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.

 

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

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


His experience of what the police told him, is most definitely not hearsay, no.


So do you think the author is lying, or the police officers were lying?




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

His experience of what the police told him, is most definitely not hearsay, no.

So do you think the author is lying, or the police officers were lying?


Okie dokie then.

I think you are not right.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 





Once again, do you think the author actually remembers the NYPD saying this (like he repeatedly says), or that he is lying, or that the police officers were lying?

Take your pick. You keep flip-flopping back and forth between suggesting one and then the other, so which is it *Snip*?

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/11/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
According to what he said, it's factual. He says he was there, he knows what he heard, what he saw. Get over it.





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]


So Jeff Shapiro (person A) was told by NYPD officers (person B) and Con Ed workers (person B) that they (persons B) heard Larry Silverstien (person C) was on the phone with his insurance company (person D). Since Silverstein was not at Ground Zero on 911; unable to actually be heard having this conversation, there would have to be a (person E) to have communicated this information back to (person C).

Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. We have established that in fact the information gathered from Mr. Shapiro is hearsay.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Take your pick. You keep flip-flopping back and forth between suggesting one and then the other, so which is it genius?


I'm not suggesting anything.

I was asking.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I'm not suggesting anything.

I was asking.


Well now I'm asking.

The guy who wrote this says he remembers very clearly. Is he lying? Or was he lied to by the NYPD? Or could what he wrote possibly be true? What do you think, 'Joey Canoli'?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


What he said the NYPD told him, is not hearsay. He said he was there.

So it's simple. Either he is lying about what he was told, and making the whole thing up, or else he is telling the truth.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I'm not suggesting anything.

I was asking.


Well now I'm asking.

The guy who wrote this says he remembers very clearly. Is he lying? Or was he lied to by the NYPD? Or could what he wrote possibly be true? What do you think, 'Joey Canoli'?


No.

No.

No.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So he's not lying, he's not telling the truth, and no one else lied to him.

*Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/11/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I'll repost this for you, since you've seemed to have ignored it:

So Jeff Shapiro (person A) was told by NYPD officers (person B) and Con Ed workers (person B) that they (persons B) heard Larry Silverstien (person C) was on the phone with his insurance company (person D). Since Silverstein was not at Ground Zero on 911; unable to actually be heard having this conversation, there would have to be a (person E) to have communicated this information back to (person C).

Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. We have established that in fact the information gathered from Mr. Shapiro is hearsay.


IOW-

Shapiro wasn't lying about what the cop told him.

The cop didn't lie about what some other guys told him.

And there's no reason to believe it happened, since it's heresay.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

For me to tell you that what he says is true, would be hearsay,


And yet for you the case is proven.

Extraordinary.

Your logic, as far as I can follow it, boils down to "The mainstream media tells lies. But you guys trust the mainstream media. Hence when one tiny article says something I like, you guys MUST accept it."

Leaving aside the bizarre notion that subscribing to a "traditional" view of 9/11 requires one to believe everything in the msm, you're appealing to an authority that you don't even trust - indeed an authority that considers your views risible - in order to score an obscure point. As evidenced by the warnings I think this is becoming personal for you.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
No no no, first off Bsbray, you have to prove it was pre-wired.


Are you saying they could have rigged it all that day?

Now retreat to a different criticism.



Will you please stop jumping around and stick to one story, claim, idea, whatever.

You are the one that is claiming that WTC7 was somehow brought down via demolition explosives and its proven because of what some guy heard another guy say about another guy about LS supposedly coming down to the WTC site and asking what are his options with a heavily damaged building. So I responded, well gee, if that is the case, then how did they manage to rig it all up within 2 hours or so, as the building is burning across multiple floors and is also slowly falling apart and leaning over to one side. The you said well then it was probably pre-wired. So I countered and asked, how the hell would they manage that and how would the explosives last (yadda yadda yadda), its nearly impossible. So then you reply with how those questions are all irrelevant and based on confusion, and other junk, blah blah blah. And then you rattle off how I have to prove that the explosives degraded, fires were at the locations of the explosives, blah blah blah. SO my final response was, well hold on, first YOU have to that there were any pre-wired explosives there in the first place. And you leave with that little nugget of a quote about me suggesting it may have been rigged on that day. No. It was not rigged on that day, nor was it rigged before. You have not shown or proven any explosives being placed anywhere in the WTC7 at any time. YOU must show evidence of any demolition charges FIRST and FOREMOST with real evidence, not people hearing random "kabooms" and an obviously edited video adding explosions (as has been proven before of TM'ers adding in sounds for their "proof"). So far you have not shown any evidence of it, nor have shown or suggested any cognitive way of them ever planting the devices either on 9/11 as it was burning or before without ever being discovered. But you just stick to that: well it looks like it, therefore it is a demolition, but I have no way of explaining how, when, who, where, but woe to you if you question it and try to debunk it with facts and logic.




Second, the questions I pose are relavant and are based on an understanding of the real world, which includes something called critical thinking and common sense.


Sounds like a bunch of unscientific rhetoric to me. The assumptions your questions make are fallacious to begin with. Like me asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" I explained this in my last post to you, but you apparently don't understand.


No again, it is you making assumptions that somehow demo charges were used, but you suggest in no way shape or form of how it could have been done, nor do you acknowledge the serious ramifications of even attempting something so insane. You are basing you assumptions of demolition completely on false information, lies, misinformation, fallacious reasoning, and impaired critical thinking. Oh and with a total lack of common sense and reading comprehension.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What he said the NYPD told him, is not hearsay. He said he was there.


You don't understand what hearsay is, I'm afraid. Please re-read my previous post.



So it's simple. Either he is lying about what he was told, and making the whole thing up, or else he is telling the truth.


This is why hearsay is inadmissible in court. He could have been lied to, the NYPD could have been lied to, or perhaps he didn't recall the events the way he remembers.

The only way any of this can be proven is to interview the actual people that were witness to BOTH sides of the conversation.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
How do you CD building 7 with 2 hours notice? There is ONLY ONE WAY.

Building 7 was obviously "pre-rigged" with a Self Destruct button. Sounds pretty silly yea? But I sh!t you not. Just for this reason and because all of the sensitive materials that ALOT of powerful people would have liked to see dissapear.

The public CD companies have Zero idea of the governt "stuff". Just like all technology, the government it 20 odd years ahead of the public..., same goes for Building Demo.

Add to this the fact that the BBC accidentally reported the full building collapse nearly a half an hour before it fell, and your left with something the 9/11 commission decided not even to discuss.

But this does make one wonder if there was any pre-rigging in Towers 1 and 2 in the months leading up to the 9/11 false flag attack, where you have a plethora of workers in the building describing low security, and ALOT of late night and odd construction being done within the buildings.

It really does make one wonder.

But wouldn't the planes crashing into the towers have set off the explosive prematurely?

Again, we the public, have NO idea the technology the government has, and how easy (or hard) it might be for them the pre-rig a building to structurally fail in a complete free fall collapse.

Especially also when you add to the fact that "they"; "They " not being Iraq/Iran or Afghanistan alone, failed to a tower down back in 93'.Test? A good deal was learned, who know, maybe the buildings were comprimised on that day and have been ever since.

After a bit of fence hopping, I've come to the conclusion that 9/11 was without a doubt a false Flag attack, with U.S. government involvment(in the demo and subsequent coverup) and non-involment(in not scambling jets in any where NEAR proper time). It'd be like an ambulance taking 2 hours to get to your house when the hospital is located a half-mile away, UNACCEPTABLE).Oh the irony.

9/11 was done for many reasons but the main being to gain the American peoples backing for a full scale invasion on Iraq, and it's oil. But the list is quite long of other perks that just so happened to make alot of bad things go away, and alot of powerful people Very rich.

Yes they got away with it. I just hope the history books my childrens , children read in school will acknowledge that 9/11 was a false flag operation. As they have the Gulf of Tonkin.

Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it? Or however the saying goes, yes?

But it will be more like.... Those who don't understand the past , are bound to fall for these false flag ops, and ALLOW them to be repeated.

They say Ignorance is Bliss, I understand that; some people just don't wan't to accept what's right in front of thier face cause it is scary. But NOT doing anything, and allowing this these types of operations to be carried out by our own government is much, much more scary, imo.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Nola213]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Has everyone forgotten about Barry Jennings ? May he Rest in Peace! He was an important witness regarding Bldg 7.

…explosions before either tower collapsed, and the entire lobby blown in #7.


www.youtube.com...


There was never any disclosure regarding his death.

As well, I would to give credit to the proper person, but I have lost the website and his name---to many in my Favorites--

His theory was that Bldg 7 was the target because of all the important papers that are now destroyed, i.e. Enron, Worldcom.

To make it short, the best approach to take it out was blocked by the towers, so down they come and along comes another plane, the coup de graisse, into that now open space. Oops! What happened?

Flight 93 was in the midst of making a turn that would head it right into New York and take out #7, but it was shot down. Now what?

The building was already wired for demolition, just as were the towers.

A wired building and no plane for it…it already partially blown inside, so ‘pull it’. not ‘pull them!‘ ‘Pull IT!’


www.youtube.com...


Michael Hess is still alive?


www.youtube.com...


Building 7 was ignored in the 911 Commission (Omission) Report



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70
Has everyone forgotten about Barry Jennings ? May he Rest in Peace! He was an important witness regarding Bldg 7.

…explosions before either tower collapsed, and the entire lobby blown in #7.


www.youtube.com...


There was never any disclosure regarding his death.

As well, I would to give credit to the proper person, but I have lost the website and his name---to many in my Favorites--

His theory was that Bldg 7 was the target because of all the important papers that are now destroyed, i.e. Enron, Worldcom.

To make it short, the best approach to take it out was blocked by the towers, so down they come and along comes another plane, the coup de graisse, into that now open space. Oops! What happened?

Flight 93 was in the midst of making a turn that would head it right into New York and take out #7, but it was shot down. Now what?

The building was already wired for demolition, just as were the towers.

A wired building and no plane for it…it already partially blown inside, so ‘pull it’. not ‘pull them!‘ ‘Pull IT!’


www.youtube.com...


Michael Hess is still alive?


www.youtube.com...


Building 7 was ignored in the 911 Commission (Omission) Report



That actually makes perfect sense. I have heard someone say before that the government may have wanted to "pull" building 7 while the smoke from the 2 WTC buildings filled the air that way when the building fell it would be a mystery not caught on camera and the government would chalk it up to debris or whatever lie they felt worked best.

But what you said makes more sense, the government planned to fly a plane into building 7 and had to wait for the smoke to clear for them to properly crash it into building 7 with enough visibility to carry it out.

But instead someone ordered the plane over Pennsylvania shot down. That must have been a mix up and it screwed up their plan, so they couldn't just leave WTC 7 standing because it was rigged with explosives so they had no choice but to "pull" it without a plane crash into it.

That very well could have been what happened.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Silverstein held a regular breakfast meeting, day after day for years at the Top of the World Restaurant with family members. It was a regimen, a schedule, rarely if ever broken...except for 911 when none of the Silversteins showed up that day.

"Lucky" Larry's excuse was he had a dermatologist appointment. Recently, it has been revealed "Lucky" Larry never made the appointment, if one existed at all.

So who was "Lucky's" dermatologist?

THE FORMER STRIP CLUB OWNER PUTZ IS A LIAR! SOMEONE GET A ROPE!



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   


2012 and this zionist still walkin free et al



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


Thankfully, at least generally in the West, a bit more than innuendo with a good dollop of jew hate is required before a man loses his freedom.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by beijingyank
Silverstein held a regular breakfast meeting, day after day for years at the Top of the World Restaurant with family members. It was a regimen, a schedule, rarely if ever broken...except for 911 when none of the Silversteins showed up that day.

"Lucky" Larry's excuse was he had a dermatologist appointment. Recently, it has been revealed "Lucky" Larry never made the appointment, if one existed at all.

So who was "Lucky's" dermatologist?

THE FORMER STRIP CLUB OWNER PUTZ IS A LIAR! SOMEONE GET A ROPE!


The attacks happened kinda early. At what time did he show up usually for the breakfast? If the attacks happened hours before the breakfast took place then the point why he wasnt atop the tower that day is moot.

EDIT: Whops nevermind it says right there he was usually there by 8 o clock.
edit on 1-4-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join