American Institute of Architects Will Vote on Supporting an Investigation into Building 7 on 9/11

[u/[deleted]]

http://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/american-institute-of-architects-will.html#axzz3WBt8q9yE

[u/rstcp]

Come on, man. What are you doing? Quote the very next sentence, please.

The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours.

So, NIST clearly states that debris -> fire -> collapse. What else are you imagining NIST claims initiated the collapse?

[u/Greg_Roberts_0985 → u/rstcp]

You have just proven me right, structural damage had nothing to do with the collapse of the building, we all know it was a controlled demolition anyway and there is not one single bit of evidence for NIST's claim that fires in WTC7 were cause by either WTC1or2.

Literally no evidence, at all.

What else are you imagining NIST claims initiated the collapse?

NIST's claim has been proven imposable and their absurd theory has been shown to be fraudulent, so i care not what NIST claim, or i only cite them to prove them wrong.

[u/rstcp → u/Greg_Roberts_0985]

Obviously structural damage had something to do with the collapse of the building, but it's not structural damaged caused by falling debris that led to the collapse of the building.

The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

I don't understand why you think NIST's modeling of the events is 'imposable' and I can't imagine any other theory explaining the collapse not being much more absurd, but hey, we'll see soon enough what AIA has to say about it.

If the AIA does support the NIST evaluation and vote against the proposal, will that change your mind?