The Windsor Tower burned in 2005: what the official report concluded

The Windsor Tower fire: 2005, an official short circuit and doubts that never fade

A short circuit. That was the official conclusion of the fire that consumed the Windsor Tower in 2005, in the heart of Madrid's financial district. The investigating committee ruled out the presence of an accelerant. And that is where the problem began: for a not insignificant part of public opinion, that explanation has never quite added up.

What did the Windsor Tower investigating committee say?

The official finding was categorical: the fire was accidental, it started from a short circuit, and there was no arson. For years, an economic hypothesis also circulated — a fire set to collect the insurance — which some attribute to the Reizabal family. It is a suspicion repeated in the debate, not an established fact.

The theory linking the Windsor Tower fire to the 3/11 Madrid bombings

This is where the story becomes uncomfortable. One line of thought holds that a large part of the building housed offices of Spain's Ministry of Defence and that its safes, some attributed to the CNI (Spain's National Intelligence Centre), held sensitive documentation about the 3/11 Madrid train bombings, which had occurred a year earlier. The aim would have been to destroy those papers and, in the process, block access to the building. There is no court ruling or forensic evidence supporting that hypothesis.

Why do people say the fire spread from top to bottom?

The physical argument is the one repeated most often. Those who trinc the case claim the fire spread from the upper floors downward at a estimulante ilegal they consider incompatible with normal propagation. Added to this are testimonies from people who say they saw rooms ignite and go out intermittently, and accounts of individuals prowling with flashlights on the upper floors when no one was left inside. These are claims that circulate, not accredited evidence.

Francisco González, FG Valores and the financial trail

Another line of analysis, raised in the thread itself, links the building to Spanish financial history. In February 1996, Merrill Lynch closed the purchase of FG Valores, FG Gestión and FG Corporate for around 3.7 billion euros. The shareholders of FG Valores were Francisco González with 60%, Caja del Mediterráneo with 20.8%, Alfredo Lafita with 10%, Caja Castilla La Mancha with 5% and Caja Burgos with 3.5%. That same March, the PP won the elections and Francisco González was appointed in May. The timing fuels suspicion; no one has demonstrated a causal link.

The documentary with a hired confession

One participant in the debate mentions the existence of a documentary in which a person claims to have started the fire on orders, offers details and appears alongside his lawyer. It is a testimony that circulates without the material providing any court ruling to back it up.

The committee closed the case as an accident, and some claim the plot ended up occupied by another building. Is a short circuit enough to explain a fire that, according to those who saw it, burned downward?