What I saw at the WTC site in New York

I visited New York, I went to the WTC site. I saw a big hole, a nice new WTC 7 Building towering over the gaping hole where NOTHING has been done.

Surrounding the gaping hole were vendors selling 911 memorabilia, and the buildings that surround the Twin Towers wound, all still damaged and decaying.

Nothing has been done, thousands of people around me snapping pictures from their cell phones and digital cameras, in wonder and amazement, oblivious to the fact that after nearly 6 years.... nothing has been done, the only progress you can see is the brand new WTC 7 building, and it's a beautiful building that towers above such destruction.

As I was there standing in shock that it's still a huge hole, and that all the surrounding buildings still appear to be damaged and untouched while a fully reconstructed WTC 7 building over looks the scene of tourism and street vendors selling everything 911, I have to ask, when will it end?

Sometime last year I recall watching a special comment piece by Keith Oberman, the comment seems to rain as true now and most likely for a long time to come....

YouTube Link

www.youtube.com...

If I recall correctly the Insurance on the Building was just paid earlier this month, I think that they were waiting on the insurance sttlement before beginning th any construction

$2B Settlement Ends WTC Insurance Case

6 Years though? It didn't take that long for WTC 7.

Because it wasn't a point of argument. Legal battles can go on for a long time. 6 years is nothing compared to some legal suits which can span decades. There could be red tape and incompetence and things of that nature, but the timespan alone wouldn't be enough to draw that conclusion.

But again, the issue was a dispute over whether it constituted two counts of terrorism since two planes hit. But there was no question about at least one act was committed so it wasn't all of the money withheld. I also think (but could be wrong) that with WTC1&2 there are battles over the best way to deal with the rebuilding since it's a sensitive issue to many.

Didn't they insure the buildings from terrorist attacks just a few weeks before it happened? What a farce...

Right. It makes no sense at all to insure a building against terrorist activity after somebody (I guess it was the government, since there are no terrorists?) set off a truck bomb in the undground parking garage (26 Feb 1993)? Why, the next thing you know, people in areas where there have been floods or tornadoes will want to buy insurance against those, too! What a concept!

There may be a lot of holes in the 'official version' of 9/11...in fact, there are a fair number of holes in every version of 9/11...but the fact that a national landmark and business hub was insured against a terrorist attack after having been targeted by one isn't proof of anything other than business covering their anatomy.

Maybe not...

But taking out insurance 8 years AFTER said terrorist attack and only weeks before another is a little suspicious. Your point is valid, but would hold alot more water if they took out the insurance in 1993 as opposed to 2001.

umm, are you aware that the 'somebody' you refer to was given the explosives by the fbi (who work for the government) for the first attack in 1993? i guess not.

perhaps a new insurance clause should be added ... undercover attacks by government officials.

Because the guy had just bought the building. Should he have gotten insurance 7 years before he bought the building? You tell me what makes more sense. Buying an insurance policy when you guy something, or long before.

Yup, makes perfect sense I suppose. Of that fact I was not aware, I was under the impression he had owned it for some while.