Why WTC 7?

by JASON | 12:31 PM in |


I've heard a few people question the purpose or reason the WTC buildings needed to be demolished....simply utilizing terrorists to fly planes into the buildings would bring about the Patriot Act, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, etc...so I spent some time in Google and thought I would post the results of my research...

Background and history...


Democratic Underground Demopedia reports in Who Killed John O’Neill that at the time of 9/11, AIG, the world’s largest insurance company, and subsidiaries Marsh McLennan, ACE and Kroll, were run by the Greenberg family. With Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Maurice “Hank” Greenberg as the AIG godfather, the Familia’s tentacles curled around the heart of the tragedy.

Hank’s son Jeffrey, a CFR member as well, was chairman of Marsh & McLennan, situated on floors throughout the North Tower of the World Trade Center as well as the top floors of the South Tower. Marsh also had ties to the CIA. Son Evan Greenberg, a CFR member, was CEO of ACE Limited, situated in Tower 7, which also contained AIG subsidiary Kroll, closely related to the CIA, also with an office in Tower 7.

Tower 7 also contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud corporate, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.

Greenberg’s cousin, Alan “Ace” Greenberg, was former CEO of Bear Sterns, where the Bush family, Cheney family George Schultz, James Baker, et al, did business. It is the leading brokerage firm of the great and all-powerful Bush Familia.

Also reported by Democratic Underground, AIG’s Kroll “provided protection services,” among other things, to high level Americans at home and abroad. Kroll had military teams in their company and merged with Armor Holdings on August 23, 2001, adding Defence Systems Limited, another private military corporation, to their operation, and an ex-KGB team called Alpha Firm earlier acquired by Defense Systems Limited. These four teams could have been used on 9/11, part of a “corporatizing” of black ops in tandem with military teams.

According to whistleblower Richard Grove, who worked as a senior manager for SilverStream Software on Marsh and AIG accounts, Kroll also managed the Enron fraud once Kenneth Lay stepped down.

Marsh, immediately after 9/11, established a specialized terrorism team called Marsh Crisis Consultancy (led by L. Paul Bremer III), adding the teams Control Risks Group, a British ex-SAS team and Versar, bio-terrorism and homeland defense team. These players could have known each other from 9/11, bringing in new assignments and profits.

Democratic Underground also reports, AIG allegedly was laundering drug money, and was involved in the Afghanistan oil and gas pipelines. Greenberg and the Adnan Khasshogi family allegedly benefited from the Afghanistan narcotics trade and interests in the oil and gas pipelines, as well.

By Margaret Cronin Fisk
National Law Journal
September 17, 2001

Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system. One of these cases was a sexual harassment charge filed on Sept. 10 against Morgan Stanley, one of the prime corporate victims of the World Trade Center disaster.

A statement from the commission said that "we are confident that we will not lose any significant investigation or case as a result of the loss of our building in New York. No one whom we have sued or whose conduct we have been investigating should doubt our resolve to continue our pursuit of justice in every such matters."

But the short-term problems will be immense, said Gregory Joseph of New York's Law Offices of Gregory Joseph.

"Court papers can largely be reconstituted, but work product has to be reconstructed," he said. "This will cause delays in court and will require significant reduplication of effort." Some data, he added, "won't be recreatable."

"Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, frustrated by Citigroup's (C Quote) unwillingness to turn over information about any WorldCom executives who may have gotten shares in initial public offerings, will try to pry the information out with a subpoena.

Rep. Michael Oxley (R., Ohio) said Friday that a subpoena is necessary because Citigroup provided insufficient information about what, if any, special treatment its Salmon Smith Barney investing banking division may have given WorldCom executives. Salomon had been one of the now-bankrupt telecom's principal investment bankers.

The issue of whether Salomon may have doled out shares in some bull-market IPOs to WorldCom executives came up during a committee hearing last month into the accounting fraud at the big long-distance carrier. Citigroup maintains it would be an invasion of federal privacy law for it to provide that information without a subpoena.

Citigroup spokeswoman Leah Johnson said, "We will continue to cooperate with the committee."

Along with the letter, Citigroup claims to have delivered two boxes of records and information requested by the committee. Some of these documents include copies of internal emails that have been also turned over to federal regulators and the New York state attorney general's Office, which are conducting their own investigations into Grubman and Salomon's investment banking work.

But Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

World Trade Center Building 7 stood in the shadow of the North Tower. Inside the 47-story building: the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. On September 11 all of them escaped, but Building 7 was reduced to rubble. This week on "CyberCrime," an exclusive look into the hours, weeks, and months following 9/11 and how the US Secret Service was able to recover thanks to the largest cybercrime team in the country -- the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force (NYECTF).

"All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran -- the number three guy in that office. "We lost our network, we lost all our computers, we lost all the equipment that we use as Secret Service Agents. Everything from machine guns to our shotguns to our electronic equipment that we use."

But despite their physical losses, nothing could shake the field offices solid foundation. This week on "CyberCrime," you'll see how the members of the NYECTF came to the Secret Service's rescue. Watch as more than 50 law enforcement agencies, 200 corporations, and 12 universities donate tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and hundreds of volunteer hours to enable the US Secret Service's New York office become operational within just 48 hours of the attacks.

Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8

The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Center complex. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the complex. Willis undertook "frenetic" negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24. 9

After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, "the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies." This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack. 10

The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two "occurrences." The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers' discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers. 11 12

In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim. 13


DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week Kickoff—Bureaucracy to Battlefield
Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, The Pentagon , Monday, September 10, 2001

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.

A major insurance company is holding back from paying Larry Silverstein insurance money he says he is still owed from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the question is why?

Reuters is reporting:
Mr Silverstein, who leased the downtown site destroyed on September 11, 2001, claims Allianz still owes him $US553 million ($A708.57 million) and that a second insurer, Britain's Royal & Sun Alliance, owes him $US250 million ($A320.33 million). He said their reluctance had slowed rebuilding at the site.

Silverstein has making a great deal of noise this week out on the streets of Manhattan with a crowd of about 200 cheering construction workers chanting "We're going to make you pay!''

Silverstein has also been comparing his case to that of Gulf Coast homeowners who are suing for claims from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. "You can count on some insurance companies to look for every way they can think of to avoid paying up,'' he is quoted as saying.

The payment dispute arose when Silverstein agreed with New York's Port Authority on terms for the reconstruction of the new Freedom tower in April last year. Under the deal, he was granted permission to build the Freedom Tower but is required to hand it back to the Port Authority after completion.

Silverstein later filed a lawsuit in June, claiming that seven insurers had refused to provide assurances that their obligations to pay were unaffected by the April agreement. Silverstein has claimed that it is this that is holding up redevelopment at ground zero.

Allianz is now the sole remaining insurance carrier that has not affirmed they will pay out

The New York Times reported at the time:
But a lawyer for Allianz, which owes a maximum of $552.5 million at ground zero, said yesterday that the lawsuit was unnecessary, because a legal proceeding was begun nearly five years ago to determine exactly how much money is owed at ground zero under the terms of the insurance policy. He said that Mr. Silverstein was merely seeking a different venue for one of many issues now being debated in federal court.

At the end of two trials in 2004, a federal court decided that the insurers owed a maximum of $4.6 billion, more than the $3.5 billion term of the insurance policy. Silverstein had originally claimed $7 billion, attempting to prove that the crashing of the two planes into two towers constituted two separate events. The two sides have been locked in a grueling appraisal process to determine exactly how much of the $4.6 billion must be paid out.

A spokeswoman for Allianz has said that a mediation process between Mr Silverstein and the German insurer began yesterday. She said she had no further details.

Reuters further reports:
The Allianz spokeswoman said the insurer had already paid almost $US2 billion ($A2.56 billion) in claims from the World Trade Center disaster, settling with all its policy holders except for Silverstein and the Port Authority.

Ms Schwarzer said Allianz has paid Mr Silverstein and the Port Authority almost $US550 million ($A704.72 million) and that the developer had more than enough money in the bank to begin construction at the lower Manhattan site.

Silverstein is determined to rake in every last penny possible from 9/11 and has already secured billions from other insurers without a blink of an eye over the fact that he leased the property just six weeks before the attacks and has since been caught in an admission that he ordered at least one of the buildings, WTC 7, "pulled" on 9/11.

The basement of 4 World Trade Center housed vaults used to store gold and silver bullion. Published articles about precious metals recovered from the World Trade Center ruins in the aftermath of the attack mention less than $300 million worth of gold. All such reports appear to refer to a removal operation conducted in late October of 2001. On Nov. 1, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that "more than $230 million" worth of gold and silver bars that had been stored in a bomb-proof vault had been recovered. A New York Times article contained: 2
Two Brinks trucks were at ground zero on Wednesday to start hauling away the $200 million in gold and silver that the Bank of Nova Scotia had stored in a vault under the trade center ... A team of 30 firefighters and police officers are helping to move the metals, a task that can be measured practically down to the flake but that has been rounded off at 379,036 ounces of gold and 29,942,619 ounces of silver ..

Another article gave a figure of $650 million to the value of gold in the 4 WTC vault.
Unknown to most people at the time, $650 million in gold and silver was being kept in a special vault four floors beneath Four World Trade Center. The gold and silver were recently recovered.

An article in the TimesOnline gives the following rundown of precious metals that were being stored in WTC vaults belonging to Comex. 4

* Comex metals trading - 3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million
* Comex clients - 800,000 ounces of gold with a value of about $220 million
* Comex clients - 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million
* Bank of Nova Scotia - $200 million of gold

The TimesOnline article is not clear as to whether the $200 million in gold reported by the Bank of Nova Scotia was part of the $220 million in gold held by Comex for clients. If so, the total is $750 million; otherwise $950 million.

There appear to be no reports of precious metals discovered between November of 2001 and the completion of excavation several months later. It would seem that at least the better part of a billion dollars worth of precious metals went missing. It is not plausible that whatever destroyed the towers vaporized gold and silver, which are heavy malleable metals that are extremely unlikely to participate in chemical reactions with other materials.


May 18, 2009 – More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have
severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. It is outrageous that most Americans are entirely unaware of their publicly stated concerns -- a direct result of the refusal of national print and broadcast news organizations to cover this extremely important issue. There is no denying the credibility of these individuals or their loyalty to their country as demonstrated by their years of service collecting and analyzing information and planning and carrying out operations critical to the national security of the United States.

These 41 individuals formerly served in the U.S. State Department, the National Security
Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal
Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S.
Military. They are listed below by their branch of service.


Dear World Watcher,

As did millions of people on September 11, 2001, I recorded several hours of television news coverage at home on my vcr. At 6:55am pacific time (9:55 eastern time), a few minutes before the first Twin Tower collapsed, I began recording, flipping through the channels taping anything I thought was important.

While reviewing my 8 hours of tapes I made some obseravations:
# Eyewitnesses describe a 727, 737, or "the smaller plane" crash into the North Tower. Nobody describes it as a Boeing 767.

* At 11:07am (eastern time) CNN's Aaron Brown talks on the telephone with CNN's Alan Dodds Frank who is in lower Manhattan. Frank apparently reports that a third building collapsed at 10:45. He said it happened 15 minutes after the collapse of the North Tower (10:28) and a firefighter estimated 50 stories fell. When viewing this clip notice that Brown doesn't ask which building fell; why it fell; or, were there people in or around the building. When Frank is done with his report Brown casually moves on and changes the subject! Shortly after this conversation the clock underneath the CNN logo disappears and is never displayed again.

(One possible explanation for this mix-up is that the 47-story WTC #7 was scheduled to be blown up around the same time as the Twin Towers, but for some reason they postponed it to later in the day. Poor Mr. Frank wasn't informed of this last minute change of plan and he went on to read his well-rehearsed script at the wrong time.)

* Early footage of the Pentagon before the wall and roof collapsed. Firemen hose down the fire that can be seen inside the building through the windows. One guy with a broom is sweeping. (Where is the plane?)

# KTVU Channel 2 (local Oakland, Calif. station) correspondent Mike Majchrowitz reports live from the Pentagon. He says that a little after 10am the smoke seemed to be going down and then there was a set of explosions and it turned black again. He also says he hasn't yet seen an eyewitness to the crash.

* C-span interviews a Pentagon employee in her car. She says, "The building shook. I was in the building and that last bomb threat [sic] they just had, it shook the building. I left."

# CNN's Jamie McIntyre reports live from the Pentagon. He says there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon; no large sections of wing, tail, or fuselage visible.

* Clear views of the front of the Pentagon show a clean green lawn with no craters, skid marks, or plane wreckage. Many tall street lamps can be seen all over the place that don't appear to be broken or bent.

# Even though there is a freeway in plain view of the Pentagon explosion, in all my news footage from that day the only witnesses who claimed to see a plane crash were from over-the-phone reporters quoting nameless, faceless people – with one exception: CNN interviewed Mike Walter at the scene (close-up on his face) who said he was in his car stuck in traffic when he saw a plane fly by low and crash into the side of the building. He says parts of the plane are on the overpass. He also says, "And the toughest thing for me right now is I've got a 14 year-old daughter, and a lot of her friends have parents who work in the Pentagon. And I just talked to her on the phone and those kids are going through agony; they don't know if they're okay. So it's tough. I mean this really hits home." Walter shows signs of starting to cry. And by the way, Walter just happens to be a reporter for USA Today.

Also, the sentence from Walter's story "I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon" is excerpted and included, out of context, in the video "9/11 - In Plane Site" to help substantiate the theory that a missile (or "bunker buster") flew into the building. That's not really what he said.

(Just between you and me, I don't believe a plane, missile, helicopter, or UFO from the planet Krypton slammed into the Pentagon. I think old-fashioned bombs did it. This idea of a missile or "a hole in the Pentagon" is reminiscent of what Jim Garrison refers to as a "false sponsor" in his book On the Trail of the Assassins.)

# From a helicopter ABC News shows us the onlookers on the nearby overpass.

* The initial report of hijackers with knives and box-cutters on Flight 77 allegedly came from Barbara Olson using a phone on the plane. She just happened to be married to Solicitor General Ted Olson who argued President Bush's election case before the Florida State Supreme Court in 2000. What a small world.

# A witness, live, at the Trade Center adamantly tells a Fox News reporter that he saw everything and no second plane crashed into the South Tower, but a bomb had exploded.

How can somebody witness a Boeing 767 jet smash through a building and not know it was a plane?

# Look closely at the corner of the South Tower as Flight 175 blasts out of the building. Notice the massive damage.



That morning CNN showed us a close up view of the South Tower damage before the buildings collapsed (building to the left). With the exception of one small gash, the corner of the building is intact and unbroken. How can this be?

see YouTube clip above

Could this glaring contradiction be one reason why it was necessary to blow up the South Tower before the North Tower?

* Why was this obviously fake video clip (below) of Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower not aired until later in the evening, yet cameramen being chased by crumbling pieces of the Twin Towers had their footage aired within an hour or two?


# It is my contention that most of the witnesses interviewed throughout the day were actors, similar to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's description in chapter three of his book JFK. Some of these people gave startling eyewitnesses accounts of planes crashing into buildings, and others had more mellow accounts of what they experienced – anything to minimize the possibility of real people walking by and describing what really happened.

One person with a carrying bag appears to miss his cue when upstaged by a passerby Fox News wasn't expecting. The guy with the bag suddenly turns around and walks back toward the Trade Center, then turns around again and comes back for the interview.

In other interviews people say things that are ridiculous, and some even seem to be joking.

* After 5pm many of the news stations began airing video clips of the 47-story WTC #7 collapsing. Nobody bothers to mention that this was obviously a controlled demolition; no apparent damage to the building as it falls like a house of cards.

# Video footage of the Flight 93 crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania shows nothing but a ditch, smoke, and some broken trees.

* Fox News reporter Jeff Goldblatt interviews a photographer, live, at the Shanksville crash site. The photographer says all he could see was a 10ft. x 15-20ft. ditch and some broken trees. "Nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there."

# CNN shows close-up footage of the front side damage to the North Tower before the collapse. Much of the left side of the "airplane hole" is unbroken. Also, some of the building surrounding the damage seems to be splintering outward and not inward.

(Fake pictures on the internet show a larger and more believable hole in the building. They even added some people standing in the hole!)

* Wide shots of the city shortly after the collapse of the South Tower.

Did only one plane and one building cause this amount of smoke and dust we see pouring over Manhattan, or did something else cause this?

# Wide shots of the city shortly after the collapse of the North Tower.

Did only two planes and two buildings cause this amount of smoke and dust we see pouring over Manhattan, or did something else cause this?

* The words "pandemonium," "chaos," and "billows" are used profusely throughout the day by many of the news correspondents and witnesses. A witness who claimed to see the second plane crash into the South Tower describes: "Absolute pandemonium. . . I could see people running like ants."

Could these words, as used throughout the day, actually have some deep hidden meaning?




* CNN's Judy Woodruff looks into the camera and says, "And Aaron this may be another point when we want to say God bless the souls of those who have lost their lives today, or who are dying. As we speak, in hospitals and in places where they cannot be reached, I think even those out there who may not believe that there is a god, at a time like this we all reach out for a higher being and we want to believe that there is someone who can bring us salvation."

# We learn that that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a direct impact of a 707 jet.

Common sense tells us that much of the planes would have fragmented and fallen down the sides of the buildings. But instead, as with other planes that day, they seem to disappear.

# A close study of the video footage, especially frame-by-frame, reveals that the video shots of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers have been fabricated.


The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States that killed almost 3,000 Americans, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration has asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida's terrorist attack.

While the FSIA generally protects a sovereign state, there are exceptions under which its provisions can be invoked. Such interpretations are left largely to the courts to determine.

Families of the 9/11 victims, however, have expressed outrage over the Obama administration's filing. They regard the action as undermining the continuing fight on terror.

In August 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in dismissing the claim against Saudi Arabia. The dismissal covered the four princes, a Saudi banker and a Saudi charity. In addition, the appeals court said that the exceptions to immunity didn't apply since the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

There appears, however, to be a possible conflict in what the FSIA allows and a portion of a U.S. statute (28USC1605(a)) which states, in effect, that a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if the attack and funding for it occurred in the U.S.

"Although the United States disagrees in certain respects with the analysis of the court of appeals, further review by this Court to determine the best legal basis for that immunity is unwarranted," Kagan wrote.

Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who hijacked U.S. aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia and were affiliated with al-Qaida. Intelligence and past actions link the Saudi government and the four princes with al-Qaida.

"In effect, the U.S. Government announced its opposition to allowing 9/11 victims and their families full access to the U.S. legal system in (the government's) effort to protect Saudi Arabia and its princes from being held accountable for their role in the attack on the United States," said Peter Leitner, who has assisted terror victims' families successfully in suing terrorist organizations for the past 12 years.

"As power of Attorney for the family and estate of John P. O'Neill, former FBI (counter-terrorism) expert, I find it disgusting that the Obama administration has spat in the faces of these victims just as (Obama) prepares to leave for Egypt and Saudi Arabia while advocating for the closing of (the U.S. Guantanamo prison in Cuba) and giving full access to the U.S. court system to the terrorists currently imprisoned there," he said.


For more insights...if you have the stomach for it....see my posts...