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

was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

To put this into perspective for the debunkers of ATS that may need a little cognitive help. This means they had the building rigged for controlled demolition ahead of time as it would have taken months. Larry was on the phone prior to the collapse asking for permission to implode building 7. Yet all along they have denied they imploded the building and that it had been rigged.

So I'm supose to beleive that silverstien told the NYFD to implode WTC 7 and the fire department said ok and blew up the building that they had wired with explosives in the little bit of time they were in before being evacuated. Because they(the firefighters) must of known that all powerful Silverstien was going to tell them to blow up the building. The NYFD should get into the building demo buisness they can wire a burning building for demo in an hour compared to the months it take demo companies.

What I've always wondered was that since WTC7 collapsed later in he day about 7 hours afterwards, is there a chance they could have set up the explosives then? Anyone know how long it takes to rig a 47 story building like WTC 7?

On another note, the fact that this came from a hit piece is interesting, maybe it was a mistake, but it gave me an idea. If you are a whistleblower a safe way of getting information out is to do a "hit piece" but also reveal something that would otherwise put pressure on you, but since it is in the disguise of a "hit piece" the stupid media will parrot it. I'm not saying this defnitely happened but it is an idea of how whistleblowers can act covertly. Kind of like 911 hit pieces that disprove their own theories regarding the melting point of steel.

reply to post by ridgeback

So I'm supose to beleive that silverstien told the NYFD to implode WTC 7 and the fire department said ok and blew up the building that they had wired with explosives in the little bit of time they were in before being evacuated.

You're suppose to realize that the building was rigged in advance before 911.

reply to post by Vinveezy


Silverstein you say....www.abovetopsecret.com... Goldman Sachs...Who are these Gold and Silver, steins and burgs and men?
"You may be right, I may be crazy but it just might be a lunatic your looking for"
I have a theory, very much in the drafting stages but the beginnings of an idea who they might be.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Josephus23
I hope that might clear up a reason for the anomalies.

Sloppy work? The various conspiracy theories involve anything but that. Sure some natural mistakes but sloppy work? The conspiracy theories require that the government have snuck in and installed thermite charges in the towers and WTC 7 without getting directly caught (only indirectly suspected based on some residue and rates of fall and other stuff). They remotely controlled planes to hit the towers, perhaps even special planes which had charges that went off as they hit to maximize damage. Some even suspect some sort of holograms and death rays. The Pentagon they supposed hit with a cruise missile that flew over a highway filled with traffic and few direct witnesses stepped forward to suggest it was anything other than a plane. But they still managed to convince all the fire and emergency and Pentagon people to go along with their ridiculous lie. Then they disposed of all the innocent people on the four planes without any of the military people involved having their consciences so eaten up by the slaughter of innocents that they would come forward in the 9 years since 9/11 to ask for forgiveness for their part; despite the fact that people have come forward and released info on all sorts of torture, friendly fire, abuse, etc. in Afghanistan and Iraq. And they felt it prudent to get the WTC owner involved in all this, so he could profit by bilking his insurance company, and they managed to get away with that; though for the life of me I can't understand why the government would have bothered involving him, I don't imagine they usually ask civilian's to make a profit from false flag operations. And by god they pulled it off and duped the vast majority of people, got NIST and the vast majority of civil engineers and fire protection engineers and scientists to buy into the farce. By god you expect a lot if you think that's sloppy! If they did this I consider it to be the most amazingly orchestrated, cleverest, most well executed plan in the history of the universe. Because not only would they have pulled this stuff off they had the presence of mind to do it so subtly and circuitously, using Osama to justify Iraq, later making the CIA look like morons for being so wrong about their pre-war intelligence, making the US look so awful to other nations.

Yes I do agree that there would be a value in the US showing off its might attacking another nation with only indirect cause, flexing those muscles, but to do it and then butcher the job so badly, leaving no one, not even the majority of loyal military people feeling it had been a good idea?

Someone said it would have been hard or dangerous for them to plant WMD's in Iraq. You've got to be kidding? The same people who could rig the WTC buildings to explode and fly remote planes into things and abduct and murder the passengers and get NIST and everyone to go along can't smuggle a few vials of anthrax or uranium in a super secret spy's pocket into one of Sadam's bunkers? Come on! They absolutely could have done that and a lot moer if they were that dishonest, if they were that willing to lie and cheat. I might buy the argument they chose not to, but to suggest it was in any way beyond their abilities to safely do despite all they allegedly did is silly.

Oops, saw a couple other comments to respond to.

Yes, I remember the very weak argument used to implicate Iraq and I don't remember many people buying it, and I can't bizarre anyone planning this would have thought people would buy that argument. If you're going to have one big chance to sell your false flag operation, it's madness to sell it like that. And I know they didn't blame the Saudis, that's part of what I'm saying is so crazy. You create this fiction that a bunch of Saudis and a Saudi mastermind name Osama pull this off, but since the Saudis are your friends you'll need to deal with the extra work/trouble of telling all the american people, "No, no, the Saudis are okay, this is about the Afghanis and the Iraqis." It just seems to me the equivalent of trying to sell a Ginsu knife on late night TV and trying to convince people it's a knife when your whole commercial involves you using it to spackle dry wall. Who would create so many unnecessary and complicated elements, each of which could spell disaster to your mission????

And I was living out of the country during the early part of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war and 9/11 and I know what those foreign people felt and they were totally with the US until Iraq.

Paul

[edit on 25-4-2010 by paulism]

reply to post by paulism

And I know they didn't blame the Saudis, that's part of what I'm saying is so crazy. You create this fiction that a bunch of Saudis and a Saudi mastermind name Osama pull this off, but since the Saudis are your friends you'll need to deal with the extra work/trouble of telling all the american people, "No, no, the Saudis are okay, this is about the Afghanis and the Iraqis."

Friend of mine who fought in Korea is totally thrown and frustrated by this same thing. He used to tell me "Bush doesn't know it was a bunch of A-Rabs bombed those buildings! Thinks it was the Iraqi's!"

I try to get him to calm down cause he has a metal plate in his head.

reply to post by rusethorcain


That was my entire point in referencing the concept of learned helplessness.

If someone can be forced to behave in a way that is, well....

Punishing, for lack of a better word, and said individual has no escape, then they will be more likely to continue said behavior even when they have the means and the opportunity to change their situation.

This is the basic concept of learned helplessness theory in psychology.

It is everywhere and this is what we are taught as we grow old.

When people see something like 9/11, where holes are rife in the official storyline, but yet they still respond to the dynamics of group behavior, then there is an inevitable sense of feeling helpless.

That is what we are taught in school, on the job, on the TV (everyone should throw theirs out in the garbage), etc...

In school we are generally not taught how to think, but what to think. Mainly so that we can get a job.

Where at the job we simply try to fit into the scene.
Despite our bosses being sociopaths who are generally not as intelligent as we believe ourselves to be.

One of my favorite writers called this the S.N.A.F.U. principle.
(Situation Normal All #*%$@ Up) Fill in the expletive for the signs.

It is very important to familiarize oneself with the concept of....

Learned Helplessness in order for this theory to make sense.

Look at the actual science behind the theory. Look at how it was developed and then relate that to our situation.

Cheers.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by paulism

 

I try to get him to calm down cause he has a metal plate in his head.

See! He's seeing things clearly! He's one of the lucky ones, he doesn't need to put the tinfoil in his cap, his mind control shielding is built in.

Paul

Originally posted by paulism

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by paulism

 

I try to get him to calm down cause he has a metal plate in his head.

See! He's seeing things clearly! He's one of the lucky ones, he doesn't need to put the tinfoil in his cap, his mind control shielding is built in.

Paul

Thanks for making me laugh on that one Paulism.

I dig the name also.

What a great way to rename modern Christianity.

I am not sure if that was your intent, but it struck me as a cool name.

Cheers.

reply to post by Josephus23

It is very important to familiarize oneself with the concept of.... Learned Helplessness en.wikipedia.org... in order for this theory to make sense. Look at the actual science behind the theory. Look at how it was developed and then relate that to our situation.

Really sorry I went there Jo...cruelty to animals is a pet peeve of mine.
I could have told you all this myself and hurt no animals doing it.
It is all about control and what it proves is even if you think you are in control you will be better off than those who eventually resign themselves and accept an unsatisfactory fate they feel they cannot control.

Factions within our government seeking genuine power and control know this. This is why we vote in elections and are given many opportunities to think we are in control.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Josephus23

Thanks for making me laugh on that one Paulism.

I dig the name also.

What a great way to rename modern Christianity.

I am not sure if that was your intent, but it struck me as a cool name.

Cheers.

Thanks! As for the name, it was unintentionally intentional. Since my name's Paul I wanted smoething better than paul283892. And once this came to me, I went with it. I only realized later the hidden meaning. I'm no longer a follower of Paul or Jesus, but if you judged me by my acts you'd still think I was an ok fellow.

Paul