Charlie Sheen's Statement to the London Guardian on 9-11

[aeon]

Well then call the insurance company, I'm sure they will be glad to hear your theory, they might actually give you a couple of million for saving them billions. Get a grip dude.

I don t care if larry stole money from the insurance compagny, what i care, is that there is 3000 innoncent american who are dead that day, that is my concern.And that claim from larry proved that the official story on 9-11 is a total joke.

 

[I think not]

Well then call the insurance company, I'm sure they will be glad to hear your theory, they might actually give you a couple of million for saving them billions. Get a grip dude.

I don t care if larry stole money from the insurance compagny, what i care, is that there is 3000 innoncent american who are dead that day, that is my concern.And that claim from larry proved that the official story on 9-11 is a total joke.

The point is, that the isnurance company WOULD NOT pay Silverstein the money if they thought insurance fraud was involved, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

 

[aeon]

The point is, that the isnurance company WOULD NOT pay Silverstein the money if they thought insurance fraud was involved, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Here you have a little portion of your answer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein


Larry Silverstein, backed by a number of investors, signed a 99-year lease for the World Trade Center complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The deal was described in a press release on July 24th, 2001, as:
"Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. will lease the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex in a deal worth approximately $3.2 billion – the city's richest real estate deal ever and one of the largest privatization initiatives in history.[1]"
The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th.
Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack. Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. Most of the insurers prevailed in a trial (Silverstein was never granted an additional $2.3 billion in extra insurance money as a result) while others are still in litigation[citation needed].



and here.....

Silverstein is known among Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 for a statement he made on a PBS documentary in which he stated that he and others had decided to "pull it" in reference to WTC Building 7, following fire damage, which many interpreted to mean he had ordered the demolition of the building given the manner of its collapse. Silverstein's office responded that no such order was given.

 

[I think not]

You don't understand or you're just playing stupid.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Charlie Sheen's State

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

 

[aeon]

You don't understand or you're just playing stupid.

Come on, the reason why insurance didnt see the frraud, is because larry sylverstein office denied that such order was given, read it.


Silverstein is known among Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 for a statement he made on a PBS documentary in which he stated that he and others had decided to "pull it" in reference to WTC Building 7, following fire damage, which many interpreted to mean he had ordered the demolition of the building given the manner of its collapse. Silverstein's office responded that no such order was given.


I am not here to play smart ass with anyone, i am here to share what i know of the event, simple as that.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's State

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."

 

[mabudon]

RE: Charlie Sheen's State

Oh okay, then it was 19 dudes
Too bad I didn't read all the flagrantly partisan stuff before I read the scientific piece, thanks for de-bunking all the points too

 

[EagleSmack]

Do you people who claim that Bldg. 7 have any clue what it takes to take down a building via explosive charges?

That would mean that demolitions experts would have to work in the building for months setting charges. But before they set the charges they would have to pretty much gut the building. That means removing walls, ceilings to expose beams. Each charge would have to be wired to explode at the same time.

ALL OF THIS UNDER THIS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE EVERYDAY!

But I guess they were all in on the conspiracy.

Spotty fires! That building was totally gutted by fire.

I recently met with a firefighter from NY who was there on 9/11. He arrived after both buildings were down. He informed me that fires raged all over the disaster site and there just wasn't enough firemen to handle everything. I asked him (reluctantly because I didn't want him to think i was crazy) about Bldg. 7.

He said it was insane to think that that building was dropped on purpose. He said that fires raged through that building unchecked and that it was written off to save building that could be saved. He also mentioned that it was already damaged by a good chunk on the Towers collapsing upon it. That is why it collapsed.

But what does he know.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's State

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."

and what is your point??

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's Statement to the London Guardian on

Do you people who claim that Bldg. 7 have any clue what it takes to take down a building via explosive charges?

That would mean that demolitions experts would have to work in the building for months setting charges. But before they set the charges they would have to pretty much gut the building. That means removing walls, ceilings to expose beams. Each charge would have to be wired to explode at the same time.

ALL OF THIS UNDER THIS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE EVERYDAY!

But I guess they were all in on the conspiracy.

Spotty fires! That building was totally gutted by fire.

I recently met with a firefighter from NY who was there on 9/11. He arrived after both buildings were down. He informed me that fires raged all over the disaster site and there just wasn't enough firemen to handle everything. I asked him (reluctantly because I didn't want him to think i was crazy) about Bldg. 7.

He said it was insane to think that that building was dropped on purpose. He said that fires raged through that building unchecked and that it was written off to save building that could be saved. He also mentioned that it was already damaged by a good chunk on the Towers collapsing upon it. That is why it collapsed.

But what does he know.

strange as it is, building 7 was 2 block away from the twin tower, there was building right next to the twin tower, that still stand to day, why is that?? why building 7 and not those?? also to mention , there wasnt much fire in building 7.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's State

The insurance companmy can't dare suggest that without being branded traitors, heck even just suggesting the possibility on a website brings out the attack dogs...

Here's an interesting link with a few sub links...
http://911truestory.com/

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

this second one is the kicker... it is a pretty in-depth piece, free of "frothing at the mouth" so right wingers may just summarily dismiss it, but I would like to see all the salient points addressed and refuted, preferably by someone with a really solid background in physics if possible (and to you "tinfoil hat" types, bookmark lin #2, it sould serve you well, I know it has helped me a bit)

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."

and what is your point??

The point is they would need demolition crews to go in scope the place out and do a ton of work to blow up these buildings as you are claiming. It didn't happen.

I think that is plain obvious, but I could be wrong.

 

[EagleSmack]

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

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

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

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

When Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" he meant pull the attempts by the FDNY to save WTC 7 because it wasn't worth it risking any more lives that day on 9/11.

America Rebuilds:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/

So you finally admit, that world trade center 7 was demoslish with explosives.good.

Haha I didn't admit WTC 7 was destroyed by demolishing. You can't read?

Johnny... Don't you get it?

When aeon has no facts and is presented with facts he tries to put people on the defense or put words in their mouths.

Common tactic... however futile.

 

[EagleSmack]

<sigh> Here we go 'round again. Try a little logic and reason and expert opinion.


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html

"Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day-to-day like WTC was."

Hey Jay... quit using logic, physics and common sense.

And the constant use of facts is making them sad.

 

[EagleSmack]

aeon... you are out of your tree. The area around the Twin Towers was an absolute wasteland.

Look at the damn pictures!

Or are they CIA and FBI doctored photos!

 

[I think not]

You don't understand or you're just playing stupid.

Come on, the reason why insurance didnt see the frraud, is because larry sylverstein office denied that such order was given, read it.

Ring Ring

Larry Silverstein's Office: Hello, Larry Silverstein's office, how may I help you?

Insurance Company: This is your insurance company regarding WTC 7, we heard that your boss intentionally blew up the buildings for whatever reason, is this true?

Larry Silverstein's Office: No! It's all false! They are smearing his name.

Insurance Company: Just as we thought, the three and one half billion dollar check will be in the mail tomorrow, have a nice day

Larry Silverstein's Office: *snickers*

 

[Johnny Utah]

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

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

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

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

When Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" he meant pull the attempts by the FDNY to save WTC 7 because it wasn't worth it risking any more lives that day on 9/11.

America Rebuilds:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/

So you finally admit, that world trade center 7 was demoslish with explosives.good.

Haha I didn't admit WTC 7 was destroyed by demolishing. You can't read?

Johnny... Don't you get it?

When aeon has no facts and is presented with facts he tries to put people on the defense or put words in their mouths.

Common tactic... however futile.

Oh I understand the game his kind play. They are the Alex Jones Kool-Aid Drinking Moonbats who believe all the 9/11 Conspiracies from the Planes were flown by remote control, no plane never hit the Pentagon to there were no Jews at the WTC on 9/11 as it was a Mossad Operation.

They are the mental midgets of the World.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Charlie Sheen's State

Jay said
"Ithink that is plain obvious, but I could be wrong."

Jay could you clarify this for me, which way are you leaning here? I think you are plainly obviously wrong.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Charlie Sheen's State

The point is they would need demolition crews to go in scope the place out and do a ton of work to blow up these buildings as you are claiming. It didn't happen.

I think that is plain obvious, but I could be wrong.

Bingo,couple days before the event, the 48th floor and above the power was down, for 24 hours,apperently for cable upgrade , never happened before.

 

[FiveParadox]

Do you not think that anyone would have noticed, aeon, someone cutting through nine-tenths of the support structure on dozens of floors, even if only for twenty-four hours?