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.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong... (WTC 7)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Yep, Larry would intentionally demolish a building and in the process cause himself to LOSE millions of dollars......yep that makes a lot of sense.




posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yep, Larry would intentionally demolish a building and in the process cause himself to LOSE millions of dollars......yep that makes a lot of sense.


Actually, he didn't lose anything, he made billions of dollars off the insurance policy he took out on the towers not too long before the attacks that just so happened to cover, yep, terrorist attacks (yes I'm aware it was attacked in '93
)

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Also, I doubt Larry himself was the actual one to give the orders, the building was going to be demolished regardless as part of the mission, he was just a pawn.

[edit on 1/14/2007 by JKersteJr]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
No, he didnt make billions, the insurance proceeds in the end are not going to cover the full reconstruction costs, not to mention he STILL is required to pay the lease to the Port Authority for the towers.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
... Silverstein WAS NOT at ground Zero. He was at home with his wife. So this statement you made could not be accurate:


Do you actually think about what you are saying?
If Lary was home he couldn't have watched the building fall either, but he said he did right?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, he didnt make billions, the insurance proceeds in the end are not going to cover the full reconstruction costs, not to mention he STILL is required to pay the lease to the Port Authority for the towers.


Of course he's still paying the lease. He didn't want the WTC complex he wanted the land it was on. He saved billions from not having to pay for a demo crew to knock them down and do clean up. He got the double insurance, how did he know to get that included right before the event?

The towers were losing money, many floors were unoccupied. The WTC complex was too expensive to run to be profitable.

Larry made his fortune knocking down old buildings and building new ones, it's how he makes his money. If not already he will make a killing on that piece of property.

Sry but Larry being involved is no stretch at all, the guys a sleaze bag who only sees $$$$$$.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, he didnt make billions, the insurance proceeds in the end are not going to cover the full reconstruction costs, not to mention he STILL is required to pay the lease to the Port Authority for the towers.


Technically he DID make money off of the insurance, I think I read roughly 4.6 billion or something like that, yes he will have to repay a good chunk for rent to the PA, but there is no guarantee that he is even going to get this new tower up anytime soon.

Either way he's not losing jack in the end, he's still gonna end up with a profit somehow.

www.onlinejournal.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
For the first time in history, 3 buildings were severely damaged AND suffered from fire. And unlike most buildings this one burned for 7 hours with no aid.

So the moral of the story is that no skyscraper in history had suffered the damage these buildings had before and thus making it even more likely they could be in danger of collapsing, especially after 2 had already collapsed.


Let me say this. Do you know why most building demolitions have to have their supports cut by up to 90% sometimes? Because buildings have a tendency to have resistance built in to them. Tell me, was this damage to WTC 7 up to 90% of the support system? I don't think so. Buildings don't come down in a controlled manner unless most of the buildings resistance is cut away. Period. I hate to have to tell you, but no building that has "damage" on the South facade is going to collapse in a "controlled" manner. Just my professional opinion.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
The Madrid Windsor???

The building like many other used as examples are actually concrete buildings with parts that are steel. And in the case of that building, the steel parts DID collapse.



Let's think about the madrid tower. Yes, the steel sections did bend and warp. Collapse, that's stretching it. And that was after more than 7 hours of continuos fire. Not to mention that the steel used in the Windsor was a paper clip compared to a steel wire hanger of the WTC 7. Yes, we can make assumptions using the Windsor Tower. Assumptions that go against the official theory.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew
And yes contsant upgrades are believable, I'm just raising these questions, when was it last done? who installed them? what floors was it done on?


The answer to these questions are hard to find. Go to this site NYCbuildings.gov I think it is. If that's not right, I'll post the link on Tuesday (it's at work). They don't have the records that most buildings have in regards to permits, upgrades ect. I've posted this information before.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew
Not to play devils advocate here as I question the term myself, but it was said earlier in the thread that wtc6 was pulled by cables. I watched the video and it did not shed doubt on this. It evens ends with a big crane like hook. The guy talking doesn't say one way or another.


Just to clear things up. WTC 6 WAS demolished using cables. I wrote to Controlled Demolitions and they said they weren't involved but were pretty sure that because of the slurry wall, they had to use cables. Just a FYI.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yep, Larry would intentionally demolish a building and in the process cause himself to LOSE millions of dollars......yep that makes a lot of sense.


Can you prove this? I'd like to see the timeline of his earnings and losses since his company built the building. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Anok

The towers were losing money, many floors were unoccupied. The WTC complex was too expensive to run to be profitable.



This is very true... Also, their was a desire to demolish them and the money that it would have taken to do this was quite a bit I believe. Does anyone have any references thay can post on this? I have a few but links not working. I'm saving web pages not but not back then.


Larry had plenty of motive and opportunity to be involved in this charade. How many buildings in the complex have already been rebuilt? So it's not like the site has been sitting there making 0 dollars since 911. Also, who knows what kind of other corrupt ties this man has and the money he makes from such. Don't forget Larry also owns the Sears tower in Chicago so it would not surprise me if it's not involved in some 'terror' attack in the near future just based on this fact alone.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
The Chief Of Operations was Chief Nigro. He had control of the area and made the final decision to make the collapse zone.... what does silverstein have to do with anything?


Nothing really, the chief made a courtisy call to Silverstein to tell him he could not save his building (after the firemen were pulled out) Silverstein agreed thier was nothing left to do.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   


The towers were losing money, many floors were unoccupied. The WTC complex was too expensive to run to be profitable.


Another...lie....about the circumstances.




At the time of its collapse, the World Trade Center's occupancy level was close to 100% and its destruction has displaced dozens of companies.


findarticles.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Another...lie....about the circumstances.


Oh?


The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had been losing money on the towers for years because of low tenancy. The financial loss was the real issue. There was also another vital issue – asbestos! The towers had become an albatross sitting on the most valuable piece of real estate in the world. The Port Authority had three choices: sell or lease them, pay for expensive asbestos removal or demolish them. The Authority had tried for years but were unable to sell the buildings – after all, what fool would take on the liability of asbestos? They couldn’t demolish it. The health hazard of asbestos powder blanketing New York was legally unthinkable and totally out of the question. Expensive asbestos removal seemed to be the only option.


Source

Sry but your link didn't work, got some other proof that this is a lie?

[edit on 15/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
ROTFLMAO...a quilt designer wrote it, it must be true....

So cut and paste my link into the address bar, because it works just fine for me. Almost 100% occupancy.........



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   


How much office space is enough for WTC site? - World Trade Center, New York - Brief Article





While the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation sits at the drawing board, trying to come up with a redevelopment plan that ensures universal satisfaction, Downtown's economic situation isn't getting any better and the hole at the World Trade Center site isn't getting any smaller. At the moment, LMDC is trying to correct what many perceive to be the major flaw in its previous proposals - the emphasis on replacing all of the commercial space lost by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on Sept. 11. City officials and real estate developers insist that Downtown doesn't need that much office space and that the Port Authority's stubborn insistence on recouping all of its losses, rather than a design competition that involved a total of two architecture firms, is to blame for the proposals' mediocrity. In fact, so displeased does the city seem with the PA that there is talk of exchanging airport land for the agency's right to the World Trade Center.





But opponents of large commercial development Downtown can only talk in the short term. Even the most experienced developer couldn't predict the level of demand that will exist 10 or 15 years down the road - which is the earliest the World Trade Center site will be rebuilt. At the time of its collapse, the World Trade Center's occupancy level was close to 100% and its destruction has displaced dozens of companies. Downtown brokers seem to think that in the long term, 11 million SF might be reasonable, given that certain improvements are made in the area.


findarticles.com...

List of tower occupants 9/11/01

www.nywtc911.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by CameronFox
... Silverstein WAS NOT at ground Zero. He was at home with his wife. So this statement you made could not be accurate:


Do you actually think about what you are saying?
If Lary was home he couldn't have watched the building fall either, but he said he did right?


Eh, I dunno, maybe an invention know as "television" helped him out on that one?


Man, this subject confuses me... I find it extremely hard to accept that it was CD but I am suspiscious about the whole deal.
I don't know much about CD, but don't you have to get in and drill hundereds, if not thousands of holes to place the charges first? A building the size of WTC7 (not to even mention WTC1 and 2) would have taken days of hard, dirty and LOUD work... No-one noticed that?

Still, I am quite sure that they all knew that the attack was coming and they knew exactly how much they would benefit from it (but this I already wrote in another thread).

[edit on 17-1-2007 by Raud]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raud

Originally posted by ANOK
Do you actually think about what you are saying?
If Lary was home he couldn't have watched the building fall either, but he said he did right?


Eh, I dunno, maybe an invention know as "television" helped him out on that one?


Actually, I don't remember it being on television. Anyone have the answer to this? Did Larry watch the building fall on television? Was the collapse even shown on television? Isn't that one clip from ABC news or something like that?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
The collapse of WTC 7 was not on live TV AFAIK.

I don't think the video even came out for awhile after the day did it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join