Fox 5 footage of WTC7

I think they knew it gonna collapse, because it was pulled. Might be insurance fraud combined with the need to destroy the possible evidence that could be found in the building? But please kapitain, remember that this is merely an opinion and might change as the evidence emerges. It could be anything else.. But isn't it strange that they would expect it to collapse, yet no such buildings have collapsed due the fires before? It might be that, that media had hint that it gonna collapse, but who knoes where they got that hint from?

The FDNY suspected WTC 7 might collapse as early as 2pm - the building
had been burning for hours by then. Also many FDNy had commented
on the heavy structural damage it had recieved when WTC 1(North
Tower) collapsed and smashed the south side of the building. FDNY
mad an attempt to fight the fires, but lack of water (water mains destroyed
by collapse), damage to fire apparatus and loss of hundreds of men
forced the fire ground commanders to abandon the building By 2pm a
surveyor transit told them the building was shifting A collapse zone was set up around 3pm - was in my firehouse listening to neighboring city FD which was fighting the fires in World Financial Center #3 (WFC3). Heard the radio calls warning everyone to set clear of WTC7 . None of my
friends who were in WFC 3 right across the street reported anything
about the building being pulled. Explain how to demolish a building
which is on fire for hours.

Statements from fdny members on scene about condition of WTC 7

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

reply to post by thedman


That is not the issue. The woman said it was collapsing as she was reporting it. Had either of the anchors turned around to look at the screen behind them, they would have known they were wrong. It had not yet started to be pulled in on itself with conventional controlled demolitions. Why didn't they wait until it was collapsing to report it was actually collapsing? That is the point others are making as well.

In England, they reported WTC 7 was collapsing at least 30 minutes before it started to collapse. In England they might have a legitimate excuse for being in error from false reporting, not done by US media. But FOX anchors have no such legitmate excuse for false reporting as evidenced on footage of their own identified video tape.

reply to post by v01i0


Do you honestly think that the WTC did not have terrorism insurance until Larry Silverstein bought it? Seriously? And we ALL know that a building owner can command a fire department to find a bunch of explosives and run into a burning building to plant the explosives.

Again the same "debunkers" jump on board. And again they try to take away from the original POINT, which is :

Newsreaders saying something that had NOT happened yet.

I don't care what YOU think. It's there. On video. Evidence. Period.

watchZEITGEISTnow

[edit on 9-2-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

So can I assume that you think Dewey defeated Truman and became president. The media did report it.

The media also reported the death of Jim Brady the day Reagan was shot and CNN was in the process of reporting the death of President Bush the day he threw up on Japan's prime minister, when a quick thinking producer shut off the reporter's mic.

How hard is it for a reporter to screw up? Not very hard.

I don't get the reasoning that because the building was injured it absolutely was going to fall. How is a talking head reporter to know if and when a building is going to fall? Reporting this before it happened is shoddy journalism to say the least and also a outright lie. As for the BBC not getting it right because they are far away, that's bunk. They have reporters here. A satellite link is only a few seconds, not a half hour, behind.

There's my $.02. The battle lines were drawn in this debate long before I got in here and nothing I say is going to change anyone's opinion. Too bad we'll never have a proper investigation and can barely have a civil debate about it.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


You're putting words to my mouth, thank you for that, but I must say I disagree with the words you're offering for me. Why the explosives had to be placed on the building on the same day when the building is on fire? Why not on previous day, week, month or year? What about the insurance then? Could you please show me that WTC7 was indeed insured against terrorist attack before mr. Silverstein's ownership? I'm pretty certain that WTC 1 and 2 were insured, for they had been attacked back in 93. But were WTC7 insured like that? Maybe it was, I don't know. But you seem to know, so please prove it.

And when interviewed, he clearly says they had to pull it, later explaining that he meant 'pulling the firemen out', but why didn't he say so earlier? It isn't that hard for obviously intelligent man to phrase his words correctly if you think of it.

Originally posted by v01i0


And when interviewed, he clearly says they had to pull it, later explaining that he meant 'pulling the firemen out', but why didn't he say so earlier? It isn't that hard for obviously intelligent man to phrase his words correctly if you think of it.

But ...he is dumb enought to admit to being in on the death of over three thousand people and destrying his own property. Funny, his insurance company had no problem with paying him for WTC7.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

But ...he is dumb enought to admit to being in on the death of over three thousand people and destrying his own property. Funny, his insurance company had no problem with paying him for WTC7.

No problem at all. It just took a few years of court battles against the insurance companies, and Silverstein got much less than he expected. He should have gotten nothing at all. Insurance companies are well known for cutting their losses, when it starts costing more than the face value of insurance policies from lawyers fees and court costs.

Just another piece of disinformation from you. Larry Silverstein did not own all of WTC complex. The only building he owned had no one in it. Or, at least, no one was reported missing from being in WTC 7. The Port Authority held in trust, for taxpayers and bond holders, WTC 1 - 6 and the land it sat on. Larry Silverstein owned 7, and the Port Authority held in trust the land it sat on.

You know very well the other poster's reference was to Silverstein ordering the pulling of WTC 7, through the use of controlled demolitions. You have distorted your same arguments, concerning WTC 7, every time you have made the many comments against anyone else's opposing points of argument.

Originally posted by OrionStars

No problem at all. It just took a few years of court battles against the insurance companies, and Silverstein got much less than he expected. He should have gotten nothing at all. Insurance companies are well known for cutting their losses, when it starts costing more than the face value of insurance policies from lawyers fees and court costs.

Wow, another "mistake" by Orion. The Insurance company paid the claim for WTC7. The only battle was for the insurance for WTC 1 & 2. Silverstien contested that they were two DIFFERENT acts of terrorism where the insurance company ways stating it was only one. Silverstien actually WON the court case. I NEVER said Silverstein owned the complex. Please do not put words in my mouth.

He owned the lease for WTC 1 & 2.


Here is some infomation I am sure you won't read:

In May 2004, after a 52-day trial involving some of his many insurers, Mr. Silverstein lost his first effort to claim that the two planes represented two attacks and required double payments. At the end of 2004, however, after a separate 35-day trial, he won the right to collect double payments from another set of insurers. He had spent about $100 million paying lawyers to fight this particular fight, which critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should have been used for rebuilding. But in his mind, that $100 million produced an additional $1.1 billion for rebuilding ground zero, which was worth it.

select.nytimes.com...://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article&OQ=_rQ3D2Q26resQ3DF20A14F83F550C728DDDA00894DE404482Q26orefQ3 Dslogin&OP=40768b56Q2FQ5B@Q3FQ26Q5BQ7DPqQ3FYQ7BiQ5BGqxY55Q7D4Q5BY9GQ51PzQ3F59Q27qQ3FGqQ3FQ7BQ5BY9qPGFQ3F15YwOQ51qiF

March 8, 2007 (Reuters) - The developers of the World Trade Center, including Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have sued British insurer Royal & Sun Alliance and its U.S. spinoff for up to $1 billion in unpaid claims and damages from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


The suit was filed on Feb. 23 in New York State Supreme Court, before Britain's second-largest commercial insurer sold off its U.S. unit to Arrowpoint Capital Corp. The sale to Arrowpoint, which was set up by the unit's management, was approved on Feb. 20 by the Delaware insurance commissioner -- over Silverstein's objections

www.reuters.com...

The Spitzer administration announced the settlement of all insurance claims at ground zero yesterday, ensuring that $4.55 billion will be available for rebuilding the World Trade Center site.

The agreement, which the insurers described as the largest single insurance settlement ever undertaken by the industry, ended a protracted legal battle with insurers over payouts related to the terrorist attack.

www.nytimes.com...

So much for my "dis-information"

reply to post by OrionStars


So Silverstein pulled WTC 7 ? Guess what he rebuilt it! So much for
insurance fraud angle. Go to NYC frequently and watched them as
it was rebuilt, was in NYC day after rededicated. So explain how
building was demolished only to rebuild it. Also new building incorporated
safety improvements which made it MORE expensive to construct!

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by OrionStars

 

So Silverstein pulled WTC 7 ? Guess what he rebuilt it! So much for
insurance fraud angle. Go to NYC frequently and watched them as
it was rebuilt, was in NYC day after rededicated. So explain how
building was demolished only to rebuild it. Also new building incorporated
safety improvements which made it MORE expensive to construct!

He did? Where and when did he rebuild it?

No, your comment does not prove there was no insurance fraud involved. There definitely was in Silverstein's case. He also deliberately broke federal laws, when he ordered WTC 7 pulled with all that investigative material, on Enron, WorldCom and other individuals involved in insider trading, which were being stored in the SEC and IRS offices of #7 World Trade Center. He knew he was lying about any "out of control fires". There were none.

Just what would have started any fires in WTC 7? It was not buring debris. Debris was not heavily blown off, and was not on fire when blown off, until someone applied DEW to WTC 1 and 2. That did not cause any fires. So exactly what did and how were they started? Arson maybe?

Please spare us distorted rehash of unproved diesel fuel tanks and generators on the upper floors of WTC 7.

reply to post by v01i0


So once again, we are back to thousands of workers in the building not noticing the dozens of men drilling holes and placing demolition charges in the building? Im not going to bother listing any of the numerous stories listing the days and weeks it takes to wire a building for demolition, you wouldnt read it anyway.

As for the insurance issue, the WTC complex was insured against terrorist acts even before the 93 bombing....not to hard to find articles about the insurance payout after.

He did? Where and when did he rebuild it?

You are kidding right?

en.wikipedia.org...

Nice picture of the new building....or are you going to claim its not really there?

Some pics of old WTC7 in the process of getting clobbered by WTC1...

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Well, how nice for Silverstein to get another sweet deal on publicly owned land lease, and own the building sitting on land, he never did own and still does not.

He leased the rest of the complex only a few months before 9/11/2001. He bough billions of face value dollars in terrorism insurance 61 days before 9/11/2001. Grace period was over on day 61 - 9/11/2001.

On that and 7 he had multiple billions of face value dollars of terrorism insurance, and only got a very few billion, after lengthy court battles, from the blood spilled of many others, based, in part, on his personal insider trading profiteering and insurance fraud.

He leased the rest of the complex only a few months before 9/11/2001. He bough billions of face value dollars in terrorism insurance 61 days before 9/11/2001

Yes, because his bankers forced him to purchase the insurance. Originally, he wanted 1.5 billion in terrorism coverage, his bankers wouldnt agree to that and made him purchase more.....as has been pointed out on ATS numerous times in the past three years.

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


It's not suspect

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Yes, because his bankers forced him to purchase the insurance. Originally, he wanted 1.5 billion in terrorism coverage, his bankers wouldnt agree to that and made him purchase more.....as has been pointed out on ATS numerous times in the past three years.

From where are you getting what you post?

Do you have any idea how much it costs for terrorism addendums on insurance policies? No one forced Silverstein to buy any terrorism insurance. Banks require conventional insurance on all property for owner or leasee/renter insurance.

Terrorism insurance is considered extraordinary no different than flood addendums. First, there has to be a solid reason to buy it because of the cost. It falls under such classifications as acts of war or God not included in basic insurance policies. 1993 was not a solid reason to buy that type of highly costly addendum.

Excuse me, maybe we should stop and use the proper labels for the insurance, its not specifically "terrorism" insurance, it falls under property damage/business-interruption insurance.

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.

www.forbes.com...

Good enough for you?

As for the 1993 bombing....

Insurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993...

www.foxnews.com...