UK foreign minister Ian Pearson confirms WTC7 demolished

A member on some other forum contacted his MP...and received this responce...which confirms wtc7 was demolished.

what he is saying is that the still-standing, badly damaged stump of WTC7 was demolished some time after 9/11, as a result of the significant damage it suffered on the day.

He is not saying it was demolished on 9/11.

Have you even SEEN the video?

It's not clear. He simply uses the word "subsequently" which does not mean "some time after".

Also, if WTC7 totally collapsed on 9/11 how could it then be "demolished"?

How can demolish something which is already in a state of demolition?

that was demolished some time after 9/11.

WCT7 had no significant damage visible from the outside; it certainly was not a "stump".
Nor was it demolished "some time after 9/11" - it collapsed in the afternoon on 9/11.
There's ample visible (video) evidence for this, it was broadcast on 9/11 by several major TV networks.

One of the major peculiarities about the WTC7 collapse is that there were other buildings that were severly damaged but which did not collapse on their own accord.

I perhaps should have used the word "husk", meaning the useless, damaged remains of the building. "Stump" was the wrong word to use - I was merely trying to convey the idea of a useless remnant.

Anyway, the point is that the building was so badly damaged that it later required demolition. That is the material point.

And anyone thinking that they have "caught" the British government inadvertently admitting "the truth" is wilfully misreading this letter.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the building was intact and had limited fires.

It was completely demolished. Do not seek virtue in your ignorance.

after I believe.

Pearson doesn't know what he's talking about.

He seems simply to be mistakenly correcting his constituent about WTC 7, saying it was demolished long after the attacks along with other buildings. I wouldn't read into this that he's betraying some enormous secret. (And why would Ian Person be privy to it, anyway?)

The Building held thousands of gallons of diesel fuel for the police department in the basement and during the fires at the towers before they fell the tower name 7 crashed for no apparent reason and it was a conspiracy nuts feast for awhile and now it comes out that the building was indeed pulled.

Makes you think about what they said after(NY FD) the incident, the towers looked like they were busting out floor by floor like a set detonation, this comment was stated by a couple of fire fighters after the incident but before it was closed to the public.

I will find the interview again and post it.

Many demolition people I know think the building was pulled too( the 2 towers).
They say that it couldn't fall in 8-10 seconds if that wasn't the case and why did the buildings fall straight down and not tip to the side as it should have done if they fell on their own. Who has ever seen a building fall straight down and not hit the buildings around them. I know the floors didn't all give out at the same exact time but yet they all fell without causing the other floors to tip sideways where the least force would be needed for the material to reach the ground.

It all seems funny that the plane video of the object going into the Pentagon was not seen by public after they confiscated the videos from th e gas stations around the area and the hole was too small for the boeing to get thru and there was books with pages un burned on the third floor of the Pentagon seen from outside thru the hole left by the projectile.-

One thing that seems weird is the fact that all of the court material for the EN RON scandal was housed in the world trade buildings and now they are gone.

A Jewish firm moved out a week before the incident along with a few others and this is unheard of. The muslims all dancing on the roofs moments after t he attack, and the fact that a person who works for the Airports said that the plane that hit the first tower was not a passenger craft, he stated that it had no windows.


I don't want to be a conspiracy nut but the current administration has gone to war on false pretenses from the beginning and I heard a couple of days ago that Rums, Chen, and Bush talked about an attack on American soil being the only way to start a war with Iraq, this was supposedly months before 911. They have done allot of shady stuff why not save Enrons butt and blow the international building they were in to smithereens.???


Edward Hazen Goss III

businessman, reporters... What do they have in common? They all said they heard explosions over and over again....

...9/11 Comission Report, because that's all I know' ",
and he seems to be lumping 7 in with the demolitions of 3, 4, 5, and 6.

It's a long way from "Why yes, David, the Yanks blew up their own bloody building, whot?"

A politician's reply to look responsive and say nothing.

I suspect it is being over interpreted.

The sentences of paragraph 3 could all stand alone and there is no clear linkage of the subject of one sentence to the subjects of the other sentences.

The only thing it clearly says about WTC7 is that it wasn't attacked by terrorists.

The reference to a number of WTC buildings being torn down doesn't really make the claim that one of them was building 7.

which is not in accordance with the Official Story.
What that means is another matter, but it is peculiar nonetheless.

Carefully read what is actually written there.

It never clearly states that WTC 7 is among the "number of WTC and other buildings."

You might assume or percieve that because they are in the same paragraph they are linked, but then you'd be vulnerable to being wrong. The paragraph is just a superficial listing of events.

It's the same sort of mistake people make linking Saddam to 911 just because they were often mentioned together.

There is no linkage between the sentences that logically requires WTC7, the building mentioned in one sentence, to be among "a number of WTC and other buildings" which are being discussed in the next sentence.

about why WTC7 collapsed.
Which is along the same lines as the reports of the 9-11 Commission, FEMA and NIST. Combined with the fact that NIST and FEMA reports contradict one another on the details of the collapse of the towers, this reaffirms the notion that there is no conclusive official explanation of how things went down that day. Which is rather peculiar, if not downright suspicious.

all aspects of 9-11.

The Pentagon, Building 7, the secondary explosions at the two towers etc. are all covered.

Enjoy. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911&pl=true

A number of WTC buildings WERE destroyed. There were 7 buildings and what was left after the three collapsed was also destroyed. 3,4,5 and 6. Being mostly underneath the towers they were either completely destroyed or unusable. This document isn't specific.

people forget there was a lot of damage to building around towers 1, 2 from their collapse. (WTC 7, the winter garden across west end ave a 6 lane road) the Deustch building, etc etc) so they didnt exactly collapse neatly.

And here is evidence of exactly what your talking about. The perimeter columns of one side of the building are almost laid out as if that face almost tilted over in one piece.

confirmed that the WTC was demolished" in the sense that the thread head suggests, on the basis of the letter linked in the opening post, could they?

It beggars belief, frankly.

And such ridiculous theories just detract from the real questions that should be asked about Sept. 11/01 when the U.S. gov't fell down on so many fronts. This kind of stuff only helps the Bush administration by keeping people talking about nonsensical conspiracy theories instead of focussing on how badly the gov't failed that day.