"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

United Airlines Flight 93

This one shouldn't be near as long as the others, as there is no building to talk about in this.  United Airlines Flight 93 was the fourth hijacked planed during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  It is of note that it is the only one that did not hit its target.

Again, just to show you that everyone, hijackers and the people that tried taking back the plane were on board, here is the flight manifest:

Got it?  Good.

Here is a bonus for you with hijacker pilot Ziad Jarrah on tape in the cockpit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Ziad1.ogg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ziad2.ogg

Notice he says the same thing essentially as Atta.  They have a bomb on board and they're going back to the airport.  However, being that UA93 took off later than it's originally scheduled take off time, the passengers received word from family/friends on the ground that other hijacked planes that day were ran into buildings.  But did these phone calls actually take place?  Truthers beg to differ.

THEM PHONE CALLS HAPPEN, OR NO

One such phone call came from passenger CeeCee Lyles (and again, look her up on the flight manifest.  She's there):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Lyles.ogg

Phone operator Lisa Jefferson seems to think those phone calls were real.  She talked to passenger Todd Beamer:

Passenger Mark Bingham's mom seems to think she talked with her son:

Seems to me that all the ones that received phone calls from this flight feel they were indeed from their loved ones in the air.  So why do truthers think these are faked?

Their theory is that cellular telephones back then could not get a signal that high in the air.  Though this is a valid point, there is one major flaw to this argument: almost every single telephone call was made with the air phones that are on the backs of the airplane seats.  Only two or three calls were made with cell phones, and those were disconnected almost immediately.

In total, 37 phone calls were made from United Airlines Flight 93.  Of those 37 calls, 9 lasted 0 seconds, as in they either didn't connect at all, or disconnected immediately.  Another 10 lasted less than 10 seconds. So over half of the phone calls were 10 seconds or less.  And 2 of the calls that were longer than that were made by a flight attendant to United Airlines.  And all but two of these calls were made with an air phone.

There is nothing of note here that is suspicious or out of the ordinary.

YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLANE AND A HOLE IN THE GROUND

Truthers often make the claim that this hole in the ground:

Couldn't POSSIBLY have that of a commercial jet liner in it.  And sure, it didn't.  Debris is found in the woods not too far from the impact crater, like this bit of fuselage:

And this bit of fuselage:

Not a whole lot, yeah?  Just remember it was traveling at a high rate of speed straight into the ground.  Here is a Navy jet that suffered the same fate.  Does the impact and general area look familiar to you:

Now the dig into the ground begins.  Not too long into the dig, an engine is found:

The other engine is said to have been found in the woods past the fuselage pieces.

This shows how obliterated the plane got on impact, with how little pieces are visible on the ground:

More debris in the woods:

Both the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were recovered.  In regards to the cockpit voice recorder, it was played during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and for the families of the victims.  I will post a transcript of what was on there, but unfortunately, the recording itself is still under seal for an unknown amount of time.

WAS IT SHOT DOWN OR DID IT CRASH

One of the more interesting contradictions by truthers is that they will say in the same breathe that Flight 93 either landed in Cleveland (something that the Cleveland news said was a false report), never existed, or was shot down.

Per the transcript of the cockpit after the hijackers took over would certainly make it seem like it was put into the ground by Jarrah to avoid the passengers taking back the plane.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf

Was there a shoot down order in place by that point?  Yes, there was.  But fighters at that time were flying over Washington D.C. and Manhattan after the attacks there.

Also, if it was indeed shot down, there would be much larger pieces of debris thrown over a much larger distance than what was already found there.  it also wouldn't make an impact crater that looks like it took a steep dive and practically went vertically into the ground.

American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon

I'll start with one of the biggest theories that the 9/11 Truth Movement.  The theory that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but in fact, a missile did.

Conspiracy theorists make numerous claims on the event.

1. There was no recognizable plane wreckage.

2. There is no video footage of AA77 from any of the security cameras at or around the Pentagon.

3. The hole in the Pentagon is too small for a plane of that size.

4. There was no damage to the foundation of the Pentagon.

5. The plane shot the missile, and then flew over the Pentagon to Reagan International Airport (often cited as "Pentacon") and was on a different flight path from what the official story says.


AA77 CAUGHT ON CAMERA

Many truthers try to claim that there is no footage in known existence that has American Airlines Flight 77 on it.  To that I quote the popular football analyst Lee Corso "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!"

In the first videos released by the group Judicial Watch from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the government about said tapes, shows one frame on each of them with what looks like a large plane.  The cameras were a fish bowl lens variety, and were more of a photographic camera rather than a video camera, taking a picture once ever second.  They both get part or all of the object that struck the Pentagon.

Here is the scene with no object in it.

And now here is the shot with the "object" in it.

A closer look of said object, pointing out the characteristics of a plane.

Notice the color on it, the shape (clearly visible on the back what looks like a large tail fin), and the smoke billowing out of it, which is consistent wit the official account of one of the engines getting damaged when it clipped one of the light poles.  None of it looks to have characteristics of a cruise missile.

The other released footage, the Doubletree Hotel, and the Citgo gas station (more on that with Pentacon) have cameras that either were not pointing at the Pentagon (gas station) or had the highway obstructing the view (Doubletree).

PENTAGON IMPACT HOLE

This is a picture that truthers will often cite for their claim that a plane couldn't possibly have hit the Pentagon.

Notice that this picture is from sometime after the portion hit had collapsed.  Notice immediately to the right of the collapsed area more damage, however.

Now, here is a picture of the Pentagon damage BEFORE the area collapsed.

Notice how it looks like the shape of a plane, and not a missile.

Truthers also like to claim that the lawn was undamaged, and no damage to the Pentagon foundation occurred.  Though it is true that precious green grass was unhurt (until all of the debris splatters all over it), the foundation was indeed damaged:

Notice the round shape of the damage, indicating it was struck by one of the plane engines.


BONUS:

Here is the overhead view of what AA77 looked like flying in via the official flightpath in regards to the light poles.

Notice how AA77 would just have to go straight to clip those light poles, where as a missile would have to bob and weave like Floyd Mayweather avoiding Pacquiao like the plague.  A cruise missile cannot do this.

As a counter argument, truthers claim that the light poles, in front of hundreds of witnesses on the interstate that day, popped off each pole from the base.

That wiley government will stop at nothing!  However, there is one more part to the story of damage before Pentagon impact.  That would be the Pentagon generator.

So what 9/11 truthers would like for you to believe is that a cruise missile zig zagged back and forth to knock over light poles (or the government agents popped them off), hit a fairly large generator without exploding, THEN hit the Pentagon, and blew up.  Seems pretty far fetched, doesn't it?

But bring this up to them and they will then rebuttal with a lack of...

AA77 DEBRIS

Yes, they believe that there are little, or many of them will say, no, debris at the Pentagon that looks like it would have come from American Airlines flight 77.  They will often cite this photograph as proof:

Why would they cite this, you ask?  They believe that this shows little to no debris on the Pentagon lawn.  Loose Change I believe was the first to make this claim.

They seem to ignore the red lettering on the piece of debris closest to the camera having red lettering on it, which is consistent with American Airlines.  You can also see in the background closer to the Pentagon a whole heaping lot of debris on the lawn.

More debris that was outside of the Pentagon:

Quite a bit of debris from a plane that hit at over 500 mph, right?  There's more on the inside:

I'll talk about the flight data recorder and the data it holds a little later.

Now, here is another portion of the landing gear assembly.  Note the area in the yellow circle:

And now here is an undamaged landing gear assemble.  Notice the area inside the yellow circle.  Also, notice the wheel design and then look at the wheel in the debris above:

How much of this debris looks like it came from an airplane?  All of it.  How much of it looks like it came from a cruise missile?  None of it.

Ya'lls Just a Bunch of Puppets!

Now comes to the weird theory of the event.  A duo that calls themselves the Citizen Investigative Team (CIT for short) came up with a theory that is often ridiculed by debunkers and truthers alike.  I elected to include it because a lot of people surprisingly believe in it.  This theory is called the "North of the gas station" theory.

They interviewed a 13 eyewitnesses that claimed they saw American Airlines Flight 77 fly over the Citgo gas station.  They all believe that the plane did in fact hit the Pentagon.  The main argument made here?  It disagrees with what has been deemed as the official flightpath.

Here are all of the eyewitnesses' accounts of how the plane flew in.  The red line is the botched reading of the flight data recorder data, and the light teal line is the official flight path:

Notice how almost all of these witnesses disagree with how AA77 got to the gas station.  Some claimed it came in from the Naval Annez in the lower left corner.  One said it came in from Arlington Cemetary.  However, they all agree that it flew by on the left )north) side of the Citgo gas station.

CIT takes these accounts and makes a theory of their own: that the plane may have indeed existed.  And it shot a missile from its underbelly and then flew over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan International Airport.

There are a few problems with this so-called theory, to put it bluntly.

First, they use the botched reading of the flight data recorder from the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth as proof that the plane did indeed fly over the Pentagon.  The data Pilots revealed ended before impact and showed an elevation too high to strike the Pentagon.

The problem with this?  That isn't what the FDR displays.  In a paper by Warren Stutt and frank Legge, To make it a TL;DR (though I highly recommend you read it), they read it wrong.  

Note that this paper was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which is run by another CT nutter Kevin Ryan.  Seems to me that even they have accepted that AA77 did indeed impact the Pentagon.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Another problem with their gas station theory? The security footage shows no evidence of AA77 coming anywhere close to it.  No shadows, no nothing.

Also, AA77 was tracked on Radar all the way to it's crash at the Pentagon.  Here is the footage from Reagan:

BONUS:

HANI HANJOUR

The last thing I will davel on when it comes to the Pentagon is the belief by truthers that Hani Hanjour could not make a certain maneuver before he made his final approach to the Pentagon.  

The maneuver:

Same maneuver from an altitude point of view:

Hanjour was 2500 feet above the ground when he started the maneuver.  He was around 1000 feet above the ground when he B-lined it for the Pentagon.  Notice that he apparently had enough knowledge to know he should probably go up more altitude to begin the maneuver.

I really don't see how hard it is for someone who doesn't really care about the safety of the plane or the passengers on board to pull a maneuver like this off.  In fact, it really isn't even that hard, because amateurs have duplicated in in a Boeing flight simulator (pretty much the very same that the hijackers used to flight train, mind you):

He manages to duplicate, the very same maneuver that truthers deem only military professionals could pull off, three times.

CONCLUSION

So here are the pieces of evidence I lay out to counter the truther argument that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:

There is a large plane shaped hole in the side of the Pentagon that is seen before the area collapses.

There are several pieces of debris that are consistent with an American Airlines commercial jet crashing there.

The maneuver that AA77 hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour pulled off was not nearly as difficult as you think.

The flight data recorder shows that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

There is zero evidence of a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon.

There is zero evidence for, and serveral amounts of contradictory evidence against the north of the gas station/Pentagon flyover theory.