It was the Zionist Space Lizard overlords.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

That was all part of the 'ingenious' Plot.

See, the Inside jobbers thought that bringing down the Twin Towers wouldn't be enough!^$#$@$!%^$*&*$#@

SOOOO they said "Lets plant [more] explosives in Bldg 7, even though that would seem like an idiotic needless risk".

Have a Party.. or once again.. If you're really Curious .. USE A SEARCH ENGINE! DUH!

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

That Google took 30 seconds. 'building 7' (on pg 1 after all the prisonplanets, etc)

-

__________________

I think the most suspicious thing about 9/11 is the Bush Administration itself. The Neo-Trotskyites of Bushco had already published their position that global American hegemony is their goal (creating the New World Order that Bush Sr. called for), but that a new "Pearl Harbor" event would have to take place before they could meet their objectives. Within a year of taking power, they got their catastrophe. Coincidence? The peculiar manner in which the 3 WTC buildings fell is odd, but it may just be a red herring. Motive and Opportunity are what matter the most, and the Trotskyites had plenty of both.

__________________
Would a mod care to explain this one?

I think it was Willie Nelson , working with the ghost of Waylon Jennings.

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.politicalforum.com/group.php?groupid=43

As stated previously in this thread:

Anyone who uses basic logic knows that the top of the buildings buckled due to the support beams being damaged from the impact of the planes. Match the impact with the building materials burning inside the building, you get collapse.

It just amazes me that even with the footage in post #1 showing the top of the building buckling on the left side thus sending the heavy weight of the top of the building plunging to the ground splitting the lower floors like a banana, they still say its odd how they fell.

Building 7 fell because of the tremendous splash effect of the debris from the tower collapsing. This undercut the foundation of building 7 bringing it down. So simple.

It once again goes to show us that the liberal loonies are the stupidest and scariest people in our society. The real conspiracy theory here is, how individuals like Willie can be brainwashed by fellow Liberal loonies

Or not.

I only ask because I'm unsatisfied with the answers I've heard. Are the circumstances of 9/11 unheard of? Certainly. There are so many factors at play, I don't pretend to understand the physics behind every element in the vast equation of what happened. However, I don't see harm in continuing to ask questions and remaining skeptical until I feel I understand and can accept the answers. Do you have a problem with that?

Most structural engineers, by the way, disagree with your assessment. They contend that it was the fires, but they also point to evidence that there was some material in there that they cannot justify: something that has the potential heat threshold to evaporate steel. They don't come out and say it, but one of the few reactions that can evaporate steel is thermite.

The NIST report on WTC 7 is due out in July 2008.

Let's set the fires aside though, because you've chosen the "splash effect" as your answer.

The tremendous splash effect of the debris. That should mean that the splash effect would have a radius and therefore the other buildings in that radius should be severely affected as well right? Your contention is that the splash effect traveled 2 blocks and knocked down WTC 7 over the top of WTC 6-- a smaller building that remained standing, and between the smaller adjacent Verizon and US Postal Service buildings that remained standing. There is an argument made that these buildings were smaller and therefore carried less weight on their structural members. Against that first argument: Debris falling from the collapse of the tower would be more likely to destroy a building that was engineered to carry and manage less load. An average chunk of tower weighing X is more likely to destroy something engineered to deal with less stress. However, WTC 5 and WTC 6 were both much closer and although they sustained severe damage, they did not fall until they were demolished later as part of the WTC removal project. I disagree with your "Splash Effect."

The engineers are struggling to understand and explain why building 7 fell, why can't I also struggle to understand why it fell. Does this really make me a conspiracy theorist?

You've also got Larry Silverstein, the freshly minted leaseholder of the whole WTC site talking about the fire department's decision to demolish the building. How exactly could they orchestrate that? Are they going to run into a building that they have been forced to evacuate and set the charges while it's on fire to demolish it? This makes no sense by any stretch of the imagination.


Just asking questions. Not really making judgments. As I said, I don't see the harm in asking for clarification and more evidence. A lot of people are still looking at a lot of this and scratching their heads. Engineers, developers, and scientists have a vested interest in understanding the physics of what happened to those buildings.

Metrophobe;

I agree you have every right to be curious about situations associated with building 7. This is one quote I could find suggesting that the towers impacted other buildings. "In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse".

Also if you look at the only pic I can find that shows in between 5 and 6 and 7. 5 looks like it has splash damage at its base.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...wtccomplex.htm

Because 5 and 6 did not collapse from fire does not mean that 7 was not structurally weak at its core base. I did not have time to look further, but I think if you look at as many films as you can you will see the possibility of the splash effect.

Even if one question's about 7 are interesting, to say the government had any sinister motive for bring the building down is, well loonie at best.

Post # 4's film on the collapse of the tower shows an interesting high intensity small flame at the same left corner that collapses causing the top to implode. I wonder if Bush put someone in the tower while it was burning to cut away at the beams. What do you think?