"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."
You claimed the possibility WTC 7 was destroyed to eliminate incriminating materials.
Either it was planned to be destroyed ahead of time in order to get rid of the incriminating documentation, rather than simply shredding it, or it was not planned and the site was presumed to be safe - despite the planned destruction of the neighboring 110-story building - and therefore the conspirators sent in personnel with hundreds of pounds of explosives into a damaged, burning 47-story building and successfully prepared it for controlled demolition in a few hours. Or, alternatively, the demolition was not planned but the building was prepared for demolition anyway - again with nobody noticing.
Your story. I'm just pointing the insanity of any of its versions.
No
your story not mine.
Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7. Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"? You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood? You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?
I'm pointing out possible scenarios of why they took it down not exactly how. That was the OP.
Here's another twist.
Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.
Now read this…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=auaBMcR5LnA4&refer=top_world_news
"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury said the owner of the World Trade Center was legally responsible in the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.
The civil trial jury today found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent liable for the attack, in which terrorists detonated explosives in a rented van in the 400-car garage under the former twin towers. The terrorists were 32 percent liable, the jury said."
That's right. Port Authority 68% liable Terrorists 32% liable. Are you telling me there is no interest from anyone to downplay or dismiss out of hand secondary explosions? Planes make it no fault.
Now how fast did Silverstein collect on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, the buildings he held leases on?
Let's read....
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/05/world-trade-center-insurance-settlement.php
World Trade Center insurance settlement reached
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Almost six years later. And what were they all so concerned with…?
“Spitzer's office said that the settlement, which was the biggest obstacle to reconstruction at the World Trade Center site, "will save additional tens of millions in legal costs and allow the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties to focus on rebuilding at Ground Zero." Prior litigation has cost Silverstein and the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. “
Now what if WTC7 is on fire and severely damaged and maybe about to fall on another building which will also be costly. The building has severe damage to one side that maybe was caused by the falling towers or maybe more damage from an explosive device. Or better yet maybe the building might have been breaking some fire codes …
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001
New York Times
“Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.”
Some people might consider taking it down before the building collapses into another building or causes an additional disaster but there’s a problem. You don’t have the time to inspect for sure if it’s going to fall to determine that. If you do purposely take it down and admit to it the insurance companies might dispute that it was necessary. If you don’t take it down it might be determined it was damaged from more then just fire and collateral damage from the plane attack on the towers in which case the Port Authority might be held liable or some broken fire codes discovered partly to blame. An added factor to all of this is an unsecured building with 10 stories of broken open windows and possible documents blowing out those windows from the Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, etc. etc. and you can’t go in and retrieve anything quickly because it’s on fire and might collapse at any time.
What do you do? Whatever it is you better decide quick.
An added note to all of this is the Airlines and the box cutter story.
February 11, 2004: Hijackers Said to Use Short Knives, Not Box Cutters
It is reported the 9/11 Commission now believes that the hijackers used short knives instead of box cutters. The New York Observer comments, “Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane [Flight 77]. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.” [NEW YORK OBSERVER, 2/11/2004] It was publicly revealed in late 2002 that box cutters were illegal on 9/11. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11/11/2002]
And guns…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641
FAA covering up 9-11 gun,
whistleblower agent says
Claims feds, American Airlines fear lawsuits; Flight 11 victims' families want Hill probe
And bombs…
(9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Passenger Jeremy Glick Describes Hijackers, Bomb
“Glick says the hijackers claimed to have a bomb, which looked like a box with something red around it. Family members immediately call emergency 9-1-1 on another line.” - [TORONTO SUN, 9/16/2001; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 10/28/2001; LONGMAN, 2002, PP. 143; MSNBC, 7/30/2002]
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/911.call/index.html
Hijacked passenger called 911 on cell phone
September 11, 2001 Posted: 11:35 PM EDT (0335 GMT)
"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.
All of these stories were downplayed to reduce liability of the FAA and the Airlines. Everything that is downplayed or omitted in an investigation is just added fuel to conspiracy theories.
