NEW FOIA Released WTC 7 Audio/Video Reveals Controlled Demoltion.

reply to post by spikey

I wouldn't mind, but Silverstein himself said they pulled the building...

No he didn't. Thats pretty much the end of that. Silverstein never said they pulled the building. Never.

how the hell can debunkers claim this was brought down by small, localised and 'sporadic' fires?

Because "debunkers" have not been condemned to live only in the world that you construct using your word choices. You choose "sporadic", that does not make it a fact. It is your opinion.

Half of the idiots claiming these small fires brought this building down, are probably the same idiots claiming that alternative energy devices cannot work because they break the laws of physics!

Yep, same idiots that have trouble believeing that top secret government ninja demolition gnomes snuck into these building and planted top-secret silent explosives are the same "idiots" that have trouble believing that there are satellites orbiting the earth with top secret invisible death rays that only cause building connections to fail. How could we be sooooo stupid!!!

Wow, just saw those videos and I agree, that WTC7 was taken down intentionally in a controlled manner almost 7 seven hours after wtc 1,2 as the evidence and eyewitnesses show.

I recommend sharing these videos with people you know and dont know and ask them what they think they just saw. Dont tell them that many control demolition experts have come out and said WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by spikey

 

I wouldn't mind, but Silverstein himself said they pulled the building...

No he didn't. Thats pretty much the end of that. Silverstein never said they pulled the building. Never.

how the hell can debunkers claim this was brought down by small, localised and 'sporadic' fires?

www.youtube.com...

edit on 13-2-2011 by kaya82 because: error

Originally posted by kaya82
www.youtube.com...

Since we know he is talking about firefighters, why do you think he would suddenly shift to talking about the building?

Context. You need it.

You need to do something abit more contructive with your time

Originally posted by kaya82
You need to do something abit more contructive with your time

I fish, and I work on my house. What else should I be doing while I have to be up for work?

I really dont undertand why you feel the need to post here everyday. You are happy with the os so you have nothing to gain from being here. I come on here as i want to be kept up to date on any new evidence and what the truth movement are up to. I dont need sarcastic smarmy remarks from ppl like you and for sum one who claimes to of been there that day you dont seem to have any problem talking about what happened if that was me id find that hard which leads me to believe you and all the other dubunkers have another agenda

Originally posted by kaya82
I really dont undertand why you feel the need to post here everyday.

Boredom mostly. Enertainment at your expense mostly.

Originally posted by kaya82
You are happy with the os so you have nothing to gain from being here.

Enertainment. Thanks.

Originally posted by kaya82
I come on here as i want to be kept up to date on any new evidence and what the truth movement are up to.

Well, that seems like a lesson in futility. Nothing new has come out of the TM in years.

Originally posted by kaya82
I dont need sarcastic smarmy remarks from ppl like you

I'm so sorry, my bad. I didn't mean to offend you with my sarcasm.

Originally posted by kaya82
and for sum one who claimes to of been there that day you dont seem to have any problem talking about what happened

Have you seen my detailed accounts? Nope, I sure haven't.

Originally posted by kaya82
if that was me id find that hard.

Luckily, you are not me. I have actually no problem talking about the days events.

Originally posted by kaya82
Which leads me to believe you and all the other dubunkers have another agenda

Wow, way to connect the dots there Sherlock.

Great thread op .
The poster above mentioned about Silverstein pulling the building , remember before 911 he had increased the insurance of the building . how convenient !

Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars.!!!!!! Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened.

To those who want to debunk what he meant by pull it i direct you to the following link
whatreallyhappened.com...


This guy made a disgusting amount of money off a tragedy .

This is the hallmark of the elite - Order out of chaos .

Zw

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by kaya82
I really dont undertand why you feel the need to post here everyday.

Boredom mostly. Enertainment at your expense mostly.

p

Originally posted by kaya82
You are happy with the os so you have nothing to gain from being here.

Enertainment. Thanks.

Originally posted by kaya82
I come on here as i want to be kept up to date on any new evidence and what the truth movement are up to.

Well, that seems like a lesson in futility. Nothing new has come out of the TM in years.

Originally posted by kaya82
I dont need sarcastic smarmy remarks from ppl like you

I'm so sorry, my bad. I didn't mean to offend you with my sarcasm.

Originally posted by kaya82
and for sum one who claimes to of been there that day you dont seem to have any problem talking about what happened

Have you seen my detailed accounts? Nope, I sure haven't.

Originally posted by kaya82
if that was me id find that hard.

Luckily, you are not me. I have actually no problem talking about the days events.

Originally posted by kaya82
Which leads me to believe you and all the other dubunkers have another agenda

Wow, way to connect the dots there Sherlock.

haha you really are pathetic but i will continue in my search for the truth anyway

Originally posted by Doomzilla
Great thread op .
The poster above mentioned about Silverstein pulling the building , remember before 911 he had increased the insurance of the building . how convenient !

Given that he only took over the lease on 9/1 2001, and given that the insurance was mandatory as part of the lease agreement, that argument seems to fall a bit flat on its face.

Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars.!!!!!! Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened.

Larry Silverstein also had to pay the lease on the WTC property, despite there not being any buildings any more to generate any income. That alone has cost him in the region of 1 billion dollars so far. And on top of that, he has had to pay for the construction of the new 7WTC AND the new WTC tower (whenever that is finished). Some deal

Originally posted by kaya82
]haha you really are pathetic but i will continue in my search for the truth anyway

I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

You do that. Feel free to let the world know what you find....

reply to post by Doomzilla


Odd then that Larry Silverstein should be accused of under-insuring the Towers to save costs :-

www.independent.co.uk...

reply to post by Doomzilla


He made money????? wow, are you behind the times.

Larry lost a TON of money from this tragedy.
Did you know he had to pay $120 million a year on lease-payments since 9/11/01?

online.wsj.com...

www.911myths.com...
forthardknox.com...

Once again, Larry LOST out and is being screwed. Why do you think its been nearly 10 years, and nothing has been done at Ground Zero, save for a new WTC7?

Odd then that Larry Silverstein should be accused of under-insuring the Towers to save costs

Looks like some people here are using some funny math to make some blatantly false claims. According to the Wall Street Journal article:

...$4.5 billion insurance settlement...In 2003, Mr. Silverstein used part of the insurance proceeds to pay back his and his partners' $125 million equity in the original 2001 purchase. An additional $563 million was used to pay off a mortgage on the Twin Towers.

Therefore, Silverstein collects $4.5 Billion on two decrepit mostly vacant asbestos filled cash draining buildings which had an Actual Cash Value (ACV) of $688M. This is a profit of approximately $3.8B. Is this your warped idea of those buildings being underinsured? Or are you so naive to believe any garbage which is fed to you by some mainstream rag?

Larry lost a TON of money from this tragedy.

OK, instead of making statements out of our anal cavity, let's do some real math and see how much money Silverstein actually "lost".

Silverstein Insurance Settlement Funds
Twin Towers: $4.6B
WTC 7: 850M

Silvertein Payments
Twin Towers Mortgage: $685M
WTC 7 Mortgage: 323M
Lease Payments to PA: 800M

So, we have Silverstein receiving a total of $5.45B and having to pay out a total of $1.8B. This leaves him with a net profit of $3.65B.

Is a $3.65B profit from this insurance settlement your perverted idea of the Twin Towers being underinsured and Silverstein losing money? If there is something wrong with my arithmetic, I would appreciate one of you math whizzes pointing it out.

Mr. Silverstein has less than $1 billion in insurance money left, said people familiar with the project.

Gee, I wonder what happened to the other $2.7B? Obviously, a "job" this big doesn't come cheap.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Are you including the amount to REBUILD the WTC site?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Odd then that Larry Silverstein should be accused of under-insuring the Towers to save costs

Looks like some people here are using some funny math to make some blatantly false claims. According to the Wall Street Journal article:

...$4.5 billion insurance settlement...In 2003, Mr. Silverstein used part of the insurance proceeds to pay back his and his partners' $125 million equity in the original 2001 purchase. An additional $563 million was used to pay off a mortgage on the Twin Towers.

Therefore, Silverstein collects $4.5 Billion on two decrepit mostly vacant asbestos filled cash draining buildings which had an Actual Cash Value (ACV) of $688M. This is a profit of approximately $3.8B. Is this your warped idea of those buildings being underinsured? Or are you so naive to believe any garbage which is fed to you by some mainstream rag?

Larry lost a TON of money from this tragedy.

OK, instead of making statements out of our anal cavity, let's do some real math and see how much money Silverstein actually "lost".

Silverstein Insurance Settlement Funds
Twin Towers: $4.6B
WTC 7: 850M

Silvertein Payments
Twin Towers Mortgage: $685M
WTC 7 Mortgage: 323M
Lease Payments to PA: 800M

So, we have Silverstein receiving a total of $5.45B and having to pay out a total of $1.8B. This leaves him with a net profit of $3.65B.

Is a $3.65B profit from this insurance settlement your perverted idea of the Twin Towers being underinsured and Silverstein losing money? If there is something wrong with my arithmetic, I would appreciate one of you math whizzes pointing it out.

Mr. Silverstein has less than $1 billion in insurance money left, said people familiar with the project.

Gee, I wonder what happened to the other $2.7B? Obviously, a "job" this big doesn't come cheap.

You seem to have forgotten that he has an income of $0 from all of the damaged towers. Which, BTW, INCLUDE 3,4,5,and 6.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

Are you including the amount to REBUILD the WTC site?

Yeah, that too. I bet he seems to have forgotten about that little expense.

reply to post by FDNY343


And if he made so much money, why is it taking so long to rebuild on the site, and why is he suing for money if he "got so much" already? Wouldnt the insurance companies and courts notice something's amiss here?

Zero income from gaping holes in the ground and putting $120 million a year into the lease payements? Yeah that seems a great way to make money!

Estimated amount to rebuild the site: $10-$12 billion.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by FDNY343

 

And if he made so much money, why is it taking so long to rebuild on the site, and why is he suing for money if he "got so much" already? Wouldnt the insurance companies and courts notice something's amiss here?

Zero income from gaping holes in the ground and putting $120 million a year into the lease payements? Yeah that seems a great way to make money!

Estimated amount to rebuild the site: $10-$12 billion.

edit on 2/16/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

So, 10-12 BILLION dollars, minue the what, 5 billion in insurance he has left over, comes to a net income of
- $5 to - 7 billion. Yeah, he made off like a bandit!! LOL!! I hope he's not an accountant!!