[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: 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" 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" Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 Paul Joseph Watson 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, 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 to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This buildings 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 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, Silversteins spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Department 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. Shapiros 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 leaseholders 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, Weve 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 Silversteins spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7. Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term pull is industry jargon for a controlled demolition. 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. Shapiros 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 Shapiros claim that the collapse of the building was quiet, NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse. I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didnt see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didnt hear any
I didnt hear any creaking, or
I didnt 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 shits hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time youre 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 theyre saying
Nothing to account for what we saw
I am shocked at the story weve 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, 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 were 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 dont know. 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 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. Mikes 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 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. Its blowin boy.
Keep your eye on that building, itll be coming down soon.
The building is about to blow up, move it back.
Here we are walking back. Theres a building, about to blow up
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. 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. Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, 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. Just about every sentence of Shapiros 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 Shapiros 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 Silversteins $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged. Shapiros testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silversteins insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 58.
#9. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Even if he was on the phone with his insurance trying to get the go ahead for a controlled demolition it would have taken much longer than a few hours to set the explosives up. Those explosives were planted well in advance of 9/11. That is the smoking gun. I think another plane was suppose to hit WTC7 but for some reason it didn't. They couldn't let the building stand with the explosives in it as that would be key criminal evidence against them so they had to bring it down. In doing so they revealed to the world that there was indeed explosives in the building even though they destroyed the evidence.
WTC7 was only about 40 stories, half the height of the Towers and shorter than many of the buildings on the adjacent blocks. To hit it a plane would have to be in a kamikaze dive. Not possible, and nobody would have even considered it.
It was 47 stories. No matter what you think about how it came down, the BBC report that it already collapsed while it was still standing behind the reporter is enough to know that it was a controlled demolition. The press release went out too early for some reason. Maybe done deliberately so people would know the truth.
This website addresses most of your points.
You would have to be dumb as a box of rocks to not know WTC7 was demolished after seeing it come down. There was so little damage to it compared to closer buildings which had more damage yet are still standing today. But even with extensive structural damage, which it didn't have, it would not have come down like that. WTC7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. Why do you think BBC announced it collapsed a full 20 minutes before it did?
#60. To: RickyJ (#58)
Madrid skyscraper fire, February. 2005 Building 7 fires, September, 2001
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|