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.
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.