http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLna...et.com/articles/april2007/230407building7.htm And heres a little recap for those still in denial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 Discuss!
The suggestion is that it was brought down to prevent collateral damage. My question would be, why would the stuff needed to bring down a building of that size be in place at the time needed? Or are all buildings loaded with demolition charges when they are built? Ursa..
what could they possibly need to hide about the reason for WTC 7's collapse? If true, doesn't a controlled demolition of wtc7 imply foreknowledge of 911, since it takes days if not weeks to perform? Not something that can be prepared on the spot in an unstable building with fires inside
i dont think you can demolish a bdg and then claim insurance, regardless if you thought lives were in danger: steel frame stuff never collapsed due to fire or damage, you'd have no case.
implications of preparing to pull a skyscraper in matter of hours in the middle of fires and mayhem? and WTC7 was recently reinforced on the order of none other than silverstein to survive standing with entire portions of floors missing, also fires were sporadic, new photos emerged recently showing the huge plume of smoke originated from WTC5 and WTC6...no reason to pull.
So these were the first people to ask Kerry about this? He almost sounds like he has no idea what is being asked. Maybe he is part of the coverup himself. Maybe he did it...:eek: