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.

 

The unexplainable evidence 9/11 was allowed to happen. *Very short video*

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I realize there is a thread on this but it quickly veered off topic. This is about one statement by Silverstein I can't make sense of.

After watching this video, before jumping to conclusions, I first considered what could just as easily explain this away.

EDIT TO ADD: WATCH VIDE FIRST

1. Maybe they were designing remodels or upgrades in 2000. But that doesn't explain why he mentioned the new building would be 1.7 million Sqaure feet instead of 2 million. No one remodels an existing building and somehow erases 300k square feet.

2. He slipped up saying 2000. But he said the month of April (2000) they started planning. If it was April 2001 that would still be before the attacks. If he meant April 2002 that would make it impossible to have plans that soon before construction in May 2002 when construction started.

That's all I got. If someone sees a possibility I didn't, please chime in.

I realize many people point to him saying "Pull it" as a red herring. But at the end of the day, we cannot know what he meant by that. This statement however, needs it's day in the court of public opinion.

I do not pretend to know anything for certain. But this piece of evidence seems very damning to official story.

Lastly, wouldn't it be cool if we still had real journalists to help expose holes in officials stories, instead of political activists posing as journalists?



And for good measure:


AAC
edit on 16-2-2017 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

This is only one of the thousands of pieces of evidence. Anyone not convinced by now never will be, unless all the news stations suddenly start reporting it, and even then I wonder.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
if nothing else, I find that extremely disturbing that he's not, or wasn't, in a nursing home.

spit that gum out young man... yeesh..



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

This is only one of the thousands of pieces of evidence. Anyone not convinced by now never will be, unless all the news stations suddenly start reporting it, and even then I wonder.

soulwaxer


I agree. The evidence is insurmountable. But this piece seems unable to be explained away. All the so-called debunkers have went the distance to put a "reason" on evidence. This bit of evidence doesn't seem to have a reason. Which is why, I think, the narrative needs to start with this question.

Larry Silverstein, how did you plan for an entire new building design in April 2000 when the attacks happened in 2001?

That questions needs to be posed.

AAC



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: savemebarry
if nothing else, I find that extremely disturbing that he's not, or wasn't, in a nursing home.

spit that gum out young man... yeesh..



I see what you're saying. But the bigger issue for me is that we have all been desensitized to this subject that if Osama Bin Ladden was the next Bachelor, no one would bother asking how he's not dead.

I can see the hysteria now, Osama Bin Ladden is misunderstood and he deserves a chance at love too. And the left would jump out an protest anyone that didn't allow him that opportunity at love.

It would be funny if that wasn't likely true.

AAC



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Ever consider the simple fact that Silverstein simply misspoke and confused the dates...?

Conspiracy types are infamous for taking quotes out of context, conflating them with other details to build their
elaborate conspiracy fantasies



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
You don't come into the money and power that man held while "misspeaking" as frequently as he seemed to in the aftermath. Unless, of course, you lump "misspeaking" into the same category as "slip of the tongue" somehow.
edit on 2/17/17 by Magnivea because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Did Obama say there was 52 states? What is that conspiracy about?

Or is this really a case of the Mandela Effect.

The truth movement, what a joke.

Note, Obama said he went to 57 states with one to go....
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States
youtu.be...

edit on 17-2-2017 by neutronflux because: 57 not 52



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Maybe the truth movement misspeaks when it talks about buildings built to self destruct? Rebar covered in C-4. Ceiling tiles covered in thermite? Thermite paint? Nuke Bombs in WTC 7 diesel tanks? WTC 1 and 2 brought down by fire extinguishers packed with explosives? No jets on 9/11? Lasers and holograms? Missiles and holograms?

A complex detonation system can survive fires and jet impacts that cut elevator cables, electrical service, and fire water mains?

What was the last smoking gun truth movement theory for WTC 1 and 2, Dustification?



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Ever consider the simple fact that Silverstein simply misspoke and confused the dates...?

Conspiracy types are infamous for taking quotes out of context, conflating them with other details to build their
elaborate conspiracy fantasies





Did you read my post?

Of course I considered that. But A. He glanced at his notes. And B. He said April 2000. Was he wrong on the month and the year after looking at his notes? Because the only year the month of April could fit in the timeline is 2002. But they started construction in May of 2002.

Not sure if you're familiar with architectural process, but 30 days on a skyscraper is about 18 months too soon. The plans go through Framing, plumbing electric, HVAC, structural engineering, data drops, energy savings, etc. All those things have to be approved by the city each step. It's literally impossible that he misspoke given the timeline.

AAC



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Did Obama say there was 52 states? What is that conspiracy about?

Or is this really a case of the Mandela Effect.

The truth movement, what a joke.

Note, Obama said he went to 57 states with one to go....
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States
youtu.be...


Guys, please read the thread. It is literally next to impossible that he misspoke given his notes and the three data points he used. Think about it. If construction started May 2002. That is 7 full months after the attack. If you think for a second that you can create and then get coded approval on a skyscraper in 7 months you just don't understand the process.

AAC



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking about? I posed a real anomaly regarding this subject. Silverstein DID NOT misspeak. That did not happen.

So, if he did not misspeak, then how the hell did he know he's need a new plan for a building in 2000?

And if you're not going to directly answer the question, please don't reply. I'm a critical with zero agenda. I just covet truth. If you cannot look at your enemies reasonings to better understand your enemy then you are a weak soldier. Pardon the Sun Tzu paraphrase.

AAC



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Wow, I don't believe the conspiracy theorists on this, but I agree. He was reading notes. He clearly stated the 2002 date, and I also know the building process. No way, that building gets designed and approved and construction begins from Sept to April. No way.

This is so odd. But he must be pretty senile to think he can leak that info and he won't face repercussions. Why don't they just make him go away so he doesn't continue to leak this info.

It's all very peculiar. Great find.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Ever consider the simple fact that Silverstein simply misspoke and confused the dates...?

Conspiracy types are infamous for taking quotes out of context, conflating them with other details to build their
elaborate conspiracy fantasies





Did you read my post?

Of course I considered that. But A. He glanced at his notes. And B. He said April 2000. Was he wrong on the month and the year after looking at his notes? Because the only year the month of April could fit in the timeline is 2002. But they started construction in May of 2002.

Not sure if you're familiar with architectural process, but 30 days on a skyscraper is about 18 months too soon. The plans go through Framing, plumbing electric, HVAC, structural engineering, data drops, energy savings, etc. All those things have to be approved by the city each step. It's literally impossible that he misspoke given the timeline.

AAC


Construction of the tower started in October 2003



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
dirty hands trade-off

Soon after the September 11 attacks, in 2001, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event.[2] A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion,[3][4] which was not as much as Silverstein had sought. Silverstein also ran into multiple disputes with other parties in the rebuilding effort, including with the Port Authority.In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") would be owned by the Port Authority, as would Tower Five, which it would have the option of leasing to a different private developer and having redesigned as a residential building


Why change hands if it is so profitable?



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Something else i find very disturbing.

Buildings go down: He gets the insurance billions ( Sylverstein )
New buildings go up: He tells they used bonds and investors.

Isn't insurance ment to " rebuilt" your losses ?

Not matter wat the law says, I've got a problem with that kind of behavior.

( By the way, i was once in Barcalona harbor the neighbor of Mr. Silverstein... i do know where the money went )



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

You know how many times the insurance angle has been debunked? Do some research?




Silverstein's insurance "scam" Rebuttal?
rationalwiki.org...

What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]
We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.




posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Typical move, only posting partial information out of context.....

From the same article you referenced!


en.m.wikipedia.org...

The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Sure.. but what are you saying?
So ? He was not insured ?

While on the subject.. I could not find the buying price he paid for the WTC complex , can you enlighten me?

edit on 17-2-2017 by EartOccupant because: Currency fluctuation



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking about? I posed a real anomaly regarding this subject. Silverstein DID NOT misspeak. That did not happen.

So, if he did not misspeak, then how the hell did he know he's need a new plan for a building in 2000?

And if you're not going to directly answer the question, please don't reply. I'm a critical with zero agenda. I just covet truth. If you cannot look at your enemies reasonings to better understand your enemy then you are a weak soldier. Pardon the Sun Tzu paraphrase.

AAC


Your "smoking gun" is an old man, who is senile, poor of vision, and cannot read his own handwriting or the printed font?

Also, why would a murderous 9/11 government leave a senile liability loose end alive and speaking? Hell, just cut his tongue out right? Remember, you are the one making allegations of a murderous government?

Obama said he was in 57 States? What is that conspiracy about?

A little bit of logic, and 9/11 conspiracies are found lacking.

Sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join