This was my final mail on the subject...
Let's get Building 7 out the way once and for all. There was MASSIVE damage. Please read the interviews below. (my bolding)
Captain Chris BoyleDo you still maintain building 7 is a mystery? Still wonder why broadcasters had heard early it was going to collapse? Still think the BBC announcing the collapse before it happened is a weird coincidence worthy of thousands of videos on youtube? Oh hang on - these interviews were obviously faked...Or perhaps you could check and research their names and find these interviews to reassure yourself. Now ask how and why so many people still labour under the mistaken belief there is a spooky mystery about Building 7. Surely that is a far more interesting line of enquiry.
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Other Fire Department officials thought collapse was almost certain:
"...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
More firemen reported that the damage progressed as the day continued:
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
You said: On this particular topic, scientific motives are surely a safer ground than ideological ones when conducting an investigation. er...YES!!!
And the two students responsible for Loose Change were...?
Ah, but I forgot - you directed me to the film just for the eye-witness interviews...with people who were traumatised and then asked to remember exactly what they'd witnessed on the most horrific day of their lives. Scientific. Hmm.
So what about your few hundred or so architects and engineers? Whilst apparently nearly 50% of the general population reject the official explanation, only 0.25% (250 out of over 100,000) of US architects whom you've deemed "expert" feel strongly enough to have signed Gage's document. Scientific. Hmm.
So if you don't believe it's all a "sinister Zionist conspiracy", what is your explanation for the "planned demolition" and the government murdering over 2,000 of their own citizens? You seemed fairly convinced the Jewish businessman who owned the buildings was in some way involved or WHY MENTION HIM? If you reject the official and most obvious explanation (obvious in the sense that the person accused actually claimed responsibility, had threatened to carry out an attack on the US shortly before and also had a record for carrying out similar if less dramatic atrocities) surely you have a your own idea as to who carried it out and why. Otherwise you seem to be accepting an incredibly unlikely scenario for no reason at all. Which, I say again, seems to me to be an extreme position to take.
Bit like religion, really.
End of discussion. Believe what you like. I'm sure you will. But please, please check everything that you're told.