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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
As if $4.6 billion in gift wrapped insurance payments wasn't enough for Mr. Silverstein, he is now looking for another $12.3 billion in damages as well.

"Larry A. Silverstein, who has won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments to cover his losses and help him rebuild at the World Trade Center site, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack."

Full New York Time article is here:

www.nytimes.com...


And then there is this doozy of a quote from Mr. Silverstein stating the Twin Towers and/or WTC Building 7 cores were constructed using plasterboard. The guy may be a good salesman, but let's face it, he is one horrible liar.

“We learned on 9/11 that you don’t build a core out of plasterboard,” he says. “Plasterboard doesn’t burn—terrific—but you can take a penknife and carve through it. It’s permitted by code, but it has no strength. It has no substance."

Here is the full article:

nymag.com...


Mr. Silverstein should quit while he's ahead and keep his mouth shut, since every time he opens it, he puts his foot in it. Of course, the arrogance of knowing you got away with something pretty huge can do this to some people.

No offense to Mr. Silverstein, but the last place on earth I would be willing to work or live in would be one of his properties. Simply put, someone who has made it his mission to capitalize and profit enormously from on one of the most tragic events in American history cannot be trusted.

If Silverstein lost money on the whole 9/11 operation, he and his financial backers would not have taken up the job of rebuilding the location. It appears to be Silverstein's intention to pocket all the insurance money and use the usual suckers (American taxpayers) to rebuild Ground Zero.

Nice little scam if you can get away with it. And considering the immense stupidity of the American public, he probably will get away with it.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


Nice little scam if you can get away with it. And considering the immense stupidity of the American public, he probably will get away with it.



Just look at this thread. I highly doubt his little friends here are getting a share of his windfall and yet here they are defending something that is demonstrably not true.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
As if $4.6 billion in gift wrapped insurance payments wasn't enough for Mr. Silverstein, he is now looking for another $12.3 billion in damages as well.

"Larry A. Silverstein, who has won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments to cover his losses and help him rebuild at the World Trade Center site, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack."


So after your seemingly knowledgeable talk you equate gross revenues to profits. Like saying General Motors sells a billion dollars worth of cars every year - so they must have made a billion last year."

I'm no admirer of Silverstein, but he is the guy on top of the primest real estate in the world. NYC is an important place for a number of reasons economically, culturally, psychologically. The delays in rebuilding and getting the city back to 'normal' are bad for everyone, not just New Yorkers. The damage caused by 9/11 is hard to estimate. It will never be the same again.

None of us are privy to all the specifics of Silverstein & Co finances - overheads, salaries, costs of maintenance, shortfall on projected revenues, cost of borrowing, and a dozen other factors.

Suffice to say they aren't simply 'making out like bandits' as people like to dismissively summarize.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Suffice to say they aren't simply 'making out like bandits' as people like to dismissively summarize.



Can you actually back that statement up at all? One link to a liveleaks article fits your description of despicable truther behavior but that is the best you have done so far to prove anything. You just seem to think repeating it will make it true.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
None of us are privy to all the specifics of Silverstein & Co finances - overheads, salaries, costs of maintenance, shortfall on projected revenues, cost of borrowing, and a dozen other factors.


Then why do you vehemenantly defend that he is loosing money? If you yourself aren't privy to the information.


Suffice to say they aren't simply 'making out like bandits' as people like to dismissively summarize.


Larry Silverstein is not in it to lose money. The very fact he is still persuing this venture should tip you off.

And if you are going to say he has a lease, then I can say that this incident was so precedent that I'm sure he could have been allowed to break a lease given that he was allowed to break all insurance protocol.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you actually back that statement up at all? One link to a liveleaks article fits your description of despicable truther behavior but that is the best you have done so far to prove anything. You just seem to think repeating it will make it true.


I don't engage in this Truther pitfall tactic "You haven't shown enough proof."

I'm not a defense attorney for anyone. I can say a city has 2 million people. I don't have to supply their names and addresses, photographs, census records.

A representative credible sample is sufficient on a discussion forum. You want more - Google it or go to a financial forum.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein, in my view, is a liar!

He came to a college I attended in NYC to talk about his new projects and all that. During the Q&A session, one lady stood up and asked him in regards to why he insured the twin towers against a terrorist attack 6 months prior to the actual attack. He mumbled something and all of a sudden decided now to answer any other questions. His actions seemed as if he were guilty of something. From that event, I got an impression of him as being a bold faced liar. Now again my impression could've been wrong, but that's how I felt after that event.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you actually back that statement up at all? One link to a liveleaks article fits your description of despicable truther behavior but that is the best you have done so far to prove anything. You just seem to think repeating it will make it true.


I don't engage in this Truther pitfall tactic "You haven't shown enough proof."

I'm not a defense attorney for anyone. I can say a city has 2 million people. I don't have to supply their names and addresses, photographs, census records.

A representative credible sample is sufficient on a discussion forum. You want more - Google it or go to a financial forum.


You just cannot admit that you do not know what you are trying to claim is a fact, can you? Sad really. You claimed he lost billions and you have failed to demonstrate that even a little. If it gets your gander in such a bunch to be asked to prove it then i guess you should not be on the streetcorner screaming it as fact. You said it, you back it up. The rest of us have done just fine to show that he in fact made out HUGE compared to what he invested and all you can do is whine that you are being asked to prove what you claimed.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReAlIzAtIoN
Larry Silverstein, in my view, is a liar!

He came to a college I attended in NYC to talk about his new projects and all that. During the Q&A session, one lady stood up and asked him in regards to why he insured the twin towers against a terrorist attack 6 months prior to the actual attack. He mumbled something and all of a sudden decided now to answer any other questions. His actions seemed as if he were guilty of something. From that event, I got an impression of him as being a bold faced liar. Now again my impression could've been wrong, but that's how I felt after that event.


Great evidence. You might want to read what's been posted here and elsewhere. Salient point, with the history of the WTC attack in 1993, as new owner and involved in complex financing, Silverstein was required to acquire the levels of insurance he took out when he did.

There are all sorts of unusual things surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the Bush admin's actions Many exploited the situation economically,politically, etc. Premeditated insurance fraud doesn't appear to be among the list of dirty deeds.

You should have asked Silverstein for his autograph and handed him a blank check.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
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]



so you have no logical response, facts or answer to how no other building in HISTORY of the WORLD has ever collapsed due to FIRES?... which btw is the laughable official reason and excuse for why and how WTC7 collapsed.... Oh wait,,, i take that back, there were only 2 other buildings in history that also collapsed due to FIRES.

Wanna take a guess which ones they were?

But of course you don't find anything odd, suspect or coincidental with that do you? pfffffffff

so you're gonna stick with your answer that supports the "official government story" ie fairytale?... even though you KNOW its the most absurd story in the history of the world for how such a building could have collapsed?... which was Perfectly into its own footprint even? In an almost FREEFALL?

Stop insulting the intelligence of rational thinking people.

Please tell me MM, that you have some doubt in what you believe on faith by your "governemnt"... if you don't, you're not just among those who are in denial or haven't done any research; You are absolutely knowingly spreading disinfo and PART OF THE COVER-UP. Or iow, no different than the perpetrators themselves if you can DEFEND the OS and not see anything suspect when ones basic common sense should be more than sufficient based on what ANYONE knows about the characteristics of a controlled demolition that fits WTC7 to a TEE aside from the FACT there wasn't any major visible damage other than a few office fires especially compared to 6.

your argument about damaged allegedly going on internally is so ridiculous in this case, that its almost not even worth responding to.

but then the ONLY way internal damage big enough to collapse such a structure into its footprint could have been created, was if WTC1 actually FELL on it... but even if that occurred and it didn't, it still wouldn't have fallen or at least the odds are so astronomical that its laughable to entertain as possible if not just because WTC6 had far more damage from WTC1 on it and was still standing and only LATER had to be professionally imploded.

so admit you're on the perp payroll or conceed your argument is beyond insane.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by Orion7911]

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Can always tell a truther - will post some picture of NORTH face and then
start jabbering

"See there are no fires...."


South face of WTC 7 was slashed open - most of the fires were started on
that side


please show PROOF the south face of WTC7 was "SLASHED OPEN"... and while you're at it, please tell everyone what you consider the definition for SLASHED OPEN is. You know damn well that the term you're using denotes MAJOR UNMISTAKABLE EXTERNAL DAMAGE that doesn't occur by office fires alone. And grossly exaggerating and lying, is a known disinfo tact...especially by 9/11 anti-truthers.

So back it up and show evidence and context, or RETRACT it.

But since we both know you're lying, the odds of you even responding is unlikely...as usual.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


"so you're gonna stick with your answer that supports the "official government story" ie fairytale?... even though you KNOW its the most absurd story in the history of the world for how such a building could have collapsed?... which was Perfectly into its own footprint even??"

Someone help me out. Did the building fall Perfectly [sic] into its own footprint?

Bsbray? Lily?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Someone help me out. Did the building fall Perfectly [sic] into its own footprint?

Bsbray? Lily?


I guess that depends on your definition of perfect. For an asymmetrical impact hole and random pockets of fire, it was pretty damn close to perfect. It was probably as perfect as you could ever get with a building that size.

Maybe you can clear it up. There are a lot of buildings close together in that area. Which other buildings did the center of mass finally end up on?

I would really love to sit here and just say yes but nothing that day was actually PERFECT and few things in the world are ever PERFECT. I know you like the word. It is probably as much as I like the difference between 'conflicting eyewitness testimony from the same eyewitness' and what you all want to call 'mistaken.'

Did Boger see a plane fly along the OS flight path and into the building? Help me out here.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Oh Lily, I didn't mean to upset you.

But let's not veer too far OT.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Oh Lily, I didn't mean to upset you.

But let's not veer too far OT.


wrong thread. Your stalking me is getting hard to keep up with. You asked, I answered. What is wrong, did you not like my answer? No witty retort? Why is it you think it upset me? I asked, where did the center of mass end up? If it was not straight down, where did it go?


[edit on 12/21/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I guess that depends on your definition of perfect. For an asymmetrical impact hole and random pockets of fire, it was pretty damn close to perfect. It was probably as perfect as you could ever get with a building that size.


That's the problem, actually, as these damned fool conspriacy websites are notorious for being fast and loose with their definitions. Yes, the towers fell perfectly into their footprint...presuming you consider "their footprint" to be the entire WTC complex. Just look at the aerial photos of ground zero and you can see that the wreckage spilled out onto pretty much eveything nearby (including WTC 7). The towers were just plain flipping HUGE, and the wreckage from the collapse wouldn't have ceased to exist simply because it reached the ground.




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join