PDA

View Full Version : Bombshell:Fox News hit piece inadvertently reveals Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11



Magda Hassan
04-24-2010, 02:30 PM
Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11
Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was "on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2010/230410top.jpg





Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/), Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, "I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard."

"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 – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm) to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

"A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy," writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm) that his infamous "pull it" comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, "meant something else".

In January 2006, Silverstein's spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm)that the "pull it" comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro's faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to "pull" the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder's comments.

"I remember getting a call from the 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," said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein's spokesman, however, both the FEMA report (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fema_report.html), the New York Times (http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.h tml) and even Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y) reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&feature=player_embedded




Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term "pull" is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&feature=player_embedded




"While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was," writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro's contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro's claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm) as he ran away from its collapse.

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest," said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm), "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage."

The host asked Singh, "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?," to which Singh responded, "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)


(http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html)

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm)and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike's report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g) on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=player_embedded




"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm). The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o&feature=player_embedded




Several news agencies, including the BBC (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm) and CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o), reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&feature=player_embedded




Just about every sentence of Shapiro's hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, "I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks," fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro's inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein's $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro's testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein's insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2010/042310_silverstein_wanted.htm

Peter Lemkin
04-25-2010, 08:07 AM
If all true, than this really is a BOMBSHELL!, that should blow Silverstein and his pals out of the water!....:nurse:

David Guyatt
04-26-2010, 08:44 AM
My guess is that this revelation will go the same way the others went. Down the drainpipe -- because there was so much dirty black stuff going on re 911 that the least of it was Silverstein making a killing (pun intended) out of a planned covert operation that changed the shape of US governance forever afterwards.

James Lewis
04-27-2010, 07:02 PM
Well, if that is true, which I suspect it is...that should also put into question the supposed "collapse" of 1 and 2 World Trade Centers. Damn sure looked like a controlled demolition to me.

David Guyatt
04-28-2010, 04:12 PM
Yep, me too.

I think the evidence is now in proving this too. That is to say proof enough for anyone who cares to open their ears and eyes.

Malcolm Pryce
04-29-2010, 06:45 AM
I'm afraid this story is less of a 'bombshell' than it appears at first sight. The problem is, even though the evidence that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition is now overwhelming, this story can't possibly be true. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that if Larry Silverstein had secretly wired the building for a controlled demolition he would ring up the insurance company on the morning and let them know? If asked about it, he will just say the idea is absurd. The same applies to his now infamous 'pull it' comment when he is alleged to have discussed with the fire chief the need for a demolition. Since when do building owners have conversations like that with fire chiefs as the building burns? My own view is, the plan was for a third plane to hit Building 7 and it was wired like WTC 1 & 2 accordingly. I'm sure Larry Silverstein was in on it. But I can't believe he would have put his head in the noose by blabbing about it on the morning of 9/11.

David Guyatt
04-29-2010, 08:49 AM
It's a good argument Malcolm. As a hypothetical, would Silverstein talk to his insurance people to see if they would pay out? I suppose it depends on who his insurance company was and what sort of relationship they had etc. I wouldn't rule it out entirely although I can see what you're saying.

I do know that the WTC was previously owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ and, from close personal contacts in the insurance business I know of some highly disturbing insights about the crookedness of that outfit. And, of course, it was Silverstein's company - Silverstein Properties - who were awarded he leasing and management contract of the WTC by the Port Authority just 3 months prior to 911.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and while you may well be right, I cannot entirely rule out the sort of insider dealing and nod and a wink arrangements that sit at the heart of the banking and insurance industries (where it is usually the big banks who own the insurance companies) -- because it is rare to be able to see the whole picture where apparent losses/payouts can be made good via other means.

Magda Hassan
04-29-2010, 09:45 AM
Well, on a much smaller scale admittedly, but some of my former acquaintances made a very good living working with insurance assessors and destroying or arranging to have their property stolen with their help. Not every one in the insurance industry is straight up. Some work for more than one commission at a time.

Also, from a purely business view it may have been cheaper to have the asbestos riddled white elephant brought down this way than demolished in a more orthodox manner.

Malcolm Pryce
04-29-2010, 09:03 PM
The way I see it is this:

If Larry Silverstein was talking speculatively about a controlled demolition at some unspecified time in the future there is nothing to discuss.

But the implication is that he was talking about performing a CD that day.

Which means the buildings had to have been wired up, before 9/11.

Which means it was an inside-job.

James Lewis
04-29-2010, 09:20 PM
Which means the whole damn thing was an inside job. The temperature to melt steel is 2800 degrees F. That's ONE piece of steel. There is absolutely NO WAY that two buildings as tall as WTCs 1 and 2, and with as much high-strength in them, could have melted to the ground in less than two hours. The ONLY logical way those buildings could have come down, in the manner that they did, is through controlled demolition.

Anthony Marsh
04-30-2010, 12:04 AM
Which means the whole damn thing was an inside job. The temperature to melt steel is 2800 degrees F. That's ONE piece of steel. There is absolutely NO WAY that two buildings as tall as WTCs 1 and 2, and with as much high-strength in them, could have melted to the ground in less than two hours. The ONLY logical way those buildings could have come down, in the manner that they did, is through controlled demolition.

You make a fundamental error. The claim has never been that the steel melted. Just that the temperature was hot enough to WEAKEN the steel until it lost its structural strength. What you see melted is ALUMINUM. You can tell by the color what temperature it is.

Anthony Marsh
04-30-2010, 12:21 AM
Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11
Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was "on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2010/230410top.jpg





Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.

A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/), Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, "I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard."

"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 – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm) to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

"A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy," writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm) that his infamous "pull it" comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, "meant something else".

In January 2006, Silverstein's spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm)that the "pull it" comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro's faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to "pull" the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder's comments.

"I remember getting a call from the 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," said Silverstein.

Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to "pull" the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein's spokesman, however, both the FEMA report (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fema_report.html), the New York Times (http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.h tml) and even Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y) reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&feature=player_embedded


Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term "pull" is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&feature=player_embedded


"While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was," writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.

Shapiro's contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.

Contradicting Shapiro's claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm) as he ran away from its collapse.

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest," said Bartmer.

EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm), "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage."

The host asked Singh, "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?," to which Singh responded, "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)


(http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html)

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm)and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike's report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g) on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=player_embedded


"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm). The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o&feature=player_embedded


Several news agencies, including the BBC (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm) and CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o), reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.

Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&feature=player_embedded


Just about every sentence of Shapiro's hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, "I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks," fails to ring true.

However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro's inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein's $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.

Shapiro's testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein's insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2010/042310_silverstein_wanted.htm



Yes, the professional debunkers lie when they say that "pull it" does not mean controlled demolition. I have been pointing out a PBS special about the science of controlled demolitions where one of the experts explains how they "pull" a building.
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.
No one decided to pull building 6 before 9/11, but they eventually did.

Mark Stapleton
04-30-2010, 12:45 AM
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.




And instead of his usual breakfast at Windows of the World restaurant, Larry had a doctors appointment that day.:laugh::laugh:

Lucky Larry, eh.

Malcolm Pryce
04-30-2010, 05:39 AM
Anthony Marsh wrote:

Yes, the professional debunkers lie when they say that "pull it" does not mean controlled demolition. I have been pointing out a PBS special about the science of controlled demolitions where one of the experts explains how they "pull" a building.
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.
No one decided to pull building 6 before 9/11, but they eventually did.


This won't wash. If the building was demolished by CD it had to have been wired up before 9/11. Therefore it was conspiracy not a business decision. There is no way round it.

These are Larry Silverstein's actual words in the PBS documentary in 2002:

'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.'

Anthony Marsh
05-01-2010, 03:18 AM
I'm afraid this story is less of a 'bombshell' than it appears at first sight. The problem is, even though the evidence that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition is now overwhelming, this story can't possibly be true. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that if Larry Silverstein had secretly wired the building for a controlled demolition he would ring up the insurance company on the morning and let them know? If asked about it, he will just say the idea is absurd. The same applies to his now infamous 'pull it' comment when he is alleged to have discussed with the fire chief the need for a demolition. Since when do building owners have conversations like that with fire chiefs as the building burns? My own view is, the plan was for a third plane to hit Building 7 and it was wired like WTC 1 & 2 accordingly. I'm sure Larry Silverstein was in on it. But I can't believe he would have put his head in the noose by blabbing about it on the morning of 9/11.


They do it all the time. They assess the situation and then declare the building NWS, not worth saving. That allows it to be demolished for safety reasons.

Anthony Marsh
05-01-2010, 03:40 AM
Anthony Marsh wrote:

Yes, the professional debunkers lie when they say that "pull it" does not mean controlled demolition. I have been pointing out a PBS special about the science of controlled demolitions where one of the experts explains how they "pull" a building.
But that does not give the 9/11 Truthers the right to lie about what Silverstein said. Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained and realized it was better to just write it off as a loss and demolish it. That is a business decision, not conspiracy.
No one decided to pull building 6 before 9/11, but they eventually did.


This won't wash. If the building was demolished by CD it had to have been wired up before 9/11. Therefore it was conspiracy not a business decision. There is no way round it.

These are Larry Silverstein's actual words in the PBS documentary in 2002:

'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.'


You are begging the question. You are ASSUMING it was a controlled demolition and therefore conspiracy by Silverstein.

And you are putting your own spin on what Silverstein said to puff up your conspiracy theory.
Just the way some kooks bring up a rumor that all the Jews were told not to go into work that morning. Or what about all those diamonds? 20 tons of diamonds missing. Diamonds are the hardest material on Earth and yet no diamonds were found in the rubble. Maybe the conspirators took at the diamonds out the day before and blew up the towers to cover their crime. Like the movie Die Hard. Yeah, that's it. And anyone who doesn't believe that version is just part of the cover-up.

Mark Stapleton
05-01-2010, 04:45 AM
This won't wash. If the building was demolished by CD it had to have been wired up before 9/11. Therefore it was conspiracy not a business decision. There is no way round it.




100% correct.

Malcolm Pryce
05-01-2010, 05:31 AM
Anthony Marsh wrote:

'You are begging the question. You are ASSUMING it was a controlled demolition and therefore conspiracy by Silverstein'

Huh?

You just told me it was a controlled demolition, you said 'Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained…'

(For what it is worth, there was no survey made of the building later in the day, the whole area was in general turmoil, and cordoned off.)

Anthony Marsh also wrote:

'They do it all the time. They assess the situation and then declare the building NWS, not worth saving. That allows it to be demolished for safety reasons.'

Really? I challenge you to provide a single example in the entire history of the world where a building got damaged by an unforeseen catastrophe and they demolished it the same day because by some remarkable act of precognition it had been prewired for a controlled demolition.

Honestly mate, if you agree it was a controlled demolition you are on the side of the Troofers. The whole point about the original article by the Fox News journalist is, he forgot the script and inadvertently admitted to the controlled demolition thesis rather than pour scorn on it.

Adrian Mack
05-01-2010, 05:41 AM
The whole point about the original article by the Fox News journalist is, he forgot the script and inadvertently admitted to the controlled demolition thesis rather than pour scorn on it. I don't think Fox ever forgets the script. If anything, I'm more inclined to think this was dangled to lather up the CDrs. Cue Alex Jones with yet another "huge smoking gun" that goes precisely nowhere. It's misdirection. CD is a dead end.

Mark Stapleton
05-01-2010, 09:29 PM
For a dead end, it has a lot of followers.

Adrian Mack
05-01-2010, 09:48 PM
For a dead end, it has a lot of followers. It does! I understand the attraction. But whenever the MSM attempts to debunk 9/11 research, it focuses on controlled demolition, or "no planes". The MSM has never attempted to examine US govt., military and Intelligence foreknowledge, which goes directly to the heart of 9/11 and is far too dangerous. This is why I think it's distraction and why I can imagine somebody at Fox actively attempting to keep CD on the boil.

Mark Stapleton
05-02-2010, 11:02 AM
For a dead end, it has a lot of followers. It does! I understand the attraction. But whenever the MSM attempts to debunk 9/11 research, it focuses on controlled demolition, or "no planes". The MSM has never attempted to examine US govt., military and Intelligence foreknowledge, which goes directly to the heart of 9/11 and is far too dangerous. This is why I think it's distraction and why I can imagine somebody at Fox actively attempting to keep CD on the boil.

The MSM will never examine Govt, military or intelligence foreknowledge. The MSM is controlled by Zionists with a substantial stakeholding in the armaments industry and the war on terror.

You advocate the ultimate dead end.

By contrast, CD is the most obvious and easily accesible evidence of conspiracy to experts and novices alike. Tower 7 fell into its footprint without being hit. The suggestion this was caused by ground shift from the Twin Towers collapse is as absurd as the magic bullet theory and you don't need to be a 9/11 expert to know that.

Adrian Mack
05-02-2010, 04:05 PM
The MSM will never examine Govt, military or intelligence foreknowledge.Not only that but it will propagandize all elements of 9/11, which includes framing perception of the so-called Truth Movement. And it logically focuses on the weakest arguments, in this case CD.


Tower 7 fell into its footprint without being hit. The suggestion this was caused by ground shift from the Twin Towers collapse is as absurd as the magic bullet theory and you don't need to be a 9/11 expert to know that. Almost everything suggested about 9/11 is absurd. Why burden yourself with having to prove the unprovable (CD)? There's enough damning evidence available and on the record to make your case without the need to hypothesize a scenario that increases the plot by orders of magnitude, and, again, which will never be proven. Especially not through some probable stealth disinformation coming through Fox. Remember Rumsfeld's missile "flub"?

Cdrs toil endlessly over "how" - to the delight of the still massively influential MSM, I might add! - when the "who" and the "why" are barely concealed at this point.

Anthony Marsh
05-02-2010, 08:47 PM
For a dead end, it has a lot of followers. It does! I understand the attraction. But whenever the MSM attempts to debunk 9/11 research, it focuses on controlled demolition, or "no planes". The MSM has never attempted to examine US govt., military and Intelligence foreknowledge, which goes directly to the heart of 9/11 and is far too dangerous. This is why I think it's distraction and why I can imagine somebody at Fox actively attempting to keep CD on the boil.


Most of the 9/11 Truthers I know split into one of two camps. Either LIHOP which means let it happen on purpose as in Bush/Cheney/necons/intelligence seeing that an attack was planned and let it happen in order to start another war. Or MIHOP which means that group carried out the attack to use the attack as a pretext to start another war. Not leaving in the hands of incompetent terrorists who might screw it up or chicken out.
They often point to the neocon manifesto that in order to get their invasion of Iraq the US would have to suffer another Pearl Harbor. But I point out to them that at Pearl Harbor those were not US pilots flying US planes attacking our own soil. It really was a preemptive strike by our known enemy. Further, it was the final step of a US program to provoke Japan into attacking the US. We intentionally provoked Japan to attack us to rally the public to enter the war. It worked.
I believe the same is true for 9/11. The Pentagon has a special section which has the mission of provoking other countries and terrorist groups into attacking the US. Osama Bin Laden authorized the terrorist attack by al Qaeda. I don't know why, but some people have a tendency to get a little annoyed when you try to assassinate him 129 times and kill his children and friends.
So I see 9/11 as another case of PIHOP, provoked it on purpose.

Malcolm Pryce
05-02-2010, 09:04 PM
This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the New Pearl Harbour thesis. When the neo-cons called for a NPH they were simply referring to the shock value of Pearl Harbour in galvanising American public opinion to accept a radical militarisation of society. It makes no difference who the pilots were or who they were fighting.

As for MIHOP, LIHOP or your new PIHOP, the fact remains that US troops were preparing in July to go into Afghanistan in September so they knew damn well the attack was coming. I don't believe PIHOP is that accurate.

As for LIHOP, the problem is, it sounds nice on paper but out in the real world, as I understand it, you simply cannot allow such latitude and have to take control of every aspect of such a plan, hence MIHOP. To see what I mean, consider the famous case of Hani Hanjour the miracle pilot who did the famous corkscrew dive on his alleged approach to the Pentagon. This aeronautical manoeuvre ensured he flew into the empty wedge of the Pentagon and missed the offices of the Joint Chiefs. Now imagine you were Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11 sitting in your office knowing the attack was on the way. You know, too, the suicide bomber has given you his solemn word that he will fly into the back of the building and miss you at the front. How do you feel? Confident that he will keep his word? I think not. There's no way you can rely on that to happen. Hence the use of a missile to hit a pre-ordained spot.

That's my take on it anyway.

Mark Stapleton
05-03-2010, 12:00 AM
Cdrs toil endlessly over "how" - to the delight of the still massively influential MSM, I might add! - when the "who" and the "why" are barely concealed at this point.

While still influential, the MSM's power is waning, and I don't know if they are taking much delight over the 9/11 debate, which is really all over, imo.

Indeed the who and why are barely concealed. 9/11 was carried out by the Zionist power configuration, probably headquartered within the Israeli Government, using their extensive network of influential Zionist helpers throughout the US and beyond, the most influential of all being the western mainstream media. The purpose was of course a catalysing event which would drive the US into fighting Israel's enemies in the region (ie. almost everyone), while at the same time decieving the American public into supporting these actions as part of an overall state of permanent war against the designated patsy, Islam. A massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the armaments industry was icing on the cake but Americans have long been conditioned to accept this (freedom isn't free, it costs folks like you and me...etc).

It worked pretty well for a while. This thread is worth a look:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3458

Ed Jewett
05-03-2010, 12:07 AM
This is like deja vu all over again, morning sickness redux. I have adopted and applied Charles Drago's mantra on Dallas to the events of 9/11. I no longer have any need to debate, or to offer up proof. The homework has been done; the information is there to see (or to not see). Those who cannot see are either cognitively challenged or have some agenda whose design is unknown but can be deduced over time. But it is necessary to move on to other tasks.

Mark Stapleton
05-03-2010, 12:19 AM
This is like deja vu all over again, morning sickness redux. I have adopted and applied Charles Drago's mantra on Dallas to the events of 9/11. I no longer have any need to debate, or to offer up proof. The homework has been done; the information is there to see (or to not see). Those who cannot see are either cognitively challenged or have some agenda whose design is unknown but can be deduced over time. But it is necessary to move on to other tasks.

I agree. We may move on to other tasks, but I doubt America can move on until it faces the truth of Dallas and 9/11 and gets the Zionist monkey off its back.

Ed Jewett
05-03-2010, 02:29 AM
"... we are mired in a war that has cost us $988,803,497,182 (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home), the greatest ecological disaster of the industrial/petroleum age is raging in one of our most productive fishery/ecosystems, and we’ve been victimized by $15 trillion (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html) robbery of unknown final proportions (and the robbers are telling us how to wire the vault shut), and the great energy source is about to run dry...."

In order for us to gain (if, indeed, anything can be gained back at this point), we need a lot of monkeys to learn rapidly how to rinse the sand off of their sweet potatoes before we have another such event as 9/11 with consequences even more grim.

Adrian Mack
05-03-2010, 03:02 AM
The homework has been done; the information is there to see (or to not see).Having the 9/11 Commission account for its omissions, conflicts of interest and outright lies is all it would take. No controlled demolition necessary.

Ed Jewett
05-03-2010, 03:22 AM
The homework has been done; the information is there to see (or to not see).Having the 9/11 Commission account for its omissions, conflicts of interest and outright lies is all it would take. No controlled demolition necessary.


Maybe there is an investment banker somewhere who would help us fashion a good CDO on that. While you are waiting for the 9/11 Commission to account for its weaknesses and failures, the Federal Reserve will print up some gold bars and mail them out to all previously indebted citizens.

The Warren Commission was patched and re-patched on multiple occasions by multiple people, including Gerald Ford on several occasions and by GHWB on the occasion of Ford's death. The 9/11 Commission was a set-up and a put-up from the beginning, and its supporters live on in the Presidency, inside the White House (Cass Sunstein), and in multiple chairs inside the Congress and the Senate. The entire system is as criminal and corrupt as it can be. One need only understand how AIG came to be, what it and its players control or controlled, and do a little homework about machinery, software, business ownerships, and the like. We will likely have a worldwide conflagration before anyone can get around to moving the issue in any meaningful way. There will be no awakening, enlightenment or transformations; the crooks own the soporifics, the mesmerizers, the spies and the assassins. What there will be is more Kabuki theater, more destruction, more theft and more graft, until the creaking monstrosity comes down in a crash due to its own weight and the hollowing out given it by its very owners. Any day now... rinse the sand off those sweet potatoes. No need to order cocktail sauce with your gulf shrimp cocktail anymore; it comes packed in its own heavy crude.

Anthony Marsh
05-03-2010, 05:06 AM
This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the New Pearl Harbour thesis. When the neo-cons called for a NPH they were simply referring to the shock value of Pearl Harbour in galvanising American public opinion to accept a radical militarisation of society. It makes no difference who the pilots were or who they were fighting.

As for MIHOP, LIHOP or your new PIHOP, the fact remains that US troops were preparing in July to go into Afghanistan in September so they knew damn well the attack was coming. I don't believe PIHOP is that accurate.

As for LIHOP, the problem is, it sounds nice on paper but out in the real world, as I understand it, you simply cannot allow such latitude and have to take control of every aspect of such a plan, hence MIHOP. To see what I mean, consider the famous case of Hani Hanjour the miracle pilot who did the famous corkscrew dive on his alleged approach to the Pentagon. This aeronautical manoeuvre ensured he flew into the empty wedge of the Pentagon and missed the offices of the Joint Chiefs. Now imagine you were Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11 sitting in your office knowing the attack was on the way. You know, too, the suicide bomber has given you his solemn word that he will fly into the back of the building and miss you at the front. How do you feel? Confident that he will keep his word? I think not. There's no way you can rely on that to happen. Hence the use of a missile to hit a pre-ordained spot.

That's my take on it anyway.


The neocon manifesto called for a Peal Harbor type of attack to rally the public to support an invasion of Iraq.
Just attacking one of our ships as they did the Stark would not be enough. Nor stepping on our Ambassador's foot at the UN. They said we NEED another Pearl Harbor.
That's why I pointed out the fact that we provoked the Japanese to attack us which you weren't even aware of. Al Qaeda had been planning the plane attack on the US for seven years so this is not about preparing in August for a September attack. US forces were already preparing for an invasion of Iraq for several years. Your idea that they could move into action in a few weeks is ludicrous.
You assume you know why the pilot chose the path he did. Maybe his original target was the White House and at the last second decided to hit the Pentagon instead. I am sure that he did not study the floorplan and know exactly where Rumsfeld was every second. Likewise I said nothing about Rumsfeld knowing every detail of the attack, so leave that straw man out.
FYI, the debris on the lawn indicates a plane rather than a missile.

Adrian Mack
05-03-2010, 05:13 AM
Maybe there is an investment banker somewhere who would help us fashion a good CDO on that. While you are waiting for the 9/11 Commission to account for its weaknesses and failures, the Federal Reserve will print up some gold bars and mail them out to all previously indebted citizens.

The Warren Commission was patched and re-patched on multiple occasions by multiple people, including Gerald Ford on several occasions and by GHWB on the occasion of Ford's death. The 9/11 Commission was a set-up and a put-up from the beginning, and its supporters live on in the Presidency, inside the White House (Cass Sunstein), and in multiple chairs inside the Congress and the Senate. The entire system is as criminal and corrupt as it can be. One need only understand how AIG came to be, what it and its players control or controlled, and do a little homework about machinery, software, business ownerships, and the like. We will likely have a worldwide conflagration before anyone can get around to moving the issue in any meaningful way. There will be no awakening, enlightenment or transformations; the crooks own the soporifics, the mesmerizers, the spies and the assassins. What there will be is more Kabuki theater, more destruction, more theft and more graft, until the creaking monstrosity comes down in a crash due to its own weight and the hollowing out given it by its very owners. Any day now... rinse the sand off those sweet potatoes. No need to order cocktail sauce with your gulf shrimp cocktail anymore; it comes packed in its own heavy crude. I wish I could find it in my heart to disagree with any of that, or at least argue for a glimmer of hope.

James Lewis
06-09-2010, 08:05 PM
Problem is...it still wasn't hot enough to bring the buildings down in the manner that they came down. All that steel...and aluminum doesn't just heat up at the same time and come down at the same time...totally contrary to both the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The manner that the buildings came down...evenly, everything coming down at the same time, suggests controlled demolition. And if heat supposedly brought WTC 1 and 2 down...why did the South Tower fall first...when the North Tower was hit first...and with a far more direct hit ?