Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

[Nordic]

Andy after watching the two buildings fall, who would be that surprised at a third? By that time, we were all pretty shocked, which is WHY nobody really REMEMBERS wtc7 falling down!

All part of the magician's trick, IMO.

But that's neither here nor there as far as this thread goes ........

To me the Fox News story does nothing. Fox News is not a credible source whatsoever. And even if someone did overhear Silverstein say that, it doesn't mean anything because he was a greedy little fuck who was thinking about money. Doesn't mean squat.

[DoYouEverWonder]

This sounds like almost the exact opposite of proof of demolition if taken at face value.

- He called his insurance company for authorisation. Why would he do that if the building was already wired with explosives for the demolition?

- Industrial Risk said no. ("...which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.") If they said yes, the payout wouldn't be in jeopardy, would it?

- The building fell, and Industrial Risk paid. Wouldn't the phone call have provided extra incentive for the insurance company to attempt to deny the claim? Or is Industrial Risk in on the coverup, and paid the billion dollar claim as part of the deal? Maybe it's time to take a very close look at that particular entity.

Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg was the chairman of AIG. AIG insured the WTC. The Blackstone Group held the mortgage for the WTC. AIG had an ownership interest in Blackstone. So not only did Maurice insure the buildings, he also financed the buildings. Doesn't seem kosher, does it? Maurice just got indicted for fraud last week.

[nathan28]

Anyway, now we have a third-hand confirmation that a discussion about demolishing the structure was held on 911, cherry-picked from an article that also states that the building was understood to be in danger of falling. I understand that it is important to focus on the first possibility while ignoring the second, but you have to admit that’s what everyone says the weaknesses of conspiracy theories in general. We've now placed a large chunk of investigative possibilities on the say-so of an individual who you wouldn't trust with your ice-cream money in the first place.

I was thinking about this. It's very possible that this is an honest to god KWH on "controlled demolition": put a high-eyeball-capture website mentioning "controlled demolition" in the context of it being a safety precaution (which it could have been) alongside a lot of befuddlement about just exactly what happened. No one in this thread has any idea WTF the ins. co. said--or how for that matter, assuming they did give permission, a demolition would have taken place. IOW: it's sown with confusion in the FauxNus mat'l and the reporter himself is something of a deprecated source, and that's before you even get to the PrisonPlanet nonsense selling monoatomic silver in the sidebar.

FWIW, barracuda is very right to say a document would fucking exist if permission were granted to demolish--extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary allowances, etc.--and it most certainly be sitting in a courthouse right now, though probably confidential--you can imagine that an ins. co. wouldn't want to let it get out that they offered a modicum of leniency for the sake of saving lives.

[swindled69]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801#


firefighters saw a lot of things that day.

[DoYouEverWonder]

It's not up to any insurance company, no matter how big and powerful they are, to make that decision. That would have been up to FDNY, NYPD, and the Port Authority.

BTW: Even if the decision was made to CD WTC 7. How and when was the building rigged?

[nathan28]

Though this is speculation, it's conceivable that Silverstein invoked the spectre of liability to the ins. co.--if the building had fallen in the, you know, way buildings fall, that would have been some serious liability he'd have been exposed to. But deep pocket rules suggest he could almost certainly turn around and hit his insurance company over it for not granting permission to CD the building and thereby forcing him, who wasn't an engineer, to judge the safety etc. I'm not a lawyer and don't know the precedents there, but I do know that a billionaire who donates $$$ to every judge in the SDNY's pet charities turning around and suing an ins. co. sounds like a forty-year litigation. Again, that's speculation.

This sounds like almost the exact opposite of proof of demolition if taken at face value.

- He called his insurance company for authorisation. Why would he do that if the building was already wired with explosives for the demolition?

- Industrial Risk said no. ("...which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.") If they said yes, the payout wouldn't be in jeopardy, would it?

- The building fell, and Industrial Risk paid. Wouldn't the phone call have provided extra incentive for the insurance company to attempt to deny the claim? Or is Industrial Risk in on the coverup, and paid the billion dollar claim as part of the deal? Maybe it's time to take a very close look at that particular entity.

Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg was the chairman of AIG. AIG insured the WTC. The Blackstone Group held the mortgage for the WTC. AIG had an ownership interest in Blackstone. So not only did Maurice insure the buildings, he also financed the buildings. Doesn't seem kosher, does it? Maurice just got indicted for fraud last week.

Greenberg got busted? Finally. But how can AIG and Industrial Risk both insure the WTC? Is Indus. Risk an AIG firm?

[nathan28]

It's not up to any insurance company, no matter how big and powerful they are, to make that decision. That would have been up to FDNY, NYPD, and the Port Authority.

BTW: Even if the decision was made to CD WTC 7. How and when was the building rigged?

Presumably Silverstein was negotiating over the possibility of a payout if demolition occurred--and presumably since his feces are worth more than diamonds, he can pull some strings.

[apologydue]

b) CD is not a necessary component of 9/11 skepticism and there are those of us who with good reason prefer to treat it that way;

Idiocy flocks and sticks to the flypaper of many salient points. It is typically the job of the truthful astute to lead or flick the idiots from the flypaper instead of throwing the salient point itself out with the bathwater. Instead of defending the salient point you have tarnished it with the brush of the idiots.


911, within our current historical frame of reference, is the only crime that still contains the power to utterly devastate and destroy the status quo power structure, and CD is the lynch pin upon which it rests. This is so because it is the only easily demonstrable evidence that is easily understandable to the masses.

Most other crimes and conspiracies are welcome noise to the status quo power structure, as they gratefully use them for camouflage and deflection. In time, just like JFK, 911 CD will also lose its power as the smoking gun to utterly devastate the status quo power structure. This is so because the bulk of each new generation of the population views crimes of the past, after they have been historically revised, as something that no longer requires their scrutiny.

Until 911 CD loses its power to devastate the status quo power structure, people complicit in the preservation of the status quo power structure will busily protect the lynch pin, as they camouflage themselves by revealing many other crimes and conspiracies that no longer have the power to devastate the status quo power structure.

Silence on salient points is not necessarily protection of the status quo. Some speakers choose silence in an effort to protect their own houses, and for this reason I cannot fault those who know and are silent. Noam Chomsky comes to mind, and perhaps some in our present company.

There is a distinct difference between active promotion and silence, and here the difference is made.

Being a hero has devastating disadvantages that, understandably, many are not willing to shoulder. I might have to include myself in this group if I were the owner of an enterprise that traded in information that relates to the truth. We are all very brave until our mettle is tested, and few people have had their mettle tested by the fire of true power.

[swindled69]

BTW: Even if the decision was made to CD WTC 7. How and when was the building rigged?

I personally knew a person who used to own a demolition company in New York City in the middle to late 90's. From the conversations I had with him following 9/11, he told me that there had been talk that after the first WTC attack in 93, that the towers were outfitted with a rudimentary demolition system that, in a case such as we saw on 9/11, the towers could be brought down in a fashion to save lives and prevent a horrific tragedy......

but he's dead now.

[JackRiddler]

apologydue:

The difference is, you are convinced of what you term the salient point and I am not. The argument that "it had to be this way" is not proof.

Right now it can be proven that official investigations into 9/11 are full of lies, and divert most consistently from those bodies of evidence that suggest US government and covert op involvement. That should be converted into general disbelief in any official statements and cause for a lot of subpoenas. It also points to a comprehensible narrative for who and why.

The demolition hypothesis is bogged down in lowgrade debates among scientists, unfortunately including a lot of laypersons (and even scientists) who don't know fuck-all about it, but are still convinced utterly of its truth or falsity. It doesn't present a story that even makes sense to most people, in the absence of historical-political context, who and why.

A revelation that September 11th was the product of a covert operation run from within the US parapolitical agency nexus, if true, should and would expose the present power structure in a devastating way. Again, "911 CD" (is this your preferred name for the "movement"?) is not a necessary part of that.

On the other hand, if Shapiro's claim leads to a revelation that Building 7 was demolished, unlikely as that is, and if the rest of the case re-opens, I won't object. But that assumes Shapiro is truthful and the specific conclusion that Silverstein did get permission and did do "pull it" is true.

[apologydue]

apologydue:

The difference is, you are convinced of what you term the salient point and I am not. The argument that "it had to be this way" is not proof.

Right now it can be proven that official investigations into 9/11 are full of lies, and divert most consistently from those bodies of evidence that suggest US government and covert op involvement.

The demolition hypothesis is bogged down in lowgrade debates among scientists, unfortunately including a lot of laypersons (and even scientists) who don't know fuck-all about it, but are still convinced utterly of its truth or falsity.

A revelation that September 11th was the product of a covert operation run from within the US parapolitical agency nexus, if true, should and would expose the present power structure in a devastating way. Again, "911 CD" (is this your preferred name for the "movement"?) is not a necessary part of that.

On the other hand, if Shapiro's claim leads to a revelation that Building 7 was demolished, and thus re-opens the rest of the case, I won't object. But that assumes Shapiro is truthful and the specific conclusion that Silverstein did get permission and did do "pull it" is true.

I've done these discussions in venus past, and I prefer to quote myself again and leave your argument to languish in its weakness. No offense JR., we all do what we gotta do right? I mean that sincerely, as I have no idea what your circumstances are.

There is a distinct difference between active promotion and silence, and here the difference is made.

I'm not planning to wear this thread out with logic. Been there done that. I value my freedom. This was just a good natured poke.

[DoYouEverWonder]

BTW: Even if the decision was made to CD WTC 7. How and when was the building rigged?

I personally knew a person who used to own a demolition company in New York City in the middle to late 90's. From the conversations I had with him following 9/11, he told me that there had been talk that after the first WTC attack in 93, that the towers were outfitted with a rudimentary demolition system that, in a case such as we saw on 9/11, the towers could be brought down in a fashion to save lives and prevent a horrific tragedy......

but he's dead now.

I seriously doubt FDNY is going to allow anyone to load up any hi-rise office building with explosives just in case. Get real, someone is going to rig a building to blow up, in case someone else wants to try to blow up them and doesn't do a good enough job? What a brilliant idea, not.

[Brentos]

Fantastic Post elfismiles!!!

[apologydue]

I seriously doubt FDNY is going to allow anyone to load up any hi-rise office building with explosives just in case. Get real, someone is going to rig a building to blow up, in case someone else wants to try to blow up them and doesn't do a good enough job? What a brilliant idea, not.

*Pop* goes the swindle. Nickname now in retirement. next...

[DrVolin]

Although I do think that the collapse of building 7 is highly suspicious, I don't see anything unusual or smoking-gunnesque about the phone call. Guys like Silverstein or Trump typically operate with a great deal of debt, fairly immobile assets, and just enough liquidity to service the debt. Their empire prospers or falls on the confidence others have in their ability to make the next payment. With 2 buildings down and a third one on fire, he would have been concerned to get his cash flow going as soon as possilbe, and I am not surprised that he was on the phone with his insurer within hours (minutes?) of the plane strikes. He was understandably eager to learn whether the insurer would total building 7 (relatively quick payout in cash) or try to save it (relatively slow payout for contracted work performed). Silverstein would have been trying to convince the insurer to total it, and if he could get them to commit to it before adequate information was available, all the better. Does that mean he was planning to collapse the building that afternoon or able to do it? No. It means he was trying to convince his insurer that the building should be collapsed as soon as practicable, so within weeks or a couple of months at the outside.

Does the above mean that WTC7 was not a CD? No. But it does mean that the phone call is not particularly relevant to the investigation.