Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC 7 - Why?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Okay, I'll bite.

I've argued in a prior thread The Why of WTC 7--Silverstein's Blackmail that it was unreasonable to expect that debris from the falling towers would have damaged WTC 7, and that since it fell late in the day--and not at the moment of the collapse of the north tower--that this indicates it was not initially meant to fall at all.

It was done on the fly by the teams that rigged the towers. And yes there is evidence that it could be done so quickly.

Why? Because Silverstein had a fire-damaged building that he'd have to take down anyway--a total loss. Easy, gov't-paid site-clearing and a guaranteed insurance payout, and tons of pull with the rest of the inside-jobbers, since he was obviously deep inside.

It was a quick and dirty CD, that's why it fell late in the day and everyone knew it was coming down before it did.

Essentially, it was Silverstein pushing his hand, his payback money, a brazen in-your-face show of NYC real estate developer chutzpah.




posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I'm confused as to why you would consider FEMA doing their business in a major city to be surprising, let alone incriminating - they do it all the time... but this is off-topic. I intended this thread to be used for discussing motive; specifically, motive in demolishing WTC7.





The papers in question that were destroyed were not things you would back up. They were evidences of fraud and corruption in financial institutions that were going to be brought up before a court. Even digital records of such things tend to go "missing".


If there is no other record of these things, why did you need to mention that digital records go missing? Why would they go missing? I'm not seeing you make a case here. You're simply stating that they were not backed up. There's no reason to assume that they weren't. You also haven't explained why it would be unlikely that insiders would not be able to destroy evidence more quietly.

Can you clarify whether this is your BEST hypothesis? Are there any others that haven't been mentioned? If this is all there is, then I am truly confused as to why this is presented as strong evidence of government involvement. This raises many more questions than it answers.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just between you and me, "why" doesn't really interest me.


Alright bsbray, if "why" does not interest you, then please leave. WHY is the topic here. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are wasting space in my thread if you refuse to address the topic and instead ramble on about the horrors of politicians.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
gottago: Where exactly is the benefit from insurance? The cost of rebuilding was higher - he lost money in the long run. I think your claim that the explosives could have been set so quickly is ridiculous, but again, I just want to focus on motive right now - not method.

Now, I don't see how this is evidence of government conspiracy. Do you claim that it is? It seems you're simply trying to present a reason the owner of the building would choose to have it demolished. If it's not part of the conspiracy, then why is it a secret? If it is part of the conspiracy, how so?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stiney
I'm confused as to why you would consider FEMA doing their business in a major city to be surprising, let alone incriminating - they do it all the time... but this is off-topic.


They do it all the time? As in, once or twice a year? How often do they show up at the scene of a horrible crime the day before, with proper equipment, ready to go? Do you know how many other places they could have been that day? If it happens that often then I don't think it helps your case much, lol. Very bad odds of being merely coincidental, even taken by itself.

What really scares me, though, is that you don't think twice about it. What are the odds? One in 365 is being conservative, because you know they didn't show up in WTC7's emergency bunker even once every year. And you don't even think twice. You must have a lot of faith in these guys. Or maybe you're actually convinced that those are good odds?



If there is no other record of these things, why did you need to mention that digital records go missing?


I didn't need to. I did for completeness. These aren't things you break your neck trying to make duplicates of. If you can't understand that then I'm not going to be of any use to you.

If there are other records, are the cases in court yet? What are their statuses? If they're not in court yet, why not? Is critical evidence now missing? This is info will make or break your argument immediately.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
These aren't things you break your neck trying to make duplicates of.

...

This is info will make or break your argument immediately.


Look at what you're saying. It's crucial data, but nobody would back it up. You make no sense. Making backups these days isn't exactly a "break your neck" job.

If you're going to use destroyed evidence as a motive, you need to show me that it was actually destroyed. I don't see any reason to believe it was. You still haven't addressed my other question - why would it be impossible for it to be done quietly?

Have you ever thought of asking those who were affected by it if they've actually lost their information? Or are you going to tell me that they would be hiding the fact that they lost it? If so, that's another contradiction. It would mean the "victims" were also "in on it", and it would be unnecessary to destroy their own building. Have you ever heard of a paper shredder?

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Stiney]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stiney
gottago: Where exactly is the benefit from insurance? The cost of rebuilding was higher - he lost money in the long run. I think your claim that the explosives could have been set so quickly is ridiculous, but again, I just want to focus on motive right now - not method.

Now, I don't see how this is evidence of government conspiracy. Do you claim that it is? It seems you're simply trying to present a reason the owner of the building would choose to have it demolished. If it's not part of the conspiracy, then why is it a secret? If it is part of the conspiracy, how so?


If the building had stood he would have been obliged to take it down, as it was no longer structurally safe. He didn't have to pay for demolition, and the site was cleared for him to rebuild at government expense. He also received the insurance money from the catastrophic loss. How'd he lose money?

CDI boasted they took down a comparable bldg, the Traveler's Ins. Bldg in Boston, by the book, including asbestos cleanup, in 2 weeks after it was vacated. The plan is a simple box grid, for a CD, a no-brainer. It's CD 101. Skipping the niceties, with real pros, in an emergency situation, it's possible.

Rogue elements, yes. Quite obviously so. But WTC 7 is the wild card, it doesn't fit. And yes it is in some important ways the deepest part of the conspiracy because it was just ignored by the NIST and never dealt with--like it didn't exist. I'll ask you now: Why?

Again, the motive was Silverstein, as a deep inside player, as the newly minted owner of the WTC just before it was attacked, who would have more of an interest in getting rid of his own suddenly worthless/collaterally damaged property? He held the leverage and got his way.

And why do you think it fell?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stiney
Look at what you're saying. It's crucial data, but nobody would back it up.


Dude, it's crucial data to a court case, to justice.

To these companies, it's evidence of wrong-doing on their part. They wouldn't want to make a million copies of it.

Does anyone know of a way to break this down any simpler?

Big government is in bed with big business and big banking. Corruption is not a rare thing in government or business or even banking. You'd think that'd be common sense by today. I don't know where all these people come from that put so much blind faith, so stupidly, into institutions that are historically known for their constant corruption.



Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system.

[...]

The EEOC's New York office, which was housed in 7 World Trade Center, sustained no loss of life. But all the agency's records were destroyed.

Many of the files are backed up in the computer system, but a substantial number of documents are simply gone, said Spencer Lewis, the EEOC district director.


www.nylawyer.com...=/news/01/09/091701e

You have to sign up to read the article, but it's free.

Alternatively, a cache is here: 911research.wtc7.net...


Some of the cases involved CitiGroup and had potential to expose a TREMENDOUS economic scandal that would most likely result in immediately economic collapse. This is a separate subject though and too detailed to go into here, even if I was knowledgeable enough to discuss it in-depth (I am not). If you want to evaluate the info on your own, though, there's plenty of it available.


Beginning in 1988 and lasting until approximately 1992, "Project Hammer" was the latest in a series of highly secretive banking practices--known as "collateral trading" programmes--that are used to create, as if by magic, huge amounts of unaccountable funds for use in specific projects.

These vast pools of unvouchered slush funds are applied to finance a wide variety of clandestine activities that include secret military projects, geo-political requirements and the development of infrastructure projects.


There's a lot of information presented here: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

[edit on 23-4-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
bsbray, you're wasting time by trying to prove that governments and big businesses can be corrupt. First, I never said that wasn't true, and second, the fact that a government can be evil is not evidence that any "evil deed" you can think of actually happened.

Now let's try to have a reasonable debate here, about motive, okay? Please stop going off-topic.

Once again, you're suggesting that the victims are in on it - that they wanted their information destroyed. And once again, this begs the question, why would they need to destroy their building? Why didn't these insiders destroy the "evidence" from the inside?

Do you still claim that what was destroyed could "make or break" a case in court? In what you showed me you did not link the "Project Hammer" to the lost information. You haven't even given evidence that ANYTHING related to it that was irrecoverable. And, even in the first source you cited, they admit that much of the data WAS backed up. What makes you say that the lack of what's still missing is enough to "break" a case?

It's interesting what you decided to include in your quote, I might add. Why did you omit this part?

"The EEOC is decimated as far as office space goes," but any problems are "only short-term," said Michael Weber of the New York office of Littler Mendelson. "They will get back to business." The agencies will be seeking documents from the private law firms and defendants, Weber notes. "My sense is that we will cooperate," he noted. "Our goal is not to take advantage of this catastrophe."


This is sort of besides the point, though. If it was planned then why was only some of it targeted? Where were the backups located? Why weren't they attacked as well? How did they know what was backed up and what wasn't - how did they know it would be worth it? Remember, if the story was all fabricated by the "inside jobbers", they can make it whatever they want. Why not add more planes to finish the job?



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Stiney, you really are having trouble thinking about this. It's as if when you don't agree with something, you turn off your brain and pretend it doesn't make any sense, when even a middle schooler can grasp the logic here with very little additional information.

Nowhere did I say victims were in on this. No one even died when WTC7 collapsed. Property was lost (just to be rebuilt immediately afterwards), and tenants temporarily lost space, but what's that compared to an economic scandal? And how many people do you think would've known any of this? If you suggest any more than a handful at most, then I know for a fact that your grasp of compartmentalization and the concept of need-to-know are lacking. You don't tell everybody (you don't tell ANYBODY that doesn't HAVE to know, and even then, you only tell them what they NEED to know, and you even have the convenient option of lying about any details you feel necessary), and you don't take an opinion poll with all your employees to make sure everyone is ok with it, or anything stupid like that. It just happens one day, and if anyone asks, you're just as shocked as everyone else.

You also keep moving goal posts and demand evidence that is absolutely impossible to provide -- regardless of whether or not it's true. First you say that I don't know any of them were actually lost and not backed up, but now you tell me I can't say which ones were lost. Well, damn, you got me! I wouldn't even know what the hell I was looking for if I even had the list of the thousands of documents lost, to see what was permanently lost. You have to realize how absurd what you are asking me is.

Put some more words in my mouth and suggest even more nonsense to try to kill my credibility. It's making you look marvelous.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
If the building had stood he would have been obliged to take it down, as it was no longer structurally safe.


Say what? You mean to tell me a few paltry isolated fires, and a tiny bit of superficial debris damage from the collapse of WTC 1 would be enough to make a modern, ridiculously reinforced, super-structure like WTC 7 be considered: "No Longer Structurally safe?"

C'mon..tell me true-- You people are just making this crap up as you go...Right?



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
BWA! Irony alert! Why don't you just chunk an ad hominem fallacy on the ever growing pile of strawmen, red herrings, and proof surrogates you have accumulated in but a few posts on this thread ... Go ahead ..no one will notice.


But would anyone notice if you did the exact same thing in response?



An example of the logic I'm referring to, btw, is Stiney asking why they would only completely destroy some of the files. Really, I should not have to answer that.

That's what I was referring to by logic that even a middle schooler could grasp.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Nope... I can cite examples in this thread where you ACTUALLY perform all of the fallacies I mentioned.

You speculate as to how someone's brain isn't functioning properly as a part of your "argument"

--ETA: No back-peddling needed bsbray11, it only makes the pile higher.

I know that I have used an 'argument from ridicule' coupled with a 'rhetorical question' in regards to gotago's "badly damaged WTC 7 stated position" (but that is only because it is so contrary to the thruther mantra)

So, no bsbray11.. I didn't, not even close.



[edit on 24-4-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stiney
Once again, you're suggesting that the victims are in on it - that they wanted their information destroyed. And once again, this begs the question, why would they need to destroy their building? Why didn't these insiders destroy the "evidence" from the inside?


My take,

Well if someone 'inside' destroyed all the evidence pertaining to a major case 'ie Enron' then it would look DOUBLE suspicous, being someone went to the trouble of destroying key evidence from the inside.

Where as,

If they were planning a major strike at the WTC12, and realised

'' hey, all that evidence against our corporate buddies is in wtc7, how about we kill 2 birds with 1 stone? ''

Because frankly, your doing exactly what they would of wanted you to do, and thats DOUBT their desire to look innocent!



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

You also keep moving goal posts and demand evidence that is absolutely impossible to provide -- regardless of whether or not it's true. First you say that I don't know any of them were actually lost and not backed up, but now you tell me I can't say which ones were lost. Well, damn, you got me! I wouldn't even know what the hell I was looking for if I even had the list of the thousands of documents lost, to see what was permanently lost. You have to realize how absurd what you are asking me is.


You're missing the point: There was no way to determine what the loss would be. You don't know what to look for, but surely the criminals behind it would know, if this was their aim. The fact remains that a lot of it was backed up. Are you telling me that everything that was "incriminating" happened to be among what was not backed up? You haven't given any reason to believe that. Again, I don't expect you to know anything; I expect you to explain why it is reasonable to believe any of this.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Nowhere did I say victims were in on this. No one even died when WTC7 collapsed. Property was lost (just to be rebuilt immediately afterwards), and tenants temporarily lost space, but what's that compared to an economic scandal?


Why do you think I put "victims" in quotation marks? I know that you're suggesting that they weren't really victims, because they wanted it to happen. I don't care who "they" are, or how many of them there are - what you have established is that it was desired by the authorities who worked IN the building, not just by the owner of the building or the government. So, my question is still valid: Why didn't these insiders destroy the "evidence" from the inside?



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Say what? You mean to tell me a few paltry isolated fires, and a tiny bit of superficial debris damage from the collapse of WTC 1 would be enough to make a modern, ridiculously reinforced, super-structure like WTC 7 be considered: "No Longer Structurally safe?"


Wait... paltry isolated fires? Superficial damage? Ridiculously reinforced?? WTC 7 didn't even have concrete support. Major fires on multiple fires were reported, and since they started much smaller, how were they "isolated"? Can you show me a report saying the damage was minor? There was another building in the area about the same height - a hotel I believe - that suffered about the same damage as WTC 7, but it didn't burn. Even this building was lost because the structure was too dangerously compromised.


Also, here is another tall building in the line of fire:

img455.imageshack.us...

Would you not expect WTC 7 to suffer similar damage? Or do you see this as "superficial"?

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Stiney]



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Well if someone 'inside' destroyed all the evidence pertaining to a major case 'ie Enron' then it would look DOUBLE suspicous, being someone went to the trouble of destroying key evidence from the inside.


My point is, it didn't work. Most of what they supposedly planned to destroy has not been destroyed. There is no reason they would expect it to be, and if they didn't expect it to be, they could have easily expanded the "attack" to make sure it was.

As I said:

Originally posted by Stiney
Remember, if the story was all fabricated by the "inside jobbers", they can make it whatever they want. Why not add more planes to finish the job?


I don't feel this is a valid motive.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
There was no structural damage to the lower portions of either building. The 'weakened steal from heat' line is bunk because last time I checked heat RISES and would not have affected the integrity of the lower steel structure. Also, a flame retardant is mixed with airline fuel to minimize fire, I watched a special on TV about it a few years back. None of the dummies inside the test plane burned.

There is a central structure in the center of the building that anchors the building to the ground and acts as the building spine...if the floors 'pancaked' down, this central structure in AT LEAST SOME portion would be left standing, as the building was built AROUND it. The Twin Towers were also a money pit that needed an overhaul in both the asbestos that it was filled with (the flame retardant that covers the steel infrastructure) and the out of date communications lines. It was going to cost A LOT to renovate what needed to be fixed.

Larry Silverstein had just taken out a $15 Million ($15,000,000) terrorism insurance policy on Building #7 (which also fell that day, had no damage other than some fire, was behind 2 other building, contained paperwork on some scandals (Enron), and is rumored to house the remotes for the demolition charges in the towers, etc...) which had a payout of $3.5 Billion ($3,500,000,000) but since he claimed 2 planes equals 2 attacks he got paid $7,000,000,000 (this was in court not too long ago by the way).

$15,000,000 to $7,000,000,000 is a huge return on an investment.

It got the gears in motion for a cash cow known as the Iraq War, the war on 'terror', and the Patriot Act for our 'freedom'. The VT shooting should show you that this whole 'War on Terror' thing is a HOAX. Why didn't that town go to CODE RED terror alert level during those 2 hours. Terrorists don't belong to governments, and neither do people that print the money.

The 'New World Order' engineered this whole thing and left loose ends intentionally so that people would do what they are doing right now. A cetain amount of people are piecing it together, getting mad, acting out, and will soon be filling a jail cell (it is easier to defeat an uprising one by one than all at once). Katrina and New Orleans was a test to see what happens when things in a US town go ape sh!t (not even neighboring citizens went to help, I should know, I live in Alabama). At the end of it the only people left will be good ol' complacent, non-thinking, law abiding (money making) citizens. There's nothing you can do to avoid this social reform and that's why I LOVE AMERICA. Turn in your neighbor before your other neighbor beats you to it, cause then ure next.

9-11 happened so that the 'rich and powerful' could secure their bottom line. The policies set up after 9-11 are to bring 'social reform'. Computer systems can log and keep track of more information that ever before. When the 'system' knows everything about everyone, a government and the wealthy corporations (Illuminati anyone?) can sell you exactly what they told you you wanted. The US is built on fake boobs and sports cars, not morals or decency. People not enjoying their new way of life will be removed.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
If the building had stood he would have been obliged to take it down, as it was no longer structurally safe. He didn't have to pay for demolition, and the site was cleared for him to rebuild at government expense. He also received the insurance money from the catastrophic loss. How'd he lose money?
Why are you asking this? I said it already - the rebuilding cost more in the long run. Are you telling me that if the building stood but was unsalvageable and had to be demolished anyway, that would not count as a "catastrophic loss"? There were several other buildings that were badly damaged other than WTC 7 - so why demolish WTC 7 "on the spot" and not the others? This would, according to you, not only be possible, but make a huge profit for him.


And yes it is in some important ways the deepest part of the conspiracy because it was just ignored by the NIST and never dealt with--like it didn't exist. I'll ask you now: Why?


I might answer that, if it were true.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Spoodily, amidst your ranting I only found a few speculations as to motive. One of them is to destroy the "paperwork" in the building, which has already been mentioned, and the others are irrelevant.

Here's why:

First, you mentioned that Silverstein got 7 billion instead of 3.5, because "2 planes = 2 attacks" - what does this have to do with building 7? Nothing... the two attacks refer to the destruction of the towers. That's where he got the 7 billion. You begin by saying that he spent 15 million on insurance for building 7 so it appears that the two facts are related; however, they aren't. If building 7 had not collapsed, he would have still gotten his money.

Then you say it got the gears in motion for the Iraq War. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with building 7 either. If this one building had not collapsed, there would still be a motive for the war.






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join