"Johnny Bravo" wrote in message
...

1) Why bother blowing up WTC-7 at all? Do they honestly expect
us to believe
that the government actually sat down and said at a meeting "You
know, taking
out one of America's most prominent landmarks and killing 3,000
people just
won't be enough to enrage the public. But I've got a plan, we'll
also blow up
WTC-7, an empty building that 99.999% of the people in the country
never even
heard of to ensure the outrage we need."

An excellent point, sir.

When I read the first 9/11 conspiracy theory web pages (a long time
ago, right when they started appearing), it was a fairly common
belief, that WTC-7 was the location where the "remotely controlled
planes" that hit the towers were controlled from. And that WTC-7 was
demolished to hide the fact that the building was used as a base of
operations.

Some time later, almost all of these speculations disappeared. I
always thought it was because people were asking more and more, why
the base of operations would be right next to ground zero. Wouldn't
it be more logical (and safer to people and the secret) to put it
somewhere else where it would be still hidden after the planes hit?

It may be, that the WTC-7 demolition theory just kept on going even
though the building was not considered as a base any more?

Personally I have always wondered, *how many* people would have to
know about a job of this magnitude, had it indeed been a government
job. I find it extremely unlikely, that a secret of such magnitude
could be kept by so many people.

I'm, a conspiracy buff, I always want to hear different scenarios
and not just jump into the easiest or official solution. Still I've
always thought, that these 9/11 theories are extremely hard to
believe, when you consider the magnitude of the job. And even if it
was doable, the events and the reasons behind them in these actions
do not seem logical. Especially like the collapse of WTC-7. If it
was indeed a government job, why demolish that building too?

TVirta