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.

 

Larry Silverstein question

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   


In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 mill.


And a huge loss on WTC1&2 at least, his contract says he has to pay to rebuild them.



Looking at the upper right-hand corner of the building we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions, and in fact nothing but small explosive charges could create such an appearance.


The 'squibs' are not only silent, but appear after the collapse, therefore they couldn't have caused it.



Also, WTC 7 contained agency's like the FBI, CIA, DOD, Homeland, and other various contractors.


Meaningless, unless you're claiming they're presence will afect the structure on the building.



On another note, the building was well built and alot newer than the Towers, since it was a mostly govermental building it had even more protection layers.


Evidence of protective layers? Even if they did exist, the building still has it's limits.



Also if you look at an ariel map of the surrounding area, you will discover that WTC 7 was much futher away than many other buildings, yet they didnt catch fire or recive much damage as the WTC 7.


May be true, but doesn't prove anything, WTC7 did sustain a 20 story gash. The debris from 1&2 wasn't evenly distributed, it was random.
www.debunking911.com...




The fires just started, personally i belive it was them burning the paperwork like they do in Embacies in a time of crisis.


I don't care about your beliefs, I want evidence.



They already knew to destroy that building from the start, thats why very few fire fighters had gone in, Larry just gave the go. He did afterall own the building.


Larry didn't tell them to do anything, he say 'they' made the decision.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   


Also i have personally fought fires and i know just because theres alot of smoke doesnt mean the fire is big. Sometimes the fire almost puts itself out with too much smoke. Also, in mock disaster training as a fire cheif or emt leader, we DO NOT SEND people into a burning building if we think at all theres a chance that it will fall..we must put our safety first before others. Thats an EMT/FIREFIGHTER's first rule.




"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


Things to note, he was talking to the Fire Department commander, he suggested, not order, they 'pull it. In this context it could mean the firefighter operation. Note he didn't give an order, firefighters don't explode building, and pulling to a demolitionist, means to attach cables and literaly pull it down. The Fire Department commander didn't think they could contain the fire, so they 'pulled' out.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   


How can you get such a strong feeling for what it stands for, "it" can imply anything at any rate, and that fact that when discussing that, Silverstein then refers to the building falling down, so what does that imply?


Context, he was talking to the Fire Department commander, not a demolitionist. Pulling could mean to pull out to a firefighter.



new topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join