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 the govt collapse Building 7?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
If you believe our govt engineered the 911 attacks to have an excuse to invade iraq, then collapsing towers 1 and 2 was sufficient. They gained nothing by also bringing down Building 7 - in fact it has caused them tons of trouble since no jet hit Building 7 and it was obviously brought down by explosives. Yet they did it.

Was some extremely dangerous information stored in 7?




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 



Here mate. All the answers you need. /b6a4ur

tommy.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
WTC7 may have had some information or SEC files that needed to be destroyed, but I believe one of the perps of 9/11 to be Larry Silverstein. Larry already owned WTC7 and was in the process of taking out a lease on the towers WTC1 and WTC2.

I believe that the perps came to Larry and told him that he could be a multi-billionaire if he allowed his buildings do be destroyed on 9/11 and then he could collect the insurance.

Just six weeks before 9/11, the deal was finalised and Larry took out a 99-year lease on the towers and he also took out a huge insurance policy in the amount of $3.2 billion which specifically included terrorism.

Then six weeks later, the whole entire WTC complex is destroyed and Larry Silverstein becomes an instant billionaire.

Think about it. Whether you will truthfully admit it or not, there aren't too many people that would turn down allowing your buildings to be destroyed and becoming an instant billionaire. And yes that's billionaire with a "b". You would become one of the most powerful people in the world with that kind of money.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Its obvious why WTC7 was destroyed. Just look at the list of tenants. Its the perps!

Salomon Smith Barney
IRS Regional Council
U.S. Secret Service
C.I.A.
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
First State Management Group, Inc
Federal Home Loan Bank
NAIC Securities Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

The rebuild will cost Larry much more than the insurance not including the lost lease money. Profit would not drive any of this because if the scheme were discovered, there would be no way to avoid charges of murder. Things would have been a lot more profitable for him had the building remained standing.
If there was dangerous information stored in WTC#7, who had it and who wanted it. If the Feds wanted something, they could just take it and wouldn't have to engineer a Rube Goldberg chain of events to get it.

I see no motive or opportunity for the demolition of WTC#7. Certainly there is no physical evidence that shows demolition.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
If you believe our govt engineered the 911 attacks to have an excuse to invade iraq, then collapsing towers 1 and 2 was sufficient. They gained nothing by also bringing down Building 7 - in fact it has caused them tons of trouble since no jet hit Building 7 and it was obviously brought down by explosives. Yet they did it.

Was some extremely dangerous information stored in 7?


To me I have always thought Bldg 7 was the headquarters of the operation to destroy the twin towers. I believe this is where the electronics were to signal the explosive devices to be detinated that were planted in strategic places in the twin towers steal frame structures. Can not prove it only a theory that I have to get rid of evidence by bringing down Bldg 7.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

The rebuild will cost Larry much more than the insurance not including the lost lease money.


Silverstein's insurance policies at the WTC were not a simple affair.

www.insurancejournal.com...


The replacement cost insurance policies on the World Trade Center entitle the insureds to monies sufficient to rebuild the buildings as they were prior to being destroyed in the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, but not to build "bigger and better" buildings, a U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan has ruled.

Developer Larry Silverstein and fellow insureds had sought to force insurers to pay up to an estimated $700 million extra to reflect the cost of rebuilding under post-September 11 codes using modern materials.

But U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan rejected Silverstein's plea. Baer found that while the insureds may have wished they had purchased a policy that reimbursed for "expenses associated not just with reconstructing WTC as it stood in September 2001, but with building it the way a savvy developer would build it in 2006," they did not in fact buy such a policy.



In separate cases, Silverstein attempted to recover $7 billion on $3.5 billion in policies from dozens of insurers by arguing that the Twin Tower attacks of Sept. 11 were two separate events. While he did not totally succeed in these cases, a federal appeals court recently upheld rulings that entitle him to a total of $4.6 billion in insurance proceeds.


As far as I can tell Silverstein has recovered replacement costs for the WTC as it was on 9/10/01 ( a sum estimated to be $700 million short of what the actual replacement costs would be today) plus $4.6 Billion in "make me happy money." When you work it all out it comes to 3.9 billion dollars of profit.


Profit would not drive any of this because if the scheme were discovered, there would be no way to avoid charges of murder.


Thankyou for explaining that. Now I understand why there are no murders committed for profit in this world. If you had the executive branch of the government as co-conspirators, they might be able to guarantee that you wouldn't be prosecuted for your crimes. In fact, if the executive branch of the government approached you about taking part in a plot like that, it might be very dangerous for you to refuse to participate.


Things would have been a lot more profitable for him had the building remained standing.


Asbestos.


If there was dangerous information stored in WTC#7, who had it and who wanted it. If the Feds wanted something, they could just take it and wouldn't have to engineer a Rube Goldberg chain of events to get it.


But if they were going to do a Rube Goldberg thing anyway, why not multi-task?


I see no motive or opportunity for the demolition of WTC#7. Certainly there is no physical evidence that shows demolition.


I'm not surprised by that.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by amari

To me I have always thought Bldg 7 was the headquarters of the operation to destroy the twin towers. I believe this is where the electronics were to signal the explosive devices to be detinated that were planted in strategic places in the twin towers steal frame structures. Can not prove it only a theory that I have to get rid of evidence by bringing down Bldg 7.


I"ve heard that but it seems far-fetched. Why not just cart the electronics out of Building 7 after the twin towers were collapsed.?? There was no need for the perps to collapse the whole building and thereby bring tons of suspicion upon themselves.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I think WTC 7 was supposed to be the "target" of Flight 93.

But something went wrong with their plan, so when Flight 93 was shot down, WTC 7 had to be "pulled."



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I agree with the Larry Silverstein angle.

His business was built on buying and demolishing old un-profitable complexes and rebuilding.

It obviously costs a lot of layout to demolish and rebuild.

Larry got the whole WTC complex, the three tallest and most difficult buildings to deal with completely demolished, and the rest 'pulled', the site cleaned up quick. and no cost to him.

The complex supposedly was losing money because of their age and the cost to modernise and bring them up to code (asbestos etc.) would all be on Larry to take care of as the new lease holder.

So basically he got a clean slate to build on, for free, plus a little insurance cash to invest in the new complex. Larry gets the whole thing and it cost him nothing in investment. Do you really think a deal like that would be worth turning a blind eye to the reality of that day, for a guy like sliverstein?

Remember people are just commodities to these high finance scum, and our worth is based on what our future income possibilities are to them. So if they figured out the death of 3000 lives would be less financial loss, over x period of time, than keeping the WTC complex and it's future financial loss possibilities then the lives are considered a collateral loss and a necessity.
Finance wins over lives, always has. Wars are based on that fact.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Very well explained, Anok.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

posted by ANOK
I agree with the Larry Silverstein angle.

His business was built on buying and demolishing old un-profitable complexes and rebuilding.

It obviously costs a lot of layout to demolish and rebuild.

Larry got the whole WTC complex, the three tallest and most difficult buildings to deal with completely demolished, and the rest 'pulled', the site cleaned up quick. and no cost to him.



And there we go. Lucky Larry got the job done; "buying and demolishing old un-profitable complexes and rebuilding" them again. The NeoCONs needed their New Pearl Harbor Event, The Bush Family needed their excellent source of heroin in Afghanistan, the Bush Regime needed their Quagmire and a boogieman who could live forever, Pappy Bush needed his business partner Saddam punished, the Israelis needed Iraq and Iran neutralized, the New World Order needed their Endless Wars For Endless Profits, and Lucky Larry needed a few more $$$billion that he could never spend in a lifetime.

Who knows. Maybe it was Lucky Larry's idea from the get-go. Maybe he talked to former CIA Director/Prez Pappy Bush who was already planning on shortcircuiting the US election system and inserting his deadbeat drydrunk cokehead son into the White House to go after Saddam. The dual-citizen NeoCONs were informed who brought their allied Mossad/Israelies into it, add some renegade US Generals and the few traitorous military teams at their disposal, and what are three thousand innocent victims when corporate profits for the Military Industrial Complex are involved?

The 9-11 victim innocent lives were not more worthy than the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives sacrificed for profit over in the Middle East nor were the 9-11 victim innocent lives any more worthy than the 4873 American military 'cannon fodder' sacrificed for profit to date in the Middle East Endless Wars For Endless Profits. People are disposable when NWO corporate profits are at stake.

It is the value system which is important in America now.

The boob tube is much more important than the truth

The status quo is much more important than justice

Fatcat political hacks and greed are much more important than the Constitution

Sports and soap operas and six-packs of Bud-Lite are much more important than the children

Personal greed and self-gratification and the government god are much more important than Almighty GOD and His Laws and Commandments

Profits are much more important than human lives

Greed is at the top and human lives at the bottom (Revelation 18:11-13)



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I agree with the Larry Silverstein angle.

His business was built on buying and demolishing old un-profitable complexes and rebuilding.

It obviously costs a lot of layout to demolish and rebuild.

Larry got the whole WTC complex, the three tallest and most difficult buildings to deal with completely demolished, and the rest 'pulled', the site cleaned up quick. and no cost to him.

The complex supposedly was losing money because of their age and the cost to modernise and bring them up to code (asbestos etc.) would all be on Larry to take care of as the new lease holder.



You should look into what the profitability of the World Trade Center Complex was prior to 911.

First of all:


May 31, 1998
Commercial Property/Downtown; At the World Trade Center, Things Are Looking Up



As the market for office space in midtown has tightened and rental rates increased, tenants have been looking to downtown as a cheaper alternative. Over the last year, those seeking large blocks of space have been finding them at the trade center, which had many vacancies as a result of the 1993 terrorist bombing and the shrinkage of the financial industry in the early part of the decade.

''In January 1997 we had about an 80 percent occupancy rate,'' said Cherrie Nanninga, director of real estate for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the complex. Twenty percent of 10.5 million square feet of space is 2.1 million, which would be a substantial building by itself.

But as a result of the last year's work, Ms. Nanninga, said the complex is over 90 percent occupied and expects to it reach the 95 percent mark by the end of the year. That, she said, would be about as full as the center is likely to get, since there is almost always someone moving in or out. ''Ninety-seven percent occupancy would be full,'' said Ms. Nanninga...

query.nytimes.com...

And:


NET LEASE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR PORT AUTHORITY\'S REAL ESTATE DIRECTOR -- Cherrie Nanninga Credited with Shepherding Office, Retail Renaissance At Trade Center, Other Port Authority Facilities

Date: February 12, 2001
Press Release Number: 16-2001



When Port Authority Real Estate Director Cherrie Nanninga enters her 88th floor office each day, she passes a model of the World Trade Center, a stark reminder that she is in charge of the largest real estate transaction in New York history. The scale and complexity of the negotiations are astonishing. The complex has 10.4 million square feet of office space, 10 percent of all of the office space in downtown Manhattan. There are 400,000 square feet of stores selling upscale clothing, books and food - enough to keep Main Street bustling in a small town. And the world-famous landmark has offices for 40,000 workers.

"It's a considerable challenge, and the task is comparable to the sale of a small city," Mrs. Nanninga said of the trade center net lease. "But fortunately, there are a lot of good people working on it. The best way to maximize the value of the trade center is to just keep moving in the right direction."

"Cherrie's dedication and business acumen have allowed this important real estate transaction to remain on track," said Port Authority Executive Director Robert E. Boyle. "Through her leadership, she has made the World Trade Center a place where companies and retailers want to locate." ...

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

"The challenge to me and the staff of the World Trade Center was to improve the service we provide to tenants, and to bolster our reputation in the marketplace," Mrs. Nanninga said. "We've been told by our tenants and the real estate industry that we have really turned this place around, and we are starting to believe it. But we continue to be very focused on our tenants' needs."

Sales at the trade center's retail mall also have risen dramatically. In 1996, the mall's retail establishments averaged approximately $500 per square foot. Today, sales have doubled, and are expected to reach $900 per square foot by the end of this year, which is expected to make the trade center mall the third most profitable in the country. And major national retailers, such as Banana Republic, Coach and Godiva have opened stores in the trade center mall to cater to a daily audience of 40,000 employees and thousands of visitors. Many of these retailers indicate that their trade center stores are among their top sales producers in the country....


www.panynj.gov...



[edit on 25-1-2009 by CameronFox]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by amari

To me I have always thought Bldg 7 was the headquarters of the operation to destroy the twin towers. I believe this is where the electronics were to signal the explosive devices to be detinated that were planted in strategic places in the twin towers steal frame structures. Can not prove it only a theory that I have to get rid of evidence by bringing down Bldg 7.


I"ve heard that but it seems far-fetched. Why not just cart the electronics out of Building 7 after the twin towers were collapsed.?? There was no need for the perps to collapse the whole building and thereby bring tons of suspicion upon themselves.


This could of been a more elaborate set up then we think in Bldg. 7 and the perps did not have time to get everything out with out being spotted.
If this was the command post they would want everything gone in other words with out a trace. Even with a computer part or serial number they might be able to track down who was the original purchaser.

If the perps went to this great lengths to destroy the twin towers they would also control the clean up crews and what to do with the deposal of waste, demolished structures and items.

Here is a question that I do not know were there any individuals in bldg. 7 when it went down?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
If WTC towers 1 & 2 had not collapsed so rapidly, then WTC 7 would have still been standing at the end of the day,


but because WTC 1&2 did unexpectedly collapse in their own footprint,
immediate action needed to be taken to muddy the water as-it-were...

at stake is the public trust in the integrity of the entire building permit
and engineering protocols,
a universe of unsafe tall structures (modeled after the twin-towers)
would cause a generation long and extremely deep distrust in the
authority of the building codes, inspections, regulations, stc.

whereas, another collapsed building, having the typical steel beams &
skeleton of a modern tall structure, leads to the erroneous assumption that all 3 buildings were intentionally demolished by unknown perps.


Ergo: case is successfully 'muddied' and no further investigation is needed,
the 'status quo' is preserved,
the architects/builders/contractors/code enforcers/regulators/
inspectors/insurers/tax assessors/ports authority...are all exonerated,
& life & the exchange of Trillion$ goes on-&-on-&-on
in a manipulated system...



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by amari


Here is a question that I do not know were there any individuals in bldg. 7 when it went down?


Thanks to Chief Nigro, nobody was in WTC-7 at the time of the collapse. There was a collapse zone established at around 2pm EST to protect the first responders.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by amari


Here is a question that I do not know were there any individuals in bldg. 7 when it went down?


Thanks to Chief Nigro, nobody was in WTC-7 at the time of the collapse. There was a collapse zone established at around 2pm EST to protect the first responders.



What made Chief Nigro think that Bldg. 7 had a chance of collapsing when from the outside it looked like the integrety of the building would hold? From photos there looked to be minimumal damage from the outside of the structure.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
If WTC towers 1 & 2 had not collapsed so rapidly, then WTC 7 would have still been standing at the end of the day

If the WTC towers hadn't been laced with explosives to bring them down, they would still be standing also, and undergoing repair.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I agree with the Larry Silverstein angle.


Oh come on. You think it was just an insurance scam??? I can't buy that. Way too risky.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Oh come on. You think it was just an insurance scam??? I can't buy that. Way too risky.


It wasnt just an insurance scam that was just one part of it. There were many people involved. There is a saying follow the money and Spreston summed it up pretty well who made out on 9/11

Here is his post post by SPreston



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join