WTC Building 7 Anomalies

Some impact damage (minor to speak of when talking about collapse) and yes Fire. Interesting WTC 5 suffered partial collapse from fire...

Yeah of the upper floors. One of the common mistakes people make in these theories is to study every aspect in isolation. But there is more than one aspect here, the two towers falling, the physical impact of the destruction and fire. The whole is often more than the sum of the parts
 
$861 million reasons.

So your theory is that the building was intentionally destroyed for the insurance pay-off?

Given that such involves losing a building worth that much to begin with, and also running a huge risk of getting caught and imprisoned, I'm not seeing how that adds up to an incentive.
 
i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

Funny way of "protecting" something.

Unless of course that something was secrets.

In which case, what were they and how could we know that they were actually there (since they were putatively destroyed "protected" by the collapse)?
 
So your theory is that the building was intentionally destroyed for the insurance pay-off?

Given that such involves losing a building worth that much to begin with, and also running a huge risk of getting caught and imprisoned, I'm not seeing how that adds up to an incentive.

Right because that stops everyone from committing a crime right? 400 Million was owed on the building and now Silverstein owns the new WTC 7 outright.

Also, I've not seen the "owners" of the U.S really go to jail even when they are caught committing crimes or even treason.
 
Funny way of "protecting" something.

Unless of course that something was secrets.

In which case, what were they and how could we know that they were actually there (since they were putatively destroyed "protected" by the collapse)?

There are some really stupid people here disguised as smart. We wouldn't know about them, because they're secret, and we wouldn't know because they're, again, secret. Why are they secret? See NWO thread.
 
There are some really stupid people here disguised as smart. We wouldn't know about them, because they're secret, and we wouldn't know because they're, again, secret. Why are they secret? See NWO thread.

This is circular - you've got a self-sealing premise that is impervious to reason or fact.
 
This is circular - you've got a self-sealing premise that is impervious to reason or fact.

Is that good or bad, im not much of a scholar.

EDIT: I see, I need a conclusive statement to be critqued... here it goes, were all fucked unless we do something bout it.
 
Right because that stops everyone from committing a crime right?

Massive risks and expenditures that exceed the payoff are usually reliable deterrents against highly-planned crimes-for-profit by wealthy people, yeah. Since they incur risk and are losing bets, and the supposed perpetrators have all kinds of risk-free ways of making tons of money legally.

400 Million was owed on the building and now Silverstein owns the new WTC 7 outright.

My understanding is that he still has ~ $400 million in outstanding bonds to pay off on the new one, but I'd love to see your source on this.

Even if it were true, it kind of ignores the point that Silverstein lost tons of rents during the time between 9/11 and when the new building opened - probably more than $400 million worth, from what I can tell.

Also, I've not seen the "owners" of the U.S really go to jail even when they are caught committing crimes or even treason.

Bernie Madoff is in jail. Jack Abramoff is in jail. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in jail. Etc. Maybe you just don't really pay attention, and instead substitute whatever perception is convenient for your worldview.
 
Bernie Madoff is in jail. Jack Abramoff is in jail. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is in jail. Etc. Maybe you just don't really pay attention, and instead substitute whatever perception is convenient for your worldview.

Whatever, perhaps they fell out of favor or were too small fish.

Industrialists and Wealthy men are not above such activity, I don't know why people think people at the top never do bad things just because...well hell if I know...nothing ever changes with power lust. It's the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Allegations of the Business Plot

In November 1934, Butler alleged the existence of a political conspiracy of Wall Street interests to overthrow President Roosevelt, a series of allegations that came to be known in the media as the Business Plot.[53][54] A special committee of the House of Representatives headed by Representatives John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York, who was later alleged to have been a paid agent of the NKVD,[55] heard his testimony in secret.[56] The McCormack-Dickstein committee was a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

In November 1934, Butler told the committee that a group of businessmen, saying they were backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by Gerald P. MacGuire, a bond salesman with Grayson M–P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, a former official with the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator. Butler said MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved, including Johnson, said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[56]

In its report, the committee stated that it was unable to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire, which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports.[57] No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, although most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[58][59][60][61] The news media initially dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".[62] When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee "purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true" and "... also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated".[63]

The McCormack-Dickstein Committee confirmed some of Butler's accusations in its final report. "In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."

In response, Butler said that the committee had deliberately edited out of its published findings the leading business people whom he had named in connection with the plot.[22] He said on February 17, 1935 on Radio WCAU, "Like most committees it has slaughtered the little and allowed the big to escape. The big shots weren't even called to testify. They were all mentioned in the testimony. Why was all mention of these names suppressed from the testimony?"[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler


These days they just ask the government for trillions and don't even have to bother running the country. Just threaten to ruin the economic system. Fuckin genius.
 
Last edited:
Unless of course that something was secrets.
bingo.
In which case, what were they and how could we know that they were actually there (since they were putatively destroyed "protected" by the collapse)?
we couldn't know.
i've read that 7 housed certain legal proceedings and that approximately one third of its contents was irreplaceable.

it makes sense once you start thinking about it.
 
i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

Thank goodness there happened to be a massive terrorist attack right above it, then. Otherwise it would have looked suspicious, eh?

(Or is that part of the conspiracy too?)
 
i believe building 7 was demo'd to protect what was inside it.

That's the logical conclusion of most reasonable intelligent people that can think. Yeah. . .

I sometimes wonder if the people who believe the NIST report don't know what was housed in WTC 7, or if they know and they are just too obtuse to see the astounding coincidences of the whole god forsaken thing.

Reports come out on TV before it comes down.

The man who owned the building took out an insurance policy for terrorism on it six weeks before it collapses due, not from terrorism, but to office fires. And he gets paid anyhow.

There is no flaming inferno, but it collapsed at a near free fall speed as though it were purposefully demolished.

The people near the scene know with incredible accuracy when it is going to come down.

Bernard Kerik, now federal inmate number 84888-054, along with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, were directed away from WTC 7, where the mayor's emergency command bunker was located. Why?

And last, but of course, hardly least, it happens to be the NYC, New york state, eastern network hub for a nexus between every intelligence agency in the country and the business world.

hmmmm. . . . . .

Sure, whatever NIST says. :rolleyes:
 
don't read something into my post that isn't there.
i believe 911 happened as spelled out by NIST except what happened to 7.
terrorist flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon.
the government, not knowing what it was up against, decided to destroy 7 along with its contents.
the above scenario explains all the data as i know it.
 
Whatever, perhaps they fell out of favor or were too small fish.

An 8-term Republican Congressman busted for taking bribes from major military contractors is a "small fish?"

Industrialists and Wealthy men are not above such activity, I don't know why people think people at the top never do bad things just because...

It's not that I think powerful people never do bad things. It's just that I don't think Larry Silverstein would do something so stupid and obviously self-destructive.
 
don't read something into my post that isn't there.
i believe 911 happened as spelled out by NIST except what happened to 7.
terrorist flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon.
the government, not knowing what it was up against, decided to destroy 7 along with its contents.
the above scenario explains all the data as i know it.

But an intentional demolition of WTC 7 - which is what you are proposing - would have required extensive preparation and planning. It's impossible for the building to have been rigged with explosives for demolition between the time of the attacks and the collapse of the building.
 
Back
Top