WTC7 Contingency Plan

With all the 911 conspiracies, some interesting, some ridiculous, I still cannot wrap my head around WTC7. The building clearly looks like a controlled demolition. But that would mean our government planned 911 months in advance. For what sinister reason? Well, maybe there is a reasonable alternative motive for such planning? Suppose you have in that building a major CIA operation and offices. What if just a handful of thugs took over the building? Or, a boat full of foreign operatives landed on shore and ran a couple of blocks and took it over? Then what? All of our national secrets would be at risk. Might the CIA had a backup planned built into the building for such an event? Like built in charges or chemicals to bring the building down if such a threat developed. Maybe this is what happened. This just came to me today. I'm hoping others can add to the theory. Please flag this and keep it alive.

Like most I've got questions about 9/11 that remain troublesome to me to this day. Among those questions is the collapse of WTC7.

I find a certain logic to your theory. Your idea is certainly more plausible than holographic planes or nuclear detonations.

My thoughts are that Bldg #7 'had to come down' to destroy existing records of ongoing investigations, i.e. Enron, (oh dear my mind went dry) but to perhaps even destroy some of the plans the Gov't had for the carrying out of 911.

As well as 'confidential' papers, perhaps there were some remote control devices in the bldg, or perhaps because it was said no one died in that building (?) but Barry Jennings said he was stepping over bodies and the first 8 floors were gone----- it was to cover that up (then Jennings was killed.)

Once the 2 towers were taken down, there was a wide open space for yet another airplane attack on Bldg 7 (Flight 93?) but it was shot down and never showed up.

Bldg #7--the coup de graisse for the perpetrators--already wired for demolition, for sure!

reply to post by canadiansenior70I would'nt be surprised if the building were wired for demolition while they were being built. The debunkers still cling to the belief that it would have been impossible to rig the buildings without being seen. Really? Certainly the men who planned the construction of the world trade center complex contemplated the eventual destruction as well. That would just be part of the job for any 'worth his salt' city planner.

reply to post by dillweed


WTC 7 was built in 1987 almost 15 years before 9/11

Explain how

(1) the explosives are still operable after this many years. Exposives have a "shelf life" - exceed it and either
they fail to expode or even worse go off unexpected

(2) Several people i have worked with are computer/network techs who worked at WTC 7 and were there that day
had access to the wiring closets So how did the mass of wiring needed escape everyone's attention for all those
years ?

Usual delsuional conspiracy lunacy at work......

WTC 7 contained files on Enron and the case against Enron was picking up momentum around the time of 9/11. It would be like if a building suddenly collapsed right now and we found out it contained a wealth of information about Murdoch's hacking scandal.

reply to post by Mentorman

With all the 911 conspiracies, some interesting, some ridiculous, I still cannot wrap my head around WTC7.

Which ones are ridiculous, and why?

When Project Hammer is considered, the ridiculous becomes the most realistic.

Why don't you ask the BBC? They reported it falling 1 hour before it actually did

reply to post by TXRabbit


Talk about breaking news!

reply to post by canadiansenior70

Once the 2 towers were taken down, there was a wide open space for yet another airplane attack on Bldg 7 (Flight 93?) but it was shot down and never showed up.

Taken down?
If flight 93 was intended for wtc7 why shoot it down? Just let it do its job.

reply to post by thedman


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you know several people that were there that day, And they had access to 'wiring' closets. You got me again, Ed. How do you cope with us idiots day after day?

reply to post by Mentorman


Just a few tips for good thread making, make sure you add accurate sources, links, and pictures.

It helps throw out misinformation.


On the topic, yes, WT7 is quite a controversy.

reply to post by Mentorman

With all the 911 conspiracies, some interesting, some ridiculous, I still cannot wrap my head around WTC7. The building clearly looks like a controlled demolition. But that would mean our government planned 911 months in advance. For what sinister reason? Well, maybe there is a reasonable alternative motive for such planning?

There are only a few logical reasons that I can think of that explain why WTC7 would need to be brought down. The first one is the insurance policy, Larry Silverstein simply wanted to cash in on the money.

However the more likely reason was that the false flag was being planned/executed in WTC7, because didn't it house the FBI and the CIA? Maybe that's where they were running the show from, and after the twin towers fell they had to destroy all evidence that it was an inside job, so they just demolished the building.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Here is a report that lists motives most folks aren't aware of:

“This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause. The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“ emergency powers.” that very afternoon.

The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1.

Finally, one has to understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding could have been and were created in September of 1991. Filling in the last piece of the puzzle requires understanding 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, understanding how U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by every President since Truman.

With that, a pattern of motivation is defined which allows government leaders and intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision to cause the death of 3,000 citizens.”.

www.scribd.com...

I have had the same theory as the OP for a few years now. Why is it so delusional and wacky to think that a building that has so much information and so many important secrets would have a "self destruct" plan.
Our government has done so many messed up and secret stuff that to think that they could have these important buildings sssssss wired for demolition is not crazy.
People that do certain jobs have to sign secrecy agreements, they could have a company that changes the demolition charges once they are about to expire and do it in secrecy. I don't think that they would have those wires mixed in with the regular wires or in wire closets that anyone can go in to.
I don't know why it is so hard for people to imagine that there are things being done everyday that lots know and don't talk about. You are hired to do a job, you sign the agreement, you do the job and you don't talk to anyone about it because you will go to prison or "commit suicide" if they found out that you were the one that leaked the info. That is my theory on how thousands of people can keep quiet about something so bad and so wrong.

reply to post by Elieser

I have had the same theory as the OP for a few years now. Why is it so delusional and wacky to think that a building that has so much information and so many important secrets would have a "self destruct" plan.

So you REALLY think there is some sekrit red button which can be pushed to demolish a building?

"Yo dude, they are getting too close to Enron"

"Yeah time to put the cover up plane into operation" "Have Silverstein push the button to implode WTC 7"

"That should slow them down...."

So its not delusional to believe that there are some secret plans to destroy skyscrapers....?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Elieser

 

I have had the same theory as the OP for a few years now. Why is it so delusional and wacky to think that a building that has so much information and so many important secrets would have a "self destruct" plan.

So you REALLY think there is some sekrit red button which can be pushed to demolish a building?

So its not delusional to believe that there are some secret plans to destroy skyscrapers....?

Yes, when certain things have happened and the building poses a threat to other buildings and with the permission of the authorities. That is why you heard the countdown and how they knew when exactly the building was coming down or being pulled.

It is not delusional to think that contingency plans are in place to prevent further damage or further and greater loss of life when certain buildings are in trouble.

reply to post by Elieser

Yes, when certain things have happened and the building poses a threat to other buildings and with the permission of the authorities. That is why you heard the countdown and how they knew when exactly the building was coming down or being pulled.

Oh the idiotic Kevin McPadden - "I heard the Red Cross giving a countdown" lie

McPadden has been discredited for years. Where have you been?

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

So explain how and when the explosives were planted?

How the alleged explosives survived the fires for hours (13 floors of WTC 7 were on fire) without being destroyed,
going off premature or the wiring connecting the explosives being destroyed and disrupting the perfect
symetrical implosion?

reply to post by thedman

How the alleged explosives survived the fires for hours (13 floors of WTC 7 were on fire) without being destroyed,
going off premature or the wiring connecting the explosives being destroyed and disrupting the perfect
symetrical implosion?

I think I can answer that: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that explosive charges need some sort of very hot fuse in order to trigger them. Plain old fire won't do the job.

The need for blasting caps arises from sensitivity issues of an explosive compound. All explosive compounds require a certain amount of energy to detonate. If an explosive is too sensitive, it may go off unexpectedly, so most commercial explosives are formulated to be stable and safe to handle and will not explode if accidentally dropped, mishandled, or exposed to fire.

Wikipedia

reply to post by TupacShakur

I think I can answer that: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that explosive charges need some sort of very hot fuse in order to trigger them. Plain old fire won't do the job.

Yes you are right - you're not an expert....

Some explosives will burn if ignited (C4), others dynamite, TNT will expoded if subject to excessive heat

Also leaves the situation if the alleged explosives are destoyed by the fires or rendered intert how does
the perfect symedtrical implosion take place?