Remarkable how quickly WTC 7 was rebuilt and with so little notice in the press

[JohnyCanuck]

9/11 in Perspective – Flight 93 & WTC7

SNIP

It is very important to pay close attention to the lack of public, official and media attention to WTC7. Most people do not know that there even was a WTC7. Most people don’t know the circumstances surrounding its collapse and have never seen a video of the collapse. Most people don’t know that this building has already been rebuilt! This may very well be because those involved did not want to draw attention to this building! Such publicity may have caused people to ask about a building so blatantly ignored on that fateful day. And, if they knew, they may have started poking around for answers to the obvious questions! You would also think that rebuilding the first WTC structure would have been a loud statement to the so called terrorists. You would think it would stand out a symbol of American strength and resolve. And yet the reconstruction of this building went on and was completed with a virtual media blackout and to the surprise of anyone who eventually finds out about it.

It is equally vital to ask these questions: if construction of the new WTC7 was started in 2002 and completed in May of 2006, “when was the replacement building originally planned?” How long does it take to draw up the plans and actually build a 52 story building, especially in the footprint of damage done on 9/11? How long does it take to prepare for this kind of construction from the time you decide to build?

Let me repeat this as I scream as loud as I can: Construction for a 52 story building started less than one year after there was no reason to plan the project! How long does it take to come up with a design, arrange all the legalities, settle the insurance and arrange for the actual construction! Why wasn’t the rebuilding of this national historic symbol celebrated? Why didn’t FOX News taunt the terrorist with this as a sign of American resolve and as a sign that they did not beat us? Is it possible that this building plan had been initiated prior to the events of 9/11? Is this yet another smoking gun? I think it is!

snip

One thing we must all admit at this time is that there are elements of the official 9/11 story that just do not add up; period, end of story. In that light, I ask the citizens of my country to stop fighting over speculation and start examining the big picture because the big picture may provide a clue as to how the smaller pieces of evidence fit together! Think about it!

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=573

[greyl]

1. Junk article whose author praises Mike Rivero and is based on asking stupid questions.

I'll deal with the stupid questions that the author is "screaming as loud as he can" and that you highlighted in the OP: "How long does it take to draw up the plans and actually build a 52 story building, especially in the footprint of damage done on 9/11? How long does it take to prepare for this kind of construction from the time you decide to build?"

This is questioning based on plain ignorance of the subject and used as a sinister insinuation. The author must not be genuinely interested in understanding the issue, for the answers to the stupid questions can be found easily. Spreading sensationalized bullshit is what TvNewsLIES does.

www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/index.htm#General%20News%20Sites

[JohnyCanuck]

2. What I find more interesting

is how the corporate media whores appeared to take so little notice of this symbolic act of US defiance in the face of the underhanded and dastardly terrorists.

[greyl]

4. More sinister insinuation.

I assume you're referring to this stupid question:

"Why didn’t FOX News taunt the terrorist with this as a sign of American resolve and as a sign that they did not beat us?"

I'm not sure that they didn't. I'm not aware of everything said on the air May 23, 2006. Are you?
Have you done any research into it? And, so what if they didn't taunt the terrorists with the re-opening of a commercial building? Are you implying "they" meant to keep it hush hush and hope nobody would notice? What lurks behind the sexy veil of your sinister insinuation, if anything?

It looks like Foxnews was busy staying in character trying to attack the left, namely Murtha.
However, they did have at least one online story about the opening of 7 World Trade Center and the celebratory concert featuring Suzanne Vega and Lou Reed.

[Jester_11218]

13. Hey bigshot...I am the author...

First of all you are rude. Second of all take more than a minute to find out about the author.

Next...I have an open challenge to anyone who wants to discuss either media deception or the events of 9/11. You want to trash me...do it in public so that I can retort in public.

Next time if you think someone is wrong...correct them. Don't mouth off from a safe haven.


Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org

[MervinFerd]

3. Dumb.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. What lurks behind my insinuation?

Basically that the mainstream media are tools of corporations and cannot be trusted to tell the truth if it is emabarrassing to government and/or corporate intersts. Therefore it is a mistake to take anything they say at face value. For further explanation see see post #14 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x144882

[greyl]

6. Fine, don't take anything the MSM says at face value.

Just don't forget to hold that standard for alternative media as well.
How can you learn to discern truth from truthiness and honesty from fraud? Living by the rule that the MSM always lies and alt media is the only place to find the truth will surely lead you down some worthless paths. Improve your critical thinking skills and familiarity with logical fallacies, and you can approach information from all sources with healthy skepticism.

[CJCRANE]

7. Good question.

Since 9/11 itself I've been following as many political and 9/11 related stories as I can (and have an interest in architecture - my father is an architect) including the so-called "Freedom Tower" but I have NEVER heard one word about WTC7 or its reconstruction in the MSM (except for the BBC's debunking doc the other week).

[JackRiddler]

8. False premise

Even if they started drawing blueprints for "Seven WTC 2nd Edition" on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001 (or hiring an architect to adapt already existing blueprins) this would demonstrate nothing other than callousness and greed. Legalities, insurance and hiring the builders can all be done simultaneously. To paraphrase Hemingway, large aggregations of capital are not like you and me; they are accustomed to making decisions about very large matters in mere moments, given how timing can make a difference of millions and billions. (Otherwise the movements of stock markets would be glacial.)

Further, as a frequent visitor to the site I can tell you actual construction did not begin until late 2003 or early 2004. How is this proving anything?

[CJCRANE]

9. Good point.

But there still remains the media blackout about anything to do with WTC7 to be explained.

[JackRiddler]

10. Except there wasn't a media blackout

Low interest is different from no coverage. In 2002 forward, I read small pieces about the WTC 7 insurance claim being paid off, the plans to rebuild it, the cornerstone breaking, and then increasingly more coverage as it started going up. People just weren't too interested until 2005 when it was sort of all at once realized that one of the 9/11 buildings would be replaced. A glossy brochure ran 2006 in the NYT, reading: "To Those Who Make Their Own Opportunities" -- "Your Office is Ready." The first tenant to rent space was the Chinese government, though this seems to have fallen through.

[CJCRANE]

11. I think you mean the national MSM

wasn't interested. That doesn't mean the people aren't interested.

Also, didn't much of the scrap steel from WTC1 & 2 get shipped to China? If so, it's kind of appropriate that they were first in line to get back into the WTC complex.

[JackRiddler]

12. Yes.

Low MSM interest. But not a "blackout," since the info was not suppressed. And in fact as the building opened there was very big interest for a few weeks.

I don't know what you mean with WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 was cleared first, legally on a separate lot, ownership issues resolved (Silverstein bought out the Blackstone interest; Port Authority was not involved), got the insurance, could be built, was therefore built. No big struggle as with the main site over what "should" go there, or how the world needs to see something as big or bigger than the Towers to make up for the loss, or which agency of the state or city should take the lead, or the other political obstacles involved with GZ (keep in mind PA still owns the GZ land).

Smaller buildings at this site in fact are going to be the lucrative ones, so building WTC 7 fast as possible while maneuvering around how to split up the expenses of the main GZ is the right business move.

[Jester_11218]

14. It is not a premise

It is a question

[Jester_11218]

16. You know this for a fact?

Or are you just proclaiming an answer?

Do the research...find out EXACTLY when this specific building plan was initiated and then speak.

I asked a question...I did not answer the question in the article. I find it disturbing that people like you set lower requirements for qualifying your opinions on other peoples' research and analysis.

You may blurt out a "theory" to debunk an observation. How stupid is that?

[Jester_11218]

15. ALL - Pay attention

As I said in the article:

The explanations given to the 9/11 research community by the people who like to “debunk” this evidence always follows the same pattern and always are hit and run piecemeal explanations. To my knowledge, nobody has ever debunked the entire body of evidence, that, along with the physical record include means, motive and opportunity as well as suspicious comments and actions. There is a big picture here and this issue must be discussed in a similar scope.

Some of you are doing exactly what I said. You are taking one or two pieces if information and "debunking" something. There is a big picture here...discuss all the anomalies and suspect activity. The collective analysis may be may be greater than the sum of its parts.

Jesse

[Grateful for Hope]

17. kick n/t