WTC-7 WTC-7 WTC-7 WTC-7 WTC-7

Time to remind everyone again that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and the proof is the collapse of World Trade Center Building number 7, the 600 foot high skyscraper across the street from the twin towers. WTC-7 also collapsed on 9-11 EVEN THOUGH NOTHING HIT IT!!!. And like the twins, it collapsed straight down like a perfect demolition job. WTC-7 was unquestionably brought down by explosives and that means the twin towers were most likely also brought down similarly. But how many americans know about this?. The almighty gover-media has done a great job at censoring the story but today we have the internet. Read about it.

You of course choose to ignore the fact that

1) Debris from the Towers did fall on WTC7 causing it to burn. 2) WTC7 was ignored by the firefighters who were concentrating their efforts on the Towers. 3) WTC7 was of the same unique construction as WTC1&2 so once the support beams integrity was degraded by the heat ([not] 'melted' the building would of course collapse in the same pattern.

Why, BTW would anyone want to drop WTC7 in a controlled explosion?

there were only a few fires on a few floors of wtc7.

wtc7 was of a unique construction - period. it was build extra sturdy because of the electrical substation that it housed.

maybe if all support beams were degraded equally. which wasn't the case because there were only a few fires.

there's no 'of course' here because because this collapse of a steel frame highrise building (supposedly) due to fire, was a first.

the pattern of collapse of buildings 1 and 2 was explained by the falling down of the part of the buildings above the crash site, on top of the rest of the building below te crash site. this is obviously very different from what happened to wtc7.

It is considered unusual for three large urban structures to collapse the way they did all on the same day?

According to some reports like the following... http://vestigialconscience.com/Pullit.html

Larry Silverstein, someone associated with the WTC, was involved in the decision to 'pull' the building...

This is supposedly what he was heard saying on a PBC documentary:

'...I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire...and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life...maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it...and they made that decision to 'pull'...uh, and we watched the building collapse.' True or not true?

What exactly does 'pull' mean?

Makes sense. Recall watching TV that day and hearing news reports to the effect that firemen, rescue workers etc were being taken from certain buildings. The buildings were considered too dangerous to work in and around. And the quote does mention the concern for the loss of life. Pull means get the firemen etc away from the building? May mean somethiing else but... It also seems pretty dumb for a conspirator to announce to PBS (or whomever) that they demolished a building the way the other two buildings were said by some to have been demolished.

But by the same token, why would he use the term 'pull' at all? I would have said I wanted to get the firemen out of the building and away from it. But I still think it refers to getting the fire and rescue people away from some building no matter why he used that term. That action was mentioned on TV that day. I don't have a cite. Just remember that being said.

Millions of tons of buildings fell less than 100 feet away from another building and when the other building eventually fails, the conspiracy kooks among us tout it as evidence of flying saucers or something. The notion of ground waves probably don't factor in their brains because they must think earthquakes are also caused by flying saucers.

if you insist on defending the official story, at least get your facts straight.

nothing fell on it, not of any signifigance. but there was more kerosene-based fuel in tower 7 than in the 2 planes combined.

So, IF you accept that a kerosene fire can burn hot enough to weaken structural steel enough to cause a complete collapse, then tower 7 is just as 'believeable' as the other 2.

You first.

But enough fell on it to start the fires.

And it didn't take much to set it off.

It's not just the kerosene that burned in the building any more than it was just the jet fuel that burned in WTC1 and 2.

If we're going to be 'establishing facts,' let's start with the fact that there were several buildings in the WTC, but only two 'Towers' WTC7 was a building, not a tower.

And no one has come up with a reason [why] WTC7 would have been brought down in a controlled explosion.

Are you asking what was the motive for bringing down WTC-7?. No one has explained that but then, lots of crimes occur that appear to be