THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN UPDATED: Please watch the new version at https://youtu.be/4LUDXpMhkNk and comment there. Comments on this older version will no longer be supported.
The text below is for people interested in actual inquiry, and are legitimately examining arguments for intellectual dishonesty and logical flaws.
1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:
(a) WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse. There was nothing symmetrical about it, except superficially, the last part of the collapse.
(b) WTC7 actually did NOT collapse straight down or "into its own footprint." Three buildings, across the 4-lane Barclay St., were heavily damaged. See photo: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg
(c) The "experts" at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. with little or no experience in steel tube-frame skyscraper construction.
(d) A high-rise in Tehran collapsed due to fire in January 2017. However, the exterior did not hold together to the end as it did in WTC, because of major design differences.
(e) 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.
(f) No "molten metal" was ever collected from WTC7 and analyzed.
(g) Rigging a large building for demolition cannot be done "over the weekend," nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
(h) There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, in any engineering journal.
2. Examples of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance:
(a) "The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel." Nobody claims that fire melted steel. Steel 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 and cleared the area, and apparently one reporter misheard something. That's a far simpler explanation than conspiracy. Also on 9/11, CNN reported that the Washington Mall was on fire. That never happened.
(c) "The 9/11 Commission Report didn't even mention WTC7." It was done years before the WTC7 study was completed, and wasn't an engineering report.
(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 believers do.
(e) "Larry Silverstein ordered to 'pull' WTC7, a slang term in the demolition industry." He was referring to pulling back firefighting efforts, as the building was considered lost. "Pull" is not demolition slang. Larry Silverstein is a real-estate investor, not a demolition worker.
(f) "Why not just light steel skyscrapers on fire when they need to be demolished?" Because fires are dirty and dangerous. You could equally ask why wood-frame houses are demolished with bulldozers, when they could just be set on fire.
(g) "You are working for the government." This is a case of believing a bold premise with no evidence, merely because it fits the believer's worldview — a characteristic that seems common among conspiracy believers.
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: "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: "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: "The government must have also 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: "Prove that humans are not descended from reptiles of the planet Nbiru."