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.

 

Need help from BOTH camps determining Larry Silversteins role in 911

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you prove he lost money or just repeat it?


I would also like to see a business timeline showing just how Mr. Silverstein is loosing money.

Don't forget to include future earnings.


All high profile financial sector info is tracked and reported in detail online.
Check it out.

If one or more corporate shells is publicly traded profit/loss specifics have to be published by law. You can probably request a copy of the Annual Report.

Most likely scenario you'll find is a merger or integration for the capitol loss being used to offset a capitol gain somewhere.

Happy Hunting. Send back a report.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Silverstien could not have ordered the fireman out


Then why is Mr. Silverstein claiming he did?


It was at this point that Silverstein was called informing him that the fires were out of control and that WTC 7 could not be saved


But yet Mr. Silverstein contradicts you entirely. And you still have good faith in the guy? After lying to everyone on national TV?

But, I guess since he's not a "truther" his word is golden even though he has been proven to be a liar at the least and a conspirator at most.

So tell me. Who do you believe? Nigro or Silverstein? Because obviosly one of the two is lying since their stories conflict. And if it is Silverstein, then why do you still defend a liar?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I already saved you the trouble and showed you how he gets to turn a multi-billion dollar initial investment into a 7 billion dollar settlement. Did it confuse you?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I already saved you the trouble and showed you how he gets to turn a multi-billion dollar initial investment into a 7 billion dollar settlement. Did it confuse you?


No, he is pretending to ignore you again because you did not defend his many many many many many many many many 'mistakes.'



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Silverstein is not lying

When informed of the FDNY decision to abandon WTC7 all he could do was
concur with what was already done. As stated before Silverstein had
no authority over the FDNY.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nutter
 


Silverstein is not lying


Really?


When informed of the FDNY decision to abandon WTC7 all he could do was
concur with what was already done. As stated before Silverstein had
no authority over the FDNY.




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


A total contradiction to what you and Chief Nigro have said.

How is that NOT a lie?



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter


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


A total contradiction to what you and Chief Nigro have said.

How is that NOT a lie?


Both agreed it was a losing battle trying to contain the fire. The wounded building was crumbling. The danger to firemen would increase if they continued.

In later recounting they choose certain phrasing to describe what was a mutual and inevitable decision.

Where is there any deception?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
Both agreed it was a losing battle trying to contain the fire. The wounded building was crumbling. The danger to firemen would increase if they continued.


Or the wounded building (wounded primarily by internal explosions almost undoubtedly made by explosive charges) was about to be demolished. Larry Silverstein's wording almost makes me think that perhaps initially they were thinking of saying that they -had- intentionally demolished the building, in order to avert further loss of life, only to change course after discovering that in order to roll with that, they would have had to have admitted that they'd set the explosive charges well before 9/11.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


So WTC 1 did not fall on building 7?

Explain why if explosives were detonated in WTC 7 why were most of the
windows still INTACT?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Both agreed it was a losing battle trying to contain the fire. The wounded building was crumbling.

Yeah, here's that "wounded, crumbling" WTC 7 with it's uncontrollable fires: (north face)



(upper right, south face)



mmmmichael, you're so full of it, your eyes are brown.


[edit on 11-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
mmmmichael, you're so full of it, your eyes are brown.


Because I don't buy into every dopey conspiracy site and Youtube claim.

Are you saying thousands of people standing right there didn't see a building shuddering and slowly crumbling for a hours before it structural support finally gave way?

It's the end of 2009. It's been shown a thousand times how and why the WTC buildings collapsed. You're terrified to read up on it. 8 years of idiots isolating photos and making claims they can't substantiate. Lots of talk. No evidence of explosives and controlled demolition.

Keep on dreaming.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Photos don't lie. You do.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Photos don't lie. You do.


It is hard to believe anyone defends that mess as simple honest 'mistakes.' He claims silverstein lost billions but when pressed with the fact that he is wrong, he just ignores it. He claims 7 was overtaken by out of control fires but when pressed with the facts, he insults your person. What integrity!



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Photos don't lie. You do.


People who select a couple photos and claim they are proof of something happening that did not - are liars.

Done all the time by Truthers frustrated by the lack of tangible evidence of the controlled demolition they desperately need to believe in.

Add the reality that there is no point in taking huge risks blowing up buildings already destroyed by the collision of two airliners, spilled fuel burning and uncontrolled fires weakening structural support to the point of unsustainability.

Truthers are the most gullible people in the world. Show them a video or a couple selected pictures, throw in some wonky explanation of how it proves a government cover-up, and they buy it.

Life goes on. The sane world deals with the fact that self-confessed Muslim extremists attacked the US in 2001. Foaming at the mouth Truthers remain holed up in their conspiracy site bunkers exchanging fairy tales with each other. They go berserk when someone points out how ridiculous they have become.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Photos don't lie. You do.


People who select a couple photos and claim they are proof of something happening that did not - are liars.

Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Done all the time by Truthers frustrated by the lack of tangible evidence of the controlled demolition they desperately need to believe in.

You just did it again. I show you incontrovertible, tangible evidence -- including photos -- and you claim we're the ones who are frustrated by a lack of evidence? Interesting argument.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Add the reality that there is no point in taking huge risks blowing up buildings already destroyed by the collision of two airliners, spilled fuel burning and uncontrolled fires weakening structural support to the point of unsustainability.

Except of course when the buildings were specifically designed and constructed to absorb the impact of multiple 707s, a plane very similar in size, weight and speed to a 767.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Life goes on. The sane world deals with the fact that self-confessed Muslim extremists attacked the US in 2001.

But you don't have a life -- beyond spewing your BS on the ATS 9/11 Forum 24/7. And yeah, you're the only sane one, Mr. Canadian "journalist" who's a little too obsessed with defending the US government's ridiculous OS.

Or did you forget about the 67% of "insane" Americans who think 9/11 was an inside job?

MSNBC Poll:


Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 96528 responses

67% Yes.

27% No.

5.4% I'm not sure.



[edit on 11-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.


You'll continue to be laughed at when you keep throwing out the same lame Truther idiocy that's floated on the Net for years. (99% of which has been exposed as BS years ago.

"Lightly damaged" You know how damaged it was because some guy in a trailer park said so. He measured the truss load stresses, knows the strength loss of high temperature steel, is able to calculate the load shift onto support column 79, etc.

Like God forbid you should read reports from people who were there, watched the building visibly crumbling and swaying. Or later analyzed the damage - firemen, structural engineers, building fire specialists, experts in their fields from a dozen countries.

You know absolutely nothing about 9/11, the damage to the WTC, or actual history. Not any more than any fat suburban kid spending a few hours on conspiracy sites and Youtube can't pick up.

Go gather some more factoids and photos to persuade the other kids in the schoolyard. You might even impress a 12 year old with your great knowledge of Big Bad Government Evil Conspiracies.




[edit on 11-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.


"Lightly damaged" You know how damaged it was because some guy in a trailer park said so.

Nope, I know how damaged it was because that's what the photos show.

Only you would continue to dismiss photographic proof.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Yep, I'd consider photos of a lightly-damaged WTC 7 to be proof. Isn't that what you're always screaming about? Where's YOUR proof? Nothing but insults and endless yapping.


"Lightly damaged" You know how damaged it was because some guy in a trailer park said so.

Nope, I know how damaged it was because that's what the photos show.

Only you would continue to dismiss photographic proof.


If you stop to think for a moment, external damage visible in a photograph does not indicate what is happening internally. A tiny bullet hole in the right position can stop a heart or a brain.

In fact a complex forensic by structural engineers reported in STRUCTURE magazine showed a shift of load to steel column 79 which was not designed to carry 5-10 times the mass demand put on it, with excessive heat diminishing it's strength simultaneously.

Small children can identify things in photographs. It takes intelligence and reasoning to comprehend a complex multi-factorial process.



[edit on 11-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

Oh, I see. You finally admit there was very little external damage to WTC 7. The building wasn't "visibly crumbling and swaying" and it didn't have any "out-of-control fires." But now you claim all the damage magically occurred internally? Maybe the wreckage from the twin towers burrowed underground and came up through WTC 7?

That's right up there with Swampy's "exploding cleaning products" theory!



[edit on 11-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
In fact a complex forensic by structural engineers reported in STRUCTURE magazine


How "complex" can a structural forensic investigation be without the actual structural documentation? Not to mention that no one examined WTC 7 steel after FEMA's fumble.


.The National Construction Safety Team Act will ensure that the mishandled evidence and in-fighting that hobbled FEMA’s World Trade Center investigation never happens again.



"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.


www.house.gov...

BTW. That's not one of those "damn fool conspiracy websites". Or is it?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Nutter]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join