Why did building 7 fall?

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Insurance companies are willing to sell any type of insurance people want as long as they are willing to pay what it costs. For instance, Lloyds of London insured Betty Grable's legs for $1M. That was a great deal of money in those days.

news.bbc.co.uk...

findarticles.com...

What is odd, in Larry Silverstein's case, is he did not have but a couple months of premiums to pay before he expected billions in pay off. He had no actual justification for buying high risk terrorism insurance because of one incident 8 years earlier in NYC and one incident in Oklahoma City in 1995. It was not as if the US was having a rash of terrorism attacks in NYC, Oklahoma City, or anywhere else in the US before (or after) 9/11. Particularly, when terrorism insurance can run 6 to 7 figures annually for the WTC complex. That is in addtion to the 6 to 7 figures annually normally paid to insure the WTC complex.

Originally posted by Damocles
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.

Thank you very much. Apology accepted.

I understood what you were saying. However, as I explained previously, your points have nothing to do with what I was explaining.

I had to edit out the rest because the counter on maximum characters put it over the limit. I will read the rest of your post. If have to qualify anything, I most assuredly will. If I have to, I will respond through my word processor and then post that.

Again thank you.

i promise ill be more civil and mature in this post lol

Originally posted by OrionStars
What is odd, in Larry Silverstein's case, is he did not have but a couple months of premiums to pay before he expected billions in pay off. He had no actual justification for buying high risk terrorism insurance because of one incident 8 years earlier in NYC and one incident in Oklahoma City in 1995. It was not as if the US was having a rash of terrorism attacks in NYC, Oklahoma City, or anywhere else in the US before (or after) 9/11. Particularly, when terrorism insurance can run 6 to 7 figures annually for the WTC complex. That is in addtion to the 6 to 7 figures annually normally paid to insure the WTC complex.

i have an example of why he may have felt the need for it that doesnt involve conspiracy.

The third category of international terrorist threat stems from loosely
affiliated extremists, characterized by rogue terrorists such as Ramzi
Ahmed Yousef and international terrorist financier Usama bin Laden.
These loosely affiliated extremists may pose the most urgent threat to
the United States because these individuals bring together groups on an
ad hoc, temporary basis. By not being encumbered with the demands
associated with maintaining a rigid, organizational infrastructure,
these individuals are more difficult for law enforcement to track and
infiltrate. Individuals such as Ramzi Yousef and Usama bin Laden have
also demonstrated an ability to exploit mobility and technology to avoid
detection and to conduct terrorist acts. Fortunately, in 1995, we were
able to capture Yousef and return him to the United States to stand
trial for the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the
conspiracy to attack American aircraft overseas. Yousef was convicted in
two trials and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The FBI believes that the threat posed by international terrorists in
each of these categories will continue for the foreseeable future. As
attention remains focused on Usama bin Laden in the aftermath of the
East African bombings, I believe it is important to remember that rogue
terrorists such as bin Laden represent just one type of threat that the
United States faces. It is imperative that we maintain our capabilities
to counter the broad range of international terrorist threats that
confront the United States.

For many of us in this room, the threat of international terrorism was
literally brought home by the World Trade Center bombing in February
1993. Although the plotters failed in their attempt to topple one of the
twin towers into the other, an outcome that would have produced
thousands of casualties, they succeeded in causing millions of dollars
worth of damage in a blast that killed 6 persons and injured more than
1,000. After his capture in 1995, Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind
behind the New York City bombing and other terrorist acts, conceded to
investigators that a lack of funding forced his group's hand in plotting
the destruction of the World Trade Center. Running short of money, the
plotters could not assemble a bomb as large as they had originally
intended. The timing of the attack was also rushed by a lack of
finances. Incredibly, the plotters' desire to recoup the deposit fee on
the rental truck used to transport the bomb helped lead investigators to
them. As horrible as that act was, it could very well have been much
more devastating.

We are fortunate that in the nearly six years since the World Trade
Center bombing, no significant act of foreign-directed terrorism has
occurred on American soil. At the same time, however, we have witnessed
a pattern of terrorist attacks that are either directed at United States
interests or initiated in response to United States Government policies
and actions. Among these acts are:

< snip >

the plot by Shayk Omar Abdel Rahman and his followers to bomb several
New York City landmarks, including the United Nations building, the
Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, and federal buildings;

this is all taken from:

FBI Press Room - Congressional Statement - 1999 - The Threat to the United States Posed by Terrorists
February 4, 1999
Statement for the Record of
Louis J. Freeh, Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
on
President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Before the
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Washington, D.C.

which unfortunatly i cant find on the fbi website anymore. i happened to have a copy of it saved to my computer for the last 8 years.

of note is the last paragraph, i know it doesnt specify the wtc towers by name but they were new york city landmarks wouldnt you agree?

now, im not going to imply that old larry had read this, just pointing out that he may have kept on top of things and not been a total moron and its possible that his purchase of the extra insurance was rather serendipitous

reply to post by Damocles

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.

I suppose it would depend if the warehouse slang for pull would be “pull it in on itself”. I did say controlled demolition industry slang “pull” meant implode as opposed to explode a building by controlled demolitions. By industry definition, including construction industry, “pull a building” literally means to pull a building in on itself using implosion by demolition to do it.

When someone calls another a “god” it normally means the person or group is not expected to follow the same laws as everyone else. At least , that is what it meant when we were using it from the time we were children.

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.

can we agree on that part?

Possibly (not certain about being in charge of the police), but what you wrote is not related to anything I wrote. It depends on what you mean by the word “everything”. The word “everything” can take in a great deal of unstated territory. I cannot justify giving blanket agreement to some vague, obscure word, such as everything, until I know what everything entails.

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.

Again, that decision cannot legally be made by the fire department when a building is insured. There were no signs of raging fire in WTC 7 when it was pulled. No one sets demolitions in buildings with raging fires. That means the FD would have to put out the fires before WTC 7 could have been pulled, unless the cutter charges were already planted.

Since Silverstein included himself with the fire department official with whom he was speaking, and did not veer off topic, I believe it is safe to say Silverstein and the official were the they to whom Silverstein was referring. In the video, he seemed to be saying “we” not “they” .

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)

The fire cannot be contained but they are going into a burning building, with a fire that cannot be contained, and set demolitions to pull the building. I definitely see something wrong with that picture. Were the demolitions already planted that they could bring down WTC 7 the same day with a fire that could not be contained still raging? They had to be since the fire could not be contained, and it was pulled the same day as WTC 1 and 2.

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?

Actually, the insurance company has the final call on the disposition of what they insure.. They are the ones paying out the money on claims. And they will not pay unless they can investigate themselves. So you are correct, Silverstein had no legal right to make any final call for disposition of the building, and neither did the NYFD. I explained the same in prior posts and again in this one.

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:

I did not say CDI was responsible. I said they had contracts. CDI just happens to be the company well used by those contracting for controlled demolition. They were one of the first on the scene to do clean-up at WTC. The company is highly used and well-known, particularly in the NY area. Whoever was used to pull WTC 7, it was done on the sly since Silverstein said nothing the same day as the building was pulled. I know one thing. With a fire asserted to be so out of control it could not be contained, no one was setting demolitions on 9/11. The only option that leaves is they were set prior to 9/11. Silverstein admitted to public WTC 7 was pulled.

Silverstein created a civil tort against the insurance company when he took it upon himself to order WTC 7 pulled without the insurance companies agreeing. There is no way the insurance companies could have agreed or investigated when WTC 7 was admittedly pulled the same day as WTC 1 and 2. It is the reason the insurance companies fought him on the claims he put in on WTC 7. That resulted in him filing suit against the insurance companies, though he was at fault for breaking contract with the insurance companies. There was no proof the fires could not be contained other than what Silverstein told people. Since when does any FD stop fighting fires until they are out or a building collapses to the ground?

As far as being contained, where was the fire WTC 7 going to go? . No one has said any discussion took place about pulling WTC 3 -6, which are reported to have had far worse fires and damage than WTC 7.. What you may not know is that WTC 7 housed the criminal investigation records of such companies as Enron. When those records were destroyed, IRS and SEC had to start rebuilding that case and ended up with a great deal of pertinent data they could not replace. IRS and SEC leased space in WTC 7 where those records were being stored.. That adds further suspicion to Silverstein’s motives in pulling WTC 7.

Is there any other recorded cases of any FD ordering pulling of buildings because they cannot contain fires? Did the FD actually issue the order or someone else on the FD‘s recommendation and under what circumstances? Fires on steel buildings will eventually burn themselves out from lack of catalyst to keep them going. Never in the recorded history of steel and concrete buildings, before and after 9/11, has any steel skeleton ever collapsed from fire. Which is why the “official” version is so incredible. Too incredible to be believed.

No offense intended. Your post is highly lengthy , and each reply on the forum only allows 6500 characters. Your post must have exceeded that before I started to post, because I cannot reply on the website, but had to use my word processor instead.. If you wish the balance of your post to have response, I will oblige that request.

Originally posted by Damocles
i promise ill be more civil and mature in this post lol


i have an example of why he may have felt the need for it that doesnt involve conspiracy.

I got a laugh out of that one. Larry Silverstein would probably have to be one of the few people who would wait to buy terrorism insurance 60 days (grace period) before 9/11.

Originally posted by Damocles
this is all taken from:

FBI Press Room - Congressional Statement - 1999 - The Threat to the United States Posed by Terrorists
February 4, 1999
Statement for the Record of
Louis J. Freeh, Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
on
President's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Before the
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Washington, D.C.

which unfortunatly i cant find on the fbi website anymore. i happened to have a copy of it saved to my computer for the last 8 years.

of note is the last paragraph, i know it doesnt specify the wtc towers by name but they were new york city landmarks wouldnt you agree?

now, im not going to imply that old larry had read this, just pointing out that he may have kept on top of things and not been a total moron and its possible that his purchase of the extra insurance was rather serendipitous

I wonder if the insurance companies were informed too. Because Silverstein's rates would have drastically increased for terriorism insurance, if the insurance companies had all that information in front of them when they sold it to him only 61 days before 9/11. He passed his grace period on 9/10.

It is uncanny that the US bureacrats said they had not a clue anything was going to transpire on 9/11. It is rather difficult to take threats seriously, when one's own security agencies do not have a clue anything is going to happen, as much high tech security systems and as many spooks employed as they do have.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by OrionStars]

Originally posted by Damocles
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)

As for Silverstein, I seriously doubt he was paying double 7 figure insurance on the WTC complex for two years. Just completing his grace period is part of the reason the insurance companies fought him on paying out full claim on WTC complex, particularly Building 7.

I said structural damage not the potential of collapsing the building. Again, my point was strucuture had heavily been tested on twin towers since the early 70s. The fact that neither fire in 1975 or bombs in 1993 did structural damage was testimony to the strength of the twin towers.

People can still be saying "Oh, but there never was a plane and kerosene fuel....." That only states people saying that have never actually studied the history and structure of the twin towers.

Originally posted by Damocles
and thats entirly within the realm of possibility in my mind. but if they were worried about it wouldnt a better option be to set up monitor hoses and try to attack the fire as well as they could from the outside as im sure there were a number of windows out

But didn't they have a problem with water supply?

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

Re-read my post I didn't say anything about 7 hours of fire. I said, 'Didn't they stop fighting the fire in [building] 7 hours before it collapsed?

I agree I see no fires when it collapsed either, certainly no 'raging fires' as some want us to believe.

Sry for the confusion carry on...

Originally posted by OrionStars
By industry definition, including construction industry, “pull a building” literally means to pull a building in on itself using implosion by demolition to do it.

Just for interests sake, the term 'pull it' came from the early days of demolition when they used chains or ropes to pull buildings down. Like many old terms in industries it stuck as a slang for collapsing, or 'pulling', a building down when modern methods, of any kind, where introduced. So it's not an 'official' term but it is used, especially by old timers like Silverstein who's fortune was made buying old building complexes and re-building them.

reply to post by Damocles

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.

I do not have to lay out a scenario when the events were actual events that transpired. I explained again in another post what I had been explaining in other posts.

Again.....

CDI is not going into a building with a claimed fire that cannot be contained and rig anything. Not when it involves demolitions and fire.

Silverstein does indeed blamed the fire chief for ordering it. I said all along he was wrong for placing blame where it did not belong. The fire chief has no legal standing to order the disposition of a building, particularly one that is insured. This is the way it legally would have been done and was not done this way. Hiring a demolition contractor would be done by Larry Silverstein, with the approval of the insurance companies, or the insurance companies.

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 have never written anything of the sort. So I have no idea how you got that interpretation out of any of my replies. I have not even so much as implied any of what you write as your interpretation, much less explicitly wrote it.

Exactly from where did you get that I accuse the fire chief of rigging and charging any controlled demoltions, in the middle of a raging fire that is stated to be impossible to contain? Please cite exactly the words I used you incorrectly interpreted that way. Are you certain that those words were not the words of someone else, and you are mistakenly attributing them to me?

Originally posted by OrionStars
I suppose it would depend if the warehouse slang for pull would be “pull it in on itself”. I did say controlled demolition industry slang “pull” meant implode as opposed to explode a building by controlled demolitions. By industry definition, including construction industry, “pull a building” literally means to pull a building in on itself using implosion by demolition to do it.

what would you say though if "pulling" a building also is used to refer to using cables on cranes and simply pulling it over/down as they did with wtc6 during cleanup?

When someone calls another a “god” it normally means the person or group is not expected to follow the same laws as everyone else. At least , that is what it meant when we were using it from the time we were children.

well i guess thats one way to interpret it, though i didnt realize my usage was so ambiguous.

ill clarify, this should address the "everything" comment as well: when i say that an IC is "god" it simply means that he is the MFIC (mofo in charge) and is ultimatly responsible for all that happens on his scene. now, for the sake of simplicity ill narrow that term down for reference to this discussion. everything=police (yes, the cops would answer to the IC as the IC usually IS a police officer) fire and ems (emergency medical services) so, if they wear an official uniform, they answer to him, and that usually includes national guard. now this isnt to say that everyone walks up to him and asks for permission for a bathroom break but we all know stuff rolls down hill and he's where it starts. is that more clear?

Possibly (not certain about being in charge of the police), but what you wrote is not related to anything I wrote. It depends on what you mean by the word “everything”. The word “everything” can take in a great deal of unstated territory. I cannot justify giving blanket agreement to some vague, obscure word, such as everything, until I know what everything entails.



Again, that decision cannot legally be made by the fire department when a building is insured.

well in a disaster situation, whats typically "legal" and whats going to happen arent always the same thing. the IC COULD make that call but unless he could justify it, he's out of a job when its over with and the city may end up paying for said building.
but this may be where the disconnect in our discussion starts to occur, ill expound on that shortly...

There were no signs of raging fire in WTC 7 when it was pulled.

i can neither agree or disagree there, beyond the fact i still dont think it was pulled. the only shots ive seen of the collapse were from a ways off. but, from THOSE vantage points ill agree that there were no fires visible, but we certainly cannot see the building as a whole as theres been no video taken from the other side of the building released.

No one sets demolitions in buildings with raging fires.

now THAT statement ill agree with 100% and not even qualify it with a but.

That means the FD would have to put out the fires before WTC 7 could have been pulled, unless the cutter charges were already planted.

if there were in fact any HE charges of any kind in the building at all.

Since Silverstein included himself with the fire department official with whom he was speaking, and did not veer off topic, I believe it is safe to say Silverstein and the official were the they to whom Silverstein was referring. In the video, he seemed to be saying “we” not “they” .

"we've had loss of life" so "they made the decision to pull it" is the quote from the youtube link you provided earlier

Actually, the insurance company has the final call on the disposition of what they insure.. They are the ones paying out the money on claims. And they will not pay unless they can investigate themselves. So you are correct, Silverstein had no legal right to make any final call for disposition of the building, and neither did the NYFD. I explained the same in prior posts and again in this one.

yes, the ins company has that call, tomorrow, next week, next month...but until the IC releases the scene he has authority of what happens and who goes in. thats not to say the fire depts going to blow a building by any means it just means that until the IC says its ok, NO ONE is going in to inspect it. and its not a case of assuming ownership...more like when they impound your property as evidence, or more specifically like i said before, if your house starts on fire, the fire depts not going to let you or your insurance agent or anyone outside their team go near the building. thats the only point i was trying to make with those statements.

but also consider. you are aware that if you let your home deteriorate to the point where it becomes structurally unsound, the city can condemn it and your ins company has no say in that. the city can then also come and demolish your home once its concemned and you also have very little recourse there as well. not exactly the same but does show a similar precedent.

I did not say CDI was responsible.

ok so for the context of my post, replace cdi with any other company or simply just put in (generic demo team) and it still reads the same. youre suggesting that larry somehow was able to get a demo team in to pull the building either with or without the incident commanders ok. i disagree.

I know one thing. With a fire asserted to be so out of control it could not be contained, no one was setting demolitions on 9/11.

i can also agree with you on this overall. ok, in a whacked out theoretical way, sure, some crazy mofo could get in to set charges, but i was crazy and i wouldnt have done it.

The only option that leaves is they were set prior to 9/11.

well, not the only option. there is the "there were no explosives in that building" option

Silverstein admitted to public WTC 7 was pulled.

or he said something thats been taken out of context and blown out of proportion?

There is no way the insurance companies could have agreed or investigated when WTC 7 was admittedly pulled the same day as WTC 1 and 2.

of course they couldnt investigate. it was still an active disaster zone. i mean insurance adjusters dont go investigate and assess hurricane damage until after the storm passes do they?

There was no proof the fires could not be contained other than what Silverstein told people. Since when does any FD stop fighting fires until they are out or a building collapses to the ground?

they wont enter any structure unneccessarily if theres a danger of it collapsing. now many will say the old "oh but no steel framed building as ever collapsed due to fire in history" etc, but to those guys on the ground that day, they had just seen TWO do exactly that. so, they arent thinking CD they're thinking "well, those two collapsed, this one is damaged, no one is in it, its unlikely to spread to an adjacent building...why bother?" and thats why the fire teams had been "pulled" earlier in the day. there was simply no reason to risk the lives of more firefighters for a building that wasnt worth saving. we have no "proof" of how badly it was damaged but there are eyewitness reports (from firefighters) that there was a 20 story gash in the building. sadly none of these reports say how deep said gash was but its enough to say "um, naw..."

What you may not know is that WTC 7 housed the criminal investigation records of such companies as Enron. When those records were destroyed, IRS and SEC had to start rebuilding that case and ended up with a great deal of pertinent data they could not replace. IRS and SEC leased space in WTC 7 where those records were being stored.. That adds further suspicion to Silverstein’s motives in pulling WTC 7.

i know that, i also know a papershredder at officemax is less than 50 bucks and there are lowlevel format programs that will erase data deep enough that it takes the feds a while to reconstruct it if they even can. so, isnt dropping a whole building kind of overkill?

Is there any other recorded cases of any FD ordering pulling of buildings because they cannot contain fires?

not that im aware of and there probably wouldnt be a reason to. (which is why i said that the IC would need a very good reason if he liked his job)

No offense intended. Your post is highly lengthy , and each reply on the forum only allows 6500 characters. Your post must have exceeded that before I started to post, because I cannot reply on the website, but had to use my word processor instead.. If you wish the balance of your post to have response, I will oblige that request.

no offense taken, and its acutally 10,000 characters and i have for some reasaon been even more verbose than usual today.

thing is, ive read your last couple of posts and i think we actually agree on a lot we just seem to have a disconnect in our communication and we're arguing over semantics.

CONTINUED:

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Damocles to fix quote tags]

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Damocles]

part 2 of 2 so ill try to summarize:
i dont think any of the wtc's were CD'd (if you want ill u2u you a link to a thread that explains why i think that)

i dont think larry had jackall to do with anything or anyone on that day in particular the making of any decisions about anything

i do NOT think that the firechief was "in on it" in any way

i dont think that there were preplaced HE charges in wtc7 (well any of them but we're discussing 7) (a big reason for this is that there was simply NO way to know if one of those 22ton chunks was going to come crashing through the front of the building and damage the ringmain for the charges. should that have happened there would be unfired HE packages that could be found later and then the gig is up. why risk it?

so, in an attempt to clear up the disconnect we seem to be having in our part of the discussion, would you be so kind as to summarize your thoughts?

because what im reading from you is: larry had a chance to cash in on disaster and bypassed the fire chief and got a demo contractor in there that was crazy enough to go in and rig an unstable building OR that he knew of the attacks in advance and got a team in before hand to wire it so he could cash in then. is that close? either way id love to see your summary.

i think the important parts we do agree on though. i dont think either of us is attempting to implicate the FDNY or the chief that was on duty as IC that day. yes?

Originally posted by OrionStars
Silverstein does indeed blamed the fire chief for ordering it. I said all along he was wrong for placing blame where it did not belong.

ok now we're getting somewhere.

then who is to blame? who blew the building?

I have never written anything of the sort. So I have no idea how you got that interpretation out of any of my replies. I have not even so much as implied any of what you write as your interpretation, much less explicitly wrote it.

you are familiar with the term paraphrasing yes? all i was doing and i said thats what it looked like you were saying to me, and asking for clarification. maybe its me, but im having a lot of trouble following some of your lines of reasoning. i dont know if its that youre kind of all over the place with your thoughts or if im just incapable of making sense of perfectly logical posts today. im willing to accept either one.

Are you certain that those words were not the words of someone else, and you are mistakenly attributing them to me?

LOL no, im actually not certain of that at all and if thats the case i will, again, offer my apologies.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Damocles]

reply to post by Damocles

Originally posted by Damocles

what would you say though if "pulling" a building also is used to refer to using cables on cranes and simply pulling it over/down as they did with wtc6 during cleanup?

I would say I already know it can be applied that way but normally is not.. I would also say that technique would not normally be used on high rise buildings in congested urban areas for obvious reasons.

ill clarify, this should address the "everything" comment as well: when i say that an IC is "god" it simply means that he is the MFIC (mofo in charge) and is ultimatly responsible for all that happens on his scene. now, for the sake of simplicity ill narrow that term down for reference to this discussion. everything=police (yes, the cops would answer to the IC as the IC usually IS a police officer) fire and ems (emergency medical services) so, if they wear an official uniform, they answer to him, and that usually includes national guard. now this isnt to say that everyone walks up to him and asks for permission for a bathroom break but we all know stuff rolls down hill and he's where it starts. is that more clear?

That has nothing to do with determination of disposition the property where FD’s fight fires. As far as the word “god”, I suppose how we personally interpret the word, as applied to humans, is determined by when and where we picked up the use. I would not argue that during a fire the FD has to take control of the situation pertaining directly to the fire. I know police assist for crowd control and safety so the fire personnel can do their jobs unencumbered. At least, that is the way I am interpreting what you are explaining.

well in a disaster situation, whats typically "legal" and whats going to happen arent always the same thing. the IC COULD make that call but unless he could justify it, he's out of a job when its over with and the city may end up paying for said building.
but this may be where the disconnect in our discussion starts to occur, ill expound on that shortly…

Legalities in those matters do not change just because it happens to be 9/11. Fire departments fight fires and rescue as many people as they can, while trying to remain safety conscious.. It is not their job to determine the disposition of the buildings in which they fight fires. If they have to stop fighting a fire because they cannot contain it, the fire has taken responsibility for disposition of the property at that time. No one at any fire department has a legal right to make a call on using controlled demolitions, particularly when buildings are insured. When they are abandoned, that is normally going to be the call of some city official not the fire department. No one can pull a building during the middle of a raging fire which cannot be contained. Once the fire is out, there may not be anything to pull, depending on the type of building. If there is, there is time for someone responsible for disposal of condemned buildings to have the job done.

i can neither agree or disagree there, beyond the fact i still dont think it was pulled. the only shots ive seen of the collapse were from a ways off. but, from THOSE vantage points ill agree that there were no fires visible, but we certainly cannot see the building as a whole as theres been no video taken from the other side of the building released.

Silverstein said it was. You can either chose to believe him or not. If anyone would know if WTC 7 was pulled or not, it would be him. However, what you believe about it is entirely your right to believe.

now THAT statement ill agree with 100% and not even qualify it with a but.

Well, I am glad we can finally agree on something.J

if there were in fact any HE charges of any kind in the building at all.

There had to be cutter charges because Larry Silverstein said the building was pulled.. It could not have been pulled any other way or construction equipment would definitely have been noticed pulling down WTC 7 to the outside of the building. WTC 7 did not fall that way. It was pulled into itself into its own footprint. That much was obvious from the way the center roofline sagged first, and all the walls fell toward the inside of the building.

"we've had loss of life" so "they made the decision to pull it" is the quote from the youtube link you provided earlier

I honestly cannot make out if he said “we” or “they”. It was as if he mumbledthat particular word for some reason, because the rest were very clear. I was shocked that he had the audacity to place the responsibility on the fire department. I thought, “What is he doing? He knows that is not true. He has to know that would be illegal.”

but also consider. you are aware that if you let your home deteriorate to the point where it becomes structurally unsound, the city can condemn it and your ins company has no say in that. the city can then also come and demolish your home once its concemned and you also have very little recourse there as well. not exactly the same but does show a similar precedent.

That is not relevant to the topic. Because now you are not considering the mortgage company or bank may have a lien on that property. Those companies can jam up the courts with stop orders as much as they please.. Because they have a legal right to be notified before the city can do anything,, and they will use court action, so as not to have to expend a great deal of money taking care of disposing of the condemned property. They do not care if the property is a blight on neighborhoods, and they take their sweet time taking action to take care of it.

ok so for the context of my post, replace cdi with any other company or simply just put in (generic demo team) and it still reads the same. youre suggesting that larry somehow was able to get a demo team in to pull the building either with or without the incident commanders ok. i disagree.

Replacing CDI with any other name or (fill in the blank) does not change my prior response. I never wrote anything you suggest implicitly or explicitly. Again, the fire department had nothing to do with it because no charges will be set in the middle of a fire that cannot be contained. No fire. No FD involvement needed.

i can also agree with you on this overall. ok, in a whacked out theoretical way, sure, some crazy mofo could get in to set charges, but i was crazy and i wouldnt have done it.

Well, since demolitions and fire do not mix, where should we send flowers and condolences?

well, not the only option. there is the "there were no explosives in that building" option

That is provided you do not wish to believe Larry Silverstein or the fact that video evidence states WTC 7 was indeed pulled by demolition implosion, just as Larry Silverstein originally stated.. You’re are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish about it. The fact is, and in consideration of the factors I related, controlled demolition had to be planted before 9/11 for WTC 7 to be pulled by controlled demolitions on 9/11.

[quote]
[or he said something thats been taken out of context and blown out of proportion?

It is rather difficult to take out of context when his own words left nothing to the imagination, regarding what happened to WTC 7. He was very explicit about it. He just placed blame for the decision on the wrong person and did so before the general public. I cannot imagine even Larry Silverstein calling fire fighting human beings “it”, particularly not to the general public. He specifically said pull it - not them, not the men, but pull it. Larry Silverstein definitely knows the construction industry jargon and has for a very long time.

of course they couldnt investigate. it was still an active disaster zone. i mean insurance adjusters dont go investigate and assess hurricane damage until after the storm passes do they?

Don’t you think at least some of the claims adjusters and executives noticed on news programs that WTC 7 was not that badly engaged in having fires or damage during the hour after hour coverage going on? It is not like people in NYC have never seen controlled demolitions before. Developers are constantly having old buildings removed and new ones put up - quite often both are high rises.

they wont enter any structure unneccessarily if theres a danger of it collapsing. now many will say the old "oh but no steel framed building as ever collapsed due to fire in history" etc, but to those guys on the ground that day, they had just seen TWO do exactly that. so, they arent thinking CD they're thinking "well, those two collapsed, this one is damaged, no one is in it, its unlikely to spread to an adjacent building...why bother?" and thats why the fire teams had been "pulled" earlier in the day. there was simply no reason to risk the lives of more firefighters for a building that wasnt worth saving. we have no "proof" of how badly it was damaged but there are eyewitness reports (from firefighters) that there was a 20 story gash in the building. sadly none of these reports say how deep said gash was but its enough to say "um, naw..."

That is where their responsibility ends. At the point they stop fighting any fire. Their job is done. The disposition of property is not their legal responsibility. I am the one alleviating the FD of any responsibility regarding disposition of property. Why do you keep bringing up controlled demolitions in relation to the fire department? They had nothing to do with it, regardless of what Silverstein claimed to the public.

[i know that, i also know a papershredder at officemax is less than 50 bucks and there are lowlevel format programs that will erase data deep enough that it takes the feds a while to reconstruct it if they even can. so, isnt dropping a whole building kind of overkill?

Don’t you think IRS and SEC would have gotten wise to missing files if WTC 7 had never been pulled? Do you think they would have known who to go see over it since they had a very strong case against Enron at the time? What you present has no relevance to what actually did occur when those records were lost.

My point was it was such a convenience for Enron white collar criminals that it happened the way it did. Whole new cases had to be built without incriminating themselves over lost records in paper shredders.
Enron was not the only multi-national corporation under investigation at the time by SEC and IRS. Part of the charges against the highest level of executives of all corporate personnel were fraud, insider trading, and tax evasion.

not that im aware of and there probably wouldnt be a reason to. (which is why i said that the IC would need a very good reason if he liked his job)

There would not have been a good enough reason when insurance companies and any internal investigators got done with him, for overstepping his legal boundaries, had it actually happened that way, which it did not.

no offense taken, and its acutally 10,000 characters and i have for some reasaon been even more verbose than usual today.

thing is, ive read your last couple of posts and i think we actually agree on a lot we just seem to have a disconnect in our communication and we're arguing over semantics.

Excellent we can agree, settle differences, and do so in such a cordial manner. Much appreciated.

Originally posted by Damocles
part 2 of 2 so ill try to summarize:
i dont think any of the wtc's were CD'd (if you want ill u2u you a link to a thread that explains why i think that)

i dont think larry had jackall to do with anything or anyone on that day in particular the making of any decisions about anything

i do NOT think that the firechief was "in on it" in any way

i dont think that there were preplaced HE charges in wtc7 (well any of them but we're discussing 7) (a big reason for this is that there was simply NO way to know if one of those 22ton chunks was going to come crashing through the front of the building and damage the ringmain for the charges. should that have happened there would be unfired HE packages that could be found later and then the gig is up. why risk it?

That is your perogative to believe it even if I or others disagree with part or all of your views. I have explained my position on WTC 1, 2, and 7 throughout many posts. We obviously do not agree on what happened. I have no problem agreeing to disagree.

so, in an attempt to clear up the disconnect we seem to be having in our part of the discussion, would you be so kind as to summarize your thoughts?

because what im reading from you is: larry had a chance to cash in on disaster and bypassed the fire chief and got a demo contractor in there that was crazy enough to go in and rig an unstable building OR that he knew of the attacks in advance and got a team in before hand to wire it so he could cash in then. is that close? either way id love to see your summary.

Silverstein definitely cashed in but not as he had expected to do.

No one at the fire department had anything to do with dispostion of the building, and Silverstein had no obligation to run anything passed any personnel of the fire deparment, concerning disposition of WTC 7. No cutter charges were set in WTC 7 on 9/11. They were set prior just as they were in WTC 1 and 2.

i think the important parts we do agree on though. i dont think either of us is attempting to implicate the FDNY or the chief that was on duty as IC that day. yes?

That is correct.

Originally posted by ANOK

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]

I've refuted everything you've said.

And how does blowing up a building save lives?

Silverstein is talking in the context of lives being lost and preventing further lives.

He's talking about pulling the rescuers from the building.

That's the most logical explanation. Not blowing up a building. Not ADMITTING blowing up a building.

Your argument is too weak.

Originally posted by Damocles
ok now we're getting somewhere.

then who is to blame? who blew the building?

All that is known is Silverstein knew WTC 7 was pulled because he publicly said so. Plus, videos explicitly confirm WTC 7 was pulled. Who actually ordered, placed the charges, and set them off is three more mysteries, of many, to be resolved regarding 9/11. Until a whistleblower with validation comes forward, and/or someone got sloppy and left validation in writing somewhere to be found, we will not know exact names or details. The most anyone can know right now is what caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did.

you are familiar with the term paraphrasing yes? all i was doing and i said thats what it looked like you were saying to me, and asking for clarification. maybe its me, but im having a lot of trouble following some of your lines of reasoning. i dont know if its that youre kind of all over the place with your thoughts or if im just incapable of making sense of perfectly logical posts today. im willing to accept either one.

With all due respect, that was not parapharsing. That was known as distortion, though from your explanation did not appear to be intentional. Paraphasing is where different words are used but meaning and intent of the author remain intact. Distortion is when the author's meaning and intent are completely lost by the time someone misinterprets the author's words.

LOL no, im actually not certain of that at all and if thats the case i will, again, offer my apologies.

Thank you for being honest and your gracious apology. I certainly appreciate honesty in anyone. Anytime you find what I have written seems confusing, please just tell me. I may well have written it in a way I did not intend to write it to present to others. I know what I mean but I cannot always expect everyone else to understand what I mean the way I present it.

All that is known is Silverstein knew WTC 7 was pulled because he publicly said so. Plus, videos explicitly confirm WTC 7 was pulled. Who actually ordered, placed the charges, and set them off is three more mysteries, of many, to be resolved regarding 9/11. Until a whistleblower with validation comes forward, and/or someone got sloppy and left validation in writing somewhere to be found, we will not know exact names or details. The most anyone can know right now is what caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did.

If you are making such a bizarre statement from such an ambiguous medium then you will never really be making any sense to me.

You are allowing your views on Bush and america in general to sway your opinion of this event.
I don't like Bush, but I don't allow it to sway my opinion.

The building was MOST LIKELY felled by damage and fire.

reply to post by ANOK


I re said what you said about the fires, but came out wrong.

The fires were out in WTC 7.

Now I wonder what larry would say to people when asked what he
did for a living:

I take old wrecks and rebuild.

Follow the insurance money in this case seems like a pile of money
was waiting for rebuilding. Now why was so much money going to be
thrown at larry? (is this a scripted CT ?)(or it will be one, or already is)

OK, thats not about why WTC 7 fell. Or is it CT wise.
And remember a lot of explosions were going on, as in the sub
basement to damage is wall and take in water... to cool the molten
steel... that wasn't pulverized by Al and S.


So I came back to say fires were out when WTC fell down.
And larry has a rebuilding background.

No matter what larry meant, the building fell that shouldn't.
(I wonder who said, larry I got a deal for you, wait six months
and you can modernize.)