[Fruit Pie Jones]

To my knowledge I have never heard of a modern steel-skeleton construct collapsing unplanned, unexpected in the last 50 years.

It can be assumed from this statement that you have no idea how a modern skyscraper would collapse in the event of a massive structural failure, yet you seem to be convinced - with absolutely no evidence, as you have just stated above - that it would fall in some manner other than straight down. You are no doubt aware that gravity is pulling it in exactly that direction, I assume, but you are apparently also aware of some additional force acting laterally, a force strong enough to displace a 500,000-ton building's center of gravity far enough for the building to topple sideways. What, pray tell, is supplying this mysterious force?

I doubt there would have been people with sledgehammers and assorted power tools in the WTC in the weeks or months prior to 9/11. It would only attract attention. Since they would have an enormous budget, the perpetrators could have used more and heavier explosives instead of many small charges like the demo-people usually do (who are on a budget and also have safety precautions to attend to).

So, a demolition crew with tools would attract attention, but loads of "more and heavier explosives" wouldn't? I don't recall any survivors of the attacks reporting delivery trucks unloading strange, unlabeled crates that were hauled into the buildings and strategically positioned next to important structural members. Did they use alien technology developed at Area 51 to make it all invisible?

When the order was given to 'pull' building 7, of course they didn't start rigging it at that time with explosives!

There's that mysterious "pull" word again, and still no evidence to suggest that it's ever used to mean "demolish."

The official story is that WTC 7 caught fire from the two tall WTC buildings and subsequently collapsed. Only this: building 7 is much, much farther away from the two towers than, say the Millennium Hilton.

Um, no. It isn't. Have you even looked at a map of the site? See the "Millenium [sp] Hotel" waaaay over there on the right? Now do you see "7 WTC" up there near top center? Where in the world did you get the idea that 7 WTC is "much, much farther away" from the two main towers than the Millennium Hilton? You may want to re-evaluate the veracity of that particular source.

The Millennium Hilton was also hit by debris of the two towers and it too caught fire, yet it did not collapse.

So? We've already established that the Millennium Hilton was farther from 1 and 2 WTC (please refer to the map again if you still don't believe it), but let's dismiss that for the moment. How much debris hit each building? How bad were the fires in each? How was each building constructed? Come on, man! These are complex events! You can't oversimplify like that and expect to retain much credibility.

The difference between WTC 7 and the Millennium Hilton was that WTC 7 was owned by the same man who leased the two WTC tall towers. Incidentally, this man started leasing the WTC from port authorities three months before 9/11 and practically doubled the insurance on the towers. When they fell three months later, he was given 7 billion dollars.

This is the same man, Larry Silverstein, from which you have taken your "pull" quote. It appears that you are now saying he is not to be trusted. Seems like you wouldn't put a lot of credence in anything he says, then.

In addition to the general-sounding warning about Bin-Laden, the FBI got numerous reports that hijackers would use planes as missiles in the USA. At least the government did consider this a threat because from 2000 on they ran practice drills of hijacked airliners being used as missiles.

Yeah, I followed that link. (Are you following mine?) Here are a couple of salient passages:

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere.

That seems to support one of my earlier statements. Remember, this is your source.

When an aircraft diverted from its course, fighters were sent up to intercept the plane within minutes.

And do what? Shoot it down without knowing the intentions of the pilot? You didn't answer my question on this subject, so I'll ask it again: Even assuming the government knew that four airliners had been hijacked, what were they supposed to do? Sure, it would have been nice if Mohammed Atta had personally called the White House and said, "Yeah, about those four planes: we're gonna crash 'em into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and <insert other target here> in about an hour, 'kay?" But he didn't, did he? Still, you seem to be insisting that it would have been perfectly acceptable to shoot the planes down. Am I reading you correctly? Because if you're saying something else, please, let me know.

Regarding the collapse of the two WTC towers and the collapse of WTC building 7: they did collapse in a vertical, symmetrical way, didn't they? That makes three times on one day. What a coincidence!

Or, not knowing anything about how skyscrapers collapse, you could look at the events and say, "Hmmmmm, three of them collapsed in this manner. In the absense of evidence to suggest otherwise, maybe that's how most of them collapse." That's making a hypothesis based on observation, a key aspect of the scientific method. It is useful because it allows architects and engineers to improve upon skyscraper design in the future in order to make them safer. What you're doing is generating a theory without supporting evidence. How is that useful?

Ah, seems I've found a hard-core government supporter. It's always refreshing to meet people who are convinced their government would never lie to them.

This statement pretty much sums up all conspiracy theories and the thought processes of the people behind them. What you've done is taken an isolated incident - in this case, my refusal to accept your theory - and wildly extrapolated from it, with no supporting evidence other than that which you have generated yourself, to come to the conclusion that I accept without question everything the government tells me. Aside from being deeply offensive, that's just plain stupid. I'm intrigued, though. What else do you know about me?