"Lucky" Larry Silverstein

This is Larry Silverstein.  In 2001 he won the lease for the World Trade Center Complex.  Note: He has not, nor ever OWNED the complex.  The New York Port Authority does.  Conspiracy theorists often target him as someone who profited greatly from the terrorist attacks.  Personally, I think many truthers think that because he is of Jewish decent.

Now, I already addressed "pull it" in the World Trade Center 7 post, so I will not be addressing it here.

LUCKY LARRY MADE BANK WHEN THOSE BUILDINGS FELL

Outside of "pull it", the most popular/common conspiracy theory against Silverstein is that he took out a terrorism insurance policy on the Twin Towers, and went to court to get double that, as his argument was that each plane crash was a separate terrorist attack.  His initial policy was for 3.5 billion dollars, and he tried to get 7.1 billion.  According to truthers, he won his court case.

Again, as Lee Corso would say "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!"

First, let's look at the insurance itself.  Being that it was the WTC, and in 1993 the towers were bombed, of course he would take out a policy on terrorism.  But wait, he didn't willingly just do it, terrorism insurance is included in his regular insurance package for the complex.  He did, however, choose a cheaper plan. In court papers from the case of him trying to get more money from the companies, he initially tried to get a 1.5 billion dollar policy.  His lenders refused, and he ultimately went with a 3.5 billion dollar policy.

According to an article from 2008, where he was trying to sue United and American Airlines for over 12 billion dollars in damages (he lost that case), he was awarded 4.6 billion dollars from the insurance companies, or 1.1 billion more than the initial policy.  I wouldn't exactly call it winning when he got 2.5 billion dollars less than what he wanted.  So let's do some simple arithmetic on the costs of rebuilding for "lucky" Larry.

First, let's just put this out there.  In 2003 the estimates to rebuild the entire complex was at 10 billion.  Per an NYT article on the subject, that could very well rise in time too.  Already not looking good for truthers and this theory.  Then there is his lease payments.  He has to pay 120 million dollars a year to retain the rights for building improvements on the site, or if it were do happen (which unfortunately it did), a rebuild of the complex.  They still haven't finished the rebuild mind you, after 14 years.  2WTC is currently delayed.  So 120 multiplied by 14 is 1.68 billion dollars.  That leaves 2.92 billion dollars of the insurance policy he was awarded.

World Trade Center Seven cost 700 million to rebuild.  Leaving 2.22 billion dollars left. World Trade Center Four also cost 700 million dollars. That insurance payout is now down to 1.52 billion dollars.  World Trade Center Three is going to cost 2.75 billion dollars (still currently under construction).  And :POOF: all of that insurance money is gone, Larry is in the red out of his own pocket by 1.23 billion dollars.

And we didn't even get to the main event: World Trade Center One, commonly referred to as the Freedom Tower. Per the Wall Street Journal in January 2012, the cost of building 1WTC is 3.9 billion dollars.  This would make the lucky one's out of pocket cost increase to 5.13 billion dollars.

Sure, he's filfthy rich.  However, his net worth is only 3.5 billion dollars.  So what happens from here?

Here's what: Silverstein lost the rights to 1WTC, the choice of tenants that would rent space there, and any money that would be made from it.  The rights to it have gone back to the New York Port Authority.

So not only did rebuilding cost more than what Larry got from his court battles (and we don't even know how much he paid in legal fees for his attorneys, this battle lasted years), he lost the rights to the focal point of the new Manhattan skyline.  AND he still is trying to get 2WTC rebuilt (he still has the rights to that, and it will cost similar to 1WTC), which is currently on hold.  Why?  Probably because he cannot produce the funding to get it done right now.

So not only did Larry Silverstein not have enough money to cover all the costs of rebuilding the site, he lost the rights to the now most iconic building in lower Manhattan.  What a lucky guy he is.

SAUCES? SAUCES:

Larry's net worth: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/larry-silverstein-net-worth/

1WTC cost: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203920204577191371172049652

Larry losing case against airliners and NYPA developing 1WTC: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323993804578614292502152144

Estimated cost to rebuild the entire WTC complex: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/nyregion/official-puts-cost-rebuilding-world-trade-center-site-10-billion-but-that-could.html

Larry trying to cheap out on his insurance policy: http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, BUT THAT DAY HE WASN'T

Truthers also go after Larry Silverstein for not being at the Twin Towers the morning of the attacks.  They state he usually has breakfast with tenants at the Windows on the World, which was on the 107th floor of the North Tower (1WTC).  Where oh where could he possibly be on that day of all days?!

According to the man himself, he was at a dermatologists appointment with his wife.  He was 70 at the time of the attacks, so it is pretty plausible that this was in fact the case.  But of course, truthers say he was lying with that and he had some sort of advanced knowledge it was going to happen.  But hey, these are the same people that think he admitted to blowing a building up on national television, soooo....

And another knock on the foreknowledge theory, is that you would think the head of the New York Port Authority would have the same advanced knowledge.  So either the whole theory is a crock, or Neil D. Levin missed the memo, because he died in the North Tower.  Where was he?  Windows on the World.

BONUS: Israeli company ZIM Shipping moved out of the WTC complex abruptly, breaking their lease, just two weeks before the attacks.

Ah, another "The j00s did it" theory.  First of all, they didn't break their lease.  It expired on September 1.  But the fact still remains, they left 10 days prior.

Not all of them, apparently.  About 10 employees of ZIM were in the North Tower finishing up their move out when AA11 hit the North Tower.  Not exactly what you would expect from an Israeli company that's supposedly knowing what is going to happen and keep their employees in there.

And what floor were they on? Oh.  The 29th floor.  They were easily able to get out regardless.  And yes, their property was destroyed in the collapse of the North Tower.  It actually still had their shipping tracking equpiment/computers in there, and when that was lost, they were shut down for a short period of time, which, like Larry, means they lost money in the attacks.

And according to then Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, ZIM made the announcement they were leaving the WTC for Virginia back in April.  So it isn't like they just "up and left suddenly".  Also of note, they were apparently one of the last steamship companies with their headquarters still in Manhattan.  They ultimately left the WTC to save on costs, and moved to Virginia, which is where most of their ships stop at Virginia since 1985, so the most makes logical and financial sense for them.

Sources:

List of tenants of the North Tower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center

Information on the Zim move:  http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/journalofcommerce101801.html

World Trade Center Seven

One of the now several items that 9/11 Truthers proclaim as the "smoking gun" that solifies that September 11th was done by portions of the United States government is World Trade Center Seven (WTC7).

AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE

Truthers often show this specific video, created by the oft discredited group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

There is one fairly large problem with these videos:  NONE of them show the entire collapse.

You see, what truthers conveniently forget about in any collapse footage for World Trade Center Seven is many seconds before the entire building collapses, a portion of the mechanical penthouse up top collapses into the building itself.  This is the point, at the very latest, the collapse timer starts rolling.

The Penthouse collapses at about 3:41 in the video.  The rest of the building hits the floors at about 3:58.  That's about 17 seconds for the entire collapse.  Which, as you might've guessed, throws the truther theory that WTC7 fell at free fall speed, and therefor, was clearly a controlled demolition, out the window.

But they seem to refuse to believe this.  It just LOOKS like a controlled demolition.  Does it?  Look at the video.  Do you hear any loud bangs?  And bright flashes?  And cloud plumes from initial foundation explosions?  No, you don't.

"But it fell straight down in the path of least resistance into its own footprint."  Did it?  Let's look at a picture of an overhead shot of the remains of WTC7 after collapsing:

Notice how the remains of WTC7 have spilt into the bordering streets around it.  All of them, actually.  This is not consistent in any way with a controlled demolition.  The collapse of WTC7 also caused this to a neighboring building:

This would be Fiterman Hall, located north of WTC7 on the corner of Barclay and Greenwich.  If it was a controlled demolition, as truthers claim, and fell straight down, as truthers say, then how did it damage this building?

So it isn't looking good for controlled demolition theorists at all.  But wait, how DID it collapse then?  I mean, it wasn't hit by a plane like the Twin Towers were!  There is a very simple explanation for this:  the North Tower severely damaged World Trade Center Seven when it collapsed.

DAMAGE TO WTC 7

Just to give you an idea of how close these two buildings were:

Pretty close, yeah?  Here's a look at WTC7 when the North Tower collapsed:

Certainly looks like it's south side is getting hit there from the North Tower's collapse.  Damage?  You bet:

This looks like a pretty significant gouge was taken out of the SW corner of WTC7.  The damage here starts at the 18th floor of the building.  This was a 47 story building.  So 38% of the SW corner has been severely damaged already.  This is a pretty significant number.

Here you can see what looks like a vertical gash going up and down the entire building:

As you can compare from the picture of WTC7 in the background of the North Tower above, that large vertical black bar was not there before.  This is indicative of something happening to damage it from before the North Tower collapsing and after.  And obviously the North Tower collapse is the main culprit to be accused.  It makes little to no sense that this is caused by bombs for controlled demolition, as it is shown several hours before it collapsed.

Firefighters on the scene also said as much for how badly damaged it was.

Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7].  A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building.  The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10545335/wtc-this-is-their-story-part-i

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.  Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.  You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.  It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 p'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden:"No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop.  It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make and attempt to fight it.  That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose.  We were concerned about the collapse of a 47 story building there.  We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of debris.  We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety." 

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter-hayden

Battalion Chief Tom Vallebuona:

"We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall and push the side of the World Trade Center that was still standing, and then it was going to go into 90 and I thought the scaffold was going to fall and cover the block and kill another 30 people.  As silly as it sounds now, if you were there at that moment, I wasn't the only person thinking that way."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10568000/battalion-chief-tom-vallebuona

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

"Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out?  I didn't realize how much they had because my view was obstructed.  All I could see was the upper floor.  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."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567999/deputy-chief-nick-visconti

There are more similar testimonies where that came from.  These are the people that were there, that were runing fire fighting and rescue operations at the WTC site.  They all say that WTC7 was heavily damaged and very much on fire, and they all expected it to collapse.

"LUCKY" LARRY SILVERSTEIN AND PULL IT

Truthers often make the claim that Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for the World Trade Center complex, admitted on national telivision that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Their "smoking gun" this time?  He said those two magical, whimsical words: pull it.  The transcript:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Now, judging from what we've read from those firefighter testimonies on WTC7 that day, they elected to stop fighting the fires there.  They then pulled out (see what I did there? that's important) of the immediate area and made a collapse radius and then just watched and waited.

Now, knowing all of that, do you think Larry  was talking about blowing the building up, or withdrawing from the area so no more lives were at risk for if/when the building collapsed?

As for the term pull it, here is a picture of WTC6 getting "pulled":

The term "pull it" in the demolition industry is not that of explosives and the bing bang boom bamboozle.  It is quite literally hooking up cables to a damaged building and pulling it down with a crane.  You can watch the short clip where they explain that process here:

http://www.911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi

From ImplosionWorld on the subject:

"There is no such phrase in explo-demo.  Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate.  Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse.  But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller.  This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Another strike out for the truthers.  No evidence of controlled demolition found on site.  Fire fighters saying they believed it was going to collapse from damage and fires.  Demolition experts saying pull it isn't an explosive demolition term.

So, whenever you hear a conspiracy theorist say these words: "Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?" or "Two planes cannot collapse three buildings!" you can say "Correct! But two planes, fire, damage from said planes, more fires, and collapse of the second of the first two buildings will cause the third building to collapse."