The Usurper:I just watched a number of videos of the fires of surrounding buildings, read the quotes of the firemen, and watch the building collapse.  I can honestly say, that I didn't see anything that makes me wonder why that building fell.  I saw many things that made me wonder how on earth it was still standing.

Subject: Questions to ask...
1. If Larry Silverstein admitted WTC 7 was "pulled"
(i.e., demolished), why did this confession not make it into the 9/11 Commission Report?

First, you are not asking a question here.  You are drawing a conclusion.  You can't know for certain what he meant by "pulled."  I heard a firefighter use that same terminology.  And Silverstein didn't make the decision to "pull it."  The fire chief said they couldn't save it.  It was an inferno (I saw the fires) and had HUGE holes in it.  That building was doomed and everyone knew it.  The press knew it.  They were waiting for it to fall and it didn't just freefall.  It took over 13 seconds to fall.  You could see where it started and it collasped in on itself.  They've analyzed that fall and it's consistent with the official story.  The debri field is consistent with the offical story.  And the testimony of the firefighters, both writtin and those caught on tape, are consistent with the offical story.  From what I've read (in the last two hours) and seen on various sites including youtube, that building had been hit by one of the towers and seriously weakened.  The firefighters were pulled out and they established a safety parimeter.  That is a fact of the record.  I don't know, it just isn't as convincing when you look at all the facts.

3. Why did NIST not address at all the prima facie evidence of explosives,

Because there is no evidence for explosives.  That's why. 


6. How could a building, any building, collapsing as a result of fire damage, fail at every point simultaneously,

It didn't.  It collapsed in on itself and the collapse began at the penthouse.  You can see it happening.  Also, the building had a 20 story hole in it.  The fires were raging and the heat was unbearable (testimony of firefighters).  It's structure was weakened by a number of contributing factors.  NOT JUST FIRE. 


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.  You call Silversteins "pull it" a confession.  That's clearly worded to bias the question and is a bit disengenuious.  Some of your questions are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife."  Worded in your question (some of them) are hints at the answer. 

I'm totally unconvinced.  There are certain things I cann't get past.  Even before reading your questions, questions of my own were formulated and those call into question this whole theory of yours.  And reading your questions don't help.  They read like  conclusions and to me that is a sticky point.

Even if I could be convinced to be skeptable on WTC7, that building's collasp alone does not account for the events of 911.  If WTC7 was the only thing under consideration, I might be more skeptable about the "offical" story.  But it's only a small part of a much larger picture.  The conspiracy view just doens't read consistency to me.  It reads more like radicalism and science fiction with alot of James Bond mixed in.