Ok OP if you want it you got it. This is hands down the best documentary on 9/11 I have ever watched. Here is the link-

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

Mind you it's about 5 hours long, but goes over almost anything you can think of including debunking major debunkers. Ita a must watch.

Glad to see this here, this one is great

I'd like to add the indexed version if anyone's interested, it's easy to navigate. But if I were watching this new I'd just do it in chunks from the beginning. Very interesting and well done, and well sourced throughout.

Ya honestly one of the best documentaries I've seen. It breaks down every part of that day thoroughly and clearly without making assumptions or being subjective. Every time I get someone to watch the whole thing I feel like I'm doing my small part.

[deleted]

2500 architects and engineers consider free fall a clear sign of demolition.

Alternatively: 0.13% of US Architects and Engineers consider free fall a clear sign of demolition.

.13% of architects and engineers are actively speaking against the narrative at risk to their own careers.. You're trying to make it sound minimal - but to any reasonable person, that's a big number of experts.

Ah, sorry, I was only using US figures, just realised that AE911Truth takes signatures from architects and engineers from any country.

So it's probably closer to 0.015% (~10 to 15 million engineers, taken 12.5 million and ~3 to 5 million architects worldwide, taken as 4 million).

I'm not making it sound minimal. To any reasonable person 2,500 vs 16,500,000 is minimal.

You don't get to assume everyone that doesn't speak up gets included in believing the official narrative.

Of course not. And you can't seriously tell me that 2,500 architects and engineers is a significant number of people.

It's not. It's tiny.

How many have seen the evidence for controlled demolition?

How many know NIST omitted shear studs and web to flange stiffeners in their official WTC 7 report?

Are you saying 100% of all experts have examined the evidence?

That's near the number of victims in 9/11.. Still insignificant?

Yes. 2,500 people is an insignificant number. Millions die each year from starvation and disease, but it's human nature to spend billions on a war avenging the death of thousands instead of spending billions to save the lives of millions of people.

What if 2500 is 99% of the people who've evaluated the evidence? Still insignificant?

Why don't you calculate the percentage of those who support the official story? You can't even find 100 people.

This is a terrible logical fallacy.

It is not 2500 vs 16m. In order for it to be, the 16m would have to come out actively against the claims of the 2500.

And it's deceitful to say "2,500 architects and engineers question the official story. 2,500 is a big number! Look at how big it is!" without mentioning that there are literally millions of architects and engineers worldwide, and that 2,500 is a tiny percentage of that.

I'm sure that a few thousand doctors think vaccines cause autism, and a few thousand scientists think global warming isn't man made, and a few thousand historians think the Holocaust never happened, and a few thousand whatevers think something that clearly didn't happen did.

It's easy to scrape the bottom of the barrel in a world of seven billion people and find a few thousand willing to back anything.

The amount of engineers on the planet has no more relevance to this topic than it would to a published paper with 4 authors. Only the experts, and more importantly the evidence presented by those, challenging the argument has any relevance.

And a few hundred/thousand expects challenge global warming as well, but the vast majority don't.

Something like 4000 architects voted against the need for a new investigation into the collapse of building 7 last year. How many engineers do you think would vote similarly if given the chance?

[deleted]

Got bored with it a year ago or so. New job, new baby, no time. Just popped back in as a curiosity.

If true that stat itself is pretty astounding. No one can argue that there are not still a number of unanswered questions involved in the murder of over 3000 people. That so many architects would actively vote against further investigation is pretty incredible, again if true.

AE911truth was only allowed a 6 minute presentation. They were not even allowed to show a video of WTC7's collapse. Additionally:

The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

And the presentation was beneficial

However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.

This information is not easy for most to accept. Even professionals in the field. But slow progress is still progress.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=bcd0bc392b&e=[UNIQID]

Very interesting

Isn't it? It's all very political.

If so many professionals are OK with the collapse explanation for building 7, did you ever consider that maybe the official explanation has some merit?

Maybe office fires can make a steel frames building collapse. A fairly simple series of experiments should prove or disprove that hypothesis. Why someone would be opposed to said experiments is truly baffling.

Edit--- seems from the article this was quite political.

"It's clear that a majority of the people in that room were voting not based on a rational examination of what happened to Building 7 but on how they feel and what they want to believe about what happened on September 11th," he observes. "They were more concerned with the reputation of the AIA and were not willing to commit the AIA to taking a position on anything as controversial as the collapse of Building 7."

[deleted]

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/223-news-media-events-aia-learning-experience.html

[deleted]

AE911truth was only allowed a 6 minute presentation. They were not even allowed to show a video of WTC7's collapse. Additionally:

The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

And the presentation was beneficial

However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.

This information is not easy for most to accept. Even professionals in the field. But slow progress is still progress.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=bcd0bc392b&e=[UNIQID]

Did they really gain 150 new signatures though? They were at 2354 around the timing of the convention last year, and at the end of December that number had only grown to 2416. That would seem to only be 62 new signatures, including all sign ups between May and December of 2015.

It sounds like AE are artificially inflating their numbers.

2416 is still 1400 less than the number of architects that voted against the need for a new investigation.

Did they really gain 150 new signatures though? They were at 2354 around the timing of the convention last year, and at the end of December that number had only grown to 2416. That would seem to only be 62 new signatures, including all sign ups between May and December of 2015.

It sounds like AE are artificially inflating their numbers.

My mistake. I thought you had actually read the link you posted. They are referring to both the AE petition as well as the AIA resolution.

About 150 architects stopped by the AE911Truth booth at the convention to sign either the AE petition or a statement of support for the resolution. Approximately one-third of them signed both.

......

2416 is still 1400 less than the number of architects that voted against the need for a new investigation.

Right. Only the AIA members who didn't vote in favor are reputable. But the ones who did, those guys aren't reputable. ..../s See how your argument fails?

Again....

AE911truth was only allowed a 6 minute presentation. They were not even allowed to show a video of WTC7's collapse. Additionally:

The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

Looks like not all voters were paying attention. And that architect was from NY. Slow progress is still progress.

This is why the numbers game isn't a strong argument. And why I prefer to stick to the unrefuted, published science.

I'll wait for you to prove this.

Go to archive.org and look up the AE site from May 7 of 2015, about a week before they supposedly added 150 new signatures at the Architects conference:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150507162324/http://www.ae911truth.org/

2354 signatories.

Now look up the same site from end of December of the same year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151230094743/http://www.ae911truth.org/

2416 signatories.

So 62 new signatures total between May and December of last year. Where are the 150?

AE911truth was only allowed a 6 minute presentation. They were not even allowed to show a video of WTC7's collapse.

Did they get less time than they were supposed to be slotted for? If so, that's bullshit, I agree.

How much time were they supposed to get?

One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

Both agree that fire was the main reason though. Haggling over whether the fire was partially fed by diesel tanks or not is a little like arguing over which of a half dozen bullets ended up killing a murder victim.

So 62 new signatures total between May and December of last year. Where are the 150?

My mistake. I thought you had actually read the link you posted. They are referring to both the AE petition as well as the AIA resolution.

About 150 architects stopped by the AE911Truth booth at the convention to sign either the AE petition or a statement of support for the resolution. Approximately one-third of them signed both.

This is why the numbers game isn't a strong argument. And why I prefer to stick to the unrefuted, published science.

Did they get less time than they were supposed to be slotted for? If so, that's bullshit, I agree.

Did I claim they got less time? No. Your straw man is unnecessary. If you're going to respond, leave logical fallacy out of it. I'm saying 6 minutes isn't enough time to convey the mountain of evidence. Naturally you won't convince everyone in 6 minutes. I'll gladly take the 150 for now. And I look forward to continually gaining more.

One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

Both agree that fire was the main reason though. Haggling over whether the fire was partially fed by diesel tanks or not is a little like arguing over which of a half dozen bullets ended up killing a murder victim.

Wrong. One is clearly claiming a theory abandoned by NIST. Fire vs. Diesel fuel fire. They are not the same. Showing a clear lack of understanding of the official story.

And.... again...I much prefer to stick to the uncontested, published science rather than play a numbers game.

I'm saying 6 minutes isn't enough time to convey the mountain of evidence.

Then why did AE agree to a forum where they only had 6 minutes to present their argument? Seems self defeating, doesn't it? They were fairly soundly humiliated by that vote. Why set your organization up to look like fools?

Wrong. One is clearly claiming a theory abandoned by NIST.

OK. Do you expect 100 percent unanimity amongst all architects when it comes to this topic?

There is some disagreement when it comes to whether the diesel tanks played a roll. NIST says no, some others say yes. No biggie, they both agree that fire, no matter what fuel sources it might have used, was the impetus behind the collapse.

Then why did AE agree to a forum where they only had 6 minutes to present their argument? Seems self defeating, doesn't it? They were fairly soundly humiliated by that vote. Why set your organization up to look like fools?

Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to spread awareness? Which they accomplished. Perhaps they prefer the 150 new signatures over an insignificant redditor calling them fools?

Wrong. One is clearly claiming a theory abandoned by NIST.

OK. Do you expect 100 percent unanimity amongst all architects when it comes to this topic?

I expect people voting on the NIST investigation to understand the NIST investigation.

And...again...I much prefer the uncontested, published science over the numbers game.

I expect people voting on the NIST investigation to understand the NIST investigation.

That's an interesting spin to put on what was happening. Of course, it's not really a true spin, is it?

The members weren't voting on the NIST investigation, they were voting on whether there was sufficient cause for another investigation.

Members can disagree with certain aspects of the NIST report and still agree with its overarching conclusions.

And...again...I much prefer the uncontested, published science over the numbers game.

As do I.

I expect people voting on the NIST investigation to understand the NIST investigation.

That's an interesting spin to put on what was happening. Of course, it's not really a true spin, is it?

Seems pretty true in this case. Yep.

The members weren't voting on the NIST investigation, they were voting on whether there was sufficient cause for another investigation.

that's an interesting spin to put on what was happening. NIST was the first investigation. Pretty hard to exclude them when determining if another is necessary.

And...again...I much prefer the uncontested, published science over the numbers game.

As do I.

Great news! Could you do me a favor and account for some measurable data that the official story cannot?

that's an interesting spin to put on what was happening. NIST was the first investigation.

Actually FEMA was.

Pretty hard to exclude them when determining if another is necessary.

Who's excluding anything?

Members can disagree with portions of the NIST investigation and still accept it's conclusions. There is also the FEMA investigation to go back to, or the insurance adjustors reports, or any of the other science done in the years since.

The point of the vote was whether or not there was any cause to reopen the investigation. Overwhelmingly the members rejected that idea.

Actually FEMA was.

And NIST produced the official story.

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and

WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and

WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.

Etc....etc....

I expect people voting on the NIST investigation to understand the NIST investigation.

Now, since we both agree that we'd rather discuss the uncontested science, rather than the numbers game, can you stop ignoring the topic while simultaneously, continually bringing up the numbers game? Will you help me out and account for the measurable data that the official story cannot?

Will you help me out and account for the measurable data that the official story cannot?

Nah, that's OK. I have a feeling your mind is made up anyway, I'd rather spare myself the frustration.

Thanks, enjoy the rest of your day.

It's OK. I knew you'd run from the science before I asked. Have a good one.

The "official" report didn't have a building 7 section.

What has that got to do with the Architects vote?

The AIA vote is a poor way of discrediting AE people who put their name out there just asking for an investigation

The AE people are the ones that asked for the vote in the first place. They were essentially asking the AIA to validate their theories on building 7, which didn't end up happening.

[deleted]

I brought up "official" because you did. That's why I used the quotes.

Right, but you know there are 2 separate official reports, right? One for the Twin Towers and a different one for building 7.

The BBC News reporting on its collapse 20 min early is more damning than the number of experts who put their career and name on the line for truth.

Really?

I find the BBC thing so so silly. Isn't it more likely that the BBC received reports that building 7 was an imminent collapse risk (which had been reported off and on for hours) and erroneously reported that it had already collapsed? News agencies make mistakes all the time.

[deleted]

Er, I never admitted free fall (at least in the truther way of saying it happened instantly). And NIST admitted it happened in a reasonable time after the collapse began.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf). The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”

Later in the public draft hearing, a high school physics teacher pointed out WTC 7 reached gravitational acceleration. NIST responded by placing it in "Stage 2" of their collapse sequence.

Experts have come out saying,

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Controlled demolition can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that fire could not bring have brought down the building.

And yet the WTC 7 collapse looks nothing like any controlled demolition collapse.

All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously

And there were intense fires on floors: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28. Which went completely uncontrolled for hours as the emergency services stopped trying to put them out.

What's more likely: the 'people that be' went through the immense effort to rig WTC7 to collapse but didn't think "Hey, wouldn't it be suspicious if this looks like a building demolition?", and then whatever devices (the explosives, detonators and cords/timers/wireless transmitters) they used for the demolition somehow survived several hours of intense heat to still all detonate perfectly simultaneously.

OR a building well past its designed fire tolerances, ignored by firemen, with a failed fire suppression systems collapsed because... well... that's what happens when you go past the fire tolerance.

And it collapses symmetrically, almost as if "all 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second" because that's could have been what happened when, over the span of multiple floors, you have a fire raging for many hours.

that's what happens when you go past the fire tolerance

No it isn't. You're talking about a steel framed high rise structure. It never happens. Unless there's human agency of course.

Not to mention that NIST did real life tests on steel assemblies to assess what happened. Steel columns sagged for a couple of inches, but it did not collapse. They then ignored these results and tweaked their computer model until it collapsed, and they admitted to doing so.

Please, give me a case of another steel framed high rise structure that was on fire for ~7 (iirc) hours with no intervention from the fire service.

One Meridian Plaza and the Caracas Tower fire are among the most interesting comparisons. Both burned for longer and the fire service was able to do little for many hours in the case of Caracas.

But you're the one claiming to know what happens when fire tolerance of steel framed high-rise structures is exceeded. Please, give me a case of any steel-framed high-rise that has ever suffered global collapse due to fire. Do you have any precedent to point to since you assert

that's what happens

with such extraordinary confidence?

NIST gives some great quotes that debunkers hate, in reference to other fires with no sprinkler/firefighter intervention:

"The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional." - NIST (Shyam Sunder)

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/RemarksSunderAug212008briefing.pdf

"First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza, both commercial office buildings, had fires that fully involved entire floors. In both buildings, vertical spread of fire was by external flame exposure, breaking glass windows from the outside and igniting office furnishings in the floor above. By contrast, the fires in WTC 7 spread across several floors, but did not involve an entire floor at any given time. Additionally, in WTC 7 there was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread in the photographic and videographic records. Finally, the combustible load was likely similar in First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, and WTC 7, with the combustible load in One Meridian Plaza perhaps even greater as it was described subjectively as “heavy.” NIST therefore concluded that the fires in First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza were at least as severe, and probably more severe, than the fires in WTC 7." NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg. 341

.......

What are the major differences between "typical" major high-rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on Sept. 11, 2001?

There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1991), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).

NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.5, provides details about these building fires.

The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings:

• The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
• There was no use of accelerants.
• The spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics.
• Fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth.
• There were simultaneous fires on multiple floors.
• The fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor.
• The fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures.
• The sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.

There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7:

• Fires in high-rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors.
• Fires in other high-rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1.
• Water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired.
• While the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by firefighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires because of the lack of a water supply.

The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces), and points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and firefighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

And yet the WTC 7 collapse looks nothing like any controlled demolition collapse.

https://youtu.be/0f4w8iJmn08

Hmm, who to believe, anonymous redditor or the owner of a demolition company.

You see I have no problem with counter arguments but you people can be shown a picture of a duck and claim, in a "Magrittian" way I suppose, that it's not a duck.

It really devalues anything you have to say to the point that people just stop listening.

to still all detonate perfectly simultaneously.

Who says they all did? You believe none were necessary, maybe only three exploded! You can't both make the claim that no explosives were used and that all explosives had to survive. That's cognitive dissonance of the highest order.

Who says they all did? You believe none were necessary, maybe only three exploded! You can't both make the claim that no explosives were used and that all explosives had to survive. That's cognitive dissonance of the highest order.

What? Are you being serious? How did I make both of those claims?

Who says they all did?

The person I replied to said:

Controlled demolition can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that fire could not bring have brought down the building.

He also quoted:

had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second

Meaning that he believes you must 'instantaneously remove 8 stories' for the 'upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall'.

Re-read my reply. It's very obvious that I'm arguing that explosives were not needed for the collapse due to the fire damage, and I backed this up by saying that explosives were not involved since they would not have survived seven hours of being on fire.

I get your point that 'maybe only three exploded', but if you say that only two or three explosives needed to work for the building to enter free fall then you're also saying that only two or three columns needed to fail for the building to enter free fall.

Are you now going to tell me that it's unreasonable for two or three columns to fail during a building fire?

I'll make this even clearer:

Explosives weren't needed.

If you keep arguing that explosives were needed to 'instantaneously remove 8 stories' and that this must have happened 'simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second', then there's a problem since there is no way the hundreds of charges required to do this would have survived the fire.

If you think they can survive then look at the detonators for explosives used in demolition or how thermite is ignited (magnesium strips, autoignition at 473C, WTC7 could have reached from 1,300C to 2,000C). The det cord, explosive caps, magnesium igniter, transmitters, timers, whatever, all needed to detonate the charges would not have survived the fire.

If, like you said, you then argue 'maybe only three exploded' then... that completely invalidates the start of this argument. The only reason we're having this discussion is because people believe 'all 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second' for free fall to occur, and that that requires a controlled demolition. And you just admitted that that is not what happened, as only a few of the charges might have gone off, and thus all columns were not removed instantaneously by explosives.

So the goal post moved from 8 stories were instantaneously pulverised with controlled explosives to maybe one or two charges went off to trigger the collapse. If you admit that only a couple of detonations were needed to cause free fall then how can you possibly say it's unreasonable that one or two column failures, due to fire, would cause the same thing?

That's cognitive dissonance.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. You were arguing that explosives can't possibly survive the fire, while at the same time arguing that no explosives were needed to bring down the tower. So let me repeat it again, you can't both argue that all explosives had to survive the fire AND that no explosives were needed.

If you argue that the buildings could've come down without explosives, I can argue that one explosive was used because obviously one explosive could've survived.

Meaning that he believes you must 'instantaneously remove 8 stories' for the 'upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall'.

It's not a matter of belief, that's just physics, if you understand "free fall", that should be obvious.

I get your point that 'maybe only three exploded', but if you say that only two or three explosives needed to work for the building to enter free fall then you're also saying that only two or three columns needed to fail for the building to enter free fall.

What? How can you argue that only three columns failed when three explosives were used when you argue that ALL columns failed without a single explosive?

Is that all? Did you ask the other 99.87% or are you psychic?

The largest military power and most secure airspace in the world was overtaken by a dozen or so foreign guys with boxcutters and little ability to fly. In that time, not one fighter jet intercepted any of the airliners (which is common procedure), and normally happens in minutes.

We have the most powerful and expensive military in the world, and it was completely ineffective that day.

Especially after the first plane hit, some would think there would be some state of "heightened security".

2 planes.... took down 3 THREE buildings. The 3rd building was the first ever steel structure to fall due to fire. It fell at freefall speeds exactly in it's own footprint.

Remember WTC7 and the traitors that let this false flag happen.

Building 7 also contained a hardened bunker of sorts, specifically designed to be a place of operations for VIPs like the mayor and others in case of natural disaster etc, but for some reason Mayor Guiliani knowing all about this felt more safe outside on the sidewalk instead of the place designed for him to be in case of emergency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_IZaUuK_d0

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes [4:56]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

^{FederalJacktube6 in News & Politics}

^{258,127 views since Apr 2012}

^{bot info}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

convince me of the official conspiracy theory..

The world whole believes it, so it must be true!

since 2001, science has been done by consensus.

Oh, so the "world" did end in 2000!

damn Y2K bug!

It's simple. The evidence at all four of the crime scenes doesn't match what we've been told.

You don't have to watch hours of video, nor do you have to have a college degree in anything. Here's Part 1 of a three part series. All three videos combined are less than 20 minutes total.

7 Facts about Building 7

1) If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.

2) Building 7’s collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

3) According to a Zogby poll in 2006, 43% of Americans did not know about Building 7.

4) It took the federal government seven years to conduct an investigation and issue a report for Building 7.

5) 1,700+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7, specifying that it should include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives.

6) Numerous witnesses say the possibility of demolishing Building 7 was widely discussed by emergency personnel at the scene and advocated by the building’s owner.

7) Building 7 housed several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the NYC Office of Emergency Management’s Emergency Operations Center, more commonly known as “Giuliani’s Bunker”.

Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper and was part of the World Trade Center complex. Built in 1984, it would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states in the United States. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.

I was one of those people who didn't know about building 7 (granted I was fairly young at the time). I already knew something was fishy about the whole thing & especially of the events that happened after: the War on Terror.

When I saw video of building 7 my jaw dropped and I had a horrible feeling for weeks.

Building 7 alone is evidence enough that they are lying.

Yep. That sick feeling is the worst and often the emotional bridge most people can't cross when it comes to accepting the truth about 9/11. Good on you for having the courage to see it for what it was. Hard and doesn't necessarily get easier, but at least you aren't a fool. Take care.

Thank you. I'm glad I opened up my eyes those years ago. Change starts with yourself in order to change the current system.

PNAC

This is not a building falling down, this is a building being blown up. Those little sticks hundreds of feet from the building are steel cladding.

Seriously, how the fuck is that a collapse?

Anthrax sent to top opposition leaders (Daschle and Leahy) and false blamed on radical muslims but in fact came from US military labs.

Smoking Gun: Free fall occurred in Building 7's collapse for 2.25 seconds. NIST was attempting to cover this up, but a physics teacher called them out at the public draft hearing. Surprisingly, in its final report released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but dishonestly placed it in bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video series was created by the man who forced NIST to admit free fall occurred and displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 coverup.

• Part 1: http://youtu.be/Rkp-4sm5Ypc

• Part 2: http://youtu.be/iXTlaqXsm4k

• Part 3: http://youtu.be/v3mudruFzNw

More info: http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

Danny Jowenko - Demolition Expert: https://youtu.be/0f4w8iJmn08

• Mr. Jowenko concludes that WTC 7 had to have been a controlled demolition without a doubt. (RIP)

9/11 Survivor Barry Jennings Uncut Interviews (WABC-TV, 2001, LC 2007): https://youtu.be/OmeY2vJ6ZoA

• Barry talks about the explosions in Building 7 and his escape from it after tying to enter the office of emergency management area on the 23rd floor. (RIP)

These professionals appeared on C-SPAN last August to discuss the demolition evidence of 9/11 -- it is now the most popular video on the site since then: http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth — 400,000 views

Some of the members:

Steven Dusterwald, S.E. - Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/I7oti6KGEf4

• Mr. Dusterwald presents contradictory evidence between the NIST model and the actual sequence of failures within all the WTC Buildings.

David Topete, MSCE, S.E., Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/v9WB1A9j8f8

• Mr. Topete discusses how WTC Building 7's column 79's failure could not have caused the symmetrical and simultaneous collapse into it's own footprint.

Casey Pfeiffer, S.E. – Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/V4y6cweaegI

• Mr. Pfeiffer provides a in-depth look at what actually happened to the top portions of the WTC towers prior to collapse and how WTC 7 could not have experienced simultaneous connector failure without the use of controlled demolition devices.

Kamal Obeid, C.E., S.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/3WCcSHpvAJ8

• Mr. Obeid, a 30-year structural engineer explains how NIST's analysis actually disproves it's own theories on how WTC Building 7 collapsed, thereby confirming the use of controlled demolition.

Ron Brookman S.E., Structural Engineer: https://youtu.be/TM_l_4sJ-sY

• Mr. Brookman discusses his direct inquiries with President Obama and NIST on NIST's responsibility to find the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7 and their responses.

They have been attempting to expose the fraud in the NIST reports, along with thousands of other professionals. Here are a few:

Bob Bowman PhD, Lt. Colonel (ret.):

https://youtu.be/CROB5p-1GjE

• The former head of the Star Wars program under President Ford & Carter, has multiple engineering degrees and agrees that NIST is conducting a massive coverup. (RIP)

Lynn Margulis PhD:

https://youtu.be/O0fkDmi78Og

• 1999 Presidential Medal of Science award winner and Carl Sagan's first wife, Lynn Margulis, provides crucial rules and elements within an investigative scientific analysis to procure an accepted hypotheses vs. what's depicted in the NIST report. (RIP)

Rudy Dent, 9/11 survivor and former Fire Marshall:

https://youtu.be/nQrpLp-X0ws

• 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD Rudy Dent, speaks about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7 and gives his professional opinion on the destruction of the buildings with his experience as a Fire Marshall.

Another prominent member from this group is:

Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer: https://youtu.be/gJy7lhVK2xE

• Mr. Humenn gives us quite a unique perspective inside the elevator shafts in the twin towers and how access to the core columns could have been gained.

Click here for their series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself--including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross--should be investigated.

Did you know? NIST did not follow standard fire investigation protocol:

Erik Lawyer – Firefighter: https://youtu.be/KsbbpUA9FHM

• Mr. Lawyer presents investigative directives from the National Fire Protection Standards Manual that were never followed by NIST or FEMA for the fires they claim caused all 3 WTC Buildings to collapse.

Building 7 collapsed at 5:21 pm on 9-11-2001 — it was the first and only steel skyscraper in world history to completely collapse because of fire.

1 + 1 = 2 <-- #Truth

2 + 2 = 5

9/11: The Facts Speak for Themselves

Fact #1 The core of the Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called "The Project For The New American Century." This group produced a document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that said the "process of transformation" they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-06/facts-speak-themselves

IMO this video is one of the best out there, and it's only 15 minutes long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92RsG42nJck

Building 7. I am still looking for a viable and realistic explanation from US authorities.

Lucky Larry Silverstein said to "Pull it", because he had a lot of insurance to win when it came down due to "terrorism" from the Mossad with CIA help.

I deal in facts. I can prove it was a demolition job. I can't prove it was a Jewish demolition job.

Not Jewish dude. Zionist. There's a difference. Please don't conflate.

It is a narrow path to walk.

First, I would check out Kevin Ryan's Blog: DigWithin. If you aren't familiar with his story, please, ingratiate yourself to his body of work via the aforementioned blog and his book: Another Nineteen.

After digesting that, head over to Craig McKee's: TruthandShadows Blog. This guy has produced a startlingly coherent and focused discourse, not only on 9/11, but also the Boston Bombing.

FunFact: Don't forget to browse through the comments on both blogs, but especially TruthandShadows, wherein you can bear witness to the collective body of work that comprises the totality of trolls, shills, and disinfo agents and read as each one of their tricks/arguments/subterfuge is absolutely decimated without so much as a curse word or even an exclamation point needed from Mr. McKee.

As listed on his blog, "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses." – Plato

The following text can be found on Kevin Ryan's Blog: DigWithin

Noam Chomsky and the Willful Ignorance of 9/11

In response to a question at the University of Florida recently, Noam Chomsky claimed that there were only “a miniscule number of architects and engineers” who felt that the official account of WTC Building 7 should be treated with skepticism. Chomsky followed-up by saying, “a tiny number—a couple of them—are perfectly serious.”

If signing your name and credentials to a public petition on the subject means being serious, then Noam Chomsky’s tiny number begins at 2,100, not counting scientists and other professionals. Why would Chomsky make such an obvious exaggeration when he has been presented with contradictory facts many times?

I’ve personally had over thirty email exchanges with Chomsky. In those exchanges, he has agreed that it is “conceivable” that explosives might have been used at the WTC. But, he wrote, if that were the case it would have had to be Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden who had made it so.

Of course, it doesn’t matter how many professionals or intellectuals are willing to admit it. The facts remain that the U.S. government’s account for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 is purely false. There is no science behind the government’s explanation for WTC7 or for the Twin Towers and everyone, including the government, admits that WTC Building 7 experienced free fall on 9/11. There is no explanation for that other than the use of explosives.

The obviously bogus “tiny number” statement from Chomsky is only one of several such absurdities the man uttered in his lecture response. Here are a few of the others.

“[Scientists seeking the truth about 9/11] are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do, when you think you have discovered something, is you write articles in scientific journals [he admits to “one or two minor articles”], give talks at the professional societies, and go to the Civil Engineering Department at MIT, or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results.”

I’ve copied Chomsky on more than two peer-reviewed scientific articles in mainstream journals that describe evidence for demolition at the WTC. Therefore he knows that this statement is not true. And I’ve given dozens of talks around the U.S. and Canada that focused on the WTC demolition theory, many of which were at universities.

I’ve also pointed out that MIT’s civil engineering professor Eduardo Kausel made elementary mistakes in his public comments about the WTC disaster. Kausel claimed in Scientific American that the WTC towers were “never designed for the the intense jet fuel fires—a key design omission.” Kausel also claimed that jet fuel from the aircraft “softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum.” At the risk of making a Chomsky-like exaggeration, I’ll venture that nearly everyone today knows that these statements are false.

Chomsky went on in an attempt to belittle, and downplay the sacrifices of, people seeking the truth.

“There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the internet who think they know a lot of physics but it doesn’t work like that.”

“Anyone who has any record of, any familiarity, with political activism knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It’s almost riskless. People take risks far beyond this constantly, including scientists and engineers. I could, have run through, and can run through many examples. Maybe people will laugh at you but that’s about it. It’s almost a riskless position.”

Chomsky knows that I was fired from my job as Site Manager at Underwriters Laboratories for publicly challenging the government’s investigation into the WTC tragedy. He knows that many others have suffered similar responses as well, including Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones and University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who were forced into retirement for speaking out. And although everyone knows that researchers and universities today depend on billions of grant dollars from the government, Chomsky implies that such funding could never be impacted in any way by questioning of the government’s most sensitive political positions.

The “hour on the internet” nonsense is ludicrous, of course, and Chomsky knows it well. Jones and Harrit have better scientific credentials than some MIT professors and we have all spent many years studying the events of 9/11. I’ve spent over a decade, and have contributed to many books and scientific articles, on the subject.

Pandering to the hecklers in the crowd, Chomsky summarized his simplistic (public) position on the events of 9/11.

“However, there’s a much more deeper issue which has been brought up repeatedly and I have yet to hear a response to it. There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved—very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it, you just have to think for a minute. There’s a couple of facts which are uncontroversial:

1—The Bush Administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq. (He goes on to say that there were good reasons, including that Iraq was “right in the middle if the world’s energy producing region.)

2—They didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis, they blamed it on Saudis—that’s their major ally.

3—Unless they’re total lunatics, they would have blamed it on Iraqis if they were involved in any way.” He continues to say that “there was no reason to invade Afghanistan” which “has been mostly a waste of time.”

Basically, these three “overwhelming” reasons boil down to one reason—Chomsky assumes that if the Bush Administration was involved it would have immediately blamed Iraq for 9/11. Of course, Bush Administration leaders did immediately blame Iraq for 9/11 and they did so repeatedly. That was one of the two original justifications given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.

Moreover, Chomsky most definitely received a response to his “deeper issue” when he received a copy of my new book Another Nineteen several months before his comments. The book gives ample reasons—meaning actual overwhelming evidence—to suspect that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and nineteen of their colleagues were behind the 9/11 attacks. After writing that he was “glad to learn about the new book,” he sent his mailing address for a free copy. Chomsky acknowledged receiving the book in August and wrote to me that he was “pleased to have a copy of the book, and hope to be able to get to it before too long.”

Therefore, Chomsky has either ignored the response to his one major concern for several months or he knows that his concern is no longer valid. What would make him feign ignorance in such a way? Perhaps it is the fact that he would lose a great deal of face if he were to finally admit that there is much more to the story of 9/11.

Regardless, when a tiny number begins at 2,100 and “just overwhelming evidence” to exonerate the Bush Administration boils down to one bad assumption, we are again reminded of the power that 9/11 holds. When presented with substantial evidence for complicity on the part of corporate and government leaders, the obvious becomes either undeniable or an emotional cue to dissemble.

when a tiny number begins at 2,100

It's now over 2,500 I'm happy to say. Chomsky lost all of my former respect in one fell swoop long ago.

Agreed.

Convince yourself. Or, as they say in the culinary industry; "fuck you, pay me."

Henry Kissinger chosen to lead the delayed investigation and his subsequent resignation over business ties to the Bin Ladens.

Maxwell Cleland's resignation from the 9/11 Commission over lack of access to information and misinformation.

Other statement by the 9/11 Commissioners themselves.

Ridiculousness of the Official Story

In order to understand that the 9/11 attacks were staged, it helps immensely to understand that the physical behavior exhibited by the collapsing towers is completely illogical, and impossible, except in the case that the towers were demolished by explosives.

To put it simply: in order for the buildings to fall to the ground at freefall speed or near freefall speed, the materials between the point of collapse and the ground would need to be ejected at the same speed as the building was collapsing, otherwise those materials would provide resistance, absorb the force of the collapse, and therefore slow the speed of the collapse. It is impossible for this material to have been ejected in the case of an organic collapse, as there is no possible place for the force of the ejection to have come from - not without diverting force from the collapse itself and therefore slowing the speed of the collapse. The only explanation for these additional forces is explosives.

Basically, what I'm referencing is common sense, a high schooler's understanding of physics. When you drop a heavy object onto another solid object, the heavy object doesn't magically torpedo through the entire solid object - it meets resistance, the force of the heavy object's descent is slowed, and the heavy object no longer has the force to torpedo any further through the solid object. This is what would happen if the collapse of the towers were organic - the solid foundation of the buildings, without question, would have prevented the upper portions of the buildings from falling to the ground. Instead we see the upper portions of the buildings torpedo straight to the ground as if there was literally nothing between them and the ground. This is completely impossible without explosives removing the lower part of the building - which is exactly the reason buildings are demolished this way to begin with.

here's a neat 15-minute video that goes into the logic and demonstrates the physics experimentally. Very layman-friendly

here's a 20-minute video where mental health professionals attempt to provide psychiatric explanations for people failing to acknowledge the truth of 9/11. Basically, denial, pathological avoidance of cognitive dissonance, AKA being a pussy syndrome

Good luck to you OP.

No offense, but if you are actively looking into the official story vs 'conspiracy theories' and have a tough time of realizing the official story doesn't add up in almost all areas I'm not sure anyone here can convince you.

Watch this playlist in its entirety. If you aren't 100% convinced this is a coverup, then I'm afraid I will have to stop talking with you because you will have convinced me you've been boxxed and not really trying to get out.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLorWv5U8Qu2jhbLg5lO3f5WPY5-fJDYZf

Then watch this one, which will give you cultural insight into how our system is not your friend, how the reality you know is an illusion and that is by design to maximize your lumpen confusion.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLorWv5U8Qu2gie7o6FBdFtGaMIXUocAMb

Some say the way out is Jesus. I say the way out is gardening and the mushroom. The two aren't mututally exclusive.

Well if I remember bin laden refuted the claims about his involvement and said that from a dialysis clinic. His family says he's been dead since 2002. The confession video has Osama have darker skin, right handed, and wears rigs which is against bin ladens religion. Also didn't the owner of the trade center take out a huge policy on it on 9/10? Also everyone reported explosives not planes. Hardly anyone saw planes and a claimed chi fuck up. They had the tech then. Also the flight 93 thing, the parents got robotic sounding calls like "hello mother this is Rick Sanchez", weird stuff also the height the plane was at, civilian planes didn't have the tech to call from that height. Also the cracks was a small hole, no wreckage. Same with the pentagon, no plane shape with wings, looked like a missile. They proved in the doc that the building HAD to have fallen by explosive showing it during freefal. Also. Vaguely remember that a news channel in the UK got the timing fucked up, too early. Not to mention them prooving thermite particles were in the dust. Also they proved that it would melt the steel, as a fireman said when interviewed, "gasonline hasn't meltedsteel, it never has and never will. The fireproofing done on the building could hold more the the supposed load if the supports buckled, and had a higher heat threshhold. Wanna see an example of what a plane looks like when it hits a buildong, loo up when a plane flew into the empire state building in like the 30s. The plane wouldn't go far if at all into thebuildong, the exterior of the towers were strong enough to stop a planes. Also nearly zero wreckage. If I remember right they found a pristine plane engine (wrong engine too) and on hijackers pasdport. Also most of the hijackers were alive and living normal lives in the middleeast. Also molten steel burned for weeks in the elevator shafts. Gasoline doesn't do that. I find it easy to believe on the news the planes were cgi, maybe if something hit them it was a missile or particle beam (plane for a death ray have existed since Tesla was alive, also him discovering wireless electricity. They have engineered the public to mock anyone saying it was a conspiracy. It's as obvious as Watergate to me. It even took them actively going after an NBA employee just to believe him. America are terrible at executing cover ups. Also any footage that exists is low quality, we don't have any HD video to spot cgi. I mean these are the guys that supposedly taped over the HD footage of the moon landing and lost 1 ton of moon rocks. The footage broadcast was a video of another taping. Not to mention it obviously having scale issues and can set wires and stage lights.here's the tech level discrepancy, armstrong supposedly phones home on a Motorola phon, in 1969 before cell phones.

Do you own research.

At what temperature does steel melt?

and at what temperature does jet fuel burn?

And was there molten steel anywhere?

Here's the abridged version, via Jim Marrs.

This video is fairly convincing, you should definitely check it out : Why 9/11 Was a Conspiracy because steel or some shit ...

The answer boils down (for me) to this: follow the money. It all points in one direction when you know the majority of the strange events that happened that day.

911 The New Pearl Harbour, five-ish hours to truth, or at least a glimpse at it.

Really? I almost get embarrassed when I hear the official narrative now because there are so many aspects that they have to omit for it to make sense.

And it's deceitful to say "2,500 architects and engineers question the official story. 2,500 is a big number! Look at how big it is!" without mentioning that there are literally millions of architects and engineers worldwide, and that 2,500 is a tiny percentage of that.

I'm sure that a few thousand doctors think vaccines cause autism, and a few thousand scientists think global warming isn't man made, and a few thousand historians think the Holocaust never happened, and a few thousand whatevers think something that clearly didn't happen did.

It's easy to scrape the bottom of the barrel in a world of seven billion people and find a few thousand willing to back anything.

Something like 4000 architects voted against the need for a new investigation into the collapse of building 7 last year. How many engineers do you think would vote similarly if given the chance?

Maybe office fires can make a steel frames building collapse. A fairly simple series of experiments should prove or disprove that hypothesis. Why someone would be opposed to said experiments is truly baffling.

Edit--- seems from the article this was quite political.

"It's clear that a majority of the people in that room were voting not based on a rational examination of what happened to Building 7 but on how they feel and what they want to believe about what happened on September 11th," he observes. "They were more concerned with the reputation of the AIA and were not willing to commit the AIA to taking a position on anything as controversial as the collapse of Building 7."