Nor am I a structural engineer. For this reason I cannot conclusivley say that wtc7 was undoubtedley a controlled demoiltion.

However, this was an unprecedented type of collapse. Dan Rather said what he really thought on that day,

"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." - Dan Rather, CBS News (09/11/01)

The fires in the building were significant, but fire has never caused a building to collapse in this way, never. If it had fallen over and collapsed haphazardly that would be understandable, but it fell in 7 seconds, into a neat pile of rubble. And the scrap metal was quickly cleaned up and not subject to any forensic review.

If this was such an unusual occurence, why did the 9/11 commission report fail to even mention it? And why did Larry Silverstein admit that he decided to 'pull' the building? Surely he would of remembered that his building spontaneously collapsed?

There is no absolute proof of US complicity in the attacks dozer, but look at the cumulative weight of the arguement. They had the means, they had the motive and the official story simply does not add up.

Here's the point.

1. The official 9-11 narrative is redolent with omissions and clearly, lies. The NBMWBC Theory (official) is as full of holes as a swiss cheese.

2. All the criminality since, was justified by the official theory of 9-11.

3. If the official theory is flawed, then what is the earthly point of this "he said, she said" thread? Who cares what "he said, she said", if it is all in the service of a basic fundamental lie?

Here is a video made for and by the bereaved of 9-11. Note, it does not offer any alternative narrative - just takes a good long stare at the official one. You will see by the video evidence that the sly-boys damn themselves with their own words.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

1 hr, 24 min. Enjoy!

Folks,
Some of you were saying that Shaw was too subjective. Have a look at this and enjoy a few more sleepless nights- like me:
http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalissues.org%2FGeopolitics%2FArmsTrade%2FSpending.asp
Regards,
Faisal

Lets face it, all that glitters is not Gold. There are huge questions in this 9/11 debate. Would it be beyond the CIA to kill a few thousand innocent people to stir up a western world hatred against nations with oil reserves, especially with the prospect of "peak oil" those of us who say it's possible, will always be opposed by those wanting to protect their own interests.

A conspiracy is not only a possibility, but as time goes on the situation seems to be leaning toward a probability. What rich men will do to retain their wealth and power, we mere mortals cannot conceive.

Chris as you have proven with your article, many of us follow your theory, all the best mate, Regards, Shaun.