Motive for imploding the WTC 7

[killtown]

9/11 testimony censored

Witness forbidden to mention attack in quoting defendant calling destroyed files Symbol's 'lucky break'

"A former executive at Symbol Technologies said the company got "a lucky break when {its} documents were destroyed on 9/11" in the attack on the World Trade Center, according to a government witness in the fraud trial of that executive and two others.
But the jury in federal court in Central Islip never got to hear the witness' entire statement yesterday because the judge overseeing the trial ruled it was too inflammatory to bring a mention of the terrorist attack into a securities-fraud case.
The Symbol records involved had been subpoenaed by the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a civil investigation into the company finances and were stored in the commission's office in 7 World Trade Center. They were among hundreds of cases of files destroyed when the building collapsed after the attack on the adjacent Twin Towers." -Newsday (01/14/06)

"Aimed at the world's financial heart, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were designed to throw capitalism into chaos. In one respect they succeeded: Millions of crucial documents were vaporized in the tragedy, and the process of sorting the losses out has been difficult and has included charges of opportunism.
A Citigroup lawyer, for instance, recently told a congressional committee looking into the bank's role in the WorldCom mess that she couldn't provide them with all the information they sought because some of it was destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center.
"Some further email records the committee has requested cannot be retrieved," wrote Citigroup Deputy General Counsel Jane Sherburne in an Aug. 7 letter to House Committee on Financial Services. "The backup tapes for external emails from September 1998 through December 2000, and for a short time period in September 2001, were lost when the building in which they were stored (7 World Trade Center) was destroyed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001."
Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations.
In August, defense lawyers for several former executives of Rite Aid, who've been charged by the SEC with fraud and obstruction of justice, filed a motion seeking a delay in the trial, claiming some of the documents gathered by the SEC had been lost in the attack. SEC attorneys contend many of the original copies of those documents still exist at other locations but acknowledge it will take time to reconstruct all the evidence in the case.
The SEC says the main problem it encountered was that an index for the documents in the Rite Aid case was destroyed in the attack -- not necessarily the documents themselves.
A similar reconstruction of evidence had to take place in a decade-old insider trading case against several former executives of Motel 6, a chain of low-cost motels. The SEC settled the case against the remaining defendants in June. But before that could occur, it had to obtain a court order directing the lawyers for some of the defendants to assist the SEC in reconstructing files "that were destroyed due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."
In the Motel 6 case, the four remaining defendants, without admitting or denying the insider-trading charges, entered into a settlement with the SEC in which they agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling $798,000. In all, the 10-year case netted $6.36 million in fines, penalties and disgorged profits for the SEC.
SEC officials won't discuss how many cases may have been impacted by the terror attacks, but they claim the lost information was limited to two weeks' worth of data stored on the agency's computers that hadn't yet been backed up.
But it's clear from talking to securities lawyers who practice before the SEC that things haven't gone as smoothly as the agency would like the public to believe.
"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents." -TheStreet.com (9/09/02)

Was the WTC 7 pulled?

[killtown]

1. And of course the financial motive:

Silverstein May Use Insurance Money to Pay Bondholders

June 7, 2002

Reports from several sources indicate that Silverstein Properties may use part of the proceeds from an imminent insurance settlement to buy out bondholders on the mortgage of 7 World Trade Center.

The 47 story office building, which was home to numerous businesses, among them the NY Office of the Securities Exchange Commission, collapsed several hours after the twin towers, and is not part of the lawsuit between Silverstein and a group of insurers headed by Swiss Re (See IJ Website June 4).

Industrial Risk Insurers is set to pay around $861 million to Silverstein for the lost building, which the company has owned since the 1980's, long before it acquired the master lease on the WTC. The debt on the property is around $383 million, much of it securitized as mortgage bonds.

The bondholders have been waiting since Sept. 11 to see what their position is. Both Moody's investors Service and Fitch Ratings put the bonds on their "watchlists."

If Silverstein Properties decides to pay off the bondholders at face value, which it has no yet formally announced it will do, it would decrease the funds available for the company to begin rebuilding, but would avoid a fight with the bondholders, who have argued that they purchased securities backed by an existing property, and did not intend to provide construction financing. - Insurance Journal

Pull it!

[LARED]

2. Can you explain the financial motive?

I seem to have missed your point.

[killtown]

12. Yeah, it's called walking away with more money

than before. Did that help?

[LARED]

16. Permit me to ask you a question

You own a successful business that is worth 1 million dollars. You owe $250,000 on it. It burns down. You get 1 million dollars from your insurance company four years later and pay off your creditors.

Do you think you made money?

[killtown]

18. obviously you don't think so

so lets hear your take.

[LARED]

19. My take? Ok

Using the hypothetical business as an example. It's worth 1 million, and you owe .25 million. For four years the business made no money after it burned down and you need to rebuild. The money you collect from insurance needs to cover those losses, rebuilding, etc. Not to mention the value of the business came from your work and investments prior to it burning down.

If you made money burning down successful businesses and collecting on the insurance, there would be a financial incentive to do just that, and it would happen all the time. Do you really think insurance companies are so dumb they would put themselves in such risk?

[killtown]

20. It's called "insurance fraud"

see, it happens so much the insurance companies even created a name for it.

Btw, who said Silverstein didn't profit from owning the WTC 7 before it imploded?

[LARED]

22. So you believe that an insurance scam was

pulled off for nearly a billion dollars and no one noticed? Do you have any evidence of a scam?
Any? Is there any reason Silverstein would be motivated to demo the building?

I am quite sure Silverstein made a profit on WTC7. No one said he didn't. All the more reason to not try and collect insurance. But you know that of course.

[killtown]

25. Well if officials think planes/fires brought the buildings down

why would they even think it was an insurance scam?

Btw, was it just another in a long line of coincidences that Goldstein, I mean Silverstein, leased the rest of the hated money-losing WTC six weeks before the attacks?

You'll have to ask Silverstein his reasons for wanting to demo it.

[LARED]

26. What was a money loser? (n/t)

[killtown]

27. The Twin Towers

See here.

[LARED]

28. Do you have any evidence from a reputable source? (n/t)

[killtown]

29. Which sources weren't reputable?

[LARED]

30. Were there sources?

All I saw was your words and something linked an unknown source?

Not for nothing, but your blog is not reputable.

[killtown]

31. Yep, there are sources on there!

I just double checked.

Btw, why do you say my blog in "not reputable"?

[LARED]

33. I missed your sourcing (Lord only knows why you would tell people

what the sourcing is)

http://www.notbored.org/index1.html

NOT BORED! is an anarchist, situationist-inspired, low-budget, irregularly published, photocopied journal.

and the impeccable

http://www.notbored.org/the-nypa.html

new york psychogeographical association.

Apparently this is their logo



I leave it to the reader to discern what psychogeographical means.

[killtown]

34. Why did you not mention any of the other sources?

Biased are we?

[LARED]

35. The only sources in the article about it losing money

are the ones I posted. This was the first article in your blog. Were there other articles that spoke of WTC 7 as a money loser?

[killtown]

36. You mean the twin towers. Yep!

[LARED]

37. Why change the subject?

You are the one speculating that one reason WTC 7 was imploded was because it was a money loser. Hence a reason for insurance fraud.

Was it a money loser?

[killtown]

38. Where did I say the WTC 7 was imploded

because it was a money-loser? I was talking about the twin towers.

[LARED]

39. How do you explain your post here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=66709&mesg_id=66710

[killtown]

40. what do I need to explain about it?

[LARED]

41. You indicated there was a financial motive to "pull" WTC 7

And you indicated the financial motive was an insurance scam. A scam required because WTC7 was a money loser. So you need to explain how it was a money loser.

[killtown]

42. Not sure I ever said the WTC 7 was a money-loser

I remember mentioning that the twin towers were money-losers that the articles in my blog mention. If I came across in any of my previous posts that WTC 7 was a money-loser, that was not my intention. I only have evidence that the twin towers were money-losers.

[LARED]

43. So do you still believe WTC7 was pulled

to collect insurance money?

[killtown]

44. I don't care why they pulled it

I only care that they did pull. Don't you care that they pulled it?

[LARED]

45. Except no one pulled it.

When there is evidence it was demolished, let me know and I will care.

So I guess the insurance scam angle for WTC 7 is a no-go theory now?

[killtown]

46. Why bother providing you with irrefutable evidence

when you are just going to deny it?

Where did I say the WTC 7 insurance scam theory is a no-go?

[LARED]

47. Irrefutable evidence? Very funny n/t

[killtown]

48. See, you proved my point.

[LARED]

49. You have a point? Well praise the Lord, please share. n/t

[killtown]

50. Resorting to personal attacks are we?

A sign of someone losing a debate.

Let me guess, you believe a "fire" imploded the WTC 7 so perfectly?

[LARED]

51. Cut the crap, that was not a personal attack n/t

[killtown]

52. Fine, do you believe a "fire" perfectly imploded the 7?

yes or no

[LARED]

53. I believe a fire coupled with a unique design caused

WTC 7 to collapse.

The notion of a perfect implosion is a myth.

[killtown]

54. Why is that notion a "myth"?

[LARED]

55. Can you even define "perfect implosion"?

The CT world uses the notion of perfect implosion to supposedly add weight to its pet controlled demolition theory. They pretend the building collapsed in a way that would only be explained as an expert controlled demolition. That is a myth. Read the NIST reports on the collapse. The building did not collapse as if it was controlled demolition. It failed along a specific column or two. A controlled demolition would not demo a column or two. The timing is all wrong as well. The collapse starts well before the building initiates global failure.

[killtown]

56. The govt's report...

Read the NIST reports on the collapse. The building did not collapse as if it was controlled demolition.

Ok...

► "If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse..." -NIST

("CDI’s design created a progressive collapse which accelerated as it moved through the length of each structure." -Controlled Demolition Inc)


► "The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south. The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

("...when you need to bring down a massive structure, say a...skyscraper, you have to haul out the big guns. Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures. When a building is surrounded by other buildings, it may be necessary to "implode" the building, that is, make it collapse down into its footprint." - HowStuffWorks.com)

Sounds like a perfect implosion to me!

A controlled demolition would not demo a column or two. The timing is all wrong as well. The collapse starts well before the building initiates global failure.

"Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward." - Howstuffworks "How Building Implosions Work"

Yep, that's what happened to the WTC 7:

~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to "disappear" completely.

~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south "kink" or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation


Couldn't get more of a perfect implosion than that!



Some other points of interest:

► "The 2 million-square-foot building, 7 World Trade Center, had suffered mightily from the fire, and had been wounded by beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." -Chicago Tribune (11/09/01)

► "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

► "It is currently unclear what fuel may have been present to permit the fires to burn on these lower floors for approximately 7 hours." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

► "Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building; however, this proved not to be true." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

► "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." -New York Times (11/29/01)

► "WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

► "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)

[killtown]

58. Where did LARED go?

Did he see the light? O8)

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

61. More evidence it was not controlled demo; Thanks for that video

So the perfect implosion in your mind starts with on small section failing, with no evidence any other redundancy removed prior to global collapse. I've never seen a CD take out so small a section in order to implode a building. Those CD guys were really really good or the building collapsed do to fire and damage. I think I'll stick with the fire, damaged, and highly unusual design elements.

KISS.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7-penthouse-kink.wmv

[killtown]

63. Of course you'll stick with YOUR theory!

that's what you get paid to do on here, right?

I've never seen a CD take out so small a section in order to implode a building.

I think I'll stick with the ... highly unusual design elements.

So maybe they had to do it that way because the 7 had "highly unusual design elements"???

"Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers... Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Just like how the WTC 7 fell!!!

Those CD guys were really really good or the building collapsed do to fire and damage. I think I'll stick with the fire, damaged,....

So by your logic, CD guys should just save their time and money by just setting buildings on fire to perfectly implode them?


Btw, you still think the collapse of WTC 7 wasn't a perfect implosion???

[LARED]

23. Insurance fraud?

How many instances of insurance fraud can you document on properties that are successful?

[DemInDistress]

3. Good find Killtown... add this to the money motives

Sept 11 1991... Poppy Bush,Rummy,Cheney and other neo-cons float a 240 billion dollars loan. They submit as
collateral "counterfeit gold bonds"(brady bonds). These bonds come due 10 yrs. later Sept.11 2001. Coincidentally, these bonds are stored in the safe of Cantor Fitzgerald. That financial firm gets hit square in the face by Flight 11. Wow !!

Cash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to White House 911 financeCash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to White House 911 finance ... The money was never repaid since the ten-year Brady bonds--purchased before September ...
www.tomflocco.com/fs/FinancialTerrorism.htm

[killtown]

13. That's an interesting story, but I can't rely on Flocco.

I only rely on mainstream stuff for my site. If you can find some mainstream sources for me, I'll be sure to add it.

[libertypirate]

64. Kill the messenger

Three tactics are used consistently by nitwits to avoid the truth they are DENY, DISCREDIT, and DISTRACT. Please apply this pattern when consuming the news it helps cut out the crap from the information.

Never any truth reality facts just 100% prime US grade George W. Bush brand of BULLSHIT. This pattern is old, dumb and boring and so is my post…

[LARED]

9. Seriously, where is the financial motive

based on insurance settlement? I don't get it. If your house burned down and it was insured for its market value of $500,000 and you owed the bank $250,000, you did not make $250,000 in the transaction.

[jschurchin]

62. It is not what the house is worth......

It's what is inside the house. You have got a collection of jewel's and coins valued and insured for $5 million dollars. They were left to you so they cost you NOTHING. Your house is destroyed, you get a check for $5.5 million. Understand? Probably not, but keep trying.

[adolfo]

4. Asbestos Cleanup

I read somewhere about a long overdue asbestos cleanup that was never done. It could have been very expensive. Can anyone confirm this?

[Desertrose]

5. Heard it was connected to Halliburton somehow

or Cheney through asbestos mined in "his" state of WY.

There were threads here on it awhile back....

[DemInDistress]

6. asbestos cleanup and asbestos litagation about 6 billion dollars

in lawsuits. Who would lease a complex knowingly with asbestos lawsuits? Who would lease a complex knowingly
with a massive asbestos cleanup? Who would triple the insurance of a leased complex knowing these financial factors?
Back in the 60's and 70's asbestos was the rage,a hot item. Most fire-proofing was with asbestos. Then some
years later asbestos was linked to cancer.
Now I will wait for LARED the 911 DU debunker to weigh in.

[LARED]

7. Do you have any information indicating

WTC7 was required to perform asbestos abatement?

[Wilms]

8. Yes. Very convenient.

The towers had a pretty high vacancy rate over their history, too.

I'm just saying. :shrug:

Makes the timing of the lease quite the coincidence.

Thanks for the post. I actually thought that the status of the cases was much, much worse.

[philb]

10. WTC7 was evacuated before it got any damage, & little efforts appear to

have been made to shut off fuel lines or safeguard the electric substation in the basement,
although WTC7 was the home of the NY emergency response office, advertised to be the most advanced
in the country- so there should have been an emergency response plan to do things that weren't done that day.

Also, as noted in previous threads, someone shut off the fire alarm system in WTC7 the night before 9/11

[killtown]

14. I think they shut the alarm off in the morning of 9/11.

haven't seen that it was shut off the night before.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[killtown]

15. I heard about this, but never heard anything afterward.

I don't know if it's been debunked or not.

[Emit]

17. nevermind n/t

[MercutioATC]

21. Let's immediately throw out the "documents" reason, shall we?

There are any number of ways to dispose of documents. Destroying the entire building to get rid of a few files is ridiculous.

[rman]

24. There's not necessarily one single reason to do anything

Destroying sensitive documents could merely be a convenient side-effect.

Besides, what's with "let us"? You're not mihop/lihop are you?

[MercutioATC]

32. I was speaking of the DU community.

Convenient side effect? Possible.

However, listing that as a REASON to pull WTC7 seems a little over the top.

[Ferry Fey]

57. The trail of the documents that were destroyed

The documents and other legal/financial material that were destroyed in each building have mostly been discussed as a collateral issue in each case, as an aside. It would be useful to see more analysis in depth of them all together, to see who benefited from their destruction.

Weren't there some shareholders of a German insurance company which had insured the WTC suing it for not apllying due diligence to its investigation of a pay-out which was harmful to the financial interests of the investors? Is there any news on that, or is it just making its way through the German legal system?

[screembloodymurder]

60. Were the BCCI documents held in building #7

??????

[killtown]

65. Not sure if those were, sorry.