Hollywood to Challenge Official Version of 9/11: Sheen, Asner and Harrelson to Star in Film.

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


Skuzzle, he was forced to take out the insurance by his financiers. As for the idea he made bank on it, he has been paying his 120 million a year in rent to the PA for land not making a dime in income for him. Not to mention the insurance proceeds are not going to come close to cover the rebuild. So, how was this a good thing for him again?

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
he was a property developer and has alot of experience in the field and no doubt he knew how to demolish a building.

Why do you think a property developer was also a demolition expert?

He had the right connections to pull off such a task

What, you think the FDNY did it for him?

Did you actually stop to think about the nonsense you posted?

reply to post by hellobruce


i never mentioned the fdny?, anyway all i mean is that he probably knew people who could do it, check the vid below


also to rephrase i meant he knew people who were demolition experts not him personally

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
he was a property developer and has alot of experience in the field and no doubt he knew how to demolish a building.

Why do you think a property developer was also a demolition expert?

He had the right connections to pull off such a task

What, you think the FDNY did it for him?

Did you actually stop to think about the nonsense you posted?

check out this video

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


The costs were never covered by the insurance claims. Also, the insurance he took out on the Towers was done because he was pretty much forced to do it, and he asked for less. He also had to pay millions in property taxes that did not generate $0.01 for 10+ years. In fact here on ATS, I along with others have done the calculations in the costs, and the amounts he received and he still ended up in the red. The costs of destruction, the costs to rebuild and the costs of taxes and such, did not make him richer. I would advise you to use ATS's search button and find the threads that discuss this. It is erroneous to say Larry made any money off of this.

Also, Larry made no such decision to pull anything. His own words: "And they made the decision to pull". Who is they? FDNY. Are you saying the New York Fire Dept is now in the demolition business? You are aware who he was speaking with on the phone?

This is why reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are important. Time and again, it has been shown that it is lacking in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SkuzzleButt

 

Skuzzle, he was forced to take out the insurance by his financiers. As for the idea he made bank on it, he has been paying his 120 million a year in rent to the PA for land not making a dime in income for him. Not to mention the insurance proceeds are not going to come close to cover the rebuild. So, how was this a good thing for him again?

I am not entirely convinced on the real motives for silverstein destroying building 7. only he knows exactly what was on his mind.

I am convinced however,on his involvement in some shape or form. I agree that an insurance scam cannot be the only reason. I found some quotes from other ats members that may be worth a read

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

But it would have cost Larry more money to repair building 7* than get the insurance and re-build. Larry made his fortune from buying up old complexes, demolishing them and re-building. The only difference on 911 is the tax payers paid for the demolition and clean-up, and the insurance paid for the re-building.

9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."

es Larry would have been in on it. People had to have been in on it, why not Larry? Think about it, who better to have 'on the inside' than the owner? For his part in allowing his buildings rigged for demolition he got what he wanted, a cleaned up lot he could rebuild on, and it cost him almost nothing. A very shrewd, but sick, business move. Capitalists have no morality, they only care about profits, dead people are just 'collateral damage'. It would have cost Larry billions to get the old WTC buildings up to code... 911research.wtc7.net...

The money made from insurance is not the point. The point is it would have cost him millions to bring the buildings up to code etc. He made his fortune from buying up old complexes, and, wait for it... demolishing and rebuilding them. He got the demolishing and clean up for free. He got a huge stash of cash from insurance to help finance the re-build. Where does Larry make money? From his investment stupid, just like he has always done.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SkuzzleButt

 

The costs were never covered by the insurance claims. Also, the insurance he took out on the Towers was done because he was pretty much forced to do it, and he asked for less. He also had to pay millions in property taxes that did not generate $0.01 for 10+ years. In fact here on ATS, I along with others have done the calculations in the costs, and the amounts he received and he still ended up in the red. The costs of destruction, the costs to rebuild and the costs of taxes and such, did not make him richer. I would advise you to use ATS's search button and find the threads that discuss this. It is erroneous to say Larry made any money off of this.

Also, Larry made no such decision to pull anything. His own words: "And they made the decision to pull". Who is they? FDNY. Are you saying the New York Fire Dept is now in the demolition business? You are aware who he was speaking with on the phone?

This is why reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are important. Time and again, it has been shown that it is lacking in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

edit on 11/20/2012 by GenRadek because: added more info

the full quote from Larry was;

'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

this implies the term "pull" means to pull the building, because he said afterwards "then we watched the building collapse"

meaning the term pull caused the building to fall. meaning the explosives where already set and ready.

also Larry was confronted about this quote and asked what was the FDNY commanders name who you were referring to, video here



oops forgot to add - check vid from 2 mins 30 seconds

its easy to see why people become suspicious of this guy, maybe you are right about the insurance, like i said before i don't know his motives or reasoning all i know is that he knows alot more than he makes out.

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


But he said: "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 we watched the building collapse."

So they were not going to be able to contain the fire, so the fire dept decided to blow it up to save lives by running men with explosives, into a burning, tilting, creaking building, rig up explosives and run out within a couple of hours, all without a life lost? Is this what you are saying? This makes no sense whatsoever. How can one say they dont want to lose any more lives, and then order men to run INTO a dangerous building loaded with explosives and rig it up in the flames and smoke within a couple of hours? This boggles the mind.

Once again, since when does the fire commander, or whoever in the fire dept., give orders to go and explosivly demolish a burning 47 story building? Do they have a special demolition team? I have never heard of fire depts with special demo teams, trained in explosive demolition. I'll have to ask my cousin about that seeing as he is a Chicago Firefighter and we have skyscrapers here too.

Also, Larry may have been talking to a fire fighting brass on the phone, and assumed it was "the" commander. Can you refer to me instances where fire commanders call up building owners to ask them if they could blow up a building for them?

Larry also said that thre has been a tremendous loss of life, and that since WTC7 is a lost cause, there is no point in trying to fight the fires. This is where reading comprehension comes into play. You ignore the first part where he expresses concern for the lives trying to save the building, since the building is a lost cost. So why bother risking more lives in trying to save a lost building, the smartest thing would be to pull the operation and sit back and watch it burn. And then, the building fell. It was no surprise. It was exhibiting all the signs of collapse and firefighters are trained in noticing the signs of impending collapse. Although we do not see it, they were there and they did see it.

Once again, are you suggesting that fire depts are trained in explosive demolitions? This is what you are implying.

reply to post by GenRadek


if you read my post again it says the explosives where already in place. Most likely the explosives where in the towers before the planes hit the building. and no the fire dept was not involved or had any involvement with planting explosives in the building, i never accused the fire dept, i quoted from Larry, but to say they were involved is not what i meant. did not mean confusion here.

out of interest to you believe the official 9/11 story?

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


We are talking about WTC7 correct? WTC7 was engulfed in flames for hours. Any "pre-planted" explosives would have been directly exposed to high temps or even direct flames. I am sure you know that fire and explosives do not react well. Also, any wiring used to rig the charges would have been affected, as well as the structure. Let us not forget shock of the impacts, inadvertently setting off charges. Saying they were pre-planted would mean that Larry knew about it as well. But then, if Larry knew about it, then why would he have to give permission to the fire dept to blow it up? That would mean that the fire dept would have had to be in on it as well. Remember, all of this is coming from an erroneous understanding and reading of Larry's quote. You cannot use his exact quote, and then turn around and say the fire dept had nothing to do with it. or extrapolate different meanings that have nothing to do with his quote. You cannot go and say that he was talking to someone else, and someone else blew it up, and someone else pre-planted bombs, and Larry knew all about it and then admitted it on national TV.

This is the problem with trying to create a new narrative from something that has nothing to do with what is trying to be created.

What is the "official story"? I believe that hijackers working under OBL direction or blessing, hijacked four airliners, rammed two into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into the ground. The resulting damage and fires caused the WTCs to collapse causing damage and more fires to WTC7 which later collapsed. I also believe our govt utterly incompetent in missing the signs. No explosives, no thermites, no death rays or nukes. I once, ONCE a long long long time ago was a truther. I believed explosives were used. But once I started to read into it, I was shocked at how I was tricked and manipulated by the truthers.

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by CoolStoryMan

 

Yes. It's called the navigation system. Of course, the idea that the hijackers were uneducated cavemen is ridiculous, as most of them had college education and a couple of them appeared to have had military flight training.....according to their flight instructors.

the idea that you think these guys can fly a jet into DC airspace without being shot down is laughable. How are these guys able to co-ordinate these massive jets, to hit these specific buildings, do you know how hard that is? do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that a hijacked jet can fly into DC airspace?

Would you like to explain? Care to show the anti-aircraft defenses that were in-place?

Looking forward to your response

Fitz

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by CoolStoryMan

 

Yes. It's called the navigation system. Of course, the idea that the hijackers were uneducated cavemen is ridiculous, as most of them had college education and a couple of them appeared to have had military flight training.....according to their flight instructors.

the idea that you think these guys can fly a jet into DC airspace without being shot down is laughable. How are these guys able to co-ordinate these massive jets, to hit these specific buildings, do you know how hard that is? do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that a hijacked jet can fly into DC airspace?

Do you actually realise how ridiculous your response sounds?

Fitz

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
So can you explain to me how they flew those planes into the exact co-ordinances of the WTC's and managed to do so from several hundred miles away?

You familiar with GPS? Should it really be necessary to explain to you the process which should therefore be self-evident?

Fitz

Originally posted by maxella1
Turning off the auto pilot at 500 mph and navigating into something as thin as the towers were takes expert skills just like navigating into something as low as the Pentagon does.

Really? Finding the two largest buildings in their respective cities presents a challenge to you? Clearly you don't think particularly highly of yourself

Originally posted by maxella1
Now crashing into a field that's another story, although i personally believe it didn't crash but was shot down based on the debris fields and that the order was actually given.

Because of course that field was as of as much symbolic importance as the WTC and the Pentagon, right?

Fitz

Originally posted by maxella1
Turning off the auto pilot at 500 mph and navigating into something as thin as the towers were takes expert skills just like navigating into something as low as the Pentagon does.

Really? Finding the two largest buildings in their respective cities presents a challenge to you? Clearly you don't think particularly highly of yourself

Originally posted by maxella1
Now crashing into a field that's another story, although i personally believe it didn't crash but was shot down based on the debris fields and that the order was actually given.

Because of course that field was as of as much symbolic importance as the WTC and the Pentagon, right?

Fitz

Has anyone posted a timeline of how the buildings were destroyed?
Did the nano thermite go off before or after the explosives, and did the mini nuke in the basement go of before of after the beam weapon?

So did the demolition go:

planes hit, nano thermite, explosives, mini nuke, beam weapon?
or was it
plane fired missiles, turned into a hologram, explosives, mini nuke, nano thermite beam weapon?
or was it
passenger jet turned into cargo plane, turned into hologram, fired missiles, nano thermite, beam weapon, explosives then mini nuke....

truthers seem very confused, so can I get exactly which order these all occured in.

Charlie Sheen?Oh yes considering HIS credibility there must be something here!

Originally posted by AgentX09
Charlie Sheen?

Oh yes considering HIS credibility there must be something here!

Yeah? Bush junior has credibility ?!

Pot calling cattle black.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SkuzzleButt

 

We are talking about WTC7 correct? WTC7 was engulfed in flames for hours. Any "pre-planted" explosives would have been directly exposed to high temps or even direct flames. I am sure you know that fire and explosives do not react well. Also, any wiring used to rig the charges would have been affected, as well as the structure. Let us not forget shock of the impacts, inadvertently setting off charges. Saying they were pre-planted would mean that Larry knew about it as well. But then, if Larry knew about it, then why would he have to give permission to the fire dept to blow it up? That would mean that the fire dept would have had to be in on it as well. Remember, all of this is coming from an erroneous understanding and reading of Larry's quote. You cannot use his exact quote, and then turn around and say the fire dept had nothing to do with it. or extrapolate different meanings that have nothing to do with his quote. You cannot go and say that he was talking to someone else, and someone else blew it up, and someone else pre-planted bombs, and Larry knew all about it and then admitted it on national TV.

This is the problem with trying to create a new narrative from something that has nothing to do with what is trying to be created.

What is the "official story"? I believe that hijackers working under OBL direction or blessing, hijacked four airliners, rammed two into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into the ground. The resulting damage and fires caused the WTCs to collapse causing damage and more fires to WTC7 which later collapsed. I also believe our govt utterly incompetent in missing the signs. No explosives, no thermites, no death rays or nukes. I once, ONCE a long long long time ago was a truther. I believed explosives were used. But once I started to read into it, I was shocked at how I was tricked and manipulated by the truthers.

Hate to just jump in here, so excuse me for that.. But if I remember correctly, WTC7 had simple office fires, as long as those fires werent on floors that had detonation devices, no problem, right? And regardless of who pulled the buildings, the fact was, LArry said the decision to 'pull' had been made, correct?

I think what is getting lost is this simple fact.. It doesnt take a few hours to set up a building detonation, that takes planning for a few weeks. You cant just pull a building in hours. To if he admits the building was pulled, it then falls in free fall speed, and collapses into its own footprint, how is it not a detonation? And assuming you agree that it was pulled, then you have to agree that it was planned in advance. By who? Thats not the point, I have no idea, nor will I claim to have an idea, but I do know that WTC7 was pulled, and that takes planning.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Hate to just jump in here, so excuse me for that.. But if I remember correctly, WTC7 had simple office fires, as long as those fires werent on floors that had detonation devices, no problem, right? And regardless of who pulled the buildings, the fact was, LArry said the decision to 'pull' had been made, correct?

I think what is getting lost is this simple fact.. It doesnt take a few hours to set up a building detonation, that takes planning for a few weeks. You cant just pull a building in hours. To if he admits the building was pulled, it then falls in free fall speed, and collapses into its own footprint, how is it not a detonation? And assuming you agree that it was pulled, then you have to agree that it was planned in advance. By who? Thats not the point, I have no idea, nor will I claim to have an idea, but I do know that WTC7 was pulled, and that takes planning.

I'm sorry to point this out, but you too are making a typical erroneous assessment of the events in WTC7. For starters, what exactly are "simple" office fires? Are these fires much cooler than say, a campfire? Or are they cooler than a gasoline fire? What exactly makes them "simple"? According to firefighting literature, manuals, reports, and other materials, fires burn hot. There is no "simple" fire. A house fire can get just as hot as an airliner burning or an office burning. Also, fires were seen across multiple floors, including the ones where the failure took place. That would mean that if there were any detonation devices, they would have been exposed to fires for MANY hours. If you are saying that "simple" fires are just that, (whatever that means) then why bother fireproofing the structures? Fire is dangerous.

How can you claim that there was a decision to pull anything, when he was speaking with firefighters? I ask again, since when are fire depts in the explosive demolition business. Also, if there was a decision to "blow it up", that would mean the NYFD is also in on the conspiracy. After all, that is who Larry was speaking to, and they are the ones that made the decision to pull anything. The only thing meant by "pulling" was the firefighting operations (however small or large, or rescue attempts) in order to have less people in another dangerous situation with an unstable building. Are you suggesting that the NYFD is now responsible for blowing up WTC7?

This is the problem truthers have when being confronted by facts. You cannot go and claim the building was pulled, and then reverse and say it was not the NYFD, but when reading the quote it is clear who he spoke to and who made the decision to do anything. So are you going by his full quote, or are you cherry picking the parts you want and creating a whole new account that has nothing to do with the original? This whole "pull it" nonsense came about from truthers cherry picking a single line from an entire quote that when taken in context, means nothing the truthers are trying to falsely create. Just by his quote alone, truthers are also accusing the NYFD of explosive demolitions. It is that simple. You cannot create a whole new narrative from a quote that was erroneously (or maliciously in this case) taken out of context, and expect it to hold water.