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.
Remember, the truth doesn’t fear investigation.
To the 3rd point:
On the 18th anniversary of 9/11, CNBC senior analyst and former anchor Ron Insana went on Bernie and Sid In the Morning on New York’s 77 WABC Radio to share his haunting experience of that horrible day.
Approximately eight minutes into the interview, Insana made a statement regarding the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 that is truly stunning, especially considering his access to the scene and his job as a prominent news anchor:
“Well, remember 7 World Trade had not yet come down. And so when I went down to the [New York Stock] Exchange that Wednesday morning [September 12], I was standing with some military and police officers, and we were looking over in that direction. And if it had come down in the way in which it was tilting, it would have wiped out everything from where it stood to Trinity Church to the Exchange to, effectively, you know, the mouth of the Hudson. And so there were still fears that if that building had fallen sideways, you were going to wipe out a good part of Lower Manhattan. So they did manage for one to take that down in a controlled implosion later on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=gNIzC4a8rLs
Controlled demolition is not a shoot from the hip action. It had to be planned well in advance. Structural members are typically cut to ensure the building falls within or close to it's footprint. I'm not buying it had to be brought down. If they brought it down, it was in the planning stage for quite a while. I wonder if anyone searched public records for a demolition permit? BTW, I believe it was planned out well in advance
If you're going to do a permit search (most are on line), look about a year in advance. Perhaps look for a missing permit number. Also check for an asbestos abatement permit that would likely be 6 months - a year before the demo permit. In Colorado, an asbestos abatement permit is issued by the Colorado department of public health
So are y’all just going to ignore the fact that in this quote he specifically mentions that this is the day after 9/11? He is not referring to the actual initial collapse of the building.
Read my comment again. I've been in construction for more than 45 years, many of those years in construction management/ project management. I have done numerous demolition jobs including schools. An industrial hygienist needs to verify and sign off on hazardous materials (asbestos, lead, PCBs, HVAC refrigerant, etc... ) Have been removed prior to demolition of the structure. I have no idea what the true story is. I can only speak to what I know, and the official story stinks
Ok, but he literally says this was the day after. He’s saying that the tower already collapsed, but that the debris was in danger of falling over and they were discussing bringing the rest down.
This is him talking about September 12, the day after 7 had collapsed in on itself. How does this disprove anything in my original post?
Look up g. Do a free fall calc speed from top to ground level using g.
That's all you need.
What?
Learn basic mechanical physics.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall
There is an entire report of the physics in the NIST report that I posted. Try taking your own advice and researching this instead of just staying in an echo chamber.
I read it in 2005. I can do physics. You clearly can't.
What specific part of the NIST report do you disagree with and why?
Many. Just learn physics, you don't have to take anybody's word for it. You can easily replicate this calculation yourself. I did way back in early 2000s.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/near-free-fall-acceleration
Well known mathematical physics doesn't lie. Paid-for Reports do.
Ok, I asked for what specific part did you not agree with. Just saying “many” doesn’t answer this and just confirms what we both know, that you have never read this report or looked into it at all.
Also, this was published in 2008 lol
What’s funny about this post?
I actually posted evidence for my claim while you are just posting trolly bullshit. I’m being much more sincere than you are.
Center of World Trade.
Post nose.
You’ll want more specific language there.