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.

 

WTC 7, Let's Disassociate it from 9/11?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Not really. The entire building came down as a unit, and there were audible explosions as well as visible explosions multiple times.

The towers did not do any of that. Even WTC 7 didn't collapse all at once. A quarter of the building collapsed internally before the whole thing came down.



wtc7 came down from one side to the other just like the ones in the video, i'm not blind, i can see what i see very clearly.....i can tell you this, if you watch the first video that i posted you would understand the psychology behind it




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcupobob
I wanna know why the Truthers think the Government went through the trouble of planting explosives in a empty building. You think after the towers there would be no need to blow up an empty building in which the majority of the population doesn't care about or even know. I see them come up with some what reasonable explanations to the Towers and pentagon. Not building 7 though, even though its supposedly their smoking gun.

It caught on fire, the fire went uncontrolled for 7 hours. No conspiracy involved. The firefights ignored it because they were to busy dealing with the Towers and evacuation.




i don't know why i'm even taking the time to answer this one, guess i'm just bored.....the building wasn't empty....do you think that it wasn't being used? watch my video the truth about wtc7, i can see you didn't watch it, it will answer your cute little questions.....



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
wtc7 came down from one side to the other just like the ones in the video, i'm not blind, i can see what i see very clearly.....i can tell you this, if you watch the first video that i posted you would understand the psychology behind it


Alright, I'll refresh your memory then. Ignore the silly music:

www.youtube.com...



Now, you were saying?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 

www.911myths.com...
The building was evacuate after the first attacks, no one died during the Building 7 attacks. It was empty of people. Not empty in just general. Should have clarified that. Anyways my point still stands why blow up a empty building? Devoid of people.

First off Lets get to Larry Silverstein and his "pull it" quote.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center
incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein
was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon.
Peter Ganci Daniel Nigro
“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”
That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further


No what could Larry gain form having his building destroyed? Insurance?


Silverstein reaps huge insurance profit on WTC 7?
What about an insurance motive? Professional conspiracist and radio host Alex "New World Order” Jones
claims that Silverstein walked away with a profit of $500 million after building 7’s insurer, Industrial Risk
Insurers, paid its $861 million policy!This shouldn’t need to be said, but the fact that IRI didn’t dispute the $861 million claim should make it perfectly clear that Silverstein didn’t “admit” to destroying his building.
And lest you think that IRI’s management somehow benefited by turning a blind eye to Silverstein’s
“crime,” consider that IRI did contest Silverstein’s lawsuit over his Twin Towers insurance claim.
No. Insurance companies have a funny way of making sure that insured parties don’t destroy their skyscrapers,
collect the claims, and drive into the sunset with a truckload of cash. A clause in Silverstein’s
WTC 7 policy required him to begin rebuilding within two years, and lenders required that the new building
have as much square footage as the old (and they complained mightily when the plans came up short in
that department). The cost of the new building? Over $700 million. Hey, that still leaves Silverstein with a tidy profit of around $161 million, right?No. There was the small matter of the existing $489.4 million mortgage, which Silverstein paid off with the insurance settlement, leaving him with a shortfall of $328 million heading towards construction of the new building.The City of New York, desperate to see rebuilding begin downtown, saved Silverstein a bundle in financing costs by offering over $400 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, which the Bank of New York guaranteed.
That move gave Silverstein and his backers the freedom to do something unheard of in recent New York
real estate history: start construction of a skyscraper without a major (or minor) tenant on board. And when
the building opened in 2006? Still no major tenants. In May, WTC 7 finally got its first possible major tenant
when Moody’s Investor’s Service signed a nonbinding letter of intent to occupy 15 floors. More recently,
other sizable tenants have signed on.
Sources: “Even as Construction Begins, a New Trade Center Tower Faces Obstacles” New York Times,
January 16, 2003. “7 World Trade Center Gets a Major Tenant” Official World Trade Center Site The
Building Everyone Will Date But No One Will Marry

And before you even claim that he didn't rebuild building 7 en.wikipedia.org...

Construction of the new 7 World Trade Center began in 2002 and was completed in 2006. It is 52 stories tall and still situated above the Con Ed power substation. Built on a smaller footprint than the original to allow Greenwich Street to be restored from TriBeCa through the World Trade Center site and south to Battery Park, the new building is bounded by Greenwich, Vesey, Washington, and Barclay streets. A small park across Greenwich Street occupies space that was part of the original building's footprint. The current 7 World Trade Center's design emphasises safety, with a reinforced concrete core, wider stairways, and thicker fireproofing of steel columns. It also incorporates numerous environmentally friendly features. The building was the first commercial office building in New York City to receive the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, where it won a gold rating.

edit on 9/24/2011 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mcupobob
 


i just realized, your on the same side as i am.....those points you just made are in the video that i posted....



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



ok, the little room at the top of the building is on the left side right? or am i wrong about that? it falls first, then you can watch the little roof top line start falling in succession towards the right of the building, then the rest of it is pulled down in asymetrical fashion, hence, one side to the other...left side, to the right side, i hope i spelled it out enough for you....



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
reply to post by Varemia
 



ok, the little room at the top of the building is on the left side right? or am i wrong about that? it falls first, then you can watch the little roof top line start falling in succession towards the right of the building, then the rest of it is pulled down in asymetrical fashion, hence, one side to the other...left side, to the right side, i hope i spelled it out enough for you....


No, that literally made no sense.

The building collapsed. I'm not debating that. I just don't see how it is so indicative of demolitions. You can physically see where a column failed, and then the rest of the interior failing with the outside falling and crumpling in the direction of the damage.

Ok, well answer me this. How were charges unharmed by both the damage and the fire?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What? Your video pretty much said the Silverstein did it and it was a inside job and he did for insurance. Did you read my post?

Another thing, during the court battle were Silverstein where he was trying to get his building covered under Terrorist attacks. If he was going to demo the buildings why didn't he get his buildings covered under Terrorist attacks beforehand so he didn't have to waste time and money going to court and dealing with insurance agencies?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I agree, let's disassociate it from 9/11. Noone died there and it's collapse was a relief, as it allowed the rescue personnel to get on with the job at Ground Zero.

Or if we're going to keep harping on about WTC7, what about Marriott World Trade Center aka WTC3? WTC4? WTC5? WTC6? Fiterman Hall? Deutsche Bank Building? All buildings that were impacted during the collapses, and all buildings that either collapsed or had to be demolished?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
I agree, let's disassociate it from 9/11. Noone died there and it's collapse was a relief, as it allowed the rescue personnel to get on with the job at Ground Zero.

Or if we're going to keep harping on about WTC7, what about Marriott World Trade Center aka WTC3? WTC4? WTC5? WTC6? Fiterman Hall? Deutsche Bank Building? All buildings that were impacted during the collapses, and all buildings that either collapsed or had to be demolished?


Shhh, they're not supposed to know about things that make sense. Besides, there is an uncanny ability to disregard facts like that.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What? Your video pretty much said the Silverstein did it and it was a inside job and he did for insurance. Did you read my post?

Another thing, during the court battle were Silverstein where he was trying to get his building covered under Terrorist attacks. If he was going to demo the buildings why didn't he get his buildings covered under Terrorist attacks beforehand so he didn't have to waste time and money going to court and dealing with insurance agencies?



ha ha, you missed that one, he already had insurance on both buildings, he put this insurance on the towers two weeks before the event!!! he was having to go to court because the insurance company didn't want to pay for TWO incidences like he was claiming since TWO planes hit the building...he won it and got like 7 billion dollars and then rebuilt them.....



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
I agree, let's disassociate it from 9/11. Noone died there and it's collapse was a relief, as it allowed the rescue personnel to get on with the job at Ground Zero.

Or if we're going to keep harping on about WTC7, what about Marriott World Trade Center aka WTC3? WTC4? WTC5? WTC6? Fiterman Hall? Deutsche Bank Building? All buildings that were impacted during the collapses, and all buildings that either collapsed or had to be demolished?



get your facts straight, none of those other buildings collapsed, they had to "pull" them later on, watch my video it explains this fact.......



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
ha ha, you missed that one, he already had insurance on both buildings, he put this insurance on the towers two weeks before the event!!! he was having to go to court because the insurance company didn't want to pay for TWO incidences like he was claiming since TWO planes hit the building...he won it and got like 7 billion dollars and then rebuilt them.....


False. He got around 4.6 billion, and it is only allowed to be spent in the rebuilding of the towers:

www.911myths.com...
edit on 24-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by patternfinder
ha ha, you missed that one, he already had insurance on both buildings, he put this insurance on the towers two weeks before the event!!! he was having to go to court because the insurance company didn't want to pay for TWO incidences like he was claiming since TWO planes hit the building...he won it and got like 7 billion dollars and then rebuilt them.....


False. He got around 4.6 billion, and it is only allowed to be spent in the rebuilding of the towers:

www.911myths.com...
edit on 24-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)


hee hee, another case of misreading your information here's what your source said.....


www.911myths.com...


Our take... As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.




notice that it says, "as we write" and also "although this may be subject to change up or down"


cnn.com


Verdict favors World Trade Center leaseholder From Phil Hirschkorn CNN | December 6, 2004 Real estate developer Larry Silverstein, who envisions replacing all the commercial office space destroyed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, won a court victory Monday that may help him do so. A jury in Manhattan federal court agreed with his argument that he should be compensated for the destruction of the two 110-story twin towers as two separate events. After a six-week trial and 10 days of deliberations, a jury determined that nine insurers sued by Silverstein owe him the maximum payout per catastrophic occurrence for each tower.

he won the case and they awarded him twice the amount which would add up to 7 billion dollars thank you.....



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
And I thought common sense had broken out.....


You cannot separate WTC7 from the events of 9/11. Because, like it or not, the building fell as a direct result of the events initiated when WTC1 collapsed and hit WTC7.


Thats the most honest thing Ive ever seen you write.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
[The reason why it did not get as much coverage was because it had been evacuated long before its collapse


And then you follow it up with this doozy.

The reason it did not get much coverage, is because anyone with 3 brain cells would realize that fire CANNOT and DOES NOT bring down a steel structured building.

Never has.
Never will.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


I hope you realize that those failed collapses are nothing like any of the collapsed buildings on 9/11.

Whatever happened to scrutiny in finding stuff that's almost the same?


Okay...how about WTC7 collapsing and looking (almost) the same as a controlled demolition.

Happy now?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by patternfinder
 


What? Your video pretty much said the Silverstein did it and it was a inside job and he did for insurance. Did you read my post?

Another thing, during the court battle were Silverstein where he was trying to get his building covered under Terrorist attacks. If he was going to demo the buildings why didn't he get his buildings covered under Terrorist attacks beforehand so he didn't have to waste time and money going to court and dealing with insurance agencies?


ha ha, you missed that one, he already had insurance on both buildings, he put this insurance on the towers two weeks before the event!!! he was having to go to court because the insurance company didn't want to pay for TWO incidences like he was claiming since TWO planes hit the building...he won it and got like 7 billion dollars and then rebuilt them.....

You mean the insurance he was required to obtain as part of his lease contract?
The insurance where he first set the amount too low, causing the tenants to complain that such an amount wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of reconstruction?
And which he only obtained in July, because that's when he took over the lease in the first place?
And you do realise, that not only did he have to pay to have the towers reconstructed, he also had to continue paying the lease to the PANYNJ, even while the property wasn't generating any income?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jason88
 


There is nothing to understand. WTC7 suffered severe damage from WTC 1's collapse and fell several hours later from said damage and the ensuing fires.



Thats not what NIST says.

If the story your are defending is SOOOOO believable......why do you disagree with the ones telling it?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 

Then do tell us, what are the NIST saying?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join