Yes a youtube link should be ground to overrule logic, common sense ,an army of engineers or so with thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies.
There were "no armies of engineers or so" but there were thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies. The NIST study, thousands of pages, had multiple lies in it. NIST lied outright, as I have already proven to you about the molten/vaporized WTC steel.
You were able to see John the gross liar Gross categorically denying its existence even though the US government agency, FEMA wrote a report on it.
Even though there are multiple other sources for the molten/vaporized WTC steel.
You saw the molten steel in the video. That is reality. Reality denied by someone, anyone means that person/those people cannot be trusted in anything they say or do.
You also saw the same John the gross liar Gross touching a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/girder. That right there sinks the USGOCT for at least two reasons; one, it means there were no hijackers, another fact which, by itself, sinks the official story, two; molten/vaporized WTC structural steel is impossible following the scenario of the USGOCT.
Which brings us to your contention that serious scientific investigation was done by government scientists. It was NOT. Again, I point you to the lies of Gross and NIST.
Neither mentioned the reality of molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.
That is scientific fraud, that is criminal fraud.
NIST never mentioned the free fall of WTC7 until it was pointed out by a high school physics teacher. It was pointed out that such a measurement was a high school physics level.
NIST purposefully left out molten/vaporized WTC structural steel and WTC7 free fall because, like you, Bill, they know the implications of those two things.
The failure of NIST to not note WTC7 free fall is also scientific fraud and criminal fraud.
NIST did discuss the molten steel flowing from WTC2, but they lamely professed it to be aluminum, knowing full well that aluminum is silver in daylight. NIST was urged to do experiments to verify their drivel but no experiments were performed. Why? Because NIST, like you, Bill, knows the implications of the flowing molten steel.
The failure of NIST to not note the flowing molten steel is also scientific fraud and criminal fraud.
There are many other lies NIST advanced in its "study" of the collapse of WTC7. Notably they lied about roughly ten different specifications that were on the construction blueprints of WTC7. They did this to try to make their theory about Column 79 being the weak feature that caused the collapse.
All lies. A Univ of Alaska, Fairbanks study by a professor of forensic engineering [30 years] has found that the likelihood of the chance there was for NIST study being an accurate representation of the collapse of WTC7 was summed up in one word - ZERO.
Here is NIST's computer simulation of the collapse of WTC7. Tell me if you think it matches reality.
Reality, and a sense of reality is fundamental to science. Things that don't match reality can be eliminated. People who deny reality can also be summarily dismissed as charlatans and frauds.
Actual video of WTC 7 destruction undermines NIST computer simulation