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

[stickdog99]

All this has obscured the first questions we should logically ask on hearing this story:

1) Is it true that Shapiro heard about this phone call from the police and electric company sources he cites anonymously, and, if so, did they get their story right that prior to the fall of Building 7, Silverstein asked the insurance company for permission to conduct a controlled demolition of Building 7?

2) Assuming it is true that this phone call happened as related, what did Silverstein and the insurance company decide to do? Shapiro, again, does not make this explicit, but merely leaves it in the air as the assumption we should make from his claim that he didn't hear explosions when the building went down.

3) When Silverstein asked for this permission, was a capacity already in place to conduct a controlled demolition? If so, how and when was this capacity implemented? If not, just what was Silverstein thinking to do when he asked? How quickly could a capacity for a CD be put in place?

[17breezes]

His hyper-sensitivity to "the Jewish Question"

In my universe, there should not BE a "Jewish Question," any more than there should be a Muslim, Gay, Colored, Arab, or any such fucking stupid question. Hypersensitivity my ass. Everybody should be so "hypersensitive."

[stickdog99]

Although I do think that the collapse of building 7 is highly suspicious, I don't see anything unusual or smoking-gunnesque about the phone call. Guys like Silverstein or Trump typically operate with a great deal of debt, fairly immobile assets, and just enough liquidity to service the debt. Their empire prospers or falls on the confidence others have in their ability to make the next payment. With 2 buildings down and a third one on fire, he would have been concerned to get his cash flow going as soon as possilbe, and I am not surprised that he was on the phone with his insurer within hours (minutes?) of the plane strikes. He was understandably eager to learn whether the insurer would total building 7 (relatively quick payout in cash) or try to save it (relatively slow payout for contracted work performed). Silverstein would have been trying to convince the insurer to total it, and if he could get them to commit to it before adequate information was available, all the better. Does that mean he was planning to collapse the building that afternoon or able to do it? No. It means he was trying to convince his insurer that the building should be collapsed as soon as practicable, so within weeks or a couple of months at the outside.

Does the above mean that WTC7 was not a CD? No. But it does mean that the phone call is not particularly relevant to the investigation.

LOL. If Silverstein was on the phone negotiating with his insurance company to get the go ahead for CD hours before the building imploded in a CD-like fashion, I'd say this newly disclosed information is highly relevant to the investigation. Why are so many people performing such grotesque mental contortions to find ways to dismiss this issue out of hand?

[norton ash]

In my universe, there should not BE a "Jewish Question," any more than there should be a Muslim, Gay, Colored, Arab, or any such fucking stupid question. Hypersensitivity my ass. Everybody should be so "hypersensitive."

Mmmm. Tell us about the richness and complexity of your universe, 17breezes. You always make such surprising and varied contributions to RI.

[kenoma]

kenoma, are you saying that the removal of Ahmed from the picture is a step toward the removal of the hijackers themselves? Because in the context of this thread that's pretty much what I'm hearing.
...
In these terms, the notion that the Mahmood Ahmed never gave a hundred gees to Atta can become the gateway to an entire staircase of suppositions - no money equals no hijackers equals cave dwellers equals remote control equals controlled demolition... It's a familiarly traveled pathway around here, and where it leads to is a political rampart I have simply don't have any interest in defending

Wait. Slow down, barracuda.

Firstly, I am pointing to a fact, not a 'notion': that the frequently repeated claims about Ahmed all ultimately derived from an Indian intelligence source. I'm willing to change my view on that if someone can come up with another more credible source for the claim, but I've done a lot of work on this and I've found nothing - the FBI sources, for whatever they're worth, are repeating the Indian chatter. So that's a fact, that's out there, and I don't think you can with any integrity say, "nah, that doesn't suit, I'm sticking with a story I know to be questionable, because if I don't have that, it'll be the ideological ruin of me."

Does removing Ahmed remove the hijackers? You tell me. Is the Ahmed anecdote really such an important part of Classic Truth? Can it not hold together without that lynchpin? Because that would be a pretty sorry state of affairs and one that would cast some doubt on all this nostalgia about the original "9/11 gold" Jeff referred to.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to prove CD by disproving the Ahmed yarn. (Disclosure: I know those buildings were brought down - that's what I see when I see the video, I can't unsee that - but CD is not the thing that convinced me that 9/11 was a US operation: it was the military exercises on that day, the absurdity of the whole idea of Al Qaeda, the Anthrax attacks, the sheer bloody obviousness of the PNAC motives, the obvious forgeries (the passport at ground zero), Tora Bora. the hasty removal of physical evidence, the coverup commissions etc... the whole stew.) That's not my point.

What I'm objecting to is the patronizing and lazy way of arguing against "CDers" by gesturing vaguely to a supposedly rigorous and hyper-sophisticated body of investigative research that demonstrates the centrality of the hijackers and Al-Qaeda - however understood - to the events of that day. I am suggesting that if adherents of Classic Truth want to take that attitude to CDers, they first get their house in order by dispassionately re-examining that body of research to see how it stands today, rather than just expecting the rest of us to swallow the legend of "9/11 gold". I took one piece of it, the Ahmed thing, and found it to be dubious. I've been reading lots of Hopsicker today - before I respond to nathan - and find it to be a stew of bullshit, with embarrassingly low journalistic standards and a highly questionable ideological slant. (I'll get back to that)

[barracuda]

Firstly, I am pointing to a fact, not a 'notion': that the frequently repeated claims about Ahmed all ultimately derived from an Indian intelligence source. I'm willing to change my view on that if someone can come up with another more credible source for the claim, but I've done a lot of work on this and I've found nothing - the FBI sources, for whatever they're worth, are repeating the Indian chatter. So that's a fact, that's out there, and I don't think you can with any integrity say, "nah, that doesn't suit, I'm sticking with a story I know to be questionable, because if I don't have that, it'll be the ideological ruin of me."

I'm good with that. I just want to be clear on what the repurcussions are to a confrontation with that fact.

Does removing Ahmed remove the hijackers? You tell me. Is the Ahmed anecdote really such an important part of Classic Truth? Can it not hold together without that lynchpin? Because that would be a pretty sorry state of affairs and one that would cast some doubt on all this nostalgia about the original "9/11 gold" Jeff referred to.

See, I don't know. Was the Ahmed payoff ever the lynchpin to the hijacker's story? I don't think their very existence stands or falls on that particular data point, but you are causing me to review that persuasion, so thanks for that. I happen to agree that the activities of the American authorities surrounding 911 are the primary tells of central involvement, but I'm not one of those for whom the video evidence was ever a lock.

[psynapz]

When any attempt is made to articulate the truth of Classic Truth, we usually end up with the 8bit-esque tourette's posting: you know, that PTech-ISI-Atta-Indira Singh-Saudis-Frankfurt-Sibel Edmonds-Khashoggi-Taliban-Frankfurt-Florida flight schools-occult numerology-Osama thing.

Everything but the kitchen sink and Mossad.

The problem here isn't with the complexity of this thing; complexity's fine. The problem is with its incoherence.

I'd say there are enough variables at play to qualify this as a chaos system. It was definitely intended to be. It sets the stage for chaos magic, and that may be the single most powerful reality-hacking method known to few.

But chaos doesn't make it incoherent. I'd love for you to elaborate on incoherence, particularly wrt the 8Bitourretes stream of keywords you laid out there. What's wrong with a complex, chaotically-connected web of colluding and competing entities variously involving-in and benefitting-from the big show?

I've been reading lots of Hopsicker today - before I respond to nathan - and find it to be a stew of bullshit, with embarrassingly low journalistic standards and a highly questionable ideological slant. (I'll get back to that)

I was just about to invoke Hopsicker's name in the context of Classic Truth. I know Jeff's a big fan. Their publisher Kris Millegan has told me he's sincerely concerned for Daniel's safety, and I wouldn't blame him considering the long view of Hopsicker's body of research. Unfortunately I have to agree that he seems to shortcut and only selectively corrects himself (maybe only if there's a lawsuit or threat of which involved), and his videos are of such a hopelessly poor quality as to nearly pass from grassroots into un-credible territory. Surely there's a college kid with a Mac and a DV cam somewhere in Venice Beach that can help him out?

His hyper-sensitivity to "the Jewish Question"

In my universe, there should not BE a "Jewish Question," any more than there should be a Muslim, Gay, Colored, Arab, or any such fucking stupid question. Hypersensitivity my ass. Everybody should be so "hypersensitive."

Or nobody should.

Israel is a criminal terrorist state by any modern, accepted definition. So is the U.S., of course, but saying so isn't anti-Christian (or anti-Masonic). Either get over it and engage in a forward-momentum discussion, or be ignored, because your message is impotent as it is ironically offensive. Try being a human first ...if your biases will let you remember how.

[nathan28]

I've been reading lots of Hopsicker today - before I respond to nathan - and find it to be a stew of bullshit, with embarrassingly low journalistic standards and a highly questionable ideological slant. (I'll get back to that)

I was just about to invoke Hopsicker's name in the context of Classic Truth. I know Jeff's a big fan. Their publisher Kris Millegan has told me he's sincerely concerned for Daniel's safety, and I wouldn't blame him considering the long view of Hopsicker's body of research. Unfortunately I have to agree that he seems to shortcut and only selectively corrects himself (maybe only if there's a lawsuit or threat of which involved), and his videos are of such a hopelessly poor quality as to nearly pass from grassroots into un-credible territory. Surely there's a college kid with a Mac and a DV cam somewhere in Venice Beach that can help him out?

Hopsicker's work is hopeless sloppy, and I largely discount a lot of it myself--like Amanda Keller, Mohammed Atta's stripper-not-a-stripper girlfriend-not-girlfriend who gives testimony, then denies it, then gives it again, then denies it again. Are "THEY" onto her? Or is she just taking everyone for a ride she's not that committed to taking them on? Who knows, but she's full of it. But I really don't need that piece. Hopsicker's stuff is mostly rough drafts and at times I have no idea what he's getting at, his bullshit detector sucks and I don't like the vague, unstated over-arching metatheory he seems to want to articulate but never does. I do think he's important to pointing out the ongoing para-state criminality that involves itself in the world of private airports... I wish he would, you know, like, normalize the sound volume levels in his videos. Or that someone else would do that work.

Likewise, I want to point out that the higher MTV-style production value of Loose Change I-XVII and Fabled Enemies hardly makes those more reliable ("we included inaccuracies to make sure you do your own research"), but it does make them watchable. Is that what matters? Coming up with a shinier presentation? I think that warrants as much contextualization as a Victorian octopus metaphor.

Otherwise barracuda has largely articulated most of what I mean to say better than I did or could. And kenoma, as you stated, it looks like CD, but there's so much other pigshit going on that day that it should be clear enough without CD that it still stinks. And even so, I don't think it matters.

And on edit, I don't think there ever was a "classic truth."

[MacCruiskeen]

Simulist, psynapz and Hammer of Los, you were asking me to contribute something to this thread, but I think I've already said nearly everything I want to say about WTC7, for example here (I have about seven or eight posts in this thread alone):

Collapse of WTC7: NIST’s Final 9/11 Report Unscientific and False

The BBC's shockingly dishonest treatment of the Barry Jennings/Michael Hess story involved me in an email correspondence with the shit who produced the programme, one Mike Rudin. Rudin's sheer evasiveness and blatant mendacity finally convinced me beyond all doubt that there's been a serious cover-up about WTC7. And cover-ups only take place when there's something worth covering up.

Otherwise, I'm in practically total agreement with everything kenoma has said here, and I'm very grateful to him for having said it and said it so well.

[MacCruiskeen]

Does removing Ahmed remove the hijackers? You tell me. Is the Ahmed anecdote really such an important part of Classic Truth? Can it not hold together without that lynchpin? Because that would be a pretty sorry state of affairs and one that would cast some doubt on all this nostalgia about the original "9/11 gold" Jeff referred to.

See also Elias Davidsson's study [PDF] of the Nineteen Deathloving Superstudents yarn:

No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
By Elias Davidsson

10 January 2008 (revised 8 February 2008)

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Note, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes.
Absent such evidence for over six years, the official account of 9/11 must finally be exposed as a lie.

http://newcrisispapers.com/noevidence.pdf

[17breezes]

Does removing Ahmed remove the hijackers? You tell me. Is the Ahmed anecdote really such an important part of Classic Truth? Can it not hold together without that lynchpin? Because that would be a pretty sorry state of affairs and one that would cast some doubt on all this nostalgia about the original "9/11 gold" Jeff referred to.

See also Elias Davidsson's study [PDF] of the Nineteen Deathloving Superstudents yarn:

No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
By Elias Davidsson

10 January 2008 (revised 8 February 2008)

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Note, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes.
Absent such evidence for over six years, the official account of 9/11 must finally be exposed as a lie.

http://newcrisispapers.com/noevidence.pdf

Jesus F Christ

http://graphics.boston.com/news/package ... nifest.gif
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecas ... 00001A.pdf
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecas ... 00001B.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_11_passengers.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_77_passengers.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_passengers.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_175_passengers.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecas ... 00010.html

[MacCruiskeen]

Breezy, what point did you imagine you were making with that last stinky breeze? Or was it just another of your territorial markers?

Of course it's no surprise to see you eye-rolling and guffawing and farting and ROTFLing whenever anyone ventures to doubt the guilt of those Designated Evil Semites. I supposed that makes you pro-Semitic, in your book. But then your book makes The Pet Goat look like Ulysses.

[Nordic]

I couldn't help but notice that Breezy has decided to avoid contributing to this thread:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... =8&t=27994

Why is that, Breezy? Just being selective with your wisdom-filled missives?

I would LOVE your input on that one.

[chump]

I'd say there are enough variables at play to qualify this as a chaos system. It was definitely intended to be. It sets the stage for chaos magic, and that may be the single most powerful reality-hacking method known to few.

But chaos doesn't make it incoherent. I'd love for you to elaborate on incoherence, particularly wrt the 8Bitourretes stream of keywords you laid out there. What's wrong with a complex, chaotically-connected web of colluding and competing entities variously involving-in and benefitting-from the big show?

Bing! that is an interesting comment. Chaos magic? I sense that's what's going on. Would you agree that is what was going on after JFK in the 60's too?

The ones in the know can be counted on to do their part and take advantage of the opportunities that appear as a result of certain staged events while so many people are floundering. The reward is even better when these lead to massive death and destruction. Look at where the flow of money and power have gone since the criminal cartels finally managed to completely hijacked U.S. government. Most people are in a daze, while certain people are amassing huge fortunes. 9/11 was a continuation of that.

I think Daniel Hopsicker is onto something down in Florida as far as the history of drug running out of the Venice Airport. "Barry and the Boys" drew a lot of interesting connections. But after 9/11 his stories were a misdirection as far as the hijackers were concerned. How many "Mohammed Attas" were/are there?

[nathan28]

All this has obscured the first questions we should logically ask on hearing this story:

1) Is it true that Shapiro heard about this phone call from the police and electric company sources he cites anonymously, and, if so, did they get their story right that prior to the fall of Building 7, Silverstein asked the insurance company for permission to conduct a controlled demolition of Building 7?

That's why it's a Fox story on background.

2) Assuming it is true that this phone call happened as related, what did Silverstein and the insurance company decide to do? Shapiro, again, does not make this explicit, but merely leaves it in the air as the assumption we should make from his claim that he didn't hear explosions when the building went down.

3) When Silverstein asked for this permission, was a capacity already in place to conduct a controlled demolition? If so, how and when was this capacity implemented? If not, just what was Silverstein thinking to do when he asked? How quickly could a capacity for a CD be put in place?

See my answer above. These were pretty important questions and they were voiced back on like page one of this thread. But then the impression I got was that was too much "doubt" or "deep politics" to handle.