Making this thread again since the Tucker video renewed interest in it. 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, truth doesn't fear investigation.
This study was headed by "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" which is a truther conspiracy theory organization. It should also be noted that no one really backed up this report as credible while other engineering experts agreed that the NIST reports findings were accurate and made sense.
from Engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
From structural engineer Ramon Gilsanz https://web.archive.org/web/20090419050714/http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Basically the report you posted is bunk science and a massive cope from the "truther" movement.
So let me get this straight. You are saying that debris from the other buildings caused building 7 to come down EXACTLY like a controlled demolition?
Um......
r/conspiracy is this way 🖕
debris caused fires, fires caused structural damage, structural damage leads to the building collapsed. I have posted the NIST report and two other reports from renowned Engineering professors that corroborate their report.
Do you deny that debris crashed into WTC 7 or that it caught fire or that there was major structural damage clearly visible on the north side.
🙄
My point is pretty straight forward and I provided evidence to back up my claim. Im asking you what exactly you disagree with and why. What do you think happened and why?
The study was a peer reviewed study from university of Alaska Fairbanks. A credible institution.
You didnt address the source of the argument, that NIST left out key structural elwments in their simulation, that if included proves that the building could not physically have collapsed in the manner it did.
You can dismiss the source out of hand if you want, but it does come from a university, and is peer reviewed, not sure how much more credible you need.
People who cant argue against facts usually try to discredit the source instead of the material.
The study was completely funded by a "truther" organization as I pointed out. Its also pure projection to critize me for dismissing the source when that is exactly what you guys are doing in this thread with the NIST report.
The NIST report is much more credible in terms of the number of people who worked on it and their background, and it was also backed up by the findings of other engineering experts in the field.
Either way, there has NEVER EVER been any evidence of thermite paint of any other explosives found.
So you got nothing. No arguements to refute the paper. Gotcha. Well done.
"got nothing" I already posted all my source, if you want to ignore them then thats your deal.
Can you please provide NIST's full building collapse model? They didn't. Maybe you can.
Saying something is bunk science without addressing anything specifically is mega cope, just so you know.