Saturday, September 02, 2006

The Plot to Drop the Towers and Building 7: How It Could Have Happened

As the 5th anniversary of 9/11 nears, there is finally an official reaction to polls showing 1 out of 3 Americans believe the US government was involved. Of course, releasing the evidence is apparently not an option, but the National Institute for Standards and Technology - NIST - has put out an explanation for what happened to try and diffuse the skeptics. So what about Building 7 - everyone's biggest question mark? "When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007."
Take your time, folks. I certainly understand why the government doesn't want a reaction to their theories before the election. They do put forth a working hypothesis that fire and structural damage caused the collapse. As one skeptic wrote: "NIST's working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is similar to its explanation of the Twin Towers' collapse: there is no historical, evidentiary, or experimental basis for its elaborate scenario in which the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper self-destructs like a house of cards." Building 7 is a huge problem for the government, folks. If Building 7 can't be explained then it rips open the whole official version. The difficulty is that it was not hit by a plane and had Building 6 in between it and the Towers. This is the heart of the case. Perhaps that explains this pathetic excuse as to why they haven't looked at it, yet, 5 years afterwards. Sorry, not enough people and we didn't want to hire more.
One big question many Bush supporters have is how a conspiracy this big could be run without someone leaking it. I think one potential answer is that most people in the possible plot could have been unaware of what they were doing, even as they helped carry it out. That would certainly explain the air defenses who were confused by war games that eerily duplicated what happened. That explains the questions air traffic controllers had asking if this was real or not. Okay, so here is my personal theory on how the buildings could have been wired. As you probably know, the man who owned Building 7 - Larry Silverstein - took over the Towers lease 3 months prior to 9/11 and the security for the buildings was handled by the President's brother, Marvin P. Bush. Imagine a scene where the government approaches Larry and says, "We are getting word of potential threats against the Towers. In the event they are damaged, they may be too unsafe to wire up afterwards, and could shut down that entire section of Manhattan. We advise you to secretly wire these, so that if the towers do have to be taken down several weeks afterwards, everything will be in place. In fact, if you don't you could face financial ruin as they sit in limbo waiting to be repaired." So the buildings are wired, secretly with Marvin Bush controlling the operation, just as Jeb ran the election in Florida. The radio controls for this are placed in Building 7 in the heavily reinforced emergency control centers that were in the building, and the government recommends wiring this too just in case the building is damaged. See, how Larry could have been brought onboard? The government didn't have to say, "Listen, we're going to be involved in a plot here." It could have been sold as purely a wise, preventative measure in the event the Towers were hit again and faced costly repairs or a difficult removal weeks after the fact. Of course, if Larry mentioned that the Towers were wired, he could have lost his insurance claim. This had to be the work of terrorists so afterwards he went along. Instead of financial ruin, Larry Silverstein collected billions. I believe his initial claim was 7 billion dollars, but he didn't get it all. Not bad for 3 months work. Of course, he could have been up to his eyebrows in the plot, but I don't think so. I'm guessing he was as surprised as we were when the buildings dropped that day. This would also explain why he foolishly said, that a decision to "pull" Building 7 was made later that afternoon. That sounds like the slip-up of a basically innocent man. So this is my theory but it shows that people can be involved in a plot without fully knowing that it is taking place. I await the official version of what happened to Building 7. You know. The one the NIST didn't get to investigate yet because they didn't have enough people. Wait though: They did look at 80 boxes of documents! This should be interesting.


At 10:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Buildings that are blown up fall from the bottom, not from the top, like on 9/11.

Still, I like your orange font!

At 11:28 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Make that "Buildings that are blown up normally fall from the bottom, not the top." But it's all how you time the firing sequence at your control computer. Are you satisfied with the explanation for Building 7 and are you concerned by any of the demolition experts who looked at the buildings fall and immediately suspected explosions? Thanks about the orange font. It does look great, doesn't it? I have no idea how it got there, but I'll take it.


Post a Comment

<< Home