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.

 

WeAreChange Confronts Larry SilverStein about World Trade Center 7 - Man, he looks guilty!

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The video shows "Lucky" Larry the new owner of the World Trade Center Complex and WTC 7 just prior to its destruction on 9/11, avoids questions and looks guilty as he is questioned about the shady answers given to the demolition of the WTC complex including WTC 7 at around 5pm on 911.

Man this guy looks guilty. He obtained a 99 year lease and ownership in 2001. He mentions that "pull it" was actually meant to pull the FDNY out of the building when Chief Nigro debunks him saying that there was no fire fighting effort taking place and he doesnt take orders from Silverstein.



[edit on 22-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]
Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25 Sep 09 by Gools]




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I love these silly explanations. How stupid they think people are.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
So what do some of you think?

Does this man look like he is hiding something?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Would the fire dept need to consult with him or get his go ahead to remove their own firemen? No

Would the fire dept need to consult with him or get his go ahead to demolish the building? Yes

Is he hiding something? Yes.

I think he was just trying to make sure he didn't screw up his insurance claims though. I don't think he was involved in any part of the orchestration, he just saw an opportunity to cash in when it happened and went for it. Who wouldn't?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
So what do some of you think?

Does this man look like he is hiding something?


No, I suspect he's just sick and tired of having to answer the exact same stupid questions 500 times, particularly when he knows that it doesn't make an iota of difference how he answers becuase the conspiracy people are so hard core in love with their conspiracies that they wouldn't believe him even if he said night was dark and farts stink.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Maybe "pull it" meant his finger then



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I would have to say I am almost certain that Larry Silverstein was not involved, heres why:

On the insurance policy he took out, everyone knows he tried to collect twice, once for each instance. When I researched the insurance claim he lost his first case, and he used case law in his second case to win. If he had planned it out, his lawyers would have won the first case also.

The case law went something like this: In insurance, instances are, as an industry standard, separated by 72 hours. In this particular case, the insurance company found it cheaper to consider a certain weather event as 2 instances, so the 72 hour rule was nullified.

If Larry had planned this all out he would have won another couple billion dollars in court.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
I would have to say I am almost certain that Larry Silverstein was not involved, heres why:

On the insurance policy he took out, everyone knows he tried to collect twice, once for each instance. When I researched the insurance claim he lost his first case, and he used case law in his second case to win. If he had planned it out, his lawyers would have won the first case also.

The case law went something like this: In insurance, instances are, as an industry standard, separated by 72 hours. In this particular case, the insurance company found it cheaper to consider a certain weather event as 2 instances, so the 72 hour rule was nullified.

If Larry had planned this all out he would have won another couple billion dollars in court.



I think people are looking at this slighly differently. Some people think he was involved only as someone who through his many connections caught wind of something that might happen to these buildings, not direct involvement and that his "pull it" statement was intentionally vague and ambigious so as to protect himself in case anything surfaced. He is covering both bases with one ambigious statement. Now he has come out and admitted that he meant "pull" the firefighters from the building.

But someone could wonder if he himself knew what was coming and felt that it wise to have the firefighters "pulled" in advance of the collapse so as to not invite further investigations due to the loss of life had the building collapsed ONTOP OF THE FIREFIGHTERS and the demands that might have come the firefighters for an added investigation into yet another building collapse. (at least he might have supposed such.)


Or.....The other possibility that I have enteratained is that he was informed by someone on the day of 9/11 that Building 7 was going to be demolished, and at that point he tried to get the firefighters out of the building because he knew at that moment what was coming.

In other words, he didn't tell the Fire Dept the real reason he wanted them "pulled."


[edit on 25-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Well that was embarassing, as per usual.

Making a loud, rowdy circus everywhere they go is not the way to win over any credibility.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join