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.

 

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
In the spirit of seeking the truth, I am presenting this piece from Prison Planet..

I make no claims as to the veracity of the article, just offering it up to the members for their scrutiny.

The article claims that a bombshell was made available in a Fox News hitpiece on the 9/11 truth movement..

Is it? I don't know, but thought I would let the members check it out for themselves.


www.prisonplanet.com

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”



If this is a dupe submission just let me know here and give me a link so this one can be closed and redirected




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Wow! IF this is true, then it is monumental! Great find, now to do a bit of digging to see what I can find!

This is the article he wrote for Fox news Shame On Jesse Ventura!


Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.


It is important to add that Shapiro doesn't think the controlled demolition is responsible for the collapse.


A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.


-E-


[edit on 23-4-2010 by MysterE]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
If this does turn out to be true, at the very least, it would imply that the possibility to carry out a unplanned CD was possible.

Makes me wonder if Danny Jowenko is sitting some where saying "I told you it was possible".

Unfortunately, this is coming from Prison Planet, so who knows how much truth there is in it.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Found the Fox News piece for those who want to take a look and compare the two here's a snippet:


www.foxnews.com

... Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was...






[edit on 4/23/2010 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
So, he is saying that they WANTED to do a CD of 7, BUT by random coincidence, the building fell on it's own before they could do anything.

Sure....

This is a clever excuse to cover up the fact that the building was controlled demo (most obviously), and trying to screw up everything by muddying the waters and fogging everything up.

It took them 9 years to come up with this joke of an excuse?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   


Unfortunately, this is coming from Prison Planet, so who knows how much truth there is in it.

THIS IS NOT COMING FROM PRISONPLANET.

It's coming from Fox News own HIT PIECE on 911. Prisonplanet didn't make that up.

If there was a real investigation out there, they would be able to confirm or not if Silverstein called his insurance. If he did, it's a proof that the building was RIGGED with EXPLOSIVES BEFOREHAND.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I am just simply amazed it took 9 whole entire years for this to surface.

That alone should speak volumes about what kind of BS situation we are dealing with here....



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
This is what I don't understand


since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall


How? I don't think the two collapses would weaken the foundation, and if so, why wouldn't it do the same to other builders around the area.

-E-



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
From someone that was on the ground on 911 :

I'm a construction worker and worked with Task Force One the first week of the incident. . I worked as a surveyor using a transit to monitor any buildings in danger of collapse. There are tall buildings closer to ground zero than building 7 that are functional to this day. When I saw building 7 it was intact. That was the only building construction workers were not allowed to aid in the clean-up and recovery. I didn't think much of it then, but I know better now.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Doing a bit of searching on the author of the FoxNews Op/ed and this interesting piece popped up:


www.911blogger.com

I found the following interesting paragraphs in an article about prior knowledge of 9/11 by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, dated October 1, 2002.[1]

I don't have the resources to continue an ongoing investigation into who had prior knowledge of the attacks - but I am sure someone out there does. Many things have happened since I broke my first story. On Nov. 9, 2001, my sources informed me that the same boy who predicted the attacks told school officials there would be a plane crash on Nov. 12. I decided to inform an FBI agent I knew who told me that, without specific information, there was little they could do.

Once again, the boy's prophecy came true. Three minutes after American Airlines Flight 587 took off from JFK International Airport to the Dominican Republic, its tail snapped off and both engines fell from its wings, dooming the plane to crash in Belle Harbor, located in the Rockaway section of Queens. None of the 260 people aboard survived. To date, authorities suspect the crash was an accident. I'm not so sure.

This one raised my eyebrow. Can Shapiro lend credence to his story by identifying the FBI agent he informed? I attempted to verify. Apparently, questionable sources say Al Qaeda eventually claimed responsibility for the crash of AA 587.[2] Wikipedia has an entry on one of the rumored-to-be-alleged perps.[3] Official sources, however, assert that it was a failure in the rudder system that downed flight 587.[4] So is this claim of a terrorist attack on 11/12 2001 reality or hoax? For lack of reliable sources, I choose the latter option.

Shapiro, however, has much more to tell us, specifically about prior knowledge of 9/11 in NYC's Arab-American community. He cites an anonymous source:


Shapiro = disinfo? need to do a bit more digging on this guy?

 


another piece referencing Shapiro's BIG story about the 9/11 tragedy..

www.msnbc.msn.com...

seems Shapiro had a stint writing for the Globe...

edition.cnn.com...

looks like he had a change of heart in regards to the Globe's standards.


still looking





[edit on 4/23/2010 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
What this sounds like to me is that maybe explosives had already been pre-planted in the building. Could possibly have been done by the government agencies occupying the building so that if any type of terrorist or other situation had arisen, they could take the building out.

Either way, this just gives confirmation of Larry's conversation where he says:

"There's been such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


So Larry asked to bring the building down with explosives and then admits to someone making that decision. That can only mean the building was pre-rigged before 9/11. One can speculate that WTC 7 was rigged specifically for 9/11 or rigged for some other unforeseen scenario. Either way, the pieces are coming together.

And for you debunkers that will attempt to say that Larry was talking about pulling out the firefighters, that's not what he said. He said pull "it". "IT" means the building. Larry did not say "pull the firefighters", "pull them", "pull back". He said pull the building (it).

If fire could do this, controlled demolition companies would be using fire. But they don't, they use explosives:








[edit on 23-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So, he is saying that they WANTED to do a CD of 7, BUT by random coincidence, the building fell on it's own before they could do anything.


What? No, no tby a random coincidence! He wanted to do a CD BECAUSE he thought it was going to collapse! He wanted to prevent the danger caused by an uncontrolled collapse. You're thinking backwards.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   


So, he is saying that they WANTED to do a CD of 7, BUT by random coincidence, the building fell on it's own before they could do anything.

Yeah that's why people on the ground heard a countdown? Yeah because a random collapse because of fire has a countdown...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Given the damage to the building and its unusual design [how did NYC ever approve the construction of such a cobbled together monstrosity?] Silverstein likely felt that it would be easier [and more profitable] to start over than to try to repair a severely damaged building. Aside from the insurance payout, which we all know was a consideration, stabilization of buildings on the verge of collapse would have slowed everything down; clean-up, recovery, rebuilding, etc. My bet is that had #7 not collapsed, it would have to have been brought down.
If the towers had not collapsed, how would they have been repaired? Who would work on them? How long would it take to repair them? How would materials be moved to the damage? As I have stated before, leaving them standing would have provided far more problems than having them collapse.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

And for you debunkers that will attempt to say that Larry was talking about pulling out the firefighters, that's not what he said. He said pull "it". "IT" means the building. Larry did not say "pull the firefighters", "pull them", "pull back". He said pull the building (it).


IT = "firefighting effort."

He never said pull the building down.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

IT = "firefighting effort."

He never said pull the building down.



Agreed.

Also, there has never been any evidence that a large, burning, multi-story building has EVER been brought down by any team before or since. So he could not possibly have meant the building.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
IT = "firefighting effort."

He never said pull the building down.

All available evidence would beg to differ. Perhaps you should look at the evidence instead of believing the theories and lies told to you by NIST.








[edit on 23-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Either way, this just gives confirmation of Larry's conversation where he says:

"There's been such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."



Honestly I am sick of seeing this quote being miss-used time and time again.



"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


This reminds me of middle and high-school literature class, read this and tell me what you think he intended. Meanwhile the author did not intend ANYTHING to be interpreted from it.

They PULLED the remaining fire-fighters from the building, due to the already large loss of life and uncontrollable nature of the fire.

This quote may seem like a nail in the coffin when you just quote the last little part of it, but when you take it in it's FULL context you understand he was talking about firefighters and NOT the building itself.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All available evidence would beg to differ. Perhaps you should look at the evidence instead of believing the theories and lies told to you by NIST.



I'm sure, then, you can provide an example of a still burning multi-story building being "pulled".

You also have an interview with one of the brave crew that performed this act. And can also explain why they would need to cover it up....if it was approved by the powers that be.

Where is that evidence?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
IT = "firefighting effort."

He never said pull the building down.

All available evidence would beg to differ. Perhaps you should look at the evidence.


On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that Silverstein meant "pull the building down" when he said it on a NOVA interview taped long after 9/11 eliciting not even a raised eyebrow from anyone who heard him say it.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join