It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why did building 7 fall?

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by OrionStars
 


the thing is this, until the scene was released by the incident commander, he had full authority over said scene and it doesnt matter what company could have been hired to drop the building, he'd have had to approve it and it would be documented. also, if it was done legitimatly, there would have been no reason to hide the fact.


The fire department had control of fighting fires and determining when to stop. Nothing more did they have for legal standing directly concerning the building. No one at the fire department had any legal standing to determine whether or not buildings are going to be pulled, because of being declared a safety hazard. The legal standing lies with the owner(s), plus, insurance companies, if they have to pay out on covered occurrences. Insurance companies send in their own investigators and experts. Not unless fire personnel also happen to be the owner(s) of a building do they have say so over the future of any building. Which I do not recall reading or hearing anywhere that any fire personnel owned a piece of the WTC.

What would be done is owners asking the fire department structural experts if what they thought of the structural integrity after a fire. Then owner(s) would have to check with insurance companies (since Silverstein had terrorism insurance) for them to send their structural engineers in to check, as to if the buildings needed pulled or could be satisfactorily restored. That requires thorough investigation of the structure. At least, that is the way it is legally supposed to happen but did not.

It was not as if nothing else was going on, and WTC 7 suddenly had direct internal fire and damage. Therefore, cause would be determined due to alleged terrrorism attack, which is normally excluded in all basic insurance policies. Silverstein had the terrorism addendum. However, ordering WTC 7 to be pulled, without allowing the insurance companies to investigate, negated the insurance companies' legal obligation to pay off.

Here was the dilemma Silverstein created for himself. Silverstein publicly blamed the NYFD for the decision to pull, knowing full well they had no legal standing to do so. He admitted WTC 7 was pulled when he gave the public interview, and stated it was pulled. Then he started to hedge when the insurance companies failed to pay out. He was forced to sue the insurance companies or get nothing.

He had to fight in court to get pay-off from the insurance companies, because he publicly said the FD decided to pull the building, and the insurance companies knew they had not had any investigators or experts go in. The insurance companies began fighting Silverstein on pay off.

As I recall, he and the insurance companies finally settled, and he got maybe half, if that, of what should have been paid out had everything been done as legally required to do. It took him at least a couple of years to get what he did get for settlement. A settlement he should not have gotten at all.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by albie
How is you giving us a patronising lesson on physics going to change our view of that?


If you have a problem with the points I make please show your evidence to refute them, you haven't done that...

If you can't refute the physics points I make then shouldn't you be questioning your own 'view'? Or doesn't reality matter in this debate?

You only find my 'lesson' patronizing because you can't refute it, if you could you would, right?

Please stop with the personal comments and debate the issue of the physics, and I'll do the same, deal?

[edit on 19/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by OrionStars
CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors.


I have e-mailed Tully Construction, but they stated they could not answer my questions becasue of the 9/11 lawsuits.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have e-mailed Tully Construction, but they stated they could not answer my questions becasue of the 9/11 lawsuits.


May I ask the nature of your inquiry?

I found the follow lawsuit, which has nothing to do with confirming or denying if they sub-contracted to CDI for clean-up, unless, CDI employees are plaintiffs to that class action suit. Aside from that, there is no reason I know of, that someone from Tully Construction cannot confirm or deny sub-contracting to CDI. It is normally a matter of public record when contractors and sub-contractors pull permits.

findarticles.com...

"A class action in the US may affect the Australian property developer, Lend Lease. A lawsuit has been filed in New York on behalf of 800 workers who cleaned up the World Trade Center site in New York after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The lawsuit alleges that companies responsible for the clean-up did not protect workers from dust, asbestos and toxins on the site. The action was filed against Bovis Lend Lease, Silverstein Properties, Turner Construction, AMEC Construction and Tully Construction. ..."



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It's high time to put the Silverstein "pull" myth to bed.


Actually he was pressed on what he meant, it took him 6 years to come up with the 'he was talking about the firefighters' myth.

If you analise his statement it is easy to see he was talking about a building.
He finishes his comment with, 'and we watched the building collapse', that's called the conclusion of his statement. If he was talking about firefighters his conclusion should have been something like, 'and we watched the firefighters leave the building'.
How do you go from talking about firefighters evacuating the building to the collapse when the two events were hours apart and so not related?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
well you were right about most of your post but the first paragraph was where youre incorrect. after the first plane hit a perimeter would have been established and as thigns got worse that perimeter got expanded. the incident commander is god within that perimeter until such a time as the scene is released. yes, insurance companies will send their people out to examine, but not until after the IC has released the scene and most certainly not while the building is still on fire.

so for anyone to connect larrys comments with an intentional destruction of wtc7 is to say that FDNY dropped building 7 or allowed it to be dropped. well if they had it wouldnt be a secret. but if the contention is that it WAS secret then FDNY was in on it. if they were in on 7 they were in on all of it (assuming a conspiracy within our govt really was behind it).

so, who wants to say fdny sacrificed their own people that day?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by OrionStars
 


but as to the insurance, remember that the wtc's WERE a previous target for terrorists so it makes perfect sense to take out terrorism insurance. (i think i read that his financiers demanded the coverage as a condition of his financing but i also thought i was purple once so shows how valid what i think is huh?)


When I wrote high risk, I meant risk high enough to warrant that type of insurance cost. I seriously doubt people in NYC or Oklahoma City rushed out and bought terrorism insurance due to one freak occurrence in each city. A fault runs under NYC, and it has quite a history of quakes and tremors. I would expect businesses and possibly residents to buy earthquake addendum before they bought terrorism addendum.

In addition, it was Silverstein's timing of buying the insurance. 9/11 took place almost, if not immediately, after the grace period most, if not all, new polices require. I do not recall, nor have I seen, any reports anyone else rushed to buy terrorism insurance when bomb explosions went off in a tower garage in 1993.

Explosions did not cause any structural damage to the WTC 1 at the base in 1993. Which is another reason 9/11 looks like controlled demolition implosion, by cutter charging the center cores of the twin towers. Building 1 had proved to take an explosion, fire, 100 mph wind lickin' and still kept on structually tickin' - until 9/11. Building 2 was built exactly the same as Building 1. As heavy as those buildings were, structural damage would have definitely been noticed by those using and maintaining the WTC buildings.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
so for anyone to connect larrys comments with an intentional destruction of wtc7 is to say that FDNY dropped building 7 or allowed it to be dropped.


Why would the NYFD have to have been in on it? Didn't they stop fighting the fire in 7 hours before it collapsed? Whoever gave that order is probably in on it, but there's no reason for the 'troops' to be. With so much going on and so much confusion orders would just be obeyed and not questioned.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well you were right about most of your post but the first paragraph was where youre incorrect. after the first plane hit a perimeter would have been established and as thigns got worse that perimeter got expanded. the incident commander is god within that perimeter until such a time as the scene is released. yes, insurance companies will send their people out to examine, but not until after the IC has released the scene and most certainly not while the building is still on fire.


No one at the fire department is a "god" when it comes to legality of the ownership of buildings. Could you provide us the law that says any FD takes over implied unwritten legal ownership of fire damaged buildings until they leave the area? Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


yes, but it was the WTC towers that were attacked in 93 specifically and the common "gut feeling" in the intel communities was that it wasnt far fetched that they'd try again. and i really wish i could find where i read that larrys financiers made it a condition of him getting the money to aquire the wtc complex. but, as i cant find it its not a valid point, though it does make sense.

also, it should be noted that while its unlikely the truck bomb used in 93 would have dropped the tower, it didnt go off where it was intended. every indication was that the bomb had gone off as it hit a speed bump in the parking garage and not where it was going to be parked. (again, i cant cite a reference for that, it was told to me during a briefing in the late 90's by some colonel or another so take it for what its worth, hearsay)

reply to post by ANOK
 



my bad for being inarticulate. when i said FDNY i meant as an organization when what i should have said was the MFIC on scene. youre correct about the "troops" and i should have been more clear. apologies.


Originally posted by OrionStars
No one at the fire department is a "god" when it comes to legality of the ownership of buildings. Could you provide us the law that says any FD takes over implied unwritten legal ownership of fire damaged buildings until they leave the area? Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.



see, now youre just being argumentative for the sake of. thats not what i meant and i think you bloody well know it.

if your house is on fire and the FD shows up to fight the fire, are they going to let you go inside to get your stamp collection?

NO!

are they going to let your insurance adjuster go in until after its been put out and observed for a few hours to insure that there isnt a flare up?

NO!

does any of this mean that they own your house?

NO!

so if you can point to where i said that FDNY "OWNED" the buildings in a legal possessive sense id appreciate it, becuase we both know you cant and i think you just dislike anyone disagreeing with you, and more to the point, MAKING SENSE that youre attempting to put this back on me to produce proof of some fantasy claim that i didnt make to begin with in an attempt to get me to say or do something so that ill have matching warning flags to yours.

sorry, not gonna happen. if english isnt your first language and youre just unclear as to what im saying then please accept my sincere apologies but you seem to do well with every other post here so...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Read David Icke's books, PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION.

If you're keen on 911 start with Tales From The Time Loop". But Children of The Matrix or The Biggest Secret are also good....Create a problem. Get the planned (manipulated) reaction. Offer the perfect solution.
) Much like a sheep dog herding a bunch of sheep in a pen. Works everytime.

Problem: Oh my we've been bombed (Never mind our own guys have done it).

Reaction: Oh my we're scared.........we listen to Fox and CNN (Owned by the Elite rich/Reptilian Bloodlines) and they say we're under attach......baaaaa

Solution: Let's put cameras up on every corner, open your mail, make you want to "watch" each other and take away more of your freedoms in order to gain "national security".

WAKE UP SHEEP............It's slaughter time and you're all lining up.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Glad to see the discussion still on, however I feel that the question I originally asked; "Why did it FALL?" and "What was in building 7?" are being replaced with CD theories, and "weak trusses" and "ufo's with particle beams" (All maybe true, yet we still have no clear answer to why it fell).

My belief of why it fell is a CD, but I have no proof to say it was that, think of being in a court of law, there are clearly 2 sides here, those that say it was CD, and those that say it was due to fires (caused by falling concrete ??) and a weak structure.

My question NOW would be, with all we have discussed, what would a judge rule, based on all we have put forward?

My answer (and this is pure opinion) would be INCONCLUSIVE. By that alone a new investigation would be warranted.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by OrionStars
No one at the fire department is a "god" when it comes to legality of the ownership of buildings. Could you provide us the law that says any FD takes over implied unwritten legal ownership of fire damaged buildings until they leave the area? Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.






see, now youre just being argumentative for the sake of. thats not what i meant and i think you bloody well know it.


What you stated the way you stated it may not have been what you knew you meant, but what you knew you meant was not clearly expressed in your post. Saying anyone at an FD is a "god", during time spent at any fire, is a gross exaggeration.




if your house is on fire and the FD shows up to fight the fire, are they going to let you go inside to get your stamp collection?


NO!

are they going to let your insurance adjuster go in until after its been put out and observed for a few hours to insure that there isnt a flare up?

NO!

does any of this mean that they own your house?

NO!


I am not the one being argumentative as your own irrelevant examples express. I am continuing to point out the NYFD had no legal standing to determine what would be done with WTC 7, or any other building in which they fight fires. They are not the legal owners of the buildings, and have no legal standing, in what will happen to any building once fires are extinguished. Was that not clear when I originally stated it and then iterated it? Because if you point out to me exactly what was not clear, I will qualify what was not clear.

What not being allowed by fire personnel to go inside a burning building has to do with what I explained, I have no idea. Your examples have nothing to do with what I stated on decisions made, regarding the outcome of restoring or destroying buildings damaged by fire. That is all I did say. Those are decisions are made by the owner(s) and insurance companies, after the insurance companies have investigated any fire damage in any building.

Insurance companies make the final decision as to whether to total or repair after their investigation.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Since Larry Silverstein publicly admitted WTC 7 was pulled (industry slang for bringing down a building with controlled demolition implosion), I, personally would have thought by now the answer to how was answered by Larry Silverstein himself years ago.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Interesting how the 1993 bombing gave the excuse to issue terrorism insurance.

So the 1993 job, FBI helped etc. etc. ... its in court documents, was a
success.

Well, for the inside jobbers.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Explosions from remote bombing devises.

Perhaps the very reason the NYFD did not get improved radio communications
is that the bankers wanted the radio frequencies for the remote bombs.

Its all done with bank loans. They can fund either side of a war if they choose.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Right the reptiles don't want internet people finding them criminals and
locking the cold blooded reptiles up in jail.
So security must also be on the net, youtube must report any good
leads against the reptiles and ban you from posting.

Two people are now criminals for enslaving two Indonesian house maids.

If the reptilian blood line were accused of enslaving us the good old courts
have a precedent.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
ok, maybe i jumped the gun on calling you argumentative. my apologies.

however having said that, lets take a look at your posts and ill try to articulate the points i was trying to make. feel free to correct me anywhere ive misinterpreted you.

i apologize now, but in order to make my point more clear i may take some of your quotes out of chronological order but its the perceived intent vs the order they were in that will help me illustrate my point.


Originally posted by OrionStars
Since Larry Silverstein publicly admitted WTC 7 was pulled (industry slang for bringing down a building with controlled demolition implosion),


so here you lay out your basic opinion.

but for the sake of asking, if someone pulls an order in a warehouse, are they really blowing it up? just wondering

its a figure of speach, slang, just like saying that the IC is "god" on a scene. do you really think i meant he was the creator of the universe? of course not, if he was he'd have just waved his hands and the buildings would have been fine and no one would have died.

ill say again, figure. of. speach.

but anyway, the quote from uncle larry was when he was retelling his conversation with the firechief who was acting as the incident commander. he was in charge of all fire/police/ems etc within the confines of the disaster area. everything would go through him either directly or indirectly but in the end he was responsible for it and was responsible for making sure all of the paperwork on it got done later on.

he said he got the call, firechief didnt feel they could contain it, larry says that maybe its a good idea to just pull it, and THEY made the decision to pull. so, who is they? he didnt mention anyone but the firechief so unless we're going to speculate we have to follow what was said and stick with "they" being the firechief and his staff.

can we agree on that part?

ok, so "they" decided to pull and they watched the building collapse. (note the absence of a time frame? he doesnt say if they watched it 5 seconds later or 5 hrs later)

so, what i had said was that since larry doesnt get to make those calls, then whoever "they" are were the ones to decide to pull. that means its the firechief. if he made that decision its written down so long as their "pulling it" was a legit decision and not part of the super secret government conspiracy of which larry is for some reason a part of, as well aparently as the fire chief. and of course that also means that if it was part of a covert op then the fire chief made a decision to kill a large number of his own men. but hey, "they" dont worry bout such things do they?

ok then you said:

The NYFD would not involve their personnel in pulling buildings. They leave that up to the experts. CDI has contracts - federal, state, and local - to do controlled demolitions. NYFD has no legal standing to decide on ordering buildings pulled. That is entirely up to the owner(s) and insurance company or companies, with possible FD input as for necessity to do so.


so, youre saying that larry made the decision to pull the building and got cdi to come in on the sly and take care of that for him and fdny had nothing to do with it? i want to make sure im clear on these points. but regardless, thats how i read it, to which i responded:


posted by me: the thing is this, until the scene was released by the incident commander, he had full authority over said scene and it doesnt matter what company could have been hired to drop the building, he'd have had to approve it and it would be documented. also, if it was done legitimatly, there would have been no reason to hide the fact.


and you came back with this post about insurance companies and inspectors and blaming fdny and is it any wonder why things are covoluted at this point?

BUT this is where i again disagreed with you about a demo team going into 7. and yes, on a scene the ic is GOD (again read figure of speach) in that nothing happens without his blessing.

so im sorry, unless they were stealth ninjas, no demo crews going in there without the IC knowing about it and authorizing it. (remember the bit where the building was still on fire?)

of course this is where you came back and suggested that i was implying that some law gave ownership of the buildings to FDNY which is just absurd. and my points about a fire in your house were very relevant analogies.

the IC is responsible for everything that happens there. he's not going to let a demo team go in there and "pull" anything. if its not safe for his people why would it be safe for a demo crew? they could have easily let it burn out then used cranes/wrecking balls on it later or if they just felt the need to blow something up then they could have started at the entry point and built up supports where they felt it was important until they were done rigging.(rigging is also a figure of speach)


so in the end, just what is it youre trying to say? maybe if you just laid out a little scenario for us that would help? something along the lines of:

ok, larrys building is damaged and on fire. he talks to the firechief who says its not worth saving. larry then calls cdi to come rig it for demo. firechief either A) agreed to this or B) didnt know about it. larry later then blames firechief for dropping his building without his consent to collect on the insurance.

because what it looks like to me is that youre saying larry wanted 7 to go away so he got the firecheif to implode the building (either with his own people or with a 3rd group) and not document it so that they could claim it happened secondary to the collapse of the south tower.

i mean you really cant have it both ways. either the IC was responsible for the dropping of wtc7 and kept that little bit of info to himself for this long or he wasnt involved at all. if he wasnt involved at all then larrys quote most likely didnt have jackall to do with a cd as it was the firechief he was talking to. so, they did or they didnt. if they did and its not documented or acknowledged then they are also in on the rest of the events and that makes them complicit in the deaths of not only all those civilians, but the fire/police as well. (ok i suppose if i was going to be open minded i could consider that the attack happened, regardless of if it was AQ or USG and larry decided to cash in on it)

however im going to stick by my thesis': larry didnt mean CD his building when he said pull. wtc7 was not a cd, nor were the fall of the towers the firechief was not in on it. the firechief as IC was the ultimate authority in that part of manhattan that day and as such was responsible for all aspects of the operations.

now, having said all that, ill apologize for my tone. yes, i probably could have been a "little" less argumentative



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No fires for 7 hours in WTC 7, I don't recall fires at the time of the pull.

That might be correct.

The NYFD does its job.

They aren't equipped with explosives or the hi tech communication systems
the bankers wouldn't pay for.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


So all you or any one has is larry and the chief... then the WTC 7 does down.

Do I see a connection, yes.

Are there other players? Has this whole event been scripted?

I think, yes. Did the WTC7 script involve a script change, I think so.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



lol oh no, ive got much more. its just that this particular part of this discussion is about larry and the chief.

ill spare you the dissertation and lay it out simple.

FDNY chief did his best against a scenario that only happens in ones nightmares.

larry is a self important tool who said what he said in order to try to look like he was more worried about the firefighters than his building and so he embelleshed his story to nova a little bit.

i think that the IC "may" have called him at some point but if he did it was to say "yeah, we're not going to risk our men to save a building thats going to have to be demolished anyway" at which piont larry stomped his feet, swung his fists around wildly, teared up a bit, and started fearing that he'd have to start going to mc donalds and waiting in line like the rest of us common folk

but thats just an opinion based on nothng but my opinion. take it for what its worth, and i know about how much that is.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by Damocles]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join