his morning atop the WTC every single day except for 911.
And is family ran late on that day to make it to the wtc

and some of his friends/partners either ran late or left early on that day.
And 3 high rise steel frame buildings collapsed on that day.

Its all coincidence.

reply to post by Cassius666


Those who did not show up for work that day? Rubbish!

However I do know Zim Shipping (a very large international shipping organistation owned by Israelis) pulled out of the WTC 4 months earlier and signed a lease with another building some streets away from the WTC.

The folks over at Stormfront would have been proud of the title of the post the OP linked to. If it's not blatantly obvious why Larry Silverstein is being targetted, people are either ignoring it or agreeing with it

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Those who did not show up for work that day? Rubbish!

However I do know Zim Shipping (a very large international shipping organistation owned by Israelis) pulled out of the WTC 4 months earlier and signed a lease with another building some streets away from the WTC.

A few streets from the WTC? They moved to a custom-built facility in Norfolk, as part of a two-year "Go Forward Plan"

reply to post by GoodOlDave

reply to post by DIDtm


Okay fine.

You're right, I didn't investigate my claims. I don't have enough interest and time to spend digging on the matter. Common sense often fools me.

I guess that then he smells even more fishy.

-v

Originally posted by DIDtm
WRONG!
There are many ways that Larry could be involved and his wife is not. You apparently dont understand the term 'manipulation' or how to use it. Therefore YOU cannot drum up a theory of how this could be applicable.
But Ill say it again Dave.
WRONG!

Ah, what the heck, I'll follow you down this conspiracy rat hole of yours. Silverstein's wife not only made the appointment for her husband, but made him actually go to it. She's not simply a side participant to the event, she's the one who made the event happen.

If this is all some cover story for Silverstein then how on EARTH could Silverstein's wife be going along with it if she wasn't involved? Either Silverstein's wife knew what was up and she openly cooperated with creating a cover story for her husband, OR, the whole thing was made up and she as well as the doctor Silverstein went to are openly pretending that the fake story she knows is fake is actually true. So please, explain that one to me- Did the secret conspirators hypnotize her and plant false memories into her head, or something?

Remember, my position is that it's a simple stroke of luck and you conspiracy people are reading into it and hallucinating signs of secret conspiracies that really aren't there, and so far, despite your objections, my position is the one that makes the most sense.