wyssling's blog

wtc7 - the i d i o t case: Why does Mr. Silverstein explain a NONSENSE ?

what about this perspective to one of the events on sept 11th 2001:

How, if things went not exactly the way they were planned ? I'm allways a bit irritated by the collapse of WTC 7 - there is such an obvious problem for the official version to explain the collapse of buildg.7 . The problem is so h u g e because this is one of the most smoking guns in the whole 9-11-planecrash-binLaden-Story. How could this recently built tower collapse ? It's more than obvious that fires can not be the cause, which childish pretext can be used in case of tower 1 and 2, as there was kerosen in the planes.

The problem is so huge that Larry Silverstein had to invent the story of the FDNY calling him - so that (as he wants to tell us) he himself suggested to "pull it". (he goes on : "...and then we watched the building collapse" ) Eventhough now he's led to misinterprete his own phrases, saying that he meant the People to "pull". What a Nonsense, what a "dangerous" game for him and friend Giuliani and other 'networkers'...
this is a kind of grave accident in the whole official version. What had really been planned as a reason/coverup-reason for the collapse of WTC 7 ?? Was there a third plane "missing", or should the fires inside the building r a g e much more than they actually did ? (How - b t w - do the officials explain these fires - from fallen debris ?? nonsense..)