One question that gets asked alot by skeptics, is why did they want to destroy WTC7, and if WTC7 was a controlled demolition, why did the perps plan it for 5:20 p.m., almost 7 hours after the collapse of WTC1?

Obviously without the testimony of someone involved, we can only add speculation to what actually unfolded behind the scenes on 9/11.

Dealing with motive for destroying WTC7 first, we don't know and can only make an educated guess.

A list of reasons that have been offered would include these;

insurance money
major theft
complete destruction of evidence of 'command and control' of twin towers strikes
as the 3rd largest building in the WTC complex to collapse, additional shock & awe
destruction of the SEC investigation files

New York Post, Wednesday, Sept.12, 2001

Q Why did they do such an obvious controlled demolition if all the destruction was supposed to look like the natural result of the aircraft attacks?

A Because they hadn't planned on anyone seeing the collapse! The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup. They never planned to trigger the job at 5:20 p.m!

This scenario has it that the collapse of WTC7 was planned to occur under the debris cloud from the falling WTC1
and be blamed on the WTC1 collapse.



Hidden by that massive debris cloud, a controlled demolition of WTC7 would be well masked while guaranteeing the total destruction of WTC7 and it's contents..unlike a topple which would produce far less predictable results.

Something went wrong and they failed to trigger the demolition in time with the WTC1 collapse.

That obviously presented two problems.

They had to finish the job (CD WTC7) and they had to have some kind of explanation to account for it's collapse.

Once they corrected the technical glitch with the CD setup, they allowed time for the debris damage and fires to build a case for the re-planned collapse.

Q Back to the question, why did they wait until 5:20 p.m.?

A Faced with a new countdown to the demolition, It would have raised more immediate questions if they hadn't waited?

Let it burn unfought for several hours and establish a probable cause, even if a weak one for it's collapse.

Thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media very few people ever noted the collapse of WTC7.

Thanks to the Internet it came to world attention.

Q Why not wait until after dark when the 'telltale' symmetry and speed of the controlled demolition of WTC7 would not be visible?

A The simple answer is, it was a salvage job, they never planned to do the job after WTC1 collapsed.

Another reason was that on Sept.11, 2001, the sun set in New York City at 6:11 p.m.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php

As the sun began to set the lack of flames behind the veil of smoke on the south face would become too apparent.



The 'believed to be' towering inferno would gradually become a darkened 47-story empty tower with possibly a few flames licking out of the odd window here and there.

The "emperor's new clothes" would be revealed and the total collapse of a building with such limited visible fire would have made even the most corrupt engineer visibly squirm in any attempt to suggest natural causes.

So on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., we all watched, and they "pulled it."





"The debris generated by the collapse of WTC 7 spread mainly westward toward the Verizon building, and to the south... The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and
implosion." - FEMA (05/02)


MM

Who killed John O'Neal attempts to explain that one pretty well.

The plane that went down in Shanksville was supposed to hit wtc7. Something went wrong eg it was shot down.

Why was it shot down if it was part of the conspiracy?

MM, there's a couple of things in your post that you get wrong that I want to correct and a few questions I have

Firefighters at the scene determined the building was going to collapse several hours before collapse. If this is such a weak probable cause, why did it convince firefighters with training and experience?

It has been well established (apparently not with you!) that 'pull it' doesn't mean 'destroy with explosives'. No quote has ever been sourced to indicate this and several calls to controlled demolition experts have resulted in them describing 'pulling' as actually physically pulling a building over with cabling. Larry Silverstein also says he was talking to the Fire Department, that they made the decision and again Daniel Nigro gave the order to evacuate and he says he did not consult Silverstein about this.

There has actually been a reasonable amount of data recovery from the ruins of WTC7. I have seen various quotes from companies who have recovered data from hard drives found in the rubble. Wouldn't a better way to destroy SEC files simply be to set a series of intense fires where they were stored? Perhaps remove them from filing cabinets first? Hard drives have a very low chance of surviving a fire, CDs are plastic and will be destroyed immediately, so will paper. Why would they destroy a building just to destroy a few files?

I hate one sentence replies that tease without attempting to explain.

Rather than forcing viewers to sit through that "Brad Pitt psycho" style video "Who Killed John O'Neill, why not just provide a brief summary of how it supports your statement?

Don't get me wrong though, that video was well done and extremely well written. I found it's style of presentation to be very hard on my nerves which made it difficult to watch to it's conclusion.

MM

Well just like my explanation, the Shankesville plane supposedly destined to hit WTC7, is another theory.

I haven't adopted it as the best theory because it seems weaker and more complicated overall than the one I proposed. Not that it can't be valid.

The two points about the Shankesville theory that bother me the most are the fact that WTC7 was not as easy a target as the twin towers (and pilots have testified that the twin towers were not easy either) and that WTC7 was clearly wired for a classic, from the bottom, controlled demolition.

If the intent had been to hit it with an aircraft, one would assume a similar style of planned collapse to what was observed with WTC 1 & 2.

There's also the speculation that WTC7, because of it's great twin tower sightlines, as well as it's more controversial tenants, was being used as a base for 'command and control' of the attacks and demolition control of the twin towers. If this was true, any planned aircraft attack on WTC7 would require too much idle time in the air for the attacking aircraft.

MM

You are entitled to correct my factual errors only.

You may have gained a greater respect for science in your later schooling (as you indicated in another post), but you have a ways to go before you learn to contain your arrogance.

As you well know, this is old ground that has been covered many times. Based on the numerous quotes taken from the fire fighters, the majority repeated a probable collapse opinion based on what they were told by senior NYFD personnel.

No person on the scene, prior to 9/11 had ever heard of, or experienced one, let alone three, modern concrete and steel highrise buildings performing complete, high speed collapses as an end result of fire.

Even if we accepted the validity of their collapse expectation, not a single "trained and experienced" firefighter expressed a belief that all of the city block area, 47-story WTC7, standing almost 7 hours after being hit by WTC1 debris and containing unfought fires, would within the space of approximately 14 seconds be lying roughly in it's own footprint.

Apparently, you have no sense of humor.

I never mentioned Silverstein in my post, even though I paraphrased words he used. I suspected people like yourself would immediately leap on my expression and use it as a means to open up the old Silverstein "pull-it" controversy. Too funny. I have no wish to re-open that discussion in this thread and I never sourced him as the basis for that comment. So get over it.

Source with some substance please?

I could just as easily say; "I have seen various quotes from companies who say they were involved in rigging WTC7 for controlled demolition".

The total collapse of WTC7 doesn't preclude the idea that valuable data and evidence were not deliberated destroyed prior to the event. The collapse not only was extremely destructive but it did an excellent job of eliminating evidence of any previous nefarious activity withing WTC7.

MM

i wonder who invented this "theory" (term used very lightly)?

proof for the claim please?

I have also big problems with the towering inferno quotes and the quotes that the firemen expected it to collapse. Of course if one person tells you it will collapse then it goes round as a fire and soon everyone will accept that official story especially at 9/11 where 1000s of people were killed, we all remember how we felt shocked that day, but Craig Bartmer (a fireman) for example totally didn't expect the collapse although he said that they've seen the structural damage, this is taped on video. He also mentioned a blast and that he knows how an explosion sounds. And there more testimonies of the sound of explosions before the collapse, wasn't there even a guy who heard the count-down ? How do we handle conflicting testimonies? This is not a simple matter of counting the yes and no ones.

I'm entitled to correct any errors I see MM, whether my corrections are valid or not, or substantial or not is up to the people reading it to decide :)

This is a rather snide attack but I am unable to judge whether it has substance. I admit I may well be arrogant on occasion without realising it and if I do so and offend you I am sorry. I do my best to be dispassionate and view things without an ego but it is likely impossible for me to detect when I am not doing so.

Anyway, on to the points!

Yes, that person is Daniel Nigro: http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Do you believe him to have lied or be 'in on it'?

This is correct.

This is simply moving the goalposts. Of course nobody predicted the collapse to that accuracy, what we do know is that they most certainly predicted collapse. Now you can equivocate all you like about how far you'd like to move goalposts but demanding an ever greater level of evidence is a well known fallacy.

There is no other source MM, you and I both know what you meant by that and I love how you respond to being called on adding a false claim to your post with "get over it". You yourself admit you paraphrased his words even though there's absolutely no evidence his words implicate anyone.

You could, but then you would be lying. I was on a mobile connection at the time as you know and it was pretty hard to search. Even now I can only find talk from a j911s paper as it seems the company involved (at least the one mentioned in the paper) has changed its homepage: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...eRecoveries.pdf

My point is that one opinion from a superior easily becomes multiplied into the appearance of many opinions once adopted by subordinates.

I believe either WTC 5 or 6 was also stated as "expected to collapse" that day, but neither of them did.

Was he lying?

Any person in such an a influential position (fire chief), is a potential target for those who might wish to propagate a particular belief.

If Guiliani or someone of equal importance spoke to him. If they voiced concerns about how terrible it would be if another group of firefighters tragically lost their lives while fighting the WTC7 fires, and "how bad it would be for the city", I don't think it would be too surprising if he cooperated rather facing the possible risk to his men and his career.

He couldn't just tell his brave firefighters to quit because he didn't want them to risk getting hurt. He needed to give them a reason they could accept ..and he did.

Silverstein for one, is on the record as saying he pre-authorized stopping any further attempts to fight the WTC7 fires.

Moving the goalposts?

NO.

I'm not saying I accept their "collapse expectation".

I'm just saying that even if you did accept it, it still doesn't fit what actually occurred or provides even an hint that they were expecting what actually occurred.

There is no other source?

I am the source. It was my expression.

Silverstein was not quoted and just because I used 2 words that he happened to make infamous, doesn't mean I can't choose them as well. "pull-it" has entered into the 9/11 lexicon whether you like it or not. It had the desired effect. It produced the typical 'kneejerk' response evidenced in your reply. Too funny.

The point is, I didn't lie, and you can't be expected to have your vague remembrances accepted as rebuttal.

I read through that PDF you provided regarding hard drive recoveries. It amounts to little more than saying attempts were made by a German company to recover data relating to possible fraudulent financial transactions occurring on 9/11, and refers only to the WTC Twin Towers.

There is no reference made to WTC7.

There is no mention of anything relating to the SEC Investigation, and there isn't even any mention of whether or not they had success recovering a single byte of data.

MM