Someone posted a link to an article and all the modeling files completed by the University of Alaska during their study of the WTC7 collapse. That was 4-6 months ago or so. I made a flippant comment and got called out for it, so penned this screed. I tend to delete my content after a month or so, but had saved a copy. Your video highlights several of the points I made at the time. ~~~ TLDR: The form of the WTC7 collapse was readily identifiable by me and any civil engineer worth their salt as a planned demolition, therefore it was the jews. Wall of text with some elementary structural analysis principles more fully illustrating my point follows. Enjoy. My area of practice wasn't structural engineering, rather it was mostly transportation focused. That said, all of my elective coursework was structural. I excelled at it, but my overall GPA wasn't what employers wanted in a structural geek/nerd. I haven't watched the hour plus video by the professor, nor have I downloaded the quarter of a terabyte of data offered in the post link. However I did watch the simulations and comparative videos of the actual collapse. I'm not qualified to offer a critique or opinion on their modeling, but it appears to be finite element based (outfit I worked for in '96 bought nightime mainframe time to run theirs - it was seriously a processor-hungry computationally-iterative process and still is). They can pretty much do whatever they want in those modeling simulations given enough time and money to set them up properly (hence my reference to the costly fee they charged). In that I can't review their inputs and assumptions readily and have never run a finite element analysis program, I'm not your man for an insightful blow by blow of their methodology. So that's a page and a half of disclaimer verbiage for you that means absolutely doodly squat (mandatory step in engineering, sadly). But here's some meat and potatoes... You ever watch videos of building demolition? If not, look for the demolition of the Pruitt Igoe housing complex in St. Louis for some interesting footage to serve as a reference point (several buildings demoed in a failed housing project). Typical non-complex construction of small to medium sized buildings (larger ones too) utilizes a regular lattice of vertical (columns) and horizontal (beams) structural members. Imagine the framing of say an 8 bay by 5 bay building with 10 stories (the 10 is arbitrary and just means it has some height). In plan view the columns are represented by a grid of dots in a 9 x 6 array. In the regular array of a symmetric building framing system like this - assuming the loading is fairly uniform throughout, the columns carrying the highest loads in the system are ALWAYS the first interior columns. ALWAYS. So in the 8 bay orientation above these are the 2nd and 8th of the 9 columns, and similarly in the 5 bay orientation, the 2nd and 5th of the 6 columns. Where these two orientations are coincident (i.e.: the first columns diagonally in from the outside building corners), the loading can be as much as 40% higher than that of the other columns (dependent on the length and width of the bay arrangement). When demolition contractors bring down a large building where they aren't constrained by close proximity of other buildings - or in the absence of other constraints, those first interior corner columns are ALWAYS the first to be blown/removed. Subsequent charges are then detonated. The removal of those principal columns causes the first 2 adjacent bay framing to sag, then the removal of the other columns (doesn't even have to be all of them) initiates a cascading overstress of all remaining elements and their subsequent collapse. In effect it looks like the middle of the structure has started to sink, with the exterior walls following shortly thereafter. Look at the second simulation and the video footage from the two perspectives they present: It follows this pattern to a T. Now look at the first simulation (Hypothetical Failure of Columns 76 to 81). I assume this is meant to represent initiation of failure at one end of the building due to impact from debris emanating from the collapse of WTC1 or WTC2. No progressive collapse - rather it shows the dynamic response of the building frame to the removal of structural elements (see how some elements flex back and forth elastically?). Note also how the effects migrate further inward as you move upward in the structure. This is the framing system's attempt to rebalance and redistribute loads. Looks about as I'd expect if the first row or two of columns were destroyed in the lower level of a building. But that's not what happened. Here's the thing: I was at work on 9/11/2001 - they let us go home shortly after the second twin tower collapsed. I wasn't even cognizant that WTC7 had collapsed until days/weeks/months after the fact. At least nothing that stuck with me. Never even looked at a vid of it until maybe 7 or 8 years ago. By that time I pretty well knew WTC1 and WTC2 weren't what we'd been told, so consequently I had an extremely jaundiced eye and jaded expectalons about WTC7. And when I viewed video of the collapse for the first time, I immediately knew - KNEW - it was a planned demolition. Because all that crap I just explained - about loads on the the first internal columns being much higher; how loads redistribute to adjacent members when some members fail; how demolition contractors target high load members to their advantage - all that stuff? I learned it nearly 40 years ago and have had it demonstrated time and time and time again. Have watched live demolition of a couple buildings that further reinforced it too.