Why Destroy Building 7??

This is a question for the hordes of 9/11 truthers who state that WTC7 is the smoking gun of this whole conspiracy theory.

Why did “they” destroy building 7?

Now I want to make this clear I am not a truther, I believe in the official story of 9/11 but I don’t want to get dragged into a wider debate outside of the question “why did building 7 collapse?”

I have heard a number of explanations, primarily being that the building was collapsed by controlled demolition deliberately because this is where the planning of 9/11 took place and therefore blowing it up concealed all the evidence. However surly if this was the case they would have planned their evil plot somewhere a little further away from where all the action was taking place and would not plan it in a building were everybody knew various government agencies worked out of. It just does not seem logical.

Another argument I heard was that the building was being used as a ware house to store the explosives allegedly used to destroy the other two buildings. Yet as I understand it the government agencies were the smallest of tenants to occupy the building (DoD, CIA and IRS all shearing one single floor) and one of those groups was the New York City Office of Emergency Management. I do not think this is a logical answer either, it’s based on to many assumptions and to my knowledge nobody reported a full demolition crew clocking in for work every day at WTC7. Also would it not be very risky to try to hide the vast quantity of explosives inside the building where the CIA probably don’t have enough office space to keep the stuff when just down up stairs are sitting a bunch of bankers.

Speaking of bankers that brings me to the other reason I have heard that in WTC 7 all the insider trading went on inside WTC7 and this is where the paperwork was being kept so they blow up the building to cover this up. Again makes not logical sense to destroy the building in this scenario because they could have just started a fire in a wastepaper bin to get rid of that and say it went up in flames when the other two towers came down, rather than going to the expense and difficulty of a covert controlled demolition. And yet again insider trading could have gone one anywhere in the world if one had prior knowledge of the attack why do it next door and in the same building as the IRS. Its not logical.

So I ask you the difficult question, why did “they” destroy WTC 7

So Larry could claim insurance?

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

www.foxnews.com...

9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by ANOK


A fair point however that article is pretty critical 9/11 conspiracies.

On the topic of claiming insurance as I understand it there was quite allot of dispute about how much was to be paid out. Also to say it was for insurance does not make much sense, because on the one hand yes you stand to make money but on the other he was going to lose loads of money anyway in his investment in the building and in future revenue. Seems like a hell of a lot of work to go for to pull of a insurance scam.

the missing 2.3 trillion that rumsfeld announced on 9/10 was already being investigated in WTC7 and the wall of the pentagon that got hit.

Originally posted by JizzyMcButter
the missing 2.3 trillion that rumsfeld announced on 9/10 was already being investigated in WTC7 and the wall of the pentagon that got hit.

This^^

Everything pertaining to this investigation was destroyed, and it has't been restarted. How convenient.

reply to post by Vardoger


Do not forget
- Enron
- Stockmarket investigations.

WTC 7 also gave the U.S. Corporate Military the right to invade the Middle east to declare a second War there.

(Operation Desert Storm was first war, and we have not left since then so 20 years in the Middle East.)

WTC 7 was destroyed for military ops, insurance money, drug trafficking (Poppy plants makes up a lot of different prescription drugs sold to people in America), and depopulation.

Those are the major points.

reply to post by EartOccupant


Yes, who could forget about the put options/other investigations......"oh don't worry, we'll just have those records...removed"

reply to post by JizzyMcButter


I know you won’t like this but this link hear makes short work of the missing 2.3 trillion claim.

www.911myths.com...

also it was my understanding that the 2.3 trillion in accounting errors (lets say missing for arguments sake) was being investigated at the pentagon. And surly if it was just to destroy the evidence in that investigation they could have just said that the information was destroyed in the fires, or made a better job of covering up the “missing” 2.3 trillion by not having Rumsfelt announce it (wasn’t the first time it was mentioned though) the day before 9/11. That makes no sense and its not logical.

I want a logical answer.

Originally posted by JizzyMcButter
the missing 2.3 trillion that rumsfeld announced on 9/10 was already being investigated in WTC7 and the wall of the pentagon that got hit.

Starred your comment Jizzy and quoted just to stress the importance of what you said. Like the old saying when you can't find the truth "just follow the money". I also find the insurance part to be a little fishy as well.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by ANOK

 

A fair point however that article is pretty critical 9/11 conspiracies.

On the topic of claiming insurance as I understand it there was quite allot of dispute about how much was to be paid out. Also to say it was for insurance does not make much sense, because on the one hand yes you stand to make money but on the other he was going to lose loads of money anyway in his investment in the building and in future revenue. Seems like a hell of a lot of work to go for to pull of a insurance scam.

But it would have cost Larry more money to repair building 7* than get the insurance and re-build.

Larry made his fortune from buying up old complexes, demolishing them and re-building. The only difference on 911 is the tax payers paid for the demolition and clean-up, and the insurance paid for the re-building.

Edit; *to clarify...

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire..."

Larry was expecting a burned out shell when it was all done, so it would have been, in his mind at the time the decision was made, a write-off.

reply to post by ANOK

But it would have cost Larry more money to repair building 7 than get the insurance and re-build

Yes but only to have repaired it after the event of 9/11 and the insurance would have paid out for those repairs anyway. Also your argument implies that he must have been in on it in some massive way if this was the reason that “they” had the building demolished.

Double post!

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yes but only to have repaired it after the event of 9/11 and the insurance would have paid out for those repairs anyway. Also your argument implies that he must have been in on it in some massive way if this was the reason that “they” had the building demolished.

edit on 14-5-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Yes Larry would have been in on it. People had to have been in on it, why not Larry?

Think about it, who better to have 'on the inside' than the owner? For his part in allowing his buildings rigged for demolition he got what he wanted, a cleaned up lot he could rebuild on, and it cost him almost nothing. A very shrewd, but sick, business move. Capitalists have no morality, they only care about profits, dead people are just 'collateral damage'.

It would have cost Larry billions to get the old WTC buildings up to code...

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by ANOK

But it would have cost Larry more money to repair building 7 than get the insurance and re-build.

So, you think Larry would commit an act of mass murder on the off chance that he may collect a few extra bucks in insurance almost a decade later?

Sorry, the insurance thing just doesn't make any sense. Larry was 70 years old on 9/11. At best he couldn't expect any kind of pay off until he was in his middle 70's. So here's a guy who's worth millions, never committed a crime and decides to become the biggest mass murderer in US history when he's in his 60's just on the chance that half a decade or more down the road he may make a few million dollars.

It was the head office for anti-terrorism run by the CIA, there were dead bodies before the building came down, apparently bodies were even found by the fire department inside janitors cupboards. The CIA then moved that department to Denver soon to be Central capital of the NWO.

My theory on this is that rogue CIA agents needed to take out a number of other CIA agents and blew the building to litterally cover the evidence.

There are a number of other theories also, but this is my personal belief.

So are you saying anyone that does not believe the OS is a truther?

I do not in a million years believe the OS, and I am definitely not a 'truther' whatever they are supposed to be!?!

If we knew why they brought building 7 down then we'd be in on it too! What a stupid thread! We can only speculate, but it is a smoking gun, because it was clearly a controlled demolition. Why did they bring it down? Ask Larry and the government, they have all the answers, not the people researching it. I'm sure there were many reasons, not just one, as with the towers.

Let me ask you a question, why do you personally think it did not look like a controlled demolition?

If this is true...

Fox News hit piece against 9/11 truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC leaseholder was "on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building"

Then it becomes sort of obvious doesn't it?

"I remember getting a call from the, er [hesitation], fire department commander [who?], telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they [insurance carrier?] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

hesitation

reply to post by 4hero

Ask Larry and the government, they have all the answers, not the people researching it.

To my knowlege no one is reasearching it.

You can't count a bunch of keyboard warriors.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by 4hero

 

Ask Larry and the government, they have all the answers, not the people researching it.

To my knowlege no one is reasearching it.

You can't count a bunch of keyboard warriors.

They obviously didn't hire you for your spelling accuracy, or for your sense of humour!

You have been in enough of these threads to know there are untold amounts of people doing various levels of research into this, hence why we are still discussing it 10 years down the line!

The only keyboard warriors I can see in 9/11 threads are the brainless shills that resort to insulting people who do not believe their BS!