Some of us are tired of hearing from friends and comrades who have bought into all of the nonsense peddled by the 9/11 conspiracy movement. I've put together a new page for Infoshop.org which provides resources for people who are skeptical of the crap being spread around by 9/11 conspiracy movement.

Debunking the 9/11 Movement
www.infoshop.org/texts/debunking911.html

If you haven't read the following articles and websites, I highly recommend them.

The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts: How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Off the Hook
www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html

Loose Change - Internet Detectives
internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change

"Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, small fires leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team who investigated the collapse were not allowed access to the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?" (Jim Hoffman)
WTC7.net/

Video clips of WTC Building 7 can be viewed here:
http://wtc7.net/videos.html

Buildings do fall vertically like WTC 7, when destroyed by controlled demolition.
http://wtc7.net/demolition.html

Informational fact flyers about WTC 7:
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/index.html

Jan H.

There are several skyscrapers which have nearly been destroyed by massive fires. There are few skyscrapers which have been damaged by debris falling from two of the tallest buildings in the world. It didn't help that Building 7 had several fuel tanks in the building. There may be some unresolved questions about Building 7's collapse, but the collapse of Building 7 was obviously caused by debris from airplanes and the other buildings.

If you want to argue that the government demolished Building 7, why would they bother? Why not blow up all of the other buildings in the complex? Why bother with another skyscraper if two of the largest building in the world came down.

Come on folks, Building 7 came down because of boring mechanical, physical and engineering reasons relating to the attacks on the two main towers.

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.
view of WTC 7 showing entire elevation
Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep.
(Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320º F. 1 ) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in highrise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

Jan Hoyer 911Research.com Media Coordinator (anti-deletion screenshot taken of this reply)