Found an interesting video about WTC7 and how it collapsed,
Also a few notes from the video,
The information below is presented for people interested in actual inquiry, meaning they are legitimately examining both sides' arguments for inconsistencies, intellectual dishonesty, and logical flaws.
1. Things conspiracy theorists do not want you to know:
(a) Building 7 underwent a slow, catastrophic internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
(b) The 1,500 "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. Examine the list for yourself. Then, look at the 750 (better credentialed) names at dissentingdarwin.org, and ask whether the latter list puts biological evolution in serious doubt.
(c) The "explosive traces" or "thermite" claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google "CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal" to read about its "peer review" process. By the way, Jones, a devout Mormon, also published "evidence" that Jesus hung out with American Indians; Google "Behold My Hands."
(d) Thermite has never been used to demolish a building. It is notoriously difficult to ignite, so it needs to be piled and ignited from the top and allowed to burn downward by mavity. It does not burn sideways as would be required to cut a vertical column.
(e) Rigging a large building for demolition requires weeks of wall removal, drilling, cutting, and wiring. It cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would evidence of such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
(f) There exist NO peer-reviewed publications supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.
(g) No alternate theory has been offered showing how the building(s) were brought down by demolition. Conspiracy theorists just keep raising the same 20-odd questions and hope you won't look for the answers.
2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel-beam framing members expanded beyond tolerances, subjecting connections to failure. The heat also reduced the steel's capacity to support loads. No melting required.
(b) "BBC reported WTC7's collapse before it happened." Firefighters had predicted the collapse. Apparently the reporter made an error. CNN also reported for 10 minutes that the Washington Mall was on fire; do we ask why no scorch marks were later found?
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed.
(d) "NIST changed its story several times." Science refines its position over time. This is a strength, not a weakness. Alternatively we can start with a story, stick to that story, and look only for evidence that supports that story. The latter is what creationists and conspiracy theorists do.
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling out firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition professional.
(f) "You are clearly working for the government." This is a case of believing a bold premise with no evidence whatsoever, merely because it fits the believer's worldview. Not an effective way of getting closer to the truth.
3. Simple fallacies of logic:
(a) "No tall building had ever collapsed from fire. Therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire." There is a first time for everything. Equivalent fallacy: "No species before humans had ever invented the computer. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(b) "Other tall buildings burned without collapsing; therefore WTC7 could not have collapsed due to fire." Besides the fact that these other cases were more fire-robust than the all-steel-framed WTC7, just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen. Equivalent fallacy: "There exist primates that have not invented computers. Therefore humans could not have invented the computer."
(c) "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied about 9/11." Just because A has done B does not imply that A always does B. Equivalent fallacy: "The government has lied before, therefore it must have lied when it said aspirin is safe and effective."
(d) "Prove that it wasn't a controlled demolition." The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Equivalent fallacy: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."
I know the date has now passed but is this really the thread for such bilge? There are quite afew 9/11 conspiracy threads on here that people could post their bonkers theories in & be quite helpfully shown that they have no real susbstance.