9/11 - Do You Need Proof?!?

Question

Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more.

Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never told the truth

Larry Silverstein (Jew) invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. This is a confession to the demolition of Building 7. Let me repeat that, THIS IS A CONFESSION! Checkmate. Mr Silverstein signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center less than two months before the 11 September 2001 attacks. He was awarded $4.6bn in insurance money after the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Comment on this question by calling it a conspiracy theory. This is your usual way of dealing with the Facts.

I ask you, where exactly is there “theory” on this page? What elements of this article are in dispute?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4075053.stm

Watch the Interview Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4779078755753451581

Answer 1

Don't you love how those who scream "liberal" with the same tone and conviction that white suppremisists scream names of racial hate (you know what i mean) are the first to respond to serious inquirys like the one you've posted, proving that they haven't bothered to concider analizing your point (let alone read your entire question)...

Answer 2

I looked at the video.

That is quite the stretch to conclude that Larry confessed.

Let's look at what he said:

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

So what makes more sense for what "pull" means?

A) referring to "pulling the fire and rescue unit from the building"

B) referring to "demolish by controlled explosives"

Clue #1: he was talking to a *Fire Chief*
Clue #2: they were discussing the inability of the fire team to control the fire.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Larry, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. Try applying it here and see what you get.

BTW, is there ever any point to discuss conspiracy theories on answers.yahoo.com? Is the conspiracist ever really interested in another viewpoint? Is anyone's mind ever changed?

Answer 3

He may have benefited, but he would have made more money over time if he still had the building.


Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

Answer 4

Oh, so you're one of the bigger nuts who actually believe the Jews caused 9/11! I don't see anything in your question about the 4, 211 or whatever ridiculous number of Jews who worked in the Towers who were mysteriously off that day. C'mon now! I think all the conspiracy theories are preposterous but this one is the absolute winner!

Answer 5

Facs???

Scientists work with facts and give as much info as possible

You? Gave all the info to one side and didn't tell us the other side which is much more likely..

How can I prove it's more likely? Because you didn't make anyone here believe in what you said even though you stated "facts" and this exact argument has been argued time and time again by all of you kinda liberals that make the rest of us look bad.

Go away, no one really wants to hear this anymore.

Answer 6

Did you watch "loose Change". I've seen the first documentary and this is the second. Check out: www.loosechange911.com

Answer 7

I am a proud East European Zionist Jew So F uck you

Answer 8

So BT, When are you going to bring Mr Silverstein to trial.

Wow, You'll be a lib hero for a week...

Tell us when...

Answer 9

Let's see a plane flies into a building on national TV and you can't come up with the conclusion terrorists did it? Please stop the insanity.

Answer 10

so you are saying that the owners of the world trade twin towers had them destoryed? by terroests? hummmmmm You aint all there are ya?