Cooper,

This is actually a very good question.

Buildings 1 and 2 might make sense in the scenerio I presented (Northwoods Documents) but...

Why building number 7?

Answer: Insurance Settlement

Larry Silverstein heads the consortium that signed a rental contract for the WTC towers and WTC Building 7 with the Harbor Authorities of New York and New Jersey just seven weeks before the 9-11 attacks.

An icon for financial power, built in the early 1970s at a cost of $750 million as part of a massive urban renewal project spearheaded by America's Rockefeller family, the landmark towers anchored a seven-building complex spread over about 12 city blocks.

Silverstein Properties agreed to lease the towers and surrounding Port Authority properties for $3.2 billion over 99 years, with $616 million paid up front. (This $3.2 billion was, according to the actuaries, present discounted market value.)

Silverstein took out insurance cover of $3.6 billion on the WTC properties just 6 weeks before 9-11, then sought to recoup $7.2 billion from insurers on the grounds that the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on the $3.6 billion of policies. In September 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals turned down Silverstein's efforts to double his insurance recovery for the WTC loss. However, His investment in these three buildings seven weeks prior to 9-11 still proved to be very lucrative.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec6.html

So, Jet Propulsion Fuels are not as ignitable than as Regular Gasoline? Is this correct?

Does it depend on the ignition point?

So, depending on the ignition point what is the Flame Rate? If it is iginighted how hot does it burn, How Fast, and How Long?

Does Steel Burn and warp faster than Concrete?

It may have been designed to fall straight down, did it without harming other buildings?

I dont know? I just remember what I saw and a Brother was standing below when the first plane hit.

7WTC, despite its name, was not really part of the World Trade Center. It was not part of the lease for the WTC, and it was developed independently, and later.

"Larry Silverstein did it" is really not credible.

Can we get just one remotely plausable motive for a conspiracy theory behind blowing up 7WTC?

ETA the redevelopment of the WTC site has been slightly delayed because of the insurance law suits. The 7WTC site is just now completing redevelopment, absent of insurance lawsuits.

So, what does it actually matter? The Buildings came down and other buildings around them were destroyed and people Killed!

Design Flaw, who knows? Opinions are like asses, everyone has one!

Oh, arent the Pyramids of Egypt, and Central and South America still standing!:rolleyes:

But, they were built by Aliens!:p

i'd say intense heat brought down those buildings.

i'd respect a structural engineer before him. particularly those who investigated it.

he's a crackpot.

steel doesn't have to melt to fail.


at high temps, particularly 500 degrees....it's 30 percent it's yield strength.

1.The point is: Larry Silverstein purchased the buildings 1,2, and 7, then finalized a massive record breaking insurance deal just six weeks prior to 9-11... - which would satisfy motive for building 7 under Dr. Jones' hypothesis... - Although, I still maintain that my qualitative speculation here should be considered independently from the physics in this matter (quantitative data):

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003...6_person.shtml

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm


*2. And of course, *most importantly*, the Operation Northwoods documents explain the potential motive for buildings 1 and 2, as well as somewhat building 7:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



I would also like to add here that Marvin Bush was hired as head of security for the entire complex.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html


3. and... that the person who was in charge of certifying the steel in those buildings does not see any reason why those buildings should have colapsed due to fire or any type of fuel.

here is his letter of obvious concern:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/new...11-11-ryan.php

Thus Dr. Jones' hypothesis :

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


a hypothesis which is echoed by many others, including many engineers. Here is just one example:

PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven

http://physics911.net/

this guy's an idiot.

you can't design for catastrophic failure such as that. unless you have a bank account the size of asia.

a structural engineer's opinion has far more weight.

this guy has no concept of structural analysis and member design.

the most ridiculous argument i've ever heard.

Why don't you break it down for him, boilermaker?

i already did.

and i don't need to write a long ass paper on it either.

Another reason why I love you.;)

*blushin*

:cool: