Why did the govt collapse Building 7?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
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.

I'm looking for a link to this information right now. Can I borrow one if you have it, something that resembles the quote above. Thanks in advance

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Flight 93 took off from Newark which is just across the water from NYC

Why fly all the way out to Ohio then head south into Pennsylvania if
you are going to NY?

Or did you flunk Geography?

Flight 93 was on course toward Washington DC - probable target was the
Capitol....

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45


No not just an insurance scam as other posters have pointed out.

I just think Larry was an important asset to the governments plan (or whoever planned it). They needed someone on the inside who no one would question, so they would have access to the buildings with no questions asked.

Please don't call me anti-semetic, but I heard that Larry also has a lot of ties with the Zionist elite, who I think maybe had a part in it. That's all part of the middle east angle. (anti zionism is not anti-semitism). Larry hired Securacom to manage electronic security, which Bush's brother was on the board of directors until 2000. They did security for Dulles airport that also played a big part in 9/11. Zionist Lewis Eisenberger oversaw the leasing negotiations for Larry, probably for free. He even turned down another BETTER bid from Vornado Reality, to insure Larry got the deal.

And then of course as we all know, the clincher...

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

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.

Here is statement from Chief Nigro

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

WTC 7 was surveyed for damage by OEM official Richard Rotanz

Severe interior damage was discovered including elevator car ejected
from shaft, sprinkler system inoperative from damage to water mains.
standpipes (which deliver water to floors for fire fighting) inoperative

Fires breaking out on multiple floors combined with severe structural
damage to south face of the building

Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out, he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.


"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."


Around 1400 According to Nist: "Around 2pm fires were observed in photographic and videographic records to be burning across floors 11 and 12 on the east face, from the south to the north." (Nist interim report on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18 )

reply to post by CameronFox


Yeah seeing as NO high rise steel framed building has EVER collapse from office fires then what was their precedence to have claimed WTC7 was going to collapse?

There is simply no way they could have made that claim. If they cleared an area for collapse then they knew it was going to collapse, but how did they know?

reply to post by thedman


None of that damage you mention would cause a building to globally collapse.

Damage and fires breaking out is not a reason for fire crews to stop fighting the fire. Normally a building lease/owner would NOT want his building left to burn down. But in this case I think obviously Larry did want it to be demolished...

You remember the Windsor Tower? Well that was so engulfed in fire that there is no way any sprinkler system was left working, and it was having localised collapses, but they kept on fighting the fire.

Your excuses for WTC 7 are weak, at best...

Originally posted by thedman
Severe interior damage was discovered including elevator car ejected
from shaft, sprinkler system inoperative from damage to water mains.
standpipes (which deliver water to floors for fire fighting) inoperative

Fires breaking out on multiple floors combined with severe structural
damage to south face of the building.

Please... no more lies about "severe structural damage" and "fires breaking out on multiple floors." It's all sheer fantasy!

Here's that "heavily damaged" WTC 7 with it's "uncontrolled fires" burning on 9/11:


This is WTC 5, which was much closer to the towers. It sustained much more damage and actually had uncontrolled fires:


So which building would you guess was still standing two days later?
Here's a hint: this isn't WTC 7!


Here's the "heavily damaged" south face of WTC 7:




Except it now appears that the 15-story gouged-out section at the base of WTC7 was an optical illusion that was obscured by smoke. Some people say the NIST photos have been Photoshopped because the smoke that obscures the lower floors has been blurred. Hard to say, but as you can see in this photo taken after the north tower collapsed, WTC7 sustained NO significant damage or fires at that corner:

reply to post by GoldenFleece


And in fact I made a thread a while back that showed what the bebunkers want you to believe is 'smoke' from WTC7, is actually dust from the collapse of the towers.

See this old post here for detailed hi-res pics of the 'smoke'.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pieces of the puzzle fit together and show an obvious attempt at deception.

The Banker's Trust building (below) was half the distance from the collapsing south tower as WTC7 was from the north tower, yet sustained much less damage than NIST claims was sustained by the much more distant WTC7 -- certainly nothing comparable to 1/3 of the WTC7 south face and 25% of the building gouged out, which would equate to 2/3 or more of the face of the Banker's Trust building.



Why does "thedman" spend his life trying to make people think otherwise?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by CameronFox

 

Yeah seeing as NO high rise steel framed building has EVER collapse from office fires then what was their precedence to have claimed WTC7 was going to collapse?

There is simply no way they could have made that claim. If they cleared an area for collapse then they knew it was going to collapse, but how did they know?

My post that was directed to you was the fact that the WTC complex was enjoying incredible revenues. You "heard" otherwise and you were unable to provide any proof that the WTC was not profitable. I didn't expect a response from you.

Back to this post. Chief Nigro just watched 2 skyscrapers fall. You wonder why Nigro made that decision?? I thought you were a truther? Did you read his interview with Firehouse magazine?

Or have you seen this letter?

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]. That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

reply to post by GoldenFleece


About that building:

It also caught on fire while it was being deconstructed, for a few hours and involving multiple floors.




You know what else is funny about deconstructing buildings, is they're usually not as strong as buildings that are up to code, haven't been so critically damaged, and are still standing.

Originally posted by ANOK

Please don't call me anti-semetic, but I heard that Larry also has a lot of ties with the Zionist elite, who I think maybe had a part in it. That's all part of the middle east angle. (anti zionism is not anti-semitism). Larry hired Securacom to manage electronic security, which Bush's brother was on the board of directors until 2000. They did security for Dulles airport that also played a big part in 9/11. Zionist Lewis Eisenberger oversaw the leasing negotiations for Larry, probably for free. He even turned down another BETTER bid from Vornado Reality, to insure Larry got the deal.

I won't call you an anti-semitic, but could you please elaborate about such a Zionist plot ?

Thanks.

reply to post by Netzar


I can't really, it's just an informed guess.

Who is it that wanted war with Iraq? And who did they rely on to help them?

Israelis once believed that the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians would usher in a new Middle East of comfortable Israeli-Arab coexistence.

With Oslo in tatters, the Israelis are now putting similar hopes in an American war on Iraq.

www.globalpolicy.org...

(CBS) Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

www.cbsnews.com...

US vice-President Dick Cheney reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the U.S. was planning to attack Iraq 'first and foremost for Israel's sake.'

www.middleeast.org...

Is this all just BS, or is there something to it?

[edit on 1/25/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by GoldenFleece



Except, once again, you ignore that it was the words of the men and women of NYPD, FDNY and PAPD that talked about the damage done to WTC 7. No photographers were allowed into that area to take pictures after the collapse of the Towers.

reply to post by CameronFox


LOL you keep referring back to the same old tired sources, from the same old tired authority figures.

That letter means NOTHING when you know the physics involved makes it all BS. I don't care about what Chief Nigro said, wh known physics contradicts him.

I feel sorry for your inability to see this.

Whether the complex was making money or not is irrelevant, it is just an opinion, it doesn't change the FACT that physics proves the official story is not what happened. Anything else is just irrelevant opinion, yours and mine.

But my opinions are based on facts...

First responders and New York City residents are dying of mesothelioma and being sickened with other asbestos-related disease [since 9/11]. Doctors and scientists have long predicted that, in years to come, we’d be seeing an onslaught of mesothelioma cases in greater New York City, caused by the tons of asbestos that rained down on fire fighters, police officers, paramedics, and those who lived and worked near the World Trade Center.

www.mesotheliomasos.com...

(BTW that source is not a conspiracy site or anything to do with 9/11 research)

The towers could NOT have been legally demolished, and they had to be bought up to code. I mean c'mon a moron can see the opportunity here for larry and other parties to make a killing.

I am just speculating of course, all avenues should be investigated, but you of course wouldn't even hear of it, you're not here to speculate.

There are ... untold... posts and threads on this topic. Please contribute to one of our existing threads.

Topic closed.