[–] Retron 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It was insured in case of terrorism, like the other buildings, and had so much asbestos that removing it would have been very costly.

And then one of the hijacked planes didn't make it to New York.

So it just "fell over".

[–] holaymackal 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This is a theory on WTC 7 I have not heard before.

It makes sense except for the fact that Flight 93 looks like it was headed for the White House, not downtown Manhattan.

[–] SweetChicken 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

He profited over 4.5 billion in the claim

The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.


The insurance policies for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[20][21] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[22] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[23] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[24] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[25] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.

In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers, for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority, for the World Trade Center complex, requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]


[–] crazy_eyes 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

easily explained

controlled demolition

[–] Shizy [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 


[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 


[–] CIAchiefOfficer 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[–] Durm 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Doesn't hat take weeks to set up?

[–] Shizy [S] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Yes it does. Which if this is true proves 9/11 was a pretty planned event

[–] KnightsofHubris 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It would take months at WTC 7, as no building its size has ever gone through controlled demolition. It was almost two hundred feet taller that the previously tallest building that had a controlled demolition. That building required

a 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex four months to complete preparations for the implosion design a month to load the explosive charges

[–] Are_we_sure 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This flash bang video is fake. Here's the guy who faked it.


You know your video is zoomed in? Because this guy added a UFO to his fake video.

The fake video is this video from CBS, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo with the image flipped, fake explosions added and fake noises added. Actual demolition charges would have been super loud at that distance.

[–] SweetChicken 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thanks. I found that out after posting it. As you said it’s reversed with added flashes. The originals were enough to prove demolition. I deleted another post I made with t and will delete this one as well.

[–] Are_we_sure 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Yeah, that video is fake. This guy faked it.


[–] lord_nougat 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Peer pressure.

All it's friends were falling down, so it just fell down too!

[–] Shizy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Is 17 years too soon for that?

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

17 year olds are way susceptible to peer pressure! Stupid fucking teenagers!!

[–] Lord_Mari 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 


[–] wokeasfook 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Maybe the building was set to be demolished when it was built. Explosives set in the columns decades earlier during construction? Just a theory. Not claiming it's true.

If the story about the depiction of 911 on the US Dollars or the cover of Newsweek April 3rd 1967 showing David Rockefeller with the hands of his watch set to 9-11 is true then this theory makes sense.

[–] Shizy [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

At this point since we have been so lied to and decieved, anything is possible.

[–] Dial_Indicator 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

just pull it

[–] 131313 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

[–] Blacksmith21 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

There is definitely too much evidence contrary to the prevailing narrative.

I've been at building implosions, very close up. This looked like a building implosion. The firing sequence was unusual, but too many factors to even take a stab at.

[–] derram 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

https://invidio.us/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk :

Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11 - YouTube

https://invidio.us/watch?v=677i43QfYpQ :

BBC Reports 911, WTC 7 Collapse BEFORE it Happens - YouTube

This has been an automated message.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)