WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein 3/13/08
claims that the antenna from the North Tower tore fuel lines in Building 7??? His billions of $$$ in insurance fraud must have gone to his head!
Add this superb We Are Change video to the Silverstein evidence of an inside job!
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321
odd that lucky Larry is saying what caused the collapse of WTC #7 was the north tower antenna ripping into the fuel lines of #7.(BULLSHIT !)
So my question. Did NIST come out with their report unannounced?
This guy is so full of bullshit it makes me sick.
The truth is coming Larry !
GREAT JOB WE ARE CHANGE !
when one tries to view the video with IE.)
I get that a lot too. Nothing that a 911 Truth Spray and a dash of Mozilla can't handle.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
So the antenna took #7 down- will wonders never cease. How do you sleep Larry? Good job folks.
NIST retracted the fuel lines explanation . . . . has anyone seen Mr Silverstein in direct sunlight?
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
If anyone is going to hang for 9/11 in any kind of limited hangout it will be Silverstein.
Great job WAC www.Philly911truth.org 911truth!
In the words of W.C. Fields' epitaph "All in all I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Any one out there recall any info about where the North Tower antenna landed? We've seen some pictures of what was recovered of it afterwards, and part of it did survive. A good topic for researching...who found it, and where was it found?
Tsk tsk, though, this doesn't seem to bode well for the "pile-driver" theory of the Twin Towers' destruction. Looks like the top of the North Tower's "pile-driver" somehow wandered more than the length of football field north to eventually take down Building Seven while it was at it. Gee, and it seemed to be falling down so straight, too! That's one fancy schmancy pile-driver! And mean, too. Maybe it bounced...!
If the antenna was found near Building Seven, well gee, I wonder just what forces could have pushed it all the way over there... Sure must have been LOTS o' air pressure!
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
To be fair though I'm really, REALLY excited about all the new women's retail space. Now maybe I can finally find that perfect pair of pumps that somehow always seems to elude me. I mean C'MON We Are Change! Where are your priorities? And don't you know vampires don't like being disturbed during the daytime? After all, 9/11 was, like, so long ago...
Keep giving 'em hell, WAC. They need to get used to it...
I've just uploaded a video showing the antenna tipping towards the east or southeast.
Camera position is north or northeast of the Tower.
... must be behind the two buildings in the center of the video.
You can see two WFC buildings on the right side. This, as well as comparing the shapes of the debris cloud to other videos, helped me determine the directions.
Nice try larry! Bet you wished you stayed home. I think we had better have some new antenna safety codes enforced right away! I had no idea they could start so much trouble. I guess it's like the old mousetrap game with one cup of the domino theory added for good measure. Let's call it "rat trap" great work Luke and crew! Maybe we should insist he gets 911 pancakes everyday in jail for the rest of his life! That's where we dump the raw mix on your plate and call it pancakes!
The antenna fell east to north, but mostly straight down. What sort of antenna was that one? Was it one of those new fangled gigantic-plasma-chainsaw-antennas capable of slicing through tons of fortified steel within seconds? Larry will hang for mass murder. Great work Patriots!
We Are Change is quite simply the Best. Always appreciate seeing their activism. Show them the support they need. www.WeAReChange.org
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO
Congrats WAC for getting Silverstein he is tough guy to get a hold of. Loved the end. This is definitely not over Larry.
HE BLEW UP THE GODDAMN BUILDING!! LARRY YOU ARE GOING DOWN FOR THIS!!!!
Get angry about this NOW before the next one happens and it is too late...
Should have mentioned to Larry how he can explain the collapse of 7 when NIST can't even do it over six years after.
But BRAVO guys what a great job!!
We now have Mr. Silverstein ON RECORD saying that WTC 7 was taken down by uncontrollable fires created when fuel lines were severed by the fall of the North Tower's antenna.
Additionally, Mr. Silverstein was unable to identify the FDNY official he spoke with during the infamous "pull it" phone call, even when given a second chance to specifically identify that individual and when confronted with the fact that Chief Nigro denied having said conversation.
This sets the stage beautifully for the next confrontation, when you can take these statements and, with the appropriate documentation in hand, ask him to explain the clear discrepancies between his statements and the known record. Someone could also ask him to clarify these discrepancies in writing.
The more the man speaks, the deeper the hole he digs for himself.
It doesn't get much better than this.
While a few people did get a little too angry for the absolute best presentation at a public event, it is quite understandable when standing face to face with a pathologically lying mass-murderer.
The silence in the room was very telling, the tension palpable (even on video).
Keep up the great work!
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Larry should immediately get in touch with the novelists at NIST: "Stop the presses, fellas! I think I've got it!"
You're right, LW. The tension came through loud and clear. Given a few more of these ugly peeks behind the curtain, I'll begin to invest in "reptilian theory."
He definitely wanted to crawl out of his skin.
This was a joy to watch, I felt the tension even on video. These scumbags need to know that every time they show their face in public WE will be there.
"Additionally, Mr. Silverstein was unable to identify the FDNY official he spoke with during the infamous "pull it" phone call, even when given a second chance to specifically identify that individual and when confronted with the fact that Chief Nigro denied having said conversation."
If this conversation took place, there is a ranking officer of the FDNY who can confirm it. If not, he is caught in a bald-faced lie. Maybe this explains the "...er..." before "fire department commander".
From the famous Glanz article:
"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
So all firefighters were "pulled" from WTC7 six hours before it fell, and the man to ask about Larry's phone call would be FRANK FELLINI.
Oh, now I get it. See, the antenna from the North Tower fell off and fatally stabbed Building 7 in the heart, which of course made it collapse. So it wasn't a case of building-suicide after all, but just an accident. That makes sense
Thank you truth-squaders; if you have video of McDuck running, I would love to see it.
Lets get this guy, lets hope he will be afraid to go out in public again!
... from YouTube.
Diana, could you or someone else fill me in with what happened to the El Pais allegations about the connections between the Madrid train bombers and Spanish security services?
This one loaded:
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Dir. Bldg. & Fire Research Lab. (NIST)
"We are [still] unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." (NIST)
He does have to answer for his comments on PBS. I spoke to Daniel Nigro, and he said that he did NOT speak with Larry Silverstein. He also said he didn't think WTC7 was brought down by CD, but that's a story for a different time. What was the name of the Fire Department Commander Larry?
indeed controlled demolition.
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321
Jon, try Frank Fellini.
That is the first time EVER in 7 years I've ever heard that the antenna sliced through building 7. It defies logic! It defies physics! I have never been more convinced of this man's criminality until I saw this. Why doesn't other media get this out??? It's sickening. Again with the phantom fires. We've all seen footage and there is absolutely no towering inferno going on within wtc7. I also wonder how the insurance money was split up with his co-conspirators. There is no way that the other people involved did it for free. Why is nobody investigating this? The FBI should be all over this. There is no more rule of law for the rich. It's a free for all in Washington and corporate America. And a freefall in our economy. When will the rest of America wake the hell up?
Well, at least Condi will be happy to hear about the shopping area.
It all started so nice for Mr. Silverstein, being asked a question by a well-dressed person in a respectful way. So he started to answer, even though the question was highly critical.
Then came the second question, asking for the SPECIFICS on who from the fire department contacted him about WTC 7. Now, most lies break down under specifics, and Mr. Silverstein, realizing this, refused to answer the question.
Then all hell broke loose, with people shouting questions and accusations at him. This was a nice way of building up the pressure. Mr. Silverstein looked extremely uncomfortable. It must have become clear for most people in the room, including the non-truthers, that something is seriously wrong with the official story. An important factor in the loss of Mr. Silverstein's credibility was his inability or refusal to explain the specifics.
Congrats!!! This was perfect!!!
Fortunately, Mr. Silverstein is a very unconvincing lier. Keep questioning the man!
Excellent job We Are Change!!
Silverstein holds the key that blows the whole lie wide open. The antenna story is weaker than the second lie which covered for the first lie, which revealed some of the truth. He should be subpoenaed along with all the possible New York Fire Department officials who could have possibly spoken with him. I suspect none of them did.
By the way, the video is still on youtube. The above link just left off part of the url.
It is :
Once again, thanks to We Are Change! Excellent work!!
This video evidences the case for explosives in 7....check it out, you probably have never seen it.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."
Apparently this video wasn't taped at the World Trade Center. It was shot a few blocks North of it - in front of Stuyvesant High School.
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!" -Dr. Frank Greening
I was initially amazed and confused on the night of Sept. 11, 2001 when I heard about a third huge building collapsing completely to the ground. I heard about it on the radio and although the newsman said there were uncontrolled fires and a diesel tank in the basement I was still befuddled that the building could completely collapse to the ground hours after the towers were hit.
Well in September 2002 Larry Silverstein was the guest on an 8:30 Sunday morning History Channel show called History's Business. The host and Larry discusssed the tragedy of 911 and all and the Twin Tower collapses and then the host asked "what happened to building 7?". Larry fairly quickly said "oh, building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons". I hit myself in the head and said "oh, that makes sense".
At that time I wasn't suspicious of anything.
It wasn't until the Spring of 2006 that I heard about a BYU physics professor bringing up issues with molten metal in the rubble of all three buildings that collapsed that day. I thought maybe it was a quirky anomaly but that I should read his paper. After reading what he said about pre-positioned explosives I asked myself "when would there have been a chance to set the charges in building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001?". That got me to start looking into these collapses.
I believe Larry Silverstein was telling what really happened to building 7 on that Sunday morning in September 2002 as nobody was killed in it and there wasn't a very good cover story for it, like there was with the towers. I think they changed the story after people started asking when there would have been a chance to set the charges and then also questioning what happened to the towers.
The History Channel says the History's Business series is not available to the public, as I tried to get a copy after realizing, in 2006, the significance of what I saw in September 2002. I think the NYC DA should be contacted by WeAreChange NYC and asked to subpeona a copy of the show I am talking about. Larry Silverstein was on that show and he used the words "controlled demolition" in refence to building 7.
Hi Tony were can I find that statement for the record Larry fairly quickly said "oh, building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons. I would love to send that to NIST
As I said at the bottom of the earlier post, the History Channel has it. I did try several times to get a copy of the show in 2006, by phone, e-mail, and even said I wanted it for my kid's research project on the new Freedom Tower, which was discussed on the show. However, they said it wasn't available to the public.
This is absolutely true, I have no reason to lie and I remember it distinctly because I had been befuddled by the complete collapse of building 7 from Sept. 11, 2001 until hearing Larry Silverstein say it was a controlled demolition on that show. I was not suspicious until early 2006 after reading Dr. Steven Jones' paper. I am sure they were low key about it and Silverstein didn't say this too many times, but I think they told the truth in a sense (it probably wasn't taken down for safety reasons) since there wasn't a good cover story. The problem came in when people started asking when there would have been a chance to set the charges.
Damn. Somebody needs to get that tape. That would be better than a smoking gun.
Is there an insider working at History Channel who visits this blog?
Like the insider who sent Dylan the complete set of WTC plans?
Hello? Are you out there?
"I think the NYC DA should be contacted by WeAreChange NYC and asked to subpeona a copy of the show I am talking about. "
Or contacted by anyone. PLEASE make this happen, folks.
Additionally, shouldn't an attempt be made to identify and interview the firemen and others who can be heard saying, eg, "That building is about to blow up" and "There's a bomb in that building" in this Italian documentary excerpt about WTC 7?
A Finnish 9/11 truther told me that even private investigators were used to find out the truth about the Oklahoma City bombing incident. Couldn't that be done in connection with 9/11 too?
You would think Silverstein would have some better responses after six years? It's just a testimony to the blind greed in him? He's totally unconcerned about making his lies at least plausible, since he feels untouchable! He's only concerned with rebuilding lower Manhattan.
This was an excellent confrontation and chapter in the 9/11 movement. Silverstein has compounded more bad responses upon already infamous bad responses. They've been captured for future reference!
Silverstein, even if he managed to provide a plausible reason, still couldn't ...
You guys have inspired us to an unheard of degree!!!! We at South Texas We Are Change have just GOT to turn up the volume! Expect better and more detailed videos from us soon!!!
thank you, dear people. you are brave and courageous Americans to confront this evil psychopath.
i was personally pleased to see the amount of intense contained emotion AND the amount of intense expressed emotion in your true voices.
The suit, tie and direct questions were excellent, though it's always best to ask ONE question that he can't ignore. More than one question gives the person too many ways to wiggle out of answering in less obvious ways and come up with convoluted answers. But you got him on record on a few points and that's good. The follow-up about Chief Nigro was excellent too. Now I think it's up to you guys to find out who made this comment or ANY COMMENT to Silverstein. If you can't find anyone who admits having that conversation, then you're on safe ground declaring the next time you meet up with him that "he's making it up." and that there was no conversation because you've ask everyone who was in a position to make that decision. But if you don't do your homework and ask all of the people who could have made that decision (it can't be too many), then you'll have no legs to stand on the next time you confront him. Silverstein says someone made a decision to pull --WHO IS THIS PERSON? DOES THIS PERSON REALLY EXIST? WeAreChange needs to find out! Your willingness to stand up is a great start, but your follow-thru is what will make this really important. Keep digging.
Im just curious- does anyone know what type of insurance policy was on building 7 and what kind of claim he got the pay out for?
I understand he claimed the twin towers was 2 seperate attacks and got a pay out for both of them- but what was the pay out for Buliding 7 for? and has the insurer even paid out on this as the reason for collapse is still un-determined by NIST.
Surely the Lawers for the insurance company must have know why they paid out for building 7? that is an easy case of fraud to prove if NIST cannot even explain the collapse-
Although this is 'Lucky' Larry we are talking about here- on September 10th he probably took out an extra policy just to cover the unlikly event of a 'Spontanious unxplained collapse.'
Or maybe he went even further and covered the building againts Controlled Demolition!
I have read that the insurance settlement for building 7 was $860 million, which was paid out fairly quickly and enabled the fairly quick erection of.a new building 7.
Insurance companies may be a factor in criminal court should a new investigation ever take place. Some negotiation of settlement for the 9/11 attack is still underway:
In 9/11 Losses
By CHAD BRAY
February 26, 2008; Page C7
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey can pursue insurance payments for only one building at the World Trade Center complex and the train station underneath the property, instead of the entire property, a federal judge has ruled.
In an opinion dated Friday and made public yesterday, U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones in New York ruled that the authority can't pursue payments from its insurers for portions of the property that were leased to developer Larry Silverstein shortly before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Port Authority's policy, taken out in June 2001, applied only to World Trade Center 6 and the PATH train station and not to the twin, 110-story towers and World Trade Center 4 and 5, which were leased to Mr. Silverstein in July 2001, the judge ruled.
Mr. Silverstein has recovered about $4.55 billion in insurance proceeds.
The Port Authority, which viewed its insurance policies as supplemental coverage when insurance obtained by the lessee was insufficient, had pursued payments for the entire property.
The authority, which has argued the terrorist attacks constituted two separate incidents, is seeking $2.7 billion related to WTC 6 and the PATH station.
The insurers, which include various Lloyd's of London underwriters, Swiss Reinsurance Co. and Allianz AG Holding, have paid about $950 million to the Port Authority related to WTC 6 and the PATH station. The authority's policy was capped at $1.5 billion per occurrence.
"We thought the contract was very clear on its face that this additional property was not covered under the Port Authority insurance," said Robert A. Skinner of Ropes & Gray LLP in Boston, who represented the London insurers. "We're pleased the judge ruled this way."
A Port Authority spokesman declined comment yesterday.
Write to Chad Bray at firstname.lastname@example.org
I believe the WAC efforts show clearly that the perps will eventually bury themselves if we keep asking them questions.
Now, we have Larry telling the Antenna WTC 7 collapse lie. We have Larry in silent mode to the question about what was the fireman's name who he talked to about pulling it (WTC 7).
Pretty soon Larry won't be able to be consistant in his lies since it will be so hard to remember them all. Liars always get caught when they talk too much.
Keep asking questions. Keep getting him to respond.
Many criminals don't get caught because of evidence but because they have loose lips.
Bill Clinton finally admitted just the other day that he went to a Bilderberg meeting on his way to Russia, after being asked about 10 times on other occasions by WACers about whether he went to a Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden in 1991. We now have a confession. Eventually people spill the beans because its difficult to control ones tongue forever . And everyone knows that the Bilderberg group has the name "king" makers because they choose the leaders of nations like Clinton (because he would vote YES to the NWO NAFTA scam) and many of the other presidents in the past 50 years. Read Daniel Estulin's book "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group".
I was just reading a bit about the international banker backed French Revolution. And the agitators/perps were eventually gotten rid of to get rid of any loose lipped people from spilling the beans about the big money sources that backed the French Revolution.
We need to keep asking the tough questions to the usual suspects because they will eventually spill the beans.
Silverstein reminded me here of one of those high-and-mighty rats cornered by Lt. Columbo near the end of those old TV shows.