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.

 

USINFO.STATE.GOV .. This site sure straightened ME out

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
What does " you know, we've had such terrible loss of life" , have anything to do with blowing up a building. He was afraid that more people would die and thats why he decided to pull the rescue operation away from the building. Ok, maybe there weren't any people in the building, but there where a lot of people surrounding the WTC7 which had to be pulled away.

Also, Larry didnt make any money out of this. Aks yourself why people take insurances. If your car gets damaged, you use the insurance money to repair the car. If giant buildings come down, you use the insurance money to build new buildings.

Also why would all these people go to so much trouble to make an extra buck. A company like carlyle group doesn't need 9/11 to get even richer.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Louis255]




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Louis255
Also, Larry didnt make any money out of this. Aks yourself why people take insurances. If your car gets damaged, you use the insurance money to repair the car. If giant buildings come down, you use the insurance money to build new buildings.

I believe that the insurance payout was claimed three times, since each plane striking a different building, and WTC7 collapsing were claimed as three seperate events. If that is the case (and I haven't confirmed it) then they made a killing.


Also why would all these people go to so much trouble to make an extra buck. A company like carlyle group doesn't need 9/11 to get even richer.
I guess you could call it "collateral benefits", or "insider trading". If a billionaire knows that gold is going to triple in value next week, is he going to say, "Why bother? I'm rich enough as it is"? Or is he going to start buying up big? That;s the whole point; the massive insurance policy taken out before the attacks (a mere matter of months, I think) suggests the possibility of foreknowledge.



[edit on 2006-4-14 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango

Which leads me to wonder, WHY exactly did Silverstein admit to WTC7 being demoed in a PBS special? (if that's what he actually meant)

[edit on 14-4-2006 by quango]


Well, since there were no firefighters in the building, it leads me to wonder, WHY exactly did Silverstein admit to firefighters being pulled out in a PBS special? (if that's what he ment). See how it works both ways? How can someone pull out firefighters that aren't there? I have a theory that he wasn't contacted by the fire department but someone else that DID have the authority. He just slipped up on TV. He said..um..the fire department blah, blah, blah....when someone says um while they are talking, it usually means they are thinking about something. Why would he need to think when explaining something from memory? And a good indication of someone lying is when they say...um. Not always but usually.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Having seen the clip of Silverstein speaking, I can only say that my impression was that he meant demolition. One hell of a slip. We can go two ways at least from there. We can say, how come they didn't hunt down and destroy all that footage? And we can say, how come he made such a slip if he was that clever?

Well, both those questions look like disinfo tactics to me. Hunting down and destroying every last copy would draw more attention to the slip and would be impossible anyway. To dispose of the second question, who said he was that clever? You can't have it all ways. You can't on the one hand say that if 9/11 was a conspiracy, then how come nobody's said anything - and then on the one hand dismiss a slip like that for being unlikely.

You know, I keep seeing these polls that say that 90% of people (or at least a very large majority) think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Which makes me wonder: who are these people who keep showing up on this forum to prop up the official story? They seem to work awful hard to do it, too.

Regular posters here will have some idea of their own key suspects.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I believe that the insurance payout was claimed three times, since each plane striking a different building, and WTC7 collapsing were claimed as three seperate events. If that is the case (and I haven't confirmed it) then they made a killing.


Of course they have made a killing. To rebuild the buidings. Imagine that Larry didnt get anything out of this. He would be bankrupt than. He can't make any money out of buildings that don't exist anymore, but still he has to pay for it each year.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I guess you could call it "collateral benefits", or "insider trading". If a billionaire knows that gold is going to triple in value next week, is he going to say, "Why bother? I'm rich enough as it is"? Or is he going to start buying up big? That;s the whole point; the massive insurance policy taken out before the attacks (a mere matter of months, I think) suggests the possibility of foreknowledge.


en.wikipedia.org...

To take a massive insurance policy on massive buildings which have been targeted by terrorists before is not strange and is not proof of any kind of foreknowledge.

Also, I have a question ( a bit off this topic). Is it known in general on ATS that the bin laden video is indeed real? Is this a known piece of misinformation, or do ( the believers) actually think it is fake?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Louis255]



[edit on 14-4-2006 by Louis255]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Louis255
Of course they have made a killing. To rebuild the buidings.

I mean 'killings' as in 'profit' over and above, not compensation proportional to loss. But again, this depends on whether the threefold insurance claim rumour is true or not.


To take a massive insurance policy on massive buildings which have been targeted by terrorists before is not strange...


WTC7 was never targeted by terrorists. Also there is the fact that only the buildings, and all of the buildings owned by LS collapsed into pick-up sticks and dust, the least damaged of the three doing so at the rate of free fall acceleration; an event that has never occurred before in the history of mankind, and yet it happens three times in the same day. These amazing coincidences certainly do not constitute proof, but, when added together with all the other anomalies of the events of 9-11, it's just another piece of the pie. I guess it depends on how far you are willing to stretch the limits of reasonable coincidence in your mind.


...and is not proof of any kind of foreknowledge.

As I stated, I never said 'proof', I said "suggests the possibility".



[edit on 2006-4-14 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Louis255
Also, I have a question ( a bit off this topic). Is it known in general on ATS that the bin laden video is indeed real? Is this a known piece of misinformation, or do ( the believers) actually think it is fake?


Take a good look at known videos of Bin Laden then compare it to the "official" video where he says Al Q did it? Do the Bin Ladens even look remotely the same? Then I'll ask you what YOU think.

Edit: Furthermore, Bin laden denounced Al Q's involvement at first. That is not on par with other terorist attacks.....in other terrorist attacks, the perpetraters give full acknowlegdement that they did it right off the bat.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I believe that the insurance payout was claimed three times, since each plane striking a different building, and WTC7 collapsing were claimed as three seperate events. If that is the case (and I haven't confirmed it) then they made a killing.


According to this NY1 News article, he received "nearly $5billion".
The number I've heard is $3.55billion per occurence was his policy, so it sounds like he ended up somewhere between one and two occurences..

WTC7 was probably (i'm only assuming here) under a different policy because he already owned it, prior to buying the two towers in July 2001.


That;s the whole point; the massive insurance policy taken out before the attacks (a mere matter of months, I think) suggests the possibility of foreknowledge.


The massive insurance policy was necessary for the whole deal to go through. Since he acquired the WTC 1,2,4,and 5 in July 2001, it makes sense that the policy would also be made only months before the attack.
In this sense, it could be part of a normal process...



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
while on the subject, even the german insurance company Allianz Group is questioning the WTC7 collapse:

Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud

i think this story is still ongoing battle, correct me if im wrong



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Well, since there were no firefighters in the building, it leads me to wonder, WHY exactly did Silverstein admit to firefighters being pulled out in a PBS special? (if that's what he ment).


Just to nitpick a bit, you're putting words in Silverstein's mouth.
The fire commander saying they wouldn't be able to contain the fires doesn't mean there were firefighters IN the building.
Silverstein's comment about 'terrible loss of life' could mean "I didn't want him to possibly send any guys in there.."



See how it works both ways?


Absolutely. Quite honestly, I wish the Silverstein comment would just go away, because the fact is, no one knows what it means except Silverstein.

I listen to that quote and I just wish he would have said, "maybe the smartest thing to do is just F@#! it".

At least THAT would make sense.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nukunuku
while on the subject, even the german insurance company Allianz Group is questioning the WTC7 collapse:


Interesting read.. although it doesn't seem to be ongoing. Allianz seems to have shot it down rather bluntly.

You can read the pdf version of this on Allianz's website here: www.allianz.com...
It's the one labelled Shareholder Proposals and it includes their response to the proposal.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Just to nitpick a bit, you're putting words in Silverstein's mouth.
The fire commander saying they wouldn't be able to contain the fires doesn't mean there were firefighters IN the building.
Silverstein's comment about 'terrible loss of life' could mean "I didn't want him to possibly send any guys in there.."


So, if there are no guys in there, what does he say to "pull" then? Either there were firefighters to "pull it" or there weren't firefighters to "pull it". And, when he even states in other parts of the very same interview that they "pulled" WTC6 (meaning controlled demolition) wouldn't that same language (mind you it's in the same interview, so it's not even hours later) be evidence that he ment the same thing for WTC7? There is no straw for you guys to stand on in this arguement.

And yah, I do believe you wish he never said that because it totally goes against what the "official theory" is and it goes against what you guys on the official side want to believe....ignorance is bliss I guess. Not a pot shot at you quango.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
According to this NY1 News article, he received "nearly $5billion".

So then the next question is, how much did the lease cost him? Insurance payout - accumulated lease costs = Silverstein's profit. If he then rebuilds the complex, that is an investment. And the greater share the Port Authority pays, the more he keeps in his pocket.


The massive insurance policy was necessary for the whole deal to go through. Since he acquired the WTC 1,2,4,and 5 in July 2001, it makes sense that the policy would also be made only months before the attack.

Again, he aquires the towers just two months prior to all three of his buildings collapsing in unprecedented, never-before-witnessed, apparently physics-defying ways. Coinicidence, I guess - throw it on the pile with all the others.


[edit on 2006-4-14 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So, if there are no guys in there, what does he say to "pull" then? Either there were firefighters to "pull it" or there weren't firefighters to "pull it".


But you're trying to place them IN the building because that fits with what you believe he meant. Maybe he's talking about firefighters near the building, or heading to the building. Maybe he was saying, "just pull everyone away from the area - i don't want anyone else to get hurt."

Maybe he was talking about this guy:

WTC7 is on the left.



And, when he even states in other parts of the very same interview that they "pulled" WTC6 (meaning controlled demolition) wouldn't that same language (mind you it's in the same interview, so it's not even hours later) be evidence that he ment the same thing for WTC7?


Silverstein didn't say that. Some random guy at ground zero said that.
Oddly enough, parts of building six were literally "pull"ed to the ground during the cleanup. Could that voice in the PBS documentary have meant they're LITERALLY getting ready to pull building six [down to the ground]? He may have. Although I can understand how someone could immediately hear "pull" as in demo. Especially if it supports a theory they've already convinced themselves of.


"Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

-excerpted from here




There is no straw for you guys to stand on in this arguement.


There is no straw for ANYONE to stand on here. Silverstein comment is dead.


As for the "you guys" comment - I'm not really an official version kinda guy.

[Mod Edit: External quote tags - Jak]


[edit on 14/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
So then the next question is, how much did the lease cost him?


The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack.

Straight from Wikipedia


also, here's an interesting article about the fight to claim "two occurences" rather than one.

www.law.com...

It's old, and it's kinda dry but worth a read..



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I see what you mean quango. Let's just agree to disagree on the Silverstein comment..ok?


Originally posted by quango
Especially if it supports a theory they've already convinced themselves of.


Just to clear something up. i don't hold onto my theories with a cluched hand. They evolve daily and many times I have been proven wrong...so, I'm definately not convinced on anything.


"Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

-excerpted from here


Thanks for that. I'll have to modify my theory....I didn't know this is what they did...thanks.


There is no straw for ANYONE to stand on here. Silverstein comment is dead.


Agreed.



As for the "you guys" comment - I'm not really an official version kinda guy.


I say you guys sometimes but I don't really mean the person i have quoted. I'll try to be more clear in the future. Sorry if I offended in anyway.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

cooperativeresearch.org

After 10:28 a.m.: Fire Fighters Trying to Extinguish Fires in WTC 7

According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC.


[Mod Edit: External quote tags - Jak]

[edit on 14/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   



So, if there are no guys in there, what does he say to "pull" then? Either there were firefighters to "pull it" or there weren't firefighters to "pull it". And, when he even states in other parts of the very same interview that they "pulled" WTC6 (meaning controlled demolition) wouldn't that same language (mind you it's in the same interview, so it's not even hours later) be evidence that he ment the same thing for WTC7? There is no straw for you guys to stand on in this arguement.

And yah, I do believe you wish he never said that because it totally goes against what the "official theory" is and it goes against what you guys on the official side want to believe....ignorance is bliss I guess. Not a pot shot at you quango.



I do not agree with the official story, and I think some questions have to be answered. Such as, why do they not show the pentagon video's? But the Larry Silverstein comment does not proof anything. Also I would like to see if you have a video of Larry, saying they pulled WTC6, I have never seen that. And in my opinion when he says" pull it" he means: pull the rescue operation. There where a lot of people surrounding the wtc7 who where told to pull away from it.




Take a good look at known videos of Bin Laden then compare it to the "official" video where he says Al Q did it? Do the Bin Ladens even look remotely the same? Then I'll ask you what YOU think.


I actually watched large parts of the video and I think it is Bin Laden. However, the image quality is so bad that you can't be 100% sure. So this is another piece of information which a lot of people claim to be " a clear sign" of a fake video, which in fact, is not clear at all. There is a lot of info out there which doesnt proof anything. There are some people who say " there is so much data out there, but in fact, a lot of that " data" doesnt mean anything.

If I see this image I would say: yes this is bin laden. But still, how can anyone really be sure:

www.september11news.com...

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Louis255]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
First of all, I have admitted that he could have been talking about firefighter operations rather than firefighters themselves...so let's put this dead dog to grave please.

Also, I don't have anything about the "pull" comment on WTC6. I had read somewhere and had confused it in my mind. My mistake. I have been proven wrong. See, I'm not on some high horse that I won't admit it when I'm wrong.



[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
First of all, I have admitted that he could have been talking about firefighter operations rather than firefighters themselves...so let's put this dead dog to grave please.

Also, I don't have anything about the "pull" comment on WTC6. I had read somewhere and had confused it in my mind. My mistake. I have been proven wrong. See, I'm not on some high horse that I won't admit it when I'm wrong.

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Griff]


And if you take away all those issues like the Larry Silverstein and the misinterpretation of PNAC documents, what do you have left to point in the direction of Bush or someone else than Bin Laden. What about 9/11 is so obvious that makes you believe there is a conspiracy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join