WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

I doubt it. ZENSMACK89 is unable to actually decide what scenario he actually supports, is unable to describe it clearly, or is simply unwilling to actually commit to and defend a particular scenario and is just trying to have it every way at once.

I'm leaning towards the last option at this point, due to the classic FUDcasting recipe being followed. Toss out any number of suspects (Giuliani! Bush! Secret Service!), various motives (documents incriminating the conspiracy! ordinary non-conspiracy secret documents! insurance fraud! liability!), various scenarios (lots of explosives! a few explosives! pulling!). Continually misrepresent others' statements (you think this! you think that!) and deny responsibility for one's own scenarios (we're only talking about motives! I didn't say it had to be that!). Slip in the usual bogus claims (fire on a few floors! alleged structural damage!). Season to taste with the usual insults (you can't read! you're lying! you're in a bubble!). Sprinkle with heaping doses of projection (it's your claim! it's your claim!) Wave hands vigorously, reheat and serve repeatedly - this recipe never runs out.

If he just can't figure out a coherent scenario, or can't express himself clearly, that's sad. If he's deliberately trying to fuzz the issue to generate FUD - a strategy I've seen many times before - that's annoying. Either way, the claim that a 47-story building was deliberately destroyed in order to destroy some papers and CDs is just... pathological. I'm afraid to think of ZS's state as the years progress with no big revelation that WTC 7 was deliberately destroyed, as the public at large continues to ignore - heck, to never even hear about - this notion, and the big revolution never comes.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Why don't you go back and read the OP to this thread and then read my posts and replies before you make a comment. Do it once before you comment next and then try to make a practice of it. Then if you want you can start your own thread based on your Blind Faith in authority and maybe I'll comment and show you where you're wrong. Again.
Click to expand...
BS, CT boy - you have not stated your case and supported it with evidence. Prove it CT boy.
 
Last edited:
sts60 said:
So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

I doubt it. ZENSMACK89 is unable to actually decide what scenario he actually supports, is unable to describe it clearly, or is simply unwilling to actually commit to and defend a particular scenario and is just trying to have it every way at once.

I'm leaning towards the last option at this point, due to the classic FUDcasting recipe being followed. Toss out any number of suspects (Giuliani! Bush! Secret Service!), various motives (documents incriminating the conspiracy! ordinary non-conspiracy secret documents! insurance fraud! liability!), various scenarios (lots of explosives! a few explosives! pulling!). Continually misrepresent others' statements (you think this! you think that!) and deny responsibility for one's own scenarios (we're only talking about motives! I didn't say it had to be that!). Slip in the usual bogus claims (fire on a few floors! alleged structural damage!). Season to taste with the usual insults (you can't read! you're lying! you're in a bubble!). Sprinkle with heaping doses of projection (it's your claim! it's your claim!) Wave hands vigorously, reheat and serve repeatedly - this recipe never runs out.

If he just can't figure out a coherent scenario, or can't express himself clearly, that's sad. If he's deliberately trying to fuzz the issue to generate FUD - a strategy I've seen many times before - that's annoying. Either way, the claim that a 47-story building was deliberately destroyed in order to destroy some papers and CDs is just... pathological. I'm afraid to think of ZS's state as the years progress with no big revelation that WTC 7 was deliberately destroyed, as the public at large continues to ignore - heck, to never even hear about - this notion, and the big revolution never comes.
Click to expand...

"(you think this! you think that!)" The only thing sts60 ever does.
 
Now once again just as a reminder to all the genius’s who got an "F" in reading comprehension…

Post #239

ZENSMACK89 said:
Let's say for argument sake no inside job.
Click to expand...

Boo Hoo. What’s the matter got nothing on the liability issue?

Oh poor babies. Don’t throw a tantrum.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Now once again just as a reminder to all the genius’s who got an "F" in reading comprehension…

Post #239



Boo Hoo. What’s the matter got nothing on the liability issue?

Oh poor babies. Don’t throw a tantrum.
Click to expand...
You don't think he had liability insurance? The liability issue is really not much concern for Silverstein. He would just let the insurance company fight it out.

The part that makes no sense is why would he risk getting caught to save a little aggravation. Your scenario is almost all (if works) or nothing (if caught) for him.
 
DavidJames said:
Thanks for proving my point, CT boy. You haven't stated your case and supported it with evidence.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point that knowing absolutely nothing about a topic doesn’t stop the likes of you from shooting off your mouth.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
STOP! Not just Silverstein and insurance. Go back and read.
Click to expand...
I did read it. If it was not an inside job like you said, The insurance would cover the liability. The whole site was covered for acts of terror unlike in "93" when it was not and the liability was an issue.

Do I misunderstand you? If so please correct me.
 
DGM said:
I did read it. If it was not an inside job like you said, The insurance would cover the liability. The whole site was covered for acts of terror unlike in "93" when it was not and the liability was an issue.

Do I misunderstand you? If so please correct me.
Click to expand...

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees?

ZENSMACK89 said:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...settlement.php

World Trade Center insurance settlement reached
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Almost six years later. And what were they all so concerned with…?

“Spitzer's office said that the settlement, which was the biggest obstacle to reconstruction at the World Trade Center site, "will save additional tens of millions in legal costs and allow the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties to focus on rebuilding at Ground Zero." Prior litigation has cost Silverstein and the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. “

Now what if WTC7 is on fire and severely damaged and maybe about to fall on another building which will also be costly. The building has severe damage to one side that maybe was caused by the falling towers or maybe more damage from an explosive device. Or better yet maybe the building might have been breaking some fire codes …

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001
New York Times

“Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.”
Click to expand...

And was Silverstein and insurance liability the only concern surrounding the events and people of 9/11? For instance in a civil case involving the 93 bombing who was found more liable the terrorists or the Port Authority of NY/NJ?

ZENSMACK89 said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news

"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury said the owner of the World Trade Center was legally responsible in the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.

The civil trial jury today found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent liable for the attack, in which terrorists detonated explosives in a rented van in the 400-car garage under the former twin towers. The terrorists were 32 percent liable, the jury said."

That's right. Port Authority 68% liable Terrorists 32% liable. Are you telling me there is no interest from anyone to downplay or dismiss out of hand secondary explosions? Planes make it no fault.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Do try to learn to read.

Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.
Click to expand...

Run of the mill sensitive docuement desatruction was addressed in post 188 by Sabrina. you came back suggesting that the ordfer to destroy whatever docuements needed destroying came from the administration
Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."
Click to expand...

So, there are two choices in your fantasy
- the docuements in question are incriminating of the involvement of the administration. Given that you use the phrase, "the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years" in connection with "same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed", the implication is that what you are referring to is the senario in which 9/11 inside job docuements were destroyed.

-the other choice is that the "the knuckleheads (crooks and murderers) in power today" did bring down the towers but failed to realize that the nearby WTC 7 contained sensitive but non-incriminating docuements and that they would be in danger of falling into the hands of someone in the general public as a result of the damage done to this structure.
In this case you suppose that a good, secure and efficient way to destroy those docuements would be to destroy the building before it falls of its own accord. Somehow, someone is to enter a creaking building that is on fire and in danger of collapse and set explosives designed specifically to bring the building down mostly in its own footprint and in such a way as to ensure the destruction of said hypothetical docuements.

In order to somehow back this up you ask if any sensitive docuements found their way into the hands of the media. There would be several answers to that; first a FF or NYPD coming accross any such docuement is most likely to turn it over to higher authorities; agents from the various agencies involved would have people on site actively looking for such types of docuements and available for anyone else who finds one to turn it over to them, there may well have been nothing so particularily sensitive in the first place.

You also ask if anything was recovered by the agencies involved but it was pointed out to you that they would not be in the habit of telling anyone what they did or did not recover in the way of docuements that they did not want the general public to know about in the first place.


Are we clear now?
 
jaydeehess said:
Run of the mill sensitive docuement desatruction was addressed in post 188 by Sabrina. you came back suggesting that the ordfer to destroy whatever docuements needed destroying came from the administration


So, there are two choices in your fantasy
- the docuements in question are incriminating of the involvement of the administration. Given that you use the phrase, "the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years" in connection with "same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed", the implication is that what you are referring to is the senario in which 9/11 inside job docuements were destroyed.

-the other choice is that the "the knuckleheads (crooks and murderers) in power today" did bring down the towers but failed to realize that the nearby WTC 7 contained sensitive but non-incriminating docuements and that they would be in danger of falling into the hands of someone in the general public as a result of the damage done to this structure.
In this case you suppose that a good, secure and efficient way to destroy those docuements would be to destroy the building before it falls of its own accord. Somehow, someone is to enter a creaking building that is on fire and in danger of collapse and set explosives designed specifically to bring the building down mostly in its own footprint and in such a way as to ensure the destruction of said hypothetical docuements.

In order to somehow back this up you ask if any sensitive docuements found their way into the hands of the media. There would be several answers to that; first a FF or NYPD coming accross any such docuement is most likely to turn it over to higher authorities; agents from the various agencies involved would have people on site actively looking for such types of docuements and available for anyone else who finds one to turn it over to them, there may well have been nothing so particularily sensitive in the first place.

You also ask if anything was recovered by the agencies involved but it was pointed out to you that they would not be in the habit of telling anyone what they did or did not recover in the way of docuements that they did not want the general public to know about in the first place.


Are we clear now?
Click to expand...

Yes I'm all clear on your multiple fantasies. Now when will you be replying to something I posted?
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
Yes I'm all clear on your multiple fantasies. Now when will you be replying to something I posted?
Click to expand...

arwedda-ur_sanity.png
Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
ZENSMACK89 said:
It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.
Click to expand...

But fault had no bearing on the payout for the towers. They wanted to settle with two separate claims (more $) and the insurance co. wanted one blanket claim. That's what the hold up (besides the year of cleanup and recovery) was.

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees?
Click to expand...

As above with the exception of 7 where he (Silverstein) owned the building (not leased) and no one was killed, so cleanup and reconstruction could start immediately.



And was Silverstein and insurance liability the only concern surrounding the events and people of 9/11? For instance in a civil case involving the 93 bombing who was found more liable the terrorists or the Port Authority of NYC?
Click to expand...

As far as code problems the fuel tank installation had to be approved or Silverstein would not be able to insure the building. This was not a secret installation.

Civil cases would be covered by the liability insurance. As I said in "93" the buildings were not specifically insured for acts of terror.
 
And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees?
Click to expand...

Actually no you didn't. Look at the Date of the article. It took them 6 years to get the Insurance company to settle, and that was out of court after starting litigation. Had the Insurance company wanted too, they could still be going. Sliverstein had to pay for the new WTC 7 out of his own pocket and hope that he'd get something back for it, the reason the new tower hasn't even been started 6 years later is that it's taken so long for the Insurance company to pay up. How is that "a full and timely insurance payment" in any way shape or form?
 
Good luck, gentlemen; this has all the hallmarks of becoming a Chistophera thread.
 
I have no idea were he's going with this. The only way the insurance companies would not pay out would be if it was an inside job. I think, no I'm sure the insurance companies have investigated this much more than anyone of us knows. If anything was fishy they would be the ones bringing it up.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Actually no you didn't. Look at the Date of the article. It took them 6 years to get the Insurance company to settle, and that was out of court after starting litigation. Had the Insurance company wanted too, they could still be going. Sliverstein had to pay for the new WTC 7 out of his own pocket and hope that he'd get something back for it, the reason the new tower hasn't even been started 6 years later is that it's taken so long for the Insurance company to pay up. How is that "a full and timely insurance payment" in any way shape or form?
Click to expand...

I said that's what they were concerned with and happy when it was finally settled. If you could read you would see where I had had written that it took 6 years as it is. Do you think it would have been easier, less expensive, or timelier in another scenario? Be my guest I’m all ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom