WTC 7 - Why?

The motive is MONEY, read the headline.

For the people at the top in this world (the ones who actually have something to lose) it is in their best interest to make sure they stay on top. The events of 9-11 laid the ground work to maintain power.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Spoodily]

Originally posted by Stiney
... the rebuilding cost more in the long run.

Your boy Silverstein got new buildings for $12mil + 6 months of insurance payments...

Imagine a guy with a mobile home that is pretty crappy and really worth $10K but he only paid $1200 of his own money for it... He insures it for $20K, it gets demolished FOR FREE and rebuilt by the INSURANCE COMPANY... It is now worth $30K and he can rent it out for the next century as it is much nicer than the old home.

Tripled his property value, extended the usable life of his property, upgraded facilities, reduced maintenance costs (newer), made property more desirable for tennants (more rental income)...

Yeah... You are wrong.

Spoodily you haven't given me anything new. I know you think it was money, but I just showed you why I think the ways of getting money that you mentioned wouldn't require the demolition of building 7. You haven't responded to that.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by Stiney
... the rebuilding cost more in the long run.

Your boy Silverstein got new buildings for $12mil + 6 months of insurance payments...

The rebuilding cost was about 9 billion.


Yeah... you are wrong.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Stiney]

They took the building down because the transmitters for the demolition charges in the trade towers were in building #7 (they could have started the demolion from anypoint on the towers, each transmitter and reciever has a unique signature). If they couldn't find the black boxes from either plane in the towers, why would they find evidence in a secure building?

Originally posted by Stiney
Spoodily you haven't given me anything new. I know you think it was money, but I just showed you why I think the ways of getting money that you mentioned wouldn't require the demolition of building 7. You haven't responded to that.

You still haven't addressed my response.

Originally posted by Spoodily
They took the building down because the transmitters for the demolition charges in the trade towers were in building #7

Wow... even if you had any scrap of evidence that they were there, since when would you have to rig the whole building to destroy them? And then, assuming that would be necessary, why not just put them in the towers?

What was the pay off for 'terrorists' to do these attacks? To get their homeland blown to bits and their people wiped out? Think about it. America (and the people with money who really run the world) benifitted tremendously from 9-11.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Spoodily]

I just thought of an analogy for you. Let's say that 'we' (the citizens and common folk) are the wife and the 'Government' (US, Illuminati, NWO, whatever) is the Husband. Now the husband hits the wife every now and again but says that's it's not her, it's that he's stressed out. She loves the husband and forgives him and even covers for him(I fell down the stairs) because even though he hurts her, he's always provided for her. The wife will probably never leave the husband because in her mind he has abused her so long that she fears she will never escape him and so she rationalizes why she loves him. We are in the same cycle, no one owns you.

Originally posted by Spoodily
What was the pay off for 'terrorists' to do these attacks? To get their homeland blown to bits and their people wiped out? Think about it. America (and the people with money who really run the world) benifitted tremendously from 9-11.

Again, Spoodily: What does this have to do with building 7? Why, specifically, did building 7 need to be demolished?


As for the terrorists' motive:

You say it like they expected what came of it. Why would they have expected it? You also have to remember that it's largely based on their faith. Death is not an issue for these people. Do you deny that they hate America? Do you deny that they have attacked in the past? What if the US chose to strike back prior to 9/11? According to your logic, you'd believe that those prior attacks were an inside job instead, if that happened.

I believe real attacks performed by individuals only enable this type of scheme to be all the more believable.

I also think that any group of people that can coordinate a simultaneous four plane hijacking would have the foresight to think that 'terrorism' doesnt work too well when the HQ for your beliefs is going to be on the recieving end of a beating. You haven't explained to me why going thru all that trouble is worth it to them.

We are in the middle east to open retail outlets and give them our consumeristic way of 'Western' life. The rich can sell more of their products and make more money when there are more buyers.

Like I said it's MONEY. They say it's the root of all evil for a reason.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Spoodily]

Originally posted by Stiney

Wait... paltry isolated fires? Superficial damage? Ridiculously reinforced?? WTC 7 didn't even have concrete support. Major fires on multiple fires were reported, and since they started much smaller, how were they "isolated"? Can you show me a report saying the damage was minor? There was another building in the area about the same height - a hotel I believe - that suffered about the same damage as WTC 7, but it didn't burn. Even this building was lost because the structure was too dangerously compromised.


Also, here is another tall building in the line of fire:

img455.imageshack.us...

Would you not expect WTC 7 to suffer similar damage? Or do you see this as "superficial?

Thanks, Stiney...you have convinced me! (psst: a lil secret--I didn't need convincing)

I was just pointing out how one day a hard-line twoofer will minimize the damage done to WTC7 in order to support an argument, then on another day talk about how damaged the building was so Silverstein can make a buck...to support another argument.

It is silly, really. Two juxtaposed arguments comming from the same source on different days...

If you ask me what the Motive for purposely bringing down WTC 7 was...I would have to say, and have said many times-- There is none.

There is no reason for it, not money, not to destroy evidence, not to enrage the population.

All of that *could* have been achieved without the risk of a controlled demolition at WTC 7. The notion is preposterous.



[edit on 24-4-2007 by GwionX]

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Spoodily]

I'm going to agree with you that terrorists were fully behind the attacks on 9-11 and not the US government.

BUT, some of those terrorists behind 9-11 are members/associates of our government, and that's where the problem is. Terrorists do things for their own agenda.



[edit on 24-4-2007 by Spoodily]

I was just pointing out how one day a hard-line twoofer will minimize the damage done to WTC7 in order to support an argument, then on another day talk about how damaged the building was so Silverstein can make a buck...to support another argument.

Ah... that happens a lot. Sometimes even within the same argument, the same building was imploded, and exploded. And people who say WTC7 was demolished to add to the emotional impact or perception of a widespread attack, or whatever, are the same people asking "Why don't they show this on TV? Why is it a big secret??" Well if it's a secret, how does it impact people?



Spoodily, you're trying to shift the focus to the terrorists' motives. You still haven't answered my question. You haven't given a single specific motive for destroying WTC7. You just keep saying it was done for money. You're talking about 9/11 as a single event. I have pointed out a number of times how this has nothing to do with WTC7. Without destroying WTC7, the towers would still be gone, people would still be angry, there would still be a reason for war, and money would still be gained. Stop dodging the question. Why destroy WTC7?

Originally posted by Stiney
The rebuilding cost was about 9 billion.

Yeah... you are wrong.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Stiney]

WTF are you talking about?

It didn't cost Sliverstien a RED CENT. The INSURANCE COMPAN(IES) paid for it.

He would have had to pay for demo and rebuild OUT OF HIS POCKETS (or investors) if he did not pull a MASSIVE insurance job.

We call it insurance fraud. (see example above)

Why would Silverstein GIVE A poop how much it cost the insurance companies? All he did was pay the premium + deductible.

Why destroy WTC 7?

Her could be a few reasons:

- Rudy's UNUSED "command center blast proof bunker"... hmmm... why was it "unused"? Maybe they were destroying the command center for the coordinated attack on the US/WTC.

- SEC files relating to the investigations of hundreds of billions in accounting fraud. These companies are near and dear to MANY high ranking officials as the lobby (reAY them) or they are stock holders in companies that owned stock in these companies that were cooking the books:

1. Worldcom: Up to $50 BILLION swindled
2. Enron: Up to $100 BILLION in liablility claims were pending.
3. Global Crossing: $250 Million...
4. Merck: $12 BILLION in tax fraud (book cooking)
5. Nicor, Peregine, Qwest, Reliant, Tyco, HALLIBURTON
(Look and see who the Major holders of these stockes were/are and who is on the boards of the corporate investors holding their stocks)

- Get a new free building (paid for by insurance company).
- Completed the destruction of ALL WTC buildings 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.
- CIA, DoD, IRS... all had offices there... even if ONE was responsible had to kill the evidence
- Coincentally, the Dod Annonced a MULTI TRILLION dollar LOSS (as in "we lost the money") on 9/10/2001... they had offices in this building.
- It reinforced the belief that buildings just fall down in a fire.


Here, "baffled Engineers" Tell the NEW YORK TIMES they have NO CLUE how this could happen naturally: wtc7.net...

I'm not saying he lost 9 billion - I'm saying it's a higher price than what he got from it, and there was no profit. I've read about how the numbers add up - I'll have to look up some sources for that. In the meantime, do you have any credible source explaining how he didn't have to pay for rebuilding?

Originally posted by Stiney
... do you have any credible source explaining how he didn't have to pay for rebuilding?

Yes, I call it the insurance industry. What do you think insurance is for? His lenders would have REQUIRED PROOF OF INSURANCE prior to the purchase.

I do not think you understand CASH FLOW... as long as rent in > bills out he has POSITIVE CASH FLOW and is MAKING MONEY regardless of what the insurance company paid.

- He BORROWED the money for the building.
- Destroyed it.
- The insurance policy "makes him whole" by either paying out cash to the or paying for rebuild.
- Silverstein leases out the space and if the income is > the morgtage + insurance + etc.... HE WINS.

What is there to not understand? Are you a renter?


[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
Rudy's UNUSED "command center blast proof bunker"... hmmm... why was it "unused"? Maybe they were destroying the command center for the coordinated attack on the US/WTC.

Makes no sense. Why would the command center need to be destroyed? What exactly is inside the "command center" that would be incriminating? What is necessary besides the remote controller that actually would have set off the explosives? Why is it necessary to destroy a whole building to remove evidence of the controllers? Why is it necessary for the controllers to be in a separate building - why weren't they inside the tower so they could be destroyed when they went down? And if it IS necessary to have them in a separate building, where was the controller that set off the explosives in building 7 and how was it disposed of?

- Completed the destruction of ALL WTC buildings 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.

How is this necessary??

- CIA, DoD, IRS... all had offices there... even if ONE was responsible had to kill the evidence

What evidence? See above.

- It reinforced the belief that buildings just fall down in a fire.

Then why was it hardly mentioned? Why have most people never heard of it? If it was meant to condition people's minds, it would have been advertised.

Originally posted by Pootie
- He BORROWED the money for the building.
- Destroyed it.
- The insurance policy "makes him whole" by either paying out cash to the or paying for rebuild.
- Silverstein leases out the space and if the income is > the morgtage + insurance + etc.... HE WINS.

Insurance covered 4.6 billion. Rebuilding cost 9 billion.

I will ask again: Do you have any credible source stating that he didn't have to pay anything for rebuilding?

Let alone made a profit?

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]