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.
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.