Share Fox News Admits Building 7 Was To Be Brought Down By Controlled Demolition On 9/11
Apr 24th, 2010 | By Keelan Balderson | Category: Breaking News, September 11th - 9/11 Truth |
Print
In a hit piece that has turned around and bit them on the ass, Fox News has admitted what the alternative research community have been saying for years, that Building 7, the third building to collapse on the horrific 9/11 attacks, was planned to be demolished by Larry Silverstein.
As written by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro on FoxNews.com
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.’
NIST’s report was that the building came down due to internal fires – however they presumably did not have this information before conducting the investigation, adding to the damning evidence that we were not told the truth about what happened that day.
As reported on InfoWars:
Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
If these evidence-free “explosives” were in place in WTC 7, which was owned by Larry Silverstein, and he did it or knew about it as you claim, please answer the following questions:
-Why would Larry Silverstein have publicly admitted even to knowing that there were planted explosives in WTC 7 in the first place?
-What was Silverstein Properties’, the FDNY’s, or IRI’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending ~$700 million, or most of the $861 million insurance settlement, on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?
(note: it was build in 1986-1987, at least 15 years after asbestos was written out of all building codes, and it had no asbestos in its SFRM or elsewhere.)
-Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime instead of the $4.68 billion total he received if he publicly admitted to foreknowledge of or complicity in the alleged secret demolition of his property, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich (2 of them, including IRI), and London?
-How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a taller collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for this controlled demolition?
-If the alleged explosives were pre-planted, which would have taken weeks or even months in a vacant building and been completely impossible to do secretly in an occupied one, and Barry Jennings heard some of them go off around 10 AM, why was there any discussion at all in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish WTC 7 with the other apparently fireproof explosives a few stories higher?
-Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?
-Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends, or any other evidence in the debris?
-Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?
-Since the FDNY (“they”) made the decision to “pull,” which to me means abandon the firefighting efforts, are they in the controlled demolition business? What other buildings, on fire or not, have they demolished before or since 9/11?
-Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” or “pull it” to refer to building demolition using explosives, not one in which cables are used to pull an already damaged building over, as was done with WTC 6.
-How does a “terrible loss of life” in the WTC towers affect a later decision to demolish a nearby building with no one in it?
-There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~50′) girder and beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a 200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it probably didn’t do it much good. Do you know whether ConEd’s insurers just absorbed the loss of tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage and restoration and then subrogated Industrial Risk Insurers, since Larry Silverstein’s firm was still the responsible party?
Btw, did you know that Silverstein owed more on the lease for the towers than he paid out of pocket, and that his lenders forced him to up the face values on his policies, since he didn’t want to pay the increased money in premiums?
“If these evidence-free “explosives” were in place in WTC 7, which was owned by Larry Silverstein, and he did it or knew about it as you claim, please answer the following questions.”
I haven’t claimed anything in this article – this is a Fox News piece where they admitted Silverstein had plans to pull the building. It’s as simple as that. But I like a good debate because it can enlighten both sides, so I’ll assume the role you’ve prescribed to me and play devil’s advocate:
- Why would Larry Silverstein have publicly admitted even to knowing that there were planted explosives in WTC 7 in the first place?
I’m not sure that he did? He said “Pull it” in an interview. And now there’s this evidence that he planned on bringing it down. No overt mention of explosives, but if you are referring to the “pull it” and this evidence; I have no idea. How can we really know what’s going on inside somebody’s head? He may not have realized the severity of what he was saying and quickly flip flopped from ever mentioning it again. Which is basically what he did do.
- What was Silverstein Properties’, the FDNY’s, or IRI’s motive for blowing up a perfectly good, 14 year-old building, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flow from it for eight years and counting, spending ~$700 million, or most of the $861 million insurance settlement, on obligatory replacement of it, and paying ~$500 million back to lenders?
(note: it was build in 1986-1987, at least 15 years after asbestos was written out of all building codes, and it had no asbestos in its SFRM or elsewhere.)
Silverstein owned the building, this doesn’t mean it was his motive to blow it up. It appears to be a high level military and intelligence operation.
The prevailing theory is that because the CIA had a presence there and there might have been evidence implicating certain aspects of the American establishment in the bringing down of the towers they had to destroy the evidence.
- Why would any insurance company have paid him a dime instead of the $4.68 billion total he received if he publicly admitted to foreknowledge of or complicity in the alleged secret demolition of his property, but especially those based in Copenhagen, Zurich (2 of them, including IRI), and London?
Well he didn’t publicly state it did he. There wouldn’t be so much controversy if it was as clear cut as him saying “yes I demolished the building”. These company’s are going to believe the official story. Why does anyone believe the building came down due to fires when he appears to have alluded to another scenario?
- How did he or the FDNY know that flaming debris from a taller collapsing hi-rise across the street would hit WTC 7, start multi-story fires in it, and break the water main to it, disabling the sprinklers and providing a cover story for this controlled demolition?
Well if this was a well planned operation there are umpteen possibilities, but that would be conjecture. But if they were prepared to controlled demolish the building, they’d obviously be prepared to mess with the sprinkler system, plant bombs to cause fires all kinds of things. I’m sure they could have reasonably predicted that the building would be damaged by falling debris though. Maybe they would have just demolished it anyway, who really knows? I don’t claim to know. But what I do know is that thousands of architects and engineers say it came down in a controlled demolition and Larry Silverstein has been exposed as planning to bring it down. Surely that outweighs the question itself? A re-investigation might reveal these details you want answers for.
- If the alleged explosives were pre-planted, which would have taken weeks or even months in a vacant building and been completely impossible to do secretly in an occupied one.
That’s your opinion.
- and Barry Jennings heard some of them go off around 10 AM, why was there any discussion at all in mid-afternoon about whether or not to demolish WTC 7 with the other apparently fireproof explosives a few stories higher?
I’m not really aware of what you mean by other apparently fireproof explosives a few stories higher.
-Do controlled demolitions take seven or eight hours to collapse a building?
No, and building 7 came down at free-fall speed in seconds not seven or eight hours.
-Do they leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends, or any other evidence in the debris?
Does a regular building collapse leave no severed columns with copper residue on the ends? A controlled demo doesn’t necessarily have to be a traditional controlled demo. They could have used military grade explosives or anything. The actual falling of the building does not seem to be consistent with regular collapses.
-Do they leave ~12 stories on one corner standing?
Again a controlled demo doesn’t necessarily have to be a traditional controlled demo. They could have used military grade explosives or anything. The actual falling of the building does not seem to be consistent with regular collapses.
-Since the FDNY (“they”) made the decision to “pull,” which to me means abandon the firefighting efforts, are they in the controlled demolition business? What other buildings, on fire or not, have they demolished before or since 9/11?
This is your opinion. The controlled demo theory does not have to implicate the firefighters. “They” could have meant anybody. If he was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building. “They” could have meant them. So who demolished it? That’s the million dollar question. And this is why we need a new investigation.
-Please link me to a C/D contractor’s web site, and show me the use of “pull” or “pull it” to refer to building demolition using explosives, not one in which cables are used to pull an already damaged building over, as was done with WTC 6.
Is Larry Silverstein in the controlled demolition business? He probably didn’t know the correct term. Is pull it a term in firefighting? No.
-How does a “terrible loss of life” in the WTC towers affect a later decision to demolish a nearby building with no one in it?
Firefighters lives? Why try and put the fires out and risk harm when they could just pull the building and move on?
And the point isn’t that he demolished it because there was a terrible loss of life is it? It was planned long before the event. He was just gibbering to the camera.
-There was a pre-existing ConEd substation at the Vesey Street WTC 7 site in 1986, and the building was designed to straddle it, requiring some of the extremely long (~50′) girder and beam spans inside that contributed to the 9/11 collapse. It was powered up and in full use on 9/11/01, and the demolition of a 200,000 ton, 47-story building directly on top of it probably didn’t do it much good. Do you know whether ConEd’s insurers just absorbed the loss of tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure damage and restoration and then subrogated Industrial Risk Insurers, since Larry Silverstein’s firm was still the responsible party?
This is not something I’m familiar with.
Btw, did you know that Silverstein owed more on the lease for the towers than he paid out of pocket, and that his lenders forced him to up the face values on his policies, since he didn’t want to pay the increased money in premiums?
No, but I don’t necessarily believe it was an insurance scam.
.
.
.
This article is simply pointing out that he had considered demolishing the building. That is cause for concern.
Albury Smith 911 Gormless Shill
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2011/06/9-11-sceptics-versus-logic-reason-and-scientific-principles/
How does NIST explain molten metal at the WTC site?
It denies its existence.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/arguments-regarding-collapse-of-world.html
Just watching the videos, it’s obvious those buildings were blown up, and they didnt just fall down. If anyone is prepared to let the likes of Albury Smith tell them otherwise, then they are very feeble minded indeed.
debunk this assbury shilltroll
http://www.show-the-house.com/id107.html
now why would the government need to lie like this do you think?
done and dusted, now go away.