I like to think of myself as rational. Whether I am or not, is an objective matter that doesn't depend on my opinion.
I don't know what happened regarding Building 7. I found the article I posted very interesting.
The BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it fell. When asked to provide the original footage of the tape, the BBC claimed they had lost it.
Building 7 had some rather interesting tenants.
Even experts, who are not aligned with the CT movement or have any affiliation with them, agree that the building fell in a manner incredibly similar to that of controlled demolition collapses.
Even Silverstein, the owner of the building, is contradicting the people who are attempting to disprove those who claim the building was intentionally brought down: He claims he told officials to "pull" the building only as a means to communicate that they should pull the firefighters from the building because he was concerned for their safety. Those seeking to counter the CTers claims say that Silverstein meant to shift the building away from the other severely damaged buildings, to try and keep it from sustaining additional damage (I'm not a physicist or engineer, but can anyone tell me if that's even possible to do?).
You don't have to be on one side of the argument or another to simply claim that there are some truly odd events around the collapse of WTC Building 7.
If believing that makes one anything other than inquisitive, and we've gotten to a point where it's free to label inquisitive people as 'lunatics' or whatever the pejorative term of the day is, than that's very unfortunate, especially if we want to believe and tell our children that we're living in a 'free, open, progressive democracy.'
I also know there are emotional sentiments (many people lost loved ones that day, especially in the financial, law enforcement and firefighter communities) that make discussing these issues or raising questions about official explanations (or lack thereof; and a lack of a coherent or completely satisfactory official explanation does not prove a conspiracy in matters as complex as these, either) a difficult process.
I don't know what happened regarding Building 7. I found the article I posted very interesting.
The BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it fell. When asked to provide the original footage of the tape, the BBC claimed they had lost it.
Building 7 had some rather interesting tenants.
Even experts, who are not aligned with the CT movement or have any affiliation with them, agree that the building fell in a manner incredibly similar to that of controlled demolition collapses.
Even Silverstein, the owner of the building, is contradicting the people who are attempting to disprove those who claim the building was intentionally brought down: He claims he told officials to "pull" the building only as a means to communicate that they should pull the firefighters from the building because he was concerned for their safety. Those seeking to counter the CTers claims say that Silverstein meant to shift the building away from the other severely damaged buildings, to try and keep it from sustaining additional damage (I'm not a physicist or engineer, but can anyone tell me if that's even possible to do?).
You don't have to be on one side of the argument or another to simply claim that there are some truly odd events around the collapse of WTC Building 7.
If believing that makes one anything other than inquisitive, and we've gotten to a point where it's free to label inquisitive people as 'lunatics' or whatever the pejorative term of the day is, than that's very unfortunate, especially if we want to believe and tell our children that we're living in a 'free, open, progressive democracy.'
I also know there are emotional sentiments (many people lost loved ones that day, especially in the financial, law enforcement and firefighter communities) that make discussing these issues or raising questions about official explanations (or lack thereof; and a lack of a coherent or completely satisfactory official explanation does not prove a conspiracy in matters as complex as these, either) a difficult process.