If Silverstein knew about the inside job in advance, and allowed the demo teams to set up the explosives, why haven't the insurance companies that forked over $6 billion in terrorism insurance payments, filed a lawsuit for fraud against Silverstein?? oh...I guess the insurance companies are "in on it". or they enjoy giving away billions of dollars.
The 'pull it' canard attributed to Silverstein is a long debunked fantasy, however, Tony Szamboti (the resident 'expert' at AE911T) is currently claiming he saw a History Channel program where he explicitly remembers that Silverstein said 7WTC was demolished on purpose in order to prevent further loss of life, or something similar. There is a $200 prize offered by AE911T to anyone who can find a copy of this episode in order to substantiate this claim. The only person to respond to this offer claims he has a copy, but hasn't produced it as yet. No-one else has been able to find it so far. It is just another stunt in a desperate bid for relevance.
His behavior in front of journalists is that of a guilty person. Larry Silverstein no response to WTC 7 lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJsEGgc5L2c (MUST SEE) 911 More LIES Exposed - Larry Silverstein (REMINDER) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MODMG-yfsDs Larry Silverstein avoids 9/11 questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGGHPNW-CWs The proof that it was an inside job is crushing. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867 I would bet he was in on it. Maybe they know they have no chance of winning because they have no proof.
Truther economics 101. 1. Destroy your investment. 2. Pay the lease on property you cannot sublease for 10+ years. 3. Receive an insurance payout that is a fraction of the cost of building a new building on the site. 4. ? 5. Profit!
crazy that Silverstein bought lots of terrorism insurance, just months before the attacks huh??????????????
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------- Definition of NON SEQUITUR a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said -------------------------------------------------- Please address the issue I raised.
because in their eyes,if a set of buildings that cost 5 gazillion dollars to build,and brought in half a gazillion a year in pure profit,were to be destroyed,and the owner got only 4 gazillion from the insurance companies,the owner HAD to be in on it.....after all,four gazillion dollars profit baby! Errrrrrrrrrrr,wait.....
Silverstein bought terrorism insurance for the WTC, then blew them up...and is now collecting insurance money? Im gonna contact his insurance company right away and report this fraud.
Let me get this straight. You people have watched these videos... Larry Silverstein no response to WTC 7 lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJsEGgc5L2c (MUST SEE) 911 More LIES Exposed - Larry Silverstein (REMINDER) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MODMG-yfsDs Larry Silverstein avoids 9/11 questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGGHPNW-CWs ...and seen how he refused to answer a legitimate question, and you're not the least bit suspicious?
refused to answer WHAT 'legitimate' question,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c? Loonytunes truther accusations don't qualify as a 'question'
why haven't the insurance companies sued Silverstein, if he was "in on it"? insurance companies ENJOY giving away billions of dollars for fraud? lol!!!!!
First off I'm astonished that you consider those questions. Second off I'm complete mind blown that you think refusing to answer those "questions" is somehow proof of guilt. Wow. You truthers never fail to amuse me.
Start watching this video at the 2:12 time mark. (MUST SEE) 911 More LIES Exposed - Larry Silverstein (REMINDER) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MODMG-yfsDs The journalist asked him to clarify his position. He refused to answer. Please explain why that was not a legitimate question. Asking for a clarification seems pretty legitimate to me.
there are NO "journalists" in those videos. just harrassing children who have no brains and no talent.
Please explain why you don't consider the question to be legitimate. Here's some stuff about the media you should check out. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chomsky+media
