This is a great video debunking the popular “Truther” claims about Build 7. https://youtu.be/7PpsCCTMP8w
The points brought up in the video are:
• “Why wasn’t building 7 ever mentioned in the 911 Commission Reports?”
This is because the Commission Reports were specifically about the actual targets of the attacks, not collateral damage like WTC 7. It was however investigated in a NIST report which is here https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0
• “How could it collapse if it never was hit by a plane?”
Pretty simple, huge chunks of burning debris crashed in through the top of WTC 7 from the towers. This not only caused massive structural damage, but also caused a massive fire to spread throughout WTC 7.
Truther deceitfully only ever show pictures of it from the south, where it was not struck by debris, making it seem like it was a perfectly fine building that collapsed out of nowhere, but images of it from the north side clearly show the massive damage WTC 7 sustained from the falling debris
• “Building 7 collapsed in free fall out of nowhere! This is only possible through controlled demolition!”
This is just an outright lie. Footage of the attack clearly shows building 7 folding in on itself over the course of hours before finally collapsing. All footage of the “free fall” conveniently only ever starts right as the building falls, it never shows the footage before of the penthouse caving in.
This seems like a knee jerk emotional reaction. Here is a link to NIST listing what when into their report https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation
And the reason of posting this was to squash the point “truthers” make that WTC7 is ignored in the Commission reports, implying it’s some secret the government doesn’t want to touch. The reality is like I explained and WTC 7 was investigated by the government through NIST.
I encourage you to at the very least watch the video I posted.
Strange that the BBC reported that Bldg 7 fell hours before it actually did ... and during the report showed Bldg 7 still standing in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZqP8moItcc
gtfo w/ your bs
Some BBC reporter incorrectly reporting on a high stress event in real time is not evidence of anything. “Truthers” have such high standards for evidence (which you ignore anyway) yet use the most flimsy bullshit to back your your much more unbelievable conspiracy theory.
Here's a peer reviewed paper from university of Fairbanks alaska outlining the issues with nist modeling....
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
I encourage you to at the very least read the paper I posted....
In all seriousness, thank you for posting an actual response and not just shitposting. I’m going to look through this.
I attempted to click thru the propaganda video full of spin conjecture and opinion.
I did not find anything that suggests to me there is any credibility at all in the presentation.
The report itself is just reams of written claims with some engineering drawings to attempt to validate the claims.
If there a better collection of the evidence without all the opinionated statements and conjecture? I would prefer to just review the evidence without the salesman.
You’re coming at this way too emotional and dogmatic. What specific claim in the video or the report do you think is a lie and why?
lol, you are hilarious.
Perhaps my username could be a clue for you, but I generally reject anything that is being pushed and prepared to spin a narrative, why now would this be relevant at all?
How after all this time are you going to 'debunk' anything? with some crappy nasal english voice making false claims based on opinion and misinformation.
The report, also trash is clearly just a piece used to attempt to explain away fact and logic with lies and assertions. Typical standard methods.
I would prefer to see the hard evidence and not such useless inputs. Might as well be a cartoon.
There is plenty of evidence about what happened and none of it is here in your 'debunking efforts'
So I think that alone proves the case of why we need not pat attention to false trumpets.
So you didn’t watch the video or read the report at all, and are just refusing to do so and instead angrily shitpost at me instead, got it. This sub 90 iq response is about what I expected from a “truther”, but I did give you the benefit of the doubt and tried to engage with you politely and in good faith.