I just learned something...

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Update on this.

I will be conducting an official interview with the source this Thursday, mainly about his experience working with Silverstein on the 9/11 lawsuits, but we'll be getting into WTC7.

I will post my findings here before I do the article, and hopefully will also have that documentation, so we can settle this.


I would greatly appreciate your clearing this up, because I went back and reread your OP and it sounds a LOT like whoever you were talking to was actually referring to one of the OTHER heavily damaged buildings that was demolished because it sustained too much damage (I.E. WTC 6) and you're transposing it into being WTC 7 all on your own.

I invite you to prove me wrong.




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I would greatly appreciate your clearing this up, because I went back and reread your OP and it sounds a LOT like whoever you were talking to was actually referring to one of the OTHER heavily damaged buildings that was demolished because it sustained too much damage (I.E. WTC 6) and you're transposing it into being WTC 7 all on your own.

I invite you to prove me wrong.


Actually, I was thinking the same thing, Dave. Now, in my defense, he did insist on WTC7. But I will hold out that maybe he misspoke in some confusion. To me, the documents will settle this whole thing.

Honestly, I hope I am mistaken, because if WTC7 was in fact demolished, my whole world and everything I believe to be right, wrong, truth, justice will be upside down. I really don't need an existential crisis right now.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by behindthescenes
 





He told me this like it was a known fact. In fact, it was common knowledge as the WTC owners were negotiating over insurance payments for WTC7.


See 15:15 in the movie................yes there was money to be made.

The whole film is worth watching however the name and no description is stupid.



6 weeks before the WTC Towers collapsed the new owner took out a large insurance policy on them?

There is also a issue about some trillions of dollars of gold bars missing, never found, moved out in the dead of night before 911.

We never got the full story, we never got the truth and yet again, nobody seemed to want to ask, "who profited from this catastrophe?

The video says it all in very plain simple language.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
My dad's Jewish and it took a few months after 9/11..

to realize what it really meant that he was told by his Jewish Capital Markets/Securities boss/firm to take the day off along with other members of the board... all Jewish

and the saddest part, theres nothing knowing that fact can do or change for all the lives lost, anyway




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I would greatly appreciate your clearing this up, because I went back and reread your OP and it sounds a LOT like whoever you were talking to was actually referring to one of the OTHER heavily damaged buildings that was demolished because it sustained too much damage (I.E. WTC 6) and you're transposing it into being WTC 7 all on your own.

I invite you to prove me wrong.


Actually, I was thinking the same thing, Dave. Now, in my defense, he did insist on WTC7. But I will hold out that maybe he misspoke in some confusion. To me, the documents will settle this whole thing.

Honestly, I hope I am mistaken, because if WTC7 was in fact demolished, my whole world and everything I believe to be right, wrong, truth, justice will be upside down. I really don't need an existential crisis right now.


Isn't this the main reason why people don't want to believe in it. Not a very good reason if you think about, the truth can't be real because it would completely change my life. Not trying to antagonize you just pointing it out. Personally I do hope you change your beliefs because for me there is no doubt our government had something to do with it, either by setting it up, or letting it happen.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 



6 weeks before the WTC Towers collapsed the new owner took out a large insurance policy on them?


Wow - The old WTC was insurance scam crap again....

Dont you clowns ever do any RESEARCH rather than parroting such nonsense?

Silverstein took out the policy because the people putting up the money for the deal required he buy the
insurance

Silverstein actually wanted to buy LESS insurance - 1 billion for each building...

Lenders demanded 5 billion - settled on 3.5 billion per building


In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.



Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I honestly think they were all demolished

I think that's what the big lie is, they don't want to admit these buildings contain explosives, can't just let them come down sideways, it would take out half of Manhattan, to me it's just logic, if I was in charge i'd rig them too in case of the what if, what else can you do? If you ask me it would be damned irresponsible not to have them rigged for an emergency, what can you do let them topple and then guys walking around as far away as central park take bricks to the head at 60 mph as they shoot across the city?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordnightstalker
I honestly think they were all demolished

I think that's what the big lie is, they don't want to admit these buildings contain explosives, can't just let them come down sideways, it would take out half of Manhattan, to me it's just logic, if I was in charge i'd rig them too in case of the what if, what else can you do? If you ask me it would be damned irresponsible not to have them rigged for an emergency, what can you do let them topple and then guys walking around as far away as central park take bricks to the head at 60 mph as they shoot across the city?


What would "they" have to fear from stating the buildings were rigged with explosives? You could come out and just say that some elite taskforce gets to decide what US citizens die, and which one live, by controlling something from a long distance away.

The US already has that.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
edit on 21-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignant
My dad's Jewish and it took a few months after 9/11..

to realize what it really meant that he was told by his Jewish Capital Markets/Securities boss/firm to take the day off along with other members of the board... all Jewish

and the saddest part, theres nothing knowing that fact can do or change for all the lives lost, anyway




Wait. Seriously? You think a consortium of Jewish business leaders knew this was coming?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes

Wait. Seriously? You think a consortium of Jewish business leaders knew this was coming?


This is a perfect example of how education and serious research shows who's telling the truth, and who is not. I myself talked to a woman who worked in the north tower and who was there during the 9/11 attack (she worked down on the thirty-somethingth floor so she was able to get out in time). She told me that she had a number of Jewish friends who worked throughout the building who were killed that day. So, I can definitely understand why she gets quite livid whenever anyone attempts to use the tragedy for their personal Jew bashing agenda.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Alright, I'll have an update to my interview for you all later tonight.

Basically, yes, WTC7 was purposely pulled according to my sources, because the damage was too great and it was listing to one side anyway, risking it collapsing in an uncontrolled fashion.

I will hopefully be able to provide an insurance doc that will support this as well. And when I have some time, I'll go through my interview with you all.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Basically, yes, WTC7 was purposely pulled according to my sources, because the damage was too great and it was listing to one side anyway, risking it collapsing in an uncontrolled fashion.


Actually WTC wasn't leaning in any direction, that is a myth.

OSers claim to know what NIST said but they conveniently forget some of it.


Page 39/130
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours...Page 39/130
Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001....


According to NIST there was NO structural damage and other than fire the building was sound. Post collapse pics prove the building collapsed straight down, if it was leaning it would have fell more to that direction.

There is no evidence WTC 7 leaned at all. All you have to do is look at pics...



Do you see any leaning?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001....


According to NIST there was NO structural damage and other than fire.....


Do you even read what you post?????? You post the NIST talking about the STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and then claim that they said there was NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.

Then you wonder why you're being ignored for more than a decade.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Besides that the collapse of WTC 1 /WTC 2 cut all the water mains in the area disabling the sprinklers
and cutting off water to the standpipes in the building

FDNY members reported debris falling off building, which along with lack of water convinced the incident
commanders to abandon WTC 7 and pull all their men out.....

In addition had that 3 story bulge developing on the Southwest corner causing the FDNY commanders to
order a collapse zone around the structure to be cleared in anticipation of WTC collapsing

Takes on whole deifferent meeting when dont leave things out......



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by behindthescenes

worst video ever

seriously, Who uses the word Neocon and points fingers without REAL evidence?
edit on 23-2-2012 by DrNotforhire because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Alright, I'll have an update to my interview for you all later tonight.

Basically, yes, WTC7 was purposely pulled according to my sources, because the damage was too great and it was listing to one side anyway, risking it collapsing in an uncontrolled fashion.

I will hopefully be able to provide an insurance doc that will support this as well. And when I have some time, I'll go through my interview with you all.


Then this DEFINITELY sounds like one of the other buildings demolished post-9/11, as WTC 7 was showing major structural damage but it wasn't leaning, and at the time of the collapse there were fires still burning so noone knew what was going on inside for anyone to say "the damage was too great".

Besides, it's a verifiable fact that it was WTC 6 that was pulled, not WTC 7.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join