Merged Silverstein on phone with insurance company about controlled demolition

Oystein said:
According to the Wikipedia article on Larry, buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 were insured not by one but 24 different insurers. I could not find on short notice any information on who insured building 7, but I would think it would also not be one but several insurers.
Click to expand...


7WTC was insured by Industrial Risk Insurers. 1, 2, 4, and 5 WTC were insured by 23-24 different insurers.

Here is some good info on the insurance coverage of the WTC buildings:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtcinsuranceissues
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70904
 
Larry: ok FDNY Ill Pay you 50 Million to keep quiet.
FDNY: Thank you.
Larry: Industrial Risk insurers, You pay me 4 Billion and keep quiet.
IRI: Duh... ok.
 
I just looked at who this Jeffrey Scott Shapiro knucklehead is.

He is a former Washington Times drone that wrote and posted a blog on Fox. Something was bothering me about that whole article. I mean read this:

"Although I arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the Twin Towers fell, I was in the danger zone created by Building 7 from the moment it collapsed in the afternoon, an event that is one of the key cornerstones of the 9/11 conspiracy theory."

WTF? That does not even make sense. And what legitimate reporter would repeat street speculation about a claim that the owner was talking to his insurance company about controlled demolition? Didn't anyone say to him: hey asshat, how the **** you gonna rig the building for demolition when the whole *********** thing is on fire?

While he seems to be on the side of not being insane, his speculation about controlled demolition is completely irresponsible.
 
R.Mackey said:
The three Truthers left (P'Doh, a No-Planer, and Dr. Griffin, I presume) are of course going to try to have it both ways. Stupidity, desperation, or insanity? Who can tell?

Who cares? They're done. There's not even enough remains of the Truth Movement left for a convincing zombie at this point.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered what that hypothetical conversation with the fire chief would have sounded like:

Larry: "What's the situation with Building 7?"

Chief: "The building's unstable, they're watching it with a transit, some of the southern columns are deforming. Doesn't look good. We can't fight the fire, what with the mess in the streets, and the water is off down there. And of course, we're down quite a few men. Everyone wants to try to find people in the debris, rather than fighting fire in an empty building. 90 West has a serious fire, and so do several other buildings."

Larry: "Maybe the best thing to do is to pull it."

Chief: "(pause) You mean pull the firefighting operation?"

Larry: "No, I mean demolish the building. You know. Pull it is a term meaning a controlled demolition."

Chief: "Well, it could very well fall down before that happens."

Larry: "Not at all. We have it all set up already. Did it weeks ago. Just get everyone back, and we'll push the button. It's right here on my desk."

Chief: "Umm. Ok, then."
 
"hey FDNY, I want to demolish WTC 7 so it doesnt hurt anyone or cause any more damage."

"um..such an operation takes weeks if not months to set up. sorry Larry".

"oh, thats ok. we actually have been setting the building up for a controlled demolition for months, and were just waiting for just such an event to make it happen, Cap'n."

"oh, well then Larry, let er' rip!!"
 
tsig said:
You mean that insuring an office building in downtown NYC isn't just like buying insurance for your car?:)
Click to expand...


Shocking, isn't it? :)

As for the opening post, the entire proposition that an insurance company would have anything at all to say about the matter of demolition in the circumstances is ridiculous. On September 11, 2001, had the fire department and NYC building department determined that a building needed to be taken down for public safety reasons, it would have been done and would not have required any input or permission from any insurance company.

And since when was Larry Silverstein a "property developer of One World Financial Center"???
 
September 10, 2001 . 9:10 am - conspirators meeting at WTC 7, Rm 2301, Office of Emergency Management conference room.

Chef Nigro: Sorry I’m late, I thought the meeting was in room 1032. Here’s your hot chocolate and bagels.

Giuliani: But I asked for coffee and donuts.

Nigro: No prob, I’ll get that right away.

Giuliani: Where’s Larry (Silverstein).

Nigro: He’s in his office making a dentist appointment for tomorrow, tidying things up.

Giuliani: So how’s the plan.

Nigro: Well, the Red Cross just last week finished wiring all the charges in this building. I hooked them all up to a big purple button on Larry’s desk, next to the big mauve one that opens and closes the motorized window curtains.
 
Last edited:
Derek Johnson said:
Not to hijack, but how in the dickens did this building, WTC 7, fall so fast?
Click to expand...

Define "Fast" The observable collapse took about 14 seconds or so from the start of the east penthouse falling into the building to when it disappeared behind the other buildings. Truthers like to only cite the dramatic final few seconds of the collapse yet ignore the obvious fact that something major was happening structurally inside the building well before the final, most dramatic, stage of the collapse.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Define "Fast" The observable collapse took about 14 seconds or so from the start of the east penthouse falling into the building to when it disappeared behind the other buildings. Truthers like to only cite the dramatic final few seconds of the collapse yet ignore the obvious fact that something major was happening structurally inside the building well before the final, most dramatic, stage of the collapse.
Click to expand...

14 seconds isn't fast?

Tell me more about this "something major was happening structurally inside".

Yes, I've read the 2008 NIST, and it raises more questions than it answers...like the root cause being a "walking girder" from an "office fire."

Please indulge me though, I want to know more about this "something major".
 
14 seconds is more than twice the much-ballyhooed "near free-fall speed." So no, it's not fast. And, as Sam said, if you watch the entire video of the collapse and not just the truncated last seven seconds or so generally found on truther sites, you'll see that the collapse of WTC7 was not so tidy as the charlatans would have you believe.
 
Derek Johnson said:
Not to hijack, but how in the dickens did this building, WTC 7, fall so fast?
Click to expand...

In simple terms, physics. The components of the building were experiencing a downward force due to gravity. Once supporting structures started to fail, they were no longer able to exert a compensating upward force, so the building as a whole accelerated downwards. When a steel column fails, it will exert an upward force for only a short time as it begins to fail, then will present no significant resistance to collapse. When the next column down is contacted, it will behave in the same fashion. Time-averaging the resistance of the supporting structures over the entire time of the fall will give an average resistance very much smaller than their static resistance, so the downward acceleration of the building is not very much less than that of a free-falling object. Simple calculations of the collapse time of WTC7 agree quite well with the observed collapse time, and no-one has yet managed to produce any calculation of the collapse time that disagrees with observation without deliberately introducing physically impossible assumptions.

More simply, it fell so fast because there's no way it could have fallen more slowly. It fell exactly as fast as it would have been expected to fall.

Dave
 
Derek Johnson said:
14 seconds isn't fast?

Tell me more about this "something major was happening structurally inside".

Yes, I've read the 2008 NIST, and it raises more questions than it answers...like the root cause being a "walking girder" from an "office fire."

Please indulge me though, I want to know more about this "something major".
Click to expand...

If you really read the NIST report, how could you miss the entire collapse sequence, as spelled out on pages 64 and 65? They describe in great detail how first the core columns failed, starting in the east and rapidly progressing west. This was witnessed from the outside as the kinking and then descent of first the east mechanical penthouse (a structure on the roof of the building), and then the descent of the west mechanical penthouse, seconds before the exterior columns buckled below the 15th floor (out of sight of all videos I know), sending the upper part of the fassade downward in one big swoosh. At basically free-fall speed for some seconds, as can be expected if you really think about it.
 
When larry rang up and told his insurance agent he wanted to CD WTC7, the agent fearing more hours of paperwork replied "do it today and ill give you a gift" so larry got all excited and blew up WTC7. Larry and his Sports Illustrated calender are very happy.
 
wow. you guys are something else.
when faced with evidence you just decide it never actually happened.

i guess that makes things easier.
 
and i like how if someone says something you don't like they get ' knucklehead' added to the end of their surname. ace

even though Jeffrey Scott Shapiro-knucklehead is mainly saying things you do like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom