Why Destroy Building 7??

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

But it would have cost Larry more money to repair building 7 than get the insurance and re-build.

So, you think Larry would commit an act of mass murder on the off chance that he may collect a few extra bucks in insurance almost a decade later?

Sorry, the insurance thing just doesn't make any sense. Larry was 70 years old on 9/11. At best he couldn't expect any kind of pay off until he was in his middle 70's. So here's a guy who's worth millions, never committed a crime and decides to become the biggest mass murderer in US history when he's in his 60's just on the chance that half a decade or more down the road he may make a few million dollars.

Few extra bucks in insurance? Do you know how much he got for WTC7?! Hundreds of millions, no a few bucks by any means! Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean they have never committed a crime, it just means that if they have, then they never got caught as yet.

Do you not think it odd that he added protection against terrorism to his policy? Age mean nothing, and he made billions in total, not a few millions! Why are you distorting the facts?

reply to post by hooper


The money made from insurance is not the point.

The point is it would have cost him millions to bring the buildings up to code etc.

He made his fortune from buying up old complexes, and, wait for it... demolishing and rebuilding them.

He got the demolishing and clean up for free.

He got a huge stash of cash from insurance to help finance the re-build.

Where does Larry make money? From his investment stupid, just like he has always done.

reply to post by Democide

My theory on this is that rogue CIA agents needed to take out a number of other CIA agents and blew the building to litterally cover the evidence.

That is a good theory, its original at least but why not just do what they usually do and use poison or discredit them, fake their deaths, frame them or whatever else you can think of because that would be so much easier than blowing up a building

reply to post by ANOK


Dude,

The whole “he did it for the insurance” thing has no logic to it surly you can see that. He would have got a insurance pay out even if the building was left standing, not quite 4.5 billion but enough to fix the building that you claim was below building standards and would have cost millions to fix

ENRON comes to mind when ever I think on building 7. The entire case disapeared in the dust. How many other cases were in those offices. A good day to bury bad news.

reply to post by 4hero

Do you not think it odd that he added protection against terrorism to his policy? Age mean nothing, and he made billions in total, not a few millions! Why are you distorting the facts?

He wanted over 7 billion and only got 4.5 billion, and yes it makes perfect sense to have terrorism added to his coverage, remember the 1993 trade centre bombings and that the threat from terrorism was increasing during the 1990’s, nothing odd about it. Based on that I think you are the one distorting the facts.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by 4hero

 

Do you not think it odd that he added protection against terrorism to his policy? Age mean nothing, and he made billions in total, not a few millions! Why are you distorting the facts?

He wanted over 7 billion and only got 4.5 billion, and yes it makes perfect sense to have terrorism added to his coverage, remember the 1993 trade centre bombings and that the threat from terrorism was increasing during the 1990’s, nothing odd about it. Based on that I think you are the one distorting the facts.

edit on 14-5-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

As I say, he 'added' it to his insurance, it should have been on there by default, but seems like it was an afterthought, very odd imo. I'm obvioulsy very aware of the 1993 bombings!

How am i distorting facts that are real true facts? You actually made your facts up, mine were truthful!

reply to post by ANOK

The money made from insurance is not the point.

The point is it would have cost him millions to bring the buildings up to code etc.

He made his fortune from buying up old complexes, and, wait for it... demolishing and rebuilding them

Just one problem - WTC 7 was the NEWEST building in the complex, it was build 15 years after the original
WTC complex was built in 1987

reply to post by 4hero

Do you not think it odd that he added protection against terrorism to his policy? Age mean nothing, and he made billions in total, not a few millions! Why are you distorting the facts?

Reason terrorism was added to policy is simple. The people putting up the money (GMAC now ALLY Bank)
required him to do so. No insurance no money Bamnks were trying to protect investments

Silverstein wanted to insure each building for 1.5 billion for damage and businee interuption.

Banks told him wanted 5 billion, Settled on 3.55 billion per building

Then Silverstein had to fight for years to get insurers to pay off - they claimed it part of single incident

Courts ruled for Silverstein - 2 buildings, 2 planes

reply to post by 4hero


So it was an afterthought, proves absolutely nothing. After the 1993 trade centre bombings (you should look it up) it would have made perfect sense to have added it, I would be suspicious if he didn’t have it. Insuring a building like WTC7 isn’t like insuring your home, I would imagine that its all custom and “terrorism” may not be a default. And I am not distorting any facts what makes you think that I am? What am I making up, that there was a attack on the WTC in 1993 and the threat of terrorism increased throughout the 1990’s. Then that he received 4.5 billion in insurance money but actually wanted over 7 billion because they are actual facts. You have yet to present any facts or explain how I am “distorting” facts.

Isn't the construction of the new towers costing significantly more than Silverstein won in the settlement? Last I read, it was over double what he got. How does this make it a scheme for money? He's losing huge amounts of it.

So does anyone have a reasonable explanation as to why “they” would bother to blow up the building or is this just a monumental hole in the whole 9/11 truth movement. Seems to me like it is

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
ENRON comes to mind when ever I think on building 7. The entire case disapeared in the dust. How many other cases were in those offices. A good day to bury bad news.

Only problem with that theory is that the ENRON case didn't disappear at all :-


en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Varemia
Isn't the construction of the new towers costing significantly more than Silverstein won in the settlement? Last I read, it was over double what he got. How does this make it a scheme for money? He's losing huge amounts of it.

Mathematics are not strong in the Truther camp. A negative return, to them, still means he's getting something.

I wonder if they know that he still has to pay over $120 million a year in rent for a hole in the ground that is generating him $0 income. Yeah that is a smart way to make money! Cause billions of dollars in destruction. Get barely half of the insurance you wanted. Pay hundreds of millions of dollars in rent money on a hole in the ground. Rebuild new structures which cost twice if not more of the money he received for insurance. Yeah......... great financial strategy. And to top it off: Admit it on TV. BRILLIANT!!!

My theory on why WTC7 came down at 17:20 is simple. something broke - The made for hollywood 911 event -- Bin Laden Attacked America ... basically, came unglued.
If you can review the mornings news cast's you will notice one news story out of place... a plane crashed into Camp David.... about 15mins prior to that you can tell the reports seem to be stalling or repeating news the same story... and after this delay - without proof -- they start blaming Bin Laden. I think there was a third plane scheduled to be the grand finale that would lay little doubt it was bin laden - what that was I have no Idea. but with the two towers out of the way - a third plane had a clear shot at WTC 7... let me draw your attention to the "International Space Station" . I will close with that unless there are other questions ... and yes with the members of ATS participating we paid for the Models of WTC7 that the NIST created to explain that buildings demise - and we were denied access to validate those models. so we let the video speak for itself. totally Impossible.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have heard a number of explanations, primarily being that the building was collapsed by controlled demolition deliberately because this is where the planning of 9/11 took place and therefore blowing it up concealed all the evidence. However surly if this was the case they would have planned their evil plot somewhere a little further away from where all the action was taking place and would not plan it in a building were everybody knew various government agencies worked out of. It just does not seem logical.

I have never heard of this before and I HIGHLY doubt this is where the 9/11 operation was planned. I am a "truther" and I think this explanation is just silly.

Another argument I heard was that the building was being used as a ware house to store the explosives allegedly used to destroy the other two buildings. Yet as I understand it the government agencies were the smallest of tenants to occupy the building (DoD, CIA and IRS all shearing one single floor) and one of those groups was the New York City Office of Emergency Management. I do not think this is a logical answer either, it’s based on to many assumptions and to my knowledge nobody reported a full demolition crew clocking in for work every day at WTC7. Also would it not be very risky to try to hide the vast quantity of explosives inside the building where the CIA probably don’t have enough office space to keep the stuff when just down up stairs are sitting a bunch of bankers.

Wow..another new one. I have not heard this one before either, and I also find this explanation to be silly.

Speaking of bankers that brings me to the other reason I have heard that in WTC 7 all the insider trading went on inside WTC7 and this is where the paperwork was being kept so they blow up the building to cover this up. Again makes not logical sense to destroy the building in this scenario because they could have just started a fire in a wastepaper bin to get rid of that and say it went up in flames when the other two towers came down, rather than going to the expense and difficulty of a covert controlled demolition. And yet again insider trading could have gone one anywhere in the world if one had prior knowledge of the attack why do it next door and in the same building as the IRS. Its not logical.

Your getting closer. WTC 7 is not "where" all the insider training was going on. It is however where all the records where kept on some of the biggest cases involving insider trading as well as all the records for the Enron Scandal. Of course all the records were backed up... and those back up files were also stored inside WTC 7.

So I ask you the difficult question, why did “they” destroy WTC 7

Fact is, no one knows. We can only speculate. So if you are interested in speculating for yourself, just look at what Offices and what was stored inside WTC 7. The information is all over the net and a matter of public record. It should be rather easy to look into and judge for yourself.

reply to post by MrWendal


Well the first two were the most common ones that showed up when I looked into this, I used to be a “truther” and these where the types of things I was reading about. With regard to insider trading as one member has already pointed out ENRON continued on after 9/11.

I must comment you however for admitting that you can only speculate, its somewhat of a novelty to come across a “truther” who does not claim to have all the answers, neither to i.

reply to post by ANOK


So the insurance company made the decision to take down WTC7? Really? I think I have a problem with that.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Democide

 

My theory on this is that rogue CIA agents needed to take out a number of other CIA agents and blew the building to litterally cover the evidence.

That is a good theory, its original at least but why not just do what they usually do and use poison or discredit them, fake their deaths, frame them or whatever else you can think of because that would be so much easier than blowing up a building

Not to mention there were no bodies found in the wreckage of WTC7... so....

... the cleanup crew must have been in on it!

reply to post by Varemia


Silverstein's put out all the insurance money he collected. Only has to put out another 300 million on top of that. Once the new complex is complete, you can bet it will be far from a negative return in the long run. No, Larry himself won't live to see much, if any, profit, but his legacy will likely be huge if Silverstein Properties maintains ownership and leasing rights. A 70-year old man doesn't think about the money he can make in the next decade, rather he's more likely thinking about his legacy and what will happen after his time is up.