Reply #24: if you look at the video, it's obvious that #7 was a controlled demo . . .

[OneBlueSky]

there wasn't sufficient damage to the building to cause it to implode like that, falling right into its own footprint . . . it wasn't hit by a plane, and the only pre-demolition damage was a fire . . . and no steel-framed building has EVER been brought down by a fire . . .

if you accept that this was a controlled demolition (and I do), then you have to accept that the charges to bring the building down were planted before 9/11 . . . for what purpose? . . . and if you accept that, you also have to be open to the very real possibility that charges were also planted in WTC1 and WTC2 before 9/11 . . . again, for what purpose? . . .

all the evidence, including the videos, suggests that both WTC towers were imploded by controlled demolitions . . . and the fact that molton steel was still smoldering in the bases of the towers days after the event suggests that more than burning jet fuel and office partitions were involved . . .

the "official story" of what happened on 9/11 represents the LEAST likely scenario of what could have taken place . . . and the fact that the steel was removed almost immediately and shipped overseas to be melted down suggests a coverup of crucial physical evidence that would have proven, one way or the other, what caused the steel to fail . . .

the 9/11 Commission was a whitwash comparable to the Warren Commission, imo . . . but one day, the truth will become known . . . and that's the day that Bush and his cronies will be headed for long stays in federal penitentiaries . . .