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
unusual 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 that day. The obvious controlled
demolition of the building, proven so conclusively in several videos we
have of its collapse, is supported by several 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.
But
if we agree that WTC 7 did indeed succumb to explosives planted inside — the
last act in a “psy-op” that included the complete 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 credible 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.
After
allegedly being struck by the North Tower’s plummeting debris, fires were said
to have been ignited in WTC 7 that grew in size and finally compromised the
building’s steel structure causing it to suddenly drop like a stone hours
later. 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 believable scenario for Building 7's destruction, the unusual
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 would otherwise never withstand
the light of day.
But
if keeping WTC 7 up for hours after the attacks has proven so threatening to
the plot’s success and its subsequent coverup, why would the perps have waited
so long to bring the building down? 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, 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.
Doesn’t
the following scenario make more sense? 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 caused structural damage to the building’s steel supports. They then
armed and programmed the explosive system in the safely distant South Tower
and, when the time was right, pushed the button and brought the building
crashing to the ground at “free-fall” speed — an odd thing considering the fact
that the building was quite intact below the fires and would certainly have
offered significant resistance to the the upper floors as they fell.
Next,
they programmed the explosives in the North Tower and, if the conspirators were
indeed located in the mayor’s emergency bunker, chose this moment to exit the
building and move to a secure location. Then, at the optimum moment, they
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, which also occurred at the rate of “free-fall.” This scenario is
supported by comments made by Rudy Giuliani 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 comment confirms that Giuliani was indeed manning
his OEM bunker after all and that the building collapsed before he
(they) were able to exit WTC 7.
As
the North Tower fell, a massive cloud of debris shot into the sky and
enshrouded most of lower Manhattan, much as it had after the collapse of the
South Tower. In seconds, this dense cloud of powdered debris rose and obscured
the surrounding buildings. Then, when most of Building 7 was hidden from view,
the conspirators remotely detonated the explosive system in this building too,
the thick cloud of debris hiding any visual indication of what really made it
fall.
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 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 and brought it straight to the ground — would’ve made
good sense, providing a satisfactory explanation to 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 two 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 had, according to many people who lived and worked
in the area, become an outdated, obsolete blight on lower Manhattan) had fallen
into confusion.
Faced
with the shocking reality of 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 well 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.
So
the perpetrators returned to 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 accellerant 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
could 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 quite grew to
convincing proportions. Despite their best efforts, the conspirators were
completely unprepared for this contingency, and it showed. Even as late as 3
PM, the fires were still marginal and struggling. Unlike the towers, the fires
in WTC 7 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.
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 destroy 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 government building that was
being threatened by only modest fires and presumably had an operable fire
suppression system of some kind.
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 late in the day and rely on
their formidable propaganda machinery to eventually sanitize 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 over the morning’s events 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 all was
ready, they finally 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 the beliefs
previously held by the broad community of 9/11 conspiracy advocates concerning
what happened that afternoon. Any such paradigm shift relating to an event as
grave as 9/11 will likely undergo a fair amount of 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 attacks on the WTC and the bombing
in Oklahoma City. Both events enabled draconian domestic security provisions to
be signed into law shortly thereafter. Both sites were quickly and discretely
tidied up by the same company, Controlled Demolition, Inc., whose conduct, in
both cases, sparked criticism by 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 provide
precedent for this story’s central premise. 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).
So,
any illusions 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 screw up
on the part of shady, covert operatives is not unprecedented. And let’s not
forget what Deepthroat said to Bob Woodward during his investigation into yet
another botched covert “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 deisel fuel fires is a surprisingly dangerous enterprise. Tossing
a match on spilled gasoline in an enclosed space doesn’t so much cause a fire
as it does an explosion. 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.
What could’ve happened to Officer Miller — Secret Service Special
Officer Miller? Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or cop — a secret
service 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 issue.
The story of 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, a fact I confirmed in a conversation with one
of the producers of the documentary in which these comments appeared. But if
that were true, why didn’t this guy get the message?
But
the significance of Silverstein’s cryptic comments doesn’t end there. WTC
7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, had been owned by Manhattan real estate
mogul Larry Silverstein since the ’80's and was the HQ for his development
company, Westfield America, for years. But Building 7 was also the NYC home of
the Secret Service, SEC, DOD, IRS, CIA and a handful of private financial
institutions. Many theorists believe that shadowy elements within the
governmental agencies housed in WTC 7 are prime suspects in this sprawling
conspiracy. To these researchers, 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
these theorists 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 coming to the
conclusion 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 directly to the actual act of demolition itself).
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 ‘pull’ 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 at least three excellent
perspectives, it’s an understatement to say that Silverstein and his cohorts
had a big problem on their hands. Could it be that his 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.
The
expression ‘pull’ relates to the word ‘demolition’ the same way
that the expression ‘wind up’ relates to the word ‘pitch.’ In
both cases they represent one event occurring in two stages. In this
sense, Silverstein’s use of the word ‘pull’ to mean ‘demolition’
seems clear and may also have served to cover the sudden and suspicious
evacuation of personnel from around the base of WTC 7 shortly before its
bizarre suicide. A photographer on the scene described the evacuation of
firefighters as they “prepared for the collapse of Building 7...I was 150 yards
away when I saw the firefighters raising the flag.” What? It’s
understandable that, given the events of the day, the authorities might have
given some thought to this extremely remote possibility, just to be
safe. But for these guys to ‘pull’ Building 7 only to have it come down
right on cue is just too much coincidence to stomach.
There’s
another factor to be considered as well. The alleged damage to Building 7's south
face, caused by debris from the collapse of Tower One, is a pivotal factor in the official account
of what caused the fires in WTC 7. As mentioned above, these fires were then
sanctioned by the authorities as the “likely” cause of the building’s
subsequent 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 theory 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 south face have
ever been released to the public, an astounding revelation when you
consider the key role this evidence played in the days events.
Another
even more stunning fact is this: pictures of the two buildings that flank 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 pristine
condition, shoulder to shoulder with WTC 7, despite their being well within the
same radius of destruction. 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 a building similar in size to WTC 7,
standing just across the street from the South Tower, displayed no such
catastrophic damage and it certainly didn’t catch on fire and collapse.
In addition, aerial photos of Ground Zero
appear to indicate that the debris raining down from Tower One’s collapse — the
wreckage that had supposedly caused all the damage in the first place — 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), a result of
damage caused by this debris, and it clearly shows the limits of the
destruction it created. Despite some minor 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
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 — 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 the power of media
suppression) that the only videos we do have of Building 7 going down
were all distant shots taken from the north, precisely the wrong angle
to shed light on the matter.
All
of the anomalies listed above and the long list of disturbing questions
following in the wake of WTC 7's suspicious demise 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. With clear video footage of
Building 7's belated and unobscured 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. Wouldn’t the conspirators
have preferred wrapping things up in one fell swoop that morning rather than
prolonging the spectacle any longer than necessary? If dropping Building 7 late
in the day on 9/11 was really part of their original 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), especially when they
knew Ground Zero would be front and center on every TV and computer screen
on the planet that night? Instead we got tiny, insignificant fires, and a
long list of nagging questions. And the bewildering notion that the
conspirators would spend the rest of the day in the OEM orchestrating the
aftermath of the attacks in the upper floors of a burning building pushes
credulity close to the breaking point.
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 ever asked another question about it and
what many theorists consider to be a 9/11 smoking gun would have disappeared
into obscurity. Certainly this theory is supported by the facts of the day and
deserves consideration by the broad community of 9/11 skeptics.
copyright
Darkprints, July 2005