Can somebody explain...

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm sure even with the amount of damage it caused, they would have wanted to keep it to a minimum where they could, thus WTC 7 was imploded to save buildings around it. No point in making unnecessary damage.

(But obviously to the OSers all this was just shear coinkindink, but if you consider the big picture it don't look good for the OS)

With respect, your big picture doesn't make any sense either. They were happy for WTC 1 and 2 to detonate all over the place, causing three other enormous buildings to have to be demolished, and yet they were careful to make sure Building 7 didn't do too much extraneous damage?

I don't really like to speculate on what could have been used as the 'explosive' because it's hard to say, and really in the end it doesn't matter if it was space beams or a frozen fish. You don't have to know what did it to know asymmetrical damage and fires didn't.

But why do the collapses begin at the points where the planes entered the buildings on 1 and 2?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You really think the insurance company is going to question Larry backed by the US government?

I don't think you realise how much power even Larry holds.

This is not Joe Blow making a claim on a car 'fire' in the middle of nowhere.

I would guess the future insurance payments from Larrys companies future investments would be enough to keep the insurance company from looking too hard...

Insurance wasn't where Larry really made out though, he ended up with a very desirable clean slate in which to build his new complex on, that is his job, it's what he does, invests in developments, demolishes and re-builds. This time though someone else paid for the demolition and clean up... What would that have cost Larry eh?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
With respect, your big picture doesn't make any sense either. They were happy for WTC 1 and 2 to detonate all over the place, causing three other enormous buildings to have to be demolished, and yet they were careful to make sure Building 7 didn't do too much extraneous damage?

That's not the big picture I was referring too.

But with respect you didn't read what I said, they had no choice with WTC 1&2, they did with 7.

But why do the collapses begin at the points where the planes entered the buildings on 1 and 2?

Did they? Here is WTC 1...



Regardless the top turned to dust before the bottom started collapsing, it had no mass left to crush the rest of the building to it's foundations.

Originally posted by ANOK

You really think the insurance company is going to question Larry backed by the US government?

Yes, I do. If they thought there was a may of not paying, I imagine they would have taken it. I don't think that there are dozens of Insurance Execs sitting terrified, well aware that they have been told to pay out billions of dollars on a deal they know is a government crime.

Anyway it doesn't matter, really. It is just as likely that they paid because they saw no problem with paying as that they paid because they were frightened of Larry Silverstein. There is no evidence of what you are suggesting, and indeed it doesn't itself form evidence of an inside job.

I don't think you realise how much power even Larry holds.

Enlighten me.

This is not Joe Blow making a claim on a car 'fire' in the middle of nowhere. I would guess the future insurance payments from Larrys companies future investments would be enough to keep the insurance company from looking too hard...

This doesn't make sense. Why don't insurance companies routinely pay out just so they can raise premiums in the future? Do you see how that doesn't really work?

Insurance wasn't where Larry really made out though, he ended up with a very desirable clean slate in which to build his new complex on, that is his job, it's what he does, invests in developments, demolishes and re-builds. This time though someone else paid for the demolition and clean up...

What would that have cost Larry eh?

So if I get you right Silverstein is behind this, not the US government? Or the government approached Silverstein? I suppose, again, it doesn't really matter. There's nothing here that looks at all odd unless you want it to. That is, every piece of "evidence" has a perfectly run-of-the-mill explanation.

Originally posted by ANOK


That's not the big picture I was referring too.

I know. That's why I said it's your "big picture".

But with respect you didn't read what I said, they had no choice with WTC 1&2, they did with 7.

It still makes no sense. If they were happy for the towers to rip down three other huge skyscrapers, why suddenly get worried about the damage 7 might cause? Elsewhere you even claim that this is an insurance scam designed to provide Silverstein with a "clean slate".

Did they? Here is WTC 1...

Look at the videos. It's clear that the dust is from the pulverisation below it, not a detonation. And it's also clear that the collapse begins at the point of entry.

Originally posted by ANOK

Regardless the top turned to dust before the bottom started collapsing, it had no mass left to crush the rest of the building to it's foundations.

Wooooooot?

It turned to dust.......

So we're all wrong about the cleanup process? It was all a sham?

The cleanup was done with a team of Hoover vacuums?

Quantify the % that you believe turned to dust, and how much of this was ejected outside the floor areas so as to NOT be able to crush the rest of the building.

Failure to do so is proof that you're maaking stuff up/mindlessly repeating what you've read on some conspiracy website.