This is a great video debunking the popular “Truther” claims about Building 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.
Truthers 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.
That is all fine and dandy, IF, you can not remember firsthand the history about how building 1 and 2 fell. This is very similar to the national debate on covid and the mRNA vaccines. The people have no memory, so they can change history at will, and most will gladly accept their new history.
Let me sum the history up for people with bad memories or that were too young:
-Several buildings have burned and collapsed throughout history.
-Several buildings were damaged and/or collapsed during 9/11.
-three fell in a very unique and curious manner that day, almost straight down into its footprint (however, all 3 slightly leaned).
-there are no other examples ever recorded or evidence of buildings falling that way before 9/11 (a couple of examples after). This is an ABSOLUTE statement, it would be VERY easy to prove me wrong, if I am).
-1000s of professionals and scientists came out claiming the manner in which building 1 and 2 fell was impossible. They claimed no amount of fire or damage could result in that kind of collapse. In fact, the buildings were designed NOT to do that.
-THIS ONE IS THE BIG ONE. THEN 1000s of other professionals and scientists AGREED with everything the first group was saying. But they had an ace up their sleeve, “it was the jet fuel.”
-after much debate, the official explanation was the jet fuel. The jet fuel, supposedly, burned so hot, the building’s floors imploded into itself, resulting in a free fall (or close to).
-the only problem, jet fuel was not in building 7. Additionally, everything Building 7 was censored on MSM. I can show you clips of interviews ending right as building 7 is mentioned.
-YEARS LATER, this half baked explanation to building 7 was concocted, ignoring all the jet fuel “science” that explained the free fall collapse.
So the highly unusual and unlikely event of a building free falling into their own footprint (not 100% free fall or 100% into the footprint, before you “correct” me) happened 3 times that day… with TWO completely different explanations.
If you still believe this obvious re-writing of history, I only have one more thing to say to you, “Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Pointing to this building or that building burning and not collapsing is comparing apples to oranges. What other building had a fucking Boeing 767 crash into them at full speed and leak fuel all over? Or in the case of building 7, what other building had huge chunks of burning debris from an even taller adjacent building crash into them?
Why is the fact that these building suffered fires on top of catastrophic structural damage so hard for "truthers" to grasp? You guys have to pull this reverse Occom's razor and concoct the most absurd and convoluted theories (all without any actual proof of course) when the reality is pretty fucking simple. Terrorist hijacked planes and then flew them into buildings.
“Or in the case of building 7, what other building had huge chunks of burning debris from an even taller adjacent building crash into them?”
Are you serious? Have you ever heard about any war? Buildings get hit by bombs and explosives ALL THE TIME. We have a large pool of examples to choose from.
But honestly, that does not matter.
-the way in which building 1,2, and 7 collapsed is unique. That type of collapse never happened before 9/11, even after catastrophic fires, bombimgs, and earthquakes.
-Building 1, 2, and 7 are the first recorded examples of a building falling in such a manner, outside of controlled demolition.
-At the time and for years after, both sides (mainstream and counter) agreed that normal fires and damage could not result in that type of collapse. That is WHY jet fuel became such a hot topic. Jet fuel was the explanation as to why such a UNIQUE collapse happened.
-years later the source you provided gave the official explanation for building 7.
Unless you disagree with one of those specific points, we should just accept the fact that we came to different conclusions.
This is a good point. Building are bombed all the time and it is actually difficult to bring some of them down. Even the pentagon only had minor damage.
And essentially impossible that a building would collapse like that into its footprint, ,outside of controlled demolition.
Was it building 7 they said on camera to 'pull it"?
Once again, you are comparing apples to oranges. What other building had Boeing 767 or any other large jet plane smash into it at full speed? This is a completely unique event in history so trying to compare it to other instances of buildings that suffer fires or something isnt a solid argument at all.
For the towers, they suffered catastrophic damage on the levels where the planes hit, and this spread jet fuel which ignited and started a fire. The structural damage coupled with the fires which weakened (not melted steel beams like the strawman argument claims) caused the section to collapse which in turn caused the building to collapse.
Heres another question, why do "truthers" only talk about Building 7? Why not building 5 or 6 which also suffered catastrophic damage from falling debris from the towers?
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.
Never before or since has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. It doesn't happen. Yet that day it happened 3 times.
Sorry Cyber1776 you are totally full of shit.
The bottom floors of the towers were designed to hold up the whole building. Once the top part collapses the building gets lighter. With each floor that gets destroyed by the falling floors above it the momentum of those falling floors slows down and debris also falls to the sides. How then do you explain the pancake effect of the top part of the building continuing to crush the floors below it. Floors that get stronger as you go down that are now holding up a fraction of what they were designed to hold up?
Your explanation isn’t true, this is insane. You just keep asking leading questions that aren’t based in reality. For the love of God just try to venture out of your conspiracy bubble and try to research this for real instead of falling back on shitty back of napkin engineering takes and made up nonsense.
Its common sense bud. Tell me why the whole building would collapse like it did?