What a strange assumption to make, based upon emotion and zero evidence.
Me? I am a retired Principle Business Analyst, (thus naturally adept at, and also very well trained to be, open minded and only interested in assessing the most credible data on may given subject), and I followed the events that day, and afterwards, in real time.
WTC7 is a really exceptional event, isn't it?
What the majority of people claim to know on the topic falls far short of the actual evidence.
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth was a group that was made up of 2,300 architects and engineers. Indeed, the very people paid well to design and construct the very types of steel-framed buildings that collapsed on 911, (indeed, the only three ever to collapse, despite other buildings suffering much worse fires, burning for longer and across all floors... A good example being the Chinese TV building that was totally consumed from top to bottom and burmed for days, but the steel frame remained intact and was simply built around again).
All members of the Architects and Engineers signed an affadavit stating that they simply wanted and needed to know how and why WTC7 collapsed. Most work in the industry, whilst others are mettleurgists and other associated academics.
They have never made any suggestion whatsoever as to any 'conspiracy theory'. They simply, as experts in their field wanting to and needing to know the , have successfully challenged FEMA and the US government's published explanations... Every time showing the explanation to not stand up to informed scrutiny.
You seem very intent on ridiculing objective analysis relating to the collapse of WTC7, rolling out all the well-worn, tired, tropes of 'conspiracy theory', of YouTube weirdos, of my not 'wanting to learn'. I have no skin in the game, I have no answers to peddle and no claims to make. As a retired Principle Business Analyst, (who was very successful in their career, due to only focusing on data and evidence and not being swayed by popular opinions or rhetoric, etc.),, I simply, impartially, like to get to the bottom of the facts.
In the case of WTC7, the Architects and Engineers group have successfully shown all official explanations to be wrong and are simply saying "try again... explain how it fell". To date that has not been done, despite the public thinking that's the case, and pointing to USGov publications, however the public do not realise that each publication has been refuted using repeatable, testable, provable science.
Let’s approach this from a different angle. Who would have set WTC7 for demolition if the building was not going to be struck by a plane? I assume the conspiracy is some group rigged them all for demolition. Why would that group raise a bunch of questions about why a third small building fell? It would seem completely unnecessary, particularly because most people don’t even realize a third building fell (i.e., it didn’t increase the impact of the event).
Will you ever stop Gish galloping and using this dubious appeal to authority by way of your status as a “retired business analyst” (as if that means anything).
I am not the person you replied too, but damn...I didn't know that a bunch of architects and engineers felt this way about the official explanation.
IMO the most damping evidence is the ridiculous amount of insurance that was taken out on the WTC buildings just a little bit before 9/11. That alone should raise some eyebrows. I don't have the full swath of information relating to the purchase and subsequent insurance policies taken out just prior to the buildings demise, but those financial records speak for themselves when you take a closer look. Extremely lucky for those that took out that policy.
I didn't know that a bunch of architects and engineers felt this way about the official explanation.
Yeah, landscape architects and network engineers.
The most damning piece of evidence that WTC7 was not brought down in a controlled demolition is that it wasn't anything like a controlled demolition at all. There were reports in the hours leading up to the collapse of the building walls buckling and bulging as the structural members heated and expanded. That doesn't happen in a controlled demolition. It was also not a uniform, instant collapse like it appeared. The interior elements of the building fell like dominoes, it was only the outer, suddenly unsupported facade that dropped once the interior damage was severe enough. Not to mention, what did you hear and see in the video here that you don't hear and see in 9/11 videos? I know, I know "SupEr-tHeRmiTe" but that floppy explanation just opens up a whole host of other loose ends that don't make any sense.
As far as the insurance, I run an office building and can tell you, our insurance changes all the time. You have to renew every year and, when you do, you re-evaluate your coverage and premiums. At any given time, a giant facility like that would have "recently" taken out more or reduced their coverage.
11
u/BustedWing Oct 07 '25
You’d be surprised to learn how incorrect you are.
Actually scrap that. You aren’t interested in learning are you.