Why hasn't Larry Silverstein been indicted?
A he signed 99 year lease (very little price tag) and insurance on which he attempted to claim double indemnity since both the North and South towers were demolished. Demolished, not destroyed, demolished just as Silverstein himself admitted WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers building) was "pulled" on the PBS
documentary. "There was so much loss and damage on that day the decision was made to 'pull' the building, so we pulled it."

Wait a minute there Larry... When, who, how, huh?
How long does it take to professionally WIRE a building with EXPLOSIVES and CUT load bearing steel framing and or core columns IF they are even EXPOSED to be able to be CUT to make said building drop at FREEFALL SPEED INSIDE ITS OWN FOOTPRINT? And you mean to tell us that between the first 'plane strike' and when the 'pulling' of building 7 that afternoon that a private company was able to do the weeks worth of work to professionally 'pull' and effectively DUSTIFY (as we saw with the North and South towers that morning)?
No?
Then it was the NYPD Bomb Squad?
No?
NYFD?
No?
3rd plane?
No?
Damage from TOPPLING of North and/or South towers?
No?
Damage from remains of planes that struck the North and/or South towers?
No?
No. So if none of the above caused significant enough damage to WTC7 (WTC 4,5 &6 sustained SIGNIFICANT damage from debris and fire and did not collapse or be determined to have to be pulled or demolished until much later) then why was building 7 'pulled'? Did you make that decision?




The BBC actually declared the building was destroyed on a broadcast showing a correspondent in New York and building 7 can clearly be seen standing in the background behind the correspondent.

Why hasn't Larry Silverstein been indicted?
A he signed 99 year lease (very little price tag) and insurance on which he attempted to claim double indemnity since both the North and South towers were demolished. Demolished, not destroyed, demolished just as Silverstein himself admitted WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers building) was "pulled" on the PBS
documentary. "There was so much loss and damage on that day the decision was made to 'pull' the building, so we pulled it."

Wait a minute there Larry... When, who, how, huh?
How long does it take to professionally WIRE a building with EXPLOSIVES and CUT load bearing steel framing and or core columns IF they are even EXPOSED to be able to be CUT to make said building drop at FREEFALL SPEED INSIDE ITS OWN FOOTPRINT? And you mean to tell us that between the first 'plane strike' and when the 'pulling' of building 7 that afternoon that a private company was able to do the weeks worth of work to professionally 'pull' and effectively DUSTIFY (as we saw with the North and South towers that morning)?
No?
Then it was the NYPD Bomb Squad?
No?
NYFD?
No?
3rd plane?
No?
Damage from TOPPLING of North and/or South towers?
No?
Damage from remains of planes that struck the North and/or South towers?
No?
No. So if none of the above caused significant enough damage to WTC7 (WTC 4,5 &6 sustained SIGNIFICANT damage from debris and fire and did not collapse or be determined to have to be pulled or demolished until much later) then why was building 7 'pulled'? Did you make that decision?




The BBC actually declared the building was destroyed on a broadcast showing a correspondent in New York and building 7 can clearly be seen standing in the background behind the correspondent.

been a topic here more than once, i suggest looking at some facts rather than the CT sites... the iron exoskeleton of the main building fell on it and severely damaged B7...

That is not true. It has been stated in many broadcasts the blg 7 was untouched by debris from the towers and was "pulled" due to fires.

I won't play into the CT scene on 9/11 but none of the official reports, even from the "commission", or the idiots at NIST, explains to my satisfaction what my eyes saw on that day.

I lost friends, some were badly injured and suffer to this day, and they don't agree with "official" findings. I wasn't there, they were, and if they don't believe, and my logical mind can't agree with the findings, suffice to say I have too many questions to just accept the official story.

It was a sad day and a surreal event that I feel should have caused a much more thorough investigation before the destruction and removal of evidence.

jmo

I thought the Topic was the "possible Suicide" of Insurance Executive who might have been involved in some sort of Insurance-Fraud connected with the Insurance of the destroyed WTC!

lol, he wouldn't give Silverstein all the billions he wanted... and it seems something was up in China as well...

And WTC7 specifically tells us the outcome of the 9/11 commission report cannot be the result of what they told us happened on that day. Buildings do not catch on fire and THEN get wired for demolition with other buildings burning and exploding around them. No company or government agency in the United States in one of the most densely populated areas of the WORLD (Manhattan) would allow explosives in large amounts to be taken to the scene of an active crime, fire, explosions, accident, or anything else that could have caused the sheer magnitude of destruction we saw that day before it was under control which we all know didn't happen until months later.

A building can however be wired and have the structure weakened in a deliberate and professional manner as it admittedly was, THEN catch or be set on fire. It cannot be explained in any other way given the admission that WTC7 was "pulled". Not legally, not logically, not realisticly, not at all. Check your facts. BBC, PBS and from the horses mouth. Larry Silverstein.

suicide or suicided?

Amid renewed public interest in determining the identities of all the culprits behind the 9/11 attacks, comes word that a second executive with one of the World Trade Center's insurers has died from "suicide."

Zurich Insurance Group's former CEO Martin Senn was reported to have shot himself at his vacation home near Davos in Switzerland. No suicide note was found by police. Senn resigned as CEO of the insurance giant last December after the company experienced losses from the still-unexplained large explosions in Tianjin, China, last August.

WMR reported on August 21, 2016: (2016??)

WMR's sources from throughout Asia are reporting the same thing: the massive August 12 explosion that completely obliterated the Binhai New Area of the special economic zone city of Tianjin appears to not have been the result of an accidental chemical explosion but from state-sponsored industrial sabotage. The initial explosion was followed by a series of other explosions, said to be from combustible materials stored in the port and warehouse area. Moreover, WMR's sources report that the nature of the initial shock wave and secondary fireball indicates that the conflagration may have been caused by a tactical nuclear bunker buster bomb hidden in a shipping container.

Our report continued:

Among the 117 deaths from the explosion were a number of firemen. Some 70 people, most of them firemen, remain missing with a fear that they were vaporized by the series of explosions. Some 800 people were injured in the blast. Damage to the surrounding area was extensive with more than 8,000 new cars from Hyundai, Kia, Volkswagen, Renault, and Toyota left as burnt-out shells from the explosion. Nearby metro train stations, a Japanese department store, and the National Supercomputing Center of Tianjin were damaged by the explosions. Tianjin is 75 miles east of Beijing.

Senn had spent time as an executive of the Swiss Bank Corporation from 1976 to 1994 in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo, more than enough time to build up a network of associates with a detailed knowledge of Asia, including China. Senn served as the honorary consul of the Republic of Korea in Zurich.

Zurich Insurance's payout to settle claims was the second such large expenditure for the firm in a little over a decade. Zurich was one of the insurers of the World Trade Center in New York and it, along with six other insurance companies, paid out $4.56 billion to the complex's lessee, Larry Silverstein.

Silverstein angled for an even larger payout from the insurance companies but was unsuccessful. It is known that the insurers conducted their own investigations of the culprits behind 9/11, which may have yielded different conclusions than those reached by the U.S. 9/11 Commission.

In August 2013, Zurich Insurance's then-chief financial officer, Pierre Wauthier, was found hanging at his home in Walchwil, in the canton of Zug, Switzerland, not far from Zurich. Wauthier previously worked for JPMorgan Chase. Police said the hanging "pointed to" a suicide. The insurance company conducted an investigation and determined that Wauthier was not suffering from stress as Swiss police contended.

In January 2014, Tim Dickenson, the communications director for Swiss Re, another World Trade Center insurer, died from unexplained causes in London. Swiss Re was one of the firms that experienced suspicious put options on its stock prior to 9/11 and which went toe-to-toe with World Trade Center lessee Larry Silverstein on settling insurance claims. Swiss Re, like Zurich Insurance, conducted its own investigation of 9/11 and both companies indicated that Silverstein was using the attacks and destruction of the WTC to bilk the insurance companies and make a handsome profit.

Senn's recent "suicide" once again proves the old axiom that "coincidences don't kill people but conspiracies do."

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/18295

And WTC7 specifically tells us the outcome of the 9/11 commission report cannot be the result of what they told us happened on that day. Buildings do not catch on fire and THEN get wired for demolition with other buildings burning and exploding around them. No company or government agency in the United States in one of the most densely populated areas of the WORLD (Manhattan) would allow explosives in large amounts to be taken to the scene of an active crime, fire, explosions, accident, or anything else that could have caused the sheer magnitude of destruction we saw that day before it was under control which we all know didn't happen until months later.

A building can however be wired and have the structure weakened in a deliberate and professional manner as it admittedly was, THEN catch or be set on fire. It cannot be explained in any other way given the admission that WTC7 was "pulled". Not legally, not logically, not realisticly, not at all. Check your facts. BBC, PBS and from the horses mouth. Larry Silverstein.

yep,real smart,inducing Fire into a Building that is prepared to be taken down with Explosives!
Sure preserves your Sequence!
Never heard of Explosives cooking off above a certain temperature?
Besides,there is no evidence that ANY of the Buildings have been structurally weakened!
Besides,you are way off Topic!

'Larry Silverstein, his unjust claim, the act that was the foundation of the claim and it's DIRECT connection to the topic is in the article Moe posted. Pointing out his foreknowledge unjustifying his claim and his complicity in the act is not off topic. It gives credence to the conspiracy that was also in the O.P.
There is proof that WTC7 was strategically weakened prior to being pulled as there is with the towers in the 45 degree cuts int the structural steel beams and the presence of thermite which is used to do exactly that. The NYFD describe the collapse as a series of booms (thermite charges also seen as tiny puffs going down the building ahead of above floors collapsing) "just like a demolition". Larry Silverstein confirmed it in a documentary on PBS. Are you telling Larry Silverstein who made the decision to pull the building that it wasn't pulled? He made it pretty clear.
As for the sequence, the charges aren't just set around file cabinets. They have to be on the steel columns themselves which are not visible from outside the building. Once whatever needed to be done inside WTC7 that morning was done, it didn't matter if a superficial fire was set or a separate explosion causing an externally visible damage as the building was just going to be pulled anyway. Logically there had to be some externally visible damage for the 'justification' for 7 to be pulled, though 3,4,5,and 6 were not. Of all the standing damaged burning buildings 7 was the least damaged. The reason WHY 7 was pulled would be the EXACT REASON Zurich Insurance would be at odds with LARRY SILVERSTEIN, THE FBI, THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
This makes the O.P. articles point that given the executive's connection and legal fight to deny double indemnity clause in the policy with Silverstein, there is very little likelihood that he committed suicide.

9/11 is in the title of the O.P. as is:
Zurich Insurance
2nd executive suicide
and connection to (9/11)

the only thing i agree with with is that he was sucided, but i think it had more to do with the Chinese explosion than 9/11...

Funny thing about confessions....
You don't have to agree with it for it to be the truth, or a fact.
There is such a thing as a false or coerced confession, but since this was not an interview or interrogation by law enforcement or congress or a judge. It was voluntary contribution to an official documentary on an educational network. The explosion in China was at least first reported as an accident, incorrect possibly, but largely viewed as negligence or just an accident. There was no zealot somewhere in a cave saying how much he hates China that they broadcast on major media to all their citizens. The likelihood is that both insurance execs were suicided there was just an 'accident' placed before the second execs death to divert attention away from the huge scandal of 9/11. The explosion in China wasn't a small thing by any means but it pales in comparison to 9/11 as every crime or act of terrorism since Dec 7th 1941. Hmmmm. A catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.... I've heard that somewhere before......
I digress. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with a fact, it's still a fact. Larry Silverstein wasn't in stripes, behind bars in an interrogation room or a courthouse. He could have declined to speak or deny they pulled WTC7. He admitted it. That is something every American needs to know and accept the implications of.
He knew.

you should look up what the difference between "truth and facts" and "opinions" are... everything you've said is your opinion, which i respect, but don't agree with...

When a historical event is discussed in a documentary film by a person who played a significant role in the lead up to the event holds a lease to the no longer existing property the event took place in and the eventual claim for insurance on said property and it airs on public television during that persons lifetime.... That pretty much means that it's a fact. Unless 9/11 is a figment of the world's collective imagination your constipation is clouding your judgments.
Watch the publicly broadcast PBS Documentary and the BBC broadcast on 9/11 WTC7 is reported to have collapsed before the order to pull it is given where it can still be seen in focus undeniably standing in the background. It is officially documented video recorded and archived fact.