Reply #11: The frantic debunking is amusing.

[petgoat]

I see bolo hearing alarm bells, leaping into his boots, pulling up his pants
and sliding down the pole--the first responder from Texas to respond to the
crisis. Twelve minutes. Not bad.

Hey, either the story checks out or it doesn't. He said the countdown was
broadcast on the radio. If so, others would have heard it too. There will
be verification or there won't. What's the rush to judgment? Who's got time?

What surprises me most about the WTC7 story is the rush for the Industrial Risk
Insurers to pay out $861 million--before the FEMA report was in.

You'd think that a number of interesting questions would have held up payout:

Whether the collapse was caused by the fires or by structural damage

Were the insurers of the towers liable for fire or structural damage?

Were the firefighters justified in abandoning the building?

Was the transfer-truss design inherently flawed so the engineers were at fault?

Was the fuel tank system improperly designed, installed, or maintained?

Was the alarm system company negligent in leaving the fire alarms in "TEST" mode
since six a.m., hampering the ability of the firefighters to identify the
location of the fires?

I would think a couple of million dollars investigating these questions might
have been justified.

At the time, IRI was a subsidiary of General Electric, the largest defense contractor
in the world. http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_news&id=30761

It's tempting to speculate that top GE management preferred not to piss off the
federal administration with a lot of pesky questions about sich a piddly-ass matter
as $861 million. GE currently has a market cap of $370 billion, revenues of 161 billion,
and cash of 62 billion.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GE

I would imagine that some of the people IRI employed as investigators were surprised at
and disappointed in the premature payout.

That IRI has been sold to Swiss Re makes the question of what was their rush to pay out
moot, at least to GE shareholders, I suppose, who otherwise would have been justified in
questioning management about the issue at shareholders' meetings.

The possibility that the conflicting stories about WTC7 have been motivated by the desire
to obscure issues involving financial liability is one I have not seen discussed in the
911 Truth movement.





(edited to add cartoon about bolo and remove some wordprocessing artifacts and
add info about GE and IRI)