Did al-Qaeda Blow Up WTC7 and the Government Cover It Up?

Much has been made that the BBC report about WTC7's collapse also came with an explanation that the collapse was caused by damage and fire.

On the surface, what's interesting about this is that it's the exact same conclusion that FEMA and the NIST came up with after years of "investigation." The BBC figured out instantly what the NIST still hasn't figured out 5+ years later.

However, what's even more incredible about this explanation is the context of this report.

This was a live report on 9/11/01. Terrorist had just taken out WTC1 and WTC2. The terrorist had just taken out the Pentagon. In 1993 terrorists tried to blow up the WTC with explosives. The African embassies were blown up with explosives. OKC was blown up with explosives. And the BBC had just aired a bit about how the British government was warning there could be more attacks in America.

So even in this context of multiple terrorist attacks on America, and the history of buildings being taken down by terrorists with explosives, the BBC report doesn't even *consider the possibility* that WTC7 was taken down by a terrorist bombing. It was already determined that WTC7 fell because of fire and damage, and not by bombs.


The real conspiracy isn't that they knew WTC7 was coming down -it was that somebody wanted to make sure the public did not even *consider* that WTC7 came down from another terrorist attack.

This would make sense if the government didn't want a complete panic to set in across the country. I.e., it was bad enough seeing the planes hit. If America also would have seen WTC7 blown up from terrorist planting bombs, it might have set off a widespread panic all across the country.

So maybe instead of the BBC report being evidence of U.S. complicity in the collapse of WTC7, it could instead be evidence of a cover-up of U.S. incompetence and to protect the U.S. from having the public believe that the terrorists pulled off an embarrassing attack on the FBI and CIA, which had their NY headquarters located in WTC7.

You went through all the trouble of registering just to post
this bull#?
You guys are so transparant, really.

this theory is laughable at best. According the 'the official story' the building DID collapse due to the terrorist attack, albeit indirectly. The gov't is not trying to cover up Al Qaeda responsibility for the building's destruction, they are trying to cover up their OWN responsibility.

Nick how did you manage to flag this thread twice?

Originally posted by Rotator
Nick how did you manage to flag this thread twice?

Thats also what i was wondering really, but, i didnt want to 'bump' this useless
thread lol.

[edit] now i just bumped this useless crap myself as well obviously but oh well,
hopefully people will just ignore this thread now and move along...

[edit on 28-2-2007 by zren]

Originally posted by freakyty
this theory is laughable at best. According the 'the official story' the building DID collapse due to the terrorist attack, albeit indirectly. The gov't is not trying to cover up Al Qaeda responsibility for the building's destruction, they are trying to cover up their OWN responsibility.

You're missing the point.

In 1996 TWA Flight 800 exploded just after taking off from NY. The FBI's initial investigation determined that there were residues of explosives at the spot where the plane exploded. Rather than reach the "official" conclusion that the plane was blown up by terrorists, the FBI went back and found a different explanation. They said a few weeks before the accident, bomb sniffing dogs accidentally knocked over some stuff in side the plane that left the residue. The point being that the FBI made sure that the public did not believe that a terrorist smuggled a bomb onto the plane.

On 9/11, WTC7 inexplicably suffered a total collapse 8 hours after the initial attack. Five years later, the NIST still hasn't been able to release a final report explaining how the entire building failed simultaneously. The debris from WTC7 was cleared out immediately and shipped to China and India before tests could be conducted, and without the steel beams being examined.

Why?

More importantly, *how* was the government able to determine that bombs were *not* used without doing a proper investigation and testing?

And even if you believe that bombs were responsible for WTC7 collapsing, how do *you* know who put the bombs there?

Wouldn't it be more likely that the FBI would want to cover-up the fact that the entire building was compromised right under their noses than to risk being caught blowing up their own offices?

[edit on 28-2-2007 by nick7261]

Originally posted by zren
You went through all the trouble of registering just to post
this bull#?
You guys are so transparant, really.

Do you believe WTC7 was a CD or collapsed due to fires and damage?

Can you add any intelligent commentary to the discussion, or is the extent of your contribution limited to posting not one, but two posts simply giving your opinion that this idea is bull#?

So tell me, why is it bull# to think that it might have been al-Qaeda that did the CD on WTC7? Or do you think it's bull# that WTC7 was a CD?

Originally posted by nick7261
This would make sense if the government didn't want a complete panic to set in across the country. I.e., it was bad enough seeing the planes hit. If America also would have seen WTC7 blown up from terrorist planting bombs, it might have set off a widespread panic all across the country.

Ok, say it was terrorists that were actually responsible for blowing up and taking down T7, could you go into more detail on how and why "widespread panic across the country" would set in? Why is the taking down of T7 such a massive trigger point for nation wide panic, and the takedown of the two tallest buildings in America did not trigger national widespread panic? What is it specifically, about T7, that would cause this panic?

No, Al-Qeada did not blow up WTC7. However, it was damaged by the collapse of the towers that Al-Qeada operatives flew into. There is no government coverup in NYC.

The only cover up there is is Flight 93, that was shot down. All this WTC smoke and mirrors and Pentacon rhetoric is nothing more than fodder to keep people from investigating us shooting down an airliner. They made those people into heroes, and closed the case. There are so many holes in that story it is pathetic.

However, everything is put upon the "demolition of the WTC7" and "thermite greades used in WTC 1 and 2". The truth is right in front of you but you choose to pursue and back wild claims.

They finished the job they did not complete in 93.

No, Al Qaeda as an organization does not and has never existed. It is a non-existent enemy.

Al Qaeda was nothing more than a database over known terrorists/terrorist groups in the Middle Eastern region.

Thus Al Qaeda, as an organization, cannot have done anything.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by nick7261
So tell me, why is it bull# to think that it might have been al-Qaeda that did the CD on WTC7? Or do you think it's bull# that WTC7 was a CD?

Well first off AQ never has claimed resposibility for WTC7. That alone speaks volumes as they are pretty good at claiming responsibility for the things they actually do. You are grasping at straws trying to prove something with no evidence by saying "why doen't anyone consider this" when there is no evidence in the first place to even make people consider it. AQ would be harping about it nonstop if they did it.

Originally posted by IronDogg


Ok, say it was terrorists that were actually responsible for blowing up and taking down T7, could you go into more detail on how and why "widespread panic across the country" would set in? Why is the taking down of T7 such a massive trigger point for nation wide panic, and the takedown of the two tallest buildings in America did not trigger national widespread panic? What is it specifically, about T7, that would cause this panic?

Maybe preventing panic isn't as strong a motive as saving embarrassment, or maybe "panic" isn't the best word to describe what I' talking about.

That said, it could be argued that if the public believed that the only damage came from the hijackings, then the solution to the problem is to change the security procedures at airports. The public would feel like the government was able to "fix" the problem.

If it was known that the very building that was home to the CIA and FBI was blown up by al-Qaeda bombs, then there would be no easy solution to prevent this from happening anywhere in the country, in any building, e.g., malls, office buildings, etc. The public would lose faith in the government's ability to protect anybody.

Either that, or the CIA and FBI would be too embarrassed to admit that al-Qaeda blew up their own building. Or maybe for "security" reasons, the FBI and CIA wouldn't want the details of the CD at WTC7 to become publicly known.

In any case, it makes more sense to me that al-Qaeda blew WTC7, and the government is covering it up, than to believe that the government blew WTC7.

After all, with WTC1 and WTC2 already going down, and the Pentagon being hit, what reason would the government have for taking down WTC7? If the government conspired to pull off 9/11, what reason would they have for risking the demolition of WTC7 when the theatrics of WTC1, WTC2, and the Pentagon were already more than sufficient to achieve their goals?

Originally posted by esdad71
No, Al-Qeada did not blow up WTC7.

How did you come to this conclusion?

More importantly, how did the government come to this conclusion without doing an investigation? Why is it that you can believe al-Qaeda finished what they started in 1993, but can't believe that al-Qaeda could have planted explosives in WTC7 to take out the FBI and CIA NY offices?

Originally posted by pavil
Well first off AQ never has claimed resposibility for WTC7. That alone speaks volumes as they are pretty good at claiming responsibility for the things they actually do.

The implication of this logic is that if a building blows up, or if a plane is hijacked, and al-Qaeda *doesn't* claim repsonsibility, then that means AQ didn't do it. That makes no sense. Further, with the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses, and the Pentagon hit, I don't think WTC7 would warrant a separate press release from AQ.

Most importantly, how would you know what AQ claimed or didn't claim?

You are grasping at straws trying to prove something with no evidence by saying "why doen't anyone consider this" when there is no evidence in the first place to even make people consider it.

First, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm suggesting a scenario that would be consistent with all the known evidence.

Yes, there is evidence that WTC7 collapsed in a way that looks like a CD. There is evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers took over the planes and crashed them. There is evidence that the 9/11 Commission, along with Sandy Berger, wasn't interested in finding out everything there is to know about 9/11. There is evidence that al-Qaeda has a history of blowing up buildings.

There is no hard evidence at all about what happened to WTC7 because all the evidence was destroyed by the government. Further, the BBC video shows that even before WTC7 collapsed, a conclulsion was reached that WTC7 died of natural causes (fire and damage) and NOT a CD. How could anybody know this at the time?

AQ would be harping about it nonstop if they did it.

Maybe, maybe not. This is just your belief. Now your asking that your belief be supported without evidence. Maybe it's just grasping at straws to rationalize that AQ couldn't have blown WTC7 just because they didn't harp about it non-stop.

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
No, Al Qaeda as an organization does not and has never existed. It is a non-existent enemy.

Al Qaeda was nothing more than a database over known terrorists/terrorist groups in the Middle Eastern region.

Thus Al Qaeda, as an organization, cannot have done anything.

www.youtube.com...

Thanks for the link!

Ok, so if you don't call the terrorists al-Qaeda, the scenario still applies with whatever you call the terrorists.

Originally posted by nick7261
The implication of this logic is that if a building blows up, or if a plane is hijacked, and al-Qaeda *doesn't* claim repsonsibility, then that means AQ didn't do it. That makes no sense. Further, with the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses, and the Pentagon hit, I don't think WTC7 would warrant a separate press release from AQ.

Most importantly, how would you know what AQ claimed or didn't claim?

While I really don't like AQ, I due give them high marks for telling the world when they do an attack. They take credit for all the attacks they do, it stands to follow that they would have taken credit for WTC7 if they had done it.

There is evidence that al-Qaeda has a history of blowing up buildings.

There is not evidence of AQ blowing up buildings in a CD fashion. They have used truck bombs for that as far as I remember.

Maybe, maybe not. This is just your belief. Now your asking that your belief be supported without evidence. Maybe it's just grasping at straws to rationalize that AQ couldn't have blown WTC7 just because they didn't harp about it non-stop.

Sigh..... Ok I'll try one more time. Every time AQ has done an attack they have pretty much immediately claimed responsiblity for it. It's not my belief, you can verify it by looking at past attacks and seeing them claim responsibility.

One thing, AQ is, is a very disciplined group of homicidal killers. They make it a point to make sure people know that they have done an attack. What good is terrorism if people didn't know you caused it? Just makes it look like a possible accident/natural cause.

OK, where did the AQ operative detonate the building from?

Originally posted by pavil

Sigh..... Ok I'll try one more time. Every time AQ has done an attack they have pretty much immediately claimed responsiblity for it. It's not my belief, you can verify it by looking at past attacks and seeing them claim responsibility.

This is faulty reasoning. How could you ever document terrorist attacks that al-Qaeda didn't claim responsibility for? Also, if I remember correctly, AQ did not claim responsibility for any of 9/11 initially.

One thing, AQ is, is a very disciplined group of homicidal killers. They make it a point to make sure people know that they have done an attack. What good is terrorism if people didn't know you caused it? Just makes it look like a possible accident/natural cause.

Generally speaking that's true. But there have been cases like the OKC bombing and Flight 800 case where it is *possible* that AQ was involved or connected. In these cases the government had incentive to cover up AQ involvement, if it existed. And in OKC there were numerous reports of bombs inside the building.

Plus, if the government wanted to cover-up AQ's theoretical involvement in WTC7, don't you think the government would try to surpress any AQ "confessions"?

Originally posted by esdad71
OK, where did the AQ operative detonate the building from?

How would I know????

I'm just putting this out there as a possible scenario. Maybe they had an operative that infiltrated the CIA or FBI, or maybe one of the FBI informants from al-Qaeda was working both sides, like Ali Mohammed did. Maybe the charges could have been set with a timer?

Why does this matter in terms of the overall theory?


Here are the choices:

a) WTC7 collapsed from the fire and damage. Imo, that dog doesn't hunt as they say. Every vertical support in the entire structure collapsed simultaneously. The NIST's preliminary explanation is that a critical vertical collapse initiated a horizontal failure, that triggered a universal vertical collapse. That explanations defies common sense.

b) Some sort of CD occurred, either set by the arab terrorists or,

c) by the government.

Imo, it is at least equally reasonable to believe that AQ set the explosives and the government wanted to cover this up, than it is to believe that the government blew up the building themselves.

If it can be shown that the entire instantaneous failure of every vertical colummn was the result of damage to the south face and fires, then the whole CD theory is a moot point. However, the NIST has had 5 years to show this and they haven't been able to.

Therefore, until a) can be shown or at least reasonably described, we're left with b) or c).

Originally posted by nick7261

This is faulty reasoning. How could you ever document terrorist attacks that al-Qaeda didn't claim responsibility for? Also, if I remember correctly, AQ did not claim responsibility for any of 9/11 initially.

Are you disputing that AQ in general, does not claim responsibility for the attacks they carry out? Relatively soon after Sept. 11 there surfaced the tapes of Bin Laden talking about the attacks, which I'm sure you will dispute their origin. Tell me once where a major attack attributed to AQ, has not been claimed eventually by AQ.