All the evidence against Enron was stored there, amongst other things.

Gosh, good thing the evidence was destroyed, otherwise Enron executives might have been jailed and the company put into receivership!

and Worldcom

Do you have a source for this? I'm genuinely asking because I have the same question as OP regarding the 9/11 conspiracy. I can see motivation and maybe even opportunity but I've yet to see convincing evidence to balance the risk vs reward ratio.

Here's one link, dig and you'll find more:

http://www.cabaltimes.com/2012/03/13/enron-911-link/

Possibly because United 93 was, for whatever reason, unable to make its pre-scheduled stop at WTC7.

There are numerous reports that people in WTC7 were told to evacuate because "another plane was incoming".

If it was wired for collapse (like the other two towers may have been), it had to be destroyed. When United 93 didn't arrive, they may have risked being exposed due to the evidence of the explosives remaining in the building. (As well as all the other paperwork stored there to be destroyed). Also, if WTC7 was a staging area for coordinating some aspect of the attacks, that would be incriminating as well.

Kevin Ryan's new book details the officials (& others including JSOC & Navy explosives experts) who were in WTC7 that morning, the ones who fled, and the ones who never showed up but were supposed to be there.

Explained

http://youtu.be/n_fp5kaVYhk

Well government had offices in there, also if you look up how long it takes to plan out the demolishing of a building, cause it doesn't take a day of planning, putting charges on the support columns. It takes months of preparation. So how long were they planning it?

Why do you burn a stolen car after you abandon it?

Old building. Still had asbestos in it probably and Silverstein didn't want to pay to replace it. Instead he had it torn down for the insurance payout (along with WTC1 & 2).

rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion

This statement was taken out of context and if you think about it your argument doesn't make any sense. Was Rumsfeld (who you must think is a genius for getting away with all this) thinking: "Hey, I could really use 2.3 trillion dollars. I better report it missing today and the tomorrow we will blow up 2 buildings around the same time and then a third building about seven hours later. Never mind how enormous of a paper trail this would be and how it would lead anyone who did any investigation straight to me and the bush administration." That is basically what you are saying he was thinking with your comment.

The missing trillions paper work was destroyed in the Pentagon strike.

Wrong ! http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199

A link about financial reform has nothing to do with what went missing before. Did they ever track it down? Nope.

CFR, PNAC member and 'Vulcan' Rabbi Dov Zakheim did "account for it" after he got handed the job of DoD Comptroller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Zakheim

http://rense.com/general75/latest.htm

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=2875

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XPEz0d1rWI

Good links.

Thanks.

It was burning for 7+ hours and the building was completely destroyed due to falling debris from wtc 1 and 2 which were taken down by Al Qaeda due to planes being crashed into them and the jet fuel from those planes caused the steel to weaken and then the building to collapse.

There were other trade center towers much closer to the twin towers that took much greater direct damage than building seven did, they were all later demolished but didn't even come close to collapse, let alone in the fashion that building seven fell so quickly and neatly

Wtc7 was the third tallest building so there is a reason it collapsed in dramatic fashion. It was over 600 ft tall. Also, one thing I've learned is that just because you observe something and have a strong hunch doesn't make it true. You are no scientist in the area of falling buildings that are more than 600 ft tall and spending a few hours a day on a conspiracy theorist website will never make you one!

Yes, but a building demolition and a building falling down look nothing alike. It would be a one in a trillion chance for any collapsing building to fall neatly in its own footprint, let alone for it to happen 3 times in one day. The pyroclastic flows at the site of 9/11 are also a dead giveaway. One does not witness pyroclastic flows anywhere other than a controlled demolition using powerful explosives to move enormouse amounts of material, and a volcanic eruption. Also, WTC 1, 2, & 7 are the first steel framed buildings to EVER collapse due to fire (even though jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel).

Not an engineer, but I do have the internet. Use it sometime.

so there is a reason it collapsed in dramatic fashion.

and it wasn't gravity, in-fact it defied gravity by collapsing faster than a collapsing building can.

the acceleration curve has a very flat upwards bump, should have been steep.

I'm no scientist...says you, appeal to authority fallacy anyways but um maybe you should check out the work of the architects and engineers for 911 truth if that's what you're looking for... Your explanation can hardly be called that, laughable

Appeal to Authority: Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

^{Created at /r/RequestABot}

^{If you dont like me, simply reply leave me alone fallacybot , youll never see me again}

You think a building falling at freefall speeds that day was the result of terrorists? Al-Queda?

Al-Queda is trained in the art of building demolition? I didn't know that.

So the fuel burned hot enough to melt the steel columns, but not hot enough to burn a terrorist passport....

Seems totally plausible.

Pffffssh... ...a likely story

Parroting MSM talking points? Good one.

Mimicking conspiracy theorist talking points? Bad one and a decision you will come to regret at 35 if you vocalized your political beliefs and then gave up your confirmation bias and realized you were wrong. Seriously though, quit while you're behind.

Wow, a real shill and a comedian too!

They PAY you to say this stupid shit?

This statement was taken out of context and if you think about it your argument doesn't make any sense. Was Rumsfeld (who you must think is a genius for getting away with all this) thinking: "Hey, I could really use 2.3 trillion dollars. I better report it missing today and the tomorrow we will blow up 2 buildings around the same time and then a third building about seven hours later. Never mind how enormous of a paper trail this would be and how it would lead anyone who did any investigation straight to me and the bush administration." That is basically what you are saying he was thinking with your comment.