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.

 

9/11 Debunk Discussion... Please Read

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

The deal was described in a press release on July 24, 2001:
"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history."[4]
The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m²) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. [5] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right to rebuild the structures should they be destroyed and should he comply with the onerous financial obligations of the leas


Come on guys - lets stick to the bigger picture please!! It's much more interesting than petty infighting.

Breifne.




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Breifne
 


agreed.

I think all of these mysteries surrounding that day and building 7 stir up more than the simple fact that Silverstein said "pull it"

but if we are to argue the that statement, according to the last video I posted, sources say that firemen were not in the building, so what could he have been referring to?


[edit on 27-6-2008 by Odessy]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
reply to post by Breifne
 


agreed.

I think all of these mysteries surrounding that day and building 7 stir up more than the simple fact that Silverstein said "pull it"

but if we are to argue the that statement, according to the last video I posted, sources say that firemen were not in the building, so what could he have been referring to?
[edit on 27-6-2008 by Odessy]


The whole argument over Larry Silverstein's interview is weird on several levels. Not the least of which is that if he was ACTUALLY saying that he gave the order to demolish the building, wouldn't that be an incredibly dumb idea? Afterall, he was complicit in the reuse and absolutely no good could come for him or his associates by giving up that secret.

It also seems odd that nobody has considered that he was probably just talking out of his butt to seem cool for the interview. He makes it sound as if the fire chief called him to get his permission to give up on the building when upon further investigation it becomes known that the firefighters had ALREADY been pulled back!

If you approach it from the standpoint of what he said and why he said it, it seems far more plausible that he was simply putting on some bravado for the camera rather than admitting to conspiring in the biggest terrorist event in history.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
omg, do you feel smarter for trying to degrade people online?


Well beleivers must since they like degrading people so much that do not go along with the official story (the official story that they cannot post evidence to support)

Now lets look at some facts.
1. PULL IT means to bring down a building.

2. The firemen were out of the building early in the day so PULL IT could not have meant the firemen.






[edit on 27-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
He makes it sound as if the fire chief called him to get his permission to give up on the building when upon further investigation it becomes known that the firefighters had ALREADY been pulled back!


FACTS.

1. Silverstein had no authority over what was going on the day, only the fire commander.

2. The only reason for the fire commander to call was to tell Silverstein that they could not save the building.

3. The fire commander decided to PULL IT.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Breifne
 


i find it interesting that this little press release makes NO mention of WTC7.
of course that could just be me.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
3. The fire commander decided to PULL IT.


well, has anyone found the IC's reports via public release or FOIA? we all know that in fire/ems/LE that if it isnt written down it didnt happen. and what in gods name would make a fire chief decide to "pull" anything in regards to destroying a building? theres NO "tactical" advantage to it, and in any stretch of the imagination, the MOST a IC can do is to decide to NOT fight the fire and let it burn out...who knows maybe building wasnt going to fall, why demo it?

so ruling all the common sense and SOP related questions, that can only leave us with the IC being "in on it". id like to believe that youre not implicating the IC in this so, maybe another explaination?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 




i find it interesting that this little press release makes NO mention of WTC7.
of course that could just be me.


It makes no mention? Hmm. Lets consider this then.

''Pull it'' is just one incident in a line of precarious incidents that lead to the entire complex of the WTC being demolished / severely damaged within hours!

Silverstein, IMHO, was up to his eyes in the 911 debacle. His statement, whether a Freudian slip or a genuine 'get the firefighters out' call, is just one dot in a line of dots.

Link his lease arrangements and the subsequent collapse and the subsequent claim for two terrorist incidents and irrespective what occurred to WTC7, IMHO, the ENTIRE complex was ''PULLED''.

Heres an American that tried his hardest to actually PROFIT from 911 - and you fail to see any connection between these dots?

I'll leave it there for the moment. ''Pull it'' is just a drop in the ocean.

Breifne.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I am from a "Steel" family. My grandfather was chief warden in Yorkshire, England in WW2 and protected Sheffield's Steel plants and the overall city, during years of massive enemy firebombing. He owned his own Steel Plant in Sheffield England after the war, and I visited it so many times as a boy, learning everything I could from him about the "family business". So I know that Steel doesn't melt easily and fire is a non-starter! I still cannot get past the "free fall" of the towers, made of steel, and caused by mere "fire". I am also shocked that more people in the "Steel Industry" don't weigh in on this "fire melts steel" fantasy!



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


This post is in response to ThichHeaded and Ultima's claims about the use of the phrase "pull it." I'm interested to know if either of you have any examples of "pull it" being used to describe the process of bringing down buildings with explosives. I was under the impression that is was not. If you are privy to some information I am not, I would like for you to send it to me. I want to learn new information that I have perhaps missed or overlooked. That is why I came here in the first place.

I have plenty of examples of industry experts sayiny that "pull it" is not used to describe bringing a building down by explosives. According to the 11 largest demolition companies in the USA, "pull it" is not, nor has it ever been an industry term meaning ,"to bring down with explosives." These companies were contacted by "Hardfire" host Ronald Wieck. They are:

Brandenburg Industrial Service Company, Vaccaro Construction, Drop-A-Box, A-1 Affordable Construction Company, Jersey Shore Demolition, Bluegrass Companies, EJB Global Services, Demolition Consultants, Robinette Demolition, Inc., Cutting Technologies and Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Also, a website called ImplosionWorld.com that, according to the website, "is the explosive demolition industry’s worldwide source for news and information on building implosions, blowdowns and all other types of structural blasting projects, "pull it" is not a term used to describe a demolition of a building using explosives. ImplosionWorlds.com's founder, Brent Blanchard, had this to say when contacted by Mr. Wieck:

" We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to describe the explosive demolition of a building and neither has any blast team we've spoken with."

(I've already stated this in a previous post, but I believe it warrants a re-post)
Acoording to this same website, the term "pull it" can be used to literally pull down a pre-weakened and short enough (usually under 10 stories) structure using cables attached to cranes or other heavy equipment. This process was used to bring down WTC 6 during clean up efforts.

About your claim that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 when Chief Nigro called Larry Silverstein, where did you find that information? All the evidence I could find indicates that the firefighters did not pull back until 3:30 pm, after Chief Nigro called Mr. Silverstein at 3:00 p.m. The building did not collapse until 5:20 pm. Again, Mr. Silvrstein stated in the documantray that, "They", not "I" or not "we" made the decision to "pull" the firefighters. "They" refering to Chief Nigro and the FDNY.

Personally, I think it is insulting to the firefighters for 9/11 truthers to assume the FDNY is either lying and/or incompetant in their decision making abilty when it come to fighting building fires. Truthers think that they can better decide that WTC 7 was never in any danger of collapse and therefore that Larry Silverstein ordered the building demolished.

Also, can you honestly say that the man (Mr. Silverstein) who supposedly profited from a multi-billion dollar insurance fraud case "spilled the beans" to PBS by way of a "slip of the tongue?" That seems a little too silly to believe.

I think this sums that theory up:

"Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit."

-(ret) FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
And what kind of a moron goes through the hassle and risk of secretly rigging a building for demolition only to openly admit to the crime on national TV?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
And what kind of a moron goes through the hassle and risk of secretly rigging a building for demolition only to openly admit to the crime on national TV?


over a year later and perhaps by accident?

and is it a crime? his insurance policy gave him complete control of what he could do to those buildings... there was no one in building 7 when it collapsed...
as for the other 2 towers... well, we know thats a dif story all together.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well beleivers must since they like degrading people so much that do not go along with the official story (the official story that they cannot post evidence to support)



I've re-read this sentence a million times, and still cant understand it.
if believers do not go along with the official story, why would they post evidence to support it? and how is this degrading anyone?

either way, i havent seen you give any evidence, and Ive seen you try and belittle people... so are you a believer?
and what is a believer?
someone who believed the 9/11 govt story?
or someone that believes 9/11 was a cover up?
cause I already told you which side I was on...

Seriously, I want to know, because your confusing me with every post your making.
I apologize in advance for not having read that one post in that one thread that was on ATS a few months ago that explains all of this, I know, I know, I must be a n00b.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Odessy]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by fo694013
 


Hey fo694013,

I have another question for you, not concerning WTC building 7, but flight 93.
You said I could ask you other questions about that day and I was wondering what you thought of that flight.

there is a new thread on ATS that you should look at showing you how that crash site does not follow the law of momentum.
There are many mysteries surrounding that flight, including this one:


Just curious as to what you make of that event.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Odessy]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


This post is not only a reply to Odessy, but also a response to others who believe that Larry Silverstein made billions from the destruction of the WTC complex due to his insurance policy. This conspiracy theory is popularized by many CT movies, documentaries and websites (Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries etc.) This CT is based off the claim that the WTC was suffering financially pre-9/11 and that this was a motive for its destruction. In fact this is simply not true.

Although occupancy rates fell sharply after the 1993 attacks, they had returned to 90% by May of 1998.

Info found here:

www.panynj.gov...

By February of 2001, occupancy rates had reached 98% (considered full occupancy). Sales for the Mall at the WTC had reached roughly $900 per sq. foot and it was expected to become the 3rd most profitable mall in America by the end of 2001. Furthermore, the restaurant at the WTC, Windows on the World, was the highest grossing restaurant in the U.S.

More info found here:

www.panynj.gov...

Another claim is that the abestos used in the construction of the WTC would have cost billions to be removed, furthering the claim that the WTC was not profitable. Although the abestos based fireproofing was intially selected for the WTC, its use was restricted in 1970, when it had only been applied to the bottom 38 floors of the North Tower. By 2001, the abestos had already been removed from approx. half of these floors. In a 1991 lawsuit against its insurers, the Port Authority estimated the cost of the removal to be approx. $200 million. The Port Authority lost the case in part because there was no legal requirement to have it removed.

Another claim (made by Loose Change) is that Larry Silverstein signed a $3.2 billion, 99 year lease on the entire WTC complex (he only owned WTC 7 at the time). This lease was signed 6 weeks before 9/11. Included in the lease was a $3.5 billion insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism. In fact this is not unusual. Acts of terrorism are covered under "all-risk" policies, which the WTC covered before the 1993 attacks. It's also claimed that Mr. Silverstein took out a policy covering terrorism that included a "double indemnity clause." There is no such thing as a "double indemnity clause" in property insurance policies. It was ruled that the hijackings be treated as two separate terrorist attacks, so some insurers had to pay double, but this wasn't because of any specific policy clause made pre-9/11. In total Larry Silverstein received $4.6 billion dollars from insurance companies for the destruction of the WTC complex.
The New York Times reported in May of 2003 that official estimates to rebuild the WTC complex would cost $10 billion, with that figure expected to rise.

NY Times article:
query.nytimes.com...

To cover the remaining costs of rebuilding, the State of New York gave $3.4 billion in Liberty Bonds to the site in exchange for Mr. Silverstein handing over the rights to the Freedom Tower and Tower 5 to the Port Authority. This still puts Mr. Silverstein in the red many several billions of dollars. That's also not taking into account the lost revenue over the last 7 years.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
over a year later and perhaps by accident?

If he really copped to it by accident you'd expect him to quickly backtrack and make it clear that he meant "something else entirely, hehe."

Instead we see him sombrely recounting the events of the day without hesitation or second thought, not the mannerisms of a guilty man.


Originally posted by Odessy
and is it a crime?

Insurance fraud is.


Originally posted by Odessy
his insurance policy gave him complete control of what he could do to those buildings...

Including demolishing them to collect a hefty insurance cheque?


Originally posted by Odessy
as for the other 2 towers... well, we know thats a dif story all together.

Yet they would had to have been connected in someway.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 



Well, I watched the video and I have a few problems with it.

1) :28 sec. The author makes the claim," They say that it was the intense heat from all that jet fuel that melted both the core columns of BOTH towers casuing a catosrophic failure....." This is not and never has been the official explainiation for the collapse of the towers. I won't go into that here, but if you want I can explain in another post.

2) Then we are shown a series of clips from news reports covering the UA 93 crash. None of these clips show when they were taken. I love the comments like," where are the fires?" etc. Without a time, those clips could be from after the fires were extuniguished, maybe even after clean-up efforts had begun or were completed.

3) Then we are shown an obscure photo allegely of Shanksville, PA from 1994. Apparently this is supposed to be a USCG map and you can clearly see a "scar" that resembles the crash site of UA 93. I've never heard this conspiracy theory, so I have not researched it. I intend to remedy that. I am of course skeptical, as this video is obviously biased. A link to where this photo was obtained would've been nice for the author to provide.


4) Then we are shown "what real plane crashes look like." What type of planes were they? How fast were they going? What caused them to crash? What terrain did they crash in? All of these play a large part in how a crash "looks." Again, obscure relation to UA 93.

5) Air-ground bomb? I am assuming he means bombs dropped by aircraft. Again maybe some links provided by the author would have been nice. How do we know those were "air-ground" bombs? The first pic looks more like it was a buried IED in Iraq, but thanks to the author, he only knows where he got them or what they really are...


The biggest problem I have with this video is the author never really states what he believes happended to UA 93. I can only assume he thinks it did not crash and that he believes that it landed in Cleveland, OH on 9/11. That I can debunk.

This theory is based on minimal evidence. In fact only 2 things. A quote by the mayor of Shanksville on 9/11 and a news report stating that UA 93 had landed in Cleveland.

Here is the quote CT's most often refer to from Shanksville's mayor:

" My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there. They were standing on a street corner in Shankville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here-and the fire dept. came. Everyone was puzzled because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane."

Ernie Stull

CT's conviently leave of the rest of the quote:

" They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the plane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 feet or even 8 by 12 feet."

Ernie Stull

When later asked about this by a German TV crew Mr. Stull stated that his quotes had been taken out of context.

Now the news report. The original report stated that a 767 made an emergency landing at Cleveland because of a suspected bomb on board. United Airlines intially reported it as UA 93. This was later retracted by the AP. Liz Foreman, who posted the original WCPO story, had this to say:

"The story in question, an AP press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com...The story stated that UA 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true. Once the AP retracted the story a few minutes later, we removed the link...

I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error porbably due to the busy nature of the day...things were crazier than they had ever been."



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles

You forgot about the statement from Chief Hayden that they were worried about the building might fall over and cause more damage and start more fires.

NOw here did i say anythign about the IC being involved in anything, please do not put words in my mouth.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
and what in gods name would make a fire chief decide to "pull" anything in regards to destroying a building?

that can only leave us with the IC being "in on it". id like to believe that youre not implicating the IC in this so, maybe another explaination?


1. You must have missed ther statements by the fire chiefs like Haydan that they were worried about the buidlings collapsing and causing more damage and starting more fires.

2. No i have not implicated the IC was in on anything, so do not put words in my mouth.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
if believers do not go along with the official story, why would they post evidence to support it? and how is this degrading anyone?


1. The believers have not and cannot post evidence to support the official story.

2. The beleivers have called people trying to find the truth names and degraded them just becasue they do not go along with the official story.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, are you also the anon poster above your last post? just curious, ive forgotten to log in before too, i just want to make sure im not skipping someone elses exact questions by only addressing yours.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Damocles
and what in gods name would make a fire chief decide to "pull" anything in regards to destroying a building?

that can only leave us with the IC being "in on it". id like to believe that youre not implicating the IC in this so, maybe another explaination?


1. You must have missed ther statements by the fire chiefs like Haydan that they were worried about the buidlings collapsing and causing more damage and starting more fires.


guess i must have but wow does that open up more questions for me.

IF this fire chief Haydan was concerned the building was going to collapse...what then made him fear said collapse? i mean on one side we got people saying its impossible cuz steel framed buildings dont just collapse but then we have a man on the ground worried that its going to.

so to me at least, it seems that if a fire chief on the ground is worried that theres going to be a collapse then maybe theres a reason to think it could collapse?


2. No i have not implicated the IC was in on anything, so do not put words in my mouth.

it only seems like im putting words in your mouth when you cut out the rest of my post and focus on this line.

YOU have said in the past that you have had ICS training. so have i. ive said this. in MY ICS training, we were never trained that we were allowed to order the implosion of a building during an event, maybe you were. if so id like you to tell me which publication this was in so i can order it. IF NOT, then you must agree that imploding buildings is a little out of the pervue of the ICS and if anyone on the ground on 911 from the FDNY or NYPD ordered the implosion of wtc 7 so that it would do less damage than if it were to collapse they did so on their own against most common sense and written SOP's.

in my last post i had also reminded everyone that if its not written down it didnt happen. can you contest that this is in fact policy with most EMS systems and IC's? they DO have to report everything they do. in writing.

so, is the implosion of WTC7 written in a report somewhere?

IF it is not written down, we have ONLY TWO possibilities.

1: he ordered the implosion, didnt write it down, and ordered the men who rigged the building to stfu about it. that kind of makes him in on it.

2: the IC did NOT order the implosion of WTC 7 for ANY reason and is NOT in on it.

which is more plausible? im going with 2 myself.

lastly, if you dont want me putting words in your mouth, even when im not, no problem. but then do me the courtesy of not cutting up my quotes and ONLY addressing the parts that might make it seem like i am putting words in your mouth. had you addressed my posts as a whole, it wouldnt have even seemed like i was trying to put words in anyones mouth. thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join