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 Kang69
This is a rather new video, that many people have not seen.
Originally posted by LoonyConservative
Your right, this IS beating a dead horse.
Where is all the oil imports from Iraq? years later why are gas prices so high? You take a theory on WTC7 and turn it into Cheney bashing.
So no the evidence is not in my face.. if you look at the debris field WTC7 was covered in it, and was damaged . oh and some of that debris was on fire.. seems to me that the logical thing to do would be indeed to "pull it" instead of wasting more and more resources on a building that cant be saved, when those same resources could be used to help injured people etc.
There was nothing for Larry to gain by bringing 7 down... the lease for the WTC complex was for 1, 2, 4 and 5... Larry was involved with WTC 7 in that his company was the one that built it. but at the time of 2001 he only owned the leases to 1 2 4 and 5edit on 20-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)
A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion
Originally posted by Atlantien
Ok let's say Mr Silverstein did say "pull it" on that day, then who were the people that risked their lives to go into a building that was unsafe and which had floors burning for several hours, to set up explosives in the building so that they could demolish it? I am sure if you are going to pull a building, someone would have to first check the building out and then set explosives etc.
If no one went in to put explosives in the building and the building was imploded then how was it done unless it was done by remote?
The whole 9/11 thing leaves too many unanswered questions.
Originally posted by Kang69
This is a rather new video, that many people have not seen.