9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Jeffrey Orling]

So Jeff what did Silverstein - the owner who had just insured for top dollar- mean re building 7 when he said "we decided to pull it?". And what do you make of the BBC reporter on tv saying Building 7 had fallen BEFORE it fell? And you expect us to beleive that the "terrorists" got so lucky that they flew into the WTC the very same day that simulated training exercises of planes flying into these very buildings were occurring??? Talk about co-incidence. And remember the passport they said they found: Atta's???
Did you really believe THAT?.

Dawn

Dawn, No one knows what someone else meant when they spoke. I can only guess at some possible meanings of this statement out of context. I don't like the idea of supporting any real estate developer landlord. However... one should consider the following.

All property owners obtain and hold insurance on their properties... and the WTC was apparently already a target in 93 of an attack (even if it was an FBI sting gone wrong)... and have it in place the minute they acquire ownership or the lease. I don't see anything unusual that Silverstein had insurance for his property. I see greed which is pretty common, when he tried to make the two plane strikes separate incidents and get a larger insurance settlement. Seems like something any capitalist pig would try to do. He succeeded.

There were also rumors that Silverstein had inquired about his coverage on bldg 7 on that day as it was burning. Perhaps he asked his insurance co. if he could get 100% loss recovery including the cost of demolition if the burning structure was determined to be unrepairable at a reasonable cost. Would they cover his loss of income from losing the tenants and having to relocate them and so forth. All this is only speculation. And I am speculating.

The NYC DOB and FDNY will make the determination of the safety of a building which has been severely damaged or is burning out of control. WTC 7 was. There were no working sprinklers or standpipes to charge the system as there was a water main rupture on Vesey street in the AM (I believe).. no water, no electricity. Two towers had collapsed in the AM and there were reports of explosions in bldg 7 of unknown origin. But at the time it was presumed that it was all part of a terrorist attack. NYC official were trying to assess the condition of the building and called for the area to be evacuated of civilians. They apparently had FDNY personnel looking at the building to determine its stability. At some point in the afternoon, I presume they concluded that it was unstable and would or could collapse at any time. When they make such a determination, they call in the press and make sure the area is clear of everyone. They issue such notices to protect life and for safety reasons. They likely withdrew their personnel from the building assessment as well and were in a wait-and-see mode expecting the worst. And it happened... regardless of whether or not the cause of the weakening was placed devices whether or not this was determined at the time. Investigations occur AFTER the event not while it's ongoing.

I can't explain why BBC decided to take the advisory from the FDNY and do a standup probably with a green screen and the building showing (they would use bldg 7 of course since that it the topic of the advisory)... or was it a live shot??? But the reporter probably understood that the building was about to collapse and taped the segment that it did. Was this a live report or taped? How does find out? I think that matters.

I don't think the people who guided the planes into the towers got lucky choosing the day... or maybe they did. It seems that the DOD and intel knew of the attacks and may have facilitated their success by staging the Vigilant Warrior military exercises which would provide the cover and confusion and excuses for the failure to stop the planes... This straddles the boundary between MIHOP and LIHOP in my mind. I still see no evidence despite Lemkin's rants that the towers were brought down by placed devices. There have been several peer reviewed papers in engineering publications about progressive floor collapse/destruction and so this is certainly possible and it happened 2x on 9-11.

Bldg 7 was apparently a structural failure on floors 6&7 which enabled the core from flr 8 above to plunge right to the ground... the perimeter supporting structure below 8 ... of columns and trusses followed the core immediately and what was left of the 40 stories above floor 7 fell at FF until it slammed into the ground and the motion slowed.

I suspect that the names of the hijackers (if there were any) were fabricated and it's likely that the passport was planted. There is no evidence about who was on those planes and who may have hijacked them... no videos from the airports... only what the FBI released. FBI lies. I therefore don't know who was on the planes that hit the towers.

Speculation is something anyone can do... technical analysis is something only a few can do and understand (Lemkin is not one of them by the way)