WTC 7 - The Salomon Solution: A Building Within a Building

Originally posted by esdad71
Mem Shock, yes, I am aware of Salomon and the eventual buyout by Citibank but to me there was nothing to gain on 9/11.

What if there was something to lose?

reply to post by MemoryShock


Seems I remember at one time, I had a link to a source showing that most of the data that had been stored in WTC 7 was recovered.

I know I posted it, once. I may have to Google again, to find it.

Logically, IF the data was recoverable, then the whole concept of a "controlled demolition" loses credibility, I would think?

IF the premise, as proposed, is that the "CD" on 9/11 was to 'destroy' files inside the building? Then, that 'premise' tends to fall apart...IF the data has been recovered.

Can't help it if I keep the logic machine going, it's how I roll.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

I hardly think that any information worth destroying will be allowed to be "recovered"...no offense. By the mainstream, officially indirect even, no less.

This is a point, regardless of "verifiable" information, where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by MemoryShock


Agree to disagree....one of those "maxims" that make little sense, but so be it.

As I read our response, consider this: You may be coming from a premise that pre-supposes the outcome.

I simply think, in the larger view, there are MANY, many different ways to destroy data, and ways that are far less, shall we say, flamboyant??

Jus' ponderin'...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I simply think, in the larger view, there are MANY, many different ways to destroy data, and ways that are far less, shall we say, flamboyant??

Jus' ponderin'...

Agreed with you on that note...but coming from potential false flag motivations...and the omniscence experienced in those days...what a hell of a tidy corrolation...especially if one considers the possibility of a Salomon retrofitting to be preperation...remember...the Patriot Act and Retroactive Immunities came from such an event.

Would I call it tidy? Only objectively in consideration. The entire experience makes me sick...and I am rarely wrong. Lack of documention is the only thing...

Remember...they are the pre-internet mentality...when they thought they could control information and relegate deferring inferrances to the realms of mental instability.

On that note alone, one should be offended, much less the complete disregard for human life...

reply to post by MemoryShock


I've been wrapping my noggin, trying to comprehend your view...but then, this stood out:

Remember...they are the pre-internet mentality...

I'm with you, for the most part, on the "pre-Internet" mentality....except, as regards 11 September, 2001....I seem to recall the Internet was well-established, back then.

Certainly not to the extent we see today....but far more than, say, 1999.

However....I see how your point could be valid, IF one supposes that a 'group' wished to perpetrate a 'scam', and underestimated the "power" of the Internet, in the aftermath.

I respectfully remain unconvinced, as yet, of the power of the Internet to "uncover" a vast conspiracy --- I tend towards the reverse. That is, the "viral" nature of the Internet tends to a self-fulfilling 'prophecy'.

By its very nature, the Internet has become itsown engine of "conspiracy". Of course, I see the opposite as possible -- the very complexities can be used as cover....

This thread topic, to me, stands as a prime example, though, of the joke..."Ready, Shoot, Aim".

It is long on innuendo, so far. Tends to be lacking in solid facts.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

Certainly not to the extent we see today....but far more than, say, 1999.

Fair enugh.

I stand by my analysis...

Originally posted by MemoryShock

What if

And there we have it.

The basis for all conspiracy theories.

Start there then connect the dots in whatever random fashion suits your particular delusions.

reply to post by MemoryShock


If they wanted to destroy evidence then burn down the building. Don't kill 3000 people, don't bring down other buildings, hit the Pentagon..etc...etc...if it was all digital blame it on a virus...they could have used the Y2k excuse. You see, if you step back there are a multitude of other options to consider.

Just like when people said Silvestein made all that money from the collapse. No he didn't. He was awarded monies to rebuild, that were lowered, and he still pays (i think) about 15 million a month for his lease from the PA. It is a lease. How do you think that poor schmuck felt when 3 months later ALL of his monies that he would have been making were taken away? He also purchased WTC 7 years before he made the deal on the rest of the area. If anything he was trying to 'save' downtown Manhattan after he took over the lease of the WTC complex from the PA.

If you talk about the building itself, it was designed outside of the original parameters when constructed as a Con-Ed station.

The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²). The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built

So before it is even built we can see that they are planning something larger than the original design called for.