Mick says some pretty weird stuff in the video in the OP. Thought I would respond to some points. This is what he says about Shyam Sunder admitting that they were "having trouble" explaining WTC 7:
Firstly, this was not really an "early" admission. It's from 2006. At that point, they had already studied WTC 7 for quite some time I think, and obviously they were building on top of the report done by FEMA. But the real issue with this quote becomes apparent when you contrast it with the foreknowledge and certainty that WTC 7 would collapse on the day of 9/11. For example from the interview of Indira Singh, we know that people were already being moved away around noon because she was told the building was being "brought down". So you'd have to believe that the collapse was easily predictable five hours before it collapsed, but still a baffling engineering mystery five years later. This makes no sense at all, and is a blatant contradiction in the official narrative. I tried making a thread about this, but it got quickly removed with some excuse. I take it as a sign that nobody has a response to this argument. Then he says this about an AE911 meme about the buildings collapsing "essentially in free fall":
Firstly, he doesn't seem to know that "essentially in free fall" is a direct quote from Sunder, but he correctly points out that they were coming down at about 2/3rds of free fall. But here's the thing, NIST didn't do that math on this either, by their own admission. This is pointed out by another AE911 meme. They present some math on their website about how much force a floor can withstand or whatever, but nowhere in their report do they do a calculation that works out why the acceleration of such a collapse would be 2/3rds of g. That's because they, by their own admission, did not analyse the behaviour of the building after collapse initiation. Perhaps they needed to do a little bit more math to convince people who were skeptical of their claims.
This also has a similar problem as the WTC 7 foreknowledge pointed out above... You can't simultaneously say that it's not that hard to explain why the buildings collapsed so quickly, and then defend NIST not doing any calculations about it. How long could it have taken them to do and include such calculations in their report? They were granted millions of dollars to explain the collapses. What justification is there for ending the study at collapse initiation, especially if they just needed to do a "little bit of math"? Then he says this about whether or not the collapses looked like demolitions:
This is pretty blatantly a bad faith argument... He knows very well that the claim by truthers is usually that the explosives were timed to go from top to bottom, to mimic a natural collapse due to plane impact. You can time a controlled demolition any way you want, there is no natural law of the universe that you have to blow up the bottom first. Then there's the elephant in the room of WTC 7 going down in the exact manner that he describes controlled demolitions work lol. I agree about the Simpsons meme being a bit distasteful, though. Then he says this about the strangely eroded steel studied by FEMA:
Okay, but what stuff specifically? Shouldn't it be the job of these scientists to figure that kind of stuff out? As far as I'm aware, nobody has done an experiment that has replicated this strange erosion. There are potential explanations floated around, like gypsum or acid rain, but no experiments actually showing either of these to be plausible. The only such experiment I'm aware of was done by 9/11 researcher Jonathan Cole, and he found no erosion from gypsum. Now he's an engineer but not a professional metallurgist, so perhaps he did the experiment wrong somehow, I don't know. But if that's the case, somebody should do it right before you can claim that "stuff" caused it.