Unanswered, you can go no further

[wihosa]

On 911 hours after the Twin Towers collapsed Building Seven collapsed. The NIST charged with the investigation (even though it is not an investigatory body) finally admitted that yes indeed the building fell at free fall acceleration for the first 2 plus seconds. This means that there was ZERO resistance to collapse, which means that 400 structural steel connections failed simultaneously every second.

The NIST blamed "normal office fires". There have been many skyscraper fires, and many which burned longer and were far more involved. None of those previous fires have ever produced total and complete collapse in mere seconds. Most did not induce any collapse at all. The Windsor Hotel in Madrid Spain burned for nearly 24 hours, virtually gutting the entire structure. In spite of that the structural frame did not collapse save for a limited area which was at the top of the hottest part of the fire. As one would expect the small amount of collapse was slow with structural members showing deformation and uneven failure.

Building Seven if the proof positive of controlled demolition and that the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a lie. This fact alone is enough to open a real investigation. If you consider your self a patriot you should support the prosecution of the greatest crime in our history. No other evidence is needed to start the investigation for if this evidence goes unanswered then we can go no further. All other parts of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" fall apart.

 

[georgephillip]

Although I haven't seen the exact figure lately, there's still a significant number of Americans who believe only two New York towers collapsed on 911. Many of them would rightly wonder how two planes collapsed three steel-framer skyscrapers.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

 

[wihosa]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

 

[wihosa]

Although I haven't seen the exact figure lately, there's still a significant number of Americans who believe only two New York towers collapsed on 911. Many of them would rightly wonder how two planes collapsed three steel-framer skyscrapers.

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

 

[idb]

Although I haven't seen the exact figure lately, there's still a significant number of Americans who believe only two New York towers collapsed on 911. Many of them would rightly wonder how two planes collapsed three steel-framer skyscrapers.

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy I wonder - total that is - from the demolition crews to the news agencies to the government agencies and whomever else...?

 

[wihosa]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

No, what is impossible is that a steel framed building collapsed in under seven seconds due to "normal office fires" as claimed by the NIST.
There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing. There is much evidence of the use of 'nano thermite'a military grade explosive capable of cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter. All the dust samples collected from 911 are full of the hardened iron drops produced by thermite reactions.

Sherlock Holmes may have been a fictional character but his words are unimpeachable " when the impossible is removed, what remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth".

 

[wihosa]

Although I haven't seen the exact figure lately, there's still a significant number of Americans who believe only two New York towers collapsed on 911. Many of them would rightly wonder how two planes collapsed three steel-framer skyscrapers.

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy I wonder - total that is - from the demolition crews to the news agencies to the government agencies and whomever else...?

Very good question! We need a real investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power to find out. If you do even the slightest amount of research into 911 you'll find the "anomalies" are multitude, any one of which might be explained away, but in total it is overwhelming that the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a lie.

 

[PredFan]

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

No, what is impossible is that a steel framed building collapsed in under seven seconds due to "normal office fires" as claimed by the NIST.
There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing. There is much evidence of the use of 'nano thermite'a military grade explosive capable of cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter. All the dust samples collected from 911 are full of the hardened iron drops produced by thermite reactions.

Sherlock Holmes may have been a fictional character but his words are unimpeachable " when the impossible is removed, what remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth".

So, you think you can wash away logic and reason by simply stating "There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing."? Sorry man, it's impossible. Once we established that a controlled demolition is impossible, we must accept the NIST's version no matter how inconsistent or contradictory.

 

[PredFan]

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy I wonder - total that is - from the demolition crews to the news agencies to the government agencies and whomever else...?

Very good question! We need a real investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power to find out. If you do even the slightest amount of research into 911 you'll find the "anomalies" are multitude, any one of which might be explained away, but in total it is overwhelming that the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a lie.

The very fact that the Official Version has so many holes and inconsistancies in it is a good indication that it is the true story. Let me explain:

If it had been some conspiracy by some group to bring down the towers, their story would have been a whole lot better, cleaner, and more consistent than it is. The reason the NIST's theory seems so screwed up is because the DIDN'T know about it a head of time. They were piecing together the evidence after the fact, and making a theory as to what happened based on the evidence. Not having all the evidence, or all the pieces, they did the best they could. If it was a conspiracy, they would have created a much better story before it even happened.

 

[wihosa]

You are doing what so many others I've debated on this issue have done,ignoring the plain obvious impossibility of the supposed cause of the collapse of B7 in an effort to make the OCT plausible, but no amount of rationalizing can make the impossible possible.
Only controlled demolition can sever hundreds of structural steel connections at the exact same moment.
I have no theory of conspiracy, I am only going by known facts, B7 collapsed in under seven seconds, suddenly, symmetrically, straight down through the path of greatest resistance at free fall acceleration.

If you are new to this it is difficult to accept. It took me weeks to come to grips with the implications. But, facts are facts.

There are hundreds of bits of evidence regarding 911 that contradict every part of the OCT but I focus on B7 because it is the "smoking gun".

 

[PredFan]

You are doing what so many others I've debated on this issue have done,ignoring the plain obvious impossibility of the supposed cause of the collapse of B7 in an effort to make the OCT plausible, but no amount of rationalizing can make the impossible possible.
Only controlled demolition can sever hundreds of structural steel connections at the exact same moment.
I have no theory of conspiracy, I am only going by known facts, B7 collapsed in under seven seconds, suddenly, symmetrically, straight down through the path of greatest resistance at free fall acceleration.

If you are new to this it is difficult to accept. It took me weeks to come to grips with the implications. But, facts are facts.

There are hundreds of bits of evidence regarding 911 that contradict every part of the OCT but I focus on B7 because it is the "smoking gun".

The controlled demolition without anyone knowing is what is impossible. You have given no facts. You seem to think that by simply stating something makes it true. You offer no "theory of conspiracy" because like so many other truthers, you base your entire argument on the holes and inconsistancies of the official version. You don't understand that poking holes in the official version doesn't make your version correct. You are like the people who argue for creationism by attacking evolution. It doesn't work.

You want some credibility? Offer a theory of your own and support it with evidence. Who orchestrated the attack, how did they carry it out, how did they keep all of the people silent, how did they get Osama Bin Laden to go along with it, how did they know at what point the planes were going to hit the buildings, and well, start with those details. Otherwise you aren't going to get anywhere bringing up the acknowledged problems with the Official Version.

 

[wihosa]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

No, what is impossible is that a steel framed building collapsed in under seven seconds due to "normal office fires" as claimed by the NIST.
There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing. There is much evidence of the use of 'nano thermite'a military grade explosive capable of cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter. All the dust samples collected from 911 are full of the hardened iron drops produced by thermite reactions.

Sherlock Holmes may have been a fictional character but his words are unimpeachable " when the impossible is removed, what remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth".

So, you think you can wash away logic and reason by simply stating "There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing."? Sorry man, it's impossible. Once we established that a controlled demolition is impossible, we must accept the NIST's version no matter how inconsistent or contradictory.

Sorry man it's not impossible, improbable I will grant you but not impossible. What is impossible is that a modern steel framed high rise building can collapse due to "normal office fires". If you think it is possible to achieve free fall acceleration without controlled demolition why don't you explain it? By the way free fall acceleration means that the building collapsed at the same rate that a rock dropped from the top would have fallen. The NIST admitted to free fall but they couldn't/didn't explain it. The 911 Commission Report doesn't even mention B7 which is a lie of omission.

I understand your reluctance to accept the truth, it changes your world view, but facts are facts.

 

[wihosa]

You are doing what so many others I've debated on this issue have done,ignoring the plain obvious impossibility of the supposed cause of the collapse of B7 in an effort to make the OCT plausible, but no amount of rationalizing can make the impossible possible.
Only controlled demolition can sever hundreds of structural steel connections at the exact same moment.
I have no theory of conspiracy, I am only going by known facts, B7 collapsed in under seven seconds, suddenly, symmetrically, straight down through the path of greatest resistance at free fall acceleration.

If you are new to this it is difficult to accept. It took me weeks to come to grips with the implications. But, facts are facts.

There are hundreds of bits of evidence regarding 911 that contradict every part of the OCT but I focus on B7 because it is the "smoking gun".

The controlled demolition without anyone knowing is what is impossible. You have given no facts. You seem to think that by simply stating something makes it true. You offer no "theory of conspiracy" because like so many other truthers, you base your entire argument on the holes and inconsistancies of the official version. You don't understand that poking holes in the official version doesn't make your version correct. You are like the people who argue for creationism by attacking evolution. It doesn't work.

You want some credibility? Offer a theory of your own and support it with evidence. Who orchestrated the attack, how did they carry it out, how did they keep all of the people silent, how did they get Osama Bin Laden to go along with it, how did they know at what point the planes were going to hit the buildings, and well, start with those details. Otherwise you aren't going to get anywhere bringing up the acknowledged problems with the Official Version.

There are thousands of researchers who have done this, as I said I focus on B7 because it is the smoking gun. There is just no way that a building can collapse at free fall speed without controlled demolition. There are many ways to sneak people into and out of buildings at night when no one is around. Did you know that B7 underwent extensive construction and remodeling in the months prior to 911?
Have you even watched B7 fall? It's on youtube. There are many different views of its collapse. And then there is the BBC reporter reporting it's collapse 20 minutes before it did! You can see the building behind her as she reports it HAS collapsed.

Instead of a knee jerk refusal to believe, do a little research, there are thousands of engineers and architects who have staked their reputations as to the impossibility of the B7 story.

 

[Politico]

Well at least this is in the right section.

 

[georgephillip]

Although I haven't seen the exact figure lately, there's still a significant number of Americans who believe only two New York towers collapsed on 911. Many of them would rightly wonder how two planes collapsed three steel-framer skyscrapers.

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

Here's a link to the poll you mentioned.
If it's accurate, there are tens of millions of US voters who are currently ignorant of the most relevant political event of their entire lives:

"On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition.

"Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11..."

"38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;

"46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:

"46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;

"By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it."

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories ? ReThink911.org | Sign the Petition for a new 9/11 investigation

 

[PredFan]

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

No, what is impossible is that a steel framed building collapsed in under seven seconds due to "normal office fires" as claimed by the NIST.
There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing. There is much evidence of the use of 'nano thermite'a military grade explosive capable of cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter. All the dust samples collected from 911 are full of the hardened iron drops produced by thermite reactions.

Sherlock Holmes may have been a fictional character but his words are unimpeachable " when the impossible is removed, what remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth".

So, you think you can wash away logic and reason by simply stating "There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing."? Sorry man, it's impossible. Once we established that a controlled demolition is impossible, we must accept the NIST's version no matter how inconsistent or contradictory.

Sorry man it's not impossible, improbable I will grant you but not impossible. What is impossible is that a modern steel framed high rise building can collapse due to "normal office fires". If you think it is possible to achieve free fall acceleration without controlled demolition why don't you explain it? By the way free fall acceleration means that the building collapsed at the same rate that a rock dropped from the top would have fallen. The NIST admitted to free fall but they couldn't/didn't explain it. The 911 Commission Report doesn't even mention B7 which is a lie of omission.

I understand your reluctance to accept the truth, it changes your world view, but facts are facts.

I do not have to prove a negative. YOU are making the claim that there was some conspiracy behind this other than the terrorist conspiracy that the official version claims. It is on YOU to prove that. You can't prove your conspiracy theory by poking holes in the official version. You have to prove yours.

 

[PredFan]

You are doing what so many others I've debated on this issue have done,ignoring the plain obvious impossibility of the supposed cause of the collapse of B7 in an effort to make the OCT plausible, but no amount of rationalizing can make the impossible possible.
Only controlled demolition can sever hundreds of structural steel connections at the exact same moment.
I have no theory of conspiracy, I am only going by known facts, B7 collapsed in under seven seconds, suddenly, symmetrically, straight down through the path of greatest resistance at free fall acceleration.

If you are new to this it is difficult to accept. It took me weeks to come to grips with the implications. But, facts are facts.

There are hundreds of bits of evidence regarding 911 that contradict every part of the OCT but I focus on B7 because it is the "smoking gun".

The controlled demolition without anyone knowing is what is impossible. You have given no facts. You seem to think that by simply stating something makes it true. You offer no "theory of conspiracy" because like so many other truthers, you base your entire argument on the holes and inconsistancies of the official version. You don't understand that poking holes in the official version doesn't make your version correct. You are like the people who argue for creationism by attacking evolution. It doesn't work.

You want some credibility? Offer a theory of your own and support it with evidence. Who orchestrated the attack, how did they carry it out, how did they keep all of the people silent, how did they get Osama Bin Laden to go along with it, how did they know at what point the planes were going to hit the buildings, and well, start with those details. Otherwise you aren't going to get anywhere bringing up the acknowledged problems with the Official Version.

There are thousands of researchers who have done this, as I said I focus on B7 because it is the smoking gun. There is just no way that a building can collapse at free fall speed without controlled demolition. There are many ways to sneak people into and out of buildings at night when no one is around. Did you know that B7 underwent extensive construction and remodeling in the months prior to 911?
Have you even watched B7 fall? It's on youtube. There are many different views of its collapse. And then there is the BBC reporter reporting it's collapse 20 minutes before it did! You can see the building behind her as she reports it HAS collapsed.

Instead of a knee jerk refusal to believe, do a little research, there are thousands of engineers and architects who have staked their reputations as to the impossibility of the B7 story.

Again, no one has offered anything credible as an alternative to the official version. The very very few who actually did have been shown to be at least mistaken, and often outright lying. You want credibility? Give us an alternative. If you can't do that then you are rehashing what so many others have already done. Everyone agrees that there are things in the official version that don't make sense. As I have explained to you, there is a logical and factual reason for that. If you can't do this, there really is no point in arguing much more.

 

[PredFan]

Although I haven't seen the exact figure lately, there's still a significant number of Americans who believe only two New York towers collapsed on 911. Many of them would rightly wonder how two planes collapsed three steel-framer skyscrapers.

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

Here's a link to the poll you mentioned.
If it's accurate, there are tens of millions of US voters who are currently ignorant of the most relevant political event of their entire lives:

"On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition.

"Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11..."

"38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;

"46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:

"46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;

"By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it."

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories ? ReThink911.org | Sign the Petition for a new 9/11 investigation

Meh, people are stupid. I present the election and re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as Exhibit A.