Friday, April 23, 2010

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”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
April 23, 2010

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, 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 [emphasis added]– 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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, “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.”

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.

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 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.



“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. 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 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.

58 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

Are you claiming this is true:

"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.”

Are you claiming "its foundation was already unstable and EXPECTED TO FALL"??????

And let's be clear - you claim the source of these claims - which you so enthusiastically endorse - are from a "Fox News hit piece".

Funny it's a "hit-piece" when it's so apparently so full of TRUTH?

Is it just this claim that is true, and the rest of the "hit-piece" malicious lies? Or is the whole thing true, and none of it lies? Or is it all lies? And how do you tell? Do tell us?

You always characterise "Fox News" as a very poor source - for instance just days ago you suggested we watch "FOX News's pre-screened, hand-picked zombies".........

Hardly the behaviour of a reputable news source, one might think.

And yet here's Larry touting Fox News as a super-credible source for some claims that "Silverstein was on the phone to his insurers" and that "Building 7 was expected to collapse anyway."

Funny - when Fox says something useful to Larry, he believes it - and it's a credible source that proves XYZ.

But when Fox says things Larry doesn't like - he doesn't believe them - and they're a disreputable source.

Regardless, apparently we now have Larry claiming Buling 7's "foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

LOL.

So what do you think you have proven here, Larry? What sort of proof of "conspiracy" and "inside job" do you think you have found.

HAHAHAHA

the_last_name_left said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the_last_name_left said...

Larry is claiming THIS statement is true - (explosive!):

"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.”

Previously LArry has had this to say about WTC7:

Larry: where is the FIRE in those pics at WTC 7?? There IS none.

None? Even though he now claims Building7 was going to collapse!

Here's Larry again:

Larry: They KNEW it would collapse? Since a building had NEVER before collapsed because of fire, how would they know that??? What was the precedent for it?????

And yet Larry now believes someone (on Fox) claiming that Building7 was going to collapse is "explosively true". HAHA

And here's Larry again, speaking about Building7:

Larry: I NEVER said WTC 7 wasnt on fire or damaged by debris. I have continually said it was MINIMAL.

Minimal - and yet now he's claiming a dude who claims (on Fox Tv- woooo) that "Building7 was going to collapse anyway" was speaking God's own truth!

HAHA. Even though it had MINIMAL damage and MINIMAL fires, LARRY?

The claims you make so much of in your post include the claim that "Building7 was going to collapse anyway".......

Did you miss that?

And this claim (which you previously disbelieved) appears in the very same sentence as the claims you now trust absolutely about Silverstein being on the phone to his insurers!

HAHA.

So what have you "proven" here, Larry? I can't work it out? Please tell us?

Larry said...

"And yet here's Larry touting Fox News as a super-credible source for some claims that "Silverstein was on the phone to his insurers" and that "Building 7 was expected to collapse anyway."

Funny - when Fox says something useful to Larry, he believes it - and it's a credible source that proves XYZ.

But when Fox says things Larry doesn't like - he doesn't believe them - and they're a disreputable source.

Regardless, apparently we now have Larry claiming Buling 7's "foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.""

Well, ONCE AGAIN I have to explain something that either youre too stupid to acknowledge or you DO acknowledge it, but you are milking the spin right out of it like YOU ALWAYS DO.

I dont even care that the guy wrote a hit piece--because there have been plenty of hit pieces over the years and not ONE of them have debunked us.

First of all, "I" never claimed ANYTHING, the FOX reporter did. Incase you ddnt figure it out, I was REPEATING HIS WORDS from HIS STORY---the words in your quote were not spoken from ME, they were Shapiro's words! Please tell me you KNEW that!

Second of all, Shapiro's inadvertent mention of overhearing police and ConEdison workers say Silverstein was on the phone talking to his insurers was NOT a part of the hit piece, it was simply mentioned to counter Ventura's claim that the "government demolished WTC7"----that wasnt INCREDIBLY EASY to figure out? Of course it was!! But you, in MISERABLE attempts to debunk me LOVE to fake NOT comprehending a VERY EASY point to a story to try to find a contradiction. Or maybe you are NOT faking, and you just happen to actually be the DUMBEST person on Earth!

“Are you claiming "its foundation was already unstable and EXPECTED TO FALL"??????”

Apparently you didn’t read the story! WHAT ELSE IS NEW???? If you read even 2 paragraphs of the story, you would have discovered that the “its foundation was already unstable and EXPECTED TO FALL” line were the words of the NYPD and the ConEdison workers spoken to Shapiro----not MY words! Jesus youre a fucking IDIOT! Do I believe the reporter? Why would he lie about what he claims he overheard? That part was NOT a part of the hit piece! That was just Shapiro trying to discredit Ventura by basically saying “It wasn’t the government, it was Silverstein”.

Larry said...

What makes Shapiro a babbling idiot is that, in attempting to discredit Ventura, he inadvertently revealed a major piece of information that is directly tied with one of the biggest smoking guns of 9-11 [the fact that 9-11 truthers have been claiming for 8 years now that Silverstein had something to do with the demolition].

We claimed that when he said his famous “pull it” line in the PBS documentary, he was referring to “pulling” WTC 7, in other words demolishing it. Two years later Silverstein claimed he didn’t mean “demolish” when he said “pull it”, but was referring to the firefighters being “pulled” from the building-------despite the fact that 1) There were no firefighters to “pull” from the building after 11:30am---SIX HOURS before WTC 7 collapsed! 2) You don’t say “I decided the best thing to do was “pull IT” if you are referring to a bunch of firefighters-----you’d say “I decided the best thing to do was pull them out of there” and 3) “pull” IS a term used for demolition [Silverstein DENIED “pull” is a term used for demolition] despite the fact that on the EXACT SAME PBS documentary, you hear ground zero workers say “We’re ready to pull building 6” referring to the remains of building 6 that they had rig with explosives and take down---and it showed them taking it down.

Ever since the big “pull it” controversy, Silverstein has vehemently DENIED ANY involvement in taking the building down---know why??? Because he received 500 MILLION dollars from insurance for WTC 7 on the basis that the collapse was an UNEXPECTED event! In OTHER words, if the courts would have had some evidence that Silverstein KNEW the building was coming down, he wouldn’t have received such a huge bundle of cash.

Now, we run into this story where a reporter is attempting to discredit Ventura by saying it wasn’t the government that took down building 7, it was SILVERSTEIN, because HE HEARD people say Silverstein was discussing demolition with his insurers. This fucking IDIOT reporter Shapiro was too busy trying to discredit Ventura, that he completely missed [and failed to research] the FACT that Silverstein has DENIED any involvement in the collapse of the building for over 6 years now and HE RECEIVED INSURANCE MONEY BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE HAD NO FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE COLLAPSE!!

So, in other words, in attempting to discredit Ventura, Shapiro INSTEAD makes a statement that ENDORSES Ventura’s claims that building 7 is a big cover-up! Shapiro is SO STUPID that he obviously had NO IDEA of the Silverstein/denial of involvement of WTC7’s collapse issue!

You FAIL to understand that Shapiro had NO REASON to lie about hearing the cops and ConEdison workers say Silverstein was talking to his insurers because he was using THAT information to try to DISCREDIT Ventura’s claims it was the GOVERNMENT that did it!! Shapiro just FAILED to do ANY research on the fact that Silverstein has been denying involvement in the collapse for over 6 years now and received 500 MILLION BECAUSE of his “supposed” lack of involvement!

Now, do you GET IT? Or do you need the Dr. Seuss version of this to understand better??

MORON!!!!

Larry said...

"So what do you think you have proven here, Larry? What sort of proof of "conspiracy" and "inside job" do you think you have found."

That Silverstein received 500 MILLION in insurance based on the fact that he had NO KNOWLEDGE of the coming collapse of wtc7----when in reality we NOW know that Silverstein was in discussions to demolish it! Thats insurance FRAUD-----in other words-----PRISON TIME.

the_last_name_left said...

So, you're now claiming Silverstein committed fraud?

All based on a quote which (in the very same sentence) says WTC7 was "going to collapse anyway" because of the damage it suffered?

So......you're now seemingly accepting the claims that WTC7 was damaged, and was expected to collapse?

Yes or no?


The quote you are making so much of suggests WTC7 was damaged, and was going to collapse anyway. That totally contradicts your earlier position - or didn't you notice? PReviously you claimed nobody could know WTC7 was going to collapse. Yet here you are claiming it was. (You ARE claiming the Shapiro quote is TRUE - it's what you are using to jusitify your claims that Silverstein committed "fraud")

And err.....how does this prove anything about "an inside job"? If true, the quote only suggests Silverstein wanted to know if his insurers were OK if they carried out a controlled demolition of the building. Explosives aren't even mentioned. lol

Larry: the remains of building 6 that they had rig with explosives and take down---and it showed them taking it down.

HAHAHAHA


Please, show us this video where they took down WTC6 with explosives.........

the_last_name_left said...

L: First of all, "I" never claimed ANYTHING, the FOX reporter did.

Rubbish! You are claiming "Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11".........BASED ENTIRELY ON THE SHAPIRO QUOTE.

You say SHAPIRO's quote "REVEALS A SHOCKING TRUTH".

So don't pretend you aren't claiming anything.

It's there in black and white, Larry. For everyone to see.

YOUR OWN ARTICLE CLAIMS:

Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that ... Larry Silverstein... was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

[Notice it doesn't even mention EXPLOSIVES btw?]

But look at what your article asks:

How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building

Since when does demolition always require explosives? lol

And notice - you believe Shapiro's claims about Silverstein being on the phone, but you don't believe Shapiro's claim (in the same sentence) that WTC7 was damaged and was "going to collapse anyway".

Funny.

Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

No it doesn't. But the video does go on to show how WTC6 was "Pulled" - with CABLES!!!!!!

NOT WITH EXPLOSIVES AS YOU CLAIMED.

Can't you get anything right, Larry?

And so now you think you've proved Silverstein was engaged in "fraud"? LOL. HArdly 911 being "an inside job" is it? Pathetic.

Larry said...

What part of "You FAIL to understand that Shapiro had NO REASON to lie about hearing the cops and ConEdison workers say Silverstein was talking to his insurers because he was using THAT information to try to DISCREDIT Ventura’s claims it was the GOVERNMENT that did it!!" do you NOT understand?

ANOTHER thing you fail miserably to understand is: How did Silverstein KNOW "...its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”????

WHO "EXPECTED" it to fall??? Hmmmm??? How many times in HISTORY has a building collapsed due to MINIMAL fires and damage? Why wasnt Silverstein MORE worried about Building 3, 5 and 6 since these buildings suffered EXTREME damage and 5 and 6 were engulfed in flames [and they eventually did NOT collapse---DESPITE having MUCH greater damage and fires]? But no, it was ONLY building 7 that worried Silverstein---hmmmmm.

"[Notice it doesn't even mention EXPLOSIVES btw?]"

LOL---how ELSE do you demolish a building? ESPECIALLY in CONTROLLED fashion? CABLES? If you use CABLES to take down building 7--not only would that take LONGER than a day, but who would hook cables up to a building that they "feared" was going to collapse at any given moment and had the intense fires they claimed? PLUS, if Silverstein feared its collapse--why even MENTION controlled demolition? Why not just let nature take its course? Because he didnt want to damage surrounding buildings? Then how could he NOT damage other buildings using CABLES?? With cables, you have to pull the building over---thus damaging a hell of a lot more than if it comes down in its on footprint! But YOU just implied that because NO explosives were mentioned that that means it had to come down in ANOTHER way! What other way, Einstein? Remember---CABLES causes surrounding damage, which Silverstein wanted to AVOID.

So, tell me Sherlock----what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???

Hmmmmmmmm?? Im waiting.

Larry said...

"So......you're now seemingly accepting the claims that WTC7 was damaged, and was expected to collapse?

Yes or no?"

Uhhh, NO ASSFACE----How did he KNOW it was going to collapse? If thy feared its collapse----why not just LET IT collapse? But no, he was talking to insurers about DEMOLISHING the building-----------HOW would he demolish wtc7 on THAT day?? It takes WEEKS to rig a building with exploives and more than a DAY to hook cables up? WHO would hook cables up ANYWAY to a building that was going to "collapse at any given moment" and had the intense fires they said it did? Would you go ANYWHERE NEAR a building to hook up cables that had "intense" fires and might collapse any minute?

So, tell me Sherlock----what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???

the_last_name_left said...

All this out of a single Shapiro quote - half of which you simply choose not to believe.

You say he has no reason to lie - but you disbelieve everything he says apart the one part which you think serves your conspiracy idea of demolition by explosives, and "inside job" and all the rest.

Shapiro's unproven claims never even mention explosives, and yet you're now convinced you have confirmation of use of explosives to bring down WTC7!

And this supposed proof of use of explosives somehow proves 911 was "an inside job"!

Gee - this Troof malarkey is easy, ain't it?

Oh - what happened to your PBS documentary showing the "FACT" WTC6 was rigged with explosives?

Larry said...

You know, when I read your “responses” to my posts, I pay more attention to what you do NOT address than what you do, because it’s usually A LOT more. Then again, Im convinced you don’t even READ most of my posts because of the fact that 90% of the times you REPEAT questions/comments OVER and OVER that I previously addressed!!

Example: You just said “You say he has no reason to lie - but you disbelieve everything he says apart the one part which you think serves your conspiracy idea of demolition by explosives, and "inside job" and all the rest.”

How many times now have I ALREADY SAID that the reason why he can be believed about the cops and ConEdison workers saying that Silverstein was on the phone with insurers is because THAT PART WASN’T A PART OF THE HIT PIECE------that was Shapiro’s RESPONSE as to why he claimed Ventura’s claims that the GOVERNMENT did it isnt true!! Do you need me to say this in other languages or repeat it 12 more times so it sinks in that microscopic brain you have?

He didn’t even PROVE Ventura was wrong—his article basically just said “Ventura’s a nut” “He should be ashamed of himself”—etc, etc…..you know, like YOU do with me! He PROVED he does NO research on this because of the FACT that he let the cat out of the bag by printing that he heard people say he was considering demolition of wtc7-----when one of the KEY ISSUES for EIGHT YEARS now that truthers have been claiming is that Silverstein IS a part of this conspiracy [of which he himself has DENIED repeatedly!]. How can I make this any clearer to you??? When you “respond” you just repeat the same shit over and over.

Heres another statement by you that you’ve REPEATED in which I have ALREADY answered!:

“Shapiro's unproven claims never even mention explosives, and yet you're now convinced you have confirmation of use of explosives to bring down WTC7!”

In my last post I said this:

“LOL---how ELSE do you demolish a building? ESPECIALLY in CONTROLLED fashion? CABLES? If you use CABLES to take down building 7--not only would that take LONGER than a day, but who would hook cables up to a building that they "feared" was going to collapse at any given moment and had the intense fires they claimed? PLUS, if Silverstein feared its collapse--why even MENTION controlled demolition? Why not just let nature take its course? Because he didnt want to damage surrounding buildings? Then how could he NOT damage other buildings using CABLES?? With cables, you have to pull the building over---thus damaging a hell of a lot more than if it comes down in its on footprint! But YOU just implied that because NO explosives were mentioned that that means it had to come down in ANOTHER way! What other way, Einstein? Remember---CABLES causes surrounding damage, which Silverstein wanted to AVOID.

So, tell me Sherlock----what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???”

All COMPLETELY IGNORED by you! Are you going to ask it AGAIN in your next post?? LOL

You IGNORED about 90% of my last 2 posts. You IGNORED this:

“ANOTHER thing you fail miserably to understand is: How did Silverstein KNOW "...its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”????

WHO "EXPECTED" it to fall??? Hmmmm??? How many times in HISTORY has a building collapsed due to MINIMAL fires and damage? Why wasnt Silverstein MORE worried about Building 3, 5 and 6 since these buildings suffered EXTREME damage and 5 and 6 were engulfed in flames [and they eventually did NOT collapse---DESPITE having MUCH greater damage and fires]? But no, it was ONLY building 7 that worried Silverstein---hmmmmm.”

Larry said...

You IGNORED this too:

“How did he KNOW it was going to collapse? If thy feared its collapse----why not just LET IT collapse? But no, he was talking to insurers about DEMOLISHING the building-----------HOW would he demolish wtc7 on THAT day?? It takes WEEKS to rig a building with exploives and more than a DAY to hook cables up? WHO would hook cables up ANYWAY to a building that was going to "collapse at any given moment" and had the intense fires they said it did? Would you go ANYWHERE NEAR a building to hook up cables that had "intense" fires and might collapse any minute?

So, tell me Sherlock----what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???”

Tell me something dickwad------if YOU have the truth on YOUR side, why do you IGNORE so many questions and then when truthers are angry that the government ignores our questions, you say “they don’t ignore anything” and simply deny it----but YOU ignore question after question too!

Regardless of whether I claimed building 6 was taken down by explosives or not, or whether they used cables to take it down is a mute point because of the FACT that “pull” is a term that is used for taking down buildings PERIOD, whether by cables OR explosives.

Now, answer my question------HOW WAS SILVERSTEIN GOING TO COLLAPSE BUILDING 7 THAT DAY WHETHER BY EXPLOSIVES OR CABLES SINCE HE MENTIONED FEARING IT COULD COLLAPSE AT ANY MINUTE AND IT WAS ON FIRE?

WHO WOULD GO NEAR A BURNING BUILDING [NOT TO MENTION ONE THEY FEARED WOULD FALL AT ANY TIME] TO ATTACH CABLES???????????

Larry said...

You IGNORED this too:

“How did he KNOW it was going to collapse? If thy feared its collapse----why not just LET IT collapse? But no, he was talking to insurers about DEMOLISHING the building-----------HOW would he demolish wtc7 on THAT day?? It takes WEEKS to rig a building with exploives and more than a DAY to hook cables up? WHO would hook cables up ANYWAY to a building that was going to "collapse at any given moment" and had the intense fires they said it did? Would you go ANYWHERE NEAR a building to hook up cables that had "intense" fires and might collapse any minute?

So, tell me Sherlock----what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???”

Tell me something dickwad------if YOU have the truth on YOUR side, why do you IGNORE so many questions and then when truthers are angry that the government ignores our questions, you say “they don’t ignore anything” and simply deny it----but YOU ignore question after question too!

Regardless of whether I claimed building 6 was taken down by explosives or not, or whether they used cables to take it down is a mute point because of the FACT that “pull” is a term that is used for taking down buildings PERIOD, whether by cables OR explosives.

Now, answer my question------HOW WAS SILVERSTEIN GOING TO COLLAPSE BUILDING 7 THAT DAY WHETHER BY EXPLOSIVES OR CABLES SINCE HE MENTIONED FEARING IT COULD COLLAPSE AT ANY MINUTE AND IT WAS ON FIRE?

WHO WOULD GO NEAR A BURNING BUILDING [NOT TO MENTION ONE THEY FEARED WOULD FALL AT ANY TIME] TO ATTACH CABLES???????????

the_last_name_left said...

Shapiro's unproven claims never even mention explosives, and yet you're now convinced you have confirmation of use of explosives to bring down WTC7.

That's simply true, Larry - I don't know what you're getting so worked up about.

Of course it's true --- 1) Shapiro's claims are unproven, 2) he never mentions explosives, 3) you believe it's 'proof' of your stupid conspiracy.

So we see the strength of Troofer claims, and it's pretty pathetic, isn't it? But no - you consider this "explosive" news! A smoking gun! Prooof!!!! At last!!!!!!!

Oh boy.

La - de - dah.

Real Truth Online said...

I am SICK and fucking TIRED of you REPEATING OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER the SAME statement that I have ALREADY ADDRESSED like 6 times now!

You KEEP SAYING “he didn’t mention explosives”--------and I have been REPEATEDLY asking you [only to have you REPEATEDLY IGNORE the question] “HOW ELSE WOULD SILVERSTEIN DEMOLISH THE BUILDING OTHER THAN EXPLOSIVES???????”

Ive asked that MORE than 3 times now----and you REPEATEDLY IGNORE it!

If he is on the phone talking with insurers about DEMOLISHING a building----------HOW ELSE will he do it OTHER than explosives??????

I have already pointed out several times now that CABLES would not be the answer since no one would go NEAR a burning building and one that they feared would fall [and of course, WHY would they fear it since it has NEVER happened before EVER??] to attach cables! PLUS, that would take more than a DAY! So would rigging it with explosives! So, the ONLY possibility of demolishing that building THAT DAY would have been if explosives were ALREADY PLACED in the building! If Silverstein was discussing demolition to his building with insurers------that means only ONE THING: explosives were ALREADY set in place------there is NO OTHER WAY to bring down the building on THAT DAY.

Plus, like I have ALREADY mentioned [once again that you IGNORED] why would Silverstein even DISCUSS demolition if he feared the building would fall because of fire and damage??????

Why do you REFUSE to answer any of my questions??? You have the truth right? So, why do you FEAR answering my questions???

Gonna just respond with REPEATING for the 6th time now that Silverstein didn’t use the word “explosive” despite the fact that I already ADDRESSED that 6 times [and you REFUSE to answer my question “HOW ELSE WOULD SILVERSTEIN DEMOLISH THE BUILDING OTHER THAN EXPLOSIVES???????” ????] ?

Fucking MORON!

Real Truth Online said...

"So we see the strength of Troofer claims, and it's pretty pathetic, isn't it?"

Whats pathetic is that you REFUSE to answer the question:

"HOW ELSE WOULD SILVERSTEIN DEMOLISH THE BUILDING OTHER THAN EXPLOSIVES???"

Its SIMPLE why you refuse to answer it. If you answered and said, "there's no other way"----that would be an admittance that Silverstein KNEW IN ADVANCE there were explosives in the building----how else do you take the building down THAT DAY otherwise? That's why you REPEATEDLY avoid answering the question!!

If I said to you "I'm going to burn your house down", would I be required to use the word "fire"? No I wouldnt be, because the only way something can BURN is by FIRE. So, since Silverstein used the term "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION", he is NOT required to say the word "explosive"----for that is the ONLY WAY to demolish a building------unless you think Silverstein could have assembled 1,000 men to try to push it over.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: If he is on the phone talking with insurers about DEMOLISHING a building----------HOW ELSE will he do it OTHER than explosives??????

You have not even established that he was on the phone to his insurers about demolition. DUH!

Until you can establish that, you may as well ask "how was he going to eat the moon without using a spoon?"

I mean - if Shapiro had claimed Silverstein intended to eat the moon, would you believe him?

---------------

A simple question - to help you, Larry ---->


What time was Silverstein on the phone to his insurers????

Larry said...

"You have not even established that he was on the phone to his insurers about demolition. DUH!

Until you can establish that, you may as well ask "how was he going to eat the moon without using a spoon?""

Oh brotherrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Do you even realize how STUPID you sound? Shapiro said OTHERS told HIM Silverstein was on the phone---there's NO REASON for him to lie about that----because Shapiro thinks he is DEBUNKING Ventura by revealing that---but instead of DEBUNKING Ventura---he actually let a MAJOR piece of info out of the bag. You're acting as if Shapiro is a 9-11 truther HIMSELF and he's just making this up to have a story to support his conspiratorial view! He's attempting to DEBUNK a 9-11 truther with this info.

Now, would-be debunkers DO make up stuff to defend themselves against 9-11 truthers---ex: Popular Mechanics MAKING UP that they found DNA evidence of the hijackers in the rubble at ground zero [which YOU SUPPORT----even though that is ALSO an example of someone just SAYING something without proof--as you claim Shapiro is doing]. BUT, that is DIFFERENT than saying he overheard cops and city workers tell him Silverstein was on the phone----because Shapiro said this with no malicious intent on it being just a humungous LIE to defend himself, like the Popular Mechanics example I gave to you IS.

"What time was Silverstein on the phone to his insurers????"

Oh brother---so, in other words, if Shapiro would have said, "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 [AT EXACTLY 3:15 P.M.] with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building" you'd instantly believe him?? Do you always write down what time people tell you shit or what time things happen that people tell you JUST INCASE you may need that info later to incriminate someone?

I can see you now: Your buddy comes up to you and says, "Hey, I just found out my landlord was on the phone with his lawyer to see if he can sue me"-----and your response is "Oh yeah, what TIME was he on the phone?" Your buddy would say, "Why's that important?"----you say, "well, incase 3 years from now he tries to deny it---it's always good to know these things." LOL!!!!

I could ask the same question you just did about all the things YOU ACCEPT as fact too. I could say "What TIME did Popular Mechanics say they found DNA evidence in the rubble?". Oh, here's a good one----you also claimed a while back that they KNEW WTC7 was going to collapse because they set up those devices [what were they called?]----OK, what TIME did they do that?????

Hmmmmmm????

See how ridiculous it sounds to ask that to establish proof in something?

Larry said...

Besides, that would be a question to ask the cops and city workers-----NOT me. Shapiro had no reason to lie about that----he said it with no malice to DELIBERATELY lie just to defend himself like many debunkers do.

the_last_name_left said...

What you mean is - you don't have an answer - you DO NOT KNOW.

ALL that you have is Shapiro's claim.

Shapiro doesn't mention a time, nor does he mention explosives.

You believe Shapiro because "he has no reason to lie".......

That's pure assumption on your part - and you go from there to concluding Silverstein was speaking about explosives!

Even though you don't believe the rest of what Shapiro says - and even though what he says hardly makes sense.......

You ask "Why would they want to bring down a building that was already going to fall down anyway?"

Well, maybe you best ask your source - Shapiro?

Such a question arises and yet you still don't hesitate to believe him! Why? Because you can force one claim of his into your conspiracy, he simply must be believable! (But only on that point.....nothing else! lol - no matter that you dispute everything else he says......even the stuff in the same sentence as the claim you do believe! And still you absolutely believe him on this score.....even though you don't have any other support for the call ever having been made, no timeframe for the supposed call, and NO MENTION OF EXPLOSIVES WHATSOEVER.)

Larry: ex: Popular Mechanics MAKING UP that they found DNA evidence of the hijackers in the rubble at ground zero

LOL - we'll put that alongside your claims - or lies? - about that PBS documentary showing WTC being blown up with explosives!

FYI: Here's the NYT - quoting "an F.B.I. spokesman, Richard Kolko":::::::

Published: September 20, 2008

Seven years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the remains of 13 of the 19 men responsible have been identified and are in the custody of the F.B.I. and the New York City medical examiner’s office.

At the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, investigators first identified the victims, and the remains that could not be linked to a victim’s DNA profile were assumed to belong to the terrorists.

For the World Trade Center site, with a much larger area to search and an initially undetermined number of victims, the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office.

But, since the DNA profiles were unnamed by the bureau, the office could not say which hijackers have been identified, just that 4 of the 10 have been so far.

Three of them were identified as hijackers within two years of the 2001 attack. But the fourth set of remains was not found until September 2007, when the discovery of numerous bone fragments at a building near the World Trade Center site prompted a reinvestigation of the entire site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/21hijackers.html

Now - do you want to repeat that Popular Mechanics "MADE UP" claims about DNA remian being found in rubble etc?

You might prefer to say that the FBI are lying, the DNA analysts are lying, all the people involved in the process, and maybe even the NYT times are lying --- but you can't pretend Popular Mechanics "made up" the tale.

Can't you get anything right?

Half of what you believe is quite simply untrue - and readily proven so.

Larry said...

"the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office."

Hmmmm, what TIME did the FBI identify the hijackers from the DNA?????? I have to know the TIME, or it CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE-----right, dickface?? Dont like your own medicine, do you?

Funny, the article you posted is from 2008-----and Pop. Mechanics claimed they had the DNA in 2006!!!!!! Hmmmm, Pop. Mechanics had the DNA TWO YEARS before the FBI did??? Wow!!!

Also, I LOVE this part:

"and the remains that could not be linked to a victim’s DNA profile were assumed to belong to the terrorists."-------"ASSUMED TO BELONG TO THE TERRORISTS"-----this was AFTER you just finished posting:

"You believe Shapiro because "he has no reason to lie".......

That's pure assumption on your part - and you go from there to concluding Silverstein was speaking about explosives!"

So, you call the FACT that Shapiro said he heard cops and city workers SAY Silverstein was on the phone with insurers---which was NOT even a part of the hit piece on Ventura---but rather Shapiro's attempt at DEBUNKING Ventura, a statement that was NOT intended to be one of the many malicious lies of defense---and you call it "ASSUMING"--------

.....BUT, on the other hand, you post an excerpt from a story about the FBI finding DNA that they "ASSUMED TO BE THE TERRORISTS"---and all of a sudden, according to YOU, that's 100% unequivocal, irrefutable FACT?????

I'M LAUGHING MY FUCKING HEAD OFF AT YOUR BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS AND SHEER STUPIDITY!

And like clockwork, you STILL just KEEP REPEATING the "Silverstein didnt mention explosives" bullshit although you have IGNORED EVERY TIME I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS----at LEAST 7 times now. And not ONCE have you answered HOW ELSE WOULD SILVERSTEIN DEMOLISH BUILDINGS WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES????

Nothing but dodge and deflect and ignore---and more dodge and deflect and ignore with you! Its an endless cycle.

AGAIN---I LOVE the stuff I type that you IGNORE:

"Oh, here's a good one----you also claimed a while back that they KNEW WTC7 was going to collapse because they set up those devices [what were they called?]----OK, what TIME did they do that?????"

"You: "What time was Silverstein on the phone to his insurers????"

Oh brother---so, in other words, if Shapiro would have said, "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 [AT EXACTLY 3:15 P.M.] with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building" you'd instantly believe him?? Do you always write down what time people tell you shit or what time things happen that people tell you JUST INCASE you may need that info later to incriminate someone?"

Another thing, youre going to believe the SAME FBI who CONTINUALLY fucked up PRIOR to 9-11, the SAME FBI who FAILED to get Bin Laden BEFORE 9-11 and who also FAILED to keep these hijackers from attacking us---that they found DNA evidence of the hijackers in hotels and inside cars??

Of course they will say they found evidence-----to cover up for their own FAILURES and lies!!!

the_last_name_left said...

you post an excerpt from a story about the FBI finding DNA that they "ASSUMED TO BE THE TERRORISTS"---and all of a sudden, according to YOU, that's 100% unequivocal, irrefutable FACT?????

No. The point is that the FBI are saying it - a named FBI person too - in the NewYorkTimes.

You suggested Popular Mechanics had "made up" the story about the hijackers DNA.

But clearly - Popular Mechanics are reporting what the FBI and perhaps other relevant authorities are saying. IF they report what the FBI and authorities tell them, they are not "making up" their story.

Now, you can claim the FBI and everyone else who might be involved is "making stuff up"......but not Popular Mechanics - at least not over this.

What evidence do you have that what the FBI and other authorities are saying in this particular instance is "made up" - ie about the DNA idenitification?

NONE. You didn't even know the FBI had made such claims - else why did you claim Popular Mechanics invented the claims?

You clearly couldn't have known the FBI said these things.....or if you did, you purposefully distorted the facts in your accusation against Pop>Mech.

BTW - do you really suppose the FBI goes to Popular Mechanics for its information, and not the other way around?

Yes, of course the FBI and everyone else involved in autopsies and DNA testing could be lying - but that's a totally different matter to claiming Popular Mechanics are liars for reporting what the FBI and other authorities say.

----------

You keep asking how else Silverstein could bring down WTC7 without explosives.

Well, here's a thought - he didn't need any method to demolish it as it collapsed on its own - as it was expected to do.

Funnily enough reality corresponds to this too! it did collapse, seemingly all on its own - because of the fires, the lack of water to fight them, etc.

We have direct testimony from the NYFD that they put "transits" on the WTC7 building - to assess its viability.

Maybe Silverstein spoke on the phone to his insurers after that. Maybe the insurers wanted confirmation that the building couldn't be saved - hence Nigro's phonecall with Silverstein - where Nigro and he confirmed they were "pulling out" the rescue and firefighting efforts.

Maybe there was some discussion about the possibility of pulling WTC7 with cables.....to try to help ensure it fell some particular way. Maybe?

Whatever the FACTS of the matter actually were, this "explosive" news of yours about Silverstein and explosives has added nothing to our knowledge of them at all. Not a thing.

It certainly hasn't confirmed the use of explosives in a controlled demolition of WTC7! Shapiro didn't even claim Silverstein had mentioned explosives -- that's your own invention - or Alex Jones', whatever.

What the episode does do though is show the poverty of reasoning within 911 Troof: for example, you reason Silverstein must have meant explosives because it was too dangerous to rig-up cables in an effort to pull the building one particular way.

And why was it too dangerous? Because the building was on fire and so damaged it was expected to collapse......

But you don't even believe WTC7 was badly damaged, or had suffered severe fires! In your view WTC7 should never have collapsed! Steady as a rock, it must have been!

So, whilst you believe WTC was fine, and really shouldn't ever have collapsed, you also reason that it was so dangerous in there that Silverstein's (supposed) talk of demolition simply MUST have meant explosives!!

Are you completely deranged?
.

Larry said...

"You didn't even know the FBI had made such claims - else why did you claim Popular Mechanics invented the claims?"

Yes I did. I know more about 9-11 than you can possibly fathom asshole. Actually, I NEVER said Pop/Mech INVENTED the claim----copy and paste me saying the word "INVENTED"-----hmmmm, kinda reminds me of you CONTINUALLY saying that Silverstein never used the word "EXPLOSIVES" [although there's NO OTHER WAY to take down a building except to use them!] and here you are MAKING UP that I said Pop/Mech INVENTED the claim!

What a shit brain you are!

"The point is that the FBI are saying it - a named FBI person too - in the NewYorkTimes."

LOL, yeah, the FBI NEVER lies, do they? The NY Times NEVER lie do they? When Shapiro said that he overheard cops/city workers say Silverstein on th phone---HE WAS NOT TRYING TO COVER UP ANYTHING BY SAYING IT, HE HAD NO AGENDA BY REVEALING THAT INFORMATION---THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT THAT! COMPRENDE???

Ok, I tell ya what? I ask you now:

WHAT AGENDA DID SHAPIRO HAVE IN REVEALING THAT INFO? You CLAIM its not the truth, right? So, he must be LYING, right? Why would he lie? What is his motive to lie about that info?? ANSWER THAT!

There's a fucking MILE LONG list of reasons why the fucking incompetent FBI would lie and say they found DNA of the hijackers!! GEESH!

"Well, here's a thought - he didn't need any method to demolish it as it collapsed on its own - as it was expected to do."

Then why discuss DEMOLITION on the phone with insurers????????

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??????????????

"We have direct testimony from the NYFD that they put "transits" on the WTC7 building - to assess its viability."

Oh yeah? WHAT TIME did the NYPD put the transits on????? I ALREADY asked this once---of course, it was IGNORED!!! You dont know what TIME they did this? IT DIDNT HAPPEN THEN!!!

Larry said...

"hence Nigro's phonecall with Silverstein - where Nigro and he confirmed they were "pulling out" the rescue and firefighting efforts."

A fucking LIE! Ive already addressed this MULTIPLE times with you, assface. NO ONE said "PULLING OUT", Silverstein said "Pull IT"---there were NO firefighters IN the building after 11:30am [SIX HOURS before it collapsed!]. The entire reason we are given that it collapsed is because of the fire burning ALL DAY LONG. It makes NO SENSE for Silverstein to claim that "Pull IT" meant the firefighters only TWO HOURS into it's burning.

PLUS, in that entire "Pull IT" quote by Silverstein, he doesnt say the word "FIREFIGHTERS"---does he??? Im using YOUR logic again--------the old "if you dont SAY THE WORD", then youre not referring to it" logic.

Here's Silverstein's entire quote:

“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"

Did you see the word "FIREFIGHTERS" in that quote? But, yet you CLAIM he was talking about firefighters---DESPITE the fact that the word "FIREFIGHTERS" was not used! It cant even be ASSUMED he was talking about the firefighters, because there's not even a REFERENCE to any PEOPLE in that quote!

"Maybe there was some discussion about the possibility of pulling WTC7 with cables"

Ive ALREADY addressed THIS TOO multiple times! Do you read ANY of my posts??? THEY CANT HOOK CABLES UP IN ONE DAY! ALSO, WHO WILL GO NEAR A BURNING BURNING THEY FEAR WOULD FALL TO HOOK UP CABLES?????

GOD, YOURE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!

"Shapiro didn't even claim Silverstein had mentioned explosives"---BUT he DID MENTION DEMOLITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ASK YOU FOR THE 8th FUCKING TIME NOW---WHAT OTHER WAY DO YOU DEMOLISH A BUILDING BUT BY EXPLOSIVES????????

YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THAT!!!!!!!!!

"And why was it too dangerous? Because the building was on fire and so damaged it was expected to collapse......

But you don't even believe WTC7 was badly damaged, or had suffered severe fires! In your view WTC7 should never have collapsed! Steady as a rock, it must have been!"

YOURE A FUCKING IDIOT! IM not the one saying it was badly damaged----THEY ARE! NOT ME! Im simply using their own testimony AGAINST them by saying that IF IT WAS BADLY DAMAGED AND HAD INTENSE FIRES---WHY WOULD THEY THINK OF DEMOLITION WHEN YOU CANT HOOK UP CABLES OR SET EXPLOSIVES IN A BADLY DAMAGED, BURNING BUILDING?????

That building SHOULD NOT HAVE collapsed----but Silverstein KNEW that building WAS coming down, that's why he was talking about DEMOLITION, I believe it was out of fear that the building would NOT collapse "on its own" [AGAIN quoting THEIR assessment of it, NOT mine!] But see, that's just it. That's the brilliance of it all. The collapse that everyone thought was the "natural" collapse WAS the demolition itself, but Silverstein had to make a call to insurers so that he could later claim that he was "considering" demolition so that the REAL demolition looked "natural" and no one would question Silverstein's motives.

"...you also reason that it was so dangerous in there that Silverstein's (supposed) talk of demolition simply MUST have meant explosives!!"

NOOOOOO, IDIOT!!! THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY REASON that it was so dangerous----whenever I refer to the building being damaged or there being intense fires, im quoting THEIR assessment of it----NOT MINE. Copy and paste just ONE TIME where I EVER said the building was severely damaged or fires intense and they were MY WORDS and MY ASSESSMENT and I was NOT talking about THEIR ASSESSMENT------just ONE example. ONE. You wont find one!

the_last_name_left said...

Larry Today: "Actually, I NEVER said Pop/Mech INVENTED the claim"

Larry Yesterday: "Popular Mechanics MAKING UP that they found DNA evidence of the hijackers in the rubble at ground zero"


How blatantly dishonest are you?

the_last_name_left said...

Friday, 28 February, 2003, 16:25 GMT

Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm
---------------------------------
feb 2003 - bbc reporting Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office
---------------------------------


In the world according to Larry:

Larry: "Popular Mechanics MAKING UP that they found DNA evidence of the hijackers in the rubble at ground zero"

and

Larry: I NEVER said Pop/Mech INVENTED the claim

This is your search for TRUTH, is it? LOL

Good luck - (you need it!)

Larry said...

Did I use the word "INVENTED"??

NO. I DIDNT. You MADE UP that term. Gee, how dishonest are YOU???

I LOVE how you left out this part:

"copy and paste me saying the word "INVENTED"-----hmmmm, kinda reminds me of you CONTINUALLY saying that Silverstein never used the word "EXPLOSIVES" [although there's NO OTHER WAY to take down a building except to use them!] and here you are MAKING UP that I said Pop/Mech INVENTED the claim!"

Congrats. You ignored 99% of my last 2 posts---a new record for you.

I'll re-post this sense you are mentally challenged and you need things repeated more than once:

"WHAT AGENDA DID SHAPIRO HAVE IN REVEALING THAT INFO? You CLAIM its not the truth, right? So, he must be LYING, right? Why would he lie? What is his motive to lie about that info?? ANSWER THAT!"

Larry said...

Hmmm, now the BBC is a reliable source to you! But when they reported that 6 or 7 hijackers were STILL ALIVE AND WELL back in 2002, you said they were full of crap!

Are you going to address the remaining 99% of my last two posts??? OF COURSE NOT!

Larry said...

Here's the "alive and well" story-----it was from 2001, not 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Still waiting on you to address the remaining 99% of my posts above. Hmmmmm---why would you FEAR answering my questions? Especially this one:

"WHAT AGENDA DID SHAPIRO HAVE IN REVEALING THAT INFO? You CLAIM its not the truth, right? So, he must be LYING, right? Why would he lie? What is his motive to lie about that info?? ANSWER THAT!"

Larry said...

Wanna tell me how DNA was found in the incinerated remains of the WTC rubble where molten steel was found and months after 9-11 the temps were STILL over 1,100 degrees? How would they even get IN there to collect DNA through all the smoke, heat, debris, rescue/recovery efforts and ground zero workers?

PLUS, many ground zero workers have DIED since 9-11 because of the asbestos and toxic air they breathed in. If the FBI was there and collected DNA, why have no FBI agents died from the toxic air? HMMMMMMMM?????????? That would have been front page news!

Heres a video of a worker telling CBS that the ground zero rubble was 1,100 degrees and melting the workers' boots. And YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE the FBI will stand in this heat and collect DNA [that was probably incinerated anyway!] Do you believe Barney the Dinosaur is a REAL dinosaur too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogrkulobOU

The "found DNA" story is just plain BULLSHIT---its not even possible to have recovered it. Do you REALLY believe our corrupt, incompetent government, who couldnt even accomplish a ROUTINE feat like shoot down these planes or even get jets in the air IMMEDIATELY would ACTUALLY have taken the time to stand in 1,100 degree molten steel and collect DNA?

If you believe they found DNA, then you must believe in Santa Claus. Besides, if they found DNA, why hasnt it been PROVEN it was the hijackers' DNA? Seen any films SHOWING US how they matched it? If I call the FBI today and ask them if I can see it, would they say yes? If not, why?

the_last_name_left said...

Larry the Lamb: How would they even get IN there to collect DNA through all the ...rescue/recovery efforts and ground zero workers?

errrr.....perhaps they just mingled.

Larry the world's leading paleoanthropolgist (with a specialisation in DNA recovery and 1970s architecture) says: The "found DNA" story is just plain BULLSHIT---its not even possible to have recovered it.

Well, we'll have to take your word for it then I guess.

The point is - various authorities say otherwise Larry. Belive them or not - up to you - and you don't believe them. But what have you got instead? Not much. That's the fact of it. And it's worse than you having "not much" - you have......nothing. Oh - except suspicion and stupidity. You have those on your "side", true enough.

Larry the systems analyst says: "Do you REALLY believe our corrupt, incompetent government, who couldnt even accomplish a ROUTINE feat like shoot down these planes or even get jets in the air IMMEDIATELY would ACTUALLY have taken the time to stand in 1,100 degree molten steel and collect DNA?

The same incompetent crew that pulled off 911 so brilliantly, you mean? Oh - I see.......errr........

Larry the Great Decider says: "If you believe they found DNA, then you must believe in Santa Claus."

I believe it is a fact that the FBI say they found some - and that this is corroborated by several sources.

I don't have any evidence that they are lieing about it.

The point is - nor do you.

Larry said...

Isnt it funny how you only address what you WANT to address but you completely IGNORE actual QUESTIONS I ask you, even after I ask them SEVERAL times. That alone tells me youre a total fraud.

I asked you THIS question more than once:

"WHAT AGENDA DID SHAPIRO HAVE IN REVEALING THAT INFO? You CLAIM its not the truth, right? So, he must be LYING, right? Why would he lie? What is his motive to lie about that info?? ANSWER THAT!"

and this one:

"Did I use the word "INVENTED"??"

and this one:

"If the FBI was there and collected DNA, why have no FBI agents died from the toxic air? HMMMMMMMM??????????"

and these:

"Besides, if they found DNA, why hasnt it been PROVEN it was the hijackers' DNA? Seen any films SHOWING US how they matched it? If I call the FBI today and ask them if I can see it, would they say yes? If not, why?"

and this one:

"Did you see the word "FIREFIGHTERS" in that quote?"

I also asked you WHAT TIME alot of things happened that you told me happened [when they put the transits up, when the FBI found the DNA, etc]

I asked this:

"Then why discuss DEMOLITION on the phone with insurers????????" after you asked me:

"Well, here's a thought - he didn't need any method to demolish it as it collapsed on its own - as it was expected to do."

ALL IGNORED. Along with countless other statements that I made that were ignored. Why are you AFRAID of addressing evrything I say rather than to pick and choose certain things to address???

Because you're a goddamned fraud, that's why!

"The same incompetent crew that pulled off 911 so brilliantly, you mean? Oh - I see.......errr........"

It's EASY to pull it off when you dont investigate anything and DESTROY evidence!

"The point is - various authorities say otherwise Larry."

WHAT TIME did they say it????? Hmmmmmmmmmm????????? So far, you havent told me WHAT TIME anything you said happened! According to YOUR logic, it didnt happen then!

I believe ONCE AGAIN I have destroyed you with facts-----showcased by the MANY MANY statements and questions I asked SEVERAL TIMES that you repeatedly IGNORE. If the truth is on YOUR side, why would you ignore ANYTHING I said, let alone things I've said over and over???

I think your intellect is best reflected in your spelling of the word "lying"--in which you spelled "lieing"----something a 2nd grader can get right!

the_last_name_left said...

Why do I ignore most of what you say?

Because most of what you say is pure rubbish, like this:

Larry the Philosopher: "If the FBI was there and collected DNA, why have no FBI agents died from the toxic air? HMMMMMMMM??????????"

Castles in sand, Larry.

Larry said...

"Why do I ignore most of what you say? Because most of what you say is pure rubbish.."

Translation: Because you ask EXCELLENT questions Larry of which I have NO answer for, and even the ones I COULD address would incriminate my previous responses--so I just ignore them.

I asked: "If the FBI was there and collected DNA, why have no FBI agents died from the toxic air? HMMMMMMMM??????????"

My point exactly----just one example of an EXCELLENT question that you have NO answer for, so naturally, like all 'would-be' debunkers and defenders of the official story, you just call excellent questions "rubbish" and ignore them. I noticed that you only posted ONE of my questions as an example---what about the others? Were they even MORE excellent than the one you mentioned?? As the beholder of truth you CLAIM to be---you shouldnt be afraid of ONE SINGLE QUESTION asked of you, even IF you think it's "stupid". You should have an answer or AT LEAST be able to address ANYTHING I ask or say, but in reality, you IGNORE 90% of it.

Youre a COMPLETE fucking FRAUD.

Other EXCELLENT questions you CONSTANTLY IGNORE:

"WHAT AGENDA DID SHAPIRO HAVE IN REVEALING THAT INFO? You CLAIM its not the truth, right? So, he must be LYING, right? Why would he lie? What is his motive to lie about that info?? ANSWER THAT!"

"Did you see the word "FIREFIGHTERS" in that quote?"

"Then why discuss DEMOLITION on the phone with insurers????????" after you asked me:

"Well, here's a thought - he didn't need any method to demolish it as it collapsed on its own - as it was expected to do."

"IF IT WAS BADLY DAMAGED AND HAD INTENSE FIRES---WHY WOULD THEY THINK OF DEMOLITION WHEN YOU CANT HOOK UP CABLES OR SET EXPLOSIVES IN A BADLY DAMAGED, BURNING BUILDING?????"

"What TIME did the FBI identify the hijackers from the DNA??????"

"What time did they put transits on building 7?"

and this on you NEVER answered:

"what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???”

Theres MANY more EXCELLENT questions you ignored, but you get the picture.

Youre a worthless sack of shit.

the_last_name_left said...

This is an excellent question, apparently:

Larry: If the FBI was there and collected DNA, why have no FBI agents died from the toxic air?

You've cracked the whole case wide open with that question, Larry. Amazing.

Larry said...

"You've cracked the whole case wide open with that question, Larry. Amazing."

Apparently I have! Since you CANT and REFUSE to answer it!---Along with many other questions that have gone IGNORED---such as:

"what OTHER way besides demolition with EXPLOSIVES can you take down a building with very very minimal damage to surrounding buldings???”

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"What time did they put transits on building 7?"

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"What TIME did the FBI identify the hijackers from the DNA??????"

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"IF IT WAS BADLY DAMAGED AND HAD INTENSE FIRES---WHY WOULD THEY THINK OF DEMOLITION WHEN YOU CANT HOOK UP CABLES OR SET EXPLOSIVES IN A BADLY DAMAGED, BURNING BUILDING?????"

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"Then why discuss DEMOLITION on the phone with insurers????????" after you asked me:

"Well, here's a thought - he didn't need any method to demolish it as it collapsed on its own - as it was expected to do."

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"Did you see the word "FIREFIGHTERS" in that [Silverstein] quote?"

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"WHAT AGENDA DID SHAPIRO HAVE IN REVEALING THAT INFO? You CLAIM its not the truth, right? So, he must be LYING, right? Why would he lie? What is his motive to lie about that info?? ANSWER THAT!"

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"how DNA was found in the incinerated remains of the WTC rubble where molten steel was found and months after 9-11 the temps were STILL over 1,100 degrees?

Larry said...

..and THIS one:

"How would they even get IN there to collect DNA through all the smoke, heat, debris, rescue/recovery efforts and ground zero workers?"

Larry said...

..and THESE:

“How did he KNOW it was going to collapse? If thy feared its collapse----why not just LET IT collapse? But no, he was talking to insurers about DEMOLISHING the building-----------HOW would he demolish wtc7 on THAT day?? It takes WEEKS to rig a building with exploives and more than a DAY to hook cables up? WHO would hook cables up ANYWAY to a building that was going to "collapse at any given moment" and had the intense fires they said it did? Would you go ANYWHERE NEAR a building to hook up cables that had "intense" fires and might collapse any minute?"

the_last_name_left said...

This is an excellent question:

why did you lie and pretend PopularMechanics invented the story about hijackers' DNA being found at groundzero?

This is an excellent question too:

why did you lie and pretend the PBS documentary showed WTC6 rigged with explosives?

And this:

what is "toxic air"?

lol.

and did everyone at groundzero die from the toxic air? NAsty stuff, right? everyone died. amazing.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry1: If the FBI was there and collected DNA, why have no FBI agents died from the toxic air?

Larry2:How would they even get IN there to collect DNA through all the smoke, heat, debris, rescue/recovery efforts and ground zero workers?"

-----------

Are FBI folks especially susceptible to the hazards of "toxic air"?

And if "ground zero workers" can get to groundzero, why can't FBI? The "toxic air", right? lol


Anyway, after years of saying otherwise, you are now publishing stuff that finally accepts that " its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

Finally, you accept it.

Larry said...

You DO realize how much of a horse's ASS you look like by CONTINUALLY ignoring my questions right????

The all-knowing one, SCARED TO DEATH to address the questions of the "kook".

Quite funny!

Not Larry said...

You DO realize that none of this makes any difference to anyone?

Larry said...

Ahhh yes, the true sound of defeat---when they resort to the ole "who cares anyway?" crapola. LOL.

And yes, it DOES make a difference, especially to the victims' FAMILIES, who people like you like to EXPLOIT when trying to debunk us--when you say "do you know how much you are disrespecting the victims' families?"---but when you have been defeated and shamefully humiliated by fact after fact after fact---THEN you do the VERY SAME THING you accuse US of---DISRESPECT the families by saying "Who cares anyway?"

THEY DO, asshole!

the_last_name_left said...

@Not Larry:

Well, sure it matters........in the same way that Larry's fantasies about Jesse Ventura pinning him down and taking him forcefully up the anus matter.

Larry said...

and yet another homosexual comment by The Last FAG left----seems YOU are the one who conjures up the fag images, not ME!

the_last_name_left said...

Just in this thread alone, Larry, you've given us the now-familiar insight to your mental landscape:

ASSFACE
dickwad
dickface
shit brain
sack of shit
asshole!

Some obsessions there, Larry?

Anyway........earlier you'd said:

Larrrrrrry: What makes Shapiro a babbling idiot is that..............

You say Shapiro's a babbling idiot but nevertheless you totally believe him. Well, in fact you take just one thing he says, and totally believe it, whilst you disbelieve the rest of what he said. Even when it appears in the same sentence as the single "factoid" you choose to believe!

You just choose what you want to believe, and your choice of what to believe is entirely determined by your own point of view and how well any claim supports it. If a claim supports your POV, you believe it -- if it doesn't support your POV you disbelieve it.

What did Silverstein say to his insurers? Which insurer? Who was he speaking to exactly? When in the day did this conversation happen? Morning, noon, or evening, at least?

What supports Shapiro's claim that people told him this? Who will support it? What evidence suggests Shapiro is correct? What FACTS substantiate Shapiro's claims?

You have none of this, and yet even whilst you disbelieve everything else Shapiro says and mock his credibility, you pick one single thing he says, and claim it is "The Truth"......that it reveals "explosive facts".......

And you go much further - to claim Shapiro provides evidence for use of explosives in demolition of WTC7!

It's sort of astonishing you can't recognise how tenuous your line of reasoning is, and how you commit all sorts of fallacy in reaching your extreme conclusions - which you just happen to believe in anyway.

This criticism applies across the board. For example, you support the "patriot" and 911 movements's dislike of "neo-liberalism" even as you support the neo-liberal Ron Paul.

Alex Jones and Mike Rivero, for example - both invoke criticism of "neo-liberalism" - and yet, like you, both support Ron Paul whom is far more neo-liberal than Washington or IMF or whatever.

It must be hard work maintaining such contradictions. No wonder you're so stressed.

the_last_name_left said...

This fucking IDIOT reporter Shapiro....

in whom Larry places total faith - about ONE single claim.

Larry said...

Yes, all those names describe you perfectly. I stand behind them.

Calling someone and idiot, and yet believing something they said inadvertently [meaning: they DID NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TOPIC to know they were exposing something] are NOT contradictory.

"You just choose what you want to believe, and your choice of what to believe is entirely determined by your own point of view and how well any claim supports it. If a claim supports your POV, you believe it -- if it doesn't support your POV you disbelieve it."

A COMPLETE LIE. You make it appear as if Shapiro had said, "There was molten steel in the rubble at ground zero but it was NOT from explosives" and I'm just believing the molten steel part and disbelieving the no explosives part. You know that Shapiro saying he was told Silverstein was on the phone is NOT the same kind of example I just gave, you just choose to SPIN it that way.

I will give you the main reason why you KNOW deep down this is NOT an example of cherry-picking certain info I just "want to believe"------because if you would have read Shapiro's article BEFORE the Prison Planet story came out and critiqued it, you ALSO would have found NOTHING WRONG with Shapiro's words and you would have believed there was NO contradiction! It's only when someone exposes a contradiction in someone's words that you cry "Ahhhh, you're just cherry-picking what you WANT to believe and tossing out the rest"! That ALONE makes you a COMPLETE FRAUD!

It's also funny how you FAIL and REFUSE to answer MANY of my questions, yet you insinuate that I'm the cherry-picking fraud.

What's also amusing is, you incorporate a litmus test for ME that you fail to incorporate for YOURSELF.

Example: You ask me:

"What did Silverstein say to his insurers? Which insurer? Who was he speaking to exactly? When in the day did this conversation happen? Morning, noon, or evening, at least?

What supports Shapiro's claim that people told him this? Who will support it? What evidence suggests Shapiro is correct? What FACTS substantiate Shapiro's claims?"

Yet, when I ask YOU the EXACT same types of questions about YOUR claims [what time transits were placed on wtc7, what time FBI found the DNA, what time the FBI found the evidence inside the hijackers' cars, etc....] you COMPLETELY IGNORE them!

Larry said...

What is also astonishing is that if you had ANY intelligence at all, you would know that the questions you're asking are classic examples of argumentum ex silentio [argument from silence]---meaning that, just because I may not know the answers to your above questions, does NOT invalidate Shapiro's claim that he heard people say Silverstein was on the phone. What you're committing is a fallacy in debating.

And yet, you call ME the kook when so far, your methods of debating have been ignoring, spinning the truth, debating fallacies such as straw man and argument from silence and outright LYING.

Tell me something. If you possess the truth--the 100% irrefutable truth about what you talk about, why do you feel the need to resort to debate fallacies, lies, spin and just plain ignoring and lying?

One MAJOR thing you STILL fail to understand is that 9-11 truth has NEVER claimed to possess the 100% truth, 100% of the time. In fact, on the contrary, because we were NOT in charge, and do NOT have access to classified info and do NOT run things in the government--and also because all the evidence was destroyed or concealed, there WILL be times we are wrong about things, because the fact that so much has been covered up and so many questions unanswered, we are only left to theorize on certain issues.

BUT, on the other hand, the government, who claims to have the 100% truth, should never be wrong ONCE---about ANYTHING. Of course, we have caught them in so many lies and covered up information that our main goal is to open a NEW investigation. If the revealing of this new information by Shapiro doesnt constitute the need for a new investigation [where he is CLEARLY revealing info that contradicts Silverstein's OWN claim that he had NOTHING to do with the take down of Building 7---and NOW we are finding out he was DISCUSSING it on 9-11 with insurers] then nothing does.

the_last_name_left said...

Laaaarrrryyyyy: If the revealing of this new information by Shapiro doesnt constitute the need for a new investigation then nothing does.

Oh - well, nothing does then.

Barry: Calling someone and idiot....

Ummm.......

Barry: Shapiro saying he was told Silverstein was on the phone......

You believe this, but refuse to believe firefighters who say they put (highly accurate) transits on WTC7.......and which showed the building was giving way....

WHY?

Tell me why you believe Shapiro's claim?