If WTC7 was a controlled demolition...

With the new NIST report that came out claiming that WTC7 collapsed because of fires and thermal expansion there has been a lot of debating going on. It seems that not a lot of people buy this report.

So what I'm asking is what if WTC7 was a controlled demolition? What does that say about everything that happened on 9/11 and most importantly what is the big deal?

reply to post by Techsnow


Please post in the existing threads by using the search function.

This is being discussed already and I respectfully request that this thread be closed.

reply to post by Techsnow




What is the BIG DEAL?


You cant be serious.

reply to post by BlackOps719


Implications of controlled demolition of WTC7:
1. Silverstein is guilty of a fraudulent claim for damages for the building he insured against acts of terrorism. You cannot make insurance claims over a building you secretly had blown up. He should be sent to prison for many years;
2. He is guilty of lying when he publicly denied in September, 2005 that he had meant his infamous words "pull it" to mean that WTC7 should be demolished;
3. WTC7 must have been rigged for controlled demolition BEFORE 9/11, as there was not sufficient time to do this in the few hours between mid-afternoon, when Silverstein said he agreed to WTC7 being "pulled", and 5.20pm, when it collapsed. This makes it plausible that WTC1 and WTC2 were likewise rigged;
4. NIST is lying when it states there there is no evidence of explosions in WTC7 either before it collapsed or just before it fell;
5. the US government (like many fire fighters and police at the scene of WTC7) knows why WTC7 fell. Therefore, asking NIST to investigate the reasons for its collapse is entirely bogus - a cover to hide its complicity.
6. it indicates that, if the US government lies about why WTC7 fell, that none of the details of its account of the events of 9/11 can be trusted.