Larry Silverstein/ Pull it!

a reply to: xfandom

Surly though if he meant pulling out the fire-fighters he would have said "pull them" not "pull it".

Pull "the squad" would work, we shouldn't waste our time with such semantics. Which is why I think this whole issue is probably part of the PR-management meddling with confusion on fairly redundant sidenotes.

Not saying that you folks are, only asking to stay vigilant!

You will have some poster on here to tell you that he clearly meant the fire department and not demolition. He clearly meant the building, IMHO. No one could have possibly thought the skyscraper would collapse from minor fires.

Mr. Silverstein also has the foresight to buy the buildings a few months before 9/11 and insure them with bonus coverage for a terrorist attack.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

insure them with bonus coverage for a terrorist attack

Bonus coverage for terrorism .....????

Reason Silverstein had terrorism coverage for WTC was that people putting up the money to buy them (you don't think' Silverstein paid for WTC himself ? People fronting the money (GMAC now Ally Bank)) demanded it

If case you didn't know (which you probably didn't) WTC was bombed in 1993 when terrorists set off truck bomb in
garage causing 1000 casualties (mostly from smoke) and 500 million in damages

People putting up money wanted 5 billion for each tower, Silverstein wanted 1 billion. Settled on 3.5 billion for
each tower

Strange how Silverstein wanted LESS coverage than investors for each building

Another thing for conspiracy types to consider was that Silverstein was not the winning bidder - it was Vornado
Real Estate, unfortunately Vornado could not come up with the money

Silverstein could and was awarded the contract.......

Again whole lot of stupid flowing around ........

a reply to: InhaleExhale

You are right! I was getting the 2 confused. So many tangents on this one its hard to keep them straight. Thank you!

The eternal cycle is repeating. The conspiracy folk talking about "pulling it" once again. Next, we will hear about the thermite paper, then some variation on demolitions and missiles. Then we will hear how there should be a reinvestigation until the desired conclusions are reached, NIST lied, dustification, gold bullion was taken, the planes were empty, the Pentagon attack was a flyover, quiet explosives, and so on. Initially, there was great entertainment value in blustering dolts like Gage and Jones and their defenders on the 911 forums. Misunderstanding of the physics and chemistry led to some unusual conclusions. Alas, now it is just getting boring with repetition. Conspiracy fans have few technical skills and are funneled into the same dead ends by the profit motives of sites like A&E.
Where is Judy Wood when you need her?

originally posted by: Brian4real
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

Yes sir. The CIA office that was in building 7 was the same department of the CIA that was working on the missing 6 trillion dollars (i think thats how much it was) that was reported missing (i think it was Rumsfeld himself who gave the statement) from government funds a mere 3 days before the "attack"!!!
Talk about coincidences!!!!
Btw, that 6 trillion is still awol. With a Major attack like that, people werent really concerned about it as much as they were trying to help the victims and others hurt by this tragedy.

Now theres stupid, ignorant people in all areas of government, but i am not ignorant enough to truly believe that someone, anyone, can 'lose' 6 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Well this is a new one.

Usually, we hear that the building was "blown" to delete shady stock trading records.

Personally, if that was my goal, blowing up the building would be a poor way of destroying records anyways. Especially if it was already on fire. I mean, why blow unburned papers all over the place? That would only increase the likelihood of it being discovered. I'd say let 'er burn and all that evidence is gone.

a reply to: MrBig2430

My statement there was wrong. I was corrected by InhaleExhale a few days ago:

The day before 9/11 Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 trillion was unaccounted for, this was for a certain period of time, the total amount that is unaccounted for is about 6.5 trillion which covers a numbers of years of transactions.

Not sure where you get the CIA was investigating this, or why the CIA would be investigating transactions that cannot be accounted for.

I believe the pentagon plane hit offices where there was bookkeeping and accounting was going on, maybe you are confused and thinking of this as being coincidental?

The Office of Naval Intelligence was investigating the missing 6.5 trillion dollars (final figure). They were housed in the pentagon in the very spot where the miss..... - plane hit the building.

I had gotten the 2 mixed up. With so many threads to pull on this CT, theres a ridiculous amount of info. I looked over some info the past few days to reorganize my data.

Building 7 housed offices for CIA, NSA, OEM, (Office of emergency management aka FEMA) IRS, Secret Service, DOD, and the SEC.
You were right with the going CT on the destruction of shady trading records. The SEC was in the middle of an IPO probe purporting massive fraud. Some of those allegedly involved were, Solomon Smith & Barney Credit Suisse, First Boston, Goldman Sachs etc.
The CIA offices there did a lot of investigating into overseas gun running and drug smuggling. The also had a large evidence locker under building 7 that was also destroyed, eliminating mountains of evidence being stored for ongoing investigations.

Heres a fun fact:
"Amazingly, explosives and terrorism were planned topics of discussion at WTC 7 on the day of the attacks. There was a meeting scheduled at WTC 7 for the morning of 9/11 that included explosive disposal units from the U.S. military. The Demolition Ordnance Disposal Team from the Army’s Fort Monmouth just happened to be invited there that morning to meet with the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein. They were “reportedly planning to hold a meeting at 7 World Trade Center to discuss terrorism prevention efforts.” The meeting was set for eight o’clock in the morning on 9/11 but was canceled with the excuse that one of Silverstein’s executives could not make it."

Ol' lucky Larry AGAIN!!!! The wins just keep on coming!!!

Quote taken from: www.washingtonsblog.com...

originally posted by: Brian4real


The Office of Naval Intelligence was investigating the missing 6.5 trillion dollars (final figure).

That's odd. ONI investigating finances? You're wrong on this. Intelligence agencies spend the money. They don't do forensic accounting. That would be the responsibility of another branch of the military/guv.

And FYI, while it's true that Rummy made a press release about this on 9/10, it wasn't the first time this had been mentioned. Indeed, it was even written up and reported in the newtorktimeswashingtonpost or some similar newspaper in the previous year. That makes it Clinton's admin.

Bottom line - there's nothing new there.

Bottom line #2 - it would take a rather demented and bizarre way of thinking to believe that the first step in trying to bury this forensic accounting effort would be to first announce it to the public. Unless you're mentioning this as proof that Rummy was not part of some conspiracy theory cuz he did just that.

Just sayin'....

You were right with the going CT on the destruction of shady trading records. The SEC was in the middle of an IPO probe purporting massive fraud. Some of those allegedly involved were, Solomon Smith & Barney Credit Suisse, First Boston, Goldman Sachs etc.

Yeah, this is the part that baffles me. The CT says that evidence was destroyed. What evidence? Are they saying that evidence isn't backed up off site? What investigation failed as a result? I've seen reports of investigators saying that investigations were indeed hampered, but none has ever come forward to say that they believe that any perps weren't able to be prosecuted as a result.

Sounds like pure conjecture to me...

The CIA offices there did a lot of investigating into overseas gun running and drug smuggling. The also had a large evidence locker under building 7 that was also destroyed, eliminating mountains of evidence being stored for ongoing investigations.

Ummmm, sounds like more conjecture. Especially since there weren't any basements under 7. Under 7 was a power station. There's nowhere to store anything under 7.


Sounds to me like your source is making things up.


ETA:

I just read your link. Interesting part here:

" that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers"

That quote is pretty strong evidence that perhaps... just perhaps.... blowing up a building isn't the best way to destroy documents.

Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

No one could have possibly thought the skyscraper would collapse from minor fires.

1- the fire fighters characterized the building as being fully involved. Most would believe their characterization of something that they are trained to know about and reject any notion that the fires were "minor".

2- the firefighters cleared an area around 7 cuz they thought it was in danger of collapse. Turns out they were correct.