Fox 5 footage of WTC7

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


It falls under the exclusion of acts of war, in normally sold portions of comprehensive insurance covering property damage not caused by the owners, renters, or leasees. Floods and earthquakes are exclusions under "acts of God". Both require very costly addendums to the included portions of coverage.

I would rather have the certified information provided by the insurance companies paying out, as to what was and was not required by anyone else, when it applies to Larry Silverstein.

He did? Where and when did he rebuild it?

For someone who claims to be after the "truth" you are incredibly stupid

Silverstein started rebuilding soon after site was cleared - WTC 7 was
built over Con Edison substation, original was built in 1983-87 . Second
from 2002-2006, like said was in NYC when built /dedicated. I supposed
going to say it is a hologram like the rest of the tin foil loons ...

Originally posted by thedman

He did? Where and when did he rebuild it?

For someone who claims to be after the "truth" you are incredibly stupid

You are being quite incredibly rude. Did it ever dawn on you that the truth of 9/11/2001 has been my concentration, is also the concentration of this forum, and anything else Larry Silverstein has done since has been not a concern of mine at this point in time?

Back to the topic of the WTC 7 ordered pulled by controlled demolitions on 9/11/2001.

Gee, maybe he is getting tired of your continual denial of the facts? You didn't know WTC7 had been rebuilt, you didnt know that Silverstein tried to get a lot less insurance and you STILL keep acting as if you havent been informed of the facts.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Gee, maybe he is getting tired of your continual denial of the facts? You didn't know WTC7 had been rebuilt, you didnt know that Silverstein tried to get a lot less insurance and you STILL keep acting as if you havent been informed of the facts.

So what? The forum does not concern what Silverstein did starting in 2002. It concerns 9/11/2001. He used blood money to make more profit for his personal self. That should concern everyone, as to how he continues to profit, after his direct criminal participation in the events in NYC on 9/11/2001.

Why don't you stay on topic, and stop making everything so maliciously personal against anyone not agreeing with your highly biased opinons?

Still waiting on some PROOF that he was involved in criminal acts. And dont bring up "pull it" again, that one has been done to death and the only people that accept it as any kind of proof of anything are conspiracy theorists. Demolition professionals dont accept it and they dont accept that WTC 7 was blown up either.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Still waiting on some PROOF that he was involved in criminal acts. And dont bring up "pull it" again, that one has been done to death and the only people that accept it as any kind of proof of anything are conspiracy theorists. Demolition professionals dont accept it and they dont accept that WTC 7 was blown up either.

You demand proof repeatedly given, and then reject again the proof repeatedly given. Fine.

Just because Larry is now building a new WTC7, and because WTC7 was the first steel frame to collapse under fire, just because Larry is so greedy, that in the wake of sorrow and destruction he tries actually get more money claiming it was two separate attacks (for double payment) proofs to me that he is a criminal indeed, one of the types that says he's abiding the law, but has no moral whatsover.

Just because it was Giulliani's emergency office that Larry had 'convinced' Rudy to establish in WTC 7 by contributing Rudy's campaing, just because there were offices of some banks claimed to be involved, just because there were HQ's of intelligence agencies that may be involved, just because WTC was designed to withstand years of hurricanes, just because it collapse was reported in media before it collapsed, just because Larry said we had to pull it(swampy, this was for you ), just because those near Giulliani that had prior knowledge about possible attacks (Jerry Hauer for example), recommend him to place his emergency HQ in somewhere else than WTC area, but just because he insisted that he must have his HQ in 7th WTC. Just because there are so huge pile of inconsistencies backing up the official account, and just because there are so vast amounts of evidence pointing out that they are to be investigated, just because of those I believe that these men (Larry and Rudy) should be judged guilty to conspiracy against teh City of NY, against it's people, against US government and possibly against whole world.

Swampy and Capt. Obvious, on the day that you will bring waterproof evidence backing up that these guys are not the criminals that caused WTC7 to collapse, I shall believe you. But until that day, if you please forgive me, I'll stick up with my own conclusion, which should be clear to anyone reading my posts. Thank you!

I just located the following. Larry Silverstein bought a policy with double indemnity if a terrorist act (normally an act of war exclusion) took place. That is why Silverstein took the insurance companies to court, and they fought back. It is also why he only got half (face value not double indemnity) under highly questionable conditions. They did not have to pay him at all, if the truth had been known on 9/11/2001.

www.whatmatters.nu...

2a.

LARRY SILVERSTEIN - A CROOK?

Larry Silverstein heads the consortium that signed a rental contract for the WTC towers and WTC Building 7 with the Harbor Authorities of New York and New Jersey just seven weeks before the 9-11 attacks.

An icon for financial power, built in the early 1970s at a cost of $750 million as part of a massive urban renewal project spearheaded by America's Rockefeller family, the landmark towers anchored a seven-building complex spread over about 12 city blocks. The two 412 meters high towers with 3.3 million square feet office space were completed in 1972 at a cost of $370 million.

Silverstein Properties agreed to lease the towers and surrounding Port Authority properties for $3.2 billion over 99 years, with $616 million paid up front. (This $3.2 billion was, according to the actuaries, present discounted market value.)

Larry Silverstein would only have to pay the city $25 million yearly in an in-lieu-of-taxes agreement, about $75 million less than what the property taxes would actually be. In addition, the towers could continue to tap low-cost taxpayer-subsidized electricity from the New York Power Authority, saving Silverstein millions a year over what he would pay if he had to buy electricity from Con Ed at market rates.

The Port Authority also agreed to use public funds to pay any property taxes in excess of $25 million that Silverstein might incur in the future if New York City ever succeeded in putting the trade center on the property-tax rolls.

Silverstein took out insurance cover of $3.6 billion on the WTC properties, then sought to recoup $7.2 billion from insurers on the grounds that the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on the $3.6 billion of policies. In September 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals turned down Silverstein's efforts to double his insurance recovery for the WTC loss. I do not know what the present status is of the insurance claim.