The only thing Silverstein pulled was too much money from his wallet

[chippy]

It's time to put the Larry Silverstein nonsense to rest. Everyone keeps saying he profited from the demolition of WTC 7, right? From 911research:

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html#ref8

Wow, $500 million huh? That's a lot of money. I wonder what he did with that money? Oh yeah, he rebuilt WTC 7.

http://www.downtownny.com/rebuild/projects/

Guess how much that was?

Silverstein Properties' 52-story, $700 million 7 WTC opened in May, 2006...So, he made $500 million and then spent $700 million on the new tower, meaning that the actual, net result of WTC 7's collapse was that Larry Silverstein lost $200 million. Wow, good thing he had the building pulled, huh? Sounds like a really profitable venture, NOT.

[ref]

We have addressed this before, but truthers still don't learn.

The rebuilding of the rest of the WTC is estimated to cost between $8 and $10 billion. He'll receive $4.6 billion in insurance coverage. The other half has to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing. Hardly any profit there either.

[jhunter1163]

That's not to mention the multi-billion dollar hit he took on the Towers. It's enough to make a Jew cry "Oy vey!"

ETA: Damn, Ref beat me to it.

ETA II: The last figure I saw for the cost of the Freedom Tower was $12 billion. Just that much more debt he's going to have to take on.

[babazaroni]

Silverstein has also committed his excess business-interruption insurance proceeds to rebuilding.

From http://www.realestatejournal.com/regionalnews/20040301-starkman.html:

A person familiar with the Port Authority's thinking says that Mr. Silverstein agreed as part of the GMAC deal to put back into the project any business-interruption proceeds in excess of expenses. That would total a minimum of $70 million as long as the Swiss Re trial is in progress and $120 million a year after the case is completed, this person said.
.

[Brainster]

It's time to put the Larry Silverstein nonsense to rest. Everyone keeps saying he profited from the demolition of WTC 7, right? From 911research:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html#ref8

Wow, $500 million huh? That's a lot of money. I wonder what he did with that money? Oh yeah, he rebuilt WTC 7.

http://www.downtownny.com/rebuild/projects/

Guess how much that was?

So, he made $500 million and then spent $700 million on the new tower, meaning that the actual, net result of WTC 7's collapse was that Larry Silverstein lost $200 million. Wow, good thing he had the building pulled, huh? Sounds like a really profitable venture, NOT.

As a commercial real estate guy, let me point out some flaws in this analysis:

1. He received $861 million and rebuilt for $700 million; quite obviously there was $161 million left.

2. The property was undoubtedly mortgaged as of 2001, so any debt on the property would have to be paid back out of the $861 million. The debt on the property was probably (assuming normal loan to value ratios) about $600 million. Starts to sound like he took a bath on the deal but remember that if the debt was $600 million and the original cost was $382 million, then Silverstein and his partners had already cashed out about $218 million when they (presumably) refinanced.

3. The situation gets even more complex when we look at the reconstruction. Normally, a construction loan with an experienced and capable developer will be in the range of 90% or more of the total cost. Thus it is quite likely that Silverstein only had to put in about $70 million of the reconstruction cost.

4. So it is likely that Silverstein ended up with quite a chunk of cash. However, it is important not to confuse this with "profiting from 9-11". In all probability, if Silverstein had sold the property on September 1, 2001, it would have gone for somewhere very close to the $861 million that it was insured for. So essentially all 9-11 did to him financially on WTC 7 was that it turned a paper profit into a cash profit.

Note that this analysis does not consider the other buildings, just WTC 7. The other buildings' financial structure is very complicated and of course some of the insurance proceeds are still in litigation.

[chippy]

I want to make sure I get this right before I talk about it in my journal. Where does that "estimated investment" of $368 million come from? Was that basically the amount of principle they had paid off?

And are you saying that Silverstein only paid $70 million of the cost to rebuild WTC 7? I guess I don't quite understand what you said...who is paying for that other 90% if not Silverstein?

[JamesB]

Yeah, Barrett keeps on insisting that Silverstein made $6 billion off of a $60 million investment. Now we know why he is not a finance professor.

[chippy]

Yeah, Barrett keeps on insisting that Silverstein made $6 billion off of a $60 million investment. Now we know why he is not a finance professor.

Where did you get the $60 million figure?

[jhunter1163]

Here's the breakdown:

Silverstein's insurance payout: $861 million.
Rebuilding cost for new WTC7: $700 million.
Mortgage on WTC7 on 9/11: $323 million.

(figures from Gravy's WTC7 treatise)

So, Silverstein paid $1.023 billion to rebuild WTC7 and pay off the mortgage, and got $861 million in insurance proceeds. Looks to me like a $162 million loss.

Brainster is right that, most likely, Silverstein financed the rebuilding; however, a debt's a debt, and it's out there on Silverstein's balance sheet, along with the debt he's going to have to incur on the Freedom Tower.

[gumboot]

Don't forget lost income...

Silverstein had 5 years without a building to rent out.

-Gumboot

[JamesB]

Where did you get the $60 million figure?

I didn't get it anywhere, Barrett did. I may be off a few million, but he was quoting some ridiculous profit.

[PhantomWolf]

Brainster is right that, most likely, Silverstein financed the rebuilding; however, a debt's a debt, and it's out there on Silverstein's balance sheet, along with the debt he's going to have to incur on the Freedom Tower.

This is quite right. Say I wrote off my car and the Insurance paid out on it as $10,000. I now go and get a loan and buy a $18,000 car and put the $10,000 insurance money in the bank, you can say I have profited from writing off the car. Over all I'm actually $8,000 worse off, and by the time I've paid all the interest on that $18,000 it's going to be more like $22,000. So I've really lost $12,000, more than my car was actually worth.

[Furcifer]

um, i think the truth movement has made it clear over and over, they are too busy fighting the government to be tied down with doing these arithmetics and algebras. most have apparently be fighting the fight since grade 2.

[The Doc]

Detailed analysis on this page:
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/17.php

Toward the bottom. :)

[Brainster]

I want to make sure I get this right before I talk about it in my journal. Where does that "estimated investment" of $368 million come from? Was that basically the amount of principle they had paid off?

And are you saying that Silverstein only paid $70 million of the cost to rebuild WTC 7? I guess I don't quite understand what you said...who is paying for that other 90% if not Silverstein?

This is complicated stuff unless you are in the biz. The original cost to build the property (i.e., the cost of the land, and the construction) was estimated at $386 million. This however, was likely not the original investment by Silverstein and his partners; in all probability they put in (say) 39 million (10% of the cost) and a construction lender (bank) put in the rest. Once the building was completed and leased up, a permanent lender (back in the 1980s probably an insurance company or a pension fund) would provide a permanent loan on the property. The proceeds from this loan would be used to pay off the construction loan, and if there was any left over it would go to Silverstein and his partners.

Years go by and rents increase and Silverstein decides to refinance for (say) $600 million. He and his partners pocket the $218 million plus whatever amortization occured on the old permanent loan. Great deal, huh? Better still, they don't have to declare that as income since it's borrowed money.

9-11 happens and they cash out the property policy. The new permanent lender gets their $600 million (less any amortization) and Silverstein and his partners get $261 million (plus amortization). Silverstein does the numbers and figures that he'd better reserve $70 million of that for rebuilding. Once again, a construction lender provides 90% of the $700 million cost, so there's $191 million left to distribute to the partners. This might be a taxable event (not sure), but they would surely get the preferential capital gains treatment as compared to ordinary income.

Again, the important thing to focus on is that they made money on the property well before 9-11 and the only reason they had an insurance policy for $861 million on the building was because that was the value of the property at the time. If they wanted to cash in, they did not have to destroy the building; they could just have put it on the market.

[einsteen]

Loss or profit, who cares. One thing is sure, if you want to demolish your house and build a new one it will cost you money, but if you put it on fire and the insurance company believes you then each penny you get is a penny.

[gumboot]

Why would Silverstein want to demolish and rebuild WTC7?

-Gumboot

ETA.

On 9/11 WTC7 was only 14 years old...

[einsteen]

Because of the damage, maybe if it didn't collapse on 9/11 it had to be done the days after, like the other buildings.

[ref]

There should be a documentary on building 7 alone. Interviews with firefighters (if they are willing), Silverstein (if he is), the damage covered, fires covered, demolition experts explaining pull it is not demolition, demolition experts and engineers saying why it collapsed naturally, the whole debate put to rest.

[ref]

Because of the damage, maybe if it didn't collapse on 9/11 it had to be done the days after, like the other buildings.

What? Why demolish it the same day and not later like the others?

[einsteen]

That would be cool Ref. Also some CD specialists and physicists, chemists etc, I think you can make a big tv show about it.

I just found this at LC

http://www.innworldreport.net/video/2007-04-23i.wmv

[einsteen]

No idea, I know nothing about insurances etc but maybe a direct attack is paid out differently than some after damage. Doesn't gravy have this all in his report?

[soundaddicted]

There should be a documentary on building 7 alone. Interviews with firefighters (if they are willing), Silverstein (if he is), the damage covered, fires covered, demolition experts explaining pull it is not demolition, demolition experts and engineers saying why it collapsed naturally, the whole debate put to rest.


That documentary should include the other side. Jowenko, the EMTs, etc.

[JimBenArm]

That documentary should include the other side. Jowenko, the EMTs, etc.
Why? If the "other side" wants, they can make their own documentary.

[soundaddicted]

Why? If the "other side" wants, they can make their own documentary.

So you don't want a fair, balanced piece that gives all sides of the debate? Sounds like you just want to preach.

[The Doc]

There was one EMT who was proven a fraud. If you have others, I'd be glad to look at their testimony.

Einsteen,
You suggestion implies that, on the day of 9/11, Silverstein decided that the damage to his building was too great to leave it standing, so he organized a controlled demolition crew to stealthily destroy the building, and covered it up later. All of this operation was supposedly done while the building was on fire.

Don't you realize how ridiculous that is?

[soundaddicted]

There was one EMT who was proven a fraud. If you have others, I'd be glad to look at their testimony.



There was Indira Singh also. I will come back with the links.

I don't think Mike the EMT was ever proved to be a fraud.

[JimBenArm]

So you don't want a fair, balanced piece that gives all sides of the debate? Sounds like you just want to preach.
This documentary would be to correct the lies and distortions the morons are spewing. Not give them another platform to project it from.
Sheesh!

[einsteen]

indeed, unless you are a pre-planter, but that is of course the heaviest of CT... but let's wait for the Nist

[soundaddicted]

Here's the testimony of Indira Singh

SINGH: "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. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "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."


Here's the testimony of Kevin McPadden

McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

McPadden then describes the scene as a "stampede" as people ran over each other in their attempts to flee.

prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

[The Doc]

Get reading:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74491

The fact that none of his claims are corroborated by physical evidence or other witness testimony should set off alarm bells in the mind of a critical thinker.

[gumboot]

Because of the damage, maybe if it didn't collapse on 9/11 it had to be done the days after, like the other buildings.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

If the damage had been so severe that the still-standing building had to be torn down, Silverstein would still get paid insurance for it.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Since when did the FDNY demolish buildings? (Or even know how to!)

-Gumboot

[soundaddicted]

Get reading:


The fact that none of his claims are corroborated by physical evidence or other witness testimony should set off alarm bells in the mind of a critical thinker.

Is there really a need for that tone?

I have just provided testimony that corroborates his. You said he had been proven to be a fraud. He hasn't.

[The Doc]

Here's the testimony of Indira Singh


Read the entire interview. It doesn't hurt to travel away from Prisonplanet every now and then.

http://www.nowpublic.com/node/25975

If you ask me, that is not someone who sounds confident in her claims. Firefighters were saying that building 7 was going to come down for hours. They knew this because of the building's structural integrity.

Use Occam's Razor. Both you and Einsteen are alleging that a controlled demolition could be prepared for in a single day while a building is on fire. The assertion that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition due to damage relies on a single-day demolition plan... which is impossible.

[gumboot]

Is there really a need for that tone?

I have just provided testimony that corroborates his. You said he had been proven to be a fraud. He hasn't.



And which of his claims do these testimonies collaborate, specifically?

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

Is there really a need for that tone?

I have just provided testimony that corroborates his. You said he had been proven to be a fraud. He hasn't.

Tone? Please...

Read the post again. I fail to see how you are getting a "tone" out of that.

Your testimony does not corroborate his claims. No mention of a 20 second countdown, no mention of exploding courtyards or anything of the sort.

Please remember that "Mike" is anonymous and for all you know could be Alex Jones himself! (not saying he is...)

Perhaps "proven" was a bit strong, but he certainly hasn't been "proven" correct at all, as you seem to think.

[Belz...]

Loss or profit, who cares. One thing is sure, if you want to demolish your house and build a new one it will cost you money, but if you put it on fire and the insurance company believes you then each penny you get is a penny.

Which means the only logical course of action is the KEEP THE BUILDING.

[Pardalis]

Here's the testimony of Indira Singh

Notice this interview was in 2005.

Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down. And what we were expecting as an EMT… you're trained for live survivors and there were people on the pile digging and looking for survivors and what happened is they would bring someone out to the nearest triage center… we would stabilize them put them in an ambulance and send them further uptown… so we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day 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 dark 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. That I don't know. I can't attest to the validity of that. All I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down." She doesn't seem too sure herself.

This seems to corroborate that there were extensive damage and fires to WTC7, and that the firemen knew it was in jeopardy.

Here's a few possibilities:

A) the controlled demolition theory:

They brought WT7 down by controlled demolition, which would requiert massive effort and preplanning before 9/11, and while the building was on fire.

Since in her interview she does confirm she saw fire and smoke, we have to assume the building was indeed on fire, therefore it is very unlikely it had been preplanted with explosives, and very unlikely it was being rigged with explosives while it was on fire.

B) the rational explanation:

They said that as an expression, not literally. "Bring it down" as in "stop fighting it and let it collapse".

[Belz...]

Because of the damage, maybe if it didn't collapse on 9/11 it had to be done the days after, like the other buildings.

The insurance company would still pay for the damages, so why bother with the secrecy ??

but let's wait for the Nist

You're a funny one. Once the report comes out and rules out explosives, you'll cry foul. So why bother waiting, then ?

Don't you realize how ridiculous that is?

No, I don't think he does.

[Belz...]

prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

Let's break away from that planet's orbit, shall we ?

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a few possibilities:

A) the controlled demolition theory:

B) the rational explanation:

They said that as an expression, not literally. "Bring it down" as in "stop fighting it and let it collapse".

C) the even more simple and rational explanation:

They said "We're going to have to bring it down", meaning "We think it might collapse but even if it doesn't it'll be in such a bad state that it'll need demolishing anyway". Saying "We" here doesn't mean the FDNY would do the demolition themselves, it's just verbal shorthand from someone who's just too busy to construct a correctly formed sentence in the passive voice.

Dave

[soundaddicted]

Tone? Please...

Read the post again. I fail to see how you are getting a "tone" out of that.

Your testimony does not corroborate his claims. No mention of a 20 second countdown, no mention of exploding courtyards or anything of the sort.

Please remember that "Mike" is anonymous and for all you know could be Alex Jones himself! (not saying he is...)

Perhaps "proven" was a bit strong, but he certainly hasn't been "proven" correct at all, as you seem to think.


You said "Get reading" not "Heres a link with some details". I didn't appreciate the tone.

Why do we have 2 EMTs on record saying they were told the building was being brought down?

[Pardalis]

Why do we have 2 EMTs on record saying they were told the building was being brought down?

You know, we put some effort to answer your posts, the least you could do is to read our responses.

[gumboot]

You said "Get reading" not "Heres a link with some details". I didn't appreciate the tone.

Why do we have 2 EMTs on record saying they were told the building was being brought down?



Hi soundaddicted, could you please identify which of "Mike the EMT"'s claims is collaborated by the testimonies you quoted?

A quote from Mike's testimony, accompanied by the pertinent extract from each of the other two, should suffice.

Thanks.

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

You said "Get reading" not "Heres a link with some details". I didn't appreciate the tone.

Gee, you're delicate. Back in the day we used to insult one another for fun, before the days of the internet and people's fragile sensibilities.

Why do we have 2 EMTs on record saying they were told the building was being brought down?

Because two people are wrong about it, that's why.

If the demolition was done to prevent further damage, there'd be no reason to be all sneaky about it, would there ?

[Belz...]

You know, we put some effort to answer your posts, the least you could do is to read our responses.

Nonsense, my Montréal friend. Then he'd have to read some opposing view. That opens a dangerous door.

[The Doc]

You said "Get reading" not "Heres a link with some details". I didn't appreciate the tone.

Why do we have 2 EMTs on record saying they were told the building was being brought down?

Well I'm sorry but I'd have to say harden up. "Get reading" is hardly a "tone", but rather a simple statement. I've never seen anyone get offended by "get reading" or "get going" for that matter. Now that I think about it, I've never heard anyone get offended by "Get thinking" either.

So, instead of complaining about my "tone", how about we post about relevant topics.

You don't have two EMTs on record saying they were told the building was being brought down. Both of them said they were told that they "might" have to bring the building down. Do you honestly think that between the non-definite statement of "might" and the time of the collapse that they could have prepared the building for a demolition?

Both EMTs express doubt and confussion.
Neither of the EMTs has reiterated their statements.

I don't know about you, but if I was actually told that a building was going to be demolished... I'd have something to say about it if there was a cover up going on.

[Belz...]

Nonsense, Doc. If you knew, all you'd need is a few hundred dollars to shut up! :rolleyes:

[babazaroni]

Because of the damage, maybe if it didn't collapse on 9/11 it had to be done the days after, like the other buildings.

Then why not bring it down later like the others and be sure you don't damage surrounding infrastructure?

Don't you think the insurers of the buildings damaged by the collapse of WTC 7 (like 30 West Broadway) would be quite interested in assigning liability to someone else if there was even the slightest hint in their minds that WTC 7 was a control demo?

[soundaddicted]

Then why not bring it down later like the others and be sure you don't damage surrounding infrastructure?



Because it was hampering the immediate rescue efforts. The FDNY had to withdraw from the pile because of the danger 7 posed if it fell South on to the pile.

[gumboot]

Because it was hampering the immediate rescue efforts. The FDNY had to withdraw from the pile because of the danger 7 posed if it fell South on to the pile.


So they didn't decide to CD WTC7 until after they had to withdraw from the pile? Yes?

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

Because it was hampering the immediate rescue efforts. The FDNY had to withdraw from the pile because of the danger 7 posed if it fell South on to the pile.
So they decided to CD a building that they had to evacuate because it was in danger of collapse. This would require ENTERING the building to place charges while it was still on fire and in danger of collapse, which is why they evacuated the building.
Yeah, makes a whole lotta sense.

[defaultdotxbe]

Because it was hampering the immediate rescue efforts. The FDNY had to withdraw from the pile because of the danger 7 posed if it fell South on to the pile.
1: who placed the charges? FDNY, or a demolition firm?

2: how long did it take them to wire it up? (considering a building half the size took over 4 months)

3: how did they accomplish this while fires were burning?

4: assuming you have an aswer for 1-3, and have proven the FDNY demolished building 7 for a perfectly legitimate reason, how does this translate to "inside job"?

[soundaddicted]

1: who placed the charges? FDNY, or a demolition firm?

2: how long did it take them to wire it up? (considering a building half the size took over 4 months)

3: how did they accomplish this while fires were burning?

4: assuming you have an aswer for 1-3, and have proven the FDNY demolished building 7 for a perfectly legitimate reason, how does this translate to "inside job"?

1. The FDNY do not demolish buildings. It must have been a firm or a military unit.

2. I have no idea, but they didnt require a perfect demolition as with usual demolitions. Jowenko seems to think they had time.

3. Fires were not burning on every floor.

4. It doesn't.

[JamesB]

What I want to know is who they got to volunteer to do this...

"Hey Joe, come here. See that building?"

"Yes boss"

Yeah, the one that is on fire, has a big hole in the center, and is making creaking noises. I want you to take a couple of hundred pounds of explosives, det cord, and blasting caps, and run in there and wire the building for demolition"

"You're kidding, right?"

"Oh come on. It shouldn't take more than 6 hours, 7 tops. We'll pay you time and a half"

"The freakin building is on fire!"

"Oh, not every floor. Here, take this radio, and if the fire spreads to whatever floor you are on, I will call you and let you know"

"Bite me sir!"

"Get back here! This will look really bad on your annual review!"

[Pardalis]

1. The FDNY do not demolish buildings. It must have been a firm or a military unit.

Since when does the military carry out controlled demolitions of buildings?

2. I have no idea, but they didnt require a perfect demolition as with usual demolitions. Jowenko seems to think they had time.

Jowenko doesn't know the extent of the damage to the building. Most twoofers seem to agree that it "looks like" a perfect CD.

3. Fires were not burning on every floor.

Still, the building was on fire. How does one rig a burning building with explosives?

[soundaddicted]

What I want to know is who they got to volunteer to do this...

"Hey Joe, come here. See that building?"

"Yes boss"

Yeah, the one that is on fire, has a big hole in the center, and is making creaking noises. I want you to take a couple of hundred pounds of explosives, det cord, and blasting caps, and run in there and wire the building for demolition"

"You're kidding, right?"

"Oh come on. It shouldn't take more than 6 hours, 7 tops. We'll pay you time and a half"

"The freakin building is on fire!"

"Oh, not every floor. Here, take this radio, and if the fire spreads to whatever floor you are on, I will call you and let you know"

"Bite me sir!"

"Get back here! This will look really bad on your annual review!"

The conversation my have been more like:

Commander: "you need to go into that building to plant explosives because we have potentially hundreds of firefighters and civilians we cant rescue"

Brave subordinate: "Yes Sir"

[Firestone]

... and after realizing this incredible technical and heroic feat, they keep it a secret, for no reason whatsoever ... :con2:

[The Doc]

1. The FDNY do not demolish buildings. It must have been a firm or a military unit.


Military units don't destroy buildings in a controlled fashion.

2. I have no idea, but they didnt require a perfect demolition as with usual demolitions. Jowenko seems to think they had time.

Jowenko doesn't think the demolitions were prepared on 9/11. He is obviously wrong that the building was demolished, though.

I encourage you to call every demolition firm in the world and ask if a burning 47 story building could be prepared for demolition and demolished in 7 hours. You must also ask if this can be done without leaving any visible evidence of explosions for cameras to see.

Even a "non-perfect" demolition couldn't be prepared and executed in 7 hours. Most conspiracists use the apparent "perfect collapse" of WTC7 as evidence that the building was a demolition. So you disagree with them in this aspect?

3. Fires were not burning on every floor.

Perhaps not every floor, but enough to hinder any demolition operation - that's for sure. The vast majority of WTC7 was burning. This is verified by several firemen on scene.

The building was creaking the entire time as well, let's not forget.

4. It doesn't.

Finally, some sanity.

Seriously though. Your theory is utterly ridiculous and I doubt your ability to think clearly if you actually believe what you are saying.

[gumboot]

1. The FDNY do not demolish buildings. It must have been a firm or a military unit.

2. I have no idea, but they didnt require a perfect demolition as with usual demolitions. Jowenko seems to think they had time.

3. Fires were not burning on every floor.

4. It doesn't.



Hi, soundaddicted.

Two brief requests, if you will bear with me.

Firstly, could you please identify which of Mike the EMT's claims is collaborated by the testimonies you posted on the previous page?

Secondly, can you confirm your earlier statement... is it your contention that the FDNY decided to have WTC7 demolished after withdrawing from rescue efforts on the pile?

Regards,
Gumboot

[Pardalis]

The conversation my have been more like:

Commander: "you need to go into that building to plant explosives because we have potentially hundreds of firefighters and civilians we cant rescue"

Brave subordinate: "Yes Sir"

:socks: definitely

No one thinks like that but PDoherty.

[JimBenArm]

1. The FDNY do not demolish buildings. It must have been a firm or a military unit.

2. I have no idea, but they didnt require a perfect demolition as with usual demolitions. Jowenko seems to think they had time.

3. Fires were not burning on every floor.

4. It doesn't.
Do you think the FDNY keeps a detachment of US Military demolition experts at their beck-and-call? Or civilian demo companies? Do you think they just grab some stuff off the shelf and run out to demo a building? They need time to figure out what columns need to be cut to make the building fall. Did they have the necessary drawings on hand to figure this out?
And if they did this, why the secrecy? If this was the reason they did it, they should be BRAGGING about it! I would be. Heck-fire, they went into a buildling that was on fire, carrying explosives to bring it down to aid a rescue operation. Talk about brass gonads! Yet, no one is taking credit for it. Ergo, didn't happen!

[defaultdotxbe]

just out of curiosity has jowenko ever gone into detail about howWTC7 was prepped? seems hed be the ideal person to say how much explosive was needed, where to put it, how many people it would take, how long it would take them

seeing as how this question is so often posed to truthers it seems odd none of them has ever tried to find out

[The Doc]

:socks: definitely

No one thinks like that but PDoherty.

I've been thinking it since his 4th post. He's getting worse at hiding it.

I would think that the post count matches that of P'dohs posts per minute too.

[soundaddicted]

I've been thinking it since his 4th post. He's getting worse at hiding it.

I would think that the post count matches that of P'dohs posts per minute too.

Im not pdoherty, but I recognise you. Doctorfungi.

I used to post at ATS as soundaddicted when you were there. It is you.

[Pardalis]

The conversation my have been more like:

Commander: "you need to go into that building to plant explosives because we have potentially hundreds of firefighters and civilians we cant rescue"

Brave subordinate: "Yes Sir"

So soundaddicted, are you saying that WTC7 was imploded intentionally for humanitarian reasons?

[soundaddicted]

So soundaddicted, are you saying that WTC7 was imploded intentionally for humanitarian reasons?

It seems to be the prevailing theory at the moment. I am not saying it definitely happened but I dont think it would be demolished for any other reason.

[beachnut]

It seems to be the prevailing theory at the moment. I am not saying it definitely happened but I dont think it would be demolished for any other reason.
Where is your proof? Where are your facts? Do you have anything new after 5 years of lies from the 9/11 truth movement?

[Belz...]

Because it was hampering the immediate rescue efforts. The FDNY had to withdraw from the pile because of the danger 7 posed if it fell South on to the pile.

Then why the secrecy ? You still haven't answered that one.

1. The FDNY do not demolish buildings. It must have been a firm or a military unit.

"Must have been" ? Besides speculation, what do you have ?

3. Fires were not burning on every floor.

Irrelevant. The mere fact that fire was burning on several floors prevented such an operation. Do you know anything about demolitions ?

It seems to be the prevailing theory at the moment.

Prevailing for whom ? You ?

[Mince]

So, he made $500 million and then spent $700 million on the new tower, meaning that the actual, net result of WTC 7's collapse was that Larry Silverstein lost $200 million. Wow, good thing he had the building pulled, huh? Sounds like a really profitable venture, NOT.


No no no. Don't you see? He destroyed his own building for the psychological effect. The psyop factor, if you will. Destroying two WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, with the subsequent loss of almost 3,000 human beings, was not quite enough to convince Americans that terrorists were evil. We needed that one more empty building to fall that would allow us to drink Bush's Kool-Aid. $200 million dollars!? Ha! Such a tiny price to pay for such psychological manipulation.

[apathoid]

Im not pdoherty.....

Well I'm convinced. Oh wait - that's what the other 19 PDoh socks said too :rolleyes:

Paul...is it...? Get a life.

[The Doc]

Sorry dude, not convincing.

I could sign up at ATS as Apathoid if I really wanted to. Doesn't mean that I am him.

If you're not pdoh, I would seriously consider why people think you are him and it's not just because you are a conspiracist.

[Thunder]

All that matters in the minds of truthers is that Larry Silverstein DID get billions in insurance money..and Larry Silverstein is a Jew. Insurance money, Jew.....he must be up to something sinister.

[DarkMagician]

:socks: definitely

No one thinks like that but PDoherty.

It is one of his pet theories. I'm calling :socks: too.

[twinstead]

Who in their right mind would suggest that a demolition team rushed into a burning WTC7 and rigged it with explosives?

Oh. That's right. Never mind.

[strathmeyer]

Well, well, well. We can always tell the liar by their deceitful tactics. How are we supposed to believe the "facts" put forth by the spinsters in this thread when they are all leaving one obvious fact; one thing that is on the mind of anyone with half a brain, but they're pretending that these simple truths don't exist! Silverstein didn't loose $200 million. HELLO! He got a new shiny building! Duh! IT'S A WHOLE FREAKING SHINY NEW BUILDING!

[twinstead]

Well, well, well. We can always tell the liar by their deceitful tactics. How are we supposed to believe the "facts" put forth by the spinsters in this thread when they are all leaving one obvious fact; one thing that is on the mind of anyone with half a brain, but they're pretending that these simple truths don't exist! Silverstein didn't loose $200 million. HELLO! He got a new shiny building! Duh! IT'S A WHOLE FREAKING SHINY NEW BUILDING!

And, exactly what benefit does this new shiny building give him over the last shiny buildings he had?

[Belz...]

For some reason, all this calling people P'Doh's socks is getting tiresome.

Aside from inane arguments from him, what do we have to reach that conclusion ?


EDIT: Banned, I see. I wonder how the mods manage to make sure...