Larry Silverstein's $4.5 Billion from 9/11

reply to post by mmiichael


Nice deflection ,

this thread is about Lary Silverstein

And his money pay out sir.

So, somehow BUILDING 7 had a design flaw that allowed it to collapse into its own foot print. even though a fire has never brought down a steal framed building resembling controlled demolition before or since? Even with little explosions caught on tape coming out the side of the building?

But why did BBC announced building 7 collapsed before it actually did?

www.youtube.com...


And how did they know exactly when the building was coming down using a countdown?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by mmiichael

Quite simply, the fall of building 7 had all the telltale signs of controlled demolition:

• Very rapid speed of fall
  
• Symmetric collapse around its vertical axis
  
• Production of large quantities of dust
  
• Collapse into a small, consolidated rubble pile, with exterior walls lying on top
  

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Sean48
and he told them to 'Pull it"

yes, pull the firefighters out, as everyone who stops and thinks about it knows

You REALLY believe this don't you ? I cannot believe that you can be so naive ?
Everyone know's what 'pull it' means in in the demolition industry my friend and i believe that REALLY so do you !
Stop spreading your bilge it doesn't wash with me !

Originally posted by ProRipp

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Sean48
and he told them to 'Pull it"

yes, pull the firefighters out, as everyone who stops and thinks about it knows

You REALLY believe this don't you ? I cannot believe that you can be so naive ?
Everyone know's what 'pull it' means in in the demolition industry my friend and i believe that REALLY so do you !
Stop spreading your bilge it doesn't wash with me !

Haha, Dereks you never cease to amaze! "Pull IT" refers to firemen? Since when does anybody call firemen an IT?

Plus, it is well established that there were NO firemen in that building for hours before it was demolished. So, as EVERYONE who stops and really THINKS about it, if there were no firemen in the building for hours before it came crumbling down into little tiny pieces, it makes no sense to "pull THEM" out.

Also, the only people who decide to pull firemen out of a building is the fire chief himself. It is not up to a building owner to decide when a fire crew is finished. Also, they would never just let a building burn like that. That is not what they do. A man can't just decide to let his building burn or to haphazardly collapse, even though buildings don't collapse from fires.

THINK DEREKS, THINK...and stop wishing and hoping that your government wasn't capable of such a heinous crime... because they were... so just accept it and stop living in a dream world of fairies and nice lovely leaders.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by mmiichael
And we're to believe that the building's owner was telling the firemen "pull it" in as a command to force collapse the building as opposed to the pulling the rescue effort.

also, we are supposed to believe that firemen take orders from civilians....

Hey , glad we all agree.

It was ole Lar who said the Fire Chief called, and he told them to 'Pull it"

Crazy huh, you guys helped prove ole Lar in another Lie.

The building was pre-rigged to be destroyed since it housed a secret CIA headquarters and also the Mayor's emergency operation center. It is most likely from building 7 where the entire 9/11 operation was controlled. So, as the last order of the day, they needed to destroy all evidence contained in that building. Surely there was lots of high-tech equipment for controlling the demolitions, high-tech communications equipment, lots of computers, and papers, etc. It would have been nearly impossible to get all that out on the day, and leaving it around was just too dangerous. Just like Waco Texas, all the evidence had to be demolished.

Here is what I think happened: Larry knew that his buildings were going to be destroyed before he even leased them. He knew it would cost many millions to take out the asbestos, and America also needed an excuse to attack Iraq so they could prevent Saddam from selling his oil for Euros. He is obviously connected to Israel and Bush government. One doesn't have to be Mossad to be well connected in high places.

So, Larry leased the buildings, got foreigners to insure them and sat back for the big day to arrive. They could demolish the towers and make it look like airplanes caused their demise, since most people are ignorant of what is truly feasible and they will believe anything they see on TV.

Building 7 posed a bigger problem since it was rigged for demolition also, being the main control center for the entire operation. It was too low a building to fly a plane into, so they had to arrange something else. They decided to start some small fires and promote the idea that fires could demolish a building. They didn't want to really start a huge fire because it could get out of hand and spread to other buildings. No, they just needed a few small fires and then they could tell a tall tale to the media.

Larry probably didn't expect to be interviewed, so he didn't think too much about what he was going to say. He said the first thing that came to his mind, which was essentially the truth, while feigning sincere concern for the "loss of life." Since many firemen had indeed died that day, it seemed like a reasonable excuse.

What he failed to think about was how the insurance company would view him giving the go ahead for demolishing the building, which is what slipped from his lips because he hadn't planned his story very well. Then, once it aired and people started to say "Hey, wait a minute... what did he just say?" I'm sure all his cronies said "Hey, Larry you messed up! You should not have mentioned pulling the building down!" Then he thought and realized that he should have said more about the fire causing the building to fall. He should have never mentioned that he had a conversation with the fire chief. So, he came out days later and "corrected" his mistake, but by then it was too late. The cat was already out of the bag.

Not gonna touch my first post eh, don't blame ya. Still waiting non-thruthers!

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Are you sure you want to use the "Lucky Larry" site to back your story?

Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors,

Okay, so if the first thing Larry did was to hire Securacom when he took over in 2001....why do I find this?

Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998

www.washingtonspectator.org...

Well that says Securacom was doing work at the WTC five YEARS before Larry was in charge....

Okay, surely the rest of the "lucky larry" site isnt filled with falsehoods, right?

Whoops....spoke too soon........

Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO

Um, one problem, Wirt ....isn't related.

www.genealogy.com...

Granted, thats just a genealogy website. However, the idea that Wirt Walker is related, comes from an article by Maggie Burns (as appearantly, most of the "lucky larry" letter does). Of course Maggie doenst say they are related anymore.

A former colleague of the head of the company, Wirt Dexter Walker III, suggested to me that Walker is a distant relative of the Bush family. While any blood relationship to the Bush Walkers would have to be remote

www.margieburns.com...

Maggie's writing on the subject has been interesting. First, she said he was a cousin...then a distant relation....finally, to "Well, somebody told me that were related." Pretty sure there are no awards for accuracy in reporting coming her way anytime soon.

Back to Lucky Larry though......that would be TWO falsehoods in the same paragraph. Surely that is the last one right?

Oops...maybe not.....

Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks

Lets see about Larry and his insurance...

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

www.forbes.com...

Hmm, so far, whoever wrote Lucky Larry is 0 for 3 when it comes to the truth.....

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Alfie1
This so long debunked creaky old stuff.

Larry Silverstein was not calling the shots on 9/11 the FDNY were .

Is it likely Silverstein would publicly announce that he had ordered the destruction of WTC7 if it was a huge insurance scam ?

Despite all the wild nonsense allegations the insurance companies have paid up. Anyone who has had anything to do with insurance companies just knows they will not do this if they have any chance of avoiding liability, i.e. by coming up with any proof of a scam.

Here is some further info :-

www.debunk911myths.org...

We aren't saying that he called the shots, the theory is that he was a secondary or tertiary agent of the conspiracy. Meaning that he knew that this was going to happen and some group used his building for the process, he was an instrument of the conspiracy but not the one calling the shots. And like all agents and sycophants that work around the king and priest they try to profit from information that they hear (Just like who profited from the massive PUT options that were done on airline stocks before this attack, which as never investigated). You can almost say that by going along and keeping quiet about the operation, he would be able to profit from the issue. Also the reason why the insurance companies paid and didn't (they actually did a few years ago and suddenly they stopped) question was they would be a fortune 500 company having to say that elements of the govt. allowed 9/11 to happen, do you really want the publicity and such that would come from that.

And one thing that I've talked about and people aren't questioning unless one poster has already put it here on one of the pages. If as I believe everyone is saying that it was demolished and believe it was demolished, ask this simple question. Who did the demolition and how was it possible to get a demolition company/crew to get down in an area of the most massive terrorists attack in US history? And on top of that how was it possible to plan a demolition on a burning (a few floors) building, get it right and get stuff laid out within a few hours to bring it down. It's not possible unless it was already setup to be demolished in the first place. Thats why when asked later about the Pull it statement his spokeperson said that he meant to pull the firefighters and police out of the building. We decided to Pull it, We decided to pull it, that doesn't sound like he meant the firefighters and police.

The assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat occurred on Tuesday, October 6, 1981.

The event at the World Trade Center occurred on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

How are these related? I think there is a big clue hidden in the timing of these mysterious events.

from assassination of Anwar Sadat to 9/11....

Originally posted by mmiichael

Arguing with people who actually believe firemen blew up the WTC, a missile hit the Pentagon, there were no planes on 9/11, something called NWO runs the world, aliens are hidden at Area 51, etc etc etc is more amusing than a videogame.

Just when you think you've heard the most outrageous claim imaginable . . . .

"Foe" ==> "Ignore"

Glad to be done with that... I don't know how he manages to sleep at night.


[edit on 25-1-2010 by Thermo Klein]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Are you sure you want to use the "Lucky Larry" site to back your story?

That was just one of a million. Is this one better?

en.wikipedia.org...

How about endless pages on Google?

www.google.com...=en&q=Larry+silversteins+insurance&start=0&sa=N&fp=ba0a4630ce98f7da


And who cares if Marvin Bush also had his cousin working on security at the complex. The point was, building 7 was obviously demolished and planned ahead of time.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Well, if you stick with wikipedia, I am not surprised that you are a bit uninformed about the insurance issue. Contrary to your beliefs, he did not get a windfall from the insurance.

The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking. Read more: www.nypost.com...

New York Post article

reply to post by mikelee



4.55 billion to Larry Silverstein. Nobody seems to knows for sure exactly how much but it's a safe bet that he made a huge profit. Looks like he's been involved in shady deals in the past.

911research.wtc7.net...