• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was Building 7 Pulled?

JSanderO said:
Easy to speculate on what happen with bits and pieces taken out of context. LS appeared to have consulted with his insurance company because he was perhaps concerned about replacement cost, repair reimbursement, loss of income and who knows what else. He may have passed the conversations along to the FDNY, for example and they decided that they didn't need to fight the fires or protect the building and let things take their course... which apparently seemed to be that it would not survive.

Way way way too much speculation parading as fact.
Click to expand...

I really liked some of your earlier posts where you discussed some of the engineering issues that initially drew you to AE9/11T and why you eventually withdrew from the group. But on insurance and the public safety issues of 9/11...well, no, there isn't too much speculation...or should I say, there really is no room for much speculation. 16.5 is correct.

16.5 said:
I know several of the lawyers and several of the decision makers at the insurance companies that were involved in the coverage litigation with Silverstein and I have discussed this issue with them, and I can assure you that everything you just post is absolutely ridiculous.

I've never met a single lawyer or insurance professional involved who was a truther. They alternatively pity and mock the truthers.

And yes they know all about it because some of the real bottom feeders in the truth movement contacted them.
Click to expand...

Groups like Lawyers for 9/11 Truth stopped functioning years ago and even in their heyday were just a bunch of libertarian weed-smoking lawyers for Ron Paul. There never was an Insurance Companies for 9/11 Truth. These insurance and stock market claims about 9/11 are even dumber (sorry about that word, but it's the right one here) than claims about thermite or Star Trek phasers.

I like your posts about engineering, which I understand is what you do for a living. This stuff about insurance companies...sorry, but it sounds too much like a...like a Truther.
 
Scott Sommers said:
I really liked some of your earlier posts where you discussed some of the engineering issues that initially drew you to AE9/11T and why you eventually withdrew from the group. But on insurance and the public safety issues of 9/11...well, no, there isn't too much speculation...or should I say, there really is no room for much speculation. 16.5 is correct.



Groups like Lawyers for 9/11 Truth stopped functioning years ago and even in their heyday were just a bunch of libertarian weed-smoking lawyers for Ron Paul. There never was an Insurance Companies for 9/11 Truth. These insurance and stock market claims about 9/11 are even dumber (sorry about that word, but it's the right one here) than claims about thermite or Star Trek phasers.

I like your posts about engineering, which I understand is what you do for a living. This stuff about insurance companies...sorry, but it sounds too much like a...like a Truther.
Click to expand...


When you make as much profit as insurance companies taking a hit for the team is a small price to pay.
 
plague311 said:
Honestly, I don't think Larry was on the phone with insurance companies while 9/11 was happening. His family lived in NY, and he had spent a day watching people he knew die...all....day....long. To say that his first thought was to call his insurance company, about a building that hasn't stopped burning, to find out what he should do is just absurd. It does go to show what certain people would do in those situations though.

Strangely, this very scenarion was reported on by a fox news reporter in a anti ventura article.
"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...re-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/


I am going to be frank here, but why would the FDNY give two flying ***** about what Larry's insurance company, or Larry himself, wants or feels. They don't, they couldn't possibly care less. Larry had no part in the decision making process, despite whatever slip of the tongue people want to bring up.

The FDNY makes decisions based on their assessment of the situation. Can lives be saved? Are there lives to save? Is there any point in proceeding with firefighting efforts? etc. NONE of their decisions that day, after all the terror and horror, were based on the financial doings of others. I guarantee that
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. They had no need to call him for his permission. This does make it rather odd then that LS is trying to inject himself into the decision making process after the fact. Seems like a rather elaborate story for him to make up when in all likelyhood it never happened or atleast didn't happen as he is saying.
 
Last edited:
Strangely, this very scenarion was reported on by a fox news reporter in a anti ventura article.
"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...ro-sept-shame/
Click to expand...

Yes, that one reporter did say that, however I can't find anything to confirm it. I find a ton of woo websites that link back to that very article, but no one confirms that those conversations take place. He is the only person I can find that states, and even he says:

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me
Click to expand...

It's not even really first hand information, he didn't hear Silverstein on the phone with insurance companies. He was told by some people that were there, in a chaotic atmosphere, that someone else heard he was on the phone.

Also, he states that Larry was having that conversation shortly before the building falls and that it was "expected to fall". Why demo a building that's expected to fall anyway? Wouldn't that be redundant?

He goes on to say:

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed
Click to expand...

They had already created a perimeter due to knowledge that the building was coming down. I just don't think that would make sense to be talking about demo when you know the building is coming down, and the conversation is, literally, minutes before the building comes down. A Controlled Demolition would actually put more lives at risk than letting the building topple. It was emptied out and the perimeter was set. Now you're going to let people walk in there, assess and try to rig a building for demo? The only other option would be to, again, literally, pull the building down. However, if I understand that process properly 47 storey's would be outside of that range. The building would be too tall and risk would come to those "pulling it". It might explain where Larry initially heard "pull it" though.
 
Last edited:
was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building
Click to expand...

I am sorry, I just have to state this again so it's clear. It doesn't matter >>>>AT ALL<<<< what Larry's insurance companies would authorize. Nobody on that scene gave a ****. No one.

Those choices would be made by people with the relative knowledge ON THE SCENE. The insurance companies, Larry, lawyers, etc, none of them had any say. It was being handled purely by the FDNY and their teams that were on site. That is it, no one else was involved in that decision making process.
 
What is shows is that there is a lot of muddying of the waters by both sides.
This reporter is claiming that there was no conspiracy, that they were already discussing a demo and that Larry was in on that discussion. He also implies that the NYPD and Con-ed personal knew as well.
Basically in trying to debunk he is tacitly confirming or aggravating the ct group into beleiving the ct more since there is zero claim of a demo discussion prior to this article and it seems to involve elements of the nypd and con-ed..
Then LS changes his story and no one in the fire department will confirm it ever happened.
This all leads to a big hole and feeds the ct.
Your point of "Why demo a building that's expected to fall anyway?" is well taken. So again it begs to question why are they discussing it at all? Obviously as building that only is expectedd to partially collapse may ned a further demo to bring down. No one likely expected a complete collapse although in the environment of the day (2 buildings have already come down), a demo would be rather redundant.
Why would a fire department commander call Larry to discuss anything about removing his men? He wouldn't.
Basically it shows one way or the other LS is fabricating this part of the story.

Does it prove a cd? No.

It does show that either shapiro is lying or LS is lying and the end result is more support for the ct theory.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
I am sorry, I just have to state this again so it's clear. It doesn't matter >>>>AT ALL<<<< what Larry's insurance companies would authorize. Nobody on that scene gave a ****. No one.

Those choices would be made by people with the relative knowledge ON THE SCENE. The insurance companies, Larry, lawyers, etc, none of them had any say. It was being handled purely by the FDNY and their teams that were on site. That is it, no one else was involved in that decision making process.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, which is why the whole story is probably bs. It is also why LS story is probably BS.
Unfortunately it has led to people saying that LS statement now implicates the FDNY in a cd. I find that ludicrous. Especially if that is only based on LS statement since it is an obvious fabrication to make himself look like a hero.
 
Originally Posted by JSanderO
Easy to speculate on what happen with bits and pieces taken out of context. LS appeared to have consulted with his insurance company because he was perhaps concerned about replacement cost, repair reimbursement, loss of income and who knows what else. He may have passed the conversations along to the FDNY, for example and they decided that they didn't need to fight the fires or protect the building and let things take their course... which apparently seemed to be that it would not survive.

Way way way too much speculation parading as fact.


16.5 said:
I know several of the lawyers and several of the decision makers at the insurance companies that were involved in the coverage litigation with Silverstein and I have discussed this issue with them, and I can assure you that everything you just post is absolutely ridiculous.

I've never met a single lawyer or insurance professional involved who was a truther. They alternatively pity and mock the truthers.

And yes they know all about it because some of the real bottom feeders in the truth movement contacted them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As far as the insurers were concerned, WTC 7 was a complete loss by late afternoon, if you think about it for a minute. A building that had burned all day, received structural damage from impact debris from the Twin Towers, was observed to be leaning, and had had a collapse zone cleared around it.

If the building didn't collapse on its own, it would have been dismantled very gingerly, as though you were handling a bottle of nitroglycerin. Find me one structural engineer who would attempt a repair/straightening job, rather than tearing down and rebuilding.

IIRC, WTC 7's insurers paid off immediately, no questions asked, even though Silverstein had monster legal battles over the insurance on the Twin Towers.
 
lexicon008 said:
I totally agree, which is why the whole story is probably bs. It is also why LS story is probably BS.
Unfortunately it has led to people saying that LS statement now implicates the FDNY in a cd. I find that ludicrous. Especially if that is only based on LS statement since it is an obvious fabrication to make himself look like a hero.
Click to expand...

Which, as you said, is all Larry was doing. Trying to imply he had a role in all this, which he didn't. Outside of it happening to his buildings, all he did was watch like most of the rest of the world
 
plague311 said:
Which, as you said, is all Larry was doing. Trying to imply he had a role in all this, which he didn't. Outside of it happening to his buildings, all he did was watch like most of the rest of the world
Click to expand...
Didn't he lose money overall? With no rental of office space for 11 years? How did Larry even benefit? I can't ever get an answer about this. All he could do was watch and do what he could as his investment collapsed and burned to the ground.

The fact that we're even debating this almost 12 years later boggles my mind.:confused:

If he was involved in this vast, unwieldy (and unlikely) consipiracy, why did he wait for the other two buildings to collapse first? If there was a CD plan in place, why not just "pull it" at 10 am when everyone's in the building? "Pull it down!"
 
16.5 said:
Lolz! Talk about misleading photos, how about the grossly false gif that the moron truthers use that does not show the collapse of the penthouse.
Click to expand...

Here is an elevator penthouse in a controlled demolition.
Let's compare this deliberate implosion with the WTC7 penthouse-

36381506cf0bf32a9d.gif


Maybe the video of the WTC7 collapse was obtained by the truther community
after the penthouse scene was cut from the sequence.

I understand the entire collapse of the WTC7 building including the preamble
collapse of the East penthouse was filmed by a NYPD police helicopter .

These were released to the public on a FOIA request.
Anybody know where the photos are archived ?
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Here is an elevator penthouse in a controlled demolition.
Let's compare this deliberate implosion with the WTC7 penthouse-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/36381506cf0bf32a9d.gif[/qimg]

Maybe the video of the WTC7 collapse was obtained by the truther community
after the penthouse scene was cut from the sequence.

I understand the entire collapse of the WTC7 building including the preamble
collapse of the East penthouse was filmed by a NYPD police helicopter .

These were released to the public on a FOIA request.
Anybody know where the photos are archived ?
Click to expand...

Lolz. You know what else is missing from the moronically silly truther wtc7 gif?

The sound.

The preceding BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, that undoubtedly preceded that ridiculously poorly cut gif you just posted.

Protip! The wtc7 gif is missing it too, albeit because it never happened. Sad trombone.
 
Fonebone said:
Here is an elevator penthouse in a controlled demolition.
Let's compare this deliberate implosion with the WTC7 penthouse-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/36381506cf0bf32a9d.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...


You mean this building implosion which was initiated with ear shattering, camera rattling detonations and in which the "penthouse" went down basically the same moment the facade began to collapse? Well, the similarities to WTC7 are obvious: both were buildings, both collapsed.

 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Here is an elevator penthouse in a controlled demolition.
Let's compare this deliberate implosion with the WTC7 penthouse-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/36381506cf0bf32a9d.gif[/qimg]

Maybe the video of the WTC7 collapse was obtained by the truther community
after the penthouse scene was cut from the sequence.

I understand the entire collapse of the WTC7 building including the preamble
collapse of the East penthouse was filmed by a NYPD police helicopter .

These were released to the public on a FOIA request.
Anybody know where the photos are archived ?
Click to expand...

Nice comparison. Your images show that the elevator room collapsed after a large perimeter explosion, while WTC7 shows that the elevator room collapsed before the perimeter collapsed without an explosion.
This implies that the inside of building 7 collapsed before the perimeter failed, and the inside pulled the perimeter down into its own footprint. Maybe that's what Larry meant by pulling it.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom