Larry Silverstein designed NEW WTC-7 in April of 2000

Enplane this , New WTC In the plans before 911 ?

=================================================


We got the designs. And the first design meeting was in April of 2000. And construction began shortly thereafter, in 2002.

One slight problem: If he hadn’t been planning the illegal, un-permitted, homicidal demolitions of WTC-7 and the entire World Trade Center complex that took place on September 11th, 2001, there would have been no point to any such design meeting back in April, 2000 … and no opportunity for beginning construction of a new WTC-7 in 2002.

With the supreme chutzpah that has become his trademark, Silverstein breezes over the demolitions of 9/11/2001 as if they were not even worth remarking on, instead going straight from his new-WTC-7 design meeting in April 2000 to the beginning of construction in 2002.

www.veteranstoday.com...

When Lord Silverstein sayeth "pull it"...

Ye shall pull!

How can this be true, If it is it is very telling..

ATS chime in , I want your opinion..

a reply to: wildb

This is not a credible source but if you can source a reliable one I would be interested in the reading.

Good luck.

I was involved in cell site planning at a site that was being considered for technology upgrades, a full year and a half before a fire destroyed the site.

Another site, same forward planning, and it was hit by a car and destroyed.

I guess we had inside knowledge these would need totally rebuilt?

a reply to: wildb

This does not surprise me, seeing how Silverstein rubs elbows with Washington elite.

The WTC had to come down because of faulty weak building materials ( Mob Connection of selling undergrad steel to the WTC contractors ) and the cancer causes asbestos in the interior materials.

Why not use the WTC for the Pentagon's new Perl harbor ( The Project for the New American Century)

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

In 1998 and 1999 the Port Authority submitted demolition plans for WTC 1,2, and 7 to NY City Council, both times the NY city council voted no, claiming it was far to dangerous to blow up the WTC.

There was threads done on this information on ATS years ago.

The fact is, the real Terrorist who brought down the WTC are untouchable and above the laws of our land, and it is no conspiracy. One can just look at Hillary and see that. To big to jail.

There was nothing better then blowing up the WTC for Shock and Awe, to enrage the American people to go to war, and it worked very well.

Larry Silverstein played a big part of 911, he was the scapegoat if anything major went wrong and he made money doing it.

Port Authority are the true owners of the WTC and they didn't want any attention pointing at them.

Larry Silverstein was only a lease holder.

originally posted by: paradoxious
I was involved in cell site planning at a site that was being considered for technology upgrades, a full year and a half before a fire destroyed the site.

Another site, same forward planning, and it was hit by a car and destroyed.

I guess we had inside knowledge these would need totally rebuilt?

Yes. "Sudden and accidental" is a proven way to divert externalities onto insurance companies and the premiums consumers pay.

It happens more often than any will admit. Probably due to the associated jail sentence....

originally posted by: paradoxious
I was involved in cell site planning at a site that was being considered for technology upgrades, a full year and a half before a fire destroyed the site.

Another site, same forward planning, and it was hit by a car and destroyed.

I guess we had inside knowledge these would need totally rebuilt?

Or your company took out insurance money and committed fraud... jk.. but it does happen.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Yes. "Sudden and accidental" is a proven way to divert externalities onto insurance companies and the premiums consumers pay.

It happens more often than any will admit. Probably due to the associated jail sentence....

originally posted by: AudioOne

Or your company took out insurance money and committed fraud... jk.. but it does happen.

Correlation does not confirm causation.

originally posted by: Informer1958
In 1998 and 1999 the Port Authority submitted demolition plans for WTC 1,2, and 7 to NY City Council, both times the NY city council voted no, claiming it was far to dangerous to blow up the WTC.

Do you have a valid source for that claim?

The fact is, the real Terrorist who brought down the WTC are untouchable and above the laws of our land,

True, as they are dead, killed when their planes hit the buildings etc.

a reply to: paradoxious

originally posted by: paradoxious

I was involved in cell site planning at a site that was being considered for technology upgrades, a full year and a half before a fire destroyed the site.

Another site, same forward planning, and it was hit by a car and destroyed.

I guess we had inside knowledge these would need totally rebuilt?

Silverstein seems to be talking about the rebuilding of 2 enormous skyscrapers with the implication that the original structures would no longer be there.

Do "technology upgrades" involve the demolition and rebuilding of entire structures/buildings? If so, there must be a plan to tear down the existing structures and to rebuild them.

You (or your employer) obviously wouldnt just wait for coincidental accidents to keep occurring in order for a task to be completed.

I would think it a bit strange that there would be "forward planning" on sites or structures in the hopes that one day they might cease to exist (assuming that they require a complete demolition).

If "technology upgrades" dont involve a complete demolition and rebuilding, then your comment isnt relevant in the context of Silverstein's admission.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: wildb

This is not a credible source but if you can source a reliable one I would be interested in the reading.

Good luck.

From the guy himself :

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Practically insurances companies are now likely to 'make money' out of this whole thing :

Iran asked to pay 10.5 billion dollars to 9/11 victims

Here we go again, the good old WTC 7 argument on ATS. I'm waiting for the usual suspects to begin the defense of the OS.

a reply to: angryhulk
Well we already have a few of the usual suspects on the conspiracy side.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: angryhulk
Well we already have a few of the usual suspects on the conspiracy side.

You got me

a reply to: angryhulk

I thought we weren't allowed to say OS anymore...

But yes you've got me firmly on the conspiracy side. Many may not agree with Webster Tarpley's politics, but he has written an excellent book on the subject; 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in The USA. There's also a variety of his lectures on YT.

anyhow, back on topic. I've always wondered how big of a player Silverstein actually was. He actually seems to be mid to lower level IMO and in it for the money. Sure he was probably an essential part of the execution of the plan but I seem to doubt he was actually one of the planners.

a reply to: wildb

He meant to say April 2002.

If you listen to more than just the snippet it becomes quite obvious.

Here's the full speech:



He starts talking about it after the 56 minute mark.

a reply to: Chadwickus

If you listen to more than just the snippet it becomes quite obvious.

But that doesn't comply with the conspiracy code of conduct.

a reply to: samkent

Well no, but I'll be largely ignored and/or dismissed anyway, so it won't matter..