The Whole Truth wrote in
:

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.





People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.