It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC-7 Myths, Truths, & Photographic Evidence

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:21 PM
WTC7 has been since I have following the CT's., the most talked about and contraversial . I was hoping we could keep this thread focused on what is known as FACTS. I would like to adress a few of the myths now so we don't have to keep rehashing the same old arguments.

Myth #1: Silverstein's Pull It comment, and his financial gain.
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terri-ble loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

This was made on the phone with Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro. (a 32 year FDNY veteran) Silverstein was in his home with his wife. Please note that he says, "THEY made that decision to pull..." he continues..."and then we watched the building collapse." The "WE" was Silverstein and his wife. They were NOT at the WTC site.

Does the FDNY have the authority or the equipment to demolish buildings with explosives? No!, what they do have the authority to do is PULL their fireman from areas that are too dangerous to be near.
Here is a quote from FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. 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. [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

Silverstein had an existing $489.4 million mortgage, along with a $700 million tab for a new building. That leaves him with NEGATIVE $328.

Myth #2 WTC7 Collapsed in it's own footprint.
Actually I have some photographs (stills from a video) that show an obvious lean of the building as it collaspes:

Myth #3 Comparing the Windsor Tower to the WTC 1, 2, or 7. The Windsor Tower.
Concrete Alliance uses Madrid’s Windsor Building fire, in which all the structural steel in the fire-affected area collapsed, leaving the concrete core standing. Fire protection for the Windsor’s structural steel was in the process of being upgraded, but that work never reached the upper levels. A.R.U.P. the fire protection engineering firm, says that the steel would likely have failed even if it had been fire-protected (WTC7 was rebuilt with a redundant concrete core.)

Myth #4 Office Fires Aren't Hot Enough to Buckle Steel:

Here is a picture of steel from building #5 caused only by office furniture.

Now add a plane smashing at 400+ MPH into it.

I'd like some opinions and thoughts on these photos, and quotes..and see where this thread takes us. Thanks

[edit on 3-12-2006 by CameronFox]

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:52 PM
There are already so many threads that have dealt with the facts but this is the most recent one.

In that thread, you are simply reiterating the "official" version of what the govt says happened. I don't see you doing any research or presensting evidence from the other side. It didn't work in that thread so you started another one?

"There are none so blind as he who will not see". Maybe you need to take your blinders off and research what the debunkers are saying so that you can get a fuller picture?

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:48 PM
I havent seen the pictures I posted I thought i would add them.....Also The Silverstein quote is STILL coming up.

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 04:17 PM

Silverstein had an existing $489.4 million mortgage, along with a $700 million tab for a new building. That leaves him with NEGATIVE $328.

Source, please?


“New York, NY October 17, 2000: Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, the global real estate investment and management arm of The Blackstone Group, L.P., announced today that it has purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by 7 World Trade Center, a commercial office complex controlled by real estate developer Larry Silverstein”

“But before the building can rise further than the substation, major financing issues have to be resolved by Larry Silverstein, who controls the long-term lease on 7 World Trade Center as well as the World Trade Center complex. The good news for Mr. Silverstein is that the company that insured 7 World Trade, Industrial Risk Insurers, has indicated that it will make a full payment under its $861 million policy. But it's not clear whether Mr. Silverstein can use those proceeds to start building without first reaching an agreement with the mortgage holder on 7 World Trade Center, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors.”


On top of that, lookie there...

Kissinger McLarty Associates has a “strategic alliance” with the Blackstone Group. The Blackstone Group describes their relationship thus:

“Blackstone's alliance with Kissinger McLarty Associates is designed to help provide financial advisory services to corporations seeking high-level strategic advice. The relationship was announced in 2000 and recently completed its first strategic advisory assignment on behalf of a NYSE-listed company.”


So, from what I'm gathering from the quotes above, the insurance company was willing to make a full payment of $861 million for WTC 7, if Silverstein could strike a deal with the mortage holder.... which, oh look above, he appeared to be able to do. So, I'm assuming that the $861 million must be included somewhere in that equation that you came up with regarding the Positive/Negative Silverstein received out of the destruction of WTC7...

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:10 PM
If WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint, what did it fall into? Vesey Street?

Stop splitting hairs. None of the other claims are even significant. I've never seen a single person claim fire can't buckle steel.

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:40 PM
In regard to the first pic, I saw the video footage and watched 7 buckle in the middle inward on itself (nice in neat like).

I believe that 7 wasn't nearly weakened enough to fully collapse as it did. I believe these buildings were tougher then that.

top topics

log in