Denis Praeger always says that in leiu of agreement you can have clarity. I simply wanted to clarify your opinions, as you are rarely clear when it comes to making declarative statements. Even you affirmative answer has a question mark after it.
As for building 7, she witnessed how the building was in terrible shape and was listing in parts prior to the collapse. She was in the basement for a time after the attack. Here is a site with related materials:
As for explosions, and witnesses to their sounds, I doubt the witnesses have that trained of ears to recognize controlled demo from blowing air pockets and failing structural supports. To say that people heard explosions that day is to state the obvious, and it doesn't prove any sort of theory. Its just more ambiguous correlative observation that has no tie to any form of conspiracy except for the one our active minds wish to invent.
Also, it takes WEEKS of preparation to set up the implosions you claim, including cutting into structural supports, stripping most of the internal facade, etc. Kind of hard to hide work like this, although I'm sure there are many explanations of mysteriously dressed anonymous workers in the building prior who worked quickly and PERFECTLY never raising any questions or alarms. There always are.
Now if there were tremendous explosions below the impact of the planes, I could see it and it could be easier to hide ina large building, but to orchestrate a controlled implosion would be impossible under the circumstances of their environment.
And steel does not melt at the temperature of jet fuel and hot fires... it loses half its structutural integrity which is more than enought to collapse a weakened structure, but I'm sure you've already read all of this and have some kind of answer for it as theorists always scramble to pick up the peices after being debunked. There always is.
Re: Journalist throws shoes at Bush
Threaded Mode
