In other words what you're saying is that the structure was compromised and it was leaning badly right? Then explain how it fell straight down on its own footprint?
@aditas217 It didn't fall straight down on its footprint. Severe damage to building to north. It fell to south as it fell. The debris from 1 caused the fires that weren't resisted on lower floors and that's what caused the building to fall. The structural damage contributed to how the building fell, but not directly why the building fell.
@aditas217 Sorry, but it didn't. There was nothing symmetrical in the way the building fell. It didn't fall into its own footprint, unless you consider hitting a building across a four-lane road part of 7's footprint. You need to figure out what happened to the building without listening to the lies of the Professional 9/11 Truth movement.
WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.....NIST. GOV
Who did this video? Bits of debris hitting the top of the building 7 aint gonna bring the whole building down in an even free fall speed. Not to mention turning much of the steel building into dust. It was a demolition, admit it.
"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."
This video doesn't proove shit! For one thing, if features only still photos, so we can't determine if the building was rocked or swayed upon impact. It also claims that WTC 7 was 'most likely' hit by columns from the North Tower? Well, if 'most likely' doesn't cut it for Truthers, why should it cut it for the debunkers. We need to see what actually hit the towers besides a cloud of dust.
Barry Jenning was in #7 on 9-11, and he reported explosions around the 6th and 7th floor BEFORE the towers collapsed. Note that this testimony cannot be interpreted any differently, it's not speculation. Then he reports that the lobby was completely destroyed, and WTC 1 & 2 were still standing. Ask yourself, how is this possible? Search "9/11 WTC 7 BOMBS WITNESS", see for yourself.
The "explosions" Barry Jennings felt inside 7 was the North Tower collapsing and hitting WTC 7. He's mistaken about the towers still standing. He found a deserted OEM, and that evacuation happened right before the South Tower collapsed. He was in the building when the North Tower collapsed. The time of his 9/11 interview shows this clearly.
WTC 5 and 6 were completely mangled because they were right under towers 1 and 2 and they didnt collapse. I really need somebody to explain to me why the building collapsed and how it collapsed so fast, not that the building had structural damage. Your video is a start but it makes leaps of logic that are uncomforting
I'm doing just a portion at a time to deal with specific arguments. I hope to explain the entire thing, but I'm also waiting for NIST's final report like everyone else. I've done just about what I can do without making videos that might become obsolete.
If it was progressive then it would require time for the load to shear stress bearing points one level at a time. Thus it would not fall at free-fall speed. Which only happens when there is no resistance.
the most interesting part about this piece of video, is that they dont show the actuall building fall, they just show that some part landed on the roof, which obvious to any human above 4 years old. he keeps talkin about article and whatever but he doesnt show the actually building fall at freefall speed (9.81m/s^2) like if its a stack of cards.
This video is debunking a specific claim, that nothing hit WTC 7 and caused damage. I don't have to show the building falling to do that. Nevertheless, I do show a portion of the building falling close to the end. Thanks for showing that you didn't watch the video.
I have seen a lot on both sides, and I still haven't decided what to believe. Why did WTC 7 fall so fast? In the videos you see a huge chunck on the top fall, and then the building starts falling from the bottom. It just seems very odd the way it all happened.
The best understanding so far of how the building fell is at the NIST site. Their June 2004 Interim Report on Building 7 goes into the most detail so far (although they're due to release the final report soon).
Short story: Damage to unusual structure caused several fires which burned out of control. The east penthouse fell, taking out crucial transfer structures, and once it started moving...
...the immense weight of the building quickly overcame the ability of the structure to redistribute the force. It basically crushed up under the weight. Check out Bazant & Zhou in a search engine of your choice (that's about the towers, but it's the same principle).
Buildings don't fall through themselves as fast as they fall through thin air. Enough said, Inside Job. Look up Galileo's law of Falling bodies, and linear conservation of momentum. These shills like bolo try to confuse ppl, with stupid, subjective videos like this, with no facts, no raw hard science just a lot of fluff and propaganda.
When the mass is large enough, it will build enough momentum to overcome the ability of the structure to redistribute the force. When the mass is large enough, it will fall very quickly. The mass of the upper sections of the towers and the 47-story Building 7 was very great indeed.
well my friend, i dont believe that a chunk of world trade center caused a whole building to fall at freefall speed (9.81m/s^2), how come it fell straight down in one single piece, instead of gradually or even lean to forward from the where the chunk came from. Really if we wanna use physics then use it to the limit, watch building demolitions and you will see more smiliarites, how weak does a building ahve to be to fall like that, from roof to base in the exact same moment.
That wasn't the sole cause. The building didn't fall at freefall speed -- it took between 16 and 18 seconds. It didn't fall straight down in one piece. It did lean toward the southern damage. Other than your being completely wrong, I see your point.
ROFL i actually laughed when i watched this. WTC7 fell down because bits of debrit hit the outside of it... People have vids of it and it was control demo'd. T
That was not the only factor. It was one, and it counters the CT soundbite that 7 wasn't hit by a plane. CTers like to pretend that the building just suddenly fell, but there was plenty of reason to think that it would.
The building fell down at nearly freefall.. ur telling me that NO OTHER BUILDINGS around and about fell down but the one that is hardest to explain did? There are no coindidences in these things and i'm sure deep down you know that too. 9/11 was an inside job.. And fyi in the official reports they didn't even mention WTC7 because it was so hard to explain.. why should anyone here believe what your saying?
Dude seriously i can't even believe u just said that, i'm looking at it right now, nowhere in the 9/11 commision report does it say ANYTHING to explain the WTC7 collapse. And wtf 18 seconds? It was closer 2 6 seconds if u look at the videos and count how long.. dude seriously..
The 9/11 Commission Report is not the NIST report. I'm talking about NIST, which in 2004 released a long appendix on WTC 7, the Interim Report. It's as official as it gets.
You are only looking at a portion of the collapse. See my first video, "How Fast Did WTC 7 Fall?" You can count 16 seconds, and seismic information indicates 18.
OMG, i just watched ur happy little video, what a charade, no facts, no proof, just a lot of verbose and overuse of scary adjectives. Get a grip. "knife to the guts", "lean badly" "apparently", "a lot of damage". You should be ashamed of that mockery.
Actually, it does have facts. The photographic evidence, the accounts of the firefighters, all of it points to severe damage to the building despite "not being hit by a plane."
Thats why it fell in perfect symmetry. If it was leaning why would it fall in perfect symmetry if the damage wasn't symmetrical. It fell just like WTC's 1 & 2. The top part of the WTC 7 collapsed first as well which is seen in many controlled demolitions. Not every single column of the tower was just as damaged and broke at the same time. This video further proves it was a controlled demolition. It doesnt debunk it.
It didn't fall in perfect symmetry. Not at all. It slumped to the south, and the eastern third of the interior fell before everything else. The way it fell shows that the columns broke progressively, not simultaneously.
No I think you should check that vid again.plus look at the top level it collapses first which is common in controlled demolition. Also that Larry Silverstein debunk about his comment how he was talking about pulling the firemen makes no sense.The building was evacuated at 9:45am it fell at 5:20pm. Why would he say pull the firemen and he watched it fall if the building fell almost 9 hours after it was evacuated. Also BBC news announced it fell 20mins. before it did. it was planned.
The east penthouse falls first, and falls into the building. NIST has shown this is due to column 79 failing beneath it, and that means the eastern third of the interior floors fell either before the penthouse, or were smashed away by its mass.
I am saying that buildings with much less mass to distribute, with a completely different way of doing that, and with different patterns of damage to that structure will react differently.
They also did not have the same unique truss system bldg 7 had. Built around and up around a Coned sub station bldg 7 was held up with an unique support system. One truss damaged wouldn't destroy the building but include the multiple floor gashes that ripped into 7's cross section and multiple unchecked fires then you have a unique problem.
Rediculous! There simply was not enough damage to cause a global collapse! No steel framed hirise in history has ever completely collapsed for any reason other than CD! Period!
Wild Bill, you old son of a gun! If I had known you were coming, I'd have baked a cake!
Obviously the damage wasn't enough, because the building stood for seven hours after, just like the Towers stood after the planes hit them. Fire is the devil's only friend...
Also, let me make sure I understand this - you're saying that the only reason a steel-framed building could fall down is because of CD. No other force on earth could destroy a steel-framed building other than CD. Is that what you're arguing?
CD technicians have stated that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition. If one corner was to collapse because of what is shown in the video it would not have taken all the building down in a controlled level way as you see it.
None of those people have examined all the evidence. Jowenko said what he said after watching a video.
The building didn't come down in a controlled, level way. Controlled demolitions don't damage the nearby buildings the way that WTC 7 damaged Fiterman Hall and the Verizon building.
Wrong wildbill. The Kader toy factory in 93. Collapsed due to fire only. It didn't have a 110 story building fall into it. Oh, the madrid tower collapsed too after the fires. And it didn't have a 767 flown into it.
Are you fucking joking? Liberals are infamous for taking away our rights, our right to arms, our right to smoke, our right to freedom in general, I can give you a list of things that they take away everyday for a little extra security. And if hillary gets her way than watch it happen to health care too.
Right to smoke? WTF? Please carry that fucking idiocy back to Free Republic where it belongs. This is a discussion of WTC 7, and it is not political. Do you know what that means? That means if you keep talking trash about liberals, of whom I am one, you can expect to have those comments removed and your ass blocked if you persist.
I remember that day clearly. They were saying on the news for a several of hours that building 7 would collapse. No one brought those buildings down except those two planes
i guess thats the trick to this, but there are people who will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to to avoid recognizing answers. i can't help but think that many "troofers" out there have their ego so tied up in this stuff that to admit error would be tantamount to intellectual suicide.
they debating as a means to establishing the truth, they are arguing to be right.
've been in construction a long long time ... also a friend owns on of the largest demolition companies in this area of the country ... they are the ones that the state uses to level their buildings ... And these are the first buildings in history to "level" themselves without professional help! ... ONE hell of a coincidence ... don't you think?!!!!
I didn't delete any comments. I just took a while to approve them. I responded to the comments as I read them, and that's what your comment says. If I'm a waste of time, then STOP POSTING COMMENTS ON MY VIDEOS.
The energy came from gravity. The immense mass of the upper section, accelerated by gravity, quickly gained momentum an order of magnitude greater than the ability of the structure below to resist. As pieces were torn off from the upper section through collisions, some got enough vertical speed through ricochet to reach 7.
Aren't those goalposts heavy? The debris was the first major blow. The raging fires were next, and the collapse of Column 79 under the east mechanical penthouse was the final blow.
Things don't gain momentum let alone collapse at free fall speed in the face of most resistance. Also buildings are lighter on the top and use thinner-lighter steel the higher they go (logically).
A real pancake collapse of the WTC would take at least a few minutes if I remember correctly.
The towers didn't collapse in pancake fashion -- NIST denies that explanation explicitly. The sides of the buildings had floors stripped away by the falling debris, and then the sides fell out. That's how the WFC and Winter Garden got pummeled with debris. WTC 7 is very similar. And it wouldn't take much vertical velocity to reach 7 because of the height of the towers. Ricochet energy could have done this easily.
i ask you: where does the energy come from to hurl those 3-5 tons heavy panels 300ft far into WTC7. how can they be 'sailing' horizotally out of the tower, on air? please no insults
Two other buildings were totally demolished by the debris of the towers: 3 WTC (the hotel) and the Trinity Church. Other buildings had different designs, different sizes, and different damage.
Exactly: but they didn't fall down. They had to be destroyed, costing a lot of money (eliminating the "they did it for the money" aspectg). If it would be "perfect", they would all have collapsed, Controlled Demolition style.
All buildings that collapsed on 9/11 fell down. The buildings didn't have to be destroyed. They were filled to capacity and immensely profitable. The asbestos problem was negligible, confined to the North Tower, and had been half eliminated anyway.
By being pushed outward by the floors above them: try to bend spaghetti. When it breaks, the middle part (it always breaks into three parts) is launched away.
If you think Ground Zero demonstrates a professional demolition job, I am not putting you in charge of hiring professionals to demolish any buildings I need demolishing.
the fact: wether our gov. was behind it or not... It is still the vehicle they are using to invade american homes for search and seisure purposes and they need very little to no reason! and they say this is not a communist country!
Well, this isn't a communist country. I think you're looking for the term "repressive" or even "totalitarian." The former we do seem to be edging toward, because we have far too many people willing to trade liberty for security. They didn't get Mr. Franklin's memo.
Exactly, the bush administration has been doing it ever since the war on terror and liberals are trying to do it today, taking away our liberties for their security it makes me sick that people repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Where did you get that nonsense that "liberals are taking away our liberties for their security"? I'm a liberal. 9/11 isn't a political issue. Stop making it one.
I doubt you'll approve this comment, bolo, but it's worth a try.
The fact that comments must be "approved" before they are eventually posted suggests that the content of the ongoing debate here is vulnerable to manipulation/control. If it's ad hominem attacks or foul language you're concerned about, why not just delete such comments as they appear?
I limit unrestricted comments (barring spam and obscenity and stupid attacks) to one video at a time, the most current. I allow moderated comments on the next oldest (currently this one). All others have comments disabled. That way I can keep up with it and have a genuine discussion. And have the last word, yes.
Keep in mind; 1500 degrees Fahrenheit represent SURFACE temps five days post-collapse (USGS). The insulative effect of the debris pile suggests a "core" temp well beyond the maximum temp for hydrocarbon fires UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS (1800 F). The bottom of a debris pile does not provide ideal conditions, as there is no generous, continuous source of oxygen.
I'm well aware that surface temperature at the Pile requires much higher temperatures underground. The fires could do this. Please look up the terms "furnace" and "cauldron" in your favorite search engine.
Plus, the building burnt for seven+ hours. A building loaded with explosives that burns for seven hours and doesn't ignite? Oh god, the fantasies of these 'twoofers'.
"Plus, the building burnt for seven+ hours." When a building is "pulled" or demolished, charges are placed within the inner infrastructure of the building.
And of course the explosives were perfectly distributed all around the base of the building. Because only a symmetrical and simultaneously detonated series of explosives could destroy the entire base of the building all at once. Anything short thereof would have resulted in a localized collapse, hence the building would not have fallen straight down but more likely at an angle, as the building falls into the path most severely damaged.
This isn't true. Only enough columns had to break to get the building moving. The mass of the building would quickly (in about a second or two) have enough energy to break the rest of the columns and crush the building up where it stood. This is what happened with 7 World Trade.
Please explain why the Penthouse collapses first from a damage limited to the South side? Asymmetric damage should equal asymmetrical collpase (words from this vidoe, falling over)?
Who said damage was limited to the South side? The failure of the column under the east penthouse was likely a combination of the fire and the stress caused by the damage to the building.
The building did collapse asymmetrically. It slumped to the south, and the eastern third of the interior fell before the rest of the building.
The building did not collapse asymmetrically. It fell directly down. The post office and the verizon building were on either side of WTC7 and were not significantly damaged. This building was over 600 ft high, but the average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet (FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study). A successful CD indeed!!
You're making up your facts. The building fell to the south, assymetrically. The eastern third of the interior fell before the rest of the building, assymetrically. The Verizon building WAS significantly damaged, as was Fiterman Hall to the north. The volume of the building was mostly air, and the radius was constricted by being surrounded by buildings.
The East Penthouse was the first structure to collapse, then the West Penthouse, then the whole building collapses. The buidling didn't fall over in the direction of the "supposed" failed column. You call that asymmetrical collaspe? The derbis field radius is a direct quote from FEMA. Check it.
The east penthouse fell off INTO the building. Watch it again on my first video (how fast). The floors below it were gone. This was a progressive collapse. The building fell towards the damage caused by the North Tower debris. Asymmtrically. Your quote from FEMA doesn't change the fact that the debris field was restricted by the buildings surrounding 7.
This video is ridiculous in it's attempt to prove that WTC7 collapse was due to collateral damage of the Towers. What about WTC's 3,4, 5,6 that were in the direct path of the Towers and didn't collapse? WTC7 was approx 300 ft away from the Towers.
WTC5: Compare damage.
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=qnGt7Bd5sNo
Also, please explain the extreme temps (+1000 degrees) that were found under the basement of 7?
Um, 3 was completely destroyed by the collapse of the North Tower, after taking a huge hit from the South. 4 was flattened except for one wing. 5 did take severe damage from falling debris, and 6 was even worse. All were small buildings compared to 7.
"Fires under the debris pile" The building came relatively straight down (70 ft debris radius) Fires can't somehow "sneak" under tons of rubble to create extreme temps. Fire needs oxygen to sustain. These temps were recorded 5 days after 911.
You should check out underground fires in your favorite search engine. The fires were already in the buildings. Things hot enough to burn stayed that hot after the buildings collapsed, and were given the entire contents of three large office buildings on which to feed.
Basic science. Fire needs oxygen to sustain itself (under tons of rubble?). Extreme temps were discovered as far as Jan02. On the other hand, Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. It cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment.
Yes, oxygen could get under the Pile. Ever heard of subways? Thermite also burns uncontrollably and quickly. If you think thermite was still burning into January, you need to get into a good chemical engineering class.
Why do people like you still believe guys out of a cave with box cutters made NORAD stand down and demolished 3 modern sky scrapers after flying 747s with military precision off of cessna lessons.
This is a video about the damage caused by WTC 1's debris hitting WTC 7. It's debunking the notion that because WTC 7 didn't get hit by a plane, there was no reason to expect it to fall. Please stay on topic.
Have you ever read any of the investigations? I know they are big,but come on,you're asking stupid questions,especially since all 7 buildings were destroyed,which shows you don't even know basic facts.
You know..the most glaringly obvious conclusion that SHOULD be drawn, is that for some reason, YEARS later, we are still having the same debate, amoung our fellow Americans even. Conclusions have not yet been drawn, the war is still going, and what happened on and surrounding 911 is still almost ENTIRELY SPECULATION. Either way you choose to look at it, we are in one of the largest messes in history.
Its simply amazing isn't it? Why do they work so hard to convince people that it wasn't an inside job? Then the desperation videos like this one to target the naive. PLEASE BELIEVE US! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
I never said the video was wrong. But it is a fact that those buildings, all 3 of them were imploded! Time2=distance2/acceleration= 9.2 secs. The towers 10 secs.
A perfect example of critical thinking. You don't have to examine the actual evidence because your mind is already made up. You can't attack the video on what it's saying, so you close your mind. That's no way to find the truth.
What a Bullshit video, lets look at Oklahoma bombing...way more damage and it was hit by the force of a fucking huge bomb! Similar if not identical design building...did it fall? Even with over 1/3 of the entire structure missing? Did it fall?...
WTC7 was Controlled Demolition, for a truly unbiased opinion from an EXPERT see the Danny Jowenko interview.
Actually, the Murrah Office Building had a completely different design from 7. It was a more traditional structure (being quite smaller) while 7 was a tube-in-tube design. You are wrong.
Jowenko thinks 1 and 2 were simple collapses; do you agree with him there?
Yes, that's the Banker's Trust building. I don't claim that it's building 7. I'm using it as an example of the spectacular damage caused by the perimeter columns. Quit lying about my video.
all you Ctists are the same. very selective vision, selective hearing, and selective reading, only filtering out what you want to see and hear, and anything, ANYTHING that does not agree with your "version" or totally makes your "version" look like the piece of crap it is, you block it out and call it lies and continue to live in a lala land where up is down, black is white, etc. Is it lonely there? Wait, you got Joe with you!
Well, it's not the damage alone that did it. The video is confronting the mistaken idea being advanced that the building had no damage whatsoever. That's the only reason to emphasize that "no plane hit that building."
This video is debunking a specific claim, and doesn't need to get into other aspects of the collapse to do that. 7 did initiate collapse from the bottom, but it was NOT in perfect symmetry and it was NOT at free fall speed. You are importing that attitude about my tone.
Debris from the falling 7 hit Fiterman Hall to the north so badly it had to be condemned. Unless 7's footprint was built across a four-lane road, you need to release that illusion.
How does that deny the clear fact that WTC 7 is hit by debris from WTC 1? Do you understand the argument being presented in the video?
3 and 5 had completely different structures. Neither was anywhere near as tall as 7, so they didn't have the same kind of weight bearing down on those structures. 3 actually collapsed when 1 fell on top of it, and the sections of 5 hit by the debris of 1 did fall.
I think that this video is incorrect because 1. No one fillmed the 1st crash because no one was expecting it, all the films of a plane running into the Twin Towers were from the secod attack. So that means the damage from the 1st twin tower collapsing, did not make the other tower fall.
There are two videos of Flight 11 heading towards the North Tower, and one of them shows the impact. Your last sentence needs work before I can understand it.
I mean that two planes were involved. One plane hitting each tower. The collaps of the 1st tower did not make the second tower fall, it simply made it weaker but when the second plane hit, it got more dameged and fell.
In other words what you're saying is that the structure was compromised and it was leaning badly right? Then explain how it fell straight down on its own footprint?
aditas217 1 year ago
@aditas217 It didn't fall straight down on its footprint. Severe damage to building to north. It fell to south as it fell. The debris from 1 caused the fires that weren't resisted on lower floors and that's what caused the building to fall. The structural damage contributed to how the building fell, but not directly why the building fell.
boloboffin 1 year ago 12
@boloboffin Sorry, but it did fall down symmetrically on its own footprint.
aditas217 1 year ago
@aditas217 Sorry, but it didn't. There was nothing symmetrical in the way the building fell. It didn't fall into its own footprint, unless you consider hitting a building across a four-lane road part of 7's footprint. You need to figure out what happened to the building without listening to the lies of the Professional 9/11 Truth movement.
boloboffin 1 year ago 12
@aditas217 EVEN THE TWIN TOWERS DIDN'T FALL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT! YOU CAN WATCH THEM TIP OVER...
StrengthFromAbove83 1 year ago
WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.....NIST. GOV
TheEots 1 year ago 3
Who did this video? Bits of debris hitting the top of the building 7 aint gonna bring the whole building down in an even free fall speed. Not to mention turning much of the steel building into dust. It was a demolition, admit it.
ManFromMelbourne 1 year ago
@ManFromMelbourne The building's full collapse was not a "even free fall speed." The steel was not turned to dust.
boloboffin 1 year ago 5
good video
arkor7 1 year ago
To date,, this is still one of the best explanations of what truly happened on that day back in 2001.
But it's nowhere near enough for conspiracy theorists to shut up..
I really wish they would though.
The only thing they keep doing,, is pointing me to other videos,, which don't expose it quite like this one..
Fieve.. ;-) :-)
FievelJ69 1 year ago 4
It hit building 7 on the edge, that impact wouldn't collapse the building, it was a controlled demolition.
DemonLegions 4 years ago
That is showing just some of the impact. My video is pointing out more. And this is not the only factor in collapse.
boloboffin 4 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."
-Chief Boyle (speaking about WTC 7)
KnowledgeIsPowr 4 years ago 12
watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8
More video footage of WTC 7 being hit by debris from the North Tower collapse.
boloboffin 4 years ago
This video doesn't proove shit! For one thing, if features only still photos, so we can't determine if the building was rocked or swayed upon impact. It also claims that WTC 7 was 'most likely' hit by columns from the North Tower? Well, if 'most likely' doesn't cut it for Truthers, why should it cut it for the debunkers. We need to see what actually hit the towers besides a cloud of dust.
bassman5123 4 years ago
If only Truthers would say "most likely." It would be a welcome change in rhetoric. What "cuts it" is an answer consistent with the evidence we have.
I did still pictures because both videos have situations about their being used. I thought still shots would constitute Fair Use.
I wish I could have used clips of that footage. It clearly is a sizable amount of debris hitting the building.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Barry Jenning was in #7 on 9-11, and he reported explosions around the 6th and 7th floor BEFORE the towers collapsed. Note that this testimony cannot be interpreted any differently, it's not speculation. Then he reports that the lobby was completely destroyed, and WTC 1 & 2 were still standing. Ask yourself, how is this possible? Search "9/11 WTC 7 BOMBS WITNESS", see for yourself.
monster289 4 years ago
The "explosions" Barry Jennings felt inside 7 was the North Tower collapsing and hitting WTC 7. He's mistaken about the towers still standing. He found a deserted OEM, and that evacuation happened right before the South Tower collapsed. He was in the building when the North Tower collapsed. The time of his 9/11 interview shows this clearly.
boloboffin 4 years ago
WTC 5 and 6 were completely mangled because they were right under towers 1 and 2 and they didnt collapse. I really need somebody to explain to me why the building collapsed and how it collapsed so fast, not that the building had structural damage. Your video is a start but it makes leaps of logic that are uncomforting
awhelnaw 4 years ago 4
I'm doing just a portion at a time to deal with specific arguments. I hope to explain the entire thing, but I'm also waiting for NIST's final report like everyone else. I've done just about what I can do without making videos that might become obsolete.
boloboffin 4 years ago
ooo cool, as long as thats clarified
awhelnaw 4 years ago
How does one sided damage cause a synchronous fall of all sides from the top down? I can't happen.
judeGti 4 years ago 4
Because it didn't happen. WTC 7 was a complex progressive collapse. Not all columns failed simultaneously.
boloboffin 4 years ago
If it was progressive then it would require time for the load to shear stress bearing points one level at a time. Thus it would not fall at free-fall speed. Which only happens when there is no resistance.
judeGti 4 years ago 26
There are other factors to this collapse, just as the plane impact was only one of the factors involved in the collapse of the towers.
boloboffin 4 years ago
"free-fall speed. Which only happens when there is no resistance."
-Actually true free fall speed only happens in a vacuum.
KnowledgeIsPowr 4 years ago 51
the most interesting part about this piece of video, is that they dont show the actuall building fall, they just show that some part landed on the roof, which obvious to any human above 4 years old. he keeps talkin about article and whatever but he doesnt show the actually building fall at freefall speed (9.81m/s^2) like if its a stack of cards.
bslbasil 4 years ago 4
This video is debunking a specific claim, that nothing hit WTC 7 and caused damage. I don't have to show the building falling to do that. Nevertheless, I do show a portion of the building falling close to the end. Thanks for showing that you didn't watch the video.
boloboffin 4 years ago
I have seen a lot on both sides, and I still haven't decided what to believe. Why did WTC 7 fall so fast? In the videos you see a huge chunck on the top fall, and then the building starts falling from the bottom. It just seems very odd the way it all happened.
mld2665 4 years ago 3
The best understanding so far of how the building fell is at the NIST site. Their June 2004 Interim Report on Building 7 goes into the most detail so far (although they're due to release the final report soon).
Short story: Damage to unusual structure caused several fires which burned out of control. The east penthouse fell, taking out crucial transfer structures, and once it started moving...
boloboffin 4 years ago
...the immense weight of the building quickly overcame the ability of the structure to redistribute the force. It basically crushed up under the weight. Check out Bazant & Zhou in a search engine of your choice (that's about the towers, but it's the same principle).
boloboffin 4 years ago
Buildings don't fall through themselves as fast as they fall through thin air. Enough said, Inside Job. Look up Galileo's law of Falling bodies, and linear conservation of momentum. These shills like bolo try to confuse ppl, with stupid, subjective videos like this, with no facts, no raw hard science just a lot of fluff and propaganda.
clbackus 4 years ago 2
When the mass is large enough, it will build enough momentum to overcome the ability of the structure to redistribute the force. When the mass is large enough, it will fall very quickly. The mass of the upper sections of the towers and the 47-story Building 7 was very great indeed.
boloboffin 4 years ago
well my friend, i dont believe that a chunk of world trade center caused a whole building to fall at freefall speed (9.81m/s^2), how come it fell straight down in one single piece, instead of gradually or even lean to forward from the where the chunk came from. Really if we wanna use physics then use it to the limit, watch building demolitions and you will see more smiliarites, how weak does a building ahve to be to fall like that, from roof to base in the exact same moment.
bslbasil 4 years ago 4
That wasn't the sole cause. The building didn't fall at freefall speed -- it took between 16 and 18 seconds. It didn't fall straight down in one piece. It did lean toward the southern damage. Other than your being completely wrong, I see your point.
boloboffin 4 years ago
ROFL i actually laughed when i watched this. WTC7 fell down because bits of debrit hit the outside of it... People have vids of it and it was control demo'd. T
hellblazer1991 4 years ago
That was not the only factor. It was one, and it counters the CT soundbite that 7 wasn't hit by a plane. CTers like to pretend that the building just suddenly fell, but there was plenty of reason to think that it would.
boloboffin 4 years ago
The building fell down at nearly freefall.. ur telling me that NO OTHER BUILDINGS around and about fell down but the one that is hardest to explain did? There are no coindidences in these things and i'm sure deep down you know that too. 9/11 was an inside job.. And fyi in the official reports they didn't even mention WTC7 because it was so hard to explain.. why should anyone here believe what your saying?
hellblazer1991 4 years ago
If other buildings had fallen, you'd be here telling us how "mysterious" their collapse was.
Official reports do mention Building 7. The most in-depth treatment is Appendix L, Interim Report on WTC 7 by NIST in June 2004.
And 18 seconds is not freefall speed.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Dude seriously i can't even believe u just said that, i'm looking at it right now, nowhere in the 9/11 commision report does it say ANYTHING to explain the WTC7 collapse. And wtf 18 seconds? It was closer 2 6 seconds if u look at the videos and count how long.. dude seriously..
hellblazer1991 4 years ago
The 9/11 Commission Report is not the NIST report. I'm talking about NIST, which in 2004 released a long appendix on WTC 7, the Interim Report. It's as official as it gets.
boloboffin 4 years ago
You are only looking at a portion of the collapse. See my first video, "How Fast Did WTC 7 Fall?" You can count 16 seconds, and seismic information indicates 18.
boloboffin 4 years ago
OMG, i just watched ur happy little video, what a charade, no facts, no proof, just a lot of verbose and overuse of scary adjectives. Get a grip. "knife to the guts", "lean badly" "apparently", "a lot of damage". You should be ashamed of that mockery.
clbackus 4 years ago
Actually, it does have facts. The photographic evidence, the accounts of the firefighters, all of it points to severe damage to the building despite "not being hit by a plane."
boloboffin 4 years ago
Thats why it fell in perfect symmetry. If it was leaning why would it fall in perfect symmetry if the damage wasn't symmetrical. It fell just like WTC's 1 & 2. The top part of the WTC 7 collapsed first as well which is seen in many controlled demolitions. Not every single column of the tower was just as damaged and broke at the same time. This video further proves it was a controlled demolition. It doesnt debunk it.
doboy09 4 years ago
It didn't fall in perfect symmetry. Not at all. It slumped to the south, and the eastern third of the interior fell before everything else. The way it fell shows that the columns broke progressively, not simultaneously.
boloboffin 4 years ago
No I think you should check that vid again.plus look at the top level it collapses first which is common in controlled demolition. Also that Larry Silverstein debunk about his comment how he was talking about pulling the firemen makes no sense.The building was evacuated at 9:45am it fell at 5:20pm. Why would he say pull the firemen and he watched it fall if the building fell almost 9 hours after it was evacuated. Also BBC news announced it fell 20mins. before it did. it was planned.
doboy09 4 years ago 2
The east penthouse falls first, and falls into the building. NIST has shown this is due to column 79 failing beneath it, and that means the eastern third of the interior floors fell either before the penthouse, or were smashed away by its mass.
boloboffin 4 years ago
watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o
7 slumped to the south as it fell. That video shows this unmistakably.
Silverstein said what he said. Nigro shows what he meant, and Silverstein has explained what he meant. The Silverstein argument is dead.
BBC made a mistake on a chaotic day of reporting.
boloboffin 4 years ago
wtc 5 and 6 were just under the towers and sustained far more devastation. boloboffin you're quite retarded
efisiomulas 4 years ago
Those buildings were much smaller and built differently.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Shitlisted! Right along with reallyrick. you suck for making a crap vid. but atleast you made it.
bikeforfree 4 years ago
OK.
boloboffin 4 years ago
hey! where can i find that photo at 0:55?
thats an awesome shot
jiggymonkey 4 years ago
I forget where I got that picture. It's a detail from a much larger picture. I'll try to scout around.
boloboffin 4 years ago
OK this theroy does not work..
explain why the other surrounding buildings that where pumbled with debris didnt collapse?
AlbertoHernandez 4 years ago
Because the other buildings had different structures, different damage, and smaller masses than 7.
boloboffin 4 years ago
hmm..
so your saying a smaller bulding that gets hit by a 20 ton beam of steel would be stronger then wtc 7?
think about things
AlbertoHernandez 4 years ago
I am saying that buildings with much less mass to distribute, with a completely different way of doing that, and with different patterns of damage to that structure will react differently.
boloboffin 4 years ago
They also did not have the same unique truss system bldg 7 had. Built around and up around a Coned sub station bldg 7 was held up with an unique support system. One truss damaged wouldn't destroy the building but include the multiple floor gashes that ripped into 7's cross section and multiple unchecked fires then you have a unique problem.
homeric9 4 years ago
Rediculous! There simply was not enough damage to cause a global collapse! No steel framed hirise in history has ever completely collapsed for any reason other than CD! Period!
wildbill29303 4 years ago
Wild Bill, you old son of a gun! If I had known you were coming, I'd have baked a cake!
Obviously the damage wasn't enough, because the building stood for seven hours after, just like the Towers stood after the planes hit them. Fire is the devil's only friend...
boloboffin 4 years ago
Fire burned out too quickly to heat the steel much in my opinion as the steel framing would wick away the heat like a huge heat sink.
And you know the old saying? "Fight fire with fire", right?
wildbill29303 4 years ago
And we should listen to your opinion because...
boloboffin 4 years ago
Also, let me make sure I understand this - you're saying that the only reason a steel-framed building could fall down is because of CD. No other force on earth could destroy a steel-framed building other than CD. Is that what you're arguing?
boloboffin 4 years ago
No bolo. You said that. I said, "No steel framed hirise in history has ever completely collapsed for any reason other than CD! Period!"
wildbill29303 4 years ago 2
How is what I said different from what you said?
boloboffin 4 years ago
natural force...not even earthquakes have that type of history.
doboy09 4 years ago
CD technicians have stated that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition. If one corner was to collapse because of what is shown in the video it would not have taken all the building down in a controlled level way as you see it.
m4c0me 4 years ago
None of those people have examined all the evidence. Jowenko said what he said after watching a video.
The building didn't come down in a controlled, level way. Controlled demolitions don't damage the nearby buildings the way that WTC 7 damaged Fiterman Hall and the Verizon building.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Wrong wildbill. The Kader toy factory in 93. Collapsed due to fire only. It didn't have a 110 story building fall into it. Oh, the madrid tower collapsed too after the fires. And it didn't have a 767 flown into it.
glennwall2 4 years ago
Are you fucking joking? Liberals are infamous for taking away our rights, our right to arms, our right to smoke, our right to freedom in general, I can give you a list of things that they take away everyday for a little extra security. And if hillary gets her way than watch it happen to health care too.
Raiders1393 4 years ago
Right to smoke? WTF? Please carry that fucking idiocy back to Free Republic where it belongs. This is a discussion of WTC 7, and it is not political. Do you know what that means? That means if you keep talking trash about liberals, of whom I am one, you can expect to have those comments removed and your ass blocked if you persist.
boloboffin 4 years ago
I remember that day clearly. They were saying on the news for a several of hours that building 7 would collapse. No one brought those buildings down except those two planes
Fringe111 4 years ago
i love that, "ask questions, recognize answers."
i guess thats the trick to this, but there are people who will perform whatever mental gymnastics they have to to avoid recognizing answers. i can't help but think that many "troofers" out there have their ego so tied up in this stuff that to admit error would be tantamount to intellectual suicide.
they debating as a means to establishing the truth, they are arguing to be right.
nakedtao 4 years ago
Well said!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
've been in construction a long long time ... also a friend owns on of the largest demolition companies in this area of the country ... they are the ones that the state uses to level their buildings ... And these are the first buildings in history to "level" themselves without professional help! ... ONE hell of a coincidence ... don't you think?!!!!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
Are you really saying that these buildings are the first to collapse by themselves ever, EVER? Is that your final answer?
boloboffin 4 years ago
Listen ... you are as thick as they come!
if you read back and perhaps even read some of the comments you deleted ... you will see that I already answered these questions!
You are now a waste of time!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
I didn't delete any comments. I just took a while to approve them. I responded to the comments as I read them, and that's what your comment says. If I'm a waste of time, then STOP POSTING COMMENTS ON MY VIDEOS.
boloboffin 4 years ago
It's easy to be an armchair professional about these sorts of tragedies isn't it WtnCracker?
Your comments are a shinning example to us all of how some people can't accept reasonable proof even when it's placed right in front of them.
wackoyoshi 4 years ago
The energy came from gravity. The immense mass of the upper section, accelerated by gravity, quickly gained momentum an order of magnitude greater than the ability of the structure below to resist. As pieces were torn off from the upper section through collisions, some got enough vertical speed through ricochet to reach 7.
boloboffin 4 years ago
And hit biulding 7 EXACTY in the right place so it will fall perfect!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
Aren't those goalposts heavy? The debris was the first major blow. The raging fires were next, and the collapse of Column 79 under the east mechanical penthouse was the final blow.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Things don't gain momentum let alone collapse at free fall speed in the face of most resistance. Also buildings are lighter on the top and use thinner-lighter steel the higher they go (logically).
A real pancake collapse of the WTC would take at least a few minutes if I remember correctly.
gavingoo 4 years ago
The towers didn't collapse in pancake fashion -- NIST denies that explanation explicitly. The sides of the buildings had floors stripped away by the falling debris, and then the sides fell out. That's how the WFC and Winter Garden got pummeled with debris. WTC 7 is very similar. And it wouldn't take much vertical velocity to reach 7 because of the height of the towers. Ricochet energy could have done this easily.
boloboffin 4 years ago
i ask you: where does the energy come from to hurl those 3-5 tons heavy panels 300ft far into WTC7. how can they be 'sailing' horizotally out of the tower, on air? please no insults
medusuji 4 years ago
This guy is trying to sell us ... it won't work ... We may have been born at night ... just not last night!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
What am I trying to sell you? Do you see a link to any Paypal button or products here? There isn't a scrap of mercenary interest in these films.
boloboffin 4 years ago
You're right to use the word "energy." The debris ejections resulted from the tremendous kinetic energy of the collapses. Read about it here:
w w w 911myths*com/WTCREPORT.pdf
PoetryHound 4 years ago
The energy that was created ... isn't the issue ... how the energy was directed is ... that was an engineering marvel!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
Actually, no. There was no human control over the directing of the energy. The pieces just went where they went.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Why did only one building collapse, but not the others near WTC if it was directed?
philip1201 4 years ago
Two other buildings were totally demolished by the debris of the towers: 3 WTC (the hotel) and the Trinity Church. Other buildings had different designs, different sizes, and different damage.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Exactly: but they didn't fall down. They had to be destroyed, costing a lot of money (eliminating the "they did it for the money" aspectg). If it would be "perfect", they would all have collapsed, Controlled Demolition style.
(PS: I think there is no conspiracy)
philip1201 4 years ago
All buildings that collapsed on 9/11 fell down. The buildings didn't have to be destroyed. They were filled to capacity and immensely profitable. The asbestos problem was negligible, confined to the North Tower, and had been half eliminated anyway.
boloboffin 4 years ago
By being pushed outward by the floors above them: try to bend spaghetti. When it breaks, the middle part (it always breaks into three parts) is launched away.
The steel beams didn't melt, they only weakened.
philip1201 4 years ago
The W.T.C. 7 was the one first buildings in history to become professionally leveled, by mearly a fire ..... 1 & 2 were the first two!
Now it opens the door for demolition crews... they no longer can justify using high explosives to do the job a mear fire can!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
If you think Ground Zero demonstrates a professional demolition job, I am not putting you in charge of hiring professionals to demolish any buildings I need demolishing.
boloboffin 4 years ago 2
the fact: wether our gov. was behind it or not... It is still the vehicle they are using to invade american homes for search and seisure purposes and they need very little to no reason! and they say this is not a communist country!
WtnCracker 4 years ago
Well, this isn't a communist country. I think you're looking for the term "repressive" or even "totalitarian." The former we do seem to be edging toward, because we have far too many people willing to trade liberty for security. They didn't get Mr. Franklin's memo.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Exactly, the bush administration has been doing it ever since the war on terror and liberals are trying to do it today, taking away our liberties for their security it makes me sick that people repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Raiders1393 4 years ago
Where did you get that nonsense that "liberals are taking away our liberties for their security"? I'm a liberal. 9/11 isn't a political issue. Stop making it one.
boloboffin 4 years ago
I doubt you'll approve this comment, bolo, but it's worth a try.
The fact that comments must be "approved" before they are eventually posted suggests that the content of the ongoing debate here is vulnerable to manipulation/control. If it's ad hominem attacks or foul language you're concerned about, why not just delete such comments as they appear?
youmightknowless 4 years ago
I limit unrestricted comments (barring spam and obscenity and stupid attacks) to one video at a time, the most current. I allow moderated comments on the next oldest (currently this one). All others have comments disabled. That way I can keep up with it and have a genuine discussion. And have the last word, yes.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Heat accumulated to those temps?
Keep in mind; 1500 degrees Fahrenheit represent SURFACE temps five days post-collapse (USGS). The insulative effect of the debris pile suggests a "core" temp well beyond the maximum temp for hydrocarbon fires UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS (1800 F). The bottom of a debris pile does not provide ideal conditions, as there is no generous, continuous source of oxygen.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
I'm well aware that surface temperature at the Pile requires much higher temperatures underground. The fires could do this. Please look up the terms "furnace" and "cauldron" in your favorite search engine.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Plus, the building burnt for seven+ hours. A building loaded with explosives that burns for seven hours and doesn't ignite? Oh god, the fantasies of these 'twoofers'.
crackfukker 4 years ago 2
"Plus, the building burnt for seven+ hours." When a building is "pulled" or demolished, charges are placed within the inner infrastructure of the building.
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
When a building is "pulled", cables are attached to it and it is pulled over. Did you not watch the video?
boloboffin 4 years ago
And of course the explosives were perfectly distributed all around the base of the building. Because only a symmetrical and simultaneously detonated series of explosives could destroy the entire base of the building all at once. Anything short thereof would have resulted in a localized collapse, hence the building would not have fallen straight down but more likely at an angle, as the building falls into the path most severely damaged.
snipboy 4 years ago
This isn't true. Only enough columns had to break to get the building moving. The mass of the building would quickly (in about a second or two) have enough energy to break the rest of the columns and crush the building up where it stood. This is what happened with 7 World Trade.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Please explain why the Penthouse collapses first from a damage limited to the South side? Asymmetric damage should equal asymmetrical collpase (words from this vidoe, falling over)?
The truth about WTC7:
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=EgJuHNfk7no
Compare the fires at WTC5 (no collapse)to WTC7:
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=qnGt7Bd5sNo
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
Who said damage was limited to the South side? The failure of the column under the east penthouse was likely a combination of the fire and the stress caused by the damage to the building.
The building did collapse asymmetrically. It slumped to the south, and the eastern third of the interior fell before the rest of the building.
boloboffin 4 years ago
The building did not collapse asymmetrically. It fell directly down. The post office and the verizon building were on either side of WTC7 and were not significantly damaged. This building was over 600 ft high, but the average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet (FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study). A successful CD indeed!!
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
You're making up your facts. The building fell to the south, assymetrically. The eastern third of the interior fell before the rest of the building, assymetrically. The Verizon building WAS significantly damaged, as was Fiterman Hall to the north. The volume of the building was mostly air, and the radius was constricted by being surrounded by buildings.
boloboffin 4 years ago
The East Penthouse was the first structure to collapse, then the West Penthouse, then the whole building collapses. The buidling didn't fall over in the direction of the "supposed" failed column. You call that asymmetrical collaspe? The derbis field radius is a direct quote from FEMA. Check it.
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
The east penthouse fell off INTO the building. Watch it again on my first video (how fast). The floors below it were gone. This was a progressive collapse. The building fell towards the damage caused by the North Tower debris. Asymmtrically. Your quote from FEMA doesn't change the fact that the debris field was restricted by the buildings surrounding 7.
boloboffin 4 years ago
This video is ridiculous in it's attempt to prove that WTC7 collapse was due to collateral damage of the Towers. What about WTC's 3,4, 5,6 that were in the direct path of the Towers and didn't collapse? WTC7 was approx 300 ft away from the Towers.
WTC5: Compare damage.
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=qnGt7Bd5sNo
Also, please explain the extreme temps (+1000 degrees) that were found under the basement of 7?
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
Um, 3 was completely destroyed by the collapse of the North Tower, after taking a huge hit from the South. 4 was flattened except for one wing. 5 did take severe damage from falling debris, and 6 was even worse. All were small buildings compared to 7.
boloboffin 4 years ago
WTCs 3,4,5,6 were almost totally destroyed, but none collapsed in the manner of WTC7 (or the Towers).
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
As I said, they were much, much smaller buildings.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Fires under the debris pile allowed heat to accumulate to those temperatures.
boloboffin 4 years ago
"Fires under the debris pile" The building came relatively straight down (70 ft debris radius) Fires can't somehow "sneak" under tons of rubble to create extreme temps. Fire needs oxygen to sustain. These temps were recorded 5 days after 911.
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
You should check out underground fires in your favorite search engine. The fires were already in the buildings. Things hot enough to burn stayed that hot after the buildings collapsed, and were given the entire contents of three large office buildings on which to feed.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Basic science. Fire needs oxygen to sustain itself (under tons of rubble?). Extreme temps were discovered as far as Jan02. On the other hand, Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. It cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment.
seeknthetruth 4 years ago
Yes, oxygen could get under the Pile. Ever heard of subways? Thermite also burns uncontrollably and quickly. If you think thermite was still burning into January, you need to get into a good chemical engineering class.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Why do people like you still believe guys out of a cave with box cutters made NORAD stand down and demolished 3 modern sky scrapers after flying 747s with military precision off of cessna lessons.
gavingoo 4 years ago
This is a video about the damage caused by WTC 1's debris hitting WTC 7. It's debunking the notion that because WTC 7 didn't get hit by a plane, there was no reason to expect it to fall. Please stay on topic.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Have you ever read any of the investigations? I know they are big,but come on,you're asking stupid questions,especially since all 7 buildings were destroyed,which shows you don't even know basic facts.
Aaron518 4 years ago
You know..the most glaringly obvious conclusion that SHOULD be drawn, is that for some reason, YEARS later, we are still having the same debate, amoung our fellow Americans even. Conclusions have not yet been drawn, the war is still going, and what happened on and surrounding 911 is still almost ENTIRELY SPECULATION. Either way you choose to look at it, we are in one of the largest messes in history.
Kmarxist 4 years ago
boloboffin, any idea where I might find a still of the shot in your vid at 00:54 where you can clearly see debris landing on the top of 7?
glennwall2 4 years ago
I think you're talking about this picture.
i56. photobucket. com/ albums/g171/ boloboffin2/ 911/WTC7Hit001. jpg
boloboffin 4 years ago
That would be the one! Thanks.
glennwall2 4 years ago
Its simply amazing isn't it? Why do they work so hard to convince people that it wasn't an inside job? Then the desperation videos like this one to target the naive. PLEASE BELIEVE US! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
C7truth 4 years ago
Yawn. Do you have any actual argument against the video, or are you just going to yell desperately about how desperate I am?
boloboffin 4 years ago
I can attack this video ,my mind isn't closed but the mind of OCT defenders is
peterene 4 years ago
Lotsa talking, very little showing the video is wrong.
boloboffin 4 years ago
I never said the video was wrong. But it is a fact that those buildings, all 3 of them were imploded! Time2=distance2/acceleration= 9.2 secs. The towers 10 secs.
C7truth 4 years ago
Do so.
ArmchairRevolution 4 years ago
insider trading + this doubts = enough of argumnets , so bullshit video
peterene 4 years ago
A perfect example of critical thinking. You don't have to examine the actual evidence because your mind is already made up. You can't attack the video on what it's saying, so you close your mind. That's no way to find the truth.
boloboffin 4 years ago
You failed math.
ArmchairRevolution 4 years ago
What a Bullshit video, lets look at Oklahoma bombing...way more damage and it was hit by the force of a fucking huge bomb! Similar if not identical design building...did it fall? Even with over 1/3 of the entire structure missing? Did it fall?...
WTC7 was Controlled Demolition, for a truly unbiased opinion from an EXPERT see the Danny Jowenko interview.
Wyndup 4 years ago
Actually, the Murrah Office Building had a completely different design from 7. It was a more traditional structure (being quite smaller) while 7 was a tube-in-tube design. You are wrong.
Jowenko thinks 1 and 2 were simple collapses; do you agree with him there?
boloboffin 4 years ago
At frames 1:16 - 1:19 that is the Bankers trust building, not tower 7. All lies
Galanttttt 4 years ago
Yes, that's the Banker's Trust building. I don't claim that it's building 7. I'm using it as an example of the spectacular damage caused by the perimeter columns. Quit lying about my video.
boloboffin 4 years ago
way to miss the whole point Galantttttttttt.
all you Ctists are the same. very selective vision, selective hearing, and selective reading, only filtering out what you want to see and hear, and anything, ANYTHING that does not agree with your "version" or totally makes your "version" look like the piece of crap it is, you block it out and call it lies and continue to live in a lala land where up is down, black is white, etc. Is it lonely there? Wait, you got Joe with you!
Bundy133T 4 years ago
Nice job boloboffin.
arkgunslinger 4 years ago
My reply is the same as the one above. I'm dealing with a specific claim, not every single one.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Well, it's not the damage alone that did it. The video is confronting the mistaken idea being advanced that the building had no damage whatsoever. That's the only reason to emphasize that "no plane hit that building."
boloboffin 4 years ago
I admire your tolerence of the stupid people commenting.
googleboughtmee 4 years ago
Response is always a choice. :)
boloboffin 4 years ago
This video completely ignores the fact WTC-7 collapsed from the bottom, in perfect symmetry and at free-fall speed.
The guy also talks to the audience as if they are five years old.
brysie1974 4 years ago
This video is debunking a specific claim, and doesn't need to get into other aspects of the collapse to do that. 7 did initiate collapse from the bottom, but it was NOT in perfect symmetry and it was NOT at free fall speed. You are importing that attitude about my tone.
boloboffin 4 years ago
hit by debrise = 100 % collapse into its foootprint :)
peterene 4 years ago
Debris from the falling 7 hit Fiterman Hall to the north so badly it had to be condemned. Unless 7's footprint was built across a four-lane road, you need to release that illusion.
boloboffin 4 years ago
Controlled Demolition = WTC 7
drcorrector 4 years ago
Hey, we have freedom of religion in this country. Believe what you want.
boloboffin 4 years ago
What a joke!! Why don't you mention WTC 3? Have you seen the pictures? The building was cut in half over 10 floors and it did not collapse!!
Building 5= extensive fire damage and did not collapse. 9/11 Was An Inside Job!!!
drcorrector 4 years ago
How does that deny the clear fact that WTC 7 is hit by debris from WTC 1? Do you understand the argument being presented in the video?
3 and 5 had completely different structures. Neither was anywhere near as tall as 7, so they didn't have the same kind of weight bearing down on those structures. 3 actually collapsed when 1 fell on top of it, and the sections of 5 hit by the debris of 1 did fall.
boloboffin 4 years ago
What a silly video.
peterene 4 years ago
What a silly argument. No, you're silly. No, you. You are. Doink.
OK. Ready to have a grownup conversation now?
boloboffin 4 years ago
WTC7 suffered serious damage from falling debris.
It was leaning before it fell.
Fires burned for six hours.
The FDNY feared it would collapse 2 hours before it did.
No demolition charges were seen or heard.
No seismographs picked up any demo charges.
There still is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it.
What exactly is there still to discuss? "Pull it"???
PoetryHound 4 years ago
LoL! Were you brainwashed by the CIA, or you just cant live with the truth? This video is insulting.
sxxxxv 4 years ago
What a silly comment.
boloboffin 4 years ago
That couldn't be further from the truth
stratocaster539 4 years ago
Oh, the fantasies of David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones are much, much further from the truth than the NIST report. Much.
boloboffin 4 years ago
oh ok. no prob!
Bundy133T 4 years ago
I think that this video is incorrect because 1. No one fillmed the 1st crash because no one was expecting it, all the films of a plane running into the Twin Towers were from the secod attack. So that means the damage from the 1st twin tower collapsing, did not make the other tower fall.
AmandaLikesCZ 4 years ago
There are two videos of Flight 11 heading towards the North Tower, and one of them shows the impact. Your last sentence needs work before I can understand it.
boloboffin 4 years ago
I mean that two planes were involved. One plane hitting each tower. The collaps of the 1st tower did not make the second tower fall, it simply made it weaker but when the second plane hit, it got more dameged and fell.
AmandaLikesCZ 4 years ago
Yes, but this video is about 1 World Trade falling and hitting 7 World Trade.
boloboffin 4 years ago
I know that. BOTH towers were hit by planes.
AmandaLikesCZ 4 years ago
OK.
boloboffin 4 years ago
and missles
Daproblem187 4 years ago