I'm curious how much the author is being paid to write that highly unconvincing article.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/disi...agar_0112.html
I've read online on how buildings are brought down with explosives and watched a 2 part series of how building implosions are performed on discovery channel (coincidently it was shown after a mythbuster episode.) The pulverization of concrete, explosive charges, and the cloud of dust billowing around the wreckage are all characteristics of a controlled demolition. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.
ANT:
I think I already disputed ziggy's claims on the reason for the NORAD standdown. They went ahead with the schedule to practice war games when they had foreknowldge of the attack that was going to take place that morning, ie. the august 6th memo showing bin Laden's plans to attack the US by hijacking planes and use it as missiles, among with other forewarnings the US has received.
As for WTC7 ziggy answered my question. Five years since the attack and still no answer as to why it collapsed. That's an obvious sign of a cover-up, just as much as it didn't get a lot of media coverage following 9/11. The building imploding of WTC7 is the only and the most plausible explanation of why it collapsed. If you think otherwise then your brain is probably decaying from smoking too much grade A herbola. Better lay off the pipe, pal.
Here is another "coincidence"...Larry Silverstein signed a 99 year, $3.2 billion lease just seven weeks prior to 9/11.
Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers.