Much has been made that the BBC report about WTC7's collapse also came with an explanation that the collapse was caused by damage and fire.

On the surface, what's interesting about this is that it's the exact same conclusion that FEMA and the NIST came up with after years of "investigation." The BBC figured out instantly what the NIST still hasn't figured out 5+ years later.

However, what's even more incredible about this explanation is the context of this report.

This was a live report on 9/11/01. Terrorist had just taken out WTC1 and WTC2. The terrorist had just taken out the Pentagon. In 1993 terrorists tried to blow up the WTC with explosives. The African embassies were blown up with explosives. OKC was blown up with explosives. And the BBC had just aired a bit about how the British government was warning there could be more attacks in America.

So even in this context of multiple terrorist attacks on America, and the history of buildings being taken down by terrorists with explosives, the BBC report doesn't even *consider the possibility* that WTC7 was taken down by a terrorist bombing. It was already determined that WTC7 fell because of fire and damage, and not by bombs.

The real conspiracy isn't that they knew WTC7 was coming down -it was that somebody wanted to make sure the public did not even *consider* that WTC7 came down from another terrorist attack.

This would make sense if the government didn't want a complete panic to set in across the country. I.e., it was bad enough seeing the planes hit. If America also would have seen WTC7 blown up from terrorist planting bombs, it might have set off a widespread panic all across the country.

So maybe instead of the BBC report being evidence of U.S. complicity in the collapse of WTC7, it could instead be evidence of a cover-up of U.S. incompetence and to protect the U.S. from having the public believe that the terrorists pulled off an embarrassing attack on the FBI and CIA, which had their NY headquarters located in WTC7.

In 1996 TWA Flight 800 exploded just after taking off from NY. The FBI's initial investigation determined that there were residues of explosives at the spot where the plane exploded. Rather than reach the "official" conclusion that the plane was blown up by terrorists, the FBI went back and found a different explanation. They said a few weeks before the accident, bomb sniffing dogs accidentally knocked over some stuff in side the plane that left the residue. The point being that the FBI made sure that the public did not believe that a terrorist smuggled a bomb onto the plane.

On 9/11, WTC7 inexplicably suffered a total collapse 8 hours after the initial attack. Five years later, the NIST still hasn't been able to release a final report explaining how the entire building failed simultaneously. The debris from WTC7 was cleared out immediately and shipped to China and India before tests could be conducted, and without the steel beams being examined.

Why?

More importantly, *how* was the government able to determine that bombs were *not* used without doing a proper investigation and testing?

And even if you believe that bombs were responsible for WTC7 collapsing, how do *you* know who put the bombs there?

Wouldn't it be more likely that the FBI would want to cover-up the fact that the entire building was compromised right under their noses than to risk being caught blowing up their own offices?

Maybe preventing panic isn't as strong a motive as saving embarrassment, or maybe "panic" isn't the best word to describe what I' talking about.

That said, it could be argued that if the public believed that the only damage came from the hijackings, then the solution to the problem is to change the security procedures at airports. The public would feel like the government was able to "fix" the problem.

If it was known that the very building that was home to the CIA and FBI was blown up by al-Qaeda bombs, then there would be no easy solution to prevent this from happening anywhere in the country, in any building, e.g., malls, office buildings, etc. The public would lose faith in the government's ability to protect anybody.

Either that, or the CIA and FBI would be too embarrassed to admit that al-Qaeda blew up their own building. Or maybe for "security" reasons, the FBI and CIA wouldn't want the details of the CD at WTC7 to become publicly known.

In any case, it makes more sense to me that al-Qaeda blew WTC7, and the government is covering it up, than to believe that the government blew WTC7.

After all, with WTC1 and WTC2 already going down, and the Pentagon being hit, what reason would the government have for taking down WTC7? If the government conspired to pull off 9/11, what reason would they have for risking the demolition of WTC7 when the theatrics of WTC1, WTC2, and the Pentagon were already more than sufficient to achieve their goals?

Yes, there is evidence that WTC7 collapsed in a way that looks like a CD. There is evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers took over the planes and crashed them. There is evidence that the 9/11 Commission, along with Sandy Berger, wasn't interested in finding out everything there is to know about 9/11. There is evidence that al-Qaeda has a history of blowing up buildings.

There is no hard evidence at all about what happened to WTC7 because all the evidence was destroyed by the government. Further, the BBC video shows that even before WTC7 collapsed, a conclulsion was reached that WTC7 died of natural causes (fire and damage) and NOT a CD. How could anybody know this at the time?

I'm just putting this out there as a possible scenario. Maybe they had an operative that infiltrated the CIA or FBI, or maybe one of the FBI informants from al-Qaeda was working both sides, like Ali Mohammed did. Maybe the charges could have been set with a timer?

Why does this matter in terms of the overall theory?

Here are the choices:

a) WTC7 collapsed from the fire and damage. Imo, that dog doesn't hunt as they say. Every vertical support in the entire structure collapsed simultaneously. The NIST's preliminary explanation is that a critical vertical collapse initiated a horizontal failure, that triggered a universal vertical collapse. That explanations defies common sense.

b) Some sort of CD occurred, either set by the arab terrorists or,

c) by the government.

Imo, it is at least equally reasonable to believe that AQ set the explosives and the government wanted to cover this up, than it is to believe that the government blew up the building themselves.

If it can be shown that the entire instantaneous failure of every vertical colummn was the result of damage to the south face and fires, then the whole CD theory is a moot point. However, the NIST has had 5 years to show this and they haven't been able to.

Therefore, until a) can be shown or at least reasonably described, we're left with b) or c).