Popular Mechanics did no research they are just regurgitating information on the NIST report and attributing their own Yellow Journalism by calling it a "Debunking". Yellow Journalism is something that the media mogul corporation Hearst, which owns popular mechanics, is well known for. PS: Hearst is a corporation with 20,000 employees and a net income of multi billions annually, you may as well link Fox News debunking WTC 7.
This is what you should be linking. The final official report on WTC 7 by the NIST. It actually is a good read and pretty much the best investigation done by anyone out there. That said I still don't find the final conclusion convincing.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610Or you could read the previous investigation by FEMA which is a complete joke. The FEMA report was the first investigation into the WTC 7 collapse and it was what was passed around and spoken as truth by political figures and the media even though the report by FEMA started off by admitting that their investigation was limited and inconclusive. Not surprising since FEMA is not an organization specializing in investigation and forensics.
The one thing I will say about the NIST report, is that it contradicts itself on multiple occasions in their conclusion (chapter 4) It says in one paragraph the damage sustained by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was not significant. Another part says that even without structural damaged from the collapse of the towers, the fire would have been sufficient to collapse the building. They also point out that they believe the diesel reserves fueling the emergency generators was not a contributing factor to the fires or the collapse of the building.
Also, the NIST report does go into the hypothetical use of explosives, albeit very briefly... but curiously they do not mention thermite or thermate as a hypothetical scenario, which is pretty much one of the stronger points used by people who buy into one form of conspiracy theory or another. They also do not even mention the molten iron which was photographed, found, and retrieved. Something a lot of people would call "key evidence". They also fail to mention the curious way that some of the media news publications stated that building 7 was either coming down or had already came down before it actually started to collapse.
Finally the last thing I would point out is the curiosities involving larry silverstein. Since he was incredibly lucky in more ways than one, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who benefited more on that day than he did.
Silverstein has said in interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted that he attend a medical appointment with his dermatologist. Due to the appointment, he escaped almost certain death. In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center.[16] Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[17] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management. (a few months later he purchased the lease on WTC 7 as well)
After the destruction of the WTC 1, 2, 4, 5 buildings, Silverstein received $4.55 billion insurance payout after an extended court battle with insurers. So he got an insurance payout of of $4.55 billion for something he paid $3.2 billion for less than a year earlier! On top of that he also received $700 million seperately for WTC 7 which he purchased literally months before the attacks. So altogether he profited $5.25 Billion from his purchase price of $3.2 billion AND he retained property rights to rebuild in the location of the buildings in the incident there was a collapse.
Conclusion:
In the end it's just a personal choice on what you want to believe. NIST came to a conclusion based on evidence (a conclusion which was different than the previous FEMA conclusion I would point out.), This conclusion is a hypothesis constructed utilizing video evidence, personal accounts, research and experimentation. This still does not make the conclusion fact, something NIST states within their opening pages of the report.
What irks me the most isn't larry silverstein, the gobrment, or some illuminati theory of how the worlds going to end...
It's simply how the structure collapsed when all of the major structural damage and damage caused by fire was all near the southwest corner of the structure it still somehow collapsed the entire interior and caused the building to fall straight down... If buildings did this due to fire I wouldn't think demolition crews would go through all the trouble of demolition a building using explosives, they would just light some fires in key locations and watch the structure fall straight down. I don't think the buildings were brought down using explosives, but I also don't believe the buildings were brought down with those small fires and the structural damaged labeled "not significant" in the NIST report's conclusion.
Label me an unintelligent illuminati-nut, idc. This is just my belief or (lack of belief to be more accurate) and I will stand by it until I am convinced otherwise.
There is a lot of conspiracy crap out there revolving 9/11 that I don't buy into, but there is also very strong arguments brought up by others. This is one of the best organizations for truth revolving around the 9/11 attacks, mainly because those in this non-profit group are all architects and engineers.
http://www.ae911truth.org/