For years, one of the most suspicious, but little-known, phenomena of the attacks of September 11, 2001 has been the collapse, at about 5:20 P.M. on the afternoon of 9-11, of the 47-story World Trade Center 7, which housed a number of sensitive government offices (SEC, CIA) as well as the "command bunker" for Rudy Giuliani, isntalled after the attacks on the WTC in 1993.
There were fires in WTC7, but from available film they seem to have been confined to a few stories. Compounding doubts, Larry Silverstein (honcho of the partnership that had,just weeks before taken a 99-year lease, and huge insurance policies on the entire ocmplex) spoke of "pulling it," suggesting a controlled demolition.
Now it seems that Senator John Kerry has quietly gotten off the bandwagon as to this critical element of the government-promulgated "conspiracy theory."
According to Paul Joseph Watson (disclosure: Watson's a hardcore conspiracist) Sen. Kerry, at a recent speaking engagement in Austin Texas, responded to a question by indicating that, according to his information, the building was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition.
This is directly contra to the official story that WTC7 fell solely as a result of damage from fire and debris from the Twin Towers.
WTC7, according to what I have read, if anything was beefier than the Twin Towers, as it had had structural upgrades to provide for mega-computer systems and other abnormally heavy contents, in connection with some of its official functions.
Yet, at least to the layman's eye, WTC7 very much like the Twin Towers collapsed earlier in the day on 9-11, falling at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint.
A further curiosity is that it has been confirmed, but pooh-poohed by defenders of the Official Story, that BBC and other Bush-friendly media sources reported the collapse of WTC7, uh, more than 20 minutes before the event occurred. Shades of Lee Harvey Oswald! Millions have seen, on the net, live vid of a woman reporting for the BBC from Manhattan, stating that WTC7 had collapsed, while the building (showing neither collapse nor impending collapse) is plainly visible over the reporter's left shoulder.
BBC denied being part of any "conspiracy" and claimed, some media types have said improbably, that much of their archive form 9-11 has disappeared. They do not deny the genuineness or the timing of their report.
Additionally, EMTs, firefighters and police have stated that they were told well in advance to clear a collapse zone for Building 7, as it was going to be "brought down."
Questioned concerning WTC 7 by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at a Book People event in Austin Texas, Sen. Kerry reportedly responded, "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."
Obviously, the controlled demolition of a 47-story (or 110-story) building requires careful preparation, and the prior placement of dozens of small explosive charges within the structure to be demolished.
I am not a demolitions expert, but I would wager that it is neither claimed, nor could it credibly be claimed, that WTC was rigged for demolition(numerous charges placed inside) while the building was on fire on 9-11 itself.
If WTC7 came down via "controlled demolition," I should think it follows that that building was rigged with explosives at least days, and not just hours, in advance.
If THAT be so, then as the collapses of the Twin Towers appear very much to have been like that of WTC7 (and occurred with improbable speed, improbable violence and improbable symnetry, if aircraft impact and the failure of high-test steel structural elements was the cause, given the maximum temperature produced by jet fuel fires) it would seem that WTC1 and WTC2 may have been rigged in advance for planned demolition as well.
If the report of Sen. Kerry's words is true, his implication is that WTC7 was intentionally brought down, in order to avert a random collapse from damaging nearby buildings. That premise has been stoutly denied by official and other defenders of the Arabs-With-Boxcutters line, as a controlled demolition of WTC7 comes very close to showing that there was foreknowledge of the attacks, or worse.
On the following point I am speculating, of course, but I would be very, very curious to know if the insurance companies who paid out mondo dollars to Silverstein and his partners were reimbursed their payments from black-ops, under-the-table millions from Bushista sources. Even if you, dear reader, are unconvinced that the Official Story is nonsense, the notion that the insurance companies paid out such huge sums of their own hard-swindled money, with no genuinely independent investigation, impresses me as hugely suspicious. (I'm a construction attorney, and it's pretty rare for insurance companies to pay out more than nominal amounts of money, if there is serious doubt concerning the cause of the casualty event.)
Anyway, at least according to Mr. Watson, no less a figure than John F. Kerry is publicly questioning one of the bedrock "facts" supporting the Official Story of the 9-11 attacks. Don't reckon you'll see that on FOX News.