Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

[23]

The No. 1 societal dis-ease is...

willful ignorance: a bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.

[Jeff]

Jeff's is playing devil's advocate; trying to get people riled up. He is too smart to seriously believe that any of those WTC buildings were brought down by anything but explosives in a (semi-) controlled demolition.

Don't do that. If you think it's foolish to doubt demolition then I'd rather you call me a fool.

[Simulist]

Seriously, even if there was a full admission that revealed the truth of this plot, do any of you really believe that would change anything, anything at all?

Not a damned thing.

After the perpetrators had hired a Madison Avenue firm to explain to the masses the "essential reasons" the 9/11 actions "had to be done," the American herd would enthusiastically support the "heroic decision" to demolish those buildings, and the herd would then assemble dutifully in line with the corporate state, as always.

"The government" would then attempt a token prosecution of several "key individuals" (a.k.a. "scapegoats"), while the herd — newly "enlightened" as to "the real reasons" the 9/11 actions "had to be done" — clamored against the government's inept efforts to prosecute "our heroes."

And those who looked on, awestruck and unnerved, at this surreal spectacle would be labeled "socialists," "blame America firsters" or worse, "intellectuals."

[thatsmystory]

Seriously, even if there was a full admission that revealed the truth of this plot, do any of you really believe that would change anything, anything at all?

Not a damned thing.

After the perpetrators had hired a Madison Avenue firm to explain to the masses the "essential reasons" the 9/11 actions "had to be done," the American herd would enthusiastically support the "heroic decision" to demolish those buildings, and the herd would then assemble dutifully in line with the corporate state, as always.

"The government" would then attempt a token prosecution of several "key individuals" (a.k.a. "scapegoats"), while the herd — newly "enlightened" as to "the real reasons" the 9/11 actions "had to be done" — clamored against the government's inept efforts to prosecute "our heroes."

And those who looked on, awestruck and unnerved, at this surreal spectacle would be labeled "socialists," "blame America firsters" or worse, "intellectuals."

Aren't you forgetting about Iraq? The impeachment hearings? The prosecutions?

I would guess that this sort of admission has taken place in the corridors of power, along with some none too subtle threats. That said it's one thing to think about in the abstract but quite another when one sees people jumping out of the towers. Plus there is the issue that everything one claims to represent (as an intel agent) is based on bullshit.

The approach taken was to keep the public ignorant by way of secrecy. The mentality you mention above helps to explain why their has been so much tolerance for the secrecy--authoritarian tendencies reinforced by unrelenting propaganda.

[thatsmystory]

Why would Silverstein make any decisions in relation to the building? I assume fire insurance covered any damage to the building, regardless of whether it remained standing or not.

The only thing that makes sense is for Silverstein to agree with a NYFD assessment that it was not worth the risk of lives to fight the fires.

The point being that it doesn't make sense for Silverstein to be in the loop for CD. All these theories suggest that he is an idiot, like some kind of TV villain.

[apologydue]

The point being that it doesn't make sense for Silverstein to be in the loop for CD.

Exactly. In a real world scenario operated by honest people he would be totally out of the loop. Public safety officials would be calling the shots regardless of his opinion. If he loses money, tough shit, lives had to be saved. The fact that he IS THE LOOP says a lot. This story was planted to muddy the water, and to co-opt the debate. If the population is not made aware of the fact, by the media, that he realistically would have had no place in the debate in the first place, they will never make the link.

"Mr. Silverstein can we blow up your building? If we don't a lot of people may get hurt."

"Hell no, (or yes) I won't get my insurance payout. Let the people die."

"Ok sir, we won't do it."


That is laughable in the extreme when contrasted against an honestly run real world scenario in which innocent lives needed to be saved. He knew the building would be "pulled" when he bought it.


Would it make any difference if 911 were busted wide open? Absolutely it would because this is a trauma affecting the residents of the current historical frame of reference. You could bust JFK wide open and it would not matter because the trauma of the event has passed. If someone is hurting you RIGHT NOW and you discover the source of the pain you will absolutely react. If you discover the source of someone elses past pain you will not react. The pain is gone and there is no need for an immediate recoil and reaction.

The trauma of 911 still exists, and were it to be busted wide open, so would the current power scheme be busted. This is why it is still being protected like the holy grail of power, because for the time being, it is. The trauma is working in one direction to the satisfaction of its makers, and they have no intention of letting the trauma mechanism reverse itself to work against them.

People in pain and trauma react. Period. People in CURRENT pain lash out against the source of the pain. For now they are reacting in the desired manner and fulfilling their function. Considering that the trauma is still fresh, if the reasons for the trauma were revealed, the trauma would increase by exponential factors. People would be doubly traumatized in discovering that their CURRENT wounds had been inflicted by their protectors. Millions of people would be beating bricks out of the White House with hammers. Don't doubt it. The status quo doesn't doubt it for a minute. Why do you think this stage show is managed so tightly?

It won't last forever. It will lose its power. After enough time passes, if it all be revealed, there will be no immediate recoil because the revelation will not relate to a trauma that the current population is experiencing. And besides, they won't have the attention span, as they will be reacting to the fresh trauma manufactured and inflicted upon their own generation and current historical frame of reference.

People are still well alive that watched people leap to their death when they jumped from the towers.

Fresh trauma is the name of the game, and deflecting the recoil away from its makers is the aim, as this is what drives the wheel that generates the gains.

Step aside, astroturf in progress

[DrVolin]

The point being that it doesn't make sense for Silverstein to be in the loop for CD.

Exactly. In a real world scenario operated by honest people he would be totally out of the loop. Public safety officials would be calling the shots regardless of his opinion. If he loses money, tough shit

Which doesn't mean that he wouldn't try. Hence the phone call.

[apologydue]

Which doesn't mean that he wouldn't try. Hence the phone call.

True. And this reply isn't aimed at you. You make a valid point.


So why does he send his legal spokesman into the public sphere to purposely divulge his private phone calls? Why would he admit that he tried to influence the decision based on an insurance payout? It only makes him look bad, as if his decision was based on money instead of safety. I could believe Shapiro woke up one day and decided to do this on his own, and I could also believe elephants fly.

If the building was unstable they would have told everybody to run like hell and stay away from it. If it needed to be imploded, the worst time in hell to do it, would be on the spur of the moment when safety crews were running around trying to save lives. You don't drop a building on public safety officials in an honestly run scenario. You pray that it doesn't fall while you attempt to save lives.

"oh lets just go ahead and drop it on the heads of the safety crew, it has to come down sooner or later anyway, it will create chaos and hamper the rescue efforts but such is life, lets just pull it right now, because if we don't implode it in the next few minutes I don't get paid"


No i'm sorry. You wait until the situation calms down, and then you implode it, unless there is an ulterior motive.

It was imploded because in order to qualify for the maximum insurance payout it needed to be destroyed, and this is a distraction. Its a stupid distraction, but it reflects how misled the population is because they will never understand it. I just love to watch people invent elaborate scenarios in which an obviously imploded building wasn't imploded. Its a real window into the thought processes of the establishment. Great reading. I know this isn't a popular subject around here so i'll shut up now. I've said too much already.

I never intended to contribute to this in the first place but some of the contributions to this thread just screamed out and I was unable to muffle my ears. Maybe i'll do better next time.

[Hammer of Los]

I read the Shapiro article on Fox.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.. While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

Is this Shapiro fellow lying through his teeth do we reckon? I'll have to go find out a little bit more about him.

Hey, anyone want to hear the sound of one building imploding?

NIST WTC7 with Audio

WTC7 explosions

WTC7 in 7 Minutes - 9/11 Explosions not Fire

I'm sure you can find more. Just type "wtc7 sounds of explosions" into youtube. God Bless Barry Jennings RIP.

So, fires caused a sudden, rapid, straight-down collapse in a steel structure above 7 stories for the first time in history, yet everyone expected it to happen? Is that correct? Everyone was somehow able to predict this historically unique event? My cat tells me he can't believe that. If any collapse was expected, it would have been a partial collapse, not the explosive demolition that was clearly witnessed. Furthermore, they were either terribly terribly lucky, or had complete foreknowledge of this immediate, sudden rapid footprint collapse, because several police cleared the area in the seconds and minutes immediately beforehand, telling everyone that in a few moments the building would "blow up".

I'd like to quote Jackriddler, who has made some good points here;

I submit the idea that the building was, in fact, already prepared for such a CD, or possibly prepared for it by a military demolitions crew in the seven hours between the collapse of the Towers and the fall of WTC 7, is not ridiculous and worthy of investigation and, if true, disclosure.

I submit the idea that this story in turn covers up something more sinister is not ridiculous and worthy of investigation and, if true, disclosure.

The police and other emergency workers were told the exact time of the collapse, by whom exactly we don't know, the word must have travelled down the chain of command, it's difficult to find where it originated from. I tried a little to find out, in a scared kind of anonymous sitting at home here on my pc kinda way. Rest assured I ain't making no phone calls. Not me sirree.

By the way, here is a good little resource from http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... pic=90906;

*26:Ground Zero rescuers are heard saying the WTC 7 was going to "blow up" and will be "coming down soon" while others mentioned they were told around 3 p.m. that it was going to collapse and others were waiting around for it to fall.

"Keep your eye on that building. It will be coming down soon." - CNN video
"The building's about to blow up. Moving back... We are walking back. There is a building, about to blow up." - CNN video

Captain Chris Boyle - "And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
So we got water to 22, but then that’s when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down." - Firehouse Magazine (08/02)

Battalion Chief John Norman - "I started to go down Vesey toward West, but there was a lot of debris blocking the way and they were telling me no, you don’t want to go down there – they’re worried about that building collapsing. I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall.Yes, that’s why we couldn’t walk down Vesey. But I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7. Now we’re still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they’re telling us that 7 is going to fall down – and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." - Firehouse Magazine (05/02)

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti - "At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out?
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down." - Firehouse Magazine (08/02)

*27: BBC correspondent Jane Standley announces that the WTC 7 collapsed before it did, while the building still stood behind her, making her look like the village idiot. Daily Show material..........

*28: The 47-story WTC 7 mysteriously collapses even though no plane crashed into it and it's collapse hardly gets any media attention. Wasnt even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

*29: A NYU medical student was watching the WTC 7 that was on fire and hears a clap of thunder, sees a shockwave rippling through the building, saw windows from it bust out, then sees the bottom floor cave out followed by the rest of the building.

Reporter: "I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl."
Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... We were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC (09/11/01)

*30:Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, said he decided that the smartest thing to do to the WTC 7 was to "pull it" when a NYFD commander told him that he wasn't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire in the building and said after they made the decision to "pull" the WTC 7, they "watched the building collapse." Note when he says "it" he is referring to people folks........ rolls eyes.

*31: Debris from the WTC 7 was removed without investigators having the chance to examine the wreckage at the scene to help determine the cause of failure.

It may well be, of course, that several people in the fire department were "in on it," by which I mean the demolition of WTC7 and its attempted subsequent coverup. It may also be the case that Silverstein and the insurers had, lets say, a confidential agreement in place regarding the pay out of the claim;

Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg was the chairman of AIG. AIG insured the WTC. The Blackstone Group held the mortgage for the WTC. AIG had an ownership interest in Blackstone. So not only did Maurice insure the buildings, he also financed the buildings. Doesn't seem kosher, does it? Maurice just got indicted for fraud last week.

Jack, in all honesty, I can't remember the most influential sites, videos, and information that educates common sense to the fact that the illusion is not complete. Give me some time to think about it. The blizzard of information is still just too many and too persuasive. If the quo would just go ahead and erase this stuff from the internet screen humanity would be better off because a bigger and more convincing display would not be neccessary. Humanity wouldn't have to weather the nuclear fall out of a bigger show if they would just plug the info. Maybe someone should pass this attitude up the line. I'll get some heat, probably, from some on this site for saying that, but reality is reality. And the reality is that current humanity is no match for the quo. The technology is just too great now. (ouch the pain ray hurts)

We both know that one of two things have to happen. Kids have internet access and the new generation is learning more than the quo wants them to know. Either the quo is going to have to erase the info or the new kids have to endure their own display of how serious the quo is.

As much as it pains me, the best option is to get rid of the info so that the new generation does not have to live in the fallout of a nuclear winter. Sad but true. I'm sure erasing the info is on the drawing board because its happening everyday, and i'm surprised its taken this long quite frankly. The big machine moves slowly though.

Hello apologydue. A lot of that echoes my own thinking you know.

If the phone call actually happened it can prove WTC7 was already rigged. Or did Silverstein think he had time to call in demolition experts and have them rig explosives--in an unstable structure-- before the "imminent" uncontrolled collapse of the building?

There is so much backscratching among the financial overlords it's no big mystery why the ins. co. authorized a payout, whether or not they gave the go ahead for Silverstein to 'pull it'. All Silverstein and company cared about in the years following 9/11 is that the idea of CD on that dreadful day was vehemently denied and not allowed to take root among the general population. Plenty of media puppets helping them on that score by keeping the CD truthers boxed neatly away and put in a corner while encouraging everyone else to laugh and point at the crazies.

Now one of his friends tells us he has it on good authority that Mr. Silverstein did in fact at least consider pulling the building because allowing it to collapse on it's own would exponentially multiply the disaster already in progress.

We can SEE with our own eyes WTC7 didn't collapse on it's own. We can SEE the disaster was not exponentially multiplied by the building toppling over onto adjacent buildings nor did it catch scores of first responders unawares. Under the circumstances the collapse of WTC7 caused little more damage than was absolutely necessary

So lovely to see you post again Sunny. I agree with your every word! Very succinctly put, too.

And, my memory is long enough for me to recall some posters on this board who were prescient enough to predict that once the OCT was thoroughly discredited, that just this suggestion - e.g. the demo was purposeful but it was done to prevent further damage - would be made.

I agree that one day soon they may admit to controlled demolition. But sadly, it proves nothing about the provenance of that attacks themselves of course. I can see that. It's an admission they can get away with, a very valuable admission if it takes the steam out of a "key cornerstone" of 911 conspiracy theories. That's Shapiro's phrase, by the way, I would never be guilty of such careless verbal superfluity.

As a matter of fact I think the quo is a bit paranoid and over doing the show. The serfs at large have no idea.

Man, you are so right about that one though. But let's always remember to speak civilly to one another, shall we? It's more fun that way. And remember, the computer told me this would be fun.

Would it make any difference if 911 were busted wide open? Absolutely it would because this is a trauma affecting the residents of the current historical frame of reference. You could bust JFK wide open and it would not matter because the trauma of the event has passed. If someone is hurting you RIGHT NOW and you discover the source of the pain you will absolutely react. If you discover the source of someone elses past pain you will not react. The pain is gone and there is no need for an immediate recoil and reaction.

The trauma of 911 still exists, and were it to be busted wide open, so would the current power scheme be busted. This is why it is still being protected like the holy grail of power, because for the time being, it is. The trauma is working in one direction to the satisfaction of its makers, and they have no intention of letting the trauma mechanism reverse itself to work against them.

People in pain and trauma react. Period. People in CURRENT pain lash out against the source of the pain. For now they are reacting in the desired manner and fulfilling their function. Considering that the trauma is still fresh, if the reasons for the trauma were revealed, the trauma would increase by exponential factors. People would be doubly traumatized in discovering that their CURRENT wounds had been inflicted by their protectors. Millions of people would be beating bricks out of the White House with hammers. Don't doubt it. The status quo doesn't doubt it for a minute. Why do you think this stage show is managed so tightly?

That strikes me as highly insightful. Please don't get yourself banned apologydue, the rules around here are quite simple, you know. Actually, its nice to see Barracuda applying them, even if I do regret it is over this particular topic.

[barracuda]

So why does he send his legal spokesman into the public sphere to purposely divulge his private phone calls? Why would he admit that he tried to influence the decision based on an insurance payout? It only makes him look bad, as if his decision was based on money instead of safety. I could believe Shapiro woke up one day and decided to do this on his own, and I could also believe elephants fly.

Is Shapiro Larry Silverstein's legal spokesman? I can't find a source for that.

I just love to watch people invent elaborate scenarios in which an obviously imploded building wasn't imploded. Its a real window into the thought processes of the establishment. Great reading.

It seems to me that the elaborate scenarios are on the CD side of this discussion. Let's see - Building 7 was rigged for demolition, and fortunately for the conspirators, enough debris fell on the structure and caused enough damage and fires to make the final demolition at least remotely plausible. And somehow this was planned... how? I mean, I can work up some pretty convoluted answers to that question myself, but they aren't really entirely satisfactory unless you're willing to accept just about anything as good enough.

On the other hand, if you wish to seek out and decry and get riled over the inummerable lies and numerous false flags which are demonstrably the work of your government over the last nine years since 911, it's pretty easy to do. The false flags and atrocities numbingly outstripping the three thousand deaths of that day are routinely reported in the daily newspapers. We've talked about them in detail here. They just didn't happen in the U.S.A. But they are no less of a reason to be shouting down the doors on Pennsylvania Ave.

[apologydue]

Please don't get yourself banned apologydue, the rules around here are quite simple, you know.

I sort of take that to mean 'stay off the trigger that brings the true devil into the house because none want to have to confront the devil, most especially the house owner'..........


I thought about that, and I was probably standing on the devil's tail too hard. He may not notice a few steps, but when you stand on it hard and often he will.

[Hammer of Los]

Please don't get yourself banned apologydue, the rules around here are quite simple, you know.

I sort of take that to mean 'stay off the trigger that brings the true devil into the house because none want to have to confront the devil, most especially the house owner'..........

Well, that may be what you take it to mean, but it is not what I meant to say. I am like Humpty Dumpty, my words mean exactly what I want them to mean, no more and no less. I must get back to that Alice thread.

Ahem.

In other words, I simply meant that you should not be abusive or insinuate that other posters here are deliberately spreading disinformation. It poisons the debate quickly, and helps nobody. Can you believe even I have been accused of spreading disinfo? Anyway, many of Isachar's comments were unnecessary and provocative. Let people have their say, reply to their points with information and insight, and let the peanut gallery decide. The accusations of sockpuppetry are also unnecessary.

I only hoped to offer some helpful advice. I thought you made several points rather well, and I wouldn't like to see you get banned.

[chump]

Jeff's is playing devil's advocate; trying to get people riled up. He is too smart to seriously believe that any of those WTC buildings were brought down by anything but explosives in a (semi-) controlled demolition.

Don't do that. If you think it's foolish to doubt demolition then I'd rather you call me a fool.

"...call you an fool"?

I, Chump, called myself a "stupid fucker". Don't be offended by anything that I say. You've certainly earned my respect.

I just don't know where you're coming from. I missed that thread; and I'm a little intriqued. I'd sure appreciate it if you'd link me to a respectable analysis.

[apologydue]

In other words, I simply meant that you should not be abusive or insinuate that other posters here are deliberately spreading disinformation.

Actually that wasn't my intent. When jack made the inference I responded in what I thought was a playful manner. But words in black and white don't carry the smile from the keyboard to the reader so there is no telling how it may have come across on the other end. I took jack's inference playfully, even though I wasn't sure he was joking. This isn't personal for me. I got a little snippy with nathan28 when he called me a dumpster diver, which didn't really bother me, but I thought I might give him a poke back. I don't mean any disrespect.

[JackRiddler]

Please don't get yourself banned apologydue, the rules around here are quite simple, you know.

I sort of take that to mean 'stay off the trigger that brings the true devil into the house because none want to have to confront the devil, most especially the house owner'..........

I thought about that, and I was probably standing on the devil's tail too hard. He may not notice a few steps, but when you stand on it hard and often he will.

No, he means stop insinuating anyone who doesn't accept your line of mystical bullshit works for Wackenhut (or whatever) and has been assigned specifically to reply to you. Don't make up pure bullshit accusations that people are spying on your machine so that they can read what you type in advance of your posting.

Of course, your crap about "devils" and "Wackenhut" feels more like stuff you made up for an ARG attack on this board. So, more plainly: fuck off, troll. Your username and profile already announce that you have been here as a troll before. Perhaps vigilant? irrelevant.

By the way, if you've read this far, the words make up an anagram that activates the nanochip mind controllers that you ingested in your crackers weeks ago. Soon as you've concluded reading this sentence, you're going to go jump off a high bridge.