The most plausible theories I've heard are that WTC7 housed the command center for the operation and that the SEC files for several ongoing investigations into high end securities fraud were there.

Maybe WTC7 held the paperwork on where the missing $2.3 trillion went, that Rummy happened to make public on September 10, 2001?

Serious question, but including the money that came back on the building insurance, how much would it cost to organise, implement and keep a false flag attack like 9/11 a "secret"?

Well if we consider that $2.3 trillion in the context of the "military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends" then that's a quarter of their budget? After 9/11, Bush then added "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending".

I'm agreeing with you that we can never know how much the Government/Defense department 'caused' 9/11 to happen vs. letting it happen, but I'm just saying that the money to pull it off (and the monetary benefits after) are all available for it.

I think if one asks the question:

Who are the people that control the Military Industrial Complex, government, Wall Street and the mainstream media?

the answer will lead one to understand the "why" as well as understanding the only people they were "doing a favor" for was themselves.

I can't answer any of those questions for sure but I seriously doubt any of that info would be released.

The best theory I've seen is that is was filled with asbestos and would cost billions to sanitize safely.

More reason why it wouldn't burn - asbestos is fireproof. Knock it down!

It was built at the same time by the same contractors. I can't imagine WTC7 being one of the few 70's era buildings not to be filled with asbestos, but then again, it's just a theory I've heard. It's not like I have any sources.

Construction on WTC7 started in 1984 and wasn't completed until 1987. When building the twin towers in the 60s and 70s, the Port Authority anticipated a ban on asbestos use in NYC construction and stopped its use at floor 40 of WTC1.

The timing of his purchase of the towers and the specifics of the insurance policies suggest he at least knew of the impending events.

Maybe it was just to add to the destruction and perceived random chaos.

I mean, the same question can be applied to Flight 93: why take down a random plane in Pennsylvania?

Well everything destroyed, every event adds to the overall tragedy and perceived enormity.

Oooor

perhaps before hand, this whole thing is being plotted out, and someone is like, "If one building collapses, isn't it likely other buildings in the area also collapse?" And so to make it seem like other building are also just falling down as a result of the two towers falling, they purposefully demolished one they had access too.

oooor

And less likely, but humorous, maybe they just over ordered on explosives, and were like fuck, we gotta use 'em all ... I mean we paid for 'em ... so they decided to bring down an entire other building

Flight 93 might have been shot down in order to create the story about the passengers who sacrificed themselves to prevent their plane from being used as a weapon. It gave us the "Let's roll" tagline, reportedly said by one of the passengers leading the heroic assault on the evil muslims that hate us for our freedom.

Even if the WTC attack and Pentagon attack actually happened as per the official story and there was no conspiracy, I can see the administration realizing that covering up the shooting down of flight 93 - even though if they had admitted to shooting it down, they would have gotten away with it because shooting it down would be the rational thing to do - was a good idea from a propaganda point of view.

If flight 93 was the only cover-up that day I would be a very happy person.

Perhaps 93 was shot down because the passengers had regained control. That would seem to fit in with the rest of the evidence quite well.

Maybe, although remember that the phone calls from flight 93 are not evidence because they are not physically possible.

The best theory I've heard is that the IRS had an office there which was responsible for investigating securities frauds, corporate fraud, Enron, etc., etc., and since all their prosecutorial records were lost, the IRS had to settle these lawsuits in terms extremely favorable to the naughty companies, or abandon these investigations altogether. So there was a lot of $$ for corporations involved.

Edit: actually to correct, the IRS investigation I know about involved tax fraud, naturally. I dunno what else the IRS might have been investing (as opposed to SEC investigations.)

[deleted]

Debunkers argue that the flight path was in the "opposite" direction of NY and headed towards DC. It's actually a long way from being in the "opposite" direction but if you look at a map of the flight path it was definitely headed more towards DC than NY. Note that I'm not saying WTC7 could not have been the intended target. It still seems to me to be a distinct possibility, especially considering in the last few minutes it did change direction more towards NY.

[deleted]

The WTC 7 thing was really weird. Perhaps there was going to be a third plane or a truck bomb later in the day and somehow that got compromised so they just blew it up anyway.

Kenny - please tell me you can recreate the collapse in a controlled lab experiment and I will listen - if not - run along

runT1ME - great question - I'll add it to my list

We need a new investigation!!!

Or how about: Why were there office fires???? Who was burning what in the building???

Who was burning what in the building???

No one, debris from towers 1 and 2 impacted WTC 7, and that is what started the fires.

Believe what you will, but there was a lot of structural damage to WTC 7 hours before it fell.

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC7_Page_16_cropped.jpg

I agree Where the hell did he go?

Seemed like he had quite a story to run with but, maybe he realized he brought a knife to a gun fight?

insurance money

SEC reports that implicated very powerful and rich men were stored in WTC7.

Also, the cost of removing the asbestos from Silverstein's properties would have cost an immense amount of money.

You're right, though - insurance was icing on the cake - billions of dollars worth of icing.

It was built at the same time by the same contractors. I can't imagine WTC7 being one of the few 70's era buildings not to be filled with asbestos, but then again, it's just a theory I've heard. It's not like I have any sources.