WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[PolyNewbie]

1) Where does $200M come from. Larry was the leaseholder and the agreement meant $3.2B to the Port Authority.

2) Double indemnity......in property policies ? Not that I have ever seen.

The buildings were destroyed by "fire" and for "terrorism" therefore Larry tried to go for a double payment.

Larry only put 200 million down. He didn't put up the full 3.whatever billion.

from 911Research;

"A Parable

To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.

"

911 treated Larry Silverstein OK.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty To do this at the WTC without anyone noticing is simply impossible

Agreed. Thats why it would have to be done in plain sight. To this day the contractors or people in the buildings have no idea why the work was done or that it is connected to 911. Maybe a lot of them died in accidents like the Kennedy witnesses.

Its not like office workers crowd around contarctors wanting to know exactly why work is done. Contractors need paycheques to do work, they do not need to know what their work is part of.

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony The Opening Post and this discussion is not addressing any Federal Politics with respect to Canada.

Its why we are fighting the war in Afghanistan according to Stephen Harper - I have read the quote but cannot find it. (Its not the pipline, the heroine trade or the natural gas) Its the 30 or so Canadian lives that were lost on 911.

[guyser]

Illuminating to say the least. Double Indemnity exists in Life policies...NOT property.

The buildings were destroyed by "fire" and for "terrorism" therefore Larry tried to go for a double payment.

Larry only put 200 million down. He didn't put up the full 3.whatever billion.

911 treated Larry Silverstein OK.

Ok here goes........

1) Fire is the reason they were destroyed, Terrorism is the reason the claim would be denied, but Larry paid for that exclusion to be waived prior to 9-11, thus Larry got paid. One cannot get paid for a house burning down AND for the reason it did so .

2) So what if Larry put $200M (in fact, larry only put $12M of his money down) on a $3.2B deal.He still quarantees the Port Authority $10M a month.....even as the bldg sits in ruin. As far as I know, Larry is still cutting a cheque each and every month for $10M to the Port Auth.

Poly, ever heard of a lease for a car? ....you put down a deposit , you dont pay off the whole lease before you get the car. Larry LEASED...Larry did not buy the WTC. And to boot, Larry was smart enough to get the rights to rebuild .

[guyser]

"A Parable

To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.

"

Sadly that website and the "parable" are woefully incorrect. Here is why. The above parable would never be accepted by an insurance company, as the Leaseholder does not have any "insurable interest" and thus cannot collect.

Means I cant insure your house because I dont own it, nor do I have any interest in that house. Now if you are talking mortgage then that is different.

[PolyNewbie]

Your explanations sound reasonable, and they are certainly what one would expect but as so often in the empire these days, they just do not apply here. The link I supplied has plenty of references to back up what it says. Larry tried for double the value because the buildings collapsed and there was a "terrorist" attack.

Its like the trillions missing from the Pentagon - its not what one would expect but it is reality.

( a trillion dollars is enough to buy over 150 nuclear powered fully equiped Nimitz class aircraft carriers)

[guyser]

Your explanations sound reasonable, and they are certainly what one would expect but as so often in the empire these days,

It does and is reasonable as it is what happened.

they just do not apply here.

Yes in fact they do apply here , there and everywhere as it is well documented. That website in its own words said "here is parable". A parable is a story that teaches a moral or religious lesson , thus having no relevance to 9-11 , larry or the wtc.

[Canadian Blue]

Haven't we gone over this about 10X in the past 6 months.

[wendy]

Thank you Wendy, for posting all this excellent material.

No doubt you have noticed how certain posters tend to angrily deny and froth at the mouth and yet fail to say anything substantive in response. You should regard this behaviour as proof of your success in puncturing a construct of vapid and mistaken beliefs.

Thankyou Figleaf and the others that responded in kind!

Please email some of these links to others you know and ask them what they think. Having some friends over and watching Terrorstorm, Freedom to Fascism, BBC WTC 7 smoking gun tape, September 11th Revisited: Were explosives used? and just ask them what they think.....many uninformed go through a paradigm shift instantly or shortly after. I have informed over a hundred people this way....and most definetly prople are becoming aware of what is going on.

Here is a great must see movie that completly dicredits Fema, NIST, PM, etc. Lots of great 911 info in here!

Must see 911 movie

September 11th Revisited is perhaps the most riveting film ever made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is a powerful ... all » documentary which features eyewitness accounts and archived news footage that was shot on September 11, 2001 but never replayed on television. Featuring interviews with eyewitnesses & firefighters, along with expert analysis by Professor Steven E. Jones, Professor David Ray Griffin, MIT Engineer Jeffrey King, and Professor James H. Fetzer. This film provides stunning evidence that explosives were used in the complete demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

Visit http://www.911revisited.com to get the DVD of this movie.

[stignasty]

Haven't we gone over this about 10X in the past 6 months.

Which is about 9 times too many.

Visit website to get the DVD of this movie.

Thanks, but no thanks

[Riverwind]

many uninformed go through a paradigm shift instantly or shortly after. I have informed over a hundred people this way....and most definetly prople are becoming aware of what is going on.

You speak with the zeal of a religious fanatic out looking for converts to your religion. All of truthies arguments have been thoroughly debunked - on this forum and in other places. Repeating them over, over and over again does not make them anymore believable.

The fact remains: if it was an inside job then 1000s of people would know today that they participated in it (even if they were not aware if their role at the time). Not one person has come forward to explain their part in the 'conspiracy'. The only rational conclusion is there was no conspiracy other than the obvious one involving Muslim radicals with a grudge against the US.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind All of truthies arguments have been thoroughly debunked - on this forum and in other places.

Not by you nor anyone else. Keep saying that though, after all there are people that think George Bush is god and there are people that think those Usama confession tapes really showed Usama.

Riverwind The fact remains: if it was an inside job then 1000s of people would know today that they participated in it (even if they were not aware if their role at the time).

Thats not fact - that is your opinion. Other opinions are different - such as those of intelligence experts & historians.

[Riverwind]

Not by you nor anyone else.

Everything you have ever posted has been debunked. Whenever you are beaten you retreat by changing the topic or throwing insults.

Thats not fact - that is your opinion. Other opinions are different - such as those of intellugence experts & historians.

It is common sense. Staging such a hoax and cover up would require the assistance of 1000s of people. All of these people would realize today that they assisted in a cover up even if they were not aware of it at the time. That is why it is impossible to take any of the truthie arguments seriously.

[PolyNewbie]

Architects & Engineers Join 911Truth

[Riverwind]

Architects & Engineers Join 911Truth

A website by one guy that wants to pretend that he is a 'group'.

[stignasty]

Architects & Engineers Join 911Truth

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...911-denial.html

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind Everything you have ever posted has been debunked. Whenever you are beaten you retreat by changing the topic or throwing insults.

Here are some Riverwind quotes

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

I don't think you can be taken too seriously with those quotes.

Riverwind Staging such a hoax and cover up would require the assistance of 1000s of people

So now you are an intelligence expert in addition to an engineer and banking/ finance expert.

[Riverwind]

Why don't you try actually learning about Thermodynamics instead of mindlessly repeating the nonsense you read on truthie sites?

"The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems."

First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy

The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to the system and the work done on the system.

Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. If you want to analyze the collapse of the towers then you must include the entropy and energy in the cloud of dust.

"Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses."

In thermodynamics, interactions between large ensembles of objects are studied and categorized. Central to this are the concepts of system and surroundings. A system is composed of particles, whose average motions define its properties, which in turn are related to one another through equations of state. Properties can be combined to express internal energy and thermodynamic potentials, which are useful for determining conditions for equilibrium and spontaneous processes.

Thermodynamics was developed to explain the behavoir of systems at a particle level. Using it to analyze building collapses is a waste of time.

So now you are an intelligence expert in addition to an engineer and banking/ finance expert.

Thank you for proving my point. You have no arguments that have not been refuted. When your counter arguments have been shredded you resort to insults or attempt to change the topic.

[PolyNewbie]

Don't misquote me like that. I did not ever say that thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and that it does not apply to building collapses.

Argue the facts with facts and stop using your oipinion as fact and for gawd sakes stop passing your self off as an expert.

[Riverwind]

Argue the facts with facts and stop using your oipinion as fact

I am arguing the facts. In this case, the facts that I presented clearly indicate that you don't understand Thermodynamics if you believe that the laws apply to open systems or that thermodynamics is a useful tool for explaining building collapses.

Furthermore, You are the one who keeps claiming over and over again that you have 'proven' that WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Your claims are nothing more than opinion backed up by speculation and dubious science.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind, are you related to Bill O'Reilly ?

[cybercoma]

Extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence to prove. Since there is a lot of speculation in the article, as well as inferences, let me speculate and infer in the opposite direction.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...2-180a4720e918

Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.

First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-storey office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it? Of course, you would.

First of all, if we think something is newsworthy because a fat obnoxious comedian whose 15 minutes of fame were up a long time ago brings it to the table, I feel sorry for us. This is no more newsworthy than aliens abductions, bigfoot sightings or reports on remote viewing.

But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building?

If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not.

In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001.

Two blocks away, oh I get it, when they said '...in a major American City' above, they didn't mean in "another" major american city, they meant right next to destruction of WTC. A whole two blocks away, makes it sound like it was entirely protected from being damaged, but would you want to be standing at the foot of WTC 7 when towers 1 and 2 collapsed? Probably not.

It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote.

Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained.

First of all, I'd hardly say the debris from towers 1 and 2 hitting WTC 7 counts as "little debris". Having said that, there are any number of reasons those fires could've started. The fires could've been started when the building was damaged by debris and the electrical wiring was damaged. If gas lines ran through the building (for heating systems) and those had ruptured, the sparks from damaged wiring or steel being banged into each other could've caused explosions even. Not to mention all of the wonderfully combustible materials we find in any office building in any city in the world. The fires are not a stretch of the imagination.

It is also assumed that the fires should've easily been contained; however, a whole lot of fire fighters were killed in towers 1 and 2 earlier. The events of the day were incredibly chaotic and the building was damaged to the extent that it collapsed. Perhaps they were thinking it was a little unsafe to send firefighters in there. Not to mention all the rubble from Towers 1 and 2 being all over the place, it must've been incredibly difficult to get emergency vehicles near the building.

Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth.

Or it collapsed due to a combination of fire and the huge gaping hole in the south wall, which was earlier destroyed by debris from the other towers.

Surprised it fell straight down? I should probably reference a structural engineer here, but I imagine as th building began falling, the structural supports that were still holding on by a thread broke, putting the top of the building into a freefall.

Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell.

Poor reporting is not evidence that WTC7 was destroyed by a top secret government plan.

Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular.

Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure.

During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."

Yeah, and? "A collapsing building looks a lot like when they make buildings collapse." Of course we're going to associate it with a controlled demolition because we've never seen office towers destroyed by terrorists before.

Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance.

A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Imagine that, the legal branch of the SEC being at the WTC site. The FBI and CIA had offices there too, you don't say!? That wouldn't have anything to do with it being the WORLD TRADE CENTER, would it? If not that, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it was previously a target for terrorists as well.

You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion.

Imagine, procuring a building that's part of a complex that has been hit by terrorism before and buying insurance for acts of terrorism. That seems so far-fetched... or not.

Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes.

Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will.

911 smoking gun

A BBC reporter made a mistake, oops. Must be a huge elaborate government plot. It couldn't have been that there was information coming from everywhere that day, some of which was pretty unreliable. Fact checking in the chaos wasn't going to happen when all the news stations want to have the latest information. All of this still isn't evidence supporting a huge government plot to destroy WTC 7.

Terrorists flew airliners into towers 1 and 2 and destroyed them. Wasn't that enough of an excuse to go after the major terrorist players around the world? Does it make any bit of sense whatsoever for the American government to destroy WTC 7? As the article said, most people don't even remember it happening, let alone there being any worthwhile reason for it to have been destroyed deliberately?

All of the physical evidence points to the tower having collapsed after sustaining significant damage from the collapse of towers 1 and 2. The possibility of the government destroying it and creating a huge coverup where there has been no whistle-blowers to date is there; however, I'm placing my chips on being hit by lightning first, since there's probably a better chance of that happening than this crapola about government conspiracies ever being true.

[cybercoma]

Here you can hear rescue workers tell everyone to get away from WTC 7 because it is about to blow up.

Here you can hear Larry Silverstein admits that WTC 7 was "pulled", the industrial term for demolished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

note:

VERY few people in the world can do this type of controlled demolition plus it takes weeks to prepare in advance, LOL!

Great site for WTC 7 here:

http://www.911exposed.org/WTC1.htm

More sites exposing 9/11:

http://www.911scholars.org/

http://www.infowars.com/index.html

http://www.911blogger.com/

http://prisonplanet.com/

911 was most definitely an inside job. Pass these videos around to as many people as you know. People need to know what really happened and stop this murderous regime.

About to blow up as in, collapse the same way towers 1 and 2 did.

And when Silverstein was talking about the building being pulled, he was talking about pulling emergency crews from within the building because the extent of the damage made it too dangerous for them to be in there.

Where's your evidence of an inside job? Do you have government communications on an inside job, do you have a motive, do you know who set the explosives, when/how/where the explosives were set? Do you have any REASON to believe that this was an inside job? The conspiracy is not true just because you want to believe something and continue to ignore evidence that contradicts your "faith" in this belief.

Stop cherry picking your information and take time to consider all of the evidence. If you want to prove this was an inside job, perhaps first you should disprove that the towers collapsed because terrorists crashed airliners into them.

Occam's razor should play a part here.

1) Terrorists crashed jets into WTC 1 and 2, which collapsed and caused enough damage to WTC 7 to cause it to also collapse.

or

2) Terrorists crashed jets into WTC 1 and 2, which collapsed; however, the government decided to plant explosives in the severely damaged WTC 7 building, to further a "warmongering agneda", which caused it to collapse.

I'm guessing the simpler of the two hypotheses is true and it's much easier to prove.

[cybercoma]

Stephen Harper has stated that we are at war in Afghanistan because of the terrorist attacks on 911. The terrorist attacks have federal political repercussions.

This business of 911 being an inside job isn't going to go away. Its only going to get bigger. Its been growing steadily since the "attacks".

Half-truth.

We are at war in Afghanistan because the terrorists who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks were hiding there and the Taliban government refused to turn them over to the United States. Adequate warning was given and the Taliban's refusal to comply led to their government being toppled and several major players in the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization being killed.

The reason Canada is in Afghanistan is to assist in rebuilding the nation for the innocent people that are there who have had to endure this war. We are trying to secure the nation against those terrorist harbouring a**holes, so they don't take it over again. So, not only is it to help the people of Afghanistan, but it's to help everyone around the world by eliminating terrorist supporting governments.

[PolyNewbie]

We are at war in Afghanistan because the terrorists who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks were hiding there and the Taliban government refused to turn them over to the United States.

Which "terrorists" claimed responsibilty without undergoing years of torture first and confessing to crimes that were committed before they were locked up and subjected to torture ?

Where is the evidence that links the terror suspects to the act ?

How did they obtain the means to get Cheney to give the stand down order for defenses at the Pentagon ?