Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie

I just want to go on record here that I don't believe any of this conspiracy BS about 9/11. Did the US drop the ball on reading the intelligence info? Yes, but I do not think that they planned the whole thing. That kind of thinking is just plain crazy talk. Coming from a fire-fighter family, "pull it" means to pull out of the building and pull all operations of fire suppresion. Every one here that thinks that Bush & Co. planned this whole thing is completely off base, IMO. Weird things happen in fires, believe me I have heard many stories. Buildings collapse from fires all the time, and very quickly. Sorry but those of you who are obsesed with all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 need to find a more meaningful hobby (or a girlfriend.)

Man, it's like someone was paid to throw this thread out of wack.

You're all arguing about wether its true... lol...
Here...

This is the QUOTE from Larry Silverstien, the Lease Holder for WTC building 7.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

'Pull' is the term used for Demolishing a building when it's no longer safe enough, or financially feasable to use for it's intended purpose.

Those were his words... don't believe me? Just go look it up yourself, he stated that in the PBS Documentary, "America Rebuilds".


Those who are trying to sidetrack the conversation, stating that the buildings collapsed naturally, or that 'nobody said it was pulled' might as well just shut up.


Now to put the thread back on track.

Why is Mr. Giuliani denying the demolition, when it has been clearly declared that it was in fact demolished?

How much money was made off the insurance claim again? Somewhere in the millions I think...
Well, you can't get insurance claims filed, if you purposely destroyed the building yourself in a controlled demolition... this is likely why they are lying about it, saying it was the fire that brought it down... that way they get their money.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by johnsky]

Originally posted by johnsky
How much money was made off the insurance claim again? Somewhere in the millions I think...
Well, you can't get insurance claims filed, if you purposely destroyed the building yourself in a controlled demolition... this is likely why they are lying about it, saying it was the fire that brought it down... that way they get their money.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by johnsky]

What about the re-insurers? In my little town of Greensboro, there was Fortress Re, they provided the insurance to the insurers for United and America Airlines, a Japanese company.

It was two Jewish gentlemen who ran the business. They even donated 10's of millions to the new Hebrew school built in Greensboro, the biggest on the east coast or something, its grand. One of them had literally the biggest house in town, etc. They were seen as good men in teh community

Well after 9-11 happened and the Japanese had to pay claims to the airline companies, the Japanese insurance co's needed their insurance money. Well it was gone. Fortress Re's two employees had embezeled over 100 million from the company. But they had donated money and moved funds around, so when they were convicted they only paid about 20 million in forfeited assets and cash. It was a joke.

I don't know exactly how is connected to the whole thing but its another weird shady business dealing related to 9-11

edit: Wiki rink to Fortress Re
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-4-2007 by plopunisher]

its not bizzarre he is an politician not an engineer.
he just says what people tell him like any good puppet er i mean politician.

I'm sure most of you have already seen this clip of a UK BBC news reporter stating that tower 7 has fallen yet it still stands behind her.

I like how the video feed gets distorted at the end of the interview suggesting someone has realised that the story has been leaked to early.

www.youtube.com...






[edit on 26-4-2007 by Astras]

Astras - I agree, I think that piece of film is one of the most damning out there. Something is not sitting right there at all, and the excuses offered, i.e confusion in all the chaos, simply do not cut it.

Its scary, to realise that sinister forces do in fact exist, and are not limited to movies and TV. I think most people with intelligence do not accept the official story, at least not as a whole. Keep digging!

Originally posted by johnsky
Why is Mr. Giuliani denying the demolition, when it has been clearly declared that it was in fact demolished?

other than the interpretation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment, where has it been declared that the building was demolished? The interpretation is not an admission nor is it proof of anything related to demolition.

Let's pretend, for a minute, that Silverstein, who was loaded prior to 9/11, decided to destroy the building and planned this whole thing. That means the gov't is not involved or, they were in cahoots with Silverstein. If the gov't was involved with him, then he'd be pretty dumb to spend all the money that would go into training pilots and convincing them to hijack planes and crash them into buildings and secretly install demo explosives and hope to god nobody says a word about his nefarious plan to defraud the insurance companies. I don't see that as being possible. So that leaves us with Gov't involvement. Why would the gov't get involved in an insurance scam? There are far better ways for the gov't officials to scam and steal money than by murdering thousands of their own people for an insurance scam.

this is yet another conspiracy theory that pretty much contradicts all the other theories, muddling the story and deflecting everyone's attention away from the real issue - the US gov't dropped the ball at every turn and this TERROR ATTACK happened. It was an attack by muslim extremists that could probably have been stopped or at least contained to lesser damage but our gov't didn't pay close enough attention to the clues, either intentionally or out of pure stupidity but that is what went wrong. Bush didn't conspire with Silverstein, nobody snuck into the buildings and set them up for demo and then crashed planes into the buildings to make a controlled demo look like a result of the plane crashes.

Originally posted by johnsky
How much money was made off the insurance claim again? Somewhere in the millions I think...
Well, you can't get insurance claims filed, if you purposely destroyed the building yourself in a controlled demolition... this is likely why they are lying about it, saying it was the fire that brought it down... that way they get their money.

The insurance money is to be used to build the new freedom tower. Without the funds, silverstein can't build the tower. The tower, once completed, is still going to be owned by the Port Authority. Silverstein's payout from insurance will cover the cost to rebuild and his lost rent. That's what insurance is for.

After 9/11, a broadway show I produced was forced to close. We sued the insurance company for the lost revenues and won. I wouldn't exactly call it cashing in or profiting. Rather, we paid for insurance so that, in the event of (fill in the reason for insurance) we wouldn't lose our money. Silverstein did the same thing. Interpret his actions and words all you want. If anyone (insurers, investigators) thought he demo'd the buildings, the insurers wouldn't be paying him and the building wouldn't be going up.

Originally posted by Knight783
Astras - I agree, I think that piece of film is one of the most damning out there. Something is not sitting right there at all, and the excuses offered, i.e confusion in all the chaos, simply do not cut it.

Its scary, to realise that sinister forces do in fact exist, and are not limited to movies and TV. I think most people with intelligence do not accept the official story, at least not as a whole. Keep digging!

There are not enough shovels. There is not enough time. The forces behind this have money, time and stealth, not to mention obfuscation and corruption on their side.

Nope. Politicians know no evil or good. Only influence. And when the balance is tipped in one direction or the other, they will respond accordingly and in harmony to the prevailing.

Every time.

other than the interpretation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment, where has it been declared that the building was demolished? The interpretation is not an admission nor is it proof of anything related to demolition.

lol, So you're taking that route eh?

"Prove it"
"Ok, heres evidence."
"Oh... well... um... I want more!"

Give it a rest man, it's been publicly declared that the building was pulled.

Stop making yourself look ignorant. The proof is there, wether you chose to believe it or not is your issue, not ours.

What I find amazing is that all 3 buildings in 9/11 seem like they were demolished in a controlled fashion. The buildings fell within their own footprint for the most part. Not only that but the terror drills that were being conducted eeirly match the actual events that took place. This just to me does not make sense to occur randomly or by chance.

Originally posted by johnsky
Give it a rest man, it's been publicly declared that the building was pulled.

Stop making yourself look ignorant. The proof is there, wether you chose to believe it or not is your issue, not ours.

show me said public declaration. show me where this proof is.

again, you are taking a comment and interpreting it to suit your needs.


Let me ask you this, did Silverstein plan this whole thing or was the government in on it with him?

I have to disagree that there is proof, and despite my conspiritorial leanings in regard to 9/11, I dont see much in the "Pull it" comment as some, although I cant just dismiss it.

Unfortunatley, Newtron has it right - we will just never know the truth, it may never come out. We are only just uncovering some of the secrets of British royalty, or the Romans etc, and the powers that be are infinatley more able to cover things up than back then.

Originally posted by johnsky
How much money was made off the insurance claim again? Somewhere in the millions I think...
Well, you can't get insurance claims filed, if you purposely destroyed the building yourself in a controlled demolition... this is likely why they are lying about it, saying it was the fire that brought it down... that way they get their money.

You know, this really makes the most sense. I've had a hard time understanding why some have become so enthralled over the WTC7 argument. What difference does it make if the building was brought down by explosives or not? At worst, it was probably insurance fraud. Either way, it doesn't appear to point to any significant evil. The building was probably brought down by controlled demolition. A lot of people have probably lied about this to cover their financial interests. So what?

Originally posted by Crakeur
I am ignorant. My wife tells me this all the time.

I am not a believer in the controlled demolition theory on any of the buildings. It was too huge a task to accomplish without getting caught. Too many people would have been involved, too many risks at exposure. that, to me, sums up the issue.

And what about the New York Port Authority making a massive replacement of the "network cables" in the WTC buildings that collapsed? Why should they get "caught"? By who, if they have the authority to do such thing? Nobody's gonna call the cops when the government itself is undergoing what seems to be a normal infrastructure upgrade...

Originally posted by Rotoplooker
You know, this really makes the most sense. I've had a hard time understanding why some have become so enthralled over the WTC7 argument. What difference does it make if the building was brought down by explosives or not? At worst, it was probably insurance fraud. Either way, it doesn't appear to point to any significant evil. The building was probably brought down by controlled demolition. A lot of people have probably lied about this to cover their financial interests. So what?

For a building to be brought down by controlled demolition (CD) it take weeks and months of planning for a successful and demolition. Then to actually place the charges and carefully plan the timing and locations of all charges takes time as well. You cannot just go into it in one or two days and take down a building with CD! So why is it important? IF the WTC 7 was taken by CD, then it must have been premeditated and planned well in advance.

As far as the insurance angle of it? Why not have the cake AND be able to EAT IT as well?

[edit on 26-4-2007 by greatlakes]

the Port Authority is not federal gov't.

so, let's add the NY/NJ Port Authority to the list of co-conspirators.

Silverstein
The Federal Gov't
Republicans (who were in control at the time of the attack)
Democrats (who were in control at the time of the first WTC attack and should not be discounted)
The NY/NJ Port Authority
The NYC gov't offices, including Giuliani (how else could you pull this off without a wink and a nod from the acting boss here?)
The hundreds, if not thousands of people who were connected to the above group, aided and abetted in the plan.


Am I missing anyone? Should I put the reptilians on there?

Originally posted by Crakeur
the Port Authority is not federal gov't.

so, let's add the NY/NJ Port Authority to the list of co-conspirators.

Silverstein
The Federal Gov't
Republicans (who were in control at the time of the attack)
Democrats (who were in control at the time of the first WTC attack and should not be discounted)
The NY/NJ Port Authority
The NYC gov't offices, including Giuliani (how else could you pull this off without a wink and a nod from the acting boss here?)
The hundreds, if not thousands of people who were connected to the above group, aided and abetted in the plan.

Am I missing anyone? Should I put the reptilians on there?

Yes you missed a bunch of people and organizations, how bout the trilateral group and CFR foundations. Is it possible that persons within these two powerful groups have leadership positions in key organizations to orchestrate such a plan as 911?

I mean cmon we're not talking about a fly-by-night operation here. The ramifications of running a successful false flag event such as a 911 are huge. Lots of money to go around after the event for all and an extended war drawing billions and trillions of dollars, along with an advancement of the agenda that wanted to be placed in motion, along with the fringe benefits of routing out some terrorist groups and securing oil rights.

There has been a lot of evidence out there to show that the buildings should not have collapsed under the stress of a plane crash and subsequent fire. (it was the first building in history to fall due to a plane crashing into it) as well as why wtc 7 should have gone down too if it was an inside job...

The beams in the towers were UL spec'd for 2000+ degrees for something liek 8 hours? Jet fuel would not burn that long! more like pouring some alcohol on a napkin and lighting it up. it would barely scar the napkin. TRY IT - it's kinda fun ;p

The explosions heard inside the building that were noted in multiple news broadcasts on the day of the attack, but not after the first day. *blink* *blink*

The WTC 7 building housed all of the information regarding the insider trading investigations? HMM......

also, to the above poster about bush planning it. It was in planning long before W's reign. yes, i said reign. when did you have a choice about us going to war to secure a fossil fuel that will be useless to us in the near future? not to mention we found out that we hit the peak of oil production recently.

anyway, IMO, wtc came down due to explosions in the building. remember the low budget loose change documentary. watch it again and research the things he states. some of it is very circumstantial, and some is not able to be proven.

on a diff note: you can't deny the fact that we didn't need the attacks to tell us that the fall of capitalism was near.

IMPORTANT:
governements are learning that ETHICS are overcoming the power of the industrialist/capitalist regime we live under.

The whole deal is that all of the lies of the administration are coming out, and we'll be dealing with a higher power soon anyway.

Originally posted by johnsky

quote:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

This quote is quite ambiguous. Saying they made the decision to pull it and then watching the building collapse doesn't address how much time went by between the two. It sounds as if they made to decision to pull it (as in demo it) and then the building collapsed right after. But the term "pull it" is a problem. So this whole arguement hinges on what the term "pull it" means, which, as someone already mentioned, has been established to mean to clear people out.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
But the term "pull it" is a problem. So this whole arguement hinges on what the term "pull it" means, which, as someone already mentioned, has been established to mean to clear people out.

the term "pull it" has ALSO been established to mean demolition by explosives, controlled demolition. I have never heard the phrase "pull it" to mean evacuation of people have you?