Bill, I think that when a major government wishes people not to look further into something it never has any shortage of official "explanations" from experts on the payroll.

I remain 100% unconvinced by such facile attempts to cover up what is clearly, and in my opinion could only be: a planned demolition of Building 7. Note that the penthouse on the top is the first part to move...it dips in. Interesting. There was no damage up there to cause the penthouse to do that. The building then implodes upon itself and collapses in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, falling at freefall speed into its own footprint.

Assymetrical and minor damage to the building from outer causes....causing perfectly symmetrical implosion of entire building? Assymetrical damage does not cause total symmetrical collapse in a steel frame building.

Planned demolition, Bill. No other way possible to bring that building down in that fashion.

Your clinging to the official government explanations is akin to a religious person's alleigance to the latest Papal pronouncement on original sin. It's based on faith. Faith in your own previous assumptions about the matter. Faith in certain official spokespeople.

I know you pretty well, Bill. You're highly intelligent and have excellent reasoning powers, but I think you'd rather be drawn and quartered and burnt at the stake than reverse your position on anything like this. That's quite common in people. Nothing really all that unusual about it, so in saying this about you I am not implying that you're some kind of goof. Not at all. Like I say, it's very common.

My original belief was that the things that happened on 911 were caused exclusively by 4 hijacked airplanes and 19 guys with boxcutters. I gradually changed my mind about that. It's simply not holding up under the available evidence.