On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
legality, but this site may help explain:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm

Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
out anyway.



WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.

What exactly were those reasons?

By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the company that
borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably going to have
to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who loaned them the money
because while Silverstein does have a large amount of money lying around, it
probably doesn't amount to what they still owed on the building.

It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the insurance
money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill 3,000
people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage, they either
foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell the property and pay
off the bank with the proceeds.

Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such
as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".

Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
their own
documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.

You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.

Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation you
offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the government's
involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy.

You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even started
telling us what this "more" is yet.

WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.

So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was
involved?
We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
portable trailer with a 10 man crew.


Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC
Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside
job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders.

If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder of 3,000
of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you are
without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire Internet. And
I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for an intact hymen after
their dates and that his masturbation caused his testicular cancer. I'm amazed
that someone so lacking in the capacity for rational thought can even operate a
computer well enough to post this idiocy.

The major
has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going
to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him
and not the firefighters in the buildings?

Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy elsewhere.

the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The
Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and
heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this
page for a collaboration:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being compared
to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few select
highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll select a few
passages you seem to have missed entirely.

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming
down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could
have been whatever." Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that."
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

"I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel
or something. Then the building started to come down"
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
government knew
in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20
inch water main ruptured by falling debris.


It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if *NO DEBRIS
HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous reasons you say
exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens of thousands of
pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do know that you
have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition on it, right?

And the only reason those
fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put
in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.

The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there was no
water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water main in the
street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in the event of a fire.
The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did was fail to send an alert
signal to the monitoring company that a fire was detected. Given that there
were several thousand fire fighters on the site when it did catch on fire, that
signal would have been rather superfluous.