So Larry Silverstein *did* want WTC7 demolished on 9/11. Discuss.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


A really deep hole.

Not only are they admitting they were talking about CD on that day, to the debunkers its another coincidence, of MANY MANY coincidences.

You cannot ignore that many coincidences.

IMO all these coincidences are suspect, and should all be re-investigated.




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

You cannot ignore that many coincidences


There are so many of these and the OS on 9/11 that ir reaks, "Hey here something is wrong!"

...on 9/11 everything happens the way we say it does...


So larry is calling the insurance club up...(ring)
BTW how many billions is on my Terrorism policy I just took out again?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Why does the fact that he might have floated the idea of having the building demolished alter the situation? You're behaving as though this is some revelation, when in reality it's pretty unsurprising, and doesn't have much relevance to the "pull" quote.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why does the fact that he might have floated the idea of having the building demolished alter the situation?


Might have? according to the OP,not only did he talk about it, the way the building fell points toward it.

Might have means its possible he did. its known that HE did talk about it, not might have. NICE ploy of words.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


I don't know what a ploy of words is.

Taking a wild stab in the dark though, I assume you're accusing me of being evasive. Which is ironic, given that you don't address my point.

I'll reiterate. The key assumption in this thread is that because "debunkers" have denied that the "pull" quote refers to demolishing the building, the revelation that Silverstein considered demolishing the building is somehow a revelation. This is pretty poor stuff.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Tower 1 and 2 as well.


The insurance pay-out was greater than cost of the construction of the WTC complex.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


WTC was built in early 1970's - what was cost of construction then?

What is cost of construction NOW aka 2010?

Also Silverstein owes 10 million a month in rent for a hole in the ground



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



As has been pointed out already to you thedman, you do not call your insurance company to ask for permission to demolish your own building.


You sure do if you want them to pay for it!

All the rest is just nonsense. "Pull It" has nothing to do with building demolition. Nothing.

Now if Mr. Silverstein had said "fire in the hole"! then you'd have a different case. But he didn't.

Silverstein knew that he would need to make a decision about the building, so as a responsible businessman he talked to the people who would be financially liable for that decision. Whatever else they talked about I think he knew that the decision to pull the last remaining fire fighting unit from the building may have impacted him and his relationship with the insurance carrier.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

So what is first thing you do after accident or fire ?

CALL THE INSURANCE COMPANY!


The FIRST thing I did when my skyscraper caught on fire was call up State Farm and ask "Is controlled demolition right for me?". Same with my father and his father before him. Its like tradition, in fact.


In all seriousness, we spent 7 years listening to the same rhetoric about how there was no talk of controlled demolition, now the tune changes and the defense is no longer "no one spoke of it". Instead it reverts to "CD couldnt be done in one day, what does it matter if the idea came up?".

What matters is lots of people spent years insisting it didn't. Now we know it did but the line has been drawn and people are unwilling to reconsider things.



[edit on 10-5-2010 by jprophet420]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The original Fox article again:
.....................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 [WTC7] – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.............


Please provide proof that :

A: Larry Silverstein was at Ground Zero on 911.

B: The names of the alleged Con-Edison workers that happen to be hangging around with Larry Silverstein that were listening in on the alleged phone call.

C: Verification from the insurance company that Larry had this alleged conversation.

What you have here is a classic case of hearsay. I do understand though, with the TM on such a tail spin, you cling on to ANYTHING you can.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028


Might have? according to the OP,not only did he talk about it, the way the building fell points toward it.

Might have means its possible he did. its known that HE did talk about it, not might have. NICE ploy of words.


No ugie... someone(journalist) claimed to have heard from someone(con-ed workers) that they heard someone(silverstein) talking to someone else(insurance company).

Really.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Okay so here it is:

Secret NWO villain: "Hey Larry, are you watching TV?"

Larry Silverstein: "Yes SNV, I am. The planes hit right on target!"

S-NWO-V: "Yes, it's going as planned. The paint on super duper thermite is getting ready to ignite the fuses for the hush-a-bombs!"

Larry: "excellent! Call me when after they collapse!"

S- NWO-V: "Will do Larry"

(a little less than one hour later)

S-NWO-V: "Larry, SNV again, did you check that out?" "We were able to collapse them both and indeed parts of the WTC hit WTC7 just like we planned. This will start enough fires to get things rolling like you planned."

Larry: Okay great... I will be down in a little while to show my concern for the firefighters!

(undisclosed amount of time later at Ground Zero Larry is on the phone with Flo from Progressive Insurance)

Larry: "Hey Flo? Larry Silverstein here at WTC-7"

Flo from Progressive: "Hi Larry, how can I help you?"

Larry: "yeah, say, Flo, do I have controlled demolition on my coverage?"

Flo: As a matter of fact Larry, you just changed your coverage last week to our special C.D. x3 bonus plan.... Fire away big boy!

Larry: "Thanks Flo... I'm heading down to pull it!"

Flo: "Great Larry, and thank you for calling progressive!"

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
When informed by the FDNY that WTC 7 was being abandoned and left
to burn Silverstein had to consider his options - unlike rest of WTC
which were owned by Port Authority WTC 7 was owned outright by
Silverstein.

So what is first thing you do after accident or fire ?

CALL THE INSURANCE COMPANY!

Have a adjuster show up to assess damage and determine course of action



Ummmm...how often do you call the insurance company DURING the incident? Would that be for the purpose of reporting what you THINK the damage WILL BE? Do you think the adjusters run on down and go inside burning buildings? Would the insurance company want to get right in there before it finishes burning to see what might be damaged?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Do you think the adjusters run on down and go inside burning buildings?


Why not?

Some truthers believe controlled demolition experts do it!



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Do you think the adjusters run on down and go inside burning buildings?


Why not?

Some truthers believe controlled demolition experts do it!


So now you believe anything you have seen a truther claim? Quite a turnaround for you.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

and NIST, as nimble as they are with computer fabrications, weren't able to reproduce either the acceleration or the symmetry of that collapse by their own theories.



And you still post blatant lies saying they were only designed for low-speed impacts. You post lies.


How pathetic this is.

You go on a rant about someone else when you have posted this figure several times, saying that this illustration provided by NIST of the collapse looked nothing like the actual collapse.

When in fact, it is the same as Fig 4-63 in the final report:

wtc.nist.gov...

Fig 4-63 in the final report is contained in section 4.5, which as plainly stated is an analysis of what 7's collapse would have looked like if it hadn't received any damage from 1's collapse.

The relevant figs are 4-43 to 4-46. Now pay attention to the figs on the left, since those most closely match the view from any video I've seen - from the north.

Very telling, IMHO.....



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Can you show us ONE, just one picture from the collapse of building 7 that even remotely resembles any part of that recreation?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why does the fact that he might have floated the idea of having the building demolished alter the situation? You're behaving as though this is some revelation, when in reality it's pretty unsurprising, and doesn't have much relevance to the "pull" quote.


It's "unsurprising"? Man, I know you would have been one of the people saying "there is no evidence he ever meant to demolish the building, blah blah blah blah." You change your tune with whatever direction the wind is blowing. Keep following the herd, right over that cliff. That's one hell of a 'floating idea' if so many people on the ground were expecting it as well.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Can you show us ONE, just one picture from the collapse of building 7 that even remotely resembles any part of that recreation?


You mean the part that bsbray has cried about?

No, since, as I noted, this is a figure of what 7's collapse would have looked like if there hadn't been any damage from 1's collapse.

7 did in fact sustain damage from 1's collapse, and as plainly noted in the final report, section 4.5 was a study done to try and find out if the building would have collapsed without the damage and what it would have looked like.

The rational realize that therefore, it shouldn't have looked like that at all, but like in figures 4-43 to 4-63. And it did.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


all he can do is dance around it.

He floated with the idea? uh its not floating with the idea, he HAD the idea that day.

years and years debunkers claim that no CD was being talked about that day. Now we have this, and oh its still impossible, yet the information is there.

being selective of information in any investigation will not lead to a solution. if you ignore one half of the story you only get half of the truth, which is present in the OS.

yea keep firing blanks into the sky in hopes that the OS is true.

its already been deemed a lie over and over, just accept it, and help fix this crap so future generations dont have to go through this kind of crime again.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join