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.

 

9/11 PRESS RELEASE: World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA PANYNJ * 1972-2001

page: 2
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
So I was reading through the FOIA list last night and I decided to make a list of the North tower floors that where occupied before 1993. The list freaked me out a bit because it is so limited. Please correct me if I am wrong:
Floors
33- 1978
37- 1992
38- 1987
45- 1990
51- 1992
53- 1990
floor 76 was vacant the whole time?
79- 1988
84- 1991
85- 1991
91- 1990
102- 1990
104- 1979
108 and 109 vacant?
110- 1984

Any floor not listed was occupied after 2/1993. I find it pretty crazy that so many floors where unoccupied for such a long time. Keep in mind, this is just the North Tower.

I usually don't get into the 9/11 threads because there is a lot of controversy and the threads get nasty quick. I don't believe the OS and never did. After seeing this though I'm realizing that this plot is getting thicker and the truth wants to reveal it's head. It's only a matter of time before something comes from this.

Again, here is the link to the official list:
FOIA Request Occupancy WTC




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
FOIA's are legal documents which can be used in court, while nothing the NY Times prints can be used in court

Actually, the NYT used the Landlord of the WTC, and the Port Authority as their sources. Therefore, the Landlord and Port Authority would be welcome witnesses in court.

A real researcher would've contacted the Port Authority and the Landlord of the WTC (before Silverstein) and got some sort of comment on the alleged discrepancies before making such false and outrageous claims such as you did. But you haven't done that, and I'll wager any amount of money that you won't do that.



Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
while all the NY times can do is to make things up

Where's your proof of this other than opinion?

Like I already said: there's a reason why the real, legitimate research organizations in the 9/11 truth movement don't quote or support any of the "work" that comes from "Let's Roll Forums". Everything that has come from that forum has been proven disinformation.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chyeaaitskristyn
So I was reading through the FOIA list last night and I decided to make a list of the North tower floors that where occupied before 1993. The list freaked me out a bit because it is so limited. Please correct me if I am wrong:
Floors
33- 1978
37- 1992
38- 1987
45- 1990
51- 1992
53- 1990
floor 76 was vacant the whole time?
79- 1988
84- 1991
85- 1991
91- 1990
102- 1990
104- 1979
108 and 109 vacant?
110- 1984

Any floor not listed was occupied after 2/1993. I find it pretty crazy that so many floors where unoccupied for such a long time. Keep in mind, this is just the North Tower.

I usually don't get into the 9/11 threads because there is a lot of controversy and the threads get nasty quick. I don't believe the OS and never did. After seeing this though I'm realizing that this plot is getting thicker and the truth wants to reveal it's head. It's only a matter of time before something comes from this.

Again, here is the link to the official list:
FOIA Request Occupancy WTC


Ya, I try to avoid the nastiness as much as possible and post only when we really have some ground breaking news, and presently we have a ton. And then post hoping someone like you and others ill respond. The FOIA is interesting for what it contains, as well as hat it does not contain.

And let me say this. It is one thing for all sorts of people and agencies to say that such and such were in the buildings when they came down, but when we do a legal document request and audit the occupants of the towers, we find an entirely different story. We find not just discrepancies but gross lies and misrepresentations and outright fraud. The best case is Sandler Oneil and partners, who claimed to have lost 66 of their 171 employees on 911, yet never once, in the entire life of the towers held a lease according to this legal document FOIA.

And as we pointed out in the story there ere a minimum of 132 million reasons why Sandler Oneil might have lied.

Now on to the 1993 bombing. Larry McWilliams took a ton of time into this very subject and his results are found here: Listing of the 1993 Tenants according to FOIA Occupancy Request

Here is a quote of his from the finds, to see the screen-shots of his spreadsheets, click the link above.




The results were astounding. At the time of the 93 bombing, there were no tenants on any floors in the North Tower below the 33rd. Floors up through the 32nd were completely empty. We were told the towers were heavily occupied, and that evacuation was nearly impossible, when in reality, the Towers were sparsely occupied.


Original link to TC Occupancy FOIA story


Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions...

Cheers-
Phil :wink:



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
The best case is Sandler Oneil and partners, who claimed to have lost 66 of their 171 employees on 911, yet never once, in the entire life of the towers held a lease according to this legal document FOIA.

Here's what happened to your tenant list. Either:

1.) The list was edited and information was manufactured by "Let's Roll Forums" (not surprising there).

2.) The information you got was inaccurate or incomplete.

3.) Some tenants occupied the towers without leases.

For instance, when I moved into my apartment community, you can choose to have no lease, 3-month, 6-month, 12-month, etc. I've seen and know businesses that rent space with no leases.

You don't have to have a lease to rent space. Either way, Sandler O'Neill and Partners occupied the 104th floor of the South Tower, WTC 2:



CNN.com


Notice the tenants list was provided to CNN by CoStar Group:

Costar Group's 650 researchers track billions of square feet of commercial real estate across the United States, including the New York metropolitan area, acting as an electronic information-clearing house for the country's commercial real estate professionals.


I would highly suggest you contact the former WTC Landlord, CoStar Group, and Sandler O'Neill before you start making accusations that everyone is lying and that your FOIA is the only accurate document on the planet.

As with all of your other disinformation "theories", this one has been debunked as well.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Thats where your simply wrong, make no Bonez about it. A FOIA request to the actual leaseholders and managers of the entire complex is far better then some graphic screen-shot by some for profit corporation who god only knows who they are connected to.

This FOIA trumps your graphic screen shot. This FOIA can be used in court as a legal document, while all your silly graphic can do is sit in a forum and hopefully brow beat someone. Sorry. Now to the others here who are serious researchers;

Lets examine Sandler Oneil and take one of their employee's, David H. Rice, whom they claimed worked on the 104th floor of the North Tower, allegedly being killed;

David H. Rice's memorial picture on the CNN memorial has digital exif data showing the picture itself was created on or last edited on, 9/11/2001.

And Mark Binghams CNN memorial picture was created some 2 weeks before 911 happened!

Mark Bingham - 9/11 Hero Flight 93 Frad! Exif Data Hans Official Story:

David H. Rice - 9/11 Memorial Fraud -


David H. Rice was discovered to be a fake victim prior to this fOIA request; We receive this FOIA request back, FROM THE LANDLORDS through a LEGAL REQUEST and find Sandler Oneil and Partners never had a lease with the PANYNJ.

Original Story - WTC Occupancy FOIA 1972 - 2001


Cheers-
Phil



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
We receive this FOIA request back, FROM THE LANDLORDS through a LEGAL REQUEST and find Sandler Oneil and Partners never had a lease with the PANYNJ.

What part of

THEY DON'T NEED A LEASE TO RENT OFFICE SPACE

do you not understand?

So they didn't have a lease. Every single tenants list posted on the internet shows Sandler O'Neill and Partners occupying the 104th floor of the South Tower.

Whether they had a lease is up for argument. Whether they were actually there is not. The time to stop spreading disinformation is over.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



You have to be delusional. They need no leases!?? So how did this work, Mr. Sandler walked into the World Trade Center offices one day and said, hey lady, here's a pile of cash, we are taking floor 104, probably for 6 months, we don't need no lease. Our trucks in the garage. Have the bellboy drop the keys to us before the end of the day, thanks!

You can't just make thing up Bonez. What part of YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THINGS UP!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? FOIA Occupancy TRUMPS some stupid graphic from Costar-Management, and you just can't make things up when presented with facts you don't particularly care for.

Why did everyone else have to have a lease? Why are they listed as leaseholders? The World Trade Center, after the 1993 bombing was probably the most secure office building in New York City with the most stringent occupant rules, because of that bombing. After the bombing they all had to go through metal detectors, have ID badges, etc,... When you produce a document saying companies didn't have to have leases, I think you should keep this disinformation to yourself!


I think it is fairly obvious to all who come to this thread will see what information is reliable, and what information is fantasy and make believe.

Cheers-
Phil


WTC Occupancy FOIA 1972-2001 story:



LAST MINUTE LEASING & STACKING OF WTC DECK

How is it possible, especially considering what happened with the world trade center, to see that all of the upper floors were leased only a few years prior to 9/11? That's an incredible expanse of time, 26 years in most case, some 28 years, where for instance floor 88 had bare floors and no tenants until 1999. The elevators in the north tower never stopped at floor 88 until mid 1999. Might I ask at this time how it is possible that any lights were ever on on floor 88 before 1999? The entire tops of these towers should have been darkened at night between the years 1972 and 1997-98.

There were no tenants. No tenants means no lights and dark floors, both during the day and at night, as lights in the WTC were visible in both daytime and night.

This has all the appearances that the companies were moved into the towers at the very end for the very purpose of 9/11. Either in reality or on paper. These towers were nearly unoccupied for their entire life, and then miraculously found a 95% occupancy heart beat on in 2001, just prior to 9/11.





edit on 15-1-2011 by Phil Jayhan because: typo



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
You have to be delusional.

Personal or ad-hominem attacks won't help you get your point across. It only makes you look even more foolish.



Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
They need no leases!??

Since you won't do it to prove your information to be accurate or false, I'll be contacting Sandler O'Neill and Partners as they have an office near me. I'll also be contacting the Port Authority as well. We'll prove this disinformation false once and for all.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
You have to be delusional.

Personal or ad-hominem attacks won't help you get your point across. It only makes you look even more foolish.



Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
They need no leases!??

Since you won't do it to prove your information to be accurate or false, I'll be contacting Sandler O'Neill and Partners as they have an office near me. I'll also be contacting the Port Authority as well. We'll prove this disinformation false once and for all.






It wasn't an ad hominem attach in the least. Not even close. There are legitimate uses for the word delusional, and one of them is someone who thinks a large corporation can rent 30,000 sq feet of office space at the World Trade Center. That's delusional.

Until you can provide documentation on how a large corporation can move into 3/5ths of the 104th floor at the world trade center, you should stop using it as a fact m because your not allowed yo just make stuff up as you go along, as it is obvious you did.

So either prove your claim, or lose it and stop spreading around your opinion, dressed as fact, which is delusional in my opinion.

Some people think that they can jump off buildings and fly and break all previous attempts and normal rules and laws; And then they splat. That is delusional.


Cheers-
Phil



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
your not allowed yo just make stuff up as you go along, as it is obvious you did.

Every single source on the entire internet shows Sandler O'Neill as being on the 104th floor of the South Tower. You are the only one on the entire internet that claims S.O. was not in the tower at all. Therefore you are the only one on the entire internet making things up about this subject.

Sorry, but you can't win this one with all other available sources proving your one single source wrong.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
your not allowed yo just make stuff up as you go along, as it is obvious you did.

Every single source on the entire internet shows Sandler O'Neill as being on the 104th floor of the South Tower. You are the only one on the entire internet that claims S.O. was not in the tower at all. Therefore you are the only one on the entire internet making things up about this subject.

Sorry, but you can't win this one with all other available sources proving your one single source wrong.










Sorry Bones, not gunna let you shoot the messenger; I am not the one. If you have problems with this, take it up with the Legal Landlords of the WTC whom we got this FOIA occupancy from. Not us. This is a legal document which happens to trump all of your graphical sources, wherever you are finding them, regardless of the NY Times, or CNN.

This is a legal document; Can be used in court. None of those source can be. And none of those sources are a legal document. I don't really care about you. you don't believe anything that's true Bones, and sit in the gate here trying to make sure nobody gets any good information. Not sure what your deal is and really don't care.

Like I said, I'll let the people here decide. They are a smart crowd.

WTC Occupancy FOIA 1972 -2001

So basically this is for everyone else's consideration.

Cheers-
Phil



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


I will have to look for the source of my information on the permits . Here is another possible question for you . Of the reported 4,000 Jews employed at the world trade center , how many were at work that day or even killed in the collapse? Oh by the way a Jew owned the lease , made 7 billion from insurance on leased property . How do you do that if you don't even own the property ? Jews own the 12 Fed Reserve Banks . Why did Giuliani move his command and control out of his bunker like office in building 7 just 2 weeks before 911 . also did they find all of the gold in the bottom of the WTC or did that vanish also ? Another question is why have the people not been told of Cheney running a war game that mirrored the exact events of 911 at the day and time of 911?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
your not allowed yo just make stuff up as you go along, as it is obvious you did.

Every single source on the entire internet shows Sandler O'Neill as being on the 104th floor of the South Tower. You are the only one on the entire internet that claims S.O. was not in the tower at all. Therefore you are the only one on the entire internet making things up about this subject.

Sorry, but you can't win this one with all other available sources proving your one single source wrong.





If I had a hundred "internet sources" like the ones BoneZ sites, each with disclaimers about their completeness, compiled from "available business sources", they still would not be the Official Document provided by THE SOURCE, the PA NY/NJ.

What "internet source" could possibly be more official than THE OFFICIAL SOURCE.


Two hundred bad sources still are bad sources.


Please, by all means, Contact the Port Authority. They have a FOIA Department. Will you tell them what a reliable source they are as compared to your "internet sources", when they tell you they prepared this Document?



Face it, if your argument is "because some sources on the internet told me", you're on pretty shaky ground.


They provided the document, we are merely sharing it.

If it conflicts with a reality created by some internet sources, sorry. It is the real deal, like it or not.



Luckily, they can't convict you of robbery because a couple of graphics came up on the internet saying you were a robber.

The answer to a FOIA Request is, by contrast, a Legal Document, admissible in Court. It is the PA's legal testimony, in a sense.

When you call the PA, go ahead and mention you have accused them of perjury here.




All that aside, I personally have a forward of the email containing this information from the PA. It is real, they provided it within the legal time frame, without a fight. There is much more information contained in it than has been released. The second sheet breaks down each tenant by square feet rented/used. There are some gems there too.


I understand that this is different than the information previously assumed to be correct, compiled from the best business sources, but not the best source, who obviously would have no reason to speak up unless forced to.


We have thrown out all of the old assumptions about 911, all of which have led us nowhere at all but round in circles.

We did not know what to expect when we made the request, and this is what we got.



If this is a pissing contest of sources, it is a company that compiles sales leads regarding businesses vs. the actual Lessor.

Who do you think has more reliable information?





)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Great work Phil!

Have you looked at the occupancy directly prior to 9/11. Any companies leave just before the attack? I will definitely look closely at this document! Thanks again!!



Thanks Leo!

But you have it backwards. lol

They Twins were pretty much empty and unoccupied until 1997-1998-1999. Check out this chart we made of a cross section from the North Tower.







World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA 1972-2001 story


Cheers-
Phil



edit on 14-1-2011 by Phil Jayhan because: Added a line of text, and link



Windows on the World is 100% incorrect Phil. I had my wedding reception up there in 1977 (we were the first ones too) so how can it be occupied for the first times in 94 and 99?

I honestly don't know if it was the very top floor or the other one but I am definitely certain it was opened in 1977 so the FOIA is incorrect.
Would you know why that may be?

Thanks and keep up the great work. Love Lets Roll
I check it out all the time.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
so the FOIA is incorrect.

No!!! It couldn't possibly be incorrect on yet another issue. That's blasphemous! H_A, don't you know that the FOIA is god's law and that there's no possible way it could be incorrect?

You're going to get outed as a liar, or at minimum told you're incorrect. Just like all other sources on the entire internet are all incorrect also. Everybody is wrong, Jayhan is right. [/sarcasm]


Makes one wonder what Jayhan's excuse is going to be after I contact S.O. Partners and the Port Authority to verify Jayhan's information and it turns out to be wrong.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
you don't believe anything that's true Bones

That's because there's not one single thing that comes out of "Let's Roll Forums" that's true. Not the "pod" disinformation, not the no-planes disinformation, not the fake victims disinformation, and most certainly not the "there was hardly nobody in the towers until the late 90's" disinformation.

Tell me, why do you think all of the scholars, scientists, engineers in the entire truth movement all steer clear of your forum and your "work"? The same reason why they steer clear of any other site the peddles the above disinformation.

That's why you won't post this at Loose Change, 9/11 Blogger, or see this "work" found on any other legitimate 9/11 research organization's website. We're all too smart for that.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


star and flag my man. nice research on this.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


Do I think the 911 thing was rigged?

yep.

I was looking at some of the links and they raised some questions.

Pictures of actors? Really? I've met someone that looked so much like me, a friend saw him and thought it WAS me.

Lack of body parts? Really?

A good friend of mine had someone in one of the nearby buildings when the SHTF.

They looked out the window and said it was a vision of hell. Papers and BODY PARTS raining from the sky!

There were body parts friend. TRUST ME!

Regardless of the "how", people DID die there. Period.

This link reminds me of some of the hairbrained garbage from Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.


Sorry to be an ass but I have to call BS when I see it, at least on these two points. I also have a problem believing that the building was "built to be destroyed".



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Human_Alien
so the FOIA is incorrect.

No!!! It couldn't possibly be incorrect on yet another issue. That's blasphemous! H_A, don't you know that the FOIA is god's law and that there's no possible way it could be incorrect?

You're going to get outed as a liar, or at minimum told you're incorrect. Just like all other sources on the entire internet are all incorrect also. Everybody is wrong, Jayhan is right. [/sarcasm]


Makes one wonder what Jayhan's excuse is going to be after I contact S.O. Partners and the Port Authority to verify Jayhan's information and it turns out to be wrong.



What's your excuse going to be if he is right? I doubt they would admit that they were covering something up anyway, but if, what if, they tell you that the information in the FOIA document is 100% correct, unaltered? I presume you won't tell them the context of your inquiry when you ask so that you can get an unbiased opinion based on the question rather than the possible ramifications.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Haha! Here we have a document in which the "debunkers" are crying "its edited!" I suppose its all part of the unseen agenda of "truthers" and the poor Govt gets blamed for everything and they are beyond faking or "editing" documents. What a joke.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join