WTC Building 7 on 9/11

[shrike]

. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. In October of 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a Southern District verdict by a jury that the attacks must be considered a single occurrence. Yet, the same court also upheld a victory in the second phase of trial which was awarded to Mr. Silverstein in which temporary insurance policies in effect when the buildings were destroyed did require that the attack to be treated as two occurrences. Thus, nine insurance companies will pay double the approximately $1 billion in coverage under their policies.[9]

So I was right the only arguement was whatever to pay 3.5B OR 7.
And here is pretty logical explanation about the phrase.

Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.[21]However, FEMA reported in its performance study that "no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."[22]

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: from shrike'squote ]However, FEMA reported in its performance study that "no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

That statement, even taken out of context, and left to stand on only what was said, is suspicious enough to warrant an investigation in my opinion.


Then, couple that with what is known to have happened, and the extenuating cicumstances, and you have a wonderful foundation on which to base a good set of questions, or a ( gasp ) conspiracy theory.

[jose]

Quote by: shrike So I was right the only arguement was whatever to pay 3.5B OR 7. And here is pretty logical explanation about the phrase. Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

don't confuse wtc7 with the twin towers wtc 1 and 2

[Battig1370]

Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks. Silverstein must of known that his WTC building was going to be taken down if it was a controlled demolition.

Questions: Why would he have a building ready to be taken down without knowing about the 9/11 attacks?

Was WTC7 a target as WTC 1 and 2, but the mission failed?

[shrike]

Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks. Silverstein must of known that his WTC building was going to be taken down if it was a controlled demolition. Questions: Why would he have a building ready to be taken down without knowing about the 9/11 attacks? Was WTC7 a target as WTC 1 and 2, but the mission failed?

If the building was taking down like you claim insurance company wouldnt pay him and sue him for death.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: shrike If the building was taking down like you claim insurance company wouldnt pay him and sue him for death.

I see your take on the reality here is about as clear as your take on Zionism.


The man admitted it! What else do you need to hear?

[jose]

Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud

Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud
A court ordered the payment

[shrike]

The man admitted it! What else do you need to hear?

If he admitted like you claim why court ordered insurance companies to pay his and the argument was not if pay at all but how much.
He said "pull it" there is only one definition in English for that phrase?

[shrike]

Quote by: jose Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud A court ordered the payment

Why court odered if like you claim he admitted it itself.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: shrike If he admitted like you claim why court ordered insurance companies to pay his and the argument was not if pay at all but how much.

Now, does it look to you like I am the guy making the calls at the insurance company?


I understand your desire to have that question answered, but suffice to say nobody here has that answer for you, so you can stop asking us now. :(

Quote by: shrike He said "pull it" there is only one definition in English for that phrase?

You know, that is a legitimately good question as well, and I'm not sure my answer will satisfy you, but there is more than one meaning for that phrase. However I find it hard to imagine him using those words in any context other than to describe what was seen on 9/11 in an interview about 9/11.

[Battig1370]

Whoever believes that WTC7 was an uncontrolled collapse, can you show pictures of other buildings that have collapsed so nicely in its own footprint without a controlled demolition.

[Battig1370]

Questioned on WTC 7 by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at a Book People event in Austin Texas, Kerry responded, "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."


The wall that Kerry is talking about was in danger of falling over and which would cause extensive damage to the adjacent building, so they did a controled pull down.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Battig1370 Questioned on WTC 7 by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at a Book People event in Austin Texas, Kerry responded, "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion." The wall that Kerry is talking about was in danger of falling over and which would cause extensive damage to the adjacent building, so they did a controled pull down.

It might be important to clarify that wiring, and pulling a building isn't an endeavor that one undertakes in a single afternoon. Even in the absence of permits, and insurance, this would be a massive job, with many days required to engineer even under the most extreme conditions.

[jose]

If it was possible to bring down a steel and concrete building so quickly and without damaging the surrounding buildings by fire alone, a lot of demolition companies would be out of a job

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: jose If it was possible to bring down a steel and concrete building so quickly and without damaging the surrounding buildings by fire alone, a lot of demolition companies would be out of a job

Hehehe, indeed, we should go into business together dude.


So, for the skeptics out there, how would one answer that question?


Why are there no new demolition companies out there undercutting the price of the existing ones with the new "fire technique"?


Certainly a few properly placed gallons of jet fuel can do the work of an entire engineering firm, and cut out the explosive guys altogether.

[Battig1370]

Quote by: Milton Bradley It might be important to clarify that wiring, and pulling a building isn't an endeavor that one undertakes in a single afternoon. Even in the absence of permits, and insurance, this would be a massive job, with many days required to engineer even under the most extreme conditions.

Exactly, that is what trouble me so much. Many days are required to engineer a pull down of a building like WTC7 that would collapse in it own footprint.

The question to ask is, when you watch carefully WTC7 collapsing and then you see the end result which is that WTC7 collapsed in its own footprint so prefectly. Wow! Job well done!

Have you seen any end results from an uncontrolled collapse that collapsed in its own footprint so prefectly?

[jose]

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

Overview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
Fire Resistance: Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.

and yet the next day it was still standing

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire
sheeple as goyim

[Battig1370]

I have done quite a bit of welding and cutting steel with acetylene and oxygen. With only this limited knowledge, I know that burning carbon fuels such as jet fuel and diesel fuel does not melt steel without a catalyst. Try it as an experiment! Also consider the thickness of the beams. As you seen in picture above the steel remains standing.

[shrike]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Now, does it look to you like I am the guy making the calls at the insurance company? I understand your desire to have that question answered, but suffice to say nobody here has that answer for you, so you can stop asking us now. :(

Well I have the answer the building fell as part of terrorist attack and that the reasons why the insurance company paid. I think its classical example of Occam razor.

You know, that is a legitimately good question as well, and I'm not sure my answer will satisfy you, but there is more than one meaning for that phrase. However I find it hard to imagine him using those words in any context other than to describe what was seen on 9/11 in an interview about 9/11.

Well why not accept the original explanation why do you think you interpretation is better?

[shrike]

As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[16] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. Around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center, between the 10 and 13th floors, which was a sign that the building might collapse.[17] During the afternoon, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, out of concerns for the safety of personnel.[18] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. It had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the actual collapse of 7 WTC. In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse.[6] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. The report noted that, before this collapse, there had been little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building, such as 7 WTC. The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings: Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. 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 analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.] In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[19] NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[2] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[2] NIST "anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007".[20][21] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[22][23] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[24] 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats wrong with this explanation?