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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


As soon as I see it on every one of your posts, I will think about adding it to mine. However, it is a fact that many members of the FDNY are on record describing severe damage to WTC 7 and their belief that it was going to fall.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Then you haven't paid very close attention. My posts are always honest. Except for the times that my honest response would get me in trouble with the mods.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.


NIST's reports

Still, you have certainly seen the differences in their simulations when they factored in the damage and when they didn't. They say the damage didn't cause the collapse, but they never said it had no effect on how it collapsed after it began collapsing.



So...you believe that fire alone caused the collapse of steel structured high rise building?

And....are you saying, that should the damage to the building not have been there..it would have looked less like a controlled demolition?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Pretty much, yes. That's what makes sense to me.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


I have not responded as quickly as usually as I've been getting frustrated by the 9/11 thread recently. Sigh* well here it goes again.

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[20][21] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[22] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[23] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[24] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[25] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.

In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]


en.wikipedia.org...

Larry didn't make it out like a "Bandit" because insurance companies have this funny police of making sure you don't grab the cash and run. He had to REBUILD WTC. He lost tons of money off the attacks in rebuilding. After rebuilding his new towers he's still having trouble finding people to lease out too.

www.liveleak.com...


After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.

The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.

Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.

The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Update on the poll. I think the numbers speak for themselves, but we'll look again in a few days. The insurance is interesting, btw.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Pretty much, yes. That's what makes sense to me.


Would you care to explain how a fire brought down a steel structured high rise building?
I cant wait to hear this.

How do you suppose the building would have fell should not it had a gouge in it? Would it have tipped over? Explain please.

While your at it, can you explain to me why my gas grill hasn't melted and collapsed. LOL
Or how a wood stove works for that matter. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 27-9-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Sorry I lost you so quickly. As to the official details, I think they are mostly true (the good lie premise), but there are glaring problems as well. One problem is WTC 7. I'd like to see not tied to those events so that we can focus on it better and get the emotional and vested interests out of the debate. Maybe one day, if the collapse of Building 7 is ever solved, we take that knowledge and apply it to 9/11 as a whole to see what we believe and don't.

Thanks for the videos, very informative.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)


Can't help but agree with you on this point.




Maybe one day, if the collapse of Building 7 is ever solved, we take that knowledge and apply it to 9/11 as a whole to see what we believe and don't.

I think when you can explain why Building 7 had molten metal in it's basement, you can apply this to 9/11 as a whole.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 

Well, lets see.....most wood stoves are made of cast iron....and unless you are using your gas grill as a forge, I'm guessing the temp rarely exceeds 600 degrees.

But in other cases, ita the engineering that is done to prevent things from melting.....like jet engines.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm
 

Well, lets see.....most wood stoves are made of cast iron....and unless you are using your gas grill as a forge, I'm guessing the temp rarely exceeds 600 degrees.

But in other cases, ita the engineering that is done to prevent things from melting.....like jet engines.


So what temperature did the office fire get to on WTC7 in order for the steel to lose its integrity?
No jet fuel there to enhance the fire.
LOL.
Silly Believers.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join