WTC7 is the main reason why people believe 9/11 was an inside job, referring to it as the “smoking gun of 9/11”. They believe it was a controlled demolition because it looked like one (I also thought this).
Nonetheless, there is no hard evidence yet that WTC7 was a CD. There is only the fact that it looked like one (plus added speculation to help bolster this viewpoint). Yes, I still contend WTC7 looked like a CD…but does this mean it really was one?
The answer is no because logically it could not have been. Here's why.
#1. If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare.
Interestingly, CD expert Danny Jowenko stated it might have been possible for a team of experts to have quickly prepped the building for CD the day of 9/11. Yet when he was then told that WTC7 had been on fire all that day, he went silent in bewilderment, for he then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was.
#2. If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11.
I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:
…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby
…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).
So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).
However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….
…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….
…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?
For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible.
In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD.
For it to have been controlled demolition means our hypothetical perpetrators would have known their plan was dependent upon #3 and #4 taking place, but these were not givens. One might argue they could have ensured #3 happening (i.e., destroy the towers by CD “also”), but no one could possibly have known the extent of #4 (ensuing damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers) that would be needed to take place sufficiently for their “cover story”. Therefore, "they" would have known "their plan" was severely flawed from the beginning and would not have carried it out; thus "their plan" would have become "non-existent", and this is why "they are non-existent".
There is no crystal ball, and there was no supposed plan to bring WTC7 down by CD. To think otherwise beggars the imagination, and the plausibility of WTC7 being a CD makes no sense logically.
Think about it.
Your thoughts are welcome.
