Comment: ALL of your questions have been answered many times over on this

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Can someone please explain to (see in situ)

ALL of your questions have been answered many times over on this

site and others.

A little homework would give you weeks and months of reading.

I'll give you some short versions:

#1 - You are assuming "government" - do not assume. The short answer to your "why demo" question is: Shock value.

#2 - It was already a target in the past, so it fit a narrative. Also, a well connected individual owned the buildings and wanted to tear them down. They were loaded with asbestos, and he didn't want to spend what was required to clean them up according to government regulations. They were failing properties and he wanted more modern buildings instead.

#3 - An improperly collapsed building was NOT too much. It wasn't enough either. Shock value was required. A chunk falling off would not have sufficed. The buildings needed to be demolished entirely, people needed to be instilled with paralyzing fear. That would not be possible with only 'some' damage and not complete demolition.

#4 - Covered too many times, and even a few small answers in this thread. That really is a rude question. People here are not flapping off the cuff. Many have studied this in great detail and understand as well as any layman could, what is required and needed to pull this off.

#5 - There are several possible answers:

a) it was a good educated guess due to proximity and quantity of material
b) you are again making an assumption. You were TOLD the falling material started the fire. Perhaps the fire(s) were set intentionally in some other fashion.(falling material is sufficient, but I'm just making the point anyway - they might have been prepared for this case anyhow)
c) As far as I know, NONE of the buildings in the complex 'survived.' All of them were damaged beyond reasonable repair and have been fully scrapped. Thus, you again ASSUME, it was even possible with the other towers falling, that ANY of those buildings in the complex would remain undamaged. Buildings near the complex were heavily damaged. To assume #7 would remain untouched is just plain nuts.
d) They didn't need coincidence - they had "fires" set by falling debris to excuse it away with.

#7 was demoed because it was desired to be taken down with the rest of the complex. Had charges not been placed in advance of the "attack" and had it remained standing though damaged by fire, the owner would have had to jump through massive legal hoops and red tape to finally get it brought down via proper demo and more than likely after everything else was already cleaned up. Doing it at the same time, was much easier.

If you look at it from the perspective of the intention all along was to demo the entire complex of buildings, and that became an opportune way to use this event as our "new Pearl Harbor" then things make much more sense.

The only scenario that doesn't make sense is the "official" one.

Your questions stem from trying to hold on to all other parts of the official narrative.

Let it go.

Follow the evidence to where it leads you, rather than trying to make the evidence fit the story.