Artful Dodger: Your first point is that you "watched a number of videos of the fires of surrounding buildings." It is true, buildings close to WTC 7 had bigger fires than it did. Why didn't they collapse also? But you argue that "It's structure was weakened by a number of contributing factors." Nevertheless, how did those factors cause it to collapse with the speed it did, and in the way it did? You say it wasn't "simultaneous." The phrase here ought to be "virtually simultaneous." In other words, no resistance is met with anywhere, at any point in the collapse, by any portion of the building. Only if the columns are simultaneously severed, would this seem to be possible.

"Anyone can come up with a series of questions about any event and word those questions in such a way as they draw a suspicious eye."

True perhaps, but the questions I asked seem fairly forthcoming, non-manipulative, to me. Are they suggestive? In one sense, yes. They point out strange anomalies. But these are anomalies that must be addressed. And couched within the questions are true statements of fact. For example, it is a fact that the 9/11 Commission ignored WTC-7 in its report. Why? Do you consider that an invalid, or immaterial, question? I submit that none of my questions "are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife." "

As to Silverstein's statement, how could the phrase "pull it" (a recognized term for using explosives to demolish a building by "pulling" out its supporting columns) be construed as saying, "the building is going to collapse"? Was the building going to "pull" itself? Or was the decision made to have the building pull itself down?

The case of WTC-7 really is "only a small part of a much larger picture." So the other side of what you say about this is also true, which is that, even if 9/11-Truthers are wrong about bldg. 7, this doesn't invalidate their arguments in other areas. However, my conviction at this point, is that they are correct here also.

Yes, the firefighters established a perimeter. They knew it was going to fall. They were told it would fall. Yet NIST itself cannot explain why it fell, and admits as much. I'm glad you saw this bit of evidence, that everyone knew a fall was immanent.

These are only some preliminary remarks. I will look at your websites. I will also provide some links for you. Perhaps together we can at least learn more about the collapse of WTC-7 than anyone else on Brainking! :o)