And yet not wrong. Go figure. This video is pretty good - with one or two exceptions - and goes into a much higher level of detail than many viewers will be able to comprehend. While not perfect, the *collapse mechanisms* - the sequence of failures - described here *are substantially correct* and this is true *no matter who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks or why* In case you didn't get the hint that means this video can be spot on in its description of Building collapse AND the 9/11 attacks could have been some sort of "inside job". These things are not mutually exclusive in spite of what you have been conditioned to believe. That may not be what you want to hear and go against 20+ years of entrenched dogma and conditioning, but it’s not wrong. That also means (in case you did not get the hint) this video can be (and IS) absolutely correct in its description of collapse mechanisms AND the 9/11 attacks could still have been some sort of inside job. The two things are in no way mutually exclusive. The mechanisms described here have broad professional support around the world. There are no professional engineering organizations (for example: ASCE, ASEE, ICE, etc) that disagree with them or have offered any formal dissenting opinions or alternative hypothesis. So, setting hubris aside, either the overwhelming majority of the worlds structural engineers and simple observation are wrong,… … or you are. Which seems more likely? IF you *still **-think-** **_believe_** this explanation is wrong then produce a better one* . Good luck with that. No one _ever_ has and I don’t see you moving that needle today. No one _ever_ does.

@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl "overwhelming majority of the worlds structural engineers" ? C'mon! Continue support brazen propaganda and claim that 2 x 2 = 7. But not to me: I don't buy BS.

No, he did not

And yet not wrong. Go figure. This video is pretty good - with one or two exceptions - and goes into a much higher level of detail than many viewers will be able to comprehend. While not perfect, the *collapse mechanisms* - the sequence of failures - described here *are substantially correct* and this is true *no matter who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks or why* In case you didn't get the hint that means this video can be spot on in its description of Building collapse AND the 9/11 attacks could have been some sort of "inside job". These things are not mutually exclusive in spite of what you have been conditioned to believe. That may not be what you want to hear and go against 20+ years of entrenched dogma and conditioning, but it’s not wrong. That also means (in case you did not get the hint) this video can be (and IS) absolutely correct in its description of collapse mechanisms AND the 9/11 attacks could still have been some sort of inside job. The two things are in no way mutually exclusive. The mechanisms described here have broad professional support around the world. There are no professional engineering organizations (for example: ASCE, ASEE, ICE, etc) that disagree with them or have offered any formal dissenting opinions or alternative hypothesis. So, setting hubris aside, either the overwhelming majority of the worlds structural engineers and simple observation are wrong,… … or you are. Which seems more likely? IF you *still **-think-** **_believe_** this explanation is wrong then produce a better one* . Good luck with that. No one _ever_ has and I don’t see you moving that needle today. No one _ever_ does. I mean seriously dude, it's almost 2025 and you are still running with _Larry said pull it_ - because that worked so well the last million times someone tried it. Even a lab rat eventually learns from its mistakes and changes it's behavior. Evolve!!!

He made a separate video on WTC7

Moron spotted

So if the argument does not exist on a video _you_ have seen, no one ever made the argument???

Out of all of the claims made by 9/11 truthers, "Aluminum isn't strong enough to break through steel" is extremely common.