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.
These buildings have massive structural redundancy, they can support on average 3-5x their own weight. In a controlled demolition it's common for 20% of the core columns to be cut to weaken these structures before they are demolished. Nist tried to claim column 47 failed then the entire building just collapsed into its own foot print at the speed of gravity (ie freefall). The premise is absurd and violates the basic laws of physics. In any case we know it was blown up due to eye witness testimony. Ron insana if I recall from abc news was there when it happened and he testified it was blown up deliberately.
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
Actual engineering experts agree with the NIST reports, its only confirmation biased "truthers" who try to nitpick it. Also, eye witness testimony is less than worthless and Ron Insana never testified to anything as far as I know, either way this wouldnt at all be evidence.
I found this clip of Ron, nowhere does he say anything about the towers being deliberately, nor does he mention tower 7 at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2c4DRR_150
He called into a radio show some years later seemingly unaware of this official version and recalled how the building was taken down in a controlled implosion https://youtu.be/gNIzC4a8rLs
This is already trash evidence.
Even cnn reported live on the day that the building was about to blow up https://youtu.be/cU_43SwWD9A
At some point will realise the obvious, the wtc buildings were not immune from the basic laws of physics.
How does him saying "its about to blow up" at all in anyway prove that it was a controlled demolition conducted by Mossad/CIA ect?
The NIST report and all evidence concerning that are on my side though, not yours.
What? I never said anything about the cia or mossad lol. Only presenting evidence that was recorded on the day showing it was blown up.
Also Nist never explained the collapse of the building nor did they even try. They claimed column 47 failed and then after that collapse was inevitable. No serious expert who understands physics would be able to explain a symmetric simultaneous collapse at free fall speeds. This is why nist didn't even try.
You arent presenting evidence though, your bringing up complete nothing burgers and vaguely implying its evidence of some vast conspiracy. Get real, someone saying "its going to blow up" from CNN is not even close to being evidence for this.
NIST does explain in great detail the engineering behind the collapse. The whole "truther" argument for tower 7 hinges on the lie that the tower collapsed for no reason when it was completely unharmed, but the easy to find reality is that it suffered horrible structural damage from falling debris from the twin towers and a fire that raged inside of it for 7 hours. Can you at least acknowledge that?
Speaking of "trash evidence"...
I keep trying to click that link, but alas.. I guess we're all just dining on your say-so today, huh?
The link to the youtube video I posted contains it. My post is a recap of the points made in that video. Again, eye witness testimony is already trash evidence, but 18 years after the fact is laughable.
And so Myles Poser, with his 160k followers and only a quarter million views over eleven years, is what you consider your gold standard.
Ok
Considering his video is just repeating the points made in the NIST report, yes. The video, which does include footage that proves that "truthers" have lied about how tower 7 collapsed, it much more credible than the nonsense I see "truthers" post as evidence.
Haha the resident 9/!! Shill posts the same shit.
Has it been two weeks already?
Yes, the truth remains the same every time.
Like the remains of the terrorists passports they found intact? 😅
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/207fca81a5faf986dea2163347acb1adedb73910/c=0-34-2048-1574&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2017/03/31/USATODAY/USATODAY/636265550467494134-EPA-USA-SEPTEMBER-11-TERROR-ATTACK-PENTAGON.3.jpg
Check out all the burned debris on the second ring of the pentagon!!
Troof
Edit: it's OK dude. You can let this one go to crickets too, just like the others.
You're a God Damn liar. You can keep lying, but none of us believe you.
This peer reviewed university study refutes your NIST report.
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
You guys post this shit every time. This was some study funded by a "truther" organization and made by a few college students. Not even close to being an authoritative take on the matter, especially when other engineers have reviewed the NIST report and approved of its finding, which I already posted here.
Ok, if it's shit, then explain why NIST needed to remove the key structural elements outlined in this paper in order for their simulation to match what happened in reality?
Why were the anti walk pins not included in the simulation?
Explain why I make this thread every month and you guys think posting a video clip of someone saying they heard an explosion is somehow evidence of the most sinister conspiracy in human history, yet the NIST report, which was backed up by other engineers, is not good enough for you for the most inane bullshit reasons.
So i didnt post a video, it was a paper. Good to know you are reading this accurately.
The engineers that backed the NIST report didnt do their due dilligence if they endorsed a flawed simulation
Why do you keep posting this thread every month if you dont like the answers you get?
Sounds shilly to be honest.
How did they not do their due diligence? Because they disproved a conspiracy theory you believe in?
I make this thread all the time to prove a point, that "truthers" are emotionally driven and gather in their own bubbles and hype themselves up with righteous indignation and paranoia until they sometimes venture out and behave like obnoxious assholes. If you sit down and just actually look at everything, the entire "truther" argument is completely ridiculous and makes no sense at all, you have to use a reverse occoms razor in order to make it make sense. This thread has been better, but when I first made these threads no one even attempted to argue the point and just shitposted and called me glowie/kike/mossad/cia/shill/bot ect.
If they had done their due diligence they would have found as indicated in the paper I posted that the simulation was missing critical structural elements, that, had they been included would have shown via the simulation that their theory on the collapse was incorrect. It was physically impossible for the tower to drop into it's own footprint at near free fall speed with the anti walk pins in place.
While I agree that at times the truthers as you call them are motivated by emotion or a need to be right,and this can be problematic in terms of credibility, I don't really understand this need to 'prove' this in some way toeither yourself or others. It's obvious you already hold this belief and it would seem you cannot be persuaded otherwise, so why even bother.
Beyond this, it does seem like you are trolling the community. You can take our conversation here in this thread as evidence of this. You committed 2 logical fallacies that I can think of for the moment, appeal to authority and failure to address the arguement, I.e. you dismiss the paper out of hand despite it being a university level peer reviewed and published paper with a very specific point, that the simulation was technically incomplete. Just because you don't like the author, doesn't mean you can outright dismiss the substance of the arguement.
Those of us that watched the news say it collapsed while the building was still standing right behind them don't give a fuck about what any studies say.
Exactly, "truther" stuff is an emotional feeling issue and not something that reason and evidence are going to interfere with. I make these threads over and over again to prove this point to everyone here. You guys cannot back up any of your claims and this whole thing is rooted in paranoia and ignorance.
YOU can't back up your lies. I'm 43 fucking years old. I watched it live. Gtfo of here with your nonsense.
I saw that shit too. My neighbor woke me up and said "someone shot a missile at the WTC" and then we proceeded to watch together in horror smoking bowls of Mexican brickweed
7 was controlled demolition.
Facts dont care about your feelings.
Exactly. Take your feelings to teenboopers that didn't witness the facts.