SURPRISE! You have a dermatologist appointment today!

Is that how they work?

Not normally, lol but he is quoted saying that his wife set one up for him that he didn't know about until that morning...

Maybe it was only his wife that was in on it....

Just like Peyton Manning's wife was the one ordering the HGH, surely it wasn't him

That bitch..

Unlikely.

His son, Roger, and his daughter, Lisa, were working for him in temporary offices on the 88th floor of the W.T.C. north tower. Regular meetings with tenants in the weeks immediately following their July 26, 2001, takeover of the building were held each morning at Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Roger and Lisa Silverstein were running late. Meanwhile, Mr. Silverstein's wife of 46 years had laid down the law: The developer could not cancel an appointment with his dermatologist, even to meet with tenants at his most important property. If the attack had happened just a little later, Mr. Silverstein's children would likely have been trapped at Windows. As it was, Silverstein Properties lost four employees in the attack, two of whom had just recently been hired.

Silverstein must be the luckiest man on earth! /s

churzen

OK, assume he is on it, why not choose a better excuse? Why not have it a regular thing set up before hand, so that it's perfectly normal for him not to be there on the day?

Then we could say he planned the attack for his usual day out!

Kinda my point, there is no circumstance in which people will ever be content, so why highlight circumstances when you basically just want to say I think this guy should be dead.

Because this r/conspiracy

I think when you're colluding with the government to demolish your two sky scrapers in broad daylight and murder thousands of people and try to get away with it, there's bigger things on your mind than what you're gonna say when some nobody reporter who works for a bought out corporation asks why you missed a meeting there on that day

I sometimes wonder if he has a history of skin issues such that he sees a dermatologist every six weeks or so, in which case no surprise appointments would be necessary. Or if his wife was suddenly concerned about a nasty rash he doesn't want to tell us about? AFAIK no-one ever asked him or his dermatologist..

I do not believe his story. I might have believed it more without the embellishment of the appointment being a surprise to him but I still wouldn't have believed it.

IMO He was in on it.

In other words, you have a hunch, but no evidence.

There is no evidence of the dermatologist appointment either. Although they could have easily faked it. But then they would have to kill the dermatologist later. But it would be a suspicious death. So it was better to lie I guess.

I think someone should investigate this dermatologist, dead or alive. I take it he doesn't exist in the first place (sorry Im assuming Larry would never go visit a female dermatologist), but that is a hunch. Would be awesome if we could get a statement from the doctor or atleast proof of record of appointment.

But we don't have that and won't have that because this shit is so stinky and so deep that probably not even Emperor Trump knows the extent of it all.

Why not visit a female dermatologist?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Damn, I really hoped your account was satirical.

Oh I would... Just don't see someone like Larry or Trump for that matter doing so.

You're never going to get a statement from a doctor without permission from the patient first. It's a pretty clear HIPAA violation

Oh really? What if you hear it from his own mouth?

https://youtu.be/9ScGZCqEyGM

Burden of proof fallacy

You don't belong in r/conspiracy

Because it's annoying to have every conspiracy theory derailed by idiots who have no desire to discuss anything in good faith or with rigour and so make the things look like jokes.

...you accuse others of derailing, while defending this other guy FOR derailing?

and btw, from your comment history, YES the US did have concentration camps. multiple times.

BTW, that was a separate topic on whether or not modern US prisons are concentration camps; for all their faults I believe they are not. The point is that saying stuff like 9/11 was used as an excuse for Iraq becomes tarnished by stupid shit like this.

There is no evidence of the dermatologist appointment either.

Of course there'd be no "evidence" - the records do exist but you can't access them.

Medical records are federally protected.

/r/conspiracy's slogan

It's fucking dumb for people to be shaming others for talking about conspiracy theories IN A CONSPIRACY THEORY FORUM

You're the one who doesn't belong here. Not the other way around.

I'll discuss conspiracy theories only if they're sound and valid in the first place

Wantoningly blaming people and countries in an attempt to justify people's head-cannons is ridiculous, and the very thing that keeps conspiracy theorists from becoming accepted in the mainstream.

Hahahaoh my god. If you're only willing to talk about real conspiracy theories...THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING?? Why are you even voicing an opinion if it's a garbage topic?

Thanks for making your agenda clear. Now I can block your shill ass and be one step closer to a true Reddit experience

Remember 2015 guys? We can have it again. You it Ave to block shills and they're gone forever

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a shill" No. 24728

dude, your comments defend CNN and NYT and crap like that...the fuck?

I thought you were blocking that user?

So...?

Why are you even voicing an opinion if it's a garbage topic?

Because without my opinion, others can't see that it's a garbage topic to begin with.

Thanks for making your agenda clear. Now I can block your shill ass and be one step closer to a true Reddit experience

Sounds like somebody doesn't like resistance to their opinions...

Remember 2015 guys? We can have it again. block shills and they're gone forever

I prefer to remember 2001.

Don't feed the trolls please. Any insurance claim this big should be investigated, that was not the case for this. I don't care what OP uses to word it. The information is correct.

Any insurance claim this big should be investigated

"Wow that's a big insurance claim!"

"Thanks, it was levied on a building in the heart of New York's financial district - next to two twin towers that were seen and designed as symbols of American vanguard in the 20st century"

"Huh, that actually makes sense!"

The information is correct.

As my aforementioned comment highlights, "No."

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Whats a sound and valid conspiracy theory in your view?

"Republicans love every Black they've ever met, but hate the Black race. Democrats hate every Black they've ever met, but love the Black race."

So, in other words...none? Makes sense why you are here. Just a closed minded troll trying to talk down other people.

Username checks out.

It's funny because BiglyMAGA's username is very applicable to their comment.

Also the fact that they are trolling has the username check out.

It's funny because checks_out_box's username is very applicable to their comment.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Way to dismiss a conspiracy theory I had, resorting to name-calling in the process - just like the other guy!

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Ya, it's cancer. This isn't politics or news sub, it's for conspiracys.

He said it was his opinion, numbskull.

This is not a place you should be spending time if you can't get that through your thick skull.

Nice of you to round off with an insult. Clearly makes you the bigger man.

Yea, there's no excuse for that. I even new I was being an ass when I typed it.

hunches are the beginnings of investigations, let him hunch and you go hunch your own investigations. help dont hinder pigly

He should thank me. By my informing him that his grounding is extremely shaky, he'll work twice as hard to get the results that are currently lacking.

Don't think of it as criticism, think of it as constructive criticism.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I've never been to a dermatologist

Congrats?

Worst Birthday ever.

Yes and it is the worst. I was headed to work the other day when my dentist, who was hiding hiding in my back seat, informed me that I had an appointment that day.

Sneaky guy.

Hasbara4U's dentist

Not quite that extreme, but my dentist's office has called me on short notice before asking if I wanted an earlier appointment slot because someone cancelled. Things happen

Shill /s

If you wanted an earlier appointment. Not that you had an earlier appointment by surprise. 😂

smartest thing to do is just pull it...

uhh i meant the tooth, i swur

I'm imagining the Dentist just slipping the laughing gas mask on you as you're driving.

I knew two idiots who cracked open a tank of nitrous oxide in a car while driving. Needless to say, they wrecked.

Search into Odigo. Then you will find out why Zilberstein aka Silverstein was not at Windows of the World.

Somewhere there is a Dermatologist who is either in on it, or knows exactly how strangely "lucky" Larry was.

Yes. Surprise, I have a doctors appointment all of a sudden, need to cancel my meeting in the WTC right now.

Definitely not. There has been a shortage of dermatologists for years and its rather difficult to get an appointment.

Asbestos abatement is done as tenants renovate their space and not all at once. This is extremely common in NYC construction. You cannot get a building permit for almost anything without testing for asbestos and if found, abating it.

I'm willing to think something is fishy about the whole event but asbestos abatement is super common and likely unrelated. It doesn't all have to be abated at once (asbestos is only dangerous when disturbed) and sometimes the tenants doing to renovation would pay for it.

The asbestos may or may not have played a part in the plan to bring it down. However it is more the overall cost of doing both towers with their outdated and "prison like feel" of the layout that when combined made the WTC complex more of a liability than an asset. Lucky, more than likely knew this and seems he knew how better to take care of the problems, to turn a profit. Speculation of course.

I'm sorry but 6 hectares of land in Lower Manhattan would never be a "liability".

Your entire post is baseless speculation.

r/conspiracy

To someone who hasn't question the official story it may seem that way. If 9/11 means anything to you than take the 5 hours out of one do your days to watch this and seem if inside job theories are still "baseless"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

Not the entire post.

That isn't necessarily true. Piece by piece asbestos abatement could have been very dangerous as disturbed asbestos could have reached the ventilation system.

Gee wow you really figured it out.

I'm sure no abatement contractors use plastic sheeting to cover anything while they are doing abatement.

I mean asbestos is all over NYC. I pulled permits for 100s of projects. You don't know what you're talking about.

They where planning this asbestos removal for years. In 1989 they made a plan that cost $5.6 billion. Put the whole building in scaffolding and rebuild it. Look into Emory Roth.

Actually I do. I have worked with industrial companies in a contracting role and as a supplier rep. Removing asbestos is very costly and requires shutdowns during abatement many contractors won't touch it because of the insurance adder and permitting process.

Yes it requires shutdowns. It is very costly and would require removing every tenant from the space when abatement was taking place.

Do you really think the twin towers were going to relocate every tenant so they could remediate asbestos, or just wait for tenants to naturally cycle out and remove the asbestos when renovating? Aka how everyone else does it in all of NYC.

I don't think they were going to remove anyone, but the option to just wait and fix wasn't a good solution either.

Asbestos is all behind walls and is no harm unless disturbed.

Since you worked in an industrial setting I would not at all be surprised if it was more exposed and/or other factors relating to industry.

This is true, however I started in commercial and hotel contracting and asbestos was a huge bitch.

That's why abatement includes things like critical barriers around vents, doors, windows (anywhere there's a chance fibers could get out), and the project area is sealed up tight and kept under negative pressure with huge HEPA filtered vacuums.

We do that same shit for mold abatement and remediation. Don't think these people don't know what they're doing. Their health is at risk, much more so actually, than any of the tenants. That's why it's so heavily regulated. You're going to be hard pressed to find anyone that does this professionally who is going to fuck around and take chances by cutting corners.

The asbestos abatement for the two towers would have been brutal. The towers falling solved that issue and justified a never ending war on terror.

I mean... spreading that asbestos dust all across NYC wasn't exactly not brutal to every living thing in the area.

Lucky is likely part of or was given information by the Mossad.

Anecdotally I never had allergies before 9/11. The smoke cloud it generated went clear across Brooklyn. Not low enough to create a haze but I doubt/hope I never see another smoke cloud like that again.

Add these to the huge list of coincidences surrounding 911

The 9/11 attacks directly and indirectly affected thousands of lives. There's bound to be coincidences. The ones where someone wasn't supposed to be on a plane/in the WTC buildings but were are far less discussed.

Those people were in on it too duh. They happened (by chance) to have travel insurance so they were reimbursed for their plane ticket too!

How many people were accidentally on the wrong plane lol

Pre 9/11 it was a lot easier to switch flights. There are people who switched ON to the planes that day, people who almost missed the flights. Honestly, there's bound to be lots of coincidences. Seth McFarlane was supposed to be on one of the flights but he missed it. That doesn't mean he's in on a conspiracy.

Can you explain why 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation?

Coincidences are one of the most common things out there. So yes, around a hugely analysed incident there will be millions of them. It's evidence of nothing. Humans find patterns in chaos all the time.

Can you explain why Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero?

But it wasn't.

Wrong

Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’

Ah great! Thanks for responding with some evidence.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wbjYoINw5oI

This video goes into the study and explains all the problems with it. Skip to around 2:45 to get to the analysis.

He does nothing but nit-pick the reports, and offers no real evidence to the contrary.

Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?

Did you miss the parts where other studies showed that the 'nano-thermite' wasn't actually nano-thermite? Did you miss the part where the 'study' was published in a bogus journal? What other evidence are you looking for?

This needs to be posted once a day on here until heads begin to roll.

>This needs to be posted once a day on here until heads begin to troll.

Added a letter...

PSA: Stay out of Silverstein buildings

Especially the new WTC7. Being completed TWO YEARS before NIST's investigation into the first WTC7, it is not possible that the builders made any corrections to the design based on NIST's conclusions.

In fact, stay out of tall buildings altogether. We now know that they are liable to pulverize themselves in seconds under their own weight, or implode completely within seconds from the failure of a single column, despite always being built redundantly strong.

Since stubborn developers insist on continuing to build them, it's nothing short of miraculous that none of our enemies have learned to exploit these inherent lethal vulnerabilities of skyscrapers.

For 2 years, forensic structural engineer Dr. J Leroy Hulsey (Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department) and two Ph.D. research assistants have been working on a finite element model of WTC7 which challenges NIST's official report: www.WTC7Evaluation.org

Just this past month, a former NIST employee of 14 years made his first public appearance speaking out against the official report with Dr. Hulsey: https://youtu.be/Pb2NOBbD88c?t=2m46s

If NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided. —Peter Ketcham, NIST 1997-2011

Read more: http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

Some of the professionals who support this research along side the University of Alaska Fairbanks:

Tom Sullivan - Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Tom discusses the complex process of preparing a building for controlled demolition and explains the reasons why WTC Building 7 was a textbook controlled demolition in his eyes.

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer

Mr. Obeid, a 30-year structural engineer explains how NIST's analysis actually disproves it's own theories on how WTC Building 7 collapsed, thereby confirming the use of controlled demolition.

In fact, stay out of tall buildings altogether

That's pretty excessive for such an improbable event. Your chances of dying in a car accident are quite a bit higher than the chance that a building will spontaneously pulverize itself, but I imagine you don't have any second thoughts about getting into a car

Pull it

Yeah, don't you need a permit first? And who has the shitload of explosives to do it that Larry knows?

It takes several days to rig a building for demolition

Firefighters, of course!

I still believe this is bullshit, though I'm much more skeptical of the official story than I used to be. I don't believe there were explosives in building 7 or that the owner admitted into a camera that he told people to blow it up.

That's up there with "there were no planes, all eyewitnesses are lying and all footage is doctored"

keep that head buried in the sand pal

Are you referring to the no planes liar eyewitness doctored footage part? It's really nutty dude and drives people away from the truth, it drove me away for 14 years.

But he literally just said so in that video and then the official story had a completely different version of events.. Are you really that ignorant?

Trump literally says complete bullshit in front of press conferences, these are old men and their words get twisted. "pull it" doesn't mean shit, this doesn't mean that I don't question the story or believe that people in the government had foreknowledge or even helped plan what happened. This particular piece is a distraction in my opinion.

Didn't they pull it down with a bunch of backhoes? I could have sworn a few years ago that I saw news footage of a whole bunch of machines tied up to building 7, and they literally pulled the supports out.

No. It collapsed into its footprint. The official explanation is office fires.

You're right. I just tried to find it and I'm pretty sure the video I watched was them pulling down the remnants of one building while cleaning up.

I've watched demolition videos on youtube and have never heard them say "Pull-it".

From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts:

Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates. Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.

"Popular Mechanics"

I've watched demolition videos on youtube and have never heard them say "Pull-it".

Did you just watch that clip?

Its from a PBS documentary about what happened on September 11th

In that clip, he said "We made that decision to Pull it"

It was a skin job!

Skin side job

Lucky can also he seen in a video discussing the plans for a new WTC7 a year before the old one collapsed, mostly die to structural failure due to the intense heat from the minor office fires. How lucky can you get to already be planning a new one and have plans already in hand when the old one collapses? Pretty damn lucky, I'd say.

Sounds like he mispoke, said 2000 and corrected himself to 2002.

But he didn't. Construction began in 2002. Do you think it only takes a few months to plan a skyscraper?

They didn't really lose the plans for the previous one. It does only take a few months to modify them up to standard and then there you go.

Design architecture work takes a significantly smaller amount of time than actually building the damn things.

So... from steel core to concrete core.... from 47 stories to 50... you're saying they just altered the plans a little? Hahhaaaa....

yeah I am. Do you have any experience in architectural work? It's not like its that much work to go from 47 to 50 stories, nor are they the first people in the world to design a sky scraper.

"Silverstein’s insurance plan happened to cover terrorist attacks “by chance”."

Just wanting to say that if I owned a building that was attacked by terrorists 8 years prior, I would have terrorism in my insurance policy. When you say "happened", andby chance", you make it sound conspiratorial when it was a justified financial decision.

I'm not saying that it wasn't an inside job, just that it would be smart to have insurance that covers terrorist acts on a building that is an already confirmed terrorist target.

Fair point for sure. I agree that aspect is not overly suspicious in and of itself, however it is more the overall timing of everything. Then on top of it the greedy muppet decides to file two separate insurance claims, cause "2 planes, mannnnn, gimme my money twice!"

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that we somehow 100% know for a fact that Silverstein was NOT involved in the attacks. In that situation, any of us here and 99% of the population would have attempted to get the double insurance payout.

I hear you, but 99% of the population will never even have the chance to own a building. Even if we did I guess I'm in that 1% that wouldn't have had a greedy mindset after the attacks. You're also assuming he had nothing to do with it which I find extremely unlikely.

This is just a stupid mindset, just because people can't own something doesn't mean they'd refuse to take action to benefit if the did. Corporate Greed isn't proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm not even sure it's corporate greed. They're just pursuing payment in any legal form offered to them. It's not like they continued to sue after they lost or passed the cost onto consumers. Just a businessperson doing business.

Oh, I totally agree, just saying that even in the worst possible light this isn't unreasonable.

You lose your fucking assets and don't want reimbursed for something you're paying a premium on so it can be reimbursed? And then he's an evil guy for continuing to buy buildings back with that money, almost as if that's exactly why you buy insurance, and that makes him evil? Smh fam. You reaching further than an Asian girl givin Yao Ming a handjob.

Why does an Asian girl have to reach far to give Yao Ming a hand job?

(Yao Ming)[https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwvWrdzQ5jd2LXC1LymC2cuDy_CNX0w2LnYnqfko799ay2fe8n]

Yeah alright "fam" cause believing all the coincidences that day, are just that, coincidences, isn't reaching any.../s

It's always easy when you look back in hind set and search for coincidences. One by one details of the post are put into context or shown to be inaccurate, and your fall back argument is "well if you look at everything as a whole that's just too many coincidences!"

The main problem is when your building your narrative on faulty facts and assumptions. When people call them out you just change the story slightly to still work rather than rethinking the entire story in light of the evidence. You can find people that happened to be at multiple mass shootings too, that doesn't make them inside jobs.

What's the faulty fact exactly? And what exactly is it that keeps you believing the official story?

If they were going to "pull" Building 7, why did they wait more than six hours to do it? That building remained on fire the entire time, with no attempts by fire and rescue to put out the flames. Yet somehow after all that time the internal fire in Building 7 never burnt the demolition charges, the wires for the explosives, or ignited the thermite hidden throughout the structure?

Seems more likely the 6 hour inferno did in fact weaken the structural integrity of the building, and it collapsed in on itself.

All of that is irrelevant due to the simple fact that the building fell with perfect symmetry through the path of most resistance reaching freefall acceleration...think about that for awhile and what that implies...it is physically impossible for that to happen from fires and it's astonishing how many people don't understand basic physics.

the building fell with perfect symmetry through the path of most resistance reaching freefall acceleration

It collapsed in on itself due to the uncontrolled internal fire.

Can you provide one single example in the history of the world where this happened besides on 9/11? Seriously, try to find another building to collapse the way 7 did. You won't be able to. Its not that it collapsed, it's how.

"he bought the buildings six weeks before 9/11 and got a huge insurance payout, clearly he was in on it!"

"well the WTC had a terrorist attack 8 years prior, so it's not strange at all to get insurance for it"

"yeah, but the timing is too coincidental. plus, he's so greedy he tried to get two payments out of it!"

"yes, exactly like literally any other human on the planet would do in those circumstances"

"not me. and he still was in on it"

Who exactly are you quoting? Me or the article I shared for discussion? Yes I do agree that there are far too many coincidences in the official story to be believable. Would you like to debate a specfic aspect of that day?

You reach for these coincidences and then ignore everything that doesn't fit with your claim.

If I owned two houses that both got destroyed by one tornado then I would get double payment. If you count the entirety of the attacks as one terror attack, then the one tornado destroyed both of his buildings. That sound like fair double payment. Didn't the towers have separate addresses?

Your example of "one tornado destroyed both of his buildings" is actually the argument the insurers used to try to limit the coverage.

The issue wasn't covering each building that was destroyed, it was that the buildings were part of a an "umbrella" insurance plan that had a combined limit based on a single "occurrence". So the question was whether the two plane crashes at two different locations were part of a single occurrence (one combined act of terrorism) or multiple occurrences. If a single occurrence, then the limit was $3.55 billion. If two occurrences, then each occurrence had a limit of $3.55 billion, for a combined claim of $7.1 billion.

The insurers were actually broken into two groups based on different language used, and one group was found to only be liable for one occurrence, the other for two.

Interesting, if this terror attack had been on a smaller scale. Say, on one street, two lorries get driven into two different buildings that happen to be owned by the same person. The damage is far from negligible, but the buildings remain standing and therefore two separate scene are taped off and inspected, etc. I would expect that one lump sum, under an umbrella type coverage, would be large enough for the damages of both scenes regardless of whether or not a single incident happened. Regardless of one or two lorries damaging the owners property, the same amount of damage happened.

Agreed. It was an unprecedented catastrophe. I think both sides took reasonable and unsurprising positions - large insurance claims are very frequently litigated. And now, the insurance contracts are that much longer as they try to eliminate the ambiguity going forward.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Even if Silverstein was in no way complicit in anything related to 9/11, he's leeching millions and millions off of the regular people in New York who need to live and work. They pay him just to exist. He's smarmy.

Exactly, the downvotes are because this post struck a nerve with the naive sheltered people who believe whatever mainstream tells them to. They don't understand what happened that day because they are too afraid to look into it. I expect lots more downvotes but I'm cool with it on the off chance that even one more person gets curious and decides to start asking the tough questions.

They're all dreaming that one day THEY too will own a huge building in New York and be a billionaire, so they want to defend their hero lolol

Maybe the downvotes are coming just because you are retarded

That's a good one...feel like actually debating anything about 9/11 or just throwing around insults?

Insults are fine by me

Please don't write bogus statements like this. Your argument is no better than OPs by stopping to ad hominem bullshit.

OPs claim is unsupported. That doesn't make him retarded.

Civility in discussion. Thanks.

Who says it is better? I just expressed my opinion

No. He's retarded because he keeps saying retarded things. Did you even read his comments. It is now abundantly clear that there is no point in talking to this person. They are making arguments that aren't even wrong, because they are so logically disconnected.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say that we somehow 100% know for a fact that Silverstein was NOT involved in the attacks. In that situation, any of us here and 99% of the population would have attempted to get the double insurance payout.

And this was the response:

I hear you, but 99% of the population will never even have the chance to own a building. Even if we did I guess I'm in that 1% that wouldn't have had a greedy mindset after the attacks. You're also assuming he had nothing to do with it which I find extremely unlikely.

This is a person with a very limited capacity for both logic and verbal communication.

Most likely an alt account for OP.

How about you pose a real question we can debate and discuss before you assume I have "limited capacity for both logic and verbal communication"? I'm trying to answer lots of people who have come to my post simply to insult me and others who question the official narrative. So if you have anything at all reguarding 9/11 you would like to discuss I am more than willing to have a respectful debate about it.

Why!? Even if it's because you're "too busy" or whatever nonsense you just said, you aren't listening to people responding to you, and you haven't been making any sense. Why would I give a shit!?!?

Thanks for that. I'm all for civil debate and respectful discussion but it's tough when you've got this many people insulting you at once.

I will agree that some of this is speculation, however it seems a lot more likely in my opinion when you add up all the other coincidences that day. The parts about him profiting from the attacks is supported as well as the fact that he happened to not be in the tower that morning because he claims he had a dermatologist appointment.

Being insulted by many people at once means your reading comprehension and ability to use deductive reasoning and logic go out the window? That's a convenient excuse.

Nope still have those. Would you like to debate anything specific?

Then why aren't you using them?

Because you aren't asking anything specific?... Every single person who has insulted me so far is unwilling to pose a specific question for debate. Are you going to change that?

I don't have any desire to attempt (and fail) to converse with you. I'm just pointing out your ridiculousness.

Nah he is. He is literally a perfect exanple of putting the cart before the horse. Starts with 9/11 was an inside job, then he finds evidence to support that. When that evidence is patently refuted, he says it doesn't matter and shifts the narrative to support his argument again. It is awful logic, and it does make sense to point out that he's non sensical.

The downvotes are because you're peddling a theory without hard facts and are ignoring the much more likely scenarios. Then you're changing the goal posts to "well maybe it wasn't a conspiracy but he's still a jerk!"

No, it's because you can't justify you're own argument.

Believe what you want, but be careful attributing unfounded reasons with actions. People could have downvoted for a thousand equally valid reasons. From them thinking your full of shit, to a agreeing with everything but one statement, to being sheltered and naive.

To say that it's only because they're stupid and sheltered and naive, they can't handle the truth is condescending and reeks of projection. You aren't that smart and you haven't pointed out any "ah-ha" moments where everyone suddenly sees the "truth." You're pointing out a coincidence that's already well known.

Take a deep breath and step back. Not everyone who disagrees is stupid, and not everyone that agrees will be smart.

Are you seriously trying to pass off your shitty argument as an example of other people's complicity? And you believe you're asking 'tough questions'? That's just needlessly egocentric on your part, stop putting so much faith in the validity of your argument and how self-revelatory it is. You don't just present a patchwork of facts and then act like that's an argument in and of itself.

Tell yourself that's why you're getting downvoted though. It's a fun and easy way to pretend you're just striking a nerve with the integrity of your argument, as opposed to people just thinking you're full of crap on the basis of your points.

That's the thing buddy, they aren't coming from the"native masses." I don't believe that we were told the truth about 9/11. I don't know if it was a full-blown inside job or just some pieces covered up here and.there. But you still deserve the down votes because you come across as a neurotic finger-pointing boy who cried wolf. You look back on small incidences and scream that those are automatic proof of this grand conspiracy.

The insurance payouts came from the insurance company, how is that connected to "the regular people in New York who need to live and work".

Um, rent?

Um, rent?

Ok? What about rent? Do insurance companies pay your rent?

he's leeching millions and millions off of the regular people in New York who need to live and work

Where do you think he got the money from? You think he was paid in peoples tax money or something?

No. I think he charges ungodly rent and just collects money instead of working.

How is people paying rent him leeching off of them? Am I understanding you right?

You're saying that collecting rent in your own building makes you a leech? And that it is not fair to people that are paying rent?

Lol retard

I own a building - it's just that mine is 1600 square feet and would be really fucking hard to hit with a plane.

"What would you do if you won the lottery?"

"Probably donate it to charity."

"If the pizza were a pie chart for what you would do if you won the lottery, the fucker gave me the 'donate it to charity' slice."

I'm having a de ja vu or I've seen these exact words before on Reddit.

99% of the population will never even have the chance to own a building

You fucking what?

And why wouldn't we? If I own a house and a barn, and they both burn down from a suspicious wildfire both structures have value. Why wouldn't I try to get the value of what I insured both structures for. Even if on paper I have fire insurance for just the property. The fire and its causes are a legally separate issue. If found to be linked then there's legal avenues to explore that link the two, but otherwise they're separate issues.

That said, I understand the point that these coincidences by themselves are not suspicious and easily explained, but holistically they seem to point to a larger conspiracy.

I think that he government is withholding information that may answer some questions. I do think the flight over PA was shot down (I'd have done the same thing. The truth is our lives as citizens aren't nearly as important as the lives of our government officials, sorry but that's how it is). That said, I think everything else happened as said. At worst the Bush admin knew about it 100% (beyond he infamous document) and let it happen as a pretext to war.

That's not a good comparison. Because that's two separate structures. It'd be like saying your house caught on fire and though it was burning it was likely salvageable. But then a separate incident caused it to catch fire again which destroyed the entire structure.

While I share your enthusiasm and I too have been deeply involved in researching conspiracies like this one and many more, I do feel that the previous WTC attack in 1993 may warrant a special insurance policy that covers terrorist attacks. WTC Bombing 1993

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 37659}

Thank you for being level headed. While there ARE I treating questions that haven't been answered, some questions have been.

Personally if I saw a chance to demo a loss leading building and have it covered under insurance I would. It's sleazy and unethical. But if it costs 10 mill to demo and I only have 4.5, but I can do it for 1, and make money I think most of us would regardless of ethics. He's on the hook for that building anyhow and it's a environmental hazard as it contains known carcinogens. Still sleezy, but i think most people would. I would like to think I wouldn't, but if I were him I probably would.

and make money

You know he didn't make money out off this right?.. right?

The insurance cover, even when paid out twice, didn't cover the rebuild cost..

Right he may have needed to reinvest 7b BUT he will make up for it in rent from corporations etc. He will benefit in the long run granted it doesn't get taken down like the WTCs did. Consider that a lot of Americans gave money to help the cleaning effort and rebuilding efforts, that cuts his cost at least somewhat somewhere.

He doesn't stand to benefit from One WTC... the lease is now owned by the Port Authority in a deal made with Silvetstein because he couldn't afford to do it (despite insurance money, the remainder of which he gave the Port Authority).. (He swapped ownership to some of the smaller WTC buildings)

You totally missed every point made. I'm pretty sure it intentional.

(Honestly not attempting to misread at all) It seemed like you had one main point which was that if it was far cheaper to destroy the building rather than deal with it legally then it would be done. I was pointing out that Silverstein didn't gain from the destruction of WTC 1 and 2..

(plus he voluntarily bought them.. how is there a motive for conspiring with terrorists to destroy them in any of that?)

Well once destroyed the building weren't worth anything. Without knowing his financial situation I'm assuming he was trying to recoup whatever cost he had.

Besides I was talking about building 7.

hang on.. are you positing Silverstein had something to do with destroying WTC 7after it was damaged? how's that supposed to work?

Get a building inspector to condemn the building, then hire a company to demo said building.

Without a doubt, it is a smart financial decision from a money perspective. Just as long as now one finds out of a cover-up or "inside job" he should be good. Ethically it's a very very corrupt choice to sacrifice 2,000+ people for a building. But if he's got the money and the cover from either the government or private entities then it's financially beneficial but severely ethically lacking.

You read too much into it. I was talking about building 7, after the attacks.

Ah well then ethics has nothing to do with it as no one died in Building 7, my mistake.

My ethical complaint was geared towards he choice of doing it the right way (waiting till everything dies down then doing it with proper inspectors and whatnot) vs. throwing in some explosives and saying some shit fell on it. It's not a huge ethical complication which is why I think most people would do it too.

Yeah I totally agree with you. I think anyone who has almost unlimited access to cash and seeing his own building as being a costly liability certainly helps push the "oops looks like it collapses too" mindset. I definitely agree that with you there.

TIL 911 of all days would be a sensible day to risk getting caught carting high explosives through manhattan and performing an impromptu uncontrolled demolition of a structurally unsound building in secret with no planning

Do you guys stop to hear yourselves?

No one said anything of the sort. Not even close. If he sued his insurance carrier 6 months after the attacks, he had around 6 months give or take to bribe a building inspector to condemn his building after the attacks. That's it.

Thanks for projecting your crazy on to me.

vs. throwing in some explosives and saying some shit fell on it

?

How do you think you demo a building? Of course no one is running around on 9/11 with a load of explosives.

so (just trying to understand the scenario) you're saying they secretly pre-wired WTC 7 for demolition, then parts of WTC 1/2 happened to fall on it and set fire to it, after which someone(?) set off the charges and brought it down?

No. I'm saying the attack happened. The building is slightly damaged. It's worth X amount. After the attacks it's worth X-1, due to lack of occupancy and whatever. You want to repair it. That'll cost X+3. If you could bribe an inspector to condemn the building, you could demo the building and claim that the damage occurred during the attacks. You happen to have the building insured for X+2. So if you DID want to repair the building it would cost more than it's worth. If it were a car it'd be considered totaled even if it could be fixed.

I think the worst this guy is guilty of is seeing an opportunity and taking it.

No. I'm saying the attack happened. The building is slightly damaged. It's worth X amount. After the attacks it's worth X-1, due to lack of occupancy and whatever. You want to repair it. That'll cost X+3. If you could bribe an inspector to condemn the building, you could demo the building and claim that the damage occurred during the attacks. You happen to have the building insured for X+2. So if you DID want to repair the building it would cost more than it's worth. If it were a car it'd be considered totaled even if it could be fixed.

I follow this bit

I think the worst this guy is guilty of is seeing an opportunity and taking it.

I'm not sure what you're saying is "him taking the opportunity"? Do you mean you think he brought the building down? If so, how?

Or are you referring to him claiming on the insurance? (if so, why "guilty" of doing this?)

The insurance thing. Guilty in that the meaning of the word means: have done. That's it. No hidden meaning. I don't know insurance law, but I'd think if your car is almost totaled but not quite, and you wack it with a sledge hammer to total the car and get more than it's worth might fall under insurance fraud.

The insurance thing. Guilty in that the meaning of the word means: have done. That's it. No hidden meaning.

ah ok

if your car is almost totaled but not quite, and you wack it with a sledge hammer to total the car..

see..again.. that sounds like you're saying he brought the building down so he could claim on insurance?

Yes.

I think we had a misunderstanding. He saw an opportunity and took it. The specifics of how the building was or may have been demolished is beyond me. I'd be happy to stop at having it condemned. But maybe the insurance company wanted to send someone out, or perhaps they do with that much money as standard practice. I don't know. He could have had someone wired it for explosive demo (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU) (sorry on my phone) or it could have been something like this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i-2Y2MYpl2g) or any number of things. Point is the building cost more in insurance than in reality. So when the opportunity presented itself to cash in on the insurance, he took it.

A couple of things..

Are you aware of fell down only hours after the main towers? There wasn't time to arrange anything.. let alone the fact that the NIST report explains how the building fell down by itself. There's no evidence of controlled demolition, people appeal to it falling in freefall but a) it didn't and b) the manner in which it collapsed is consistent with a damaged fire-weakened building giving way.

People see conspiracy for a deeper meaning despite all this because they say Silverstein gained financially from it. But he didn't. Court transcripts show Silverstein was only successful in getting $4 billion insurance cover whereas the rebuild value of the site was $7 billion. In the end the Port Authority doubted he could afford to rebuild the main tower so he had to lose the lease for the as part of a deal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5wnku2/z/debw6qm

I don't see a motive to look for complex hidden reasons? It was a crappy day for Silverstein too..

That's my whole point. Let me spell it out for you for just so we're both clear, even if there were some minor unethical behavior, it's slight and ultimately meaningless. To further the point, Silverstein's actions were absolutely understandable, reasonable and furthermore something most of us would do in his position.

I see we're arguing the same point then! doh..

You're stuck on this idea it happened on the day, that people were secretly carting around det cord and demo explosives. That there is this whole cloak and dagger plot and so on. The chances that's what happened are approaching zero.

Are you a home owner? Typically when buying a home you get all of your insurances written up prior to getting the financial loan and completing the purchase. Backers want to ensure their loan is going to be OK, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out if it was required for the loan like flood insurance is for mine. I know that's really small scale but still applies.

You can file as many claims as you feel like you should or as your lawyers advise. In my dealings with insurance companies, they look for ways to say "No" as much as possible. That's a lot of money they would fight tooth and nail for if wronged. So is the insurance company in on it to? They were conspirators of "Lucky" and just rolled over and were like, please keep filing me claims and we will keep giving you money? Or was it written into his specific plan? What did arbitrators decide?

Plans change all the time. I planned on being to work on time today but had a flat. Thankfully my work didn't blow up. Or maybe I would have been hit by a train Final Destination style and am now waiting for my demise.

This is false flag crap. There are better theories out there.

Any idea how much the premium for that policy was? Would love to know.

Similar thing happened to me. I bought car insurance, and just by chance, they happened to cover car accidents!

you fucking criminal. you should be buried under the prison and yet you walk free. I hate this society. urgh

TBF the insurance company was asking for it.

Except car accidents are common occurrence.

And statistically speaking, so were terrorist attacks on the world trade center.

The World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists more times in my life than I've been in car accidents.

terrorist attacks in U.S past 20 years......maybe 5......car wrecks in past 20 years.....ummm.......it's a pretty big coincidence.

If I bought the tallest building in the world, that also doubles as a beacon toward American excess, capitalism & hegemony, and it had already been attacked by terrorists once, I would be an idiot to not insure it against future terrorist attacks.

There are plenty of questionable things that happened surrounding 9/11. Insuring the building against terrorist attacks is not one of them.

that's great but you were comparing getting auto insurance and terrorist insurance like they were somehow comparable in likelihood you'd need it.

It's just not an accurate comparison. Auto insurance is something you WILL need, by sheer amount of car accidents that do happen. Terrorist attacks on buildings do not happen, statistically.

There are x amount of buildings in the world over the past 100 years, how many do you suppose have suffered through a terrorist attack? .......not many.

Can you not do math?

He wasn't buying insurance on a random building and then deciding whether or not to buy terrorist insurance. He was buying a building that had already been targeted by terrorists.

According to your logic, buying flood insurance for a house in a flood-prone area is indicative of conspiracy because floods affect only a minuscule number of the total number of houses in the world.

Only if the water returns to the scene of the crime

I never said anything about a conspiracy theory shit head. I said that you can't equate buying auto insurance to terrorist insurance.

One happens everyday, the other, almost literally never happens.

Are you going to argue that the likely hood of a terrorist attack on a building is not astronomically small??

Are you going to argue that the likely hood of a terrorist attack on a building is not astronomically small??

He might not. I will.

The odds that the house i live in gets damaged by a terror attack is effectively zero.

The odds that a PREVIOUSLY ATTACKED building with massive "value" to terrorists is attacked are quite a lot higher.

Even if the odds are astronomically small: You know what determines the price of insurance? Odds of the thing you're insuring against happening. Terror attacks being relatively rare makes it cheap to insure against.

But you didn't argue it, you agreed that the odds of a terrorist attack on a building are astronomically small. Thus a bad comparison to car insurance.

Simple concept. Didn't need 5 nerds to jump in on it.

[deleted]

but you didn't, show me how you debunked a terrorist attack on a building being small? Which was my main argument.

you can't do it because it literally is a dumbass thing to argue. Like you are a dumbass person to argue with.

[deleted]

that's great, awesome comeback.

my main point is that it's astronomically unlikely any building gets attacked by terrorists. End of story, you can say in your nerd tone "well, ahem, technically speaking, certain buildings have a much higher likelihood to get attacked by terrorists and..."

No shit! it still doesn't make it likely, which is my only argument.

Like I said before, didn't need anti-9/11 truth nerd to come in and get hot because they thought someone was defending a conspiracy. I don't care.

[deleted]

"This is not how odds work. There's 260 million cars in the US, and maybe a few dozen buildings that are targets themselves (Rather than just being a busy area to target) for terrorism."

Bingo dip shit!!! you're catching on, it's a bad comparison! Congratulations.

And what discussion? Oh....you wanted to have an intelligent debate about whether or not 9/11 conspiracy theories are true or not?

Hmmmm, that surprises me considering how quick you were to jump on someone you thought was arguing in favor of conspiracy.

Take a lap nerd.

[deleted]

I claimed you can't compare the two.

take two laps, nerd.

[deleted]

where's the quote? Sorry nerd, go dry hump an x box

The likelihood of any one building being attacked by terrorists is astronomically small.

The likelihood of this specific building being attacked by terrorists is not.

sorry it's still small

Well, I know of one ... that happened to suffer through 2 of them.

great, that's great.

you still can't equate buying auto insurance to terrorist insurance, it's a dumbass comparison. you probably have a one in a millions chance of one happening, and a very high chance of another.

Just because the WTC has been attacked by terrorists more than you've been in an accident doesn't mean a terrorist attack was more likely.

But, it wasn't a one in a million chance.

Let's use January 1, 2001 as the date that Larry Silverstein begun negotiations to purchase the WTC.

The WTC officially opened on April 4, 1973.

10,134 days elapsed between 4/4/73 & 1/1/01, and in those 10,134 days, 1 terrorist attack was perpetrated against WTC.

So the probability for the World Trade Center being attacked by terrorists was .000098% on any one given day, which equates to 98 TIMES more likely than your pull out of my ass number of 1/1,000,000.

The WTC is a statistical outlier when it comes to buildings attacked by terrorists. To pretend that the WTC wouldn't have its own set of rules when insuring against it would be asinine. It wasn't just some casual building in Manhattan. It was the TALLEST BUILDING THE FUCKING WORLD & was a symbol for American hegemony.

To circle back around to the car insurance comparison, the average American gets into 3 car crashes in their driving lifetime. The average driving lifetime is ~55 years. So on any one given day, the average American has a probability of .00015% of getting into a car accident or 3/20075

So at the time Silverstein entered negotiations to buy the WTC, on any one day, the Average American was a little less than twice as likely to get into a car crash as the WTC was likely to be attacked by terrorists.

".000098%"

I don't know how or why you're arguing about this, I said it's astronomically small percentage chance that a terrorist attack happens to the building.

And it is, case closed

"98 TIMES more likely than your pull out of my ass number of 1/1,000,000."

congrats faggot, it's still a small number and extremely unlikely. The odds of a given person getting into an accident in their vehicle and the odds of a building getting attacked by a terrorist aren't comparable. Period. Now fuck off.

You're right, they're not comparable.

If WTC had survived 9/11, it's odds of being attacked by terrorists would have been significantly higher than the odds of the average American getting in a car crash.

You are trying very hard to be angry about a simple financial decision.

I'm so angry dude, like, look at the words I just typed, I did it so aggressively....I'm like so angry dude, can't you tell? You can see the fury in the words I'm typing right now.

So is flooding, which is why flood insurance is so difficult to obtain in some areas.

No it would be like buying car insurance that covers a duck hitting the windscreen and causing you to drive off the road into a river and then you making a claim for this a week later.

I swear whenever 9/11 posts gain traction, shills come with these stupid arguments and their upvote brigade. I don't even know what place is safe to 9/11 anymore.

How the fuck is that a stupid argument. A terrorist attack had already happened, so they figured it was a good idea to insure them. Pretty cut and dry dumbass

The person you responded to probably wasn't alive when there was World Trade Centers.

FIFY: anyone who doesn't agree with me is a shill

Maybe you shouldn't be looking for safe spaces or assuming everyone that disagrees is a shill.

No, this would be like driving a car that makes duck mating sounds and insuring it against ducks hitting the windshield because a duck already hit the windshield when the previous owner drove it.

WTC was a beacon for terrorist attacks because of it's symbolic status as the epicenter of American Capitalism.

Do you think the Freedom tower is insured against terrorist attacks?

Did you include terrorism insurance on your car? It's worth it these days.

This example is fucking retarded

Thats not really the same thing, its like buying car insurance and then being covered from being hit by a shark. Twice.

Side note; can anyone explain to me the "by chance" wording?

"By chance" would suggest that it was an accident. "My friend and I went to the same restaurant for dinner by chance." If you use it sarcastically, you would suggest that the person knew but is pretending that it was an accident.

Oh i'm a fucking idiot. I literally thought that the insurance policy used the phrase by chance in it.

Oh, haha. I thought maybe you weren't a native speaker or something.

Ha nope, just an English speaking dummy

America fuck yeah!

everybody makes mistakes :)

I momentarily thought the same thing, the phrasing is somewhat ambiguous.

I think the 1992 bombing only makes the conspiracy deeper. What was the purpose? How many more people were in on it?

What was the purpose?

Are you being serious?

Of 1992 I mean. I wasnt alive neither have I really looked into the 1992 attack enough to really know. Im fully aware of 2001 motives/purpose, not so much 1992.

People who park an explosive laden van next to the supporting columns of a large building usually have exactly one thing in mind

insurance scam!

not really :) go read about it. Osama and co tried to bring it down once before..

My favorite part of the first time is when the fucking idiot who rented the van they used to blow it up......then returned to the rental office and wanted his deposit $ back😂

It's a fair question. The CIA were so heavily involved with moving "The Blind Sheik," in and out of the country (once without even an actual visa) in the weeks and months prior to the bombing that they ultimately were forced to admit some culpability in the attack.

Personally I think they were guiding the operation all along, and were probably super disappointed that the building didn't collapse.

What part do you feel needed the CIA to be involved? As far as I can tell the plan was

• fill a van with explosives

• park next to the base of the WTC

• blow it up

I mean I can't prove they weren't involved, it just doesn't seem the circumstances require them to be.

Not an expert on the bombing TBH, but I find it extremely suspect that the CIA knowingly provided a visa to a guy on the terror watch list, and (presumably) prevented his deportation after the State Department revoked his visa. He was obviously some kind of asset, so when a CIA asset carries out a successful terror attack on US soil, don't you just have to wonder WTF the CIA was doing? Could be just plain old incompetence, or it could be something much more nefarious.

Would like to read more info on this. Have you got a credible source?

I understand your point but terrorism was not standard back then and, unless he had high occupancy, he would have had no way to pay for an add on like that. I work in real estate finance and I don't think it makes sense that they would have gone for an add on like that, even given the history, given that it had high vacancy.

To add a bit more, I have a decent amount of exposure to commercial real estate dealing and terrorism insurance is mandated by the vast majority of lenders these days. I can't imagine this was the case before 2001, but it most certainly is and has been for at least 12 years or so at this point.

How much commercial real estate experience do you have with buildings that have been involved in a terrorist attack, twice? I have plenty of experience in intelligence collection and all source fusion analysis. WTC was a perfect target for terrorism (obviously) because of its Western symbolism and represents things that the terrorists (in both decades) didn't like.

Now if you have had dealings in which you were involved in real estate dealings in the 90s that had been attacked by terrorists I would love that hear about your experiences as I would find it interesting.

I have none, as there's probably what, half a dozen people in the world that do have that type of experience? Not that it would be relevant at all. The only thing that is relevant is the commercial leasing and insurance process.

Pre-2001 the only thing that matters is that the building had insurance (100% required), which would have covered a terrorist attack as a matter of course. Attacks of this type were deemed such a remote possibility it would be absurd to include any stipulations relating to damage done by terrorist acts. So there was absolutely nothing unique or special about the insurance policy the group leasing the WTC took out. Realistically it should have paid out more to be honest. The group only got compensation for 1.3x the cap ($3.55B) for a single claim, when in reality they should have gotten the maximum $7.1B, as it was clearly 2 separate acts.

nobody is claiming you can't get a terrorist clause or that large landmark buildings in major cities wouldn't think about getting them. It's such a minor point and it changes nothing about the happenstance of what played out.

What? The existence of such a clause alone is largely the base of OP's conspiracy claim. The fact that they literally did not exist prior to 9/11 is what I'm trying to convey.

They do now, but only because private insurers did not have the free capital to cover that type of attack, estimated at $40B. When the government created the insurance/terrorism bill after 9/11 which describes what % of these claims they will cover, the clauses became a thing.

So yes, I'm here claiming that is not something that would even exist prior to 9/11.

oh crazy... Sorry for the ignorance. Thanks for clearing it up - I didn't know.

I too have a huge amount of experience in commercial property and insurance. But in the UK, terrorism has always been either specifically included or excluded, terrorism cover is often additional and specifically expected by lenders. Then again we have suffered terrorism at the hands of the IRA for 50 years that would often lead to huge property damaged in. I would expect that high profile US buildings would be the same given theyd been subject to attacks before. I would also expect that multi national lenders would have global attitudes to risk.

They do now. Just not before 9/11.

But do they offer insurance coverage against the FBI?

No idea lol. Incidentals? Haha fair statement though

To tack onto this. There are tons of people who were in the WTC daily and survived that day by mere chance. Someone lucking out of a terrorist attack doesn't automatically make it a conspiracy

It does when 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!1

Something something jet fuel can't melt steel beams

When you're the guy who purchased the building six weeks prior and made almost 5 billion dollars from it's destruction, it starts to looks a little wierder.

i mean... If this guy volunteered to have his buildings destroyed by the Government, I'm pretty sure he'd want a more discrete payment than 5billion in insurance.

Not to mention the fact that he could probably make more than that in the long run, and have more influence by actually keeping the building..

I mean, obviously that's a pretty amazing payout.. you pay $3.2 billion and then make $1.35 billion "profit" in 6 weeks. But at those kinds of figures I doubt you are even thinking "oh yeah I just made 1.35 billion!", the influence and prestige of owning such a building.. and the rent you will make is gonna be worth so much more.

He didn't even retain the rights to rebuild.. only being allowed to build 3 office buildings, which the rights to 1WTC went back to the port authority. So a lot of that money probably went back into building those three buildings.

Small fish want small amounts of money spread out over time. Big fish want a fuck ton of money all at once. Your logic is small fish.

I have heard that there was a lot of maintenance that would have been necessary had it not been demo'd that they were able to avoid paying. Not sure on the veracity but if so it would greatly reduce the value of the buildings staying up

Aesbestos. All had to be removed. Extremly costly and would have cost billions. They knew they would never be allowed a demo permit in downtown ny. Low and behold a convenient attack that just so happened to make the buildings fall into their own footprints

Lo, FYI

Somehow I imagine this was a "Yo and behold."

Yep totally didn't have any debris hit the buildings around it, just into its own footprint...

Right that is why there would never be a permit for this... aren't you a little amazed none of the three buildings (including one not even hit, but I digress) came down without toppling over at all in the process? That implies all four sides failing at the same time and rate, as would be easily accounted by the demo theory, not so by the airplane theory

Not to mention the pile of rubble from both towers was extremely small given the mass of the buildings. Somehow most of the concrete and steel turned into fine powder and didnt pile up in pieces...

Most of the buildings are concrete. Concrete tends to turn to powder when either blown up, crushed or thrown down several stories. Not that hard to believe.

All sky scrappers are designed to lose the ability to hold themselves up if they start to topple over, that way you don't have a domino effect. They pretty much are really good at holding mostly straight up and absolutely shit at anything too far in any direction.

You think the owners of the WTC towers faked a terrorist attack to avoid paying for asbestos removal?

The conspiracy is the U.S. govt. wanted a pretext for gulf war part 2 and the phoney-ass war on terror but if the cabal can ALSO make a shit-load ofmoney at the same time so much the better.

The asbestos cleanup and deferred maintenance would have been what brought the purchase price down from the valued $8 Billion and why a $3.2 would have been the winning bid.

The odd thing was, he bought the buildings from the port authority knowing full well that they would have to undergo billions in renovations to remove asbestos from the buildings, the entire buildings were lined with it. He stood to lose an enormous amount of money if the buildings didn't happen to fall so quickly after his purchase.

True, unless the government was willing to keep their mouths shut. Which seems to be going according to plan.

Why? Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right out in the open.

"An Open Secret"

The fact that there is a debate at least proves otherwise; that his payment was discreet enough.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if he did get a more discrete payment?

I mean, to be fair. Most of the comments in this thread talk about how he didn't exactly make a fortune when he had to rebuild the buildings and still has to pay the 99 year lease. So maybe he wasn't in on it? Who knows. But if he was, its not ludicrous to assume that he did actually receive a sizable donation from a third party, whomever it may be.

He'd have made more money off having actual tenants.

And who sued the insurance company to claim that it was two terrorist attacks so he could get paid double.

He may have grossed that but he didn't net $5 Billion if you purchase a building you have debt that you owe on it unless he paid all cash which is an odd thing to do with that large of a purchase price.

Yup. My uncle worked in the office that the plane hit at the pentagon. He happened (thank god) to be stuck on the side of the road with a flat that morning. Sometimes people just get lucky.

Hate to have to tell you this... but it sounds like your Uncle did 9/11...

Ill buy the parent comment, but yours is a bit of a stretch considering the morning breakfasts were literally an everyday routine.

Both of his kids also just happened to not be there that day, when on a typical day all three were.

I was planning to go there and buy an airplane that morning. I didn't because I was a bum and slept too late.

Also, I went there many weekends, because it had a mall in it. Anyone who read the papers knew it was going to get attacked by terrorists. The only weird, surprising thing is that the towers were hit by planes, rather than blown up.

Another thing I remember is that the WTC workers always ceiling panels open and were always sending workers up to look in the crawl spaces. Maybe they were really scared that bad guys had hidden explosives in the crawl spaces.

If you or I did this, we would at the very least be investigated for insurance fraud.

No, but it is certainly reasonable to look at who profits as a suspect. It's suspicious enough to warrant further investigation, of which there there never was one.

Technically as an insurance broker, it's pretty common knowledge that there was a lot of debate over whether the WTC 9/11 attacks would be covered. War is excluded and at that time there was no specific wording related to terrorism. 9/11 caused the formation of TRIA.

What's up fellow insurance nerd!

I'm now picturing both of you as Ned from Groundhog Day.

I am studying for my CISSP, and one of the points I just covered was that 9/11 specifically caused the insurance industry to revamp terrorism claims. It was either covered or not mentioned, but now must be purchased. Not implicitly covered anymore.

My company passes on that stupid "Terrorism insurance" scam every year. Like, no, do not raise my rates and call it "terrorism insurance" because of one sketchy attack 16 years ago. I'll take my chances!

It's not mandatory. They make every client sign an acceptance or rejection of terrorism insurance.

Which is great, and we sign that regection letter every year. But I mean, maybe it's not mandatory NOW... but in the future?

Why do we have to specify a difference anyway?

This headline also claims it was a "surprise" dermatologist appointment. WTF does that even mean? He woke up in the morning and walked out of his bedroom and a bunch of party balloons and streamers fell down and his doctor comes out blowing one of those noisemakers that unrolls when you blow into it while he rolls the doctors chair out?

Idk, my original point was about insurance. It seems like there are a lot of unanswered questions about the dermatologist thing.

I was commenting on the sensationalized nature of this post. Both the "by chance" and "surprise" wordings are meant to play up and sell that this is a conspricacy

<knock at door>

Larry : Hello?

Dermatologist: SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKER!

Up vote cause that made me ugly laugh

If I was spending hundreds of millions or billions for a building, I'd have it covered for everything. Terrorism, fire. Flood. Alien attacks. The only way by building could be damaged without me getting an insurance payout is if what hurt by building also took out my insurer, his partners, and the rest of the planet in the process.

Don't forget the 'Power Downs' of the buildings the weekend before 9/11 happened, as stated by an Employee who worked in the building here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZtMlJDXu-Y

Haven't forgotten that. Just justifying properly insuring the building.

They go hand in hand, "Lucky" Larry knew to be at the dermatologist that morning because he was in on the weekend powerdown and thermite/controlled demo ops.

It would be interesting to find out if Building 7 was also powered down that same weekend

Also the fact that this can't be an inside job by two different parties at the same time.

If the government staged the attack so they could invade foreign nations, what the fuck did Silverstein have to do with it?

And if Silverstein did it to scam his insurance company, how is the government responsible?

Silverstein was working with the government. Don't you know how conspiracy theories work? Throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks.

this is why when you argue you just do the big obvious stuff because you can't tell a reasonable person the towers suddenly collapsed symmetrically, but you can make excuses for Silverstein's approx 1 in 30 chance of surviving the attacks (someone told his wife the day)

I completely agree that were a lot of strange circumstances and coincidences. There are so many viable theories, I just think fully insuring your property, and then trying to recoup as much as you can is normal. Lots of other weird things that day, and leading up to, for sure. I hope one day we get the whole truth.

Yeah because terrorist attacks were on everyones mind summer of 2001....

It would be on my mind if terrorists had already attacked my building once before

I did not know world trade center 7 was ever the attacked by terrorists. I knew of the bomb in the parking garage of tower 1 or 2 like in the 90's. Also I admit i dont know if he was owner of only tower 7 or all of them, i thought he was just the owner of tower 7

I agree, I think this portion is being taken slightly out of context. I'd be curious to see; are any other large buildings I'm NYC insured for terrorist attacks?

That's a good question. I'm sure some may be. I wouldn't surprised if Trump Tower was. It is definitely more in the forefront of people's mind compared to pre9/11

You sounded like the smartest person here until "I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job"

I mean, the building he bought had literally had a terrorist attack on it within the decade before.... Not really a conspiracy why he purchased terror insurance

Yeah it's not like it hadn't ever been attacked by terrorists before, nope never. Utterly preposterous to insure a building for something that's never happened to it before...

1993 bombing

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 37833}

Well the towers had been attacked in the past so I don't see that as suspicious tbh

Not to mention, it wasn't until 2001 that all insurance contracts regularly began putting in acts of terrorism exclusions into policies.

NO YOURE WRONG the guy is clearly the best insurance fraudster in history! And all it took was an elaborate hijacking-kamikaze attack and the lives of thousands of people!

/s

There are always explanations for a lot of pieces of random information. It becomes pretty fucking weird and conspicuous when they're all added together.

There was previous terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center so why not

I would go as far as say that the lender may very well require that insurance policy.

Just because he's a builder doesn't make him a "crime figure".

It's also common sense that if you build anything, you take out insurance on it. Even for "terrorist attacks".

Especially since the 1993 WTC bombings did happen, and was a clear example of terrorism.

You realize you are defending one of the prime suspects for 9/11 being an inside job?...And with nothing more than MSM talking points....I suggest you look into how the FBI set up the '93 attack as well. Look I get that Trumps got you all hot and bothered by the "Muslims" and the only way to "Bigly MAGA" is to ramp up the police state and take more of everyone's freedom's../s

But the truth is that or sell a ruse to scare people into willingly giving up more and more of their liberty because they area afraid and need the govs protection.

Here we question any and all "authority" Reguardless of their imaginary "parties"..

You realize you are defending one of the prime suspects for 9/11 being an inside job?...

With logic, yes. Insuring a building is not evidence of "inside jobs". Everyone who owns a skyscraper will insure it. I'm sure Donald's building - worldwide - are insured against terrorist attacks, because it's worth it (and cheaper) to pay up now, than to leave it to chance.

Even after 9/11, Donald rued that his building was then the tallest in New York. If you create something as large and publicly accessible as a building, you kind of want to take protective measures.

I suggest you look into how the FBI set up the '93 attack as well.

There's no proof to suggest this. It was done by al-Qaeda.

Look I get that Trumps got you all hot and bothered by the "Muslims" and the only way to "Bigly MAGA" is to ramp up the police state and take more of everyone's freedom's../s

I've never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

But the truth is that or sell a ruse to scare people into willingly giving up more and more of their liberty because they area afraid and need the govs protection.

Blame Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden for that. Radical Islam was here long before the 21st century (but definitely propagated by previous governments).

Here we question any and all "authority"

It's one thing to question, it's another to pass off such questioning as inherent proof.

Reguardless of their imaginary "parties"..

This we can agree on. People voted for Trump because they hate "parties".

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/tag/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/

Instead of sending me a link of dubious repute, why not summarize the main conclusions for me in the comments section?

He can't because its BS. Christ of all the things to focus on about 9/11, why this?

Focusing? Lol, please. He said there was no proof the FBI had involvment in helping plan the 93 attack when in fact there is plenty. Do your own research.

The "He" was referring to "You".

Do your own research.

Show it to me, from reputable sources, and summarized in your own words.

The Jewish angle of Silverstein, probably.

That's usually how it happens. People point out that individual "persons of interest" were Jewish, and then somehow relate it back to an Israel "MOSSAD" conspiracy.

We saw the same thing with the Oligarchs of Russia.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

How about you do even a tiny bit of your own research and ask the right questions.

The pot calling the kettle black?

I already did. Which is why I wrote what I wrote.

If you'd realized any flaws in my comment, you would have offered it. Since you couldn't think of any, you decided to insult me as a last-ditch effort.

If you have genuine questions about what I've mentioned, I'll be glad to answer.

Dude you sent a link for a wordpress website..... that literally anyone couldve made.

I love how all you libtards are suddenly worried about loss of liberties like the Obama Administration never once treaded on your rights. very pathetic.

You are part of the problem, as is evident by that statement...at no point did I claim a party affiliation.

Nice try, Lucky.

And yet here we are.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Jew

I wonder what he ate.

Talk about lucky

He didn't "strike it rich", he got an insurance payout that he has to spend on rebuilding buildings that he does not own. He lost out on over ten years of rental income while the buildings were being built.

has to spend on rebuilding buildings that he does not own

Can you elaborate on this?

The insurance pay out didn't cover the full cost to rebuild and he forfeited the lease as part of the deal.

Not such a sexy conspiracy theory with facts added etc..

Link please

judicial review outlining the claim was for about 4 billion and rejecting additional claims

http://judicialview.com/ajaxupload/upload_pdf/Business_Valuation/1230750322.pdf

This should be at the top

Thanks a bunch!

Such a condescending shit post. Good job?

There's a lot to wade through here. Forgive me if I start smelling like it..

stop shaming people for showing up to r/conspiracy. it's not your responsibility to make others feel as small as you do.

I'm not shaming anyone in particular. I'm just saying there's a dose of BS here. Disagree?

Idk about that, I'm still hard

whatever builds your tower... I guess

everyone knows he deliberately lost 10 years of rent in order to avoid paying tax on it /s

Insurance covers lost rent.

/s

Yeah it does, maybe do some fact checking.

maybe reread what you originally replied to, it was a joke

People are seriously fucking mentally ill in this sub.

I came here from /all thinning it witless bee funny but just got depressed.

Generally the insurance payout would cover the lost revenue as well. He'd get the present value of all lost revenue in a lump sum up front

Insurance covers lost rent. Also, the buildings were a liability at the time of their destruction. They could no longer lease them to tenants because by law they had to remove the asbestos within a certain timeframe first, which was a stupidly long and complicated, near-billion dollar process.

Life is just a big live-action game of Monopoly or Civilization for this dude.

Silverstein’s insurance plan happened to cover terrorist attacks “by chance”.

I mean, it's not really "by chance" when you acknowledge the fact that it was the target of terrorist attacks in the past and was one of the most recognized symbols of "freedom and the economic might of capitalism" around the world.

You'd have to be brain dead to own those building and not be covered for terrorist attacks.

That being said, there's a whole lot of shit surrounding 9/11 that's questionable at best, but this isn't one of them.

the fact that it was the target of terrorist attacks in the past ... You'd have to be brain dead to own those building and not be covered for terrorist attacks.

Dude, they were attacked in 1993. He added the terrorism insurance months before 9/11 in 2001. Was he "brain dead" for all those years, or is it more likely he knew the shit was coming? I think you need to tune your BS detector a little better.

He bought it 6 weeks before the attacks idiot.

Exactly! I couldn't remember exactly if it was weeks or months, but thanks for enforcing my point. Sorry for being such an idiot! lol.

No it's not. It would be a point if he had owned them since 1993 and waited until right before the attacks to add the insurance, but that's not what happened.

No, you misunderstood - Silverstein signed a lease for the twin towers months before the attack, and so had to insure it then. The previous lease holder had their own policy.

I understand now, thanks. The timing of the purchase, the type of insurance, that the buildings were losing money and needed very expensive asbestos work, and many many other things are still extremely suspect to me and others in this sub isn't going to change our minds as to his and others culpability however.

asbestos? better kill 3000 people..

Dude, they were attacked in 1993. He added the terrorism insurance months before 9/11 in 2001.

To be fair, that information wasn't included in the original post.

Anytime a policy is taken out prior to an 'accident' is always suspicious. Big policy increase before a house or business fire? Life Insurance on your spouse just before they meet an untimely death? Yea, that's all suspicious.

My point was, it would be prudent to have such coverage on any building that's a known terrorist target and that in and of itself isn't all that suspicious. The timing, however, would be. Does the new coverage coincide with the time this guy took ownership? Or does that policy change predate that? If it does coincide with the transfer of ownership then it's less suspicious as new owners often get their own policies for buildings when they purchase.

Does the new coverage coincide with the time this guy took ownership?

Yes, good point! Too many other suspect things going on with it though, and I think his purchase right before the attacks is also suspect.

I don't disagree, there's a crap ton of stuff surrounding all of 9/11 that is suspect. I just don't think having insurance "by chance" is one of them.

It's better to make an argument consisting of just one strong point, instead of one strong point and a few weak points. The weak points become targets of the opposition and are easier to argue against. If they can successfully argue against one of your weak points it will help to discredit your entire argument. Talking about suspect 'by chance' insurance with out including context of how why and when the coverage was purchased weakens the argument rather than strengthens it. Hopefully that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for helping me sharpen my arguments, I appreciate it.

The latter.

He didn't actually own it until July 24, 2001. Why would he have bought insurance on it before then?

Because conspiracy theorists like to make irrational connections that dont exist.

It's not by chance because all commercial insurance policies before 2001 covered terrorist acts simply because they didn't exclude damage from terrorist attacks. Attacks were deemed such a remote possibility that they were covered as a matter of course. Plain and simple.

If this were actually an issue surrounding 9/11, why is no one talking about insurers paying out $510M for the damages to the WTC in 1993? It was insured the exact same way at that point in time, and insurance paid accordingly. This new group of real estate investors, led by Silverstein obviously got new insurance with their new lease. They would never be allowed to make the purchase without it.

The difference is that after 9/11 it was realized that private insurers do not have the free capital to cover the events of modern warfare (read: terrorism.) So now the government covers part of insurance claims relating to this type of damage, and you have to make sure your insurance covers this type of damage outside of normal fire/explosion/smoke/debris damage which is always covered. Insurance plans became more complex because they do not simply look at the type of damage itself post 2001, they look at what caused that type of damage.

That being said, the vast majority of commercial lenders require terrorist acts to be covered in insurance plans post 2001 to insure they get their money no matter what happens.

So yeah, no traction here whatsoever for OP's claims.

I wonder if its possble to just kidnap this guy and force him to blow the conspiracy. I just wish...

In my opinion there is nothing to be learned from this guy. He was just lucky and smart enough to ride the whole thing and maximise his profits.

I really doubt he had anything to do with it.

It wasn't just a few small fires.

Okay, so we got construction start. Anyone know the demolition date?

Silverstein’s insurance plan happened to cover terrorist attacks “by chance”.

Larry Silverstein purchased the lease for the twin towers in 2001. The lease was signed July 24, 2001. Silverstein had built WTC7 in 1987, but owning the lease to WTC 1 & 2 (and the smaller buildings on the site) was new. The terms of the lease required Silverstein and his WTC Partners to purchase insurance which included terrorist coverage.

From one of the court decisions (PDF):

WTCP covenanted by the terms of the leases to insure the buildings against loss from fire and other causes for the lesser of $1.5 billion or “actual replacement cost.” See, e.g., Agreement of Lease: One World Trade Center, § 14.1.1 (requiring insurance “equal to the lesser of (x) an amount sufficient to insure . . . the items of property described in this Subsection, except for the footings and foundations, to the extent of not less than the [actual replacement cost], and (y) One Billion Five Hundred Million and 00/100 Dollars . . . per occurrence”). The leases provide that there is to be no exclusion for terrorist acts, so long as such a policy term is available “at commercially reasonable rates.” Id.

From your link:

Larry Silverstein, the rumored organized crime figure

Lie.

who struck it rich on September 11th, 2001,

Did he come out ahead because of the attack? Silverstein and his partners don't just get to keep all the money.

They still had all the obligations from when he bought the lease, including 120 million dollars a year in lease payments, repaying money they borrowed, and, last but not least, the requirement that they pay to rebuild the WTC!

The first insurance payments, for example, were used to pay back a $563 million loan from GMAC and also bought out the retail lease from Westfield America for $124 million.

According to this court transcript (PDF), the actual cash value of the WTC main site (not including WTC7) was appraised at $6.497 billion and the replacement cost at $7.183 billion.

Even with the double payout, the insurance was inadequate to cover Silverstein's obligation to rebuild the WTC. He had to renegotiate with the Port Authority.

to rebuild the condemned-for-asbestos World Trade Center

Lie.

with its Orwellian “Freedom Tower.”

Silverstein does not own the lease to the new One World Trade Center (which was once planned to be called Freedom Tower). He had to give that up in his negotiations with the Port Authority. He does own the rights to three buildings at the WTC site (one of which has opened), as well as WTC7, which is a separate property.

He also rebuilt World Trade Center 7, the building that he confessed to demolishing

Lie.

the 47-story WTC-7 fall straight down in 6.5 seconds

Lie.

from a few tiny office fires.

Lie.

the 47-story WTC-7 fall straight down in 6.5 seconds Lie.

Really? I counted ~7 seconds

You're video conveniently starts after the penthouse collapses.

Here's the rest of the video footage that shows more of the collapse (note: I used a video that advocates the "inside job" theory to show you it's not edited to fit my narrative). It's clear that the building begins collapsing ~7-8 seconds before the roofline collapses.

Additionally, you can also make out windows below the penthouse breaking, indicating that the structural support behind them had begun buckling long before the roofline comes down. Therefore, it's no surprise the roofline would have come down with little resistance.

Back to the topic though: If the collapses were truly impossible, why couldn't any of the various insurers prove it?

Fair enough. I have the whole live CNN broadcast from 9/11 on video tapes at home as I taped is as it was happening, but it's been a long time since I watched them. Totally forgot about that penthouse part of the collapse until I saw this clip.

No worries. Just to be clear, I'm not against all conspiracy theories: I do believe Bush & Co took full advantage of the attacks (Why would we invade Iraq when most of the hijackers were Saudis?). I just don't really buy the "controlled demolition" theory.

Also, thanks for admitting you didn't have all the facts, and for not doubling down and calling me a shill or something when presented with a differing perspective.

We need people like you here to keep us grounded so real progress can be made. Checks and balances!

My God. We've witnessed a civil discussion in this sub here today. We've done it guys!!

There is still time to change that, fuck you!

Hey, FUCK YOU TOO! /r/theydidthefuckyou

You should look up Ahmad Shah Massoud. He was bullied by the Clinton administration and the CIA who were funding Pakistan (who was using the money to directly fund al-Qaeda and keep the Afghani Civil War alive). When Bush took office he could only go off of what the Clinton CIA were doing so when 9/11 took place he turned to them for help. Bush, like most people, wanted to invade Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda in their home territory, however the CIA, who were friends of a friend with al-Qaeda through Pakistan, convinced him it would be a bad idea to do so. They instead suggested invading Iraq as Saddam had huge territorial control and by seizing that power they could hopefully quell the taliban without having to be against their ally in Pakistan.

Had Clinton stopped funding Pakistan or at least supported Massoud equally, 9/11 never would have happened and Afghanistan would be a beacon of peace in not only the Middle East, but the world as evidenced by the fact that Massoud's homeland, in North Afghanistan where he ruled from, is still today one of the most peaceful and nonviolent places in the Middle East.

Thats a pretty big leap there

If you looked up Massoud it wouldn't be lol

A region that's been fighting for hundreds of years wouldn't have magically fallen into peace

Listen, Massoud might have actually made a dent. The man was a hero beyond pale. His mission was to reform radical Islam and he is the reason Afghanistan isnt Iraq today. He tried to prevent 9/11 and was a champion of human rights. NATO honored him as a hero and built him a memorial that is beautiful. The middle east might be a different place if the world never lost the Lion of Panjshir.

I haven't been able to read up on him, but I'm glad he was trying to do something to pacify a war torn area of the globe.

Its a great read, im friends with his brother in law and have photographs of his memorial. Afghanistan's misses him so badly, guy is still a hero there. He stood up to the Taliban and got the global community aware of there struggle. A lot of people think if he was still alive it dramatically changes the political landscape of the middle east.

Im on the fence about controlled demolition as it pertain to WTC1 & WTC2 but there is little doubt WTC7 was a controlled blast.

First off the computer generated model by NIST regarding to WTC7 show the building collapsing in a manner that obviously based on numerous angles didnt occur.

Then you have two witnesses that were stuck in WTC7 that are on record saying there were multiple small explosions happening while they were stuck inside the building(the controlled blasts were happening throughout the day and was not one uniformed blast).

There is also video of firefighters walking away from WTC7 telling people to get away because the building is coming down. Around that same time you can hear an obvious loud explosion (obvious because all firefighters whip head around and look back and say did you hear that) right before the WTC7 collapses.

Add to the equation WTC7 was the only other building to collapse in the area around WTC1 & WTC2 one should be left with little doubt as to what occurred.

Oh yeah..... The BBC and CNN both reported WTC7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed which by itself isnt all that odd but when considering the other pieces of information should be enough to make even the largest debunker shake his or her head.

There is also video of firefighters walking away from WTC7 telling people to get away because the building is coming down. Around that same time you can hear an obvious loud explosion (obvious because all firefighters whip head around and look back and say did you hear that) right before the WTC7 collapses.

source?

Video to back up claim.

https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M?t=4h42m22s

I suggest you start with the below link in regard to WTC7 if you have more time.

https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M?t=4h32m6s

maybe just a poor choice of words from the fire fighter but he said the whole building is about to blow up

This right here, folks!! This is how you have a constructive conversation.

Hi /u/pokejerk

For 2 years, forensic structural engineer Dr. J Leroy Hulsey (Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department) and two Ph.D. research assistants have been working on a finite element model of WTC7 which has exposed NIST's official report: www.WTC7Evaluation.org

Just this past month, a former NIST employee of 14 years made his first public appearance speaking out against the official report with Dr. Hulsey: https://youtu.be/Pb2NOBbD88c?t=2m46s

If NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided.

—Peter Ketcham, NIST 1997-2011

Read more: http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

Some of the professionals who support this research along side the University of Alaska Fairbanks:

Tom Sullivan - Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Tom discusses the complex process of preparing a building for controlled demolition and explains the reasons why WTC Building 7 was a textbook controlled demolition in his eyes.

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer

Mr. Obeid, a 30-year structural engineer explains how NIST's analysis actually disproves it's own theories on how WTC Building 7 collapsed, thereby confirming the use of controlled demolition.

Eh.... getting an article published in a magazine doesn't prove much. The point of peer reviewed articles (which you do not post, but I can assume might exist) is so that other scientists could replicate their results.

If you're going use an appeal to authority to make your argument, there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists and studies done on the effects, aftermath, and what we can learn from the tragedies. The VAST majority of them disagree with the premise that only a "controlled demolition" could bring down the towers.

I've heard a couple of the people you mention. They always start their research on the premise that the "official" story is wrong. But their very approach and logic is wrong:

We know the towers collapse. Investigators then follow the evidence to determine the causes. 9/11 "truthers", like Steve Jones, assume controlled demolition, then look for "holes" in explanations to prove their point. It's a backwards way of investigating. It makes it hard to argue against since it's almost impossible to prove a negative.

I'll (re)-check out the videos you posted, but they always rely on some kind of faulty logic to make their point, like the time of collapse of WTC7 that I pointed out as being misrepresented by some 9/11 "truthers".

I just don't really buy the "controlled demolition" theory.

That's the nice thing about empirical facts, you don't have to believe them. They're true regardless.

We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn't just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall. If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero... in both directions.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

That's not how collapses work. Building are like 90% air. Air would not cause much resistance. The fact is the structural support below and behind the walls of the building had been compromised long before the final roofline began do descent. With little support, there would be nothing causing resistance (for at least a portion of the roofline's collapse). We're talking about a building here, not Jenga set or a solid block.

It is, in fact, exactly how collapses work.

The fact is the structural support below and behind the walls of the building had been compromised long before the final roofline began do descent.

Where did you get that? Here's what really happened.

After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall. I am not using the term "freefall" loosely here. I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good. My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall. Only beyond those 16 stories of drop did the falling section of the building interact significantly with the underlying structure and decelerate.

What you're saying just isn't true.

There's a huge difference between "took advantage of" and "orchestrated", which seems to be a a difference lost on a lot of conspiracy theorists. One makes you a dick, the other makes you a conspirator.

I'm not sure I agree. By "taking advantage of", I mean they conspired to deceive and mislead the American public in order to push their agenda. They conspired to use the attacks, along with their notions of WMDs, to get the public to follow them. It's obviously not as big of a conspiracy, but it would be a conspiracy nonetheless.

That's a separate issue though. If they conspired to mislead the American public to drum up support for a war (and I happen to agree they did, in fact, do that), it's an entirely separate thing from plotting and executing a terrorist attack to achieve that end.

Capitalizing on tragedy is not the same as causing a tragedy to capitalize upon.

If they conspired to mislead the American public to drum up support for a war

I'm assuming you mean "orchestrated" with your "conspired".

Here's the issue I have with this logic: If they had really conspired to drum up support for the war, why did they conspire to make the hijackers appear to be from Saudi Arabia? Drumming up support would have been waaaay easier if they had just said the hijackers were from Iraq. Or at least a few of them. The fact that they had to twist around what happened to justify going to war with Iraq makes me skeptical that they planned 9/11 in the first place. But it makes sense if you believe they "took advantage" of the situation.

I think we're talking past each other here. We both agree that the Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks to their advantage but did not actually participate in them, no?

Yes, that's what I believe. I guess we just disagree on whether that constitutes a conspiracy?

Well the giant ass text in the sidebar says "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" so if we agree that the military actions that followed 9/11 were harmful then the only thing to agree or disagree on is whether or not members of the Bush administration acted unlawfully in their misleading of the American public to drum up support of the war, yeah?

Looks pretty straight fuckin down to me.

If "natural" collapses were truly impossible, why couldn't any of the various insurers prove it?

Can you phrase this as a scientific question? Good luck!

Your objection is misleading and utterly trivial. I suggest you watch some more videos of buildings being imploded, which will demonstrate that your description of the collapse in no way rules out controlled demolition or supports the fire theory.

Face it: you're proposing a completely unprecedented structural failure phenomenon, which has had zero influence on structural building codes or the retrofitting of older buildings, and you have ZERO, ZERO, ZERO scientific evidence to support it.

Can you phrase this as a scientific question? Good luck!

I'm not sure what your asking here. It's a question that relies on reason. If it was an "inside job", why didn't any of the insurers pursue try to show this in order to deny the claim?

I suggest you watch some more videos of buildings being imploded,

I have. I suggest you listen to them. They all involve multiple loud explosives. It disproves your theory that it was controlled demolition (unless you believe that an unprecedented, untested, silent form of implosion was invented and only used this one time).

Face it: you're proposing a completely unprecedented structural failure phenomenon, which has had zero influence on structural building codes or the retrofitting of older buildings, and you have ZERO, ZERO, ZERO scientific evidence to support it.

It was also a completely unprecedented catastrophe. An unprecedented catastrophe will yield unprecedented results. How many buildings have had as large of aircraft (full of fuel) purposely crash into them? How may times in history had a building collapse resulted in tons of debris falling onto neighboring buildings? How many times in history has building been left with virtually zero firefighting efforts for multiple hours?

Here's another logical question for you: If the building could not have come down due to fires alone, then why do builders coat steel in fire retardant

Let me TL;DR this.

1. Your only evidence for fire theory is that you don't hear explosions on videos taken from hundreds of yards away in one of the most densely built-up areas on the planet, even though explosions were reported by multiple witnesses throughout the day.

2. You think NIST was incorrect when they ruled out structural damage from falling debris as the cause of the collapse.

3. You think NIST was incorrect when they ruled out the duration of the fire and the lack of firefighting as the cause of the collapse.

4. You still have no physical or other scientific evidence to support your theory, but "hey, it could happen!" is enough proof for you.

Is that a fair summary of your scientific argument?

Just as a short reply to your comments on NIST, the summary of their investigation findings on their website does indeed cite the duration of uncontrolled fires as directly responsible for the collapse:

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

They also implicate falling debris in the collapse, but more for providing an ignition source for the fires than direct structural damage.

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces.

If you're criticizing the previous poster for supposedly disagreeing with NIST, what grounds are you using for ultimately dismissing the results of their study yourself?

No, they don't.

By the time WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces), and points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and firefighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

They also implicate falling debris in the collapse, but more for providing an ignition source for the fires than direct structural damage.

I know this already. Teach OP.

what grounds are you using for ultimately dismissing the results of their study yourself?

Total lack of physical evidence is sufficient, but the lack of peer review and the hundreds of thousands of skyscraper fires that didn't cause total collapse are big ones too.

Most of your points are factually incorrect. NIST believes it was the fires (caused by the falling debris and subsequent lack of firefighting) that caused the collapse.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

4 What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

5 How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

...

There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7:

• Fires in high-rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors.
• Fires in other high-rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1.
• Water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired.
• While the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by firefighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires because of the lack of a water supply.

First of all, there is ZERO evidence for their thermal expansion collapse initiation theory.

Second, here's what happened after you stopped reading.

By the time WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces), and points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and firefighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

but you said

NIST believes it was the fires (caused by the falling debris and subsequent lack of firefighting) that caused the collapse.

You're right. I'll make that correction.

I'm glad you're now relying on NIST's report, however, instead of making up your own theory. At least we can agree that NIST believes it was the fires that caused the collapse. Or are you only cherry-picking the facts from the report that you agree with?

Oh, and thermal expansion is a real thing. If you're going to argue against that, I'm checking out of this conversation, since you're clearly no longer relying on facts to make your points.

Lol! You brought up structural damage and lack of firefighting, and I showed you that you were incorrect.

A scientific person would adjust his beliefs accordingly, but you are sticking to your story. That shows that you are not doing so for scientific reasons.

I'm not cherry picking, only expecting you to have some integrity when defending the official story (even though you didn't know what it actually was).

Where in heavens did you get the idea that I don't think matter expands when heated? I said you have no evidence that it caused the collapse. Not one for intellectual honesty, are you?

I bet you think you're the smartest person you know, huh?

It's hurts me head when I read comments as silly as yours.

Holy shit, your argument is so horrible.

Please stop commenting on this thread. You're making the rest of us sound crazy.

How may times in history had a building collapse resulted in tons of debris falling onto neighboring buildings?

NIST has stated clearly that the damage to WTC7 from falling debris did not play a significant role in the collapse, and moreover, their models show the building would have collapsed regardless. From the NIST WTC7 FAQ:

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

I have. I suggest you listen to them. They all involve multiple loud explosives.

This is not a logical argument. If you believe the NIST report, the building collapsed due to the failure of one single connection. If it's possible to collapse a building by failing one connection, then you could do it with a few pounds of thermite, a hydraulic jack, or even a fucking cutting torch. This NIST argument that it couldn't have been a controlled demo because no one heard a loud bang is totally disingenuous.

I didn't say the debris caused the collapse directly. I was trying to say that the debris caused the fires which caused the collapse. That is what NIST concluded. They make that very clear.

You're demanding scientific proof from him, yet give none in your own argument. Classic conspiracy theorist.

He hasn't even read NIST's FAQ and is arguing against the official story, and you don't even realize. Classic official story supporters. I'm only arguing that this rapid, total skyscraper failure had the same cause as every other comparable skyscraper failure in history, and he offers no scientific arguments otherwise.

I'm sure you'll pardon me for limiting my number of concurrent discussions. Thanks.

Thanks for posting this video, I've never seen it before and it clears some stuff up. The one thing I can't wrap my head around is the fact that US officials found one of the terrorists intact passports on the sidewalk.

Although this is seems odd, documents/objects like that survive all plane crashes all the time. Not everything, of course, but a lot of stuff. I think the real question would be: what purpose would that have served? There was plenty of evidence pointing to the identities of the hijackers. I don't see any motive to stage it.

My take is that sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. I know this might not satisfy you, but when I can't tie a real motive behind something like this, it seem just too "un-subtle" to be staged.

oh god, you're more insane than nutjob conspiracy theorists if you believe it fell 'naturally'.

It's clear that the building begins collapsing ~7-8 seconds before the roofline collapses.

This is from the NIST WTC7 FAQ. It's a description of the 5.4 seconds of collapse visible in this famous video

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

You'll note stage two acknowledges free fall. This is the important bit that can't be glossed over or ignored.

During the WTC7 First Draft press conference, high school physics teacher, David Chandler, publicly asked Shyam Sunder, lead NIST investigator, how they could explain the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration WTC7 experienced during its collapse. Sunder off-handed dismissed the idea as "impossible." And if we're talking about a collapse driven solely by gravity, then he's right--buildings can't fall through themselves as though they're made of air. Intact structure below will resist the fall of the collapsing structure above no matter what. There are no exceptions to this.

Of course, in the final draft of the WTC7 report, NIST was forced to acknowledge there was a period of free fall because it was such an obvious and easily measurable phenomenon. Their explanation:

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

This makes no sense. It might sound good to a layman, but it's not actually an explanation as to how eight stories of WTC7 effectively disappeared in an instant, allowing the entire perimeter structure to drop 100 ft in free fall.

There's a bunch of other glaring inconsistencies in the NIST WTC7 report, but this is really the big one.

This makes no sense. It might sound good to a layman, but it's not actually an explanation as to how eight stories of WTC7 effectively disappeared in an instant, allowing the entire perimeter structure to drop 100 ft in free fall.

Here's the problem with your explanation. The 8 stories didn't "disappear in an instant". I show in the video I posted that the penthouse collapses long before the roofline. Roughly 7-8 seconds by my count. That's plenty of time for multiple stories worth of supporting structure to buckle and collapse, thus providing very little resistance to the perimeter structure. You can even observe multiple windows suddenly break between the point at which the penthouse collapses and the point at which the roofline begins to descend.

Eight stories of the perimeter structure did effectively disappear in an instant--otherwise the perimeter structure could not have fallen all at once, symmetrically and at free fall right through itself. I can't really come up with a different way of explaining it.

If the interior were supporting the exterior structure, and the interior experienced a progressive collapse, then the support for the exterior would have disappeared progressively as well. The collapse of the East Penthouse suggests that the core collapse began on the east side of the building and continued west (over the space of a few seconds), so why the heck didn't the exterior collapse from east to west?

Think about it. What was holding up the east exterior face of the building after the east portion of the core collapsed? If east face couldn't stand without the interior structure to support it, then why didn't it start collapsing before the west face? IMO the both the free fall and the symmetry of the collapse are "smoking guns" for CD. The official explanation absolutely cannot account for either of these aspects of the collapse. Their "very sophisticated" computer models didn't even vaguely resemble the actual collapse.

Here's the problem with your explanation. The 8 stories didn't "disappear in an instant".

How does a building lose dozens of support beams and core columns to allow itself to free fall in itself? The removal of this resistance was symmetrical and global across the whole building.

Fire cannot achieve this...

• Ed Munyak, FPE - Fire Protection Engineer: https://youtu.be/c0QEutd1Unc?t=15s

• Scott Grainger, FPE - Fire Protection Engineer: https://youtu.be/5nvWh2aTdCs?t=15s

Listen to these professionals who are well versed in the NIST reports.

The inner core columns are separate from the outer structural steel columns. If the inner core failing completely had pulled the outer structure down along with it, then we can say that there was no freefall. But the inner core didn't pull it all down at the same time, the trusses disconnected. NIST measured the outer structure's collapse and they ADMITTED freefall of this part of the structure. Freefall is still only achieved if none of the lower structural steel is supporting the upper lattice of the outside shell. To claim that the building didn't reach freefall acceleration is to deny the very NIST report that you support.

Additionally, you can also make out windows below the penthouse breaking, indicating that the structural support behind them had begun buckling long before the roofline comes down. Therefore, it's no surprise the roofline would have come down with little resistance.

Why would the buckling of a few supporting columns holding up the center of the top of the building immediately demolish all structural support of the rest of the building so the entirety of the building can collapse at one time? It is in fact a VERY big surprise the roofline comes down with little to no resistance (remaining level with the ground as well), as that could not have happened without the simultaneous failure of the rest of the structural support of the building, which should not have occured because a few columns near the top center buckled. That was healthy steel structure keeping the building standing a second before it collapsed, where did it go and why did it happen at the almost the exact same time for all of the rest of the supporting steel columns?

Back to the topic though: If "natural" collapses were truly impossible, why couldn't any of the various insurers prove it?

Because to go against the official story would put your entire corporation and possibly the lives of some of the administration in immediate risk. Also, it's very possible that backdoor deals could be conducted to insure complicity.

Also, the building does not come straight down. You can see from the other angles that the roofline caves in towards the middle and the entire building leans back towards where it had sustained direct damage from one of the Twin Towers.

The roofline caving towards the middle was drastically skewed by the perspective of the first film, in the clip with the angle of viewing that is level with the roofline you can see that it just BARELY, if at all, caves in towards the middle first, then the outside support fails almost immediately after that (which would not be explained by a progressive collapse, but would be explained by explosive charges placed on the center columns detonating slightly before the charges on the outer columns).

Yes, those have been edited in order to deceive you.

Compare the first clip in the video you linked to the first one in this video. Note how the east penthouse (on the left) collapses into the building at 0:08. That has been excised from your video.

According to the seismographic data, the collapse started about six seconds before the east penthouse fell into the building, so the whole collapse is at least 3 times as long as the 6.5 seconds claimed.

We've already covered this in the thread.

How does this support fire theory or rule out CD? Where is your scientific evidence to support fire theory? How do you tell the difference on a seismograph between explosives going off and a structural failure phenomenon that never happened before or since? Seems like a shitty sample size, don't you agree?

a structural failure phenomenon that never happened before or since

Building don't usually have chunks of other buildings fall on them from a great height.. but when they do, structurally failing sometime later isn't the weirdest thing to have happen

Chunks of buildings don't account for WTC7 collapsing in on itself at freefall speed. Controlled demolition is the only scientifically valid theory of WTC7's collapse.

except it's only freefall speed if you chop the initial part of the collapse off the front of the video...

Lol, official story supporters don't even know the official story!

"The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." -NIST

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)" - NIST

And this after they said FF could only happen in CD, until a fucking science teacher proved that free fall occurred.

You might want to read this.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Lol where the fuck you think I was quoting from?

If you read it you would know that you are cherry picking data to support your view.

no substance in this comment

Would you like an example then?

You cherry picked one section from this longer section to try and show that NIST supports your claim that the building was in free fall.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

You conveniently ignore stage 1 which is a result of the columns failing as stated in the NIST analysis.

You've created a strawman. I never suggested that WTC7 or any other demolition fell at free fall the entire descent. Any period of free fall is indicative of CD. Even Shyam Sunder, head of NIST, said so. At that point he was still denying that any period of free fall occurred.

You don't have any evidence that NIST's computer model and theoretical collapse sequence have any relationship with what actually occurred in reality, and neither do they. Accepting their model is the same as believing Shrek exists because you saw him in three movies.

Please provide a source for NIST claiming that any period of free fall in a building collapse is evidence of a controlled demolition.

Also I am not really sure what your point is about the model but you do realize that the way to validate a model is see if it matches up with reality. All they are doing is saying hey we made this prediction about the collapse and modeled it, and the model matched up with reality. That is evidence to support the model.

How. How do you know it matches reality without examining any physical evidence? What predictions were validated by the model and how were they confirmed? Are you suggesting physical evidence is unnecessary when trying to prove that a completely unprecedented phenomenon occurred??? Were computers that good by 2008 that they can literally pinpoint what happened and we don't need forensic science anymore???

I couldn't find exactly what I was thinking of but this is close enough. Here Sunder explains why there shouldn't be any free fall in his progressive collapse scenario:

“Free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…[but, referring to Building 7]…There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.”

Now, why don't you find me five tall buildings that entered free fall without explosives or similar preparation. Don't forget the data that proves that NIST's model is true.

I can't find

Can you actually source the quote?

Based on what NIST was saying the time predicted for the collapse to take place and the reality of how long the collapse took matched up. This lends credence to their model it does not prove that their prediction is exactly correct. I really can't tell if you are being intentionally dense when it comes to computer modeling or not. I am really curious, if you don't mind me asking, what is your educational background?

You think I'm lying? Google will vouch for me.

I asked you some questions first. Please answer them.

You think I'm lying? Google will vouch for me.

Again:

How. How do you know it matches reality without examining any physical evidence? What predictions were validated by the model and how were they confirmed? Are you suggesting physical evidence is unnecessary when trying to prove that a completely unprecedented phenomenon occurred??? Were computers that good by 2008 that they can literally pinpoint what happened and we don't need forensic science anymore???

Then

Based on what NIST was saying the time predicted for the collapse to take place and the reality of how long the collapse took matched up.

This is circular reasoning, since they based their model on the observed collapse.

This guy can explain some other problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l5qN5nrm-g

Ok well this is obviously going nowhere. It's been fun.

Do you actually care about what really happened? Why do you give NIST so much credit when they didn't use ANY physical evidence?

Sure.

Why do I give NIST credit, well their data and processes are all out there in the public domain and can be peer reviewed to determine if it is accurate which is how science should be done.

To pose a similar question. Why should I trust you? What credentials do you have? So far all you have done is completely misunderstand the concept of computer modeling, cherry pick data from NIST while simultaneously insinuating they are unreliable, claimed that NIST did not look at a shred of physical evidence (seems unlikely but if you have proof go ahead and source it), and refused to source the quotes that you are providing. So far you are not very high on my trustworthiness index.

And they have been peer reviewed. I guess you didn't watch that video.

Nope I definitely did not.

28. NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence.

u didn't no?

Nope, not that it changes my opinion.

You still have not given me a reason why I should believe you. You also haven't refuted any of the work that NIST has done. I also can't help but notice you haven't sourced the quote that you provided from the head of NIST (and even if you do source you have already misconstrued it to use it as proof that any building in free fall must have been a controlled demolition.)

Use Google and prove me wrong then!

NIST never proved anything in the first place.

So you don't care if a claim of an unprecedented phenomenon has any physical evidence? Can you state that explicitly, please?

Why don't you call the NTSB and say they're wasting money collecting airplane wreckage, because all they need is computers? I think they'll laugh at you, but if you really think so you have a duty to American taxpayers to do so.

What's your educational background?

If I were a zoologist, you'd believe my picture of a unicorn wasn't a horse? You wouldn't demand any physical evidence because of my credentials? I would just have to show you the picture and describe the unicorn's anatomy and behavior?

What's your educational background?

Why? Because you don't care about evidence, as long as an authority tells you what to think?

What's your educational background?

I'll take that as a yes. See ya later, bootlicker.

What's your educational background?

If I take a picture of a horse with a horn, you'll believe it's a unicorn without a physical exam or DNA analysis?

Any period of free fall may be an indicator for free fall but they cover the events leading up the the 3 stage collapse event the rest of the report. I don't really understand what case you are arguing for anymore. When you say there is no evidence for something and then someone brings evidence, you can't just say that evidence has no basis in reality without providing an argument for that statement. Where's your evidence that it was a controlled demolition. For every "eyewitness" that said they heard explosions there are others that heard nothing and video footage where there are no explosions heard.

You never provided any evidence, just repeated NIST's claims.

Is NIST's computer model based on any physical evidence? Yes or no?

If a tall building catches on fire, is there a significant chance that it will rapidly, totally collapse? Yes or no?

If a tall building rapidly, totally collapsed, is there a good chance that explosives were used? Yes or no?

You are asking extremely simple questions that don't model the events and then making a leap to controlled demolition backed up by the answers to those two not based in reality questions. Not to mention they were addressed in the report.

The answers to your questions are yes, maybe and maybe.

You used the term "any evidence" lead the reader to a "no" answer but of course they used physical evidence. NIST's computer model is based on the blueprints for the building and the evidence that they could gather from video footage of the collapse and events leading to it.

Why did you use the term "significant chance"? To lead the reader to a "no"? The building didn't just catch on fire then fall and the chance isn't significant but it is just something that can happen if the right circumstances are met. Again they went over what they think happened based on the evidence they could gather and what other things that may have probably happened in the report.

I don't know how the first two questions lead to this question but whatever. When a building totally collapses and there is a demolition crew at the building and city permits for a demolition then there is a 100% chance that explosives where used. But if the question is just about a building collapsing then no there isn't a "good chance" of explosives being used it's just one of the many options.

they went over what they think happened based on the evidence they could gather and what other things that may have probably happened in the report.

Science doesn't care if you have an excuse for not having evidence. You've just admitted, too, that their conclusions prove nothing.

But if the question is just about a building collapsing then no there isn't a "good chance" of explosives being used it's just one of the many options.

What options? What has been proven to cause rapid, total, vertical skyscraper collapse besides explosives (more precisely: applied energy)? It's the only known cause, so it's the only conclusion you can rationally make unless you can rule it out or prove something else. You haven't and NIST didn't. You can't demonstrate that it's even possible.

This is a totally disingenuous argument. In the final WTC7 report, even NIST acknowledges that there were 2.25 seconds of free fall. Arbitrarily tacking seconds on the front or back, and then averaging it out to something less than free fall is fucking ridiculous. I don't even know how to put it--it's so intellectually dishonest I'm literally nonplussed.

No one can argue that the entire perimeter structure, composed of dozens of massive steel columns, dropped through itself at free fall for 100 ft, as though a full 8 stories of the underlying structure ceased to exist in an instant.

well this is sort of the point... conspiracy videos of the collapse often omit the collapse of the "penthouse" on top. It inwardly collapsing into the interior some seconds before the facade follows. (Enough that you can't say the whole building fell in free fall.. it quite noticeably falls in stages. I agree the facade falls like free fall.) The facade does indeed fall like a house of cards because some seconds before the internals of the building collapsed first, destroying the interior, as evidenced by the roof giving way before the outward walls have even moved.

What you're describing is what I like to call Wile E. Coyote physics.

Basically you're saying that the perimeter of the building lost all structural support (presumably over at least 8 floors) due to a progressive collapse of the interior structure, yet it remained standing, unaffected, until the last interior connection failed--and only then dropping like a block in free fall.

This can't happen IRL.

You're exaggerating my words somewhat. I've not said anything inconsistent with the NIST report. The collapse, they state, begins with the NE corner, then some seconds later from floor 13 and proceeds inwards falling quickly through already weakened flooring. In just speaking of it from what I can see in the video.. The roof top part in the corner falls noticeably in advance of the rest of the building by some clear seconds. Goodness knows how much of the structure is compromised in that first uneven collapse. A structurally compromised building falling in free fall is hardly surprising. It's just that conspiracy videos seem to present it as if it went from solid to free call collapse in an instant rather than what clearly happens which is a partial collapae due to failure somewhere followed by everything else tumbling after.

A structurally compromised building falling in free fall is hardly surprising.

That's where we disagree. Any intact structure will resist the collapse and thus prevent free fall. In the WTC7 case at least 8 stories of intact structure effectively disappears and evidenced by the 2.25 seconds of free fall that even NIST acknowledged.

It's just that conspiracy videos seem to present it as if it went from solid to free fall collapse in an instant.

It doesn't matter that portions of the building were already collapsing. Even if the entire interior had collapsed into the basement, the perimeter structure still can't free fall right down through itself.

Any intact structure will resist the collapse and thus prevent free fall.

This isn't quite right on 2 counts. First, a building like this is only design to support static loads and a limited amount of dynamic forces due to wind etc. It's absolutely not designed to put up even a seconds worth of resistance to an entire floor collapsing on it.

Second, in addition to the above, the joints were already weakened by the fire. Whatever strength was initially in the building was reduced by the time floor 13 was collapsing.

If you watch the video, the first to bit collapsing appears to be the "floor 13" girder giving way that NIST refer to. This collapse proceeds for a couple of seconds, mostly out of view, before internally compromising the structure enough that the bottom gives out. Once the lower part of facade buckled even an inch there's no way it was going to go at anything other than freefall after that. The girders are design to support a floor and office furniture, not stop several thousand tons of moving metal and concrete.

It's absolutely not designed to put up even a seconds worth of resistance to an entire floor collapsing on it.

I'm not an expert, however I tend to think that if the entire supporting structure of a single floor were to give way simultaneously--that is every core and perimeter column buckling more or less at the same time--then the momentum accumulated by the building falling as a single block onto the intact structure below could very well cause a global, symmetrical collapse.

Problem is it's inconceivable that each of the dozens of supporting perimeter and core columns would give way at more or less the same time due to scattered office fires. Obviously.

Once the lower part of facade buckled even an inch there's no way it was going to go at anything other than freefall after that.

Nonsense. Even NIST agreed that the falling North Tower block needed to accelerate downwards through an entire floor to generate the momentum to initiate a global collapse. See Bazant and Zhou.

What's more buildings have to be able to withstand earthquakes in which the ground might rise and drop more waaaay more than an inch. To say that a drop of one inch in free fall is enough to take out an entire steel framed building is ludicrous--let alone in a symmetrical free fall.

In their FAQ NIST states plainly that damage from the falling debris did not contribute significantly to the collapse. It was, they claim, strictly fire induced, and that the building would have collapsed regardless.

Why would they fly two planes into two buildings, but not the third?

WT-7 was damaged by falling debris - how did they make that happen? Telepathy?

Use your brain, son.

Lol, official story supporters don't even know the official story!

"The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." -NIST

Yes, as I said wt7 was damaged. Thanks for acknowledging it was. But that's not the point:

I'm asking you how did the damage occur, since you like to pretend me you know something. So, please tell us.

How did they make it happen? They flew planes into the two other 'controlled demolition' buildings to hide the crimes, so how did they make sure WT7 was also damaged.

Was it telepathy?

um, you can see on tape that WTC1 and 2 exploded violently, throwing heavy building components in every direction. The damage to WTC7 is easily explained by detonation of explosives inside WTC1.

How do you explain heavy building pieces being thrown hundreds of feet with enough force to cause severe structural damage to WTC7 (as most official storytards believe happened)?

How did they make sure it got damaged?

Are you saying that the people who flew two planes into two buildings left it to complete chance that the third building would be damaged?

Use your brain, son. Does that sound realistic, in any way?

you have an interesting epistemology. retarded, but interesting.

So you don't have an answer for this gaping anus of a hole in your story. None of you ever do.

Use your brain, son. When there's a part of your story that is clearly broken, your story is wrong.

Glad I could educate you.

you never actually made a point or scientific argument. make an argument and i'll respond to it. honestly though, you come across as mentally disabled. if that's the case, i'm sorry for using the word retarded.

The fact that you tried to answer my argument proves even you know you aren't telling the truth.

The fact that you failed to provide an answer that makes sense means your story is broken.

Use your brain, champ.

No, please, state your argument clearly and succinctly.

Already have, multiple times, as you know.

It's ok that you can answer it. No one can. You tried and failed once already.

Use your brain. Your story is broken.

if i missed it among your incoherent ramblings, please be so kind as to copy and paste it for me.

You already tried to answer it!

Just go up to the start of this thread. It's easy to follow:

I asked you questions.

You tried to deflect by arguing something completely different.

I repeated my questions.

You have a silly answer.

I shot it down.

You abandoned your argument, and started with the insults.

I accepted your defeat.

You kept with the insults, although it didn't work the first time.

I didn't let you get the last word.

You claim there never was an argument, despite already trying to answer it.

It's a pity, really. I've posed the same argument to many if you truthers, and all of you run away from it. No one has ever been able to invent an answer to what is such an obvious hole in their conspiracy.

I'll allow you the last word now.

so you never made an argument? If you did, prove it. what thefuck claim are you making?

He's asking how did the government make sure that WTC7 would get damaged by debris. If they wanted to use structural damage as the excuse for the contolled demolition and they wanted to blame the damage on falling debris, how does the government makes sure that the debris falls specifically on WTC7. If it's all a conspiracy then the government must have known that debris would damage WTC7 where it did, but this type of foresight is just ridiculous. And you must be projecting with that insult.

but they didn't use structural damage as an excuse for the WTC7 collapse.

Why would they fly two planes into two buildings, but not the third?

United 23 might have been intended for WTC7. Or, (my pet theory) WTC1 was supposed to collapse on impact and "take out" WTC7 on it's way down.

I don't have the energy to do this anymore, but I'm glad somebody does. Not that anyone here is gonna listen, obviously we're all CTR shills or whatever, but thanks for this post.

Ok what the hell is CTR?

Currency transaction report. It's a way to keep track of where money comes from

CTR stands for Correct the Record, a superpac specifically designed, and this is taken from their homepage, "To be the Ministry of Truth for liberal ideals"

"Correct The Record" it's a PAC that was around during the election, they worked for clinton to "correct" online stuff. They'd upvote/down vote stuff on reddit to try and push their own narratives.

Yeah that's totally unlike the Russians posting fake shit over and over to scam you into voting for someone who will destabilize your country isn't it?

It's not?

I think your comment just made everyone in this thread a tad stupider.

If you can believe that CTR has and still trolls r/conspiracy threads, but that Russians wouldn't post fake news to influence public opinion in the US election, than you my friend are the one who is stupid.

I thought it stood for "Clinton Thought Robots" for a while...

Do you happen to know what the fuck is ShariaBlue?

I guess it's just CTR under a different name.

Why? The election is over

Getting people to accept your narrative is a super powerful tool. This is an over exaggeration, but if I could personally push what stories I want people to see I could really influence how a lot of people think. If I got all of my information from just one source, I'd have a pretty narrow view, if that same source was actually pushing stories from 5-6 different news sources, I'd "think" I had a pretty well rounded view, but really I have just as narrow of a view as the other guy. Maybe I want you to read about X insignificant story so you don't really focus on some bill that was just passed. Not saying ShariaBlue is doing all this, just commenting on why people would want to.

What is shariablue?

"was" ?

They are still here. In full force.

Allegedly. I've never seen any actual evidence they did anything but run a low traffic blog whose goal was to publish articles "correcting" misconceptions about Clinton. Their mission statement got posted a lot early on, and combined with a huge amount of speculation and inferences, to become a boogeyman for any opinion certain people didn't like.

You're right, I have no proof (although I think I remember some of the leaked emails talking about it). I guess I personally saw it in reddit, shortly after they formed lots of anti-trump or pro-hillary posts would get really big swings, or you'd end up seeing the exact same post in a few different different subs posted at the same time by very similarly formed user names, like (Name-two digit number-state appreciation, like Matt67OH and Bob16TX)

Have you looked into your own username?

No, but this user name is about 20 years old. It was my AIM screen name and I've used it for just about everything else.

Purchasing old Reddit accounts isn't enough proof?

Google Correct the Record

A boogeyman used to discredit anything one disagrees with

A boogeyman which actually exists, much like the real boogeyman, alfred fish.

TIL Hillary's superpac social media interns are cannibalistic child molestors

Well, you used the word 'boogeyman' meaning something that doesn't exist, but actually did exist.

Crash Team Racing.

Best video game kart racer, in my opinion. /r/crashbandicoot would challenge /r/mariokart to a duel over it.

Crickets from OP on the best argument against his bullshit.

Calling crickets only an hour after this comment was posted??? Frankly I would be worried if serious time wasn't spent on a proper rebuttal, sources also help rather than just saying "Lie." after every statement.

Though some points are credible, you lose me at "Lie." with nothing further.

Agreed. Someone can be wrong rather than lying about it. Maybe op is simply mistaken on these points or maybe he's correct. Why assume he's being dishonest though?

How can you provide a source on something that was never said or done?

Let's ask CNN!

LOOOOOOOOL

Enjoy your downvotes and welcome to /r/conspiracy. Glad to have you here.

Completely agree. He just dismissing OP's arguments with no rebuttal at all... So0o0o convincing

How can he prove that those things didnt happen? Its up to OP to provide proof.

That's not how reddit works. A lot of us have been here long enough to have already seen the proof posted by OP, we are a conspiracy community, we've researched this stuff.

It's like, I don't go to a post about rebuilding a transmission on a mechanics forum and ask for cited sources for each point, a lot of the things in the post will be self evident to the mechanics. We are not required to bring people up to speed who snobbily dismiss the post by calling it unsourced.

Truthfully OP and twsmith are both right on a lot of points, but smith is mostly calling out OP on semantics and creating strawmen. For example, he completely dismissed OPs point that the building was condemned for asbestos. The building hadn't actually been condemned at that point, but there were several assessments showing that legally the asbestos in the building HAD to be removed. He dismissed the whole point because OP used the word "condemned" but the jist of what he was saying was right.

OP was also right that the office fires were tiny compared to dozens of other cases of steel-framed highrises that suffered far more fire damage yet their structural steel remained completely intact.

Right- but instead of you just telling me they were condemned, if you provided a respectable source then you'd have a much stronger argument to people who are just being exposed to the idea.

So the statement 'Lie' is a credible source to you, but not statements that are easily verifiable through Google, or your local library? Lol

The first page of google had no sources, and I'm not gonna go to the library. If you're gonna make a statement about information which is not commonly held, back it up. Otherwise its just an opinion.

No kidding. The "lie" thing irritated me. That's the best way to have a serious rebuttal with someone? Imagine that taking place face-to-face.

"LIAR"

not cool.

You can actually watch the trump v Hillary debate to see exactly that.

All he did was say things were lies with no backup. If that's the "best argument", then call me Barak Obama.

All OP did was say things were true with no backup. I'm not sure what kind of evidence people are supposed to provide that something is false, when no evidence was given that the claim was true in the first place.

Not disagreeing with you but simply calling something a lie doesnt make it so. If you're going to disagree with a point someone made you should be saying why.

Hitchen's razor - What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But OP have justifications for his claims...

Account has 2 posts and 0 comments for its first 9 years of existence. Now seems to be a full time r/conspiracy debunker and arguer, very active for the past year or so. Maybe you're a shill, maybe you just decided to start spending several hours a week arguing on r/conspiracy. You seem like a smart person but either way it looks suspect. Why the sudden change after 9 years?

I originally set this username up to say more controversial things, but after about a week, I decided it was too much work, so fuck it.

So I just used my main account until it got banned by reddit admins in the great Sandy Hook ban of Feb 1, 2014, where they banned a lot of people.

So now I use this one.

I love the job you did on this but some references would've moved it to Awesome-Tier.

Fuck it, I'll take on your bullshit even though conveniently OP set you up by adding unnecessary false claims, disinformation and rumors.

Insurance policy details are irrelevant. Larry was a part of the NWO secret society of scumbags that planned and executed the attacks, he played his smaller part in the operation knowing full well what he was getting out of it, a fortune, and the advanced agenda of the NWO being moved forward.

Larry being in the mob is disinformation bullshit and irrelevant.

The collapse time is irrelevant, again this is just to distract.

Few tiny office fires or blazing inferno doesn't matter, again more distraction to keep people arguing over minutia details, as in what caused the collapse rather than who planned the collapse.

Who designed the "freedom" tower or whether or not it's "Orwelian" again, irrelevant.

Did he come out ahead? OF COURSE. If you know anything about real estate and finance (and I own 16 properties) you would know this was a MASSIVE win for Lucky Larry.

No one wanted office space in those overpriced outdated shithole buildings with all the new shiny competition around Manhattan, they were losing money and needed hundreds of millions of dollars in code updates.

NO ONE could have afforded to renovate those buildings and ever make money in a thousand years. To take over those buildings when Larry did was the worst move in real estate history, and you can ask ANY property expert. No one in their right mind would have put together the deal Larry did with all the information that was available.

He got to destroy old buildings no one wanted to rent in, and current renters were leaving, and rebuild new state of the art buildings to earn massive rents off of for his company for the next 100 years.

He put up virtually no funding of his own to acquire those buildings, it was all finance. The bank gave him the loans to repay over decades, the insurance paid the banks off, Lucky Larry reaps the rewards of a real estate empire.

Don't be stupid.

The one day Larry is not at the towers is the day they collapse. Also his children who were also there working at those times everyday were miraculously late for work for the first time.

Anyone who can look at the FACTS, not rumors or disinformation about the Lucky Larry real estate deal and think he's not involved in the plot is a shill or someone intentionally not willing to look at the facts objectively.

Larry was used to take control of the buildings and allow the necessary people access to the buildings. He has been rewarded incredibly for it, the part he didn't plan on was ever being accused, he thought his buddies would have done a far better job pinning the attacks on some brown guys.

So Larry wants to destroy a building. He decides the most cost effective, risk averse, and technically feasible solution is to orchestrate 9/11.

Are you fucking kidding me.

Larry didn't orchestrate 911 or come up with it, he's just one of the many players in the total operation.

I earn more money in a year than you will likely earn in your entire life, you have no idea how many wealthy powerful people are doing awful things.

There is nothing more dangerous than a billionaire nihilist. When you fear no retribution, when life is a game of grand theft auto to you with no consequences, you will do horrible things.

I earn more money in a year than you will likely earn in your entire life

That's nice.

you have no idea how many wealthy powerful people are doing awful things.

There is a sinister corrupt rogue nation hiding within trying to enslave the world with every mind control, economy destroying, hysteria creating, drug addicting trick known to man.

k

I'm just gonna mention this because I've been on the recieving end of replies like these a few times now. Whether you intend to or not, it comes across really aggressive when you quote someone and simply say "Lie."

Like, maybe he read that off some conspiracy site with no sources and he thought it was true. Do you really think he made up a ton of lies for internet points? There are less aggressive ways to tell him he's wrong while still engaging in a civil discussion that might actually inspire some people to think differently. Instead this is just gonna make the dude mad and no one will change a damn thing about themselves.

Dismissing something by saying "lie" just destroys any credibility. Try again.

you say WTF-7 didn't fall in 6.5 seconds but most videos/sources i see show that to be the case, care to provide evidence of your claim? i would like to see more information about it if possible

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5wnku2/just_a_reminder_that_larry_lucky_silverstein_who/debppbe/

STOP THE PRESS! Successful businessman makes sound business decisions and has a dermatologist appointment. he must eat at the top of the towers every morning without fail and if he doesn't then something shady is going on

We're through the looking glass here, people!

I also love that people on here are like, "Why would he go to a dermatologist?? Seems suspect!"

Meanwhile older people should go to the dermatologist once a year. Skin cancer is a serious thing.

When you have that kind of money, you see the dermatologist a lot no matter how old you are. It goes a long way towards looking healthy and young.

When you have that kind of money, you can reschedule your appointment if you're really as busy as he claims.

"Larry Silverstein is a terrific owner in New York, and a very good friend of mine." -Donald Trump 9/11/01

"Larry Silverstein is a great guy. He's a good guy. He's a friend of mine." -Donald Trump 5/13/05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYOY4S1x8BU

Can you send screen shot of anybody saying this. Not doubting you, but just want to see.

I'm sure no abatement contractors use plastic sheeting to cover Silverstein's obligation to rebuild the WTC.

World Trade Center 7, the building that he confessed to demolishing

When and where was this confessed? I've never heard of a confession for building 7 before.

OP might be referring to this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I In demolition "Pull-it" is jargon for blow it up or bring it down. This isn't a term firefighters use.

Larry wasn't a fire fighter so him using the incorrect word in this clip doesn't fucking matter...

Yeah, he was obviously a moron billionaire completely unversed in building terminology. Even though tons of normal people know that common terminology, he was just an ignorant kind of guy.

'It' being the operation to attempt to rescue others and put of the fire. As in "Pull the operation, (I feel you've done all you can)"

English is a complex language which can be easily misinterpreted. In every day situations this is can be ignored but under these life and death circumstances it can be easy to use confirmation bias you hold against someone to attempt to see it as part of a circuitous conspiracy.

So he's too ignorant to understand the terms correctly but uses them correctly elsewhere. Really sound logic there, Mr. Cochrane.

"It" doesn't have to be referring to multiple people. Pull "the firefighting operation. This doesn't seem to be working" is essentially what they are saying he is saying here.

is essentially what they are saying he is saying here.

How could you possibly know that?

What? I am not taking any side on this. I am trying to explain what other posters meant in this thread when they offer their alternative explanation for "pull it." Calm down.

I am trying to explain

No, you made a factual claim about what they were 'essentially saying'.

You're just pretending to not have a dog in this fight.

Because I have not made factual claims.

See edit, my mistake.

I'd never heard that term until this post.

Do you announce that every time you personally encounter something you were unaware of? Must get old.

Yes it does. You can't just say it doesn't matter because it doesn't fit your narrative.

And you can't say it has hidden meanings just so it fits yours

It's more plausible to associate the term pull it with demolition than to associate it with firefighting.

I can't believe you just used the word "plausible"

I can't believe a guy in a cave orchestrated the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

You're projecting here.

Saying it doesn't matter is simply irrational thinking.

Or it isn't and is rational to not assume things beyond a reasonable amount.

Put 2 and 2 together.

You're basically saying you found a piece of sand on a road and saying that means either a desert or a beach is nearby and its irrational to think anything else.

Not really. Because this isn't the the only a look at to justify that 9/11 is an inside job.

But this is one of the most reaching conspiracy theories out there related to it. Most have some decent evidence or 'evidence' behind them but this part is mostly just a joke and tons of way over assumptions. The very first part that says he made money isn't even true and has been debunked plenty of times in this thread. If he didnt make money, why even do it?

Not saying this is the underlying theory that puts the whole puzzle together. Its simply strange and he might have accidentally let the truth slip. If he didn't make money why even do it? That is like asking why did we go into Iraq even though we lost more than what we got. Sometimes miscalculations are made nothing goes according to plan.

The only thing that apparently connects him is, 1. He didn't die there. 2. He had insurance he was required to have anyway, which paid him a good amount of money he probably would have made anyway that he then had to put back into rebuilding some of the WTC towers and 3. he said two words that are associated with demolition but are also associated with a lot of other professions and can easily be said in a high stress scenario.

There's pretty much no conclusive evidence that he was related. Yeah there are a lot of fishy parts with 9/11 and probably some parts of the government were related (they sure as hell took advantage of it) but this is just grasping at straws.

1. He, his son, and his daughter all work in the WTC. None of them showed up that day. Not saying this is conclusive evidence to his involvement. It's simply strange and as we call him... Larry "lucky" Silverstein.

You have to be a firefighter to speak English properly and understand a verb vs a pronoun?

The question is why he used "it" instead of "them". Both those words are pronouns so your comment makes zero sense.

Your momma is a pronoun

His referring to Silverstein saying "pull it" to the fire Marshall - by which he meant "stop trying to fight the fire and pull out the firefighters", but which some people interpret as him "clearly" ordering the fire Marshall to demolish the building with planted explosives while being recorded.

Wrong. Sometimes you can't help yourself and let the the truth out. Pull it is a term used in demolition, it is not used with firefighters. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

So are you saying Larry was a fire fighter? Because your arguement about him using the incorrect verb really only makes sense if he was a fire fighter.

Why would you use the term "pull it" with firefighters if it's a term firefighters don't use themselves?

He's not a demolitionist, either.

Not saying he did or didn't conspire to take down WTC7, but I don't think this one phrase is much proof of anything.

Why would this guy know that? Maybe he isn't using firefighter or demolition jargon.

Jesus. Have shills invaded this subreddit?

Why do people call people they disagree with "shills"? Do you think I'm being payed to say things? If you look at an account it's pretty easy to tell if it's legitimate, there's no need to call us shills.

Alright. Instead of shill I'll just call you cuck.

That one I've never really gotten. Like, why cuck? Why take a relatively unknown fetish and decide it applies to anybody you disagree with? Why did chuck become the go to insult for a liberal?

I think you're taking my insults to heart a little too much. Btw I am a liberal and I didn't even use that insult towards you because you are a liberal. Why you might ask? Well because I had no clue where on the political spectrum you are. But thanks for telling me lol.

I'm not talking about what you said, I'm saying in general cuck is usually used on liberals. But regardless, how does not believing in a conspiracy make me a cuck or shill?

I was using those words more specifically towards those who were down voting me because they disagreed with me. The down vote button is there for people who don't contribute to conversation, not for those with differing opinions. I didn't down vote anyone who rebutted anything I said.

Ah, ok. Honestly I agree on that point, I hate getting lots of downvotes for having a different opinion.

Well at least we agree on something lol.

Look at it from another angle, then. So let's assume Larry and the fire Marshall and all the firemen were in cahoots. They pretended to fight the fire, but really were planting explosives. They all swore to secrecy, and not one of them ever broke this pact of secrecy.

The one problem? On camera, the leader of this conspiracy, was recorded giving an order to "pull it," the official term for demolishing a building.

Come on man.

Lol were did anyone say they were planting explosives? You can't do a controlled demolition over night. It takes MONTHS to weaken a structure and rig it with explosives.

I am glad to reword what I said, based on your last comment.

Look at it from another angle, then. So let's assume Larry and the fire Marshall were in cahoots. They pretended to fight the fire, but the real plan was to detonate explosives that some amount of people had previously planted. Larry, the Marshall, and anyone involved with planting the explosives all swore to secrecy, and not one of them ever broke this pact of secrecy.

The one problem? On camera, the leader of this conspiracy, was recorded giving an order to "pull it," the official term for demolishing a building.

Come on man.

No one pretend to fight a fire. I never said that.

How about now?

Look at it from another angle, then. So let's assume Larry and the fire Marshall were in cahoots. The plan was to detonate explosives that some amount of people had previously planted. Larry, the Marshall, and anyone involved with planting the explosives all swore to secrecy, and not one of them ever broke this pact of secrecy.

The one problem? On camera, the leader of this conspiracy, was recorded giving an order to "pull it," the official term for demolishing a building.

Come on man.

Either you believe that. Or you believe Larry Silverstein gave orders to firefighters to get out of a building because they couldn't contain the fires. Then the building fell because of hot office fires into its own footprint. Firefighters don't use the term pull it, its not in their vernacular.

It's not like people who aren't in a certain profession will still know all the typical vernacular related to that profession and properly use it in emergency situations right?

I never said all. Pull it is a very specific term.

No it's really not, its also used in shooting, many STEM fields, the porn industry, movie development, sailing,a lot of other professions and common conversation for the past several hundred years. Like the word or term pull is hardly specific to demolition.

Now you're simply being biased.

How is that bias?

Because this situation clearly has nothing to with porn etc.

But that's not what bias is. You claimed pull was a very specific term when clearly that's not true.

Specific term to the situation.

Still not biased and still not very specific.

There's just nowhere near enough evidence to point to a specific word tying him to all this.

Right. Its more like all the coincidences. Not saying he was totally all in, just saying its a possibility you can't rule out.

To "pull" a building is to demolish it, as in pull it down. That's common vernacular in the trade. That's what he meant. Why would he have said "pull it" if he was referring to firefighters (plural)?

So you're implying that FDNY was in on it and demolished the building?

"told him to pull it, and then we watched it come down." I mean what else can you say, are you really that ignorant?

There are two possibilities:

A) Larry Silverstein, billionaire mass murderer and key architect behind one of the greatest crimes in US history, which has involved 16 years of cover up and involved at least many dozens of people planting explosives for a controlled demolition, accidentally revealed the whole thing during an interview.

B)Larry Silverstein used language you find to be untraditional during an interview when referring to pulling out the firefighters and abandoning the rescue mission of the building.

BUT HE'S A JEW!?!?

JEWS DID 7/!!?

It's like these people don't know what Occam's Razor is.

Your argument here boils down to "which one sounds more likely", while you ignore the fact that there is a huge amount of context not included in your comment that directly and indirectly supports the evidence of possibility A. Larry could have also easily been referring to the firefighters in the interview but was really referring to the building when he said it earlier in real life (the reason for this discrepancy being obvious), which is a third plausible chain of events you have not considered.

This, combined with the cost of renovating the floors for asbestos is one of the biggest 'coincidences' for me.

There sure are a whole lot of non-conspiracy posters here today.

I think most of us were pointing out OPs misunderstanding of how insurance works and why sometimes there are higher requirements (previous terrorist attacks). His incompetence with recouping losses via insurance is gross at best, but OP didn't even take into account the total loss of "Lucky" from income over 10 years, having to pay for rebuild, and having to pay for original loan.

I think almost all of us agree inside job.

Perhaps, or maybe when you've been visiting this sub for many years, have most of the regular commenters tagged or voted on, and see a thread with hundreds of people who are unmarked, things just get a little more than suspicious.

Or this is one of few conspiracy posts to reach /r/all bringing in a wider audience for this one particular post. Actually nah probably all paid shills

Anyone who doesn't mindless believe conspiracies are shills duh.

They were here yesterday during the Pewdiepie thread too. It is upsetting that they are fucking with communities I enjoy visiting. They are pretty easy to spot though.

I understand the insurance thing, but the fact that his kids weren't there either seems very suspect. Especially since they normally had a meeting at 8 o'clock and the planes didn't hit until 8:45. That's really fucking "lucky" or at least one of them knew it was going to happen.

It's on /all dumbass.

It is now, you're late to the party. But cool insult bro.

I think most of us

At least you're not denying it...

Pointing out flaws in logic doesn't mean you're a 'non-conspriacy' poster.

This hit r/all , that's probably why

makes sense, didn't notice it had over 2k upvotes. thanks.

Not shareblue, but the disrespect for thousands of lives displayed on this subreddit is enough to make me come to the comments from r/all

What disrespect?

If there's any truth to be found wouldn't the people in this sub be honoring the dead by trying to find the truth rather than ignoring anything that might not add up?

Are you trying to say that people should not question anything of someone has died out of respect for the deceased?

Because if that's what your saying, that's retarded.

I mean you can be interested in conspiracies and not buy into every single theory you could find on the Internet. The text for this post in particular seems quite leading.

It's almost like Reddit has a section that aggregates highly up voted posts from all subreddits. Oh wait, that's how I got here, browsing /r/all. And now I've been scrolling through the tire-fire of idiocy going on in the comments. Congratulations, by the way, your comment is the one dumb enough that I just had to respond.

"non-conspiracy" aka "people who disagree with me" aka "non-conformists."

discussion on pizzagate and white hats gain you 0-100 upvotes tops. But 9/11 posts, 4k+ upvotes with comments gaining 1.5k upvotes.

their shit's weak!

Wow. This is the one guy who must loooove AL qaeda. Or at least one of the few guys who doesn't hate them.

the "jews did 9/11" /pol/ meme is infact real

The real conspiracy is that tons of /pol/lacks are also redditors

was he called "lucky Larry" before this, if he was then this would be normal for him I guess.

Don't forget. His daughter and son also didn't show up to the WTC on 9/11.

I bet his dog didn't either. Fucking horrifying

Very facetious.

I bet his mother and corpse grandmother didn't appear either. His hairdresser also likely stayed home. So many coincidences. We need to get Scoob and the gang down here to investigate.

Lol. Why would his mother be there? His daughter and son work in the WTC.

iirc, one major issue with the 9/11 attacks and why the towers fell was that the asbestos covering the steel support beams had already been removed, exposing them to the heat of the burning jet fuel, which weakened them and resulted in the collapse. People should get a grip when it comes to asbestos - it really doesn't need to be removed in most cases, and it serves an important function.

Whoah, this would definitely change my opinion on the whole "thermal expansion" excuse for the collapse. I've always wonders why would the towers react differently than other skyscraper fires? There are plenty of examples of buildings of similar size and construction being on fire for entire days and not collapsing, but take away all of the fire resistant insulation and now you have a decent excuse.

I don't think it was a conspiracy or inside job. I do have questions however. Say the jet fuel on fire was enough to melt the beams, the beans closest give way first. Then beams farther away. Why did the upper floors collapse straight down? The plane was not in the very center of the building. Heat did not get evenly distributed towards all four sides of the building. How then does it drop in a straight line, shouldn't one side have collapsed first? Then the opposite side.

I think it's reasonably plausible that your understanding of how it "should have" happened might be flawed. I have questions as well, but mostly about everything that came before Al Qaeda forms and everything that comes immediately after 9/11.

The planes didnt stick in one side of the building like a dart. They disintegrated in a big fireball, blasting out a dozen floors. The fires werent isolated. And the steel doesnt have to be anywhere near melting temperature before losing strength.

I will correct my previous comment - asbestos abatement was not done prior to the 9/11 attacks at either wtc tower. The issue was that due to asbestos hysteria in the early 1970's, asbestos fireproofing had only been applied to the 1st through 64th floors. I have no idea how that made any sense. Here's a link for more info about how asbestos fireproofing was never applied to the 64th floor & up at either tower from the time they were built: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/09/14/asbestos-could-have-saved-wtc-lives.html My apologies, I was mistaken about the asbestos having been removed prior to 9/11, the reality is that it had never been applied to the floors 65 and up in the first place. Here's another article that says more about how and why asbestos fireproofing was not used as it should have been: https://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/asbestos-fireproofing-might-have-prevented-world-trade-center-collapse

What an(other) incredibly fortunate "coincidence".

Happens to be Jewish......

Oy vey it's anuddah shoah

These are the guys funding Trump's administration

Now this is a conspiracy

These are the kind of conspiracies that make actual conspiracy theorists look bad. So many of the things you say are extremely biased without supporting evidence. Also you must be a child to have forgotten about the WTC bombing. Don't you think a rational person would get a terrorism insurance policy? Wouldn't you try to claim it as two attacks to get more money? Being greedy is just plain nature.

I don't believe in coincidences.

(((Lucky)))

Your edit is pretty cringy.

Lucky? I hate going to the dermatologist.

silverstein didnt have 1 policy. he had 20+ overlapping policies from several insurers.

I wonder how he knew there would.be an attack that day?

(he didn't)

How do y know?

not only that but he had invited quite a list of quests to join him for breakfast at windows on the world that morning that he bowwed out

DAMN

ps the other end of that insurance ....HK

"Pull it. Pull it."

Silverstein is just part of the story of the New Pearl Harbor

savage

what i find strange is that he was outbid by Vornado for the property, yet it will was still given to Silverstein Properties (beyond the billion other things). If New York was sooooo strapped for cash, why would they not go with the highest bid?

Source?

Go under the World Trade Center, literally easy to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center.[16] Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[17] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

All of the sudden a very wealthy company "withdrew" their bid at the last minute. They withdraw was never explained.

Thank you. :)

No problem, the whole award of the bid is fishy from jump, which means from the get go, this was fishy. IMO it appears they selected a firm that would comply and be quiet over the lowest bid

The didn't just give it to Silverstein. The port authority tried several times to negotiate with Vornado. Vornado kept beating around the bush and annoyed the port authority. It reads to me like Vornado (Steven Roth) didn't have all his backers lined up with his vision. He was trying to make a huge real estate play and it failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/nyregion/world-trade-center-deal-remains-in-doubt.html

Theres a lot more to a bid than dollar amounts.

Just playing Devils advocate here, wouldn't it make more sense for Larry to be referring to pulling firefighters out of the building? Because I really can't imagine a man who pulled off the biggest crime of the 21st century would be dumb enough to say he demolished his building on air. And why would he tell the firefighters to demolish the building?

Firefighters are neither qualified nore authorized to "pull" buildings.

That was my understanding. he couldve meant "pull" as in "pull away from."

He said "PULL IT".

Still. Pull it could refer to "it" as the operation the firefighters were conducting. "It" could refer to the team that was in there. "It" could refer to any number of more plausible things than a mass murderer outing his whole operation on TV.

I'm not saying there's nothing fishy, just applying Occam's Razor. There are quite a few more simple explanations for what he said. Especially since, drawing on my small demolition experience, you have to set up these things months in advance. That would insinuate a multi-man operation standing by right next to ground zero on 9-11.

Oh man this is the entertainment I come here for lol what a nut

Very convenient

the only thing anybody can do ITT is whine about the terrorism clause in the insurance policy being justified. Quit deflecting

It isn't deflecting you ninny. It's a perfectly reasonable counter argument. It informs truth.

It's one point out of a page worth. No one addresses anything else. It's deflecting.

On of the top comments is arguing about asbestos, and there are plenty of comments about the dermatologist appointment too

Jesus. I can't believe how many Silverstein shills have come out of their caves to defend him.

Haha sure stirred up the hornets nest on this one.

anyone who disagrees with you is not automatically paid to do so

Yep. I'm paid by a billionaire to criticise random strangers.

Or, conversely I think this post is shit and OP is an idiot.

Show us the video where "the plane hit the side of the pentagon"

Is the consensus here that the gov't fired a missile at that part of the Pentagon to see how it would handle the damage?

I remember 2-3 eyewitness reports immediately after it happened saying that they thought it was a small plane or something similar -- no one mentioned a large jet flying toward and hitting the Pentagon until later.

New here, thanks.

The videos don't need to be released to appease a fringe section of society - it doesn't work like that. There are many eye witness accounts of a plane hitting the building, and many photographs of plane wreckage. Are these things both faked ??

rofllllllll, i cant believe someone actually believes a passenger jet hit the pentagon. are you a real person?

Hundred of videos were taken and not one can show the tail number of the plane. It's the fucking pentagon! haha do you know how many cameras are pointed on that building 24/7?!? And they chose to release the obstructed version of the video!?

If I were a government official being accused of conspiring the biggest terrorist attack in the US history, I would at least make an effort to shut the "fringe section of society" up.

All paid actors!! Everyone knows there were no planes. Wake up sheeple!!!

I'm completely against the idea it was an inside job, but I swear the UK newspapers had pictures of the pentagon with damage to it from the plane in 2001.

So he got money for tower 7 which fell on 9/11. Later he confessed he demolished it? Seems a little suspicious.

I'm really sorry for not contributing. I'm just wondering how you guys managed to get something on all without mentioning current politicians. Did you guys have a purge? Either way, its refreshing and really nice to see all of you talking about something different.

Is this what this sub has devolved into? Reigniting old 9/11 truther conspiracies from years ago?

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. It was a terrorist attack. The Pentagon wouldn't fly a plane into themselves and cause millions in damages as well as levelling two massive buildings and thousands of lives for...

Oh, right. Literally nothing. They got nothing out of it. I'll admit this guy is a bit shady, but he wasn't in contact with fucking Al Qaeda to help plan which day he should get a dentist appointment to avoid being hit by a plane.

The pentagon wouldn't do it, but people within the pentagon who had been embezzling funds and needed to squash the investigation could be involved.

And no one found any evidence of it? Damn, they must be great at hiding themselves from the entire US intelligence community while IN the US.

What if the evidence were in a one small section of the Pentagon and in some offices within the world trade center.

Embezzlement? If you mean Rumsfeld's speech on Sept 10, he was talking about outdated computer systems which were all incompatible. The transcript is available. Anyone who has worked in a large company knows what happens when someone champions a new IT system which can't talk to any of the others. That's what he was talking about.

Besides, why announce the motive in a speech the day before these extremely intricate attacks you've planned? It doesn't scan.

All this to hide embezzlement? They're bureaucrats, not Hydra.

Right, all on the up and up. It was just a computer glitch. With pallets of cash being flown around the world. No one would kill for that.

So people who couldn't even properly embezzle funds from the Pentagon succesfully orchestrated the most elaborate conspiracy in modern history?

Seems pretty successful to me.

Because you're a loser who spends their life consumed within a very specific and insulated pocket of society. The segments of society filled by useful people don't pay this shit any mind.

Useful people such as yourself don't pay it any mind? Do tell me more. Did you read the wonderful Popular Mechanics article on 9-11?

No, does that article magically make this not a fringe conspiracy theory that no one who's taken seriously takes seriously?

Edit: your smug attitude led me to believe there was an article in popular mechanics at least losses supporting the idea of a conspiracy but all there seems to be is articles debunking it. Is the fact that legitimate people and organizations feel the need to debunk these theories lend credibility to the theories themself?

Look at you, a useful member of society paying it some mind. You must have some extra time since the NFL season is over.

This smugness from people so ignorant is just so enjoyable - about that popular mechanics article though?

Edit: I think there may be also be some confusion about what I meant when I said 'useful people don't pay this shit any mind.' I didn't mean to say that people don't actually have to deal with and respond to the asinine things some conspiracy theorists say, just that they don't actually take the idea of 9/11 being a conspiracy seriously. Sorry for any confusion.

Also, I'm really more of an nba guy.

Hey, I suggested the article because I thought you would like it. Also because you should probably read a few more articles, your debunking is kind of weak and you resorted to name calling too soon. If your going to do this often, you gotta up your game.

I didn't try to debunk anything, you also never suggested any article, you just gave a name of a publication and then avoided giving a particular article when I asked for it.

Also, at what point is name calling okay? You poopy head

If not debunking, then what would you call it?

OK let's call my mocking statement that you think people who couldn't even embezzle funds from an organization that regularly has billions unaccounted for were able to pull off the most successful conspiracy theory in history an attempt at 'debunking'. What the fuck do you call your response of "seems prerty successful to me"? Is that what you think a refutation is? Because that's just making the assumption that it was actually a succesful conspiracy and then stating it like it's a point in an argument to support 9/11 being a conspiracy.

Seriously though, where is this article?

Which article? I thought you found the popular mechanics one. You could go to Snopes or something if your already completely convinced that such a conspiracy is impossible.

You know popular mechanics has more than one article on the topic? Your statement about the "wonderful article" made it seem you had one in particular in mind, which is why I kept asking. And I never said the conspiracy is inmpossible, the conspiracy is entirely possible, it's just not true. I think you may wanf try reading what people atuallu say bc you seem to struggle with reading comprehension (e.gm you insinuation in your last comment that there was only one popular mechanics article when I told you like 5 replies ago there were multiple)....

I just know that PM put quite a bit of energy into pushing the official narrative.

I would ask how you personally can feel so assured that you are qualified to know the truth in this instance.

What PM? I never PMed you, you weirdo.

I also love how you make the assumption everyone who doesn't think it's a conspiracy is just completely unversed in the conspiracy. Not that they have actually read about it and just decided against it.

I also love how you're trying to play up your own intelligence yet seem to think "seems pretty successful to me" was an actual counter to the single thing I have said that even comes close to being a point. Also that you smugly referenced that 'wonderful' popular mechanics article, seemingly just to highlight how well versed you are in the debunking, and then even after I point out to you there are numerous articles on the site, you continue to reference the single article, because apparently you read all your conspiracy blogs at a 3rd grade level.

Popular Mechanics. PM.

You sound a little upset. Is that what you look for by coming to conspiracy subreddit and trying to convince people that there isn't a conspiracy? Does insulting people on the internet fulfill some need for you?

Are we having a good time yet!?

Oh, so you were again just glossing over the fact that you thought it was only one article but there are more than one. Okay then.

And no, I don't even usually comment on reddit at all and very very very rarely on this sub bc I know it's generally impossible to even gain anything useful from people so indoctrinated, let alone convince them they could be wrong about something. I only commented on this particular thread because I had legitimately never heard before that the motivation for hitting the pentagon was to cover up embezzlement of funds within the pentagon. It seems so ridiculousness and over the top to me given how much money regularly goes missing within the pentagon (kinda like burning down your house over a hole in the wall), not to mention the fact that if someone wasn't able to embezzle money from the pentagon I seriously doubt their competency in pulling off and covering up this huge conspiracy, that I was honestly hoping to get some kind of a rationalization for this otherwise laughable belief. Instead I got your weird response of "seems pretty successful to me."

No I am not having any fun here.

Literally nothing. They got nothing out of it.

I mean, I'm no conspiracy theorist(hi from /r/all), but there were defense contractors who made quite a few buttloads of cash from those two little wars that we fought, one of which we're still kinda dealing with. It's not a feat of mental gymnastics to believe money went from defense contractors to shady government officials.

well damn, if you say it it must be true. conspiracy off guys

The conspiracy was a conspiracy of ass covering by the intelligence community who were guilty of systemic failures which left the country open to terrorist attack.

The CIA knew active cells were on US soil but wouldn't share with the FBI and then they lost track of them. Hence George Tenet's infamous quote when he saw the planes hitting the towers.

When the FBI got wind of AQ assets in the US it was given to one field office (NYC) and to a rookie agent.

FBI agent Harry Samit arrested Zaccarias Moussauoi but others in the DoJ wouldn't give him the warrant he needed to get into Moussauoi's personal belongings and computers because they were all CYA and didn't want to get done for profiling. Samit, a formal Naval aviator had a hunch they were planning some kind of hijack.

Etc...

They got to go to war which is profitable for many industries and im sure who ever planned had a stake in all of them

You guys who believe this are crazy.

Interesting name this silverstein dude has. "Silverstone" in german. Hm. Why is that the guys with the precious metals and the -bergs and such in their last names always win big every time? Why do they always profit of other peoples misery?

Really gets the synapses a-firin'!

Seeing building 7 fall the way it did and the circumstances around it made me rethink everything that happened on 9/11/2001.

Have you actually seen a full video of the collapse? Conspiracy theorists never show the penthouse collapsing into the centre of the building. They're intentionally misleading.

The sprinkler system had shut off and the building burned for hours, completely unfought. There are videos of firefighters watching the building burning and commenting that it was going to collapse, because it had a bulge and was leaning. The structural integrity was completely gone. It looked like it was going to collapse from fire, you just can't fake shit like that.

Everyone screams "tower 7, tower 7!" While only looking into one side of it. The problem with most conspiracy theorists is that they only show one side, and always try to reach specific conclusions.

https://i.imgur.com/DODSjK4.jpg

Did you even read the comment about only showing one side?

Each situation is unique, the buildings were constructed differently and should be judged independently of each other. You could burn 1000 steel framed buildings, one might fall down, that was building 7. WTC 7 was heavily damaged and burned out of control for hours, it is not unreasonable at all to think that it might collapse.

40,000 tons of steel will not budge from office fires.

But we seen it happen.

But we seen it happen.

NOT ONCE before 9/11.

Fires have burned similar structures for longer, hottter, with no collapse.

The fact it hadn't happened before doesn't really mean anything, it certainly doesn't mean that it can't happen.

The circumstances in each situation were unique, simply because one fell and others didn't doesn't prove, or even suggest it was a controlled demolition. That is a tremendous leap.

The fact it hadn't happened before means everything. It warrants a very thorough investigation. At best, these are the biggest engineering failures in skyscraper HISTORY.

You have an extremely small sample size, the only investigation that should potentially be done should be to prevent buildings from falling in the future. There should be NO investigation into controlled demolition, I don't even think it's a possibility that should be explored, that's how ridiculous it is.

The North and South towers were not designed to sustain the damage that they did on 9/11, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they fell. You cannot protect a building from every single thing that could possibly happen, they were well constructed buildings. They weren't designed to withstand impacts from the planes that ended up hitting them, and even then, everything was theoritical.

The WTC 7 fires were not fought. At all. Not by firefighters or sprinklers. Generally this is not the case. Generally buildings are also not hit by massive chunks of debris from other falling towers. I don't know if this was an engineering failure as much as it was an extremely unique and catastrophic scenario.

If you don't mind me asking what do you believe happened on that day? What do you think caused the collapse of the towers, mainly WTC 7?

You have an extremely small sample size

No I don't, I said: entire skyscraper history. That's as big a sample as can possibly be used.

skyscrapers usually aren't allowed to burn uncontrolled for hours on end

And yet the buildings on the picture I linked above burned longer and hotter. No collapse.

this one just happened to fall

"just happened" lol.
Except that it was the first day in history for such an event.

the only investigation that should potentially be done should be to prevent buildings from falling in the future.

And that wasn't even done because the crime scene was immediately taken over by the scum that made the crime in the first place. That in itself is extremely suspect.

There should be NO investigation into controlled demolition, I don't even think it's a possibility that should be explored, that's how ridiculous it is.

Your opinion doesn't matter in this. Explosive residues were found, numerous and massive explosions were heard and reported. World-class demolition experts with 30 years of experience are Adamant that it is. Any investigation shouldn't and wouldn't pre-judge like you do. We now know this was a crime scene. The planes were used to cover the crime but they didn't hit WTC7, hence "smoking gun". It takes way more than a few debris and fires for 40,000 tons of steel to fail.

The North and South towers were not designed to sustain the damage that they did on 9/11

Yeah, just built to sustain the damage of a slightly smaller boeing. EVEN THAT was foreseen by the designers. Yet still there is a consensus that the top section could NOT have destroyed the rest of the building. This is high school physics: (watch until 01:46:00);

it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they fell.

It is extremely surprizing that these towers fell the way they did. You have to know more about physics to see that, and you have to know more about the implications of what happened on that day to see the terrifying motives. Maybe you should watch NPH on youtube instead of ranting these under-informed views. There is a huge amount of research on the topic that is already well exposed for all to see.

You cannot protect a building from every single thing that could possibly happen, they were well constructed buildings.

The problem is that the official narrative doesn't match what's visible on the videos and the laws of physics don't fit what's on video, or the narrative at ALL. 9/11 is all a big lie, to fool people(like you perhaps?)

They weren't designed to withstand impacts from the planes that ended up hitting them, and even then, everything was theoritical.

They were designed to withstand the impact of a slightly smaller boeing. Even then, that doesn't explain the collapse, which shouldn't have happened according to 3,000 architects and Engineers, and the laws of physics once you study the details which are available and well exposed in NPH.

The WTC 7 fires were not fought. At all. Not by firefighters or sprinklers.

WTC7 and even the towers, were small fires. Most of WTC7 was completely intact. There was also numerous videos (AND reports) of MOLTEN STEEL on site. This cannot be explained neither by planes nore by office fires.

Generally buildings are also not hit by massive chunks of debris from other falling towers.

That was negligible, even NIST admits that. There aren't even useful points. A sure sign that you have NOT watched the videos and analyses of the experts before making your statement.

I don't know if this was an engineering failure as much as it was an extremely unique and catastrophic scenario.

Well experts whose career it is to know these things have already told us what they think, soo... And I see it makes perfect sense, once you look closely at the details.

If you don't mind me asking what do you believe happened on that day? What do you think caused the collapse of the towers, mainly WTC 7?

Believe it or not, at first I didn't buy MOST of the truther ideas. I could only believe that WTC7 was a smoking gun, because it so obviously was. The symmetrical freefall collapse is the ultimate smoking gun. But I didn't buy any of the other explanations. Then I watched NPH on youtube. And the discrepencies started piling up. Perhaps the biggest black pill of all. And then other more specific videos followed. Papertrail videos were very eye-popping. Until it was becoming more and more obvious by the day that it was an inside job, like a big puzzle.
Once you actually look at the availble evidence, it is clear that WTC7 was 100% absolutely brought down by thermitic demolition charges, more specifically high-tech nanothermite, which was also confirmed in high-tech labs, found inside the WTC dust, and of course, was NOT supposed to be there at all.

He can't anything up. It's just going to be a long list of maybe it coulda just fell that like that once. And then never again. For reasons guys.

You know, I was going to dismantle each of your points one by one, but as I read more of your comment I realised you're too far gone to even talk to about this. You have poor standards of evidence, poor critical thinking skills, and a poor understanding of science. This is why I don't talk about 9/11 on the internet anymore, thank you for reminding me.

You mention physics, which you clearly don't have even a small grasp of, because if you did you wouldn't say what you're saying. If the laws of physics were violated it would be an open and shut case, 9/11 would be an inside job. There is no consensus anywhere that 9/11 was an inside job. A small fringe of society believes it was. The engineers that believe it was an inside is such a s number, and the majority of them aren't engineers in relevant fields. There is actually pretty much a consensus going against you. You link hacky YouTube videos that no one would consider proof other than someone who wants to be convinced it was an inside job. That tells me all I need to know about you.

You mention explosive residue, in your next response you'd probably link me a Steven Jones article that was published on website that no one who respects science takes seriously. You speaking about nano thermite is pretty much the nail in the coffin, it is no different than saying that there was nukes under the towers. Each of them are both ridiculous and do not have any basis in reality or evidence. The only way you could ever reach the conclusions you've reached is if you have no objectivity or skepticism. This is the problem with people like yourself, you can be convinced of anything by anyone.

Every single argument you have I heard 5 years ago. Nothing is new, your movement isn't advancing in the slightest, 9/11 truthers are a dying breed, for obvious reasons. It is people like yourself that alienate a lot of people from conspiracy theories.

I hope one day you will see why your complete line of thinking is deeply, deeply flawed. I'd also like to thank you for reminding me why I don't engage online with people like you. There's no winning, if your standards of evidence are that poor, there is no helping you. Good luck.

There is no consensus anywhere that 9/11 was an inside job.

Except in America, and the entire world.

9/11 truthers are a dying breed

Delusional. The truth movement is gaining traction, even if the "debating" is slowing down. That's because it's not a matter of evidence anymore. The pushback is the only problem now.

You mention explosive residue, in your next response you'd probably link me a Steven Jones article

No, there are very respectable documentaries. Hard science. It is you who is living in a bubble, a failing bubble of lies and internet manipulation, sponsored by the NWO whose existence of course, you deny.

I hope one day you will see why your complete line of thinking is deeply, deeply flawed. I'd also like to thank you for reminding me why I don't engage online with people like you. There's no winning, if your standards of evidence are that poor, there is no helping you. Good luck.

Sometimes you have to read between the lines. There are criminals who manipulate the narrative. And there's plenty of evidence for that. Except you won't hear about such things on CNN (or popular mechanics). Do you account for such influences in your thinking?

You're not being skeptical, you're trying to reach a specific conclusion. You can't objectively come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. I examine the evidence from all sides, conspiracy theorists are not skeptical in the true sense of the word. You don't think critically.

I didn't buy any of the 911 truth at first. I was extremely skeptical.

you're trying to reach a specific conclusion

I think that describes you...

I didn't buy any of the 911 truth at first. I was extremely skeptical.

I don't believe you, I think you're lying. There's no way you were extremely skeptical in the actual sense of the word. If you were a skepic there is no way you could arrive at your conclusion. Building 7 isn't a smoking gun, you keep throwing out these generic conspiracy theorist talking points.

I'm not going to change my mind and neither are you, but at the end of the day I have evaluated all of the evidence and arrived at the most likely conclusion. You're not dealing in facts, you're dealing in conjecture and ignorance of science.

I think that describes you..

No, I've said before that I look at it objectively and follow the evidence. You clearly have not, it's as simple as that.

Building 7 isn't a smoking gun

Yeah, because fire makes steel-framed buildings fall at near freefall speed all the time!

You are making a fool of yourself by denying the obvious. Obvious EVEN for non-scientists. If WTC7 doesn't look suspicious without going in the details, then I'm Napoleon. And the details confirm the smoking gun 1000 fold. WTC7 is the biggest smoking gun of the century.

I look at it objectively and follow the evidence

No you absolutely do not.

Skepticism is a means, not an end.

You are following your skepticism as an end. Think about that next time you look in the mirror. Unless of course, you are paid to do keep the lid on the truth.

I feel bad that you've managed to reach those conclusions. Good luck.

You are correct that the buildings "may" have been constructed differently. But fundamentally all high rise office buildings are built the same from the steel framing and block backup

And the problem with anti-conspiracy theorists is that they are always forming their opinions from pro-government information, which may or may not be true.

MAYBE the truth is IN BETWEEN.

Silverstein’s insurance plan happened to cover terrorist attacks “by chance”

Almost all insurance plans covered acts of terror before 9/11. Now many of the plans exclude terror unless you are willing to pay extra for removal of the "act of terror exclusion."

So I wouldn't call this "by chance." He bought standard insurance on the buildings to cover his (and his investors) investments. Insurance also covered the towers in the 1993 bombing, again, not by chance, but by industry standard.

Source: Worked in insurance business and know how "acts of terror exclusions" came to be a thing.

I sure hope he's not related to Shel Silverstein

Who was the insurer? What's their take on the matter?

The price-tag to Silverstein was 3.2 billion for two office towers that were going to need close to another 3 billion in renovations that the clock was fast running out on getting started with to avoid having them condemned and permanently closed as a threat to public safety.

Beyond the asbestos problem there was also a report I have no way of confirming that there was actually an even more serious design flaw with the way the exterior aluminum sheathing on the towers had been directly secured to the structural steel framework with iron bolts that owing to highly reactive nature of the two metals when brought into direct contact were quite literally disintegrating and raising the possibility of the huge sections starting to come away and fall into the streets below.

Something that wasn't considered at the time they were built just as it wasn't on many cars that were also built in the 70's with all kinds of shiny aluminum trim that all prematurely rusted out where they had been directly attached to the cars steel bodies in much the same way, so there is a very good possibility that too may have been true.

In either or both cases it would have created an unrecoverable expense that wouldn't have raised the value of the property much beyond what Silverstein had already agreed to pay for it or raise the already inadequate revenues they generated beyond what they were when he and his group of investors put their paltry 100 million down on that purchase and managed to secure the property.

Clearly the best and only option would have been to take the two buildings down in a controlled demolition and build an entirely new structure on the property that would meet all of today's standards and be a paying proposition were it not for one very important and highly significant little fact...

An application to demolish the two structures in a controlled demolition had already been submitted to the authorities, but had been flatly rejected on the grounds that there were simply too many nearby streets and buildings that all could have been severely damaged due to an inadequate safety zone for the kind of controlled explosions and falling debris that would result from it.

That left the only other option of dismantling and removing them from the site piece by piece in virtually the reverse order that they had been built and which also would have run close to another 3 billion to do.

There is no way that Silverstein could possibly have been unaware of any of those facts, nor for us to believe that he could have swung the deal with only 100 million down if it wasn't for the hefty liability that was already hanging over them.

Are we to presume that Silverstein & Co. just blindly walked into this no-win situation that abruptly turned into a huge win-win-windfall on 9/11 due to a minor fiddle with the legal jargon on a completely new insurance policy that he also took the time to doubled-down on? The other surrounding facts including the one that allowed Silverstein's private take over of what was a public property and the first of it's kind in NYC are also worth knowing and can be found here...

http://crimesofzion.blogspot.ca/2007/06/silverstein-and-911.html

This is the best illustration of probable facts I've seen on the ordeal. Did this guy pay osama a couple mil to pull this off tho?

I believe it's very suspicious he wasn't there that day and I believe it was an inside job, but op is stretching some truths in this post

The thing is that Lucky Larry Silverstein, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Chertoff and the rest of them could have walked straight out of a DC or Marvel comics story as the arch villians that they undoubtedly are.

Ah, so he was saved by a doctor's appointment?

The only conspiracy theory that I've ever read that could actually be true.

Follow the money. A lot of people have no idea about this aspect of the story

a lot of people were warned not to fly that day..

people knew something was going to happen.

For the sake of argument, do u have proof?

so what? my dermatologist called me 5 days ago randomly and told me I needed to see him asap.

Something tells me this fellow is jewish, yet I don't see it called out in your post. Very well done.

(((Larry Silverstein)))

And, of course you're an Anti-Semite. Why am I never surprised with Trump supporters?

Are you some kind of PC faggot that can't ID a joke without a /s on it?

What happened to this sub? Isn't this some ancient news? We get it, 911 was an inside job. Talk about beating a dead horse while it's in the grave. Either this place is completely hijacked by shills or its 2009 again.

(((())))

Mostly bullshit.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/wtc-terrorism-insurance/

Snopes....LOL

www.WTC7Evaluation.org

Thoughts?

[https://youtu.be/JUvLCzk7nh4?t=57m1s](According to Larry they started planning for a new WTC7 in April 2000)

OK, Silverstein wasn't there but Rumsfeld was in his office at the Pentagon.

"Now you boys are sure this plane/cruise missile (delete as appropriate) isn't going to hit my office and I'll be OK?"

Surely he would have booked a dentist appointment or gone off to inspect something or been anywhere other than in the Pentagon on the day if he knew what was coming.

That's supposing Rumsfield was a part of the conspiracy to begin with instead of him being left out of the discussion and used as a potential martyr to help sell the wars.

Rumsfeld was a founding member of PNAC, which was heavily involved in the (actual) conspiracy to get America into war with Iraq. If 9/11 were an inside job, there's no way he'd be left out of the loop. There's way too much risk that he'd find out about any conspiracy to stage a terrorist attack, especially considering that at the time the Defense Intelligence Agency reported directly to him. Hell, Rumsfeld was entirely comfortable with distorting intelligence - he founded the Office of Special Plans specifically to manufacture evidence that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda. If there were a government conspiracy behind 9/11, Rumsfeld would absolutely have been part of it and wouldn't have risked his life like that.

And he would have gone along with all this because...?

You're really reaching here.

He was on CNN with that ridiculous schematic which suggested AQ had built these multi-level cave complexes all over Tora Bora like something out of an old Bond movie. He was fully on message with the administration's narrative post-9/11.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were the real power in the administration. If Rumsfeld wasn't read in on the conspiracy (when even the BBC were apparently because they jumped the gun on WTC7) then who was?

You act like these politicians aren't just average everyday people who talk shit about one another and gossip and have drama. Now racket that up 10 notches because they are at the upper echelon level. You are telling me these guys don't sometimes conspire against each other? That the legit upper echelon in government aren't akin to the Real Housewives except instead of fighting they have people assassinated or blackmailed?

I don't know anything about Real Housewives but I do know that if you're in Washington and you want a friend, you buy a dog.

That still doesn't explain Rumsfeld being a potential sacrificial lamb and then being told there were no hard feelings and to get on board with the hype train.

If Rumsfeld was in on the conspiracy, why was he in his office in the Pentagon when they flew a plane into the building? It makes Silverstein's absence from the WTC a moot point.

If he wasn't, why was he leading the Neo-Con in the days afterwards?

Until one of us changes their minds?

But you won't change your mind. You've convinced yourself.

Who would've thought a building would fall after a plane smashes into it? Crazy stuff.

So are you saying youd like to debate anything orrrrr??

I have a feeling you don't want to debate, just to hear yourself echoed by people that agree with you or don't know any better. A logical look at the facts surrounding this part of the 'conspiracy' shows a ton of flaws in your narrative.

Your feeling is wrong. Go ahead, pose the best evidence you have that debunks the conspiracy theory and I will respond. I've been debating 911 for years now and researched it in depth. It is a hobby of mine, so I am open for a serious but respectful debate at any time.

I won't bullshit you, I don't give a fig about 9/11 or what could have happened, nor do I have interest in debate in general (I tend to find it silly and filled with posturing 'im smart nonsense) This post showed up, I read damn near all the comments and your response to lots of things prompted the way I'm currently viewing your position on this topic in this thread.

I'm all about looking into things critically, and while there may have been some things odd about 9/11, as a whole, I don't buy the inside job thing. Lots of shady crap happens all over the world every day. That doesn't make it anymore than just that. Minor occurrences with small ramifications obscuring something pretty simple (at least in my eyes) especially if you're looking for them.

There is a bloke somewhere in the comments that very accurately details how insurance and this Silverstein guys obligation to his contract and investors etc. Is he a shady dude? Sure. Is he part of some 'inside job' for being a shady dude (like many MANY capitalists) I seriously doubt it. There are plenty of times I don't bother to go into my office for whatever the hell reason. One time one of the elevators broke and could've hurt me. It didn't, but that's because I was more interested in getting a Bloody Mary than being at work at that time. Coincidences can just be that and should be taken singularly and critically before being applied to a grander wild possibility.

(I'm on mobile and currently about to take a nap so I hope most of that made sense. I'm not trying to be rude at all, just explaining my position)

Hey man fair enough. I'm not gonna sit here and make excuses (except this one lol) but I was at work all day trying to answer people and could not possibly have the time to answer everyone in detail so I admit some answers came off as lazy and uneducated. But the fact is that I'm about as educated on the subject as possible, having spent literally hundreds of hours researching the topic. It hits home for me especially hard.

That being said the entire conspiracy relies soley on the physics of the collapse in order to prove it had to be facilitated by people on the inside. I understand people think that because they caught fire this easily explains the collapse. The truth is that it doesn't. All three buildings fell symmetrically, at near free fall acceleration through the path of most resistance. THIS is the one and only smoking gun. Nothing more nothing less. Not to be condescending by any means but think for a minute about what that means. For a building to fall like that all the resistance below must be removed. The point below impact was uncompromised even by fire so how is it that it did nothing to stop or even slow the collapse? Like in jenga, a structure that has experienced assymetric damage falls over in that direction, it physically can not pile drive itself through more of something that is structurally identical to it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The buildings should have crushed an equal amount downwards and or then fell off to the side leaving the majority still standing.

As a side note, buildings tend to be built with a structural redundancy factor of about three to five times the actual load for safety. Where did all that resistance go? That is the question that really needs answering.

Here I will leave a couple of extremely good resources in case you ever decide to look deeper than what we are told.

September 11- the new pearl harbor(5 hours)

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=the%20new%20pearl%20harbor&amp;sm=1

Architects and Engineers for 911truth (a group of now 2700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation)

http://www.ae911truth.org

Hey man fair enough. I'm not gonna sit here and make excuses (except this one lol) but I was at work all day and hardly had time to respond properly to everyone so I admit my responses came off lazy and uneducated. However this isn't the case for me I have spend literally hundreds of hours researching it because it hits especially close to home for me.

The real issue that is the foundation for the truth movement is the speed, and symmetry with which the towers fell. They fall at near free fall (building 7 did hit freefall) acceleration through the path of most resistance, straight through the uncompromised supporting structures below. The implications of this a massive. Not to be condescending by any means but think about it for a minute. For 10% of a building to fall through the other 90% as if there was essentially zero resistance it means that resistance must have been removed. Buildings are usually built with a structural redundancy factor of 3 to 5 times the actual load just to be safe. The point I'm trying to make is simply that it's not that they collapsed its how.

Here are a couple resources in case you ever decide to look deeper than what we are told.

September 11 The new pearl harbor (5 hours)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

Architects and Engineers for 911truth (2700 architects and engineers demanding a new investigation)

http://www.ae911truth.org

I wear the downvotes from you mainstream puppets like a badge of honor.

You are my hero

You forgot to mention his silent partner Benjamin Netanyahu... http://www.rense.com/general87/role.htm

Shills are flexing their muscles in here. Shows you the power of a botnet.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Educate yourself people before you bash someone trying to wake this society the fuck up.

I think this is all actually disinfo. If the WTC was a demolition, it wasn't a mere insurance scam.

Please read these:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Thanks for sharing. This post isn't meant to claim that it was all for insurance. Just pointing out that it's another coincidence among many. I believe the insurance payout was a very small aspect of the overall conspiracy.

But the page I linked provides evidence that Silverstein lost money in the WTC destruction.

Proves is a strong word. The second source I added claims to prove he made money so that's why these respectful debates are important. No offense at all but that 911myths site is considered to be like snopes of the 911 truth movement. Its really hard these days to discern what is and isn't legitimate info, which is why these forums are so important for freedom of information. With 911 being such an important issue it's no wonder that it's extremely hard to find reliable sources.

Also, it would appear that Silverstein's firm compromised for a smaller insurance plan than previously proposed.

You're right. In my opinion that's just semantics though. The most interesting possibility I've read was that silverstein was actually outbid by another corporation to buy the property from the port authority and for some reason they turned it down and went with silverstein. Give me a minute to find a source on that.

I think that is true, although Silverstein already owned WTC 7 by that time.

True. Either way there seems to be, imo, many questions left unanswered which is really my whole motivation for researching 9/11.

Or if his wife that was already hanging over them.

It's been repeatedly reported that Larry Silverstein had insured the Twin Towers a year earlier, and it is more than "coincidental" that this insurance covered terrorist attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerous legal disputes that aimed to increase the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion.

Rebuttal: What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable loss once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[10]

We've already noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

That's the worst fucking rebuttal I have ever heard. It's like you just googled rebuttal and posted some random bullshit someone typed up to misinform everyone.

How much were these twin towers old as shit worth? No one even wanted them anymore. How is the insurance WAY WAY below what was already a losing enterprise for the city. And there are so many other things that point to what you posted as being totally bullshit no one would even know where to start. Just stop randomly googling sites that are written by government shills.

Actually, only one of the towers was insured. When both went down, the insurance companies, at first, refused to pay for both. They then obliged later on.

Pshawwww..."physics." Keep your witchcraft out of my carefully crafted narrative!

No but really. Asbestos is the golden key to it all.

So where is any evidence that he didn't have a doctor's appointment

I would have thought the Cantor Fitzgerald big shots would have been in on this knowledge

He had to get his lizard skin toned

Top

If that's what Jew God wills for his chosen who are you to question that?

Adam Wainwright was supposed to have breakfast at the top of one of the towers that morning, too. But he ended up not being able to make or decided to go elsewhere. Does that mean that he is in on it, too? Now MLB players are getting in on conspiracies to kill thousands of innocent lives?

(((Silverstein))). Color me fucking shocked friends.

Wasnt the WTC victim to a terrorist attack in the early 90's? Is it that crazy to believe he foresaw the possibility of another?

Lots of people didn't show up that morning by chance, doens't mean they were in on it.

In and of itself no, you are correct. Coupled with the hundreds of other coincidences, yes hundreds, it makes the official story harder to believe that than the conspiracy theory.

How so? There's no proof that he was at the restaurant everyday as religiously as you lead on.

It seems that no matter what happened, if he didnt die he would have been guilty.

Kind of unfair, dont you think?

Is him saying it in an interview enough proof? I linked the interview in the OP. I understand what you're saying and I understand how people who have not looked deeper into 9/11 might think this is pointless. To be honest I never expected this to make r/all and only,thought others from r/conspiracy would see it so I didn't put much detail into it originally. Hence the "just a reminder" part. My point is that once you start to see that this is simply just one of literally hundreds of odd coincidences surrounding that day you will inevitably start to see that the conspiracy is actually easier to believe than the official story.

Well there is no evidence that suggests he was there everyday religiously. Saying you go everyday doesn't mean that literally, every single day he is there. That means on a normal day he was there.

What other coincidences involve him specifically? And are they concrete or just huge assumptions? Like "he said he had breakfast there all the time so him not being there is sure proof he knew".

I have read a lot into it and there isn't much that even suggests he was involved. If you believe everything you read on the topic its extremely easy to become disillusioned. Everything is based on hearsay or complete fabrications.

Well there is no evidence that suggests he was there everyday religiously. Saying you go everyday doesn't mean that literally, every single day he is there. That means on a normal day he was there.

What other coincidences involve him specifically? And are they concrete or just huge assumptions? Like "he said he had breakfast there all the time so him not being there is sure proof he knew".

I have read a lot into it and there isn't much that even suggests he was involved. If you believe everything you read on the topic its extremely easy to become disillusioned. Everything is based on hearsay or complete fabrications.

Completely agree about the easily becoming disillusioned and I've had to spend a ton of energy exploring many misdirections in the hope of finding the truth. However I do personally believe he was involved.

For one, would it be more suspicious if his family (son and wife) who both worked with him at the WTC, also happened to be late that day as well?

Or how about the fact that for some reason a higher bidder to purchase the property backed out last minute?

Now I agree that none of these can be considered evidence but that doesn't mean they arent, if that makes sense.

It is my personal belief that they had to be taken down by some sort of shadow element within our goverment as well as private sector simply because of the physics required for symmetical collapse let alone at near free fall acceleration. So when you've come to that conclusion as I have, it only makes sense that the owner of the complex new what was going on. I say this for many reasons, one is simply the odd coincidences surrounding his accuisition of the property as well as statements he has made. Two is because of his high profile connections. For example did you know that Marvin Bush (georges brother) sat on the board of directors for the company in charge of security for the WTC?

I get that none of this is solid evidence and it never will be as long as it stays buried in the corners of the internet. The goal of the truth movement is simply to get enough people asking enough questions and demanding a new independant, unbiased investigation.

Easy. It was a Tuesday. Most of the businesses in the buildings didnt begin operation until 10-11 on Tuesdays. It's the reason so many people weren't there in the first place.

People back out of major deals like that all the time. That's a massive sum of money, its not abnormal for someone to back out at the last minute. Have you actually looked into this other buyer? Or is that information just conveniently not available?

You can't base arguments on assumptions when trying to support such major claims.

Yeah, r/conspiracy is back to its roots.

/r/coincidence

And he never actually went to the dermatologist

Good to see this sub getting back to its roots

Biggest.Insurance.Scam.EVER.

Check it out: Silverstein (in 2014) telling how the rebuild planning for WTC7 began in APRILof 2000, and their plan required the insurance money to fund it.

This would solve the collapse of WTC7. It was rigged to blow because they already were planning to re-integrate the street grid through the World Trade Center complex and rebuild WTC7 in the process.

There are still people who think 9/11 was an inside job? Wow

There are still people who don't think 911 was an inside job? Wow

Still watching Loose Change, or have there been any other shitty "documentaries" published on the topic? I bet you think the Holocaust didn't happen either

I wish more died in the Holocaust so we wouldn't have the Zionist mess we're in today

Let's jump right to the Holocaust because that makes so much sense.

Well the type of person who would deny the Holocaust is essentially the same type who would think Bush orchestrated 9/11, so...

That is just your interpretation. There is no truth in your statement.

Yes, Jews did 9/11 and you jump straight to the halohoax. Perfect reading from your hasbara script.

Didn't he have family who worked there as well, who happen to call in sick or something that morning?

Strangely, both his son and daughter who work with him weren't killed. These two never gave any interview, they are very discreet, like people who have something nasty to hide.

Great Post!

He only got 60% of the money. If this was an insurance scam, then it was one of the worst in history. You fucking crack head.

Yeah SO BAD. He only made a couple billion here and there on a couple of buildings worth shit. What a loser he is.

Did Shlomo not get his bagel this morning?

Man this sub is full retard one way or another. Either talking about pizza shop pedophiles or bullshit about 9/11.

I mean this isn't bullshit. It's a story about a guy who invested in a shithole and made billions of dollars somehow on an event that has caused mass devastation and war for what will be decades.

Why would you invest so much money in a complex filled with asbestos, that was condemned by the NY Port Authority and would take years and a ton of money to clean up? Oh yea, 911

If anyone wants to debate the physics of the collapse we can go until one of us changes their mind.

You say that, but I doubt anyone would change their mind.

Wow, that's a real lucky fella with a fitting nickname, I bet he-

looks at subreddit name

-oh.

Well thats one way to make a generalization

looks at username

oh

i can defend them through whatever "greater good' reasons, but this guy is...undefendable, he's gotta admit, at least gotta say that hey i knew something sinister was gonna happen and i put insurance beforehand, so what, blah blah.

"I wear the downvotes from you mainstream puppets like a badge of honor. If anyone wants to debate the physics of the collapse we can go until one of us changes their mind."

There is nothing to debate. It's all bullshit. 1 up-vote for you - with honor.

That debris from the towers was quite picky. Seems it was on a mission or something. :⁾

He didn't even have an appointment. It's in the morning of 9/11 he was so pale, his was was worried and booked him an appointment he never went to. Lik in every lie there is some truth, it's highly possible that Lucky Larry was genuinely scared to realize his pact with the devil was taking shape, he became livid. I remember an interview of someone saying he saw Larry Silverstein on the street and saw him in a state of terror.

So what company actual insured the wtc?

Way to go NIST for clueing in the terrorists--take out one column and poof, Victory for "ALLAH"

Bush Sr. was with bin Laden's cousin on 9/11. Hmmm.

I'm glad you brought this subject to light, this is often over-looked. Not to mention the attack happened on a Jewish holiday and he is Jewish.

The parent mentioned Asbestos Abatement. Many people, including non-native speakers, may be unfamiliar with this word. Here is the definition:^{(In beta, be kind)}

Many buildings contain asbestos, which was used in spray-applied flame retardant, thermal system insulation, and in a variety of other materials. Asbestos was sometimes "flocked" above false ceilings, inside technical ducts, and in many other small spaces where firefighters would have difficulty gaining access. Structural components like asbestos panels were also used. In residences, asbestos was often a component of a type of flocked acoustic ceiling called popcorn ceiling or "cottage cheese ceiling", until its production was banned in the US ... [View More]

^{See also: Alleged | Court Order | Asbestos | Condominium | Appointment | Fire Retardant | Cottage | Sealed}

^{Note: The parent poster (Nat_Gandhi) can delete this post | FAQ}

It's called a coincidence and they happen millions of times a day. Humans are just programmed to find patterns in it.

this is how i look at it, however, there was a heck of a lot of coincidences on that day, far too many for my liking. insurance on building, 25 times normal activity of put options on stock, wtc 7, invulnerable terrorist passports falling from disintegrated plane, etc

Yeah something clearly fucked up happened within government. Some day maybe they will actually tell us what happened.

Shlomo didn't get his bagel this morning.

You have to understand that this is still only circumstantial evidence nothing more.

(((Silverstein)))

Shills everywhere!

Jews

Didn't the insurance only cover like 1/2 of the damages?

silverstein

You guys are all idiots.

Thanks Shlomo H. Goldberg

his body language in that video is indicative of lying.

"Larry Silverstein is a terrific owner in New York, and a very good friend of mine" -Donald Trump 9/11/01

"Larry Silverstein is a great guy. He's a good guy. He's a friend of mine." -Donald Trump 5/13/05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYOY4S1x8BU

The fuckin shills in here is unbelievable. They honestly think they are winning . They don't realize how fuckin stupid they look.. all they doing is adding more fuel for us . Morons . It's over shills . You guys have been exposed . Nothing you can do to change the minds of the people that are awake

Fucking jew amirite?

I know you think you're being sarcastic but you couldn't be more on point.

?? No shit that's why I commented.

general public is too dumb to question anything

I have evidence that shows the time I pooped my pants when I was 15 was masterminded by the underground alien lizard cloud people from the plane 9/11 in the shillary-cuck system. I also have evidence that your perception of basic physics is as questionable as your train of thought in this post. Just kidding! Sandy Hook was a hoax, Obama is a Muslim lizard, Trump has a huge dick, and not wearing white after labor day is a Zionist conspiracy backed by the socialist media like Alex Jones. Fuck that dude that guy's soda gave me diabetes. Anyway stay white and proud. #AhoskaLives

Larry Silverstein in a PBS documentary in 2002 called America Rebuilds:

"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."

His pull it statement has been taken to mean that he ordered the demolition of Building 7, which could only have happened if it had been rigged in advance, which in turn means the whole thing was an inside plot. However, Silverstein denies this and claims that by pull it he meant to withdraw the firefighters from Building 7. But this doesn't make sense for several reasons:

a) If he had meant the firefighters, he would have said pull them, not pull it. b) The firefighters had withdrawn from Building 7 at 11am that day, so it would have made no sense for him to withdraw them if they were not even inside the building. c) In the same PBS documentary, workers mentioned that they were pulling building 6 when they were bringing it down. That would indicate that pull can be used as a term to demolish a building. d) The context and sequence in which Silverstein said pull it and then right after And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse indicates a cause-effect relationship between those two terms. e) The fires in Building 7 were not uncontainable. They were mediocre at best. This is apparent from the photos and videos of the fire in that building. Remember that this was a steel high rise which contained many important government offices that was made of the best materials, not wood. So there was no reason to abandon it or bring it down (unless Silverstein or the perpetrators had a nefarious reason for doing so). And even if the fires were raging on it, so what? Other skyscrapers have burned for longer hours (e.g. Windsor Tower in Madrid, Beijing Cultural Center Tower) but did not have to be brought down. Their structure withstood the flames, so why couldn't Building 7, especially when it was made of the best materials?

Whatever Silverstein actually meant by pull it, the collapse of Building 7 is a smoking gun no doubt, and could not be explained by any fire hypothesis. It was so inexplicable in fact that the 9/11 Commission didn't even mention its collapse in its report.

Furthermore, Silverstein seemed to have foreknowledge of 9/11. Weeks before 9/11, he leased the WTC and bought insurance on it that would specifically cover terrorism. This earned him over 4 billion dollars for its destruction. So for him, the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11 was alucky jackpot event?. So it would seem he had foreknowledge of the event and planned for it accordingly by making sure he profited from it. The WTC was losing money in that it was not renting out all of its offices, and was in need of renovation to clean it of asbestos, which would have been too costly. So instead of losing money, Silverstein profited greatly. In short, it was an insurance scam.

Also, every morning, he usually ate at the restaurant on the top floor of the WTC. But on 9/11, he did not eat there, and his daughter also did not show up at the WTC either. This suggests that he knew something was going to happen.

Hey, let's not forget all the people that have died and will die because of the asbestos air feature they let happen.

Also works with Trump, and did then. Also wants to build the new FBI headquarters.

So there is an obvious elephant in the room in this thread. Which is that Larry Silverstein is a jew.

I don't believe in this conspiracy theory and what it is insinuating, just pointing to the elephant in the room out there so that people from all or otherwise are aware of the "subtle" or perhaps not so subtle context of this post.

However, I don't actually believe it matters, it is just that there are more rich jewish new yorkers who are connected in big industries in the USA, maybe due to higher IQ, maybe due to other reasons (not a real evil rule the world conspiracy but in certain cities or industries if jews are overepresented they might help their own) and when you are aware of a meme you tend to find them.

But if I thought this, then people who are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories also would.

Anyway, if the OP was on purporse pushing subtle propaganda kudos, not because I like the

Former military demolitions guy here. While an implosion of the WTC is technically possible, it would have represented the tallest building to be imploded to date by far. However to think that this building could have been set up for implosion without anyone inside being aware (we are talking about thousands of man hours and thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives and det cord - the smell alone would have been pretty darn noticeable), and coincide with the impact of a large jetliner (which somehow did not mess with the implosion sequence) is highly improbable.

And then to expect all of this to be kept secret - without being leaked with so many different kinds of people involved.... Not to mention finding a crew to pilot the plane that would be willing to not just sacrifice so many Americans, but also themselves just to sell a war that a bunch of faceless bigwigs will get rich over.....

Well there was the story of the whole place going dark for a week or whatever for renovations or something. It is not implausible that anything happened that day. It is only implausible because you choose to deny the possibility of one thing or another. Everything that has happened on earth, and everything that you will never know, should gear you up for the idea that possibilities exist outside your realm of knowledge.

The funny thing is that most people that posit these conspiracies have never actually touched explosives. They really think it would be possible to "wire" a building for implosion without anyone noticing, seeing, or smelling the explosives after the fact. We are talking about thousands of pounds of explosives, all linked together to create a sequence of explosions.

If they did this, then how did they set off the explosives?

I have no idea man. I am sure something crazy happened that day, and I am very sure our government at least knew about it.

But the fact you underestimate the deep state of the most powerful government on earth proves you really don't understand things that well.

I think you also missed the part where Bush's brother was linked to the head of security at these buildings, and there was supposedly, indeed, a blackout with the building while it was being remodeled or something. Lasted a few days with no one going in the higher parts. IDK do some research. I can't say I really care at this point. The government will always be doing things from the shadows. To pretend the strongest airforce on earth cannot retaliate against a plane randomly headed toward a skyscraper is preposterous in itself.

But the fact you underestimate the deep state of the most powerful government on earth proves you really don't understand things that well.

You are right. There are a lot of things in this world I don't understand very well.... but explosives isn't one of those things. If you are really sure that this was a covert government op and an intentional implosion that coincided with the suicidal hijacking of multiple airliners, then just explain to me the simplest part of the whole deal - the explosives. How did they make them go off?

(And by the way, planned implosions never stop at the highest levels. Matter of fact, they usually start at the bottom and work their way up. But never mind that, just explain to me how the explosives were initiated and I will say that your theory is plausible.)

I would have no idea about explosives and ways of initiation that only the government knows about lol. And honestly I don't care. End of story.

Right. Don't let anyone with knowledge and experience on the particular topic you are speaking of shatter insight that might knock you from your path of unknowledged certainty.

I grew up near NYC and you wouldn't believe how many people have stories like this.

correlation =/= causation.

Note to Staff: Issue notice to produce concise video of individuals jumping out of the towers that morning, identifying victims, and send to Larry as a keepsake, like an amulet.

((((Silverstein))))

And people believe it's aliens or NASA when the Zionist Jews hide in plain sight. Oh goy.

The more I learn about 9/11 the more the conspiracies make sense

incredible

It takes several days to rig a building for demolition

This is just a stupid mindset, just because people can't own something doesn't mean they'd refuse to take action to benefit if the did. Corporate Greed isn't proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

You lose your fucking assets and don't want reimbursed for something you're paying a premium on so it can be reimbursed? And then he's an evil guy for continuing to buy buildings back with that money, almost as if that's exactly why you buy insurance, and that makes him evil? Smh fam. You reaching further than an Asian girl givin Yao Ming a handjob.

Does the new coverage coincide with the time this guy took ownership?

Yes, good point! Too many other suspect things going on with it though, and I think his purchase right before the attacks is also suspect.