so those pieces of falling scrap metal and the fire there were so lucky that they found every critical parts of the construction what made the whole building would collapse at once without any resistance? And it is absolutely understandable that the collapsings are fully identical with controlled demolition bcs of laws of physics? Ok, I believe u.
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion. com / video/x2l5k9 _ effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_ news
EUROPE DIRECT. Demonstrating that all sciences are the conspiracy against the disease.
Je m'appelle Claude Valette. Je suis un physicien (supraconductivité, puis acoustique musicale, puis astrophysique), retraité, anciennement Directeur de Recherche au CNRS.
WTC physique rumeur - Physique de l’effondrement des tours du World Trade Center, WTC2, WTC1, WTC7, analyse de la rumeur, 50 pages en pdf par Claude Valette.
The U.S. defense force is unbeatable and very sophisticated. Why in the HELL weren't those plains shot the fuck down? The airforce were told explicity to STAND DOWN by higher powers in the white house at the time! Research the shit. As the planes neared the towers the air force was repeatedly told not to intervene! No B.S! Why are we still so blind to this shit. Lets stop wasting time, we owe those innocent ppl slaughtered that day, lets kill these mother fuckers. Revolution, its time America!!!
I offer two links where it is not accepted the myth of the conspiracy. 100% of the engineering schools reject the myth of the 9 / 11. I have many beyond those below. In the U.S., Canada, Australia, Europe, Brazil and even in communist China. The only benefit in Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
My comment is : obviously all of the experts and engineers are seriously wrong about what it takes to bring down buildings of this size. Why havent building codes and engineering theorys been stopped and drasticly rethought out. Its also obvoius the guys that do controlled demo are grossly overpaid and their job much simpler than previously thought. 3 buildings came down in controlled demo fassion with no help or planning. Either the experts dont know sh*t, or it was a great day to play lotto
Where is the raging fire? lol Where is all the damage that would bring this building down in it own footprint? lol Thank you for helping make the case that 9/11 = Inside job. :D
"Extensive South Side Damage"? lol lol If you want to see extensive damage, take a look at the Federal Building in Oklahoma after the McVeigh explosion. ...and guess what? It never collapsed either. lol lol
@Born2Flesh Hey genius the OK Federal building was 9 fucking stories dipshit. The WTC 7 building was 47, alot more mass and weight to be brought to bear on a damaged support structure. Not to mention OK City, what was left of it, had it's supports intact for that section...fucking take a physics class. Idiot. Oh, and WTC 7 did NOT fall into it's footprint, go ask Verizon how much they had to pay to refurbish their East facade (the one WTC 7) smashed into...over 1 billion. Grats you are an idiot.
Hey Bitch! Barry Jennings states that a huge explosion blew up the lobby before either of the towers fell. If you don't know who he is, google him. He died a few days before the final WTC7 NIST report came out. No word on cause of his death. It's been kept hush hush. Barry was a city official and credible witness to bombs going off in WTC7 that would have discredited the NIST report. 100% Inside Job
I saw the southside of this building from wintergarden, 10-12 floors were gone at this side and it burns a lot! But it remain standing! 4 hours later it collapsed!
Building 7 was most likely the target for Flight 93. It makes sense..why would it travel all the way to DC (whitehouse) from Newark? NY is closer. Building 7 was rigged like the towers and was a significant target housing the CIA, DOD, IRS, SEC, US secret service..
Im sure nobody is stupid enough to believe this collapsed perfectly because of small "fire damage". So its just a coincidence that all 3 buildings that collapsed were owned by the same Jew, and it was the first time in history that a steel structured building has collapsed due to fire damage, but 3 in one day!! And if you watch some 9/11 documentaries you will see overwhelming evidence, including evidence thats really basic, that proves that 9/11 was a controlled demolition! 100%
@JoanBeatrington you're an idiot for thinking wtc 7 only had damage from "small fires"....go do some actual research on the subject instead of spreading your anti-semetic bullshit. 9/11 was not a controlled demolition idiot...none of the tell tale characteristics are there, what is there are easilly explained occurences warped by "truthers" to manipulate simple minded people such as yourself. Prior to 911, tallest building demod was 25 stories...WTC 1 and 2-110stories, wtc7-47 stories...
We know you can't help it, but we also know you're full of shit. lmao What, are you being paid to be the monkey in the room? lol "go do some actual research on the subject "? lol This video is actually exposes the lie about Building 7. There was no reason for the building to come down, period. 9/11 = Inside Job
@Born2Flesh Really? No reason? How about a key core column having failed? How about a 20 story hole in the south east corner (further structural support damage)? How about 47 stories LEANING to a side as testified too by the numerous firefighters (or are they in on it too truther tool)? How about the actual start of the collapse happening on the East Mechanical Penthouse, if you watched the actual collapse from that point you can follow it's path down the entire building. No explosions, no demo
@Born2Flesh Just a question. Really. G.W. Bush has been PROVEN to rig an election (voters couldn't vote in Florida 2000), lie about WMD in Iraq, and then push laws that made the economic crisis worse. All that is proven. Why do Americans fight over this? Seriously? If you wanted to indict or impeach or accuse that guy, don't you have enough that's already proven? And, by the way... It could have been an Inside Job, but why demolitions AND planes? It's ridiculous. They could use either one.
@EscuchaYcalla You're probably just a school child. I'm going to spell it out for you: The reason why they used planes was to make gullible people like you think that those buildings fell because of some terrorists. And the reason why they used demolitions was because those buildings could not fall only as a result of the planes. Very simple. If would have lived in the USSR like I did for years, you'd know what EVIL the government is capable of.
@valereydyachuk I have lived in a country ruled by fascism for 39 years, thank you. Fascism supported by the USA. I know what the USA has done to Latin America and to other countries. Only their support of Pinochet, the Argentinian dictatorship show what they can condone, such as the rape of female prisoners by specially trained dogs. I know what they are capable of. I just think this version is basically stupid, not based on proof, ignoring available proof, and dulling Occam's razor.
@valereydyachuk I'm going to spell it out for you: George W. Bush RIGGED a fucking election with his brother Jed's help: PROVEN CONSPIRACY. George W. Bush LIED KNOWINGLY about WMD in Iraq to get into the Iraq war: PROVEN CONSPIRACY. The Bush family has had ties and has received money from Saudi enterprises for years: PROVEN TIES. And no one in the USA is investigating and judging these TRUE facts, because everyone is discussing this stupidity, and supporting it with lies.
@EscuchaYcalla You see, this is very similar what the government controlled media says. We know that elections are ALWAYS rigged. Bush is just another "fall man" or "scape goat." Clinton was one, Jimmy Cater was one, NIxon was one, etc. Every four to eight years EVERYTHING gets blamed on the outgoing "president."
What you need to understand is this: We need to look at the people in the shadows BEHIND these so-called "presidents" who don't run anything in all actuality.
@valereydyachuk Seriously, the fact is you're doing the real conspirators a favor by removing the discussion from the stuff that's been PROVEN to points that are unproven or blatant lies (such as the free-fall speed of the collapse, which once and again has been proven a lie. People see that and they think every conspiracy is a lie, ignoring the true ones that happened right in front of their faces).
@EscuchaYcalla No mate, I am not doing those other conspiracies a favor. The 9/11 event is the most recent and most notable conspiracy that most contemporary people can relate to. It is this event that gets people fired up the most.
As to the free fall speed of the collapse, it is NOT a lie and NIST themselves have now ADMITTED that WTC7 DID fall at free fall acceleration during the first 2 seconds or so. Would you like to see that info?
@Born2Flesh Just a question. Really. G.W. Bush has been PROVEN to rig an election (voters couldn't vote in Florida 2000), lie about WMD in Iraq, and then push laws that made the economic crisis worse. All that is proven. Why do Americans fight over this? Seriously? If you wanted to indict or impeach or accuse that guy, don't you have enough that's already proven? And, by the way... It could have been an Inside Job, but why demolitions AND planes? It's ridiculous. They could use either one.
thank you for posting this video i had to argue with the damn truthers for so long and had no answer on building 7 becuse i like many people did not see the damage to the building
even a kindergardner can tell you if you put a hole that big in a stack of bricks its gonna fall prity ez
thank you again.
ps to thows that say bla bla bla this building had x damage and didnt fall
i point you to the china building that had a mound of dirt bring it down when they built a parking area in the botom
The firefighters predicted the collapse of WTC7 based on the damage. That's why they evacuated. Were they in on it too? LOL, this fact alone debunks the 9/11 "truth" cult's laughably preposterous beliefs in a "controlled demolition" with magical hush-bombs.
seismic. as in VIBRATEs the ground. the only reason the crash and the colapses were detected by the GOVERNMENT is because of how huge they were. they measure over 2 on the richer scale. well maybe not the planes i dont know what they measured i guess less. anyways dingbat dont ask me for a LINK to the live videos regarding all the firefighters that have been recorded via walkie freakin talkies radioing explosion reports? if these are all fake then fine i believe you. if not my NIST point stands
9/11 truthers are fucken retarded! You can see the huge gash running down the building where column 20 should be, you can see in photos how bad the lower portions of the South face were destroyed, the bulding was structurally compromised.
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."
- Lieutenant William Ryan
Firefighters were there, not the 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics.
@FeffoTheMadman another dumbass...windsor tower was damaged by fire and fire alone and it did have partial collapse of the upper tier. It was not smashed into by 2 falling 110 story buildings and it certainly didn't have a boeing 767 ram it at top speed.
If it was severely damaged on the south side, but obviously not on the north side, then why did the north side fall right along with the south side?
The VEOH video shows the north and west facades, which dropped together and intact. WTC7 did not even tip slightly toward the south until it had fallen about ten floors.
@jaguarclaw It didn't fall straight down! Most of the collapse videos are taken from the side facing away from WTC so it looks like an even collapse, but if you look at tape from different angles you can clearly see it leaning towards the WTC site when it collapses. Plus if the fires weren't that bad and there was not much damage, where did all the smoke come from? The conspiracy theorists are cherry-picking data and ignoring facts that make their claims impossible.
@jaguarclaw Then why did it lean south towards the damaged side while it was coming down? Neither was it a total symmetrical disintegration at free-fall, that is evident from the video. And as far as your "thermite" and "iron rich spheres", no thermite found (you're basing that on a debunked Alex Jones assertion) and your spheres could have come from any number of more likely sources, like rescue cutting tools or previous construction. That's hardly the "actual physical evidence" you claim.
@kappy0405 The key words here are "as if" which means that while it reminded them of a controlled demo they plainly understood that it wasn't. That was just the only experience they'd had to relate this to because of the scale of the collapse. And all the "bangs" were either the supports failing just prior to the collapse or the floors themselves collapsing as their structural integrity failed. So no, they aren't lying, but neither are they claiming anything other than the official account.
that damage is nothing compared to what the Windsor BLD in Madrid took on, which also had fires on EVERY floor throughout EVERY sq. foot of the BLD. It didn't collapse...
hahah how come the main floors involved in the fire collapsed, how come the floors that didnt collapse had intact new fire proofing, I though steel doesnt collapse from fire, must have been an inside job, i heard they had stolen some money and were being investigated, the floors that collapsed housed the investigation, thats why only the top floors had explosives, twoofers are so smrt
Though I know this is a very late response (2 months late) think about this...
The Windsor Building was mostly reinforced with concrete. It didn't have 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash.
People also never care to mention that the top 11 floors, which were steel-framed, did actually collapse.
Fire alone HAS caused steel-framed objects to collapse.
You can't compare WTC 7 with any other collapse; none faced the same conditions.
Psst... the Windsor DID partially collapse. By fire. As well, I'm sure you're bright and have noticed the drastic dissimilarities between the construction and design of the two buildings. Now haven't you?
a partial collapse and a complete collapse straight down to the ground is a MASSIVE difference, and the Windsor had more damage & longer burning, more abundant fires to begin with.
The construction is a moot point. It was still a fluke occurrence at best.
All that said, NIST has changed their mind on the story 3-4 times already. 8 years later and they still haven't made up their minds - that says a lot, especially considering they initially ignored the building all together.
" the Windsor had more damage"- What kind of damage? Cosmetic? Or structural? Thee is a big difference.
"The construction is a moot point."- You don't actually think that, do you? If so, I can chalk you up as ignorant.
"NIST has changed their mind on the story 3-4 times"- Science has a habit of doing that. Only ignorants think otherwise. But in this case, I don't they've changed their report. And you need to cite original sources before I'll accept that.
The Windsor Building was engulfed in an all raging fires and still held up for 24 hours before slowly failing. The South Side of the WTC 7 was damaged by fire partially. The other side was damaged differently. WTC 7 was never engulfed. The Windsor building was. WTC 7 collapsed 0.5 seconds away from free-fall experiencing 2.5 seconds of complete free-fall (which is impossible, crushing 40,000 tons of solid steel) fully. The Windsor had only its top floors collapse.
Dude, the freefall argument is worn out. Video evidence proves beyond doubt that WTC 7 DID NOT achieve freefall. Get over it. I only point out that the Windsor did collapse. It remains a completely different situation from that of WTC 7.
how long would it take for free-fall from the roof of WTC 7? 6 seconds. How long did it take for WTC 7's roofline to hit the ground? 6.5 seconds. Simple video evidence proves Building 7 was in free--fall. NIST states Building 7 was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds. The game is up. We know who did 9/11.
Yeah, in free fall for the last 2.5 seconds. That'd be after the collapse killed off the remaining supports. ANY collapsing building spends its last few moments in free fall, after the supports gave in. And, of course, we can see the debris falling faste rthan the main part of the building. So, are there invisible rocket boosters strapped to the debris pieces allowing them to exceed free fall speeds?
OMG you are a retard. An object dropped from the roofline, idiot! Not from something on the top of the building. And actually the free-fall was the first few seconds. Where are your shitty arguments now? Down the toilet.
IS the Windsor building constructed in exactly the same way as the WTC buildings were? Was the Windsor building hit by airplane/masses of burning debris? If either of these questions is answered by a no, then mentioning the Windsor building is a fucking strawman fallacy.
Yeah, only caused the fire and weakened the building by carving a nice chunk out of it. Me thinks you should READ THE FUCKING REPORT before spouting this bullshit of yours. And this time, try to not rip single sentences out of context.
Yeah, that says a lot. It says that NIST still looks at incoming new data and corrects the model accordingly. Funnil enough, none of the explanations even deem the subject of a controlled demolition to be even worth mentioning, as there is not a single sign indicating that.
There are hundreds of thousands to millions of engineers and scientists who deem those hundreds (many of whom have no education in terms of architecture at all) to be wrong.
And please, stop propagating this hilarious and a thousandfold debunked myth about the 9/11 Commission.
No, you seriously can't make up any story about a conspiracy that would need thousands of insiders and keep it credible in the least.
how would it need thousands of insiders!?Cheney was in a position to encourage its happening all by himself. It wouldnt have taken more than a handful of people completely in the know
and how could engineers and architects have no education in regards to architecture? That doesnt even make sense. There are obviously more that believe the official conspiracy theory brought forth by the government, but how many of them have actually taken a look and considered other possibilities? Not many.
The declassification of Operation Northwoods prove that elements within the corporate-government complex are willing to carry out such crimes. Coincidentally[?], the PNAC lobby comes from the same nexus.
At the very least, the 911=inside job theory is possible, if not plausible. People dismiss it far too quickly.
Not, it is neither possible nor plausible. The number of required insiders is too high, the complete lack of evidence is damning and if anyone was competent enough to carry out such a convultet scheme and keep it secret, he'd be able to come up with an easier plan to reach the same outcome. Because hey, even *I* can come up with a better in plan in all of 5 minutes.
You keep going on about your assumptions on the amount of insiders required. It really wouldn't have taken more than a handful of people completely in the know. Dick Cheney was in a position all by himself to ensure that those planes hit their targets. Oddly enough, the audio tapes prove that NORAD & FAA ignored standard protocol.
And your logic is flawed. The persons responsible for the attack is still a mystery.
Assumptions? What assumptions? For it to happen like the conspiuracy theories go, you need a minimum of dozens to hundreds of insiders. That's not an assumption, that's fact. It would have needed hundreds of people. The entire NYC fire brigade, just for starters. Every last expert who ever concluded that there was no demolition. And the list goes on.
And no, my logic is not flawed, you imbecile. The person responsible is one Osama bin Laden who openly confessed about it.
lmao.. not one firemen would really have to have been in on it'.. although a few might have been required to keep their mouths shut on one or two details that they were privy to. There is no logical argument to show why the entire fire brigade would have to insiders.
False. The NYC fire department regularly deals with collapsing buildings and fucking everyone there knows the differrence between a demolition and a building collapsing by fire. The entire fire department has to lie for your theory to work, given that they utterly laugh at any demolition claims.
And I have a shiny mirror for you, given that you are apparently deluded enough to believe into a conspiracy that would take thousands of insiders.
I'm talking about HIGH-RISE buildings, idiot. You still have to answer the free-fall fact. Wait, why when you can fabricate straw-mans about me saying the Twin Towers fell at free-fall and then point out that you can see debris falling faster than the building
they don't regularly deal with collapsing high rises from fire, because WTC 1,2, and 7 were the first ever and only since then, assuming that this shot in the dark theory is true that is.
and there you go about the 'thousands of insiders' bs.. Still waiting for a logical argument as to why.. But you go on repeating it if it makes you feel better.
Well it was the NYFD who made the call to not even make an attempt on building 7 once they got a close look at the damage, and the fact that they had no water to use.
They were right there, saw the damage, saw the fires, saw the building beginning to shift over.
Are they lying about that in order to cover up an "inside job?"
unfortunately for that theory, there is no live video/audio footage, therefore no evidence, of firefighters saying that the building can't be saved and that it would be coming down due to the damage.. there is, however, video and audio footage of them saying they heard explosions and that it was going to be 'brought down'.
Are they lying about that in order to make it look like an "inside job"?
"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, well head back to the command post."
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
-Fire Chief Dan Nigro, NYFD
Is he lying too? Apparently he and all the men under him realized building 7 was going to collapse. He must have known about the bombs! Right??
"At 8.30 I was at the basement talking to one of the supervisors, and at 8.45 we hear an explosion, a huge explosion, and it came from under our feet" .. "so I felt a huge explosions and when I was going to verbalize it was when I heard the impact on the top of the building." William Rodriguez - WTC employee/911 survivor
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
He's lying though, right?
It's a circular debate.. Neither side has conclusive proof of their argument.
@kappy0405 Actually it depends on how you define conclusive. There is plenty of conclusive evidence that makes the theory of planted explosives impossible, and all of the quotes that supposedly support the theory are either way too ambiguous to indicate anything concrete, or they don't come from reliable sources. On top of that, evidence is often misrepresented or misinterpreted in order to support the demolition theory. But all of that tends to be ignored by the 9/11 "truth" movement.
@kappy0405 Well he's lied about plenty of other things like being the "last" person pulled out of the rubble and "single-handily" saving 15 people when he merely directed them out of the building. So the answer is yes, it's very likely he's lying about this too.
@kappy0405 Saying they heard explosions and that it was going to be "brought down" doesn't prove the "inside job" theory either. Any loud enough noise would have sounded like an explosion, including the structural supports failing. "Brought down" is too ambiguous. Brought down by the fires is just as plausible as brought down by explosives. So why is this always trotted out as "proof" of a demolition? It doesn't prove anything other than they recognized the building was going to collapse.
How would it need thousands of insiders? Well, you got the dozens of people necessary to rig several large buildings for a controlled demolition. (And do so in secret, whcih alone is frankly preposterous.) You need the entire security staff of those buildings. You need every last NY firefighter who understands something about architectural damage. You need the plane hijackers. Shall I go on?
And how could engineers have no education in architecture? Hint: The term engineer is very, very broad.
As for how many have taken a look? Well, how amny have reviewed the moronic bullshit spewed forth by the ones that believe in a conspiracy? It shall be noted that all these theories have been brutally dismantled by the scientific community and its controlling mechanism of peer review.
Thousnads of insiders: Every last expert checking the collapse out. All the NY firefighters present at that day and all higher ups (these guys know their way around when it comes to this shit). All the guys that you'd need to prep the buildings and do it in secret. That's alone a three- to four-digit number of people.
And these architects and engineers are by the vast majority not in the relevant fields and the few that are have been debunked a thousandfold over by their colleagues.
What did NIST not look for? Explosives? False. They looked for the reason for the collapse, down to reconstructing it to the best possible degree. Not a single speck of evidence or even real indications for the presence of explosives was found.
They admitted they didn't look for them? Who? There are dozens, if not hundreds of groups that have by now gone over debris from the towers over and over again. Not a single one ever found ayn trace of explosives.
@Magni56 Since when do the facts have anything to do with a good conspiracy theory? Notice how when you present incontrovertible proof that makes the demolition theory IMPOSSIBLE they simply move on to another topic. They don't get that the discussion is now pointless because the rest of their "evidence" is irrelevant.
And guys, the reason the NIST didn't run advanced tests for explosives is the same reason they didn't look for Godzilla's footprints: NO EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
@icemachine79 actually thats not true there was evidence of Godzilla. all kinds of firefighters made LIVE references to hearing Godzilla in many parts of the buildings. oh im sorry did i say Godzilla? i meant EXPLOSIVEs. on that one point alone how could you agree with the NIST not running any advanced tests for explosives? the rest of your arguement is irrelevant. am i wrong ?
@derpotni3riots Which firefighters said they actually saw explosives? If they said they saw explosives (not explosions, not sounds that reminded them explosives, but actual explosive materials and/or explosive mechanisms) then that's different. But as far as I know that's not the case. Are you wrong? Probably.
@icemachine79 lmfao its different and doesnt count if they said they heard sounds that reminded them of explosives? NOW that is fucking funny ice. is this your ARGUMENT? "sir i heard a huge explosion" "did you see any explosive materials?" "well no" "well then it never happened dont ever talk about it again". so back to the original point ice, NIST, no reason to search for explosives??? none? your aware of the explosions that took place within the buildings? powerful ones i mean on seismic?
@derpotni3riots By using the word "seismic" you've answered your own question. Explosions in the buildings prior to collapse would have set off seismographs in the area, yet there were no seismic events detected that corresponded to an explosive device detonating when you say these alleged explosives supposedly went off. People can say they heard explosives going off all they like, but there's no way our government could have covered up the seismic shock waves.
@kappy0405 Windsor had structural damage? What hit it? The only damage it sustained was due to fire. Luckily it was a CONCRETE support structure and concrete does not weaken in office fire temps(2000f) like steel does. Trying to compare a concrete support structure in a fire to a steel structure is either grossly dishonest or grossly ignorant. The windsor build did have 10 floors on the top that were steel though. And they collapsed from nothing but 1.5 hours of fire. What now?
@kappy0405 And the upper level structure on one side DID give way, go watch the videos of it. Oh and it was only 31 stories, it wasn't 47 like WTC 7 (which had a fucking 18 story hole in it on the south facade near a corner created by WTC 2 smashing debris into it to go with the fires), and it wasn't 110 stories like WTC 1 and WTC 2 that had fucking planes rammed into them at 400-500 mph...stop being a dumbshit...comparing the events is totally ridiculous.
@kappy0405 The Windsor Tower also didn't have 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by a 110-story building, leaving a 20-story gash on its side. Also, the Windsor Tower's central core was made up of steel reinforced concrete.
It had a gash and some small fires.. Even exaggerating these points enormously doesn't explain bld 7 collapsing at near-free fall speed IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT.
@kappy0405 Firstly, the fact that you are purposely underestimating the damage that WTC 7 received from the falling towers showcases your unscientific bias. Secondly, it's impossible for a building like WTC 7 to simply "fall over." It was built similarly to the towers, being made up of small pieces placed together, which caused it to collapse in that manner. Additionally, the rubble supports the NIST's conclusion where the collapse progressed from the penthouse out as the columns failed.
@TwinPat90 - "impossible for the building to fall over" is nothing but a baseless assumption. You talk about science, but the laws of physics themselves state that it would've leaned towards the damaged area. There is no way within the official explanation to satisfactorily explain the bldg collapsing in its footprint at near free fall speed.
either way, 9/11 is old news. I'm not going to bother with this any further.
@kappy0405 "Baseless assumption," right... The collapse began on the south side (where the damage was inflicted) and ended on the north. Judging from the rubble, the NIST concluded the "path of least resistance" was the hole in the back of the building and the penthouse hole. Conspiracy theorists love to omit this, b/c it would disprove the manner of the collapse.
@kappy0405 Urgh. From what I know about architecure, ALL skycrapers are DESIGNED to FALL ON THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT. Because if they fell as goddamned cut trees, they would destroy the rest of the city and kill thousands whenever one suffered an attack. So, whatever the damage a skycraper takes, whether if it was Bin Laden, Bush, the CIA or the aliens, a damaged skycraper will fall as close to its footprint as it can. Because otherwise, we wouldn't build skycrapers, they'd be too dangerous.
@EscuchaYcalla LOL, what a bunch of rubbish. You're no architect and you have NEVER even heard of architecture, let alone studied it. You're just a fool. To think that any building is DESIGNED TO FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, through the LINE OF GREATEST RESISTANCE, is just ludicrous. A mental patient would only think such a thing.
Watch this: watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
This is a video of when they retrofitted the CitiCorp building in order for it to NOT fall over, through the line of LEAST resistance
@valereydyachuk If you start with an ad hominem attack, you have no arguments. If skycrapers were made to fall sideways, they would fall on other buildings and they would not be allowed. I know two architects and two technical architects, and the four of them confirmed this. Your answer was "rubbish" and "retard". You might want to try an argument next time.
According to the NIST report (which put forth the ridiculous idea of thermal expansion that you are defending), the fireproofing did it's job and the steel columns were NOT weakened by the fire. In fact the hottest core column temperature anywhere in the building was only 200C.
"when heated metal expands " Correct, but it is a wild leap of the imagination to say that expanding metal = total collapse in freefall.
"hahha so your saying the fires in the wtc 7were one seventh the temperature of a normal office fire hahahhah conspiracy fires now hey" Yeah OK, moron. The temperatures I told you are straight from the NIST report. If you don't like it, talk to them. The steel was NOT weakened in WTC7!!
What exactly did I lie about? I was giving you temperatures straight from the NIST report. And the beams you mention are NOT what failed. According to NIST the thermal expansion failures all occurred at or below 400 C, which is well beneath the temp that steel loses a significant amount of strength. Don't you get it? That's why NIST called it a brand new event - because supposedly the steel all failed without being significantly weakened!
This is NIST telling the govt to shove it after an exhaustive 7 year investigation. They debunked their own "long span truss failure" and "diesel fuel" theories, completely ripping all the 911CoverUp Movement's life to shreds. Now their theory is simply thermal expansion, which they know is easily disproved by anyone with a brain. I think NIST is tired of this.
Watch the NIST WTC7 collapse simulation. It looks nothing like the videos we have all seen. Why didn't NIST just fake the simulation to match the videos? IMO, the scientists who did the actual work refused to fake anything. They insisted on remotely plausible assumptions. The simulation we see on the NIST website represents a compromise between science and politics. It debunks itself, but the politicians don't care. They just need a way to say "case closed" and "nothing to see; move along".
Well I believe they claim the simulation only shows the failure of the steel superstructure and the floors. They say the internal structure failed first and pulled in the facade. I can debunk this. The New WTC 7 vid by GldBr, released in October shows the NW, NE, and SE corners falling in synchronous, for 2.25 seconds (FF admitted by NIST), and PERPENDICULAR to the ground...this indicates that NOTHING was pulling the facade inward....or southward for that matter.
these people are desperately trying to do damage control because the think tanks that came up with this idea didnt take into account the internet.. They made their decisions based on a complicit media controlling public perception. Had there be a real free press in the mainstream in the USA some very rich assholes would be behind bars and or executed by now.
If this is the damage that brought down WTC7, then how the hell did the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City not crumble to the ground. It sustained far more damage than WTC7. If you remember they had to knock it down some time later. Because it wouldn't fall, it couldn't fall. It was a steel structure. Built to last forever, just like WTC7.
bl4h1....Did that one burn for 8 hours too????????
Man, this had to be the hottest fires in history. They took down 3 very large buildings, then burned underground for months at over 1000 degrees. I didn't know that steel, concrete, glass, drywall and (fire safety regulated) office furniture were such incredible accelerants for a fire.
I guess I'll start using steel rods in my fireplace. Oh, and I can start that fire with my telephone.
LOL, you guys keep singling out factors. There are many factors working together. DAMAGE, FIRE is two of them. The building was pumeled by debrees, the other two were struck by airliners. So all this talk about fires bringing down the buildings alone is kind of MOOT
The fact is, buildings don't just "fall" straight down. That is exactly why companies pay millions to have them demolished in a controlled fashion. As for WTC 7, the damage to the south side would have made the 47 story bldg. to fall over (to the south) not down into itself. Watch the video, ALL of the support collumns are cut. How does that happen from fire and damage?
20 stories was actually missing form the south end. you cant see it here because it's a piss poor image. You had a chunk of the WTC falling on it stripping the south end.
If any of you can see anything here, tell me... i just see smoke, and smoke cannot make a building collapse in an homogen way ( the whole lenght at the same time as you see from the roof in the collapse video)
they heard explosions during the day, nobody says there weren't explosions for different reasons. but there were no explosions when WTC 7 fell, evidence is on video. do your homework.
yet there are none on film. what these couple of people of heard was not bombs. show me video with explosions and then i will entertain your peabrain thoughts again.
and not only that, but the building had fires for just under eight hours. you tell me what type of explosives don't ignite under fire until triggered 8 hours later. NONE.
it takes a team of people a month to properly set up a demo and they have to tear down walls, plant explosives and place wires. didn't happen.
Evidence for explosions are the many police and firefighter witnesses, the people warned that the building would be coming down, and the early predictions by major media outlets.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, who reported a spray-coating technology which are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus. Also the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel is consistent with a thermite reaction.
Sure, just ignore witnesses inside the building witnessed explosions, the molten metal, the diagonal cuts on beams from shape charges, firefighters being told hours in advance with no uncertainty that WTC7 would collapse, two major news media outlets accidently reporting it before it even happened, the red demolitions truck driving through the WTC area(on camera), hahaha...
So stick with NIST who changes their claims, fudges numbers on their computer model, and contradicts their own facts.
Where did I say explosives weren't used in conjunction with nanothermite? Less explosives needed if you use nanothermite too. The reaction melts steel, and molten steel was found under the rubble, along with sulfidation of the steel. Molten steel can't be explained simply due to office fires. You're gonna have to do better than you're doing.
And Barry Jennings and Mike Hess were trapped in 7WTC after an explosion went off, before either towers collapsed. You can't make this stuff up.
You didn't do your homework or else you would realize all NIST's attempts at explaining WTC7's collapse failed. 7 years afterwards and the majority of the science and engineering community still rejects their explanation...quite easily I might add.
No NIST actually failed in real life. They recently released their final report on wtc 7 and it got killed by experts. In short...NIST has no idea how wtc7 fell...hell...in 2006 they conceded they had no idea how towers 1&2 fell even though they already published their report...as a comfort to the families they openly said they would then begin to look into CD...though they never did.
And if you need audio of explosions then I want evidence of steel "weakening" fires.
Watch this video.
watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=iEuJimaumW4
JMcMac21 1 month ago
Comment removed
Scumbot404 2 months ago
so those pieces of falling scrap metal and the fire there were so lucky that they found every critical parts of the construction what made the whole building would collapse at once without any resistance? And it is absolutely understandable that the collapsings are fully identical with controlled demolition bcs of laws of physics? Ok, I believe u.
Scumbot404 2 months ago
URGENT - FRAUD "A & E TRUTH."
Effondrement des tours jumelles
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion. com / video/x2l5k9 _ effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_ news
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EUROPE DIRECT. Demonstrating that all sciences are the conspiracy against the disease.
Je m'appelle Claude Valette. Je suis un physicien (supraconductivité, puis acoustique musicale, puis astrophysique), retraité, anciennement Directeur de Recherche au CNRS.
WTC physique rumeur - Physique de l’effondrement des tours du World Trade Center, WTC2, WTC1, WTC7, analyse de la rumeur, 50 pages en pdf par Claude Valette.
claudevalette . unblog . fr/
aczjbr 3 months ago
The U.S. defense force is unbeatable and very sophisticated. Why in the HELL weren't those plains shot the fuck down? The airforce were told explicity to STAND DOWN by higher powers in the white house at the time! Research the shit. As the planes neared the towers the air force was repeatedly told not to intervene! No B.S! Why are we still so blind to this shit. Lets stop wasting time, we owe those innocent ppl slaughtered that day, lets kill these mother fuckers. Revolution, its time America!!!
ceyfin9 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I offer two links where it is not accepted the myth of the conspiracy. 100% of the engineering schools reject the myth of the 9 / 11. I have many beyond those below. In the U.S., Canada, Australia, Europe, Brazil and even in communist China. The only benefit in Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
Please join to access the link.
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Structure Magazine - A Join Publication of NCSEA / CASE / SEI
How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7 - Ramon Gilsanz, PE, SE, Willa Ng
w w w . structuremag . org / article . aspx?articleID = 284
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World Trade Center 7 Relatório Coloca Teoria 11/09 Conspiracy to Rest
Read more: World Trade Center 7 Relatório Coloca Teoria 11/09 Conspiracy to Rest - Popular Mechanics
w w w . popularmechanics com. / tecnologia / engenharia / arco hitecture/4278874
aczjbr 3 months ago
My comment is : obviously all of the experts and engineers are seriously wrong about what it takes to bring down buildings of this size. Why havent building codes and engineering theorys been stopped and drasticly rethought out. Its also obvoius the guys that do controlled demo are grossly overpaid and their job much simpler than previously thought. 3 buildings came down in controlled demo fassion with no help or planning. Either the experts dont know sh*t, or it was a great day to play lotto
lvitch 10 months ago
Where is the raging fire? lol Where is all the damage that would bring this building down in it own footprint? lol Thank you for helping make the case that 9/11 = Inside job. :D
Born2Flesh 10 months ago
"Extensive South Side Damage"? lol lol If you want to see extensive damage, take a look at the Federal Building in Oklahoma after the McVeigh explosion. ...and guess what? It never collapsed either. lol lol
Born2Flesh 10 months ago
@Born2Flesh Hey genius the OK Federal building was 9 fucking stories dipshit. The WTC 7 building was 47, alot more mass and weight to be brought to bear on a damaged support structure. Not to mention OK City, what was left of it, had it's supports intact for that section...fucking take a physics class. Idiot. Oh, and WTC 7 did NOT fall into it's footprint, go ask Verizon how much they had to pay to refurbish their East facade (the one WTC 7) smashed into...over 1 billion. Grats you are an idiot.
Oz1976 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Bitch! Barry Jennings states that a huge explosion blew up the lobby before either of the towers fell. If you don't know who he is, google him. He died a few days before the final WTC7 NIST report came out. No word on cause of his death. It's been kept hush hush. Barry was a city official and credible witness to bombs going off in WTC7 that would have discredited the NIST report. 100% Inside Job
Born2Flesh 10 months ago
I saw the southside of this building from wintergarden, 10-12 floors were gone at this side and it burns a lot! But it remain standing! 4 hours later it collapsed!
74pbg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Building 7 was most likely the target for Flight 93. It makes sense..why would it travel all the way to DC (whitehouse) from Newark? NY is closer. Building 7 was rigged like the towers and was a significant target housing the CIA, DOD, IRS, SEC, US secret service..
demigodlike 1 year ago
Im sure nobody is stupid enough to believe this collapsed perfectly because of small "fire damage". So its just a coincidence that all 3 buildings that collapsed were owned by the same Jew, and it was the first time in history that a steel structured building has collapsed due to fire damage, but 3 in one day!! And if you watch some 9/11 documentaries you will see overwhelming evidence, including evidence thats really basic, that proves that 9/11 was a controlled demolition! 100%
JoanBeatrington 1 year ago
@JoanBeatrington you're an idiot for thinking wtc 7 only had damage from "small fires"....go do some actual research on the subject instead of spreading your anti-semetic bullshit. 9/11 was not a controlled demolition idiot...none of the tell tale characteristics are there, what is there are easilly explained occurences warped by "truthers" to manipulate simple minded people such as yourself. Prior to 911, tallest building demod was 25 stories...WTC 1 and 2-110stories, wtc7-47 stories...
Oz1976 11 months ago
We know you can't help it, but we also know you're full of shit. lmao What, are you being paid to be the monkey in the room? lol "go do some actual research on the subject "? lol This video is actually exposes the lie about Building 7. There was no reason for the building to come down, period. 9/11 = Inside Job
Born2Flesh 10 months ago
@Born2Flesh Really? No reason? How about a key core column having failed? How about a 20 story hole in the south east corner (further structural support damage)? How about 47 stories LEANING to a side as testified too by the numerous firefighters (or are they in on it too truther tool)? How about the actual start of the collapse happening on the East Mechanical Penthouse, if you watched the actual collapse from that point you can follow it's path down the entire building. No explosions, no demo
Oz1976 10 months ago
@Born2Flesh Just a question. Really. G.W. Bush has been PROVEN to rig an election (voters couldn't vote in Florida 2000), lie about WMD in Iraq, and then push laws that made the economic crisis worse. All that is proven. Why do Americans fight over this? Seriously? If you wanted to indict or impeach or accuse that guy, don't you have enough that's already proven? And, by the way... It could have been an Inside Job, but why demolitions AND planes? It's ridiculous. They could use either one.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@EscuchaYcalla You're probably just a school child. I'm going to spell it out for you: The reason why they used planes was to make gullible people like you think that those buildings fell because of some terrorists. And the reason why they used demolitions was because those buildings could not fall only as a result of the planes. Very simple. If would have lived in the USSR like I did for years, you'd know what EVIL the government is capable of.
valereydyachuk 5 months ago
@valereydyachuk I have lived in a country ruled by fascism for 39 years, thank you. Fascism supported by the USA. I know what the USA has done to Latin America and to other countries. Only their support of Pinochet, the Argentinian dictatorship show what they can condone, such as the rape of female prisoners by specially trained dogs. I know what they are capable of. I just think this version is basically stupid, not based on proof, ignoring available proof, and dulling Occam's razor.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@valereydyachuk I'm going to spell it out for you: George W. Bush RIGGED a fucking election with his brother Jed's help: PROVEN CONSPIRACY. George W. Bush LIED KNOWINGLY about WMD in Iraq to get into the Iraq war: PROVEN CONSPIRACY. The Bush family has had ties and has received money from Saudi enterprises for years: PROVEN TIES. And no one in the USA is investigating and judging these TRUE facts, because everyone is discussing this stupidity, and supporting it with lies.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@EscuchaYcalla You see, this is very similar what the government controlled media says. We know that elections are ALWAYS rigged. Bush is just another "fall man" or "scape goat." Clinton was one, Jimmy Cater was one, NIxon was one, etc. Every four to eight years EVERYTHING gets blamed on the outgoing "president."
What you need to understand is this: We need to look at the people in the shadows BEHIND these so-called "presidents" who don't run anything in all actuality.
valereydyachuk 5 months ago
@valereydyachuk Seriously, the fact is you're doing the real conspirators a favor by removing the discussion from the stuff that's been PROVEN to points that are unproven or blatant lies (such as the free-fall speed of the collapse, which once and again has been proven a lie. People see that and they think every conspiracy is a lie, ignoring the true ones that happened right in front of their faces).
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@EscuchaYcalla No mate, I am not doing those other conspiracies a favor. The 9/11 event is the most recent and most notable conspiracy that most contemporary people can relate to. It is this event that gets people fired up the most.
As to the free fall speed of the collapse, it is NOT a lie and NIST themselves have now ADMITTED that WTC7 DID fall at free fall acceleration during the first 2 seconds or so. Would you like to see that info?
valereydyachuk 5 months ago
@EscuchaYcalla And one other thing: I highly doubt that you live in Colombia. You maybe have been born there.
valereydyachuk 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Born2Flesh Just a question. Really. G.W. Bush has been PROVEN to rig an election (voters couldn't vote in Florida 2000), lie about WMD in Iraq, and then push laws that made the economic crisis worse. All that is proven. Why do Americans fight over this? Seriously? If you wanted to indict or impeach or accuse that guy, don't you have enough that's already proven? And, by the way... It could have been an Inside Job, but why demolitions AND planes? It's ridiculous. They could use either one.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
thank you for posting this video i had to argue with the damn truthers for so long and had no answer on building 7 becuse i like many people did not see the damage to the building
even a kindergardner can tell you if you put a hole that big in a stack of bricks its gonna fall prity ez
thank you again.
ps to thows that say bla bla bla this building had x damage and didnt fall
i point you to the china building that had a mound of dirt bring it down when they built a parking area in the botom
hardwirecars 1 year ago
The firefighters predicted the collapse of WTC7 based on the damage. That's why they evacuated. Were they in on it too? LOL, this fact alone debunks the 9/11 "truth" cult's laughably preposterous beliefs in a "controlled demolition" with magical hush-bombs.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
This video shows the "damage" even better.
watch?v=GlCyDlFE5nU
C'mon now. Ya gotta watch the whole thing.
jelinto 1 year ago
seismic. as in VIBRATEs the ground. the only reason the crash and the colapses were detected by the GOVERNMENT is because of how huge they were. they measure over 2 on the richer scale. well maybe not the planes i dont know what they measured i guess less. anyways dingbat dont ask me for a LINK to the live videos regarding all the firefighters that have been recorded via walkie freakin talkies radioing explosion reports? if these are all fake then fine i believe you. if not my NIST point stands
derpotni3riots 1 year ago
9/11 truthers are fucken retarded! You can see the huge gash running down the building where column 20 should be, you can see in photos how bad the lower portions of the South face were destroyed, the bulding was structurally compromised.
Dannavy85 1 year ago
WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DAMAGE? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN WINDSOR TOWER? Don't be ridiculous!
FeffoTheMadman 1 year ago
@FeffoTheMadman
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."
- Lieutenant William Ryan
Firefighters were there, not the 9/11 "truth" cult fanatics.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@FeffoTheMadman another dumbass...windsor tower was damaged by fire and fire alone and it did have partial collapse of the upper tier. It was not smashed into by 2 falling 110 story buildings and it certainly didn't have a boeing 767 ram it at top speed.
Oz1976 11 months ago
mucha gente piensa que a la torre 7 no le cayo ningun avion
pero estan equivocados esta torre fue impactada por un avion... PERO DE PAPEL
edwinkilate 1 year ago
911 truthers are denial ridden LIARS
EARTH51087 1 year ago
If it was severely damaged on the south side, but obviously not on the north side, then why did the north side fall right along with the south side?
The VEOH video shows the north and west facades, which dropped together and intact. WTC7 did not even tip slightly toward the south until it had fallen about ten floors.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
9/11 was an inside job
please demand new investigation in to 9/11
building 7 collapse was controlled demolition
911insidejob81 2 years ago
@jaguarclaw It didn't fall straight down! Most of the collapse videos are taken from the side facing away from WTC so it looks like an even collapse, but if you look at tape from different angles you can clearly see it leaning towards the WTC site when it collapses. Plus if the fires weren't that bad and there was not much damage, where did all the smoke come from? The conspiracy theorists are cherry-picking data and ignoring facts that make their claims impossible.
icemachine79 2 years ago
@jaguarclaw Then why did it lean south towards the damaged side while it was coming down? Neither was it a total symmetrical disintegration at free-fall, that is evident from the video. And as far as your "thermite" and "iron rich spheres", no thermite found (you're basing that on a debunked Alex Jones assertion) and your spheres could have come from any number of more likely sources, like rescue cutting tools or previous construction. That's hardly the "actual physical evidence" you claim.
icemachine79 2 years ago
more quotes from firefighters:
"Floor by floor it started popping out. It was as if they had detonators planted to take down a building."
"All the sudden it sounded like gunfire you know; bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And then all the sudden... 3 big explosions."
surely, they're all lying..
kappy0405 2 years ago
@kappy0405 The key words here are "as if" which means that while it reminded them of a controlled demo they plainly understood that it wasn't. That was just the only experience they'd had to relate this to because of the scale of the collapse. And all the "bangs" were either the supports failing just prior to the collapse or the floors themselves collapsing as their structural integrity failed. So no, they aren't lying, but neither are they claiming anything other than the official account.
icemachine79 2 years ago
Well, I can agree that terrorists won that day.
I may not agree with the official story of who was the terrorists.
P.S.: Where's the beef? All I see is fake CGI smoke?
nameofthepen 2 years ago
that damage is nothing compared to what the Windsor BLD in Madrid took on, which also had fires on EVERY floor throughout EVERY sq. foot of the BLD. It didn't collapse...
kappy0405 2 years ago 6
hahah how come the main floors involved in the fire collapsed, how come the floors that didnt collapse had intact new fire proofing, I though steel doesnt collapse from fire, must have been an inside job, i heard they had stolen some money and were being investigated, the floors that collapsed housed the investigation, thats why only the top floors had explosives, twoofers are so smrt
windsor madrid was an inside jobby job
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Though I know this is a very late response (2 months late) think about this...
The Windsor Building was mostly reinforced with concrete. It didn't have 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash.
People also never care to mention that the top 11 floors, which were steel-framed, did actually collapse.
Fire alone HAS caused steel-framed objects to collapse.
You can't compare WTC 7 with any other collapse; none faced the same conditions.
javjasdjkfsdvbnjakdb 2 years ago
Psst... the Windsor DID partially collapse. By fire. As well, I'm sure you're bright and have noticed the drastic dissimilarities between the construction and design of the two buildings. Now haven't you?
Exmech2 2 years ago
a partial collapse and a complete collapse straight down to the ground is a MASSIVE difference, and the Windsor had more damage & longer burning, more abundant fires to begin with.
The construction is a moot point. It was still a fluke occurrence at best.
All that said, NIST has changed their mind on the story 3-4 times already. 8 years later and they still haven't made up their minds - that says a lot, especially considering they initially ignored the building all together.
kappy0405 2 years ago
" the Windsor had more damage"- What kind of damage? Cosmetic? Or structural? Thee is a big difference.
"The construction is a moot point."- You don't actually think that, do you? If so, I can chalk you up as ignorant.
"NIST has changed their mind on the story 3-4 times"- Science has a habit of doing that. Only ignorants think otherwise. But in this case, I don't they've changed their report. And you need to cite original sources before I'll accept that.
Exmech2 2 years ago
The Windsor Building was engulfed in an all raging fires and still held up for 24 hours before slowly failing. The South Side of the WTC 7 was damaged by fire partially. The other side was damaged differently. WTC 7 was never engulfed. The Windsor building was. WTC 7 collapsed 0.5 seconds away from free-fall experiencing 2.5 seconds of complete free-fall (which is impossible, crushing 40,000 tons of solid steel) fully. The Windsor had only its top floors collapse.
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
Dude, the freefall argument is worn out. Video evidence proves beyond doubt that WTC 7 DID NOT achieve freefall. Get over it. I only point out that the Windsor did collapse. It remains a completely different situation from that of WTC 7.
Exmech2 2 years ago
how long would it take for free-fall from the roof of WTC 7? 6 seconds. How long did it take for WTC 7's roofline to hit the ground? 6.5 seconds. Simple video evidence proves Building 7 was in free--fall. NIST states Building 7 was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds. The game is up. We know who did 9/11.
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
Yeah, in free fall for the last 2.5 seconds. That'd be after the collapse killed off the remaining supports. ANY collapsing building spends its last few moments in free fall, after the supports gave in. And, of course, we can see the debris falling faste rthan the main part of the building. So, are there invisible rocket boosters strapped to the debris pieces allowing them to exceed free fall speeds?
Also,
watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&feature=player_embedded
Where are your 6.5 seconds now?
Magni56 2 years ago
OMG you are a retard. An object dropped from the roofline, idiot! Not from something on the top of the building. And actually the free-fall was the first few seconds. Where are your shitty arguments now? Down the toilet.
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
Yeah, you have an actual point to make outside of your childish insults? No? Well, your concession is accepted.
Magni56 2 years ago
Actually, it took more than 14 seconds from the point the collapse began.
Exmech2 2 years ago
IS the Windsor building constructed in exactly the same way as the WTC buildings were? Was the Windsor building hit by airplane/masses of burning debris? If either of these questions is answered by a no, then mentioning the Windsor building is a fucking strawman fallacy.
Magni56 2 years ago
Masses of debris: no significant factor. NIST.
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
Yeah, only caused the fire and weakened the building by carving a nice chunk out of it. Me thinks you should READ THE FUCKING REPORT before spouting this bullshit of yours. And this time, try to not rip single sentences out of context.
Magni56 2 years ago
Carving a nice chunk out of it= breaking windows. NIST: no significant factor.
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
Yeah, that says a lot. It says that NIST still looks at incoming new data and corrects the model accordingly. Funnil enough, none of the explanations even deem the subject of a controlled demolition to be even worth mentioning, as there is not a single sign indicating that.
Magni56 2 years ago
"none of the explanations even deem the subject of a controlled demolition to be even worth mentioning"
...according to NIST that is. There are hundreds of engineers and scientists (including the designers of the buildings themselves) that say otherwise.
The very 911 Commission that created the official story ADMITTED that there is a cover up. You can't make this up!
kappy0405 2 years ago
There are hundreds of thousands to millions of engineers and scientists who deem those hundreds (many of whom have no education in terms of architecture at all) to be wrong.
And please, stop propagating this hilarious and a thousandfold debunked myth about the 9/11 Commission.
No, you seriously can't make up any story about a conspiracy that would need thousands of insiders and keep it credible in the least.
Magni56 2 years ago
how would it need thousands of insiders!?Cheney was in a position to encourage its happening all by himself. It wouldnt have taken more than a handful of people completely in the know
and how could engineers and architects have no education in regards to architecture? That doesnt even make sense. There are obviously more that believe the official conspiracy theory brought forth by the government, but how many of them have actually taken a look and considered other possibilities? Not many.
kappy0405 2 years ago
The declassification of Operation Northwoods prove that elements within the corporate-government complex are willing to carry out such crimes. Coincidentally[?], the PNAC lobby comes from the same nexus.
At the very least, the 911=inside job theory is possible, if not plausible. People dismiss it far too quickly.
kappy0405 2 years ago
And sheer logic and about five minutes of critical thinking prove that nobody on earth has the means to stage such a conspiracy and keep it secret.
The 9/11 inside job theory is logically and factually impossible, as is any attempt to keep a conspiracy of that size secret.
Magni56 2 years ago
Not, it is neither possible nor plausible. The number of required insiders is too high, the complete lack of evidence is damning and if anyone was competent enough to carry out such a convultet scheme and keep it secret, he'd be able to come up with an easier plan to reach the same outcome. Because hey, even *I* can come up with a better in plan in all of 5 minutes.
Magni56 2 years ago
You keep going on about your assumptions on the amount of insiders required. It really wouldn't have taken more than a handful of people completely in the know. Dick Cheney was in a position all by himself to ensure that those planes hit their targets. Oddly enough, the audio tapes prove that NORAD & FAA ignored standard protocol.
And your logic is flawed. The persons responsible for the attack is still a mystery.
kappy0405 2 years ago
Assumptions? What assumptions? For it to happen like the conspiuracy theories go, you need a minimum of dozens to hundreds of insiders. That's not an assumption, that's fact. It would have needed hundreds of people. The entire NYC fire brigade, just for starters. Every last expert who ever concluded that there was no demolition. And the list goes on.
And no, my logic is not flawed, you imbecile. The person responsible is one Osama bin Laden who openly confessed about it.
Magni56 2 years ago
lmao.. not one firemen would really have to have been in on it'.. although a few might have been required to keep their mouths shut on one or two details that they were privy to. There is no logical argument to show why the entire fire brigade would have to insiders.
sigh.. you can't really be this deluded.
kappy0405 2 years ago
False. The NYC fire department regularly deals with collapsing buildings and fucking everyone there knows the differrence between a demolition and a building collapsing by fire. The entire fire department has to lie for your theory to work, given that they utterly laugh at any demolition claims.
And I have a shiny mirror for you, given that you are apparently deluded enough to believe into a conspiracy that would take thousands of insiders.
Magni56 2 years ago
I'm talking about HIGH-RISE buildings, idiot. You still have to answer the free-fall fact. Wait, why when you can fabricate straw-mans about me saying the Twin Towers fell at free-fall and then point out that you can see debris falling faster than the building
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
they don't regularly deal with collapsing high rises from fire, because WTC 1,2, and 7 were the first ever and only since then, assuming that this shot in the dark theory is true that is.
and there you go about the 'thousands of insiders' bs.. Still waiting for a logical argument as to why.. But you go on repeating it if it makes you feel better.
kappy0405 2 years ago
Well it was the NYFD who made the call to not even make an attempt on building 7 once they got a close look at the damage, and the fact that they had no water to use.
They were right there, saw the damage, saw the fires, saw the building beginning to shift over.
Are they lying about that in order to cover up an "inside job?"
fengineer08 2 years ago
unfortunately for that theory, there is no live video/audio footage, therefore no evidence, of firefighters saying that the building can't be saved and that it would be coming down due to the damage.. there is, however, video and audio footage of them saying they heard explosions and that it was going to be 'brought down'.
Are they lying about that in order to make it look like an "inside job"?
kappy0405 2 years ago
"There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, well head back to the command post."
- Captain Chris Boyle, NYFD
He's lying though right?
fengineer08 2 years ago
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
-Fire Chief Dan Nigro, NYFD
Is he lying too? Apparently he and all the men under him realized building 7 was going to collapse. He must have known about the bombs! Right??
fengineer08 2 years ago
"At 8.30 I was at the basement talking to one of the supervisors, and at 8.45 we hear an explosion, a huge explosion, and it came from under our feet" .. "so I felt a huge explosions and when I was going to verbalize it was when I heard the impact on the top of the building." William Rodriguez - WTC employee/911 survivor
He's lying though, right?
kappy0405 2 years ago
Louie Cacchioli (People's Magazine)
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
He's lying though, right?
It's a circular debate.. Neither side has conclusive proof of their argument.
kappy0405 2 years ago
@kappy0405 Actually it depends on how you define conclusive. There is plenty of conclusive evidence that makes the theory of planted explosives impossible, and all of the quotes that supposedly support the theory are either way too ambiguous to indicate anything concrete, or they don't come from reliable sources. On top of that, evidence is often misrepresented or misinterpreted in order to support the demolition theory. But all of that tends to be ignored by the 9/11 "truth" movement.
icemachine79 2 years ago
@kappy0405 Well he's lied about plenty of other things like being the "last" person pulled out of the rubble and "single-handily" saving 15 people when he merely directed them out of the building. So the answer is yes, it's very likely he's lying about this too.
icemachine79 2 years ago
@kappy0405 Saying they heard explosions and that it was going to be "brought down" doesn't prove the "inside job" theory either. Any loud enough noise would have sounded like an explosion, including the structural supports failing. "Brought down" is too ambiguous. Brought down by the fires is just as plausible as brought down by explosives. So why is this always trotted out as "proof" of a demolition? It doesn't prove anything other than they recognized the building was going to collapse.
icemachine79 2 years ago
How would it need thousands of insiders? Well, you got the dozens of people necessary to rig several large buildings for a controlled demolition. (And do so in secret, whcih alone is frankly preposterous.) You need the entire security staff of those buildings. You need every last NY firefighter who understands something about architectural damage. You need the plane hijackers. Shall I go on?
Magni56 2 years ago
And how could engineers have no education in architecture? Hint: The term engineer is very, very broad.
As for how many have taken a look? Well, how amny have reviewed the moronic bullshit spewed forth by the ones that believe in a conspiracy? It shall be noted that all these theories have been brutally dismantled by the scientific community and its controlling mechanism of peer review.
Magni56 2 years ago
Thousnads of insiders: Every last expert checking the collapse out. All the NY firefighters present at that day and all higher ups (these guys know their way around when it comes to this shit). All the guys that you'd need to prep the buildings and do it in secret. That's alone a three- to four-digit number of people.
And these architects and engineers are by the vast majority not in the relevant fields and the few that are have been debunked a thousandfold over by their colleagues.
Magni56 2 years ago
because NIST didn't look for it. oops! I lost my book! I guess that means my book disintigrated!
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
What did NIST not look for? Explosives? False. They looked for the reason for the collapse, down to reconstructing it to the best possible degree. Not a single speck of evidence or even real indications for the presence of explosives was found.
Magni56 2 years ago
Because they ADMITTED they didn't look for them.
TerrorShock911 2 years ago
They admitted they didn't look for them? Who? There are dozens, if not hundreds of groups that have by now gone over debris from the towers over and over again. Not a single one ever found ayn trace of explosives.
Magni56 2 years ago
@Magni56 Since when do the facts have anything to do with a good conspiracy theory? Notice how when you present incontrovertible proof that makes the demolition theory IMPOSSIBLE they simply move on to another topic. They don't get that the discussion is now pointless because the rest of their "evidence" is irrelevant.
And guys, the reason the NIST didn't run advanced tests for explosives is the same reason they didn't look for Godzilla's footprints: NO EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
icemachine79 2 years ago
@icemachine79 actually thats not true there was evidence of Godzilla. all kinds of firefighters made LIVE references to hearing Godzilla in many parts of the buildings. oh im sorry did i say Godzilla? i meant EXPLOSIVEs. on that one point alone how could you agree with the NIST not running any advanced tests for explosives? the rest of your arguement is irrelevant. am i wrong ?
derpotni3riots 1 year ago
@derpotni3riots Which firefighters said they actually saw explosives? If they said they saw explosives (not explosions, not sounds that reminded them explosives, but actual explosive materials and/or explosive mechanisms) then that's different. But as far as I know that's not the case. Are you wrong? Probably.
icemachine79 1 year ago
@icemachine79 lmfao its different and doesnt count if they said they heard sounds that reminded them of explosives? NOW that is fucking funny ice. is this your ARGUMENT? "sir i heard a huge explosion" "did you see any explosive materials?" "well no" "well then it never happened dont ever talk about it again". so back to the original point ice, NIST, no reason to search for explosives??? none? your aware of the explosions that took place within the buildings? powerful ones i mean on seismic?
derpotni3riots 1 year ago
@derpotni3riots By using the word "seismic" you've answered your own question. Explosions in the buildings prior to collapse would have set off seismographs in the area, yet there were no seismic events detected that corresponded to an explosive device detonating when you say these alleged explosives supposedly went off. People can say they heard explosives going off all they like, but there's no way our government could have covered up the seismic shock waves.
icemachine79 1 year ago
@kappy0405
The Windstor building in Madrid was made of steel-reinforced concrete core, not a steel one. In addition, it had a web design, unlike the WTC 7.
justforflag2 1 year ago
@kappy0405 I guarantee you behind that smoke is rubble where the building sustained more damage then what is shown.
poopsyproductions 1 year ago
@kappy0405 Windsor had structural damage? What hit it? The only damage it sustained was due to fire. Luckily it was a CONCRETE support structure and concrete does not weaken in office fire temps(2000f) like steel does. Trying to compare a concrete support structure in a fire to a steel structure is either grossly dishonest or grossly ignorant. The windsor build did have 10 floors on the top that were steel though. And they collapsed from nothing but 1.5 hours of fire. What now?
DRAT311 1 year ago
@kappy0405 And the upper level structure on one side DID give way, go watch the videos of it. Oh and it was only 31 stories, it wasn't 47 like WTC 7 (which had a fucking 18 story hole in it on the south facade near a corner created by WTC 2 smashing debris into it to go with the fires), and it wasn't 110 stories like WTC 1 and WTC 2 that had fucking planes rammed into them at 400-500 mph...stop being a dumbshit...comparing the events is totally ridiculous.
Oz1976 11 months ago
@Oz1976 some missing chunks of facade really constitute an 18 story hole? i'm not so sure about that.
RapedByRepublicans 10 months ago
@RapedByRepublicans some chunks of missing facade? Really? guess you've not looked up the facts huh? Look at the pictures on this page.
debunking911 . com/WTC7.htm
The south east corner of the building was devestated...do you not remember the quotes from all the firefighters?
"That building is leaning" "Keep an eye on that building it's going down" etc etc
For hours they knew the building might collapse, the firefighters, not from CD, but from structural damage and unfought fires.
Oz1976 10 months ago
@kappy0405 The Windsor Tower also didn't have 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by a 110-story building, leaving a 20-story gash on its side. Also, the Windsor Tower's central core was made up of steel reinforced concrete.
TwinPat90 9 months ago
@TwinPat90 - "40 stories of load". LOL
It had a gash and some small fires.. Even exaggerating these points enormously doesn't explain bld 7 collapsing at near-free fall speed IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT.
kappy0405 9 months ago
@kappy0405 Firstly, the fact that you are purposely underestimating the damage that WTC 7 received from the falling towers showcases your unscientific bias. Secondly, it's impossible for a building like WTC 7 to simply "fall over." It was built similarly to the towers, being made up of small pieces placed together, which caused it to collapse in that manner. Additionally, the rubble supports the NIST's conclusion where the collapse progressed from the penthouse out as the columns failed.
TwinPat90 9 months ago
@TwinPat90 - "impossible for the building to fall over" is nothing but a baseless assumption. You talk about science, but the laws of physics themselves state that it would've leaned towards the damaged area. There is no way within the official explanation to satisfactorily explain the bldg collapsing in its footprint at near free fall speed.
either way, 9/11 is old news. I'm not going to bother with this any further.
kappy0405 9 months ago
@kappy0405 "Baseless assumption," right... The collapse began on the south side (where the damage was inflicted) and ended on the north. Judging from the rubble, the NIST concluded the "path of least resistance" was the hole in the back of the building and the penthouse hole. Conspiracy theorists love to omit this, b/c it would disprove the manner of the collapse.
TwinPat90 9 months ago 2
@kappy0405 It leans to the damaged area. In the videos, at the end of the fall, it leans to the South side.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@kappy0405 Urgh. From what I know about architecure, ALL skycrapers are DESIGNED to FALL ON THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT. Because if they fell as goddamned cut trees, they would destroy the rest of the city and kill thousands whenever one suffered an attack. So, whatever the damage a skycraper takes, whether if it was Bin Laden, Bush, the CIA or the aliens, a damaged skycraper will fall as close to its footprint as it can. Because otherwise, we wouldn't build skycrapers, they'd be too dangerous.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@EscuchaYcalla LOL, what a bunch of rubbish. You're no architect and you have NEVER even heard of architecture, let alone studied it. You're just a fool. To think that any building is DESIGNED TO FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, through the LINE OF GREATEST RESISTANCE, is just ludicrous. A mental patient would only think such a thing.
Watch this: watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
This is a video of when they retrofitted the CitiCorp building in order for it to NOT fall over, through the line of LEAST resistance
valereydyachuk 5 months ago
@valereydyachuk If you start with an ad hominem attack, you have no arguments. If skycrapers were made to fall sideways, they would fall on other buildings and they would not be allowed. I know two architects and two technical architects, and the four of them confirmed this. Your answer was "rubbish" and "retard". You might want to try an argument next time.
EscuchaYcalla 5 months ago
@EscuchaYcalla "AD HOMINEM" Where do I keep hearing this phrase from? Oh yeah, most known disinfo agents like to use this phrase.
It was "from what I know about architecture," but now it is "I know two architects and two technical architects."
Would you like to take back what you said?
Have you ever seen how very tall buildings fall when demolitions go wrong?
Look here: watch?v=pdIOlEHrOZQ
valereydyachuk 5 months ago
How does metal react to heat?
thermal expansion, it expands and loses strength
At what temperature does deformation start to occur?
has more to do with the steel being restricted, if the steel is not restricted little distortion will take place, if the heat is general and not local
How long will it take for failure?
depends on the load supported
steel loses 50% strength at 1100f , typical office fire 1400 f
How long for complete failure?
depends on load supported
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
According to the NIST report (which put forth the ridiculous idea of thermal expansion that you are defending), the fireproofing did it's job and the steel columns were NOT weakened by the fire. In fact the hottest core column temperature anywhere in the building was only 200C.
smitty121981 2 years ago
hahha so your saying the fires in the wtc 7were one seventh the temperature of a normal office fire hahahhah conspiracy fires now hey
ridiculas idea of thermal expansion hahahah it scientific fact
when heated metal expands
hahahah the earth must be flat alex jones says so
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
"when heated metal expands " Correct, but it is a wild leap of the imagination to say that expanding metal = total collapse in freefall.
"hahha so your saying the fires in the wtc 7were one seventh the temperature of a normal office fire hahahhah conspiracy fires now hey" Yeah OK, moron. The temperatures I told you are straight from the NIST report. If you don't like it, talk to them. The steel was NOT weakened in WTC7!!
smitty121981 2 years ago
the temperature of some sections of the beams supporting floors 8,12,13,14 eceeded 600 C (1100) n ist page 95/130
all the lateral supports for column 79 were broken, thats why the column buckled
why why do twoofers lie, money and fame is the name ot their game
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
What exactly did I lie about? I was giving you temperatures straight from the NIST report. And the beams you mention are NOT what failed. According to NIST the thermal expansion failures all occurred at or below 400 C, which is well beneath the temp that steel loses a significant amount of strength. Don't you get it? That's why NIST called it a brand new event - because supposedly the steel all failed without being significantly weakened!
smitty121981 2 years ago
sure they did you clown
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
Bwahahahaha!!! NIST have just admitted as of August 2008 that there was no extensive damage to the south side.
Bwahahahah!!! Popular Mechanics are liars.
Focoist911 3 years ago
i thought you people didnt believe in the nist report.
v1660 3 years ago
I thought you Deniers had low IQs? You just don't get it do you?
Here:
/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
Focoist911 3 years ago
This is NIST telling the govt to shove it after an exhaustive 7 year investigation. They debunked their own "long span truss failure" and "diesel fuel" theories, completely ripping all the 911CoverUp Movement's life to shreds. Now their theory is simply thermal expansion, which they know is easily disproved by anyone with a brain. I think NIST is tired of this.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
Watch the NIST WTC7 collapse simulation. It looks nothing like the videos we have all seen. Why didn't NIST just fake the simulation to match the videos? IMO, the scientists who did the actual work refused to fake anything. They insisted on remotely plausible assumptions. The simulation we see on the NIST website represents a compromise between science and politics. It debunks itself, but the politicians don't care. They just need a way to say "case closed" and "nothing to see; move along".
Skeptic121 3 years ago
Well I believe they claim the simulation only shows the failure of the steel superstructure and the floors. They say the internal structure failed first and pulled in the facade. I can debunk this. The New WTC 7 vid by GldBr, released in October shows the NW, NE, and SE corners falling in synchronous, for 2.25 seconds (FF admitted by NIST), and PERPENDICULAR to the ground...this indicates that NOTHING was pulling the facade inward....or southward for that matter.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
You need to check this out
wtc7corner. blogspot. com/
Can you say....photoshop?
JSSTyger 3 years ago
thermal expansion disproven haha I guess the world is flat, maybe you should learn something about how metal reacts to heat.
mattfactsof911 2 years ago
How does metal react to heat?
At what temperature does deformation start to occur?
How long will it take for failure?
How long for complete failure?
JSSTyger 2 years ago
lets make that trade...be sure not to use NIST as your source.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
these people are desperately trying to do damage control because the think tanks that came up with this idea didnt take into account the internet.. They made their decisions based on a complicit media controlling public perception. Had there be a real free press in the mainstream in the USA some very rich assholes would be behind bars and or executed by now.
mcplanetearth 3 years ago
If this is the damage that brought down WTC7, then how the hell did the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City not crumble to the ground. It sustained far more damage than WTC7. If you remember they had to knock it down some time later. Because it wouldn't fall, it couldn't fall. It was a steel structure. Built to last forever, just like WTC7.
Meckanix 3 years ago 4
Did that one burn for 8 hours too????????
bl4h1 3 years ago
bl4h1....Did that one burn for 8 hours too????????
Man, this had to be the hottest fires in history. They took down 3 very large buildings, then burned underground for months at over 1000 degrees. I didn't know that steel, concrete, glass, drywall and (fire safety regulated) office furniture were such incredible accelerants for a fire.
I guess I'll start using steel rods in my fireplace. Oh, and I can start that fire with my telephone.
Execrucifer 3 years ago 3
LOL, you guys keep singling out factors. There are many factors working together. DAMAGE, FIRE is two of them. The building was pumeled by debrees, the other two were struck by airliners. So all this talk about fires bringing down the buildings alone is kind of MOOT
bl4h1 3 years ago
The fact is, buildings don't just "fall" straight down. That is exactly why companies pay millions to have them demolished in a controlled fashion. As for WTC 7, the damage to the south side would have made the 47 story bldg. to fall over (to the south) not down into itself. Watch the video, ALL of the support collumns are cut. How does that happen from fire and damage?
Execrucifer 3 years ago 5
20 stories was actually missing form the south end. you cant see it here because it's a piss poor image. You had a chunk of the WTC falling on it stripping the south end.
godzilla1077 3 years ago
If any of you can see anything here, tell me... i just see smoke, and smoke cannot make a building collapse in an homogen way ( the whole lenght at the same time as you see from the roof in the collapse video)
WilliWauller 3 years ago
INVESTIGATE 9/11:
WTC 7 collapse & Larry Silverstein insurance win-fall
Pentagon 5 frames
Pentagon prior to roof collapse
Shanksville hole in ground
webovisionca 3 years ago
any evidence of a controlled demoltion from you truther kooks? or do you always skip the real evidence in search of theories?
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
What "evidence" do you see here that supports the official (bullshit) story?
Meckanix 3 years ago
what evidence do you have to support the "official story" as being "bullshit"?
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
you can start by looking at the evidence presented by none other than "common sense"
gtg309v 3 years ago
common sense tells us that 10 seconds of massive explosions would have been heard when WTC7 falls, yet there are NONE when it falls.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
Eyewitnesses said they heard them. Do your research.
gtg309v 3 years ago
they heard explosions during the day, nobody says there weren't explosions for different reasons. but there were no explosions when WTC 7 fell, evidence is on video. do your homework.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
Witnesses heard explosions at the time of the collapse. Back to your research little man.
gtg309v 3 years ago
yet there are none on film. what these couple of people of heard was not bombs. show me video with explosions and then i will entertain your peabrain thoughts again.
and not only that, but the building had fires for just under eight hours. you tell me what type of explosives don't ignite under fire until triggered 8 hours later. NONE.
it takes a team of people a month to properly set up a demo and they have to tear down walls, plant explosives and place wires. didn't happen.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
Evidence for explosions are the many police and firefighter witnesses, the people warned that the building would be coming down, and the early predictions by major media outlets.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, who reported a spray-coating technology which are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus. Also the sulfidation and extreme thinning of steel is consistent with a thermite reaction.
gtg309v 3 years ago
as i thought, no proof of explosives. keep trying.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
Sure, just ignore witnesses inside the building witnessed explosions, the molten metal, the diagonal cuts on beams from shape charges, firefighters being told hours in advance with no uncertainty that WTC7 would collapse, two major news media outlets accidently reporting it before it even happened, the red demolitions truck driving through the WTC area(on camera), hahaha...
So stick with NIST who changes their claims, fudges numbers on their computer model, and contradicts their own facts.
gtg309v 3 years ago
still no video w/ audio of explosions when WTC 7 fell.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
so? it's called nano-thermite.
gtg309v 3 years ago
explosives make explosions, there were none.
and why did you say people heard explosions when WTC7 fell but now you come back with non-explosive explosions? lmfao.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
Where did I say explosives weren't used in conjunction with nanothermite? Less explosives needed if you use nanothermite too. The reaction melts steel, and molten steel was found under the rubble, along with sulfidation of the steel. Molten steel can't be explained simply due to office fires. You're gonna have to do better than you're doing.
And Barry Jennings and Mike Hess were trapped in 7WTC after an explosion went off, before either towers collapsed. You can't make this stuff up.
gtg309v 3 years ago
no explosions are heard on the audio, debunked.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
ok, bye fool
gtg309v 3 years ago
that's what i thought.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
you're boring, do your homework
gtg309v 3 years ago
i schooled you on WTC7, i already did my homework.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
You didn't do your homework or else you would realize all NIST's attempts at explaining WTC7's collapse failed. 7 years afterwards and the majority of the science and engineering community still rejects their explanation...quite easily I might add.
JSSTyger 3 years ago
they only "failed" in your mind.
fastfingersfunk 3 years ago
No NIST actually failed in real life. They recently released their final report on wtc 7 and it got killed by experts. In short...NIST has no idea how wtc7 fell...hell...in 2006 they conceded they had no idea how towers 1&2 fell even though they already published their report...as a comfort to the families they openly said they would then begin to look into CD...though they never did.
And if you need audio of explosions then I want evidence of steel "weakening" fires.
JSSTyger 3 years ago