Comment: good for about 3 minues

I like the first three minutes, then this guy just goes off on a bunch of generalizations and starts doing the very thing he said not to do. He starts generalizing entire countries based off of his limited experience. In 5 years, he has somehow become an expert on the psychology of entire other countries? Out of hundreds of millions of citizens in European countries, how many could he really have spoken to in order to claim that most Europeans act a certain way when confronted with the building 7 evidence? Then, he uses news media footage as proof of something? Like what, the conspirators told the news what they were going to do so they knew to report it? Like the news wouldn't have reported on building 7 collapsing after the conspirators blew it up? Why would they leak that info to the media, just so the media could accidentilly report it too early? More likely, just as the woman said, the reports were too sketchy, yet they reported on it anyway. At this point when the report happened, multiple buildings were already down and it was being talked about that building 7 was weak and they may need to demolish it anyhow if it didn't fall on its own. The most rational reasons for the early report are 1. error, they thought it would fall, other buildings had, so they got a "sketchy" report that it had already fallen. 2. the building they circle in the background wasn't the right building. 3. the british news, who aren't experts on the New York skyline, simply didn't know which building they were talking about 4. the bad guys told all the news agencies which buildings they were going to destroy so the news stations would know to cover it, because if they hadn't leaked the info to the media, the media might have forgotten to report on it, because there was plenty of weather to report on that day (sarcasm intended)