Was WTC 7 a Dud?
Facts support the theory that World Trade Center Building 7
was originally meant to implode seconds after the North Tower's collapse


Jeremy Baker

[The following is a condensed version of the main
premise presented
in the original article "Silverstein, Giuliani,
WTC 7 and 20-20 Hindsight."]

The strange circumstances surrounding the suspicious collapse of
World Trade Center Building 7 have become a focal point for the
researchers, writers and activists who have committed themselves to
reopening the books on 9/11. Many of these people believe that the
anomalous collapse of Building 7 is a 9/11 smoking gun, the Achilles'
heel in the official version of what occurred on that day. The
obvious controlled demolition of the building, proven so conclusively
in several videos we have of its collapse, has been supported by
other key pieces of evidence as well. These points taken together
have proven to the satisfaction of most 9/11 researchers that WTC 7
was brought down not by fires weakening its superstructure, as
claimed by the authorities, but was instead destroyed by an explosive
system that could only have been installed in the building prior to 9/11.
After allegedly being struck by the North Tower's plummeting
debris, fires were said to have been ignited in WTC 7 that grew
throughout the day and finally compromised the building's steel
structure, causing it to suddenly drop like a stone late in the
afternoon. But gaping holes in this scenario have done nothing but
arouse suspicion and disbelief in those who've carefully examined the
evidence. Rather than presenting a viable scenario for Building 7's
destruction, the inexplicable features of its collapse have instead
helped to fuel broader speculation that 9/11 was essentially an
inside job, an attempt by traitors within our own ranks to generate
support for imperialist agendas that could otherwise never withstand
the light of day.
So, for those who agree that WTC 7 was indeed brought down
with a preplanted explosives system - the last act in a "psy-op" that
included the destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex on
9/11 - then the next question becomes: Why did the conspirators wait
until the end of the day to do it? What possible reason would they
have to keep WTC 7 up all day long? In the four years or so since the
unofficial citizens investigation into 9/11 began, no one has offered
any sensible answers to this question. But the list of compelling
reasons why waiting seven hours after the attacks to bring Building 7
down was not a good idea is long and hard to ignore.
If keeping WTC 7 up for so long after the attacks has proven
so threatening to the plot's success and its subsequent coverup, why
would the plotters have done it? Only two possibilities logically
present themselves; 1) there was some absolutely critical but, as
yet, undetermined reason to keep the building intact for so long, or
2) it wasn't originally meant to come down when it did. Since
absolutely no compelling case has been made for the former
possibility, circumstances appear to support the latter. Is it
possible that WTC 7's explosive system didn't operate as planned, a
disastrous glitch in an otherwise well conceived plan? The following
is a presentation of points that appear to support this theory, one
that paints a dramatically different picture of what theorists
previously thought had occurred throughout the day on 9/11.
Piecing together a factual account of what happened that
afternoon is certainly difficult without confirmation from inside
sources, but surely the known facts support a scenario similar to
this one: The conspirators, possibly operating out of the mayor's
Office of Emergency Management (OEM) on the 23rd floor of WTC 7,
first, orchestrated the collision of the planes into their targets,
igniting fires that spread throughout the upper floors of both towers
and allegedly causing structural damage to the building's steel
superstructure. They then armed and programmed the explosive system
in the safely distant South Tower and, at the optimum moment, pushed
the button and brought the building crashing to the ground. The
debris cloud kicked up by its collapse lingered for hours,
significantly reducing visibility in the surrounding area.
Next, they programmed the explosives in the North Tower and,
if the conspirators were indeed situated in the mayor's emergency
bunker, chose this moment to exit WTC 7 and move to a secure location
before taking the next steps in their plan. This scenario is
supported by comments Rudy Giuliani made to ABC News and Peter
Jennings; "We were operating out of there [the OEM] when we were told
that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse
before we could get out of the building." This confirms that Giuliani
was indeed manning his OEM bunker and that Tower Two (the first
building to fall) collapsed before the mayor and his people were able
to (or chose to) exit WTC 7.
The perpetrators, now relocated to a backup position, then
prepared for the demolition of the North Tower and WTC 7. This
secondary control center may also have been referred to in another
report that the mayor was operating out of "a makeshift command post
at 75 Barkley Street," just north of and adjacent to WTC 7. There,
the conspirators waited for the appropriate moment and then remotely
detonated the explosives in the North Tower and brought it down as
well, the building shredding itself in a way oddly identical to the
South Tower's collapse.
As the North Tower fell, a massive cloud of debris shot into
the sky and enshrouded most of lower Manhattan. This dense cloud of
powdered debris quckly rose and obscured the surrounding buildings,
adding significantly to the thick haze still hanging in the air from
the first collapse. Then, as most of WTC 7 was hidden from view, the
conspirators pushed the button on the explosive system in this
building as well, the thick cloud of debris obscuring any signs that
WTC 7 was being intentionally demolished.
After the smoke had cleared and the events of the day were
relegated to history, any lingering questions as to why WTC 7 came
down seconds after Tower One's collapse would be easily fielded with
a list of invented but plausible excuses that, in the absence of
visual evidence to the contrary, would be quite believable. In the
wake of the attacks, the stories about debris from Tower One
impacting the electrical substation and 40,000 gallon deisel tank
located on Building 7's ground floors - causing massive internal
explosions that kicked the building's feet out from under it -
would've made good sense, providing a satisfactory if implausible
excuse for those who had doubts about Building 7's demise. The 32
story Marriott Vista hotel, located between the Twin Towers, was
completely leveled by the collapse of these buildings and has been
all but forgotten in a world that barely recalls the life and times of WTC 7.
But, as fate would have it, things didn't go according to
plan. Incredibly, when the conspirators pushed the button on WTC 7,
nothing happened. For whatever reason, the explosive system in WTC 7
had failed and the building stubbornly remained intact. In an
instant, the success of an elaborate plot to entirely destroy a New
York City landmark (one that, according to many people who lived and
worked in the area, had been obsolete for years and become a blight
on lower Manhattan) had fallen into confusion.
Faced with a plan that had gone terribly awry, the
conspirators then scrambled to bring the demolition system in WTC 7
back online, a task that may have taken hours, well past the time
when the handy cloud of debris had dissipated. In the meantime, a new
scenario had to be concocted to "cover" what would otherwise be the
forthcoming but completely unexplained collapse of WTC 7. In their
desperation and haste, the perps finally made the decision to reenter
Building 7 and set fires that they hoped would spread and eventually
serve as a pretext for the building's collapse. The
fire-caused-the-collapse scenario would likely serve them well
considering the fact that they'd used the same scheme in the towers
earlier that day.
Though its difficult to pin down exactly what happened next,
some facts support the following scenario, or variations thereof: The
perpetrators reentered WTC 7 and climbed to the 7th floor, the
location of the OEM's emergency generators (this floor would become
the scene of the lower of the two fires that were soon to be burning
in the building). If, as many theorists suggest, the conspirators
were indeed OEM men, they would not only have had access to this
floor (in a building that had been evacuated and presumably secured),
they would also have had deisel fuel in abundance to use as an
accelerant to spark their dummy fire.
Next, they ascended to floor 12, one of three floors
occupied by the SEC, and sparked blazes in this location as well
(floor 12 was the location of the upper of the two fires that were
photographed burning in the building). Besides creating another flash
point for fire, this may have been done to assure that, in case the
explosive system failed again, incriminating evidence in this
location was certain to be destroyed no matter what might occur. The
conspirators then exited the building and watched the fires grow,
hopefully to a crescendo that would serve as a plausible pretext for
the building's collapse.
Eventually the explosive system was brought back online and
the only thing left to do was wait for the fires to build. But, as we
saw, the fires never grew to convincing proportions. Despite their
best efforts and training, the conspirators were completely
unprepared for this contingency, and it showed. Even as late as 3 PM,
the fires in WTC 7 were still marginal and struggling. Unlike the
towers, these fires were oxygen starved by windows that hadn't been
shattered and couldn't be opened. In fact, the fires remained so
small they were barely visible from outside the building until quite
late in the day and never approached the size necessary to pass them
off as the catalyst for the building's collapse.
The insignificant fires burning in WTC 7 have always been a
sticking point for 9/11 researchers who rightfully doubt that fires
so small could ever have brought the building down. Indeed, in all
the history of firefighting, no steel framed high-rise has ever
collapsed due to fire. Even in the case of major infernos that
entirely engulfed such buildings in the past, no office fire had ever
burnt hot enough to compromise the strength of the massive steel
beams that support these structures. The physics simply do not
support this phenomenon - that is, of course, with one exception. On
9/11, the laws of physics were apparently suspended and three such
anomalies occurred. Those who argue that the towers fell because the
planes caused structural damage in addition to fire damage cannot,
however, apply this theory to the anomalous collapse of WTC 7.
But, despite the difficulties confronting the
perpetrators, the bottom line was that Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7
was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling
conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be
destroyed. It was also the only WTC building left standing, making
the plan to level the entire complex incomplete. This theory is
supported by the fact that, throughout the day, absolutely no effort
was made to save this extremely sensitive and valuable building (one
that housed several key governmental and intelligence agencies in
addition to millions of files relating to possibly devastating open
investigations into money laundering, terrorism, organized crime,
etc.) that was being threatened by only modest fires. This is all the
more baffling when you consider that WTC 7 must have had a built in
fire suppression system of some kind as well, one that presumably
would have made short work of such a marginal threat.
So, despite the fact that, even towards the end of the day,
the fires in WTC 7 remained barely significant (from a fire
engineering standpoint), the culprits finally made the decision to
pull the plug on WTC 7 and rely on their formidable propaganda
machinery to bulldoze any doubts that might arise. The conspirators
couldn't logically wait any longer because a burgeoning army of
firefighters and rescue workers had recovered from their shock and
were descending on Ground Zero to begin the lengthy search and rescue
effort that began that evening. For those who desperately needed the
building destroyed, it was then or never and, in an effort to finally
wrap things up, they put the demolition process in motion by clearing
personnel from around the base of Building 7. Then, when they could
wait no longer, they put an end to the spectacle at 5:25 PM, dropping
Building 7 neatly within it's footprint, an obvious controlled
implosion so perfect it would have earned any demolition company a bonus.
Needless to say, the theory outlined above is a significant
departure from beliefs previously held by the broad community of 9/11
conspiracy advocates concerning what happened to WTC 7 that
afternoon. Any paradigm shift of this magnitude relating to an event
as grave as 9/11 will likely undergo intense scrutiny, as it should.
But we needn't go far to find precedent for the scenario outlined
above. All we need do is go back in time six years, to 1995.
There are many intriguing correlations between the September
11th attacks on the WTC and the bombing of the Murrah Building in
Oklahoma City. Both events enabled draconian domestic security
provisions to be signed into law shortly thereafter. Both sites were
quickly and discretely cleaned up by the same company, Controlled
Demolition, Inc., whose conduct, in both cases, sparked criticism
from fire investigators who felt that not enough had been done to
examine the evidence. In addition, both attacks employed much the
same scheme: a primary event "covered" the real cause of the
destruction - explosive systems preplanted in the buildings. In OK
City, a rental truck packed with crude explosives "covered" the
simultaneous detonation of bombs planted in the Murrah Building. In
Manhattan, two passenger jets caused destruction that "covered" the
tower's eventual demolition - again, the result of bombs previously
planted throughout the Twin Towers.
But there's another parallel that bears examination, one
that does much to support the theory at hand. After the smoke had
cleared in downtown OK City, it was discovered that two of the bombs
planted in the Murrah Building had failed to explode, a fact that was
reported nightly on local TV news programs for a week or two after
the bombing. And these reports were more than just rumors. Sources
included FBI agents, police and firefighters. The OK City bomb squad
was called out as well and got to work disarming these charges before
they could do any more damage. Even Oklahoma governor Frank Keating
confirmed the story to the media before it disappeared from the
airwaves forever (Alex Jones presents an excellent montage of these
reports in his video 9/11 The Road to Tyranny).
Consider how this astonishing fact conflicts with what are
by now historical accounts that the building was destroyed only by
the crude fertilizer bomb constructed and detonated by lone wolf
Timothy McVeigh. And any allusions we may have had that the guys who
orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 were criminal masterminds who had
covered every angle is neatly dispelled when we consider this
previously botched job. Certainly this kind of breakdown on the part
of shady, covert operatives is not unprecedented.
Imagine the state of mind of the conspirators as they
watched their plan to destroy one of the world's most recognizable
landmarks (and, of course, violently murder thousands of innocent
people) unfold before their eyes. Even the most jaded covert
operative wouldn't likely remain unrattled after having perpetrated
such an outrage. Again, the idea that these guys were able to calmly
meet every contingency or work magic under that kind of pressure
certainly shouldn't be taken for granted. And let's not forget what
Deepthroat said to Bob Woodward during his investigation into yet
another botched "op": "Truth is, these aren't very bright guys and
things got out of hand."
And well they may have. Reentering Building 7 in a spur of
the moment attempt to ignite crude fires is a potentially dangerous
enterprise. Whatever the conspirators may have used to spark their
blazes, the potential for trouble with an impulsive plan for arson is
high. Reports that a body was found in the remains of Building 7 are
intriguing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that
other reports claim that there were no casualties in WTC 7
whatsoever. Nonetheless, the US House of Representatives website
posts a tribute to Secret Service Special Officer Craig Miller whose
body was found in the rubble of Building 7 after he'd apparently
perished during the "rescue effort" that day. But what really
happened to Officer Miller - Secret Service Special Officer Miller?
Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or cop - a secret service special agent.
Who on earth were you rescuing, Officer Miller? WTC 7 had
been evacuated. Could this man have been an amateur arsonist who got
too close to his fire? Could he have sabotaged the explosive system
in WTC 7 because he got cold feet about his role in one of the
cruelest deceptions in history and paid for it with his life? This
man's autopsy records might shed some light on the matter. The story
of WTC lessee Larry Silverstein claiming to have 'pulled' WTC 7 is
well known among 9/11 researchers. The only explanation that's ever
been offered in his defense was that he meant 'pull' the firefighters
out of the "dangerously burning" building. But if that were true, why
didn't Officer Miller get the message?
Not only were the suspicious facts of his death ignored by
the media but Officer Miller was then posthumously granted hero
status as someone who had allegedly died during the phantom "rescue
effort" in this empty building. We saw this phenomenon applied to
many key governmental figures in the wake of 9/11 - officials who,
instead of being held accountable for their criminal proximity to the
attacks, were subsequently repackaged as "American heroes" and
sometimes even promoted. And, as you'll see, nowhere was this ploy
more at work than in the case of "Man of the Year" and "America's
Mayor," Rudy Giuliani.
WTC 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, had been owned by
Manhattan real estate mogul Larry Silverstein since the '80s and was
the HQ for his development company, Westfield America, for years.
Building 7 was also the NYC home of the Secret Service, SEC, DoD,
IRS, CIA and a handful of private financial institutions. But WTC 7
also housed Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM),
long considered by theorists as a possible operations center for the
attacks. This $13 million doomsday bunker, meant to be used in the
event of a catastrophe like a terrorist attack or natural disaster,
was oddly located in the midst of the number one terrorist target in
the western hemisphere. Isn't one ill-advised to locate their
emergency command facility where it will likely be destroyed in the
event of an actual attack? This incomprehensible decision is even
more troubling when you consider the fact that the WTC had already
been attacked once in 1993. This extremely unheroic plan to locate
the OEM at the WTC then went on to prove its absurdity on 9/11 when,
according to the official account, the occupants of the OEM were
forced to abandon it after the first tower collapsed. This and other
compelling points support the hypothesis mentioned above, that the
OEM was just a front for the conspirators attack operations center.
Now that would explain the poor choice of locations.
Many researchers believe that shadowy elements within the
agencies housed in WTC 7 are prime suspects in this sprawling
conspiracy. To these theorists, Building 7 is a kind of nexus for the
planning and execution of what may well have been the most audacious
"black-op" or, more accurately, "false flag" operation in the history
of covert actions. If they are correct, Building 7 was literally a
nest of suspicious activity and its remaining intact may well have
been a catastrophe for those who were counting on its destruction.
As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took
over control of the entire World Trade Center just a few weeks before
the attacks of 9/11, the first time the WTC had changed hands in
thirty years and the first time it had come under private control. In
an interview in a 2002 PBS documentary called America Rebuilds, he
described being on the phone with the FDNY commander on the afternoon
of 9/11 and suggesting that there had "been such terrible loss of
life maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it," (referring to
WTC 7). Then, according to Silverstein, "they made that decision to
'pull' and we watched the building collapse" (the same documentary
quotes a demo worker, "well, we're getting ready to 'pull' building
6," moments before its burnt out carcass was demolished - a comment
that appears to connect the word "pull" even more closely to the
actual act of demolition).
Many have asked how he could possibly have been so careless
as to make such an admission publicly. But what if circumstances
compelled him to do so? What if his comments were a discrete response
to growing suspicions surrounding the botched attempt to destroy
WTC 7 earlier in the day? The powers-that-be have brazenly used PBS
programming to spin other aspects of 9/11. The NOVA program that
espoused the theory of the "pancaking" of the Twin Tower's floors is
infamous in the 9/11 skeptics community. PBS programs relating to
9/11 typically feature "experts" who unanimously support the party line.
With WTC 7's obvious demolition caught on film from several
excellent perspectives, it's an understatement to say that the
conspirators had a big problem on their hands. Could it be that
Silverstein's comments about 'pulling' WTC 7 were a carefully
choreographed "hang out" of the issue? Using Karl Rove-like sleight
of hand, he offers a vague accounting of the anomaly delivered to us
on an almost subconscious level. Paradoxically, his comments may have
been intended to steer us in the exact opposite direction - that,
despite how it may have appeared, heroes in high places stepped up
and made the tough choices.
Silverstein's simple and concise phrasing - that "...they
made that decision to 'pull' and we watched the building collapse" -
has impressed many of the finest 9/11 researchers as being clear and
unambiguous, and for good reason. But, as mentioned above, some
dissenters insist that he used the word 'pull' to indicate instead
the cautious evacuation of the area immediately surrounding WTC 7
late that afternoon. I spoke to one of the producers of America
Rebuilds on the phone and he predictably supported this
interpretation of Silverstein's cryptic comments. But I believe that
this usage of the word 'pull' is just as damning as if he had in fact
used it as a synonym for demolition, and this is why.
If Silverstein did use the word 'pull' to mean evacuation,
the best we can say in his defense is that he was referring to the
suspicious order to withdraw personnel from around the base of WTC 7
shortly before its bizarre suicide, a precaution more likely taken in
the case of a building soon to be demolished, not a building whose
superstructure couldn't possibly have been compromised by fire alone.
A photographer on the scene described the evacuation of firefighters
as they "...prepared for the collapse of Building 7...[my emphasis] I
was 150 yards away when I saw the firefighters raising the flag."
What? It's perhaps understandable that, given the events of the day,
the authorities might consider preparing for the extremely remote
possibility that Building 7 might collapse, just to be safe. But for
these guys to 'pull' Building 7 and then have it fall right on cue
when physics doesn't support the phenomenon, there's absolutely no
precedent for such an occurrence and the building was, at best, only
marginally involved is simply too much of an implausibility to take
seriously - yet another outrageous "coincidence" defenders of the
official account ask us to stomach.
This alternate take on Silverstein's use of the word 'pull'
- the only explanation that has ever been offered by anyone in his
defense - is not only just as damning as if he did intend the word to
mean demolition, it also wholly ties Silverstein into the suspicious
events of the day at the highest levels, yet another direct and
convincing connection to be made between this inscrutable Manhattan
real estate developer and insider complicity in the attacks of September 11th.
There are other factors to be considered as well. The
alleged damage to Building 7's south face, caused by debris from the
collapse of Tower One, was the official cause of the fires that the
authorities then sanctioned as being the "likely" cause of WTC 7's
collapse. Hundreds of photos of Ground Zero taken throughout the day
show every detail of the devastation, yet pictures of Building 7's
damaged south face, "raging" fires and billowing smoke are
conspicuously absent. Certainly this spectacle would have caught the
eye of any photographer recording the aftermath of the attacks.
Doesn't this lack of photographic evidence support the idea that,
after things went wrong that morning, photographers on the scene
would have their materials confiscated and vetted by the authorities,
much as they had been at the Pentagon (and Oklahoma City for that
matter)? Any photographs of the suspicious lack of damage to Building
7 (evidence that would prove the official account untenable) would
disappear forever. Isn't it extremely suspicious that absolutely no
pictures of WTC 7's "damaged" south face have ever been released to
the public, an astounding revelation when you consider the key role
this alleged debris impact played in the days events.
In addition, aerial photos of Ground Zero appear to confirm
that the debris raining down from Tower One's collapse fell well
short of WTC 7. These photos show a huge crater in the roof of WTC 6
(the low-rise building standing between Tower One and Building 7),
the result of damage caused by this debris. This crater provides a
clear imprint of the limits of the destruction and, despite some bits
and pieces of rubble that made their way across a full city block to
WTC 7's location, the bulk of the truly destructive wreckage clearly
fell safely short of Building 7.
And what about the debris from the identical South Tower (or Tower
Two)? Did it cause similar damage to its neighbors? Apparently not.
The photos in question also show that the Banker's Trust Building, a
building similar in size to WTC 7 (but not a WTC building), standing
just across the street from the South Tower, suffered no such
catastrophic damage and it certainly didn't catch on fire and collapse.
Another even more stunning fact is that pictures of the two
buildings flanking WTC 7 clearly show that they were barely scratched
by the debris that had somehow, according to Popular Mechanics
magazine, "scooped out" 25% of Building 7's depth. In fact, both of
these structures still stand in near pristine condition, shoulder to
shoulder with WTC 7, despite their being well within the same radius
of destruction.
And another thing. We all remember 9/11. The eyes of the
world were focused on lower Manhattan. Helicopters were circling the
area all day long, the television coverage never let up, not even for
commercials. Are we really to believe that no aerial video exists of
WTC 7 going down, especially when the FDNY was apparently preparing
for its collapse - film clips that would surely tell the story of
what happened to Building 7 and clearly show the damage (or lack
thereof) on the south face of WTC 7? As mentioned before, Building
7's fires (meager though they were) and its billowing cloud of black
smoke would surely have attracted the attention of videographers
recording the aftermath of the attacks from above - dramatic images
reminiscent of the smoking towers aired earlier that day. It's always
been a keen frustration to 9/11 researchers (and a chilling example
of media suppression) that the only videos we do have of Building 7
falling to the ground were all distant shots taken from the north,
precisely the wrong angle to shed light on the matter.
If dropping Building 7 late in the day on 9/11 was really
part of the conspirator's plan, wouldn't they have concocted a far
more believable and well-constructed scenario to "cover" its collapse
(much as they had for the Twin Towers and the Murrah Building),
especially when they knew that Ground Zero would be center stage on
every TV and computer screen on the planet that night? Instead we got
tiny, insignificant fires, and a long list of nagging questions that
have only served to arouse widespread suspicion.
What does the body of a Secret Service Special Agent in the
rubble of WTC 7 most likely indicate; 1) that a well-planned scheme
had just gone off without a hitch, or 2) that some kind of major
breakdown had occurred that day? How could Officer Miller have died
except by malfeasance? WTC 7 had been evacuated before it was hit by
falling debris and the lazy fires building in its belly couldn't
possibly have caught a healthy Secret Service agent off-guard. Under
the circumstances, isn't the absurd claim that this man died during
the "rescue effort" that day clearly a cover story for something
that's carefully being kept under wraps?
Isn't it odd that the FDNY seemingly just gave up on such an
exceedingly important and valuable building as WTC 7, one that had
only marginal fires burning on two floors? Wouldn't the conspirators
have preferred wrapping things up in one fell swoop that morning
rather than prolonging the spectacle any longer than necessary? Why
wasn't Rudy Giuliani kept well away from what was obviously an attack
on lower Manhattan? And the bewildering notion that the conspirators
originally planned to spend the day in the OEM orchestrating the
aftermath of the attacks in the upper floors of a burning building is
really stretching credulity to the breaking point.
All of the anomalies listed above and the many disturbing
questions following in the wake of WTC 7's suspicious collapse would
have been neatly and easily dispensed with had the building been
demolished while hidden beneath the dust cloud kicked up by Tower
One's collapse. But with clear video footage of Building 7's belated
and obvious demolition, the talk of the electrical substation and
deisel tank exploding and causing the collapse has always rung hollow
and has generated rather than mollified suspicion.
Nothing about WTC 7 remaining intact throughout the day
before finally and obviously being demolished has ever made any sense
at all. But if WTC 7 was brought down as it was hidden by the debris
cloud rising from the rubble of Tower One, no one would have asked
another question about it and what many theorists consider to be a
9/11 smoking gun would have vanished into obscurity. Certainly this
theory is supported by the evidence and deserves consideration by the
broad community of 9/11 skeptics.

[This article is part of an ongoing investigation into the
theory outlined above. If you have additional information that
supports this new take on WTC 7's last hours, please contact me:
web_wender@...]

Copyright Darkprints, July 2005
Thanks to David Ray Griffin for his invaluable assistance
For a video of Silverstein's comments about 'pulling' WTC 7, go
to; www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htmTo see three excellent
videos of WTC 7 imploding, go to; www.wtc7.net/videos.html

=====

Comments to author:

btw did you see the article trashing silverstein in the same issue of
new york mag that had the grassy knolls article?
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/powergrid/16467/index1.html
i commented then that the timing of the two articles looked
coordinated, as a counteroffensive against the neocons
the NY Mag piece depicts him as an "abject greedhead" whom nobody in
nyc can say a good word about
interesting implications of irrational greed in explaining the
decision to go ahead in broad daylight?
of course, after dark it would be too easy to see the explosions
inside - thus 5:30 pm

the part about "there's been so much loss of life already" to me translates to,
hey, i can make my killing of a billion profit without even killing
anybody - a nobrainer!

btw my own assumption has always been that the shanksville flight was
the dud, that global hawk malfunctioned, and that it was meant to hit wtc7
it's a little bit simpler theory - only one malfunction instead of
two - and global hawk would presumably be more cutting edge, more
likely to have a blip, than a trusted technology like classic demolition
also from the psy-op pov, the traumatic impact of 3 planes hitting 3
towers should have been total, three's the charm, they say
speculation that flight 93 was intended for the white house may be
subconsciously entertaining the notion that it was a politically
motivated terrorist attack rather than a sheer exercise in televised
trauma (you know, like the infantile propaganda after 9/11 to steer
clear of disneyland :-) )
as well as the notion that the president is really the seat of power

all the same i found your thesis and treatment very interesting




-----------------
Send Holiday E-greetings for Peace from Www.PeaceWish.Com