"...myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide."
FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"
HUNDREDS of these witnessed reports DEFYING NATURAL physics.
I dont think it was that shortly before WTC7 collapses, because the firefighters created a collapse zone quite early on as they knew it was going to collapse because of how unstable it seemed.
Notice that all the cars in this clip are missing their door handles, sometimes made of cast iron & sometimes plastic. Look into Directed Energy Weapons & the Hutchison Effect. The unanswered questions of 911 are enough to fill the towers if they were still there. If Osama pulled this off by himself he is a god; it's more likely he was a tool of powers above government.
NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."no steel was recovered from WTC7"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"
-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.
anyone who can't see the twins were exploded to kingdom come is an idiot. AT FREEFALL SPEED?!!!!! And building 7 was done the old fashioned "vegas" style control demo.To go along with the zionist who are robbing us and bombing us to go to war with their enemies is treason. You weak weak cowards.Stop blaming truthers. Truthers are 100% right and you're a coward for not supporting the victims families. Do you know that two zionist judges are stopping anyone who tries get answers through court?
OH good grief people. Cut the melodramatics. It was an inside job. Mossad and Dick Cheney's neocons and rogue military pentagon bastards did it. Stop it with the stupidy and oh worra' worra' worra'!!!
People... This is a video WITH sound! No explosion is heard. Compare to a CD... And the raging fires are clearly seen from the SIDE of the building(not even the front). You can also see that the portion underneath the penthouse falls first and some second after that the rest falls. Just a collapse people. and it's bad enough. Focus on the terrorists. Don't go against your country.
@USAneedsaChange All you boweevers think that to bring a building down you need huge explosives. In C/D they sometimes do use huge explosives as they are much cheaper than Cutting Charges.
No huge explosions if NOT proof that is wasn't brought down with C/D.
You cant use the LACK of evidence as proof. That would be FOOLISH.
@infoseeker264 No it wouldn't. This was a giant building, 47 stories. To take it down you really need massive amounts of explosives and a long time to set it up. None was found and none was heard right in connection to it falling.
If you have seen any video of a CD, you have noticed that almost everyone have had huge explosions before the building collapses. The exceptions are the precut buildings or those pulled with cables.
@USAneedsaChange That is ALL SPECULATION. NIST proved that it only took ONE column to fail and the entire building collapsed.
Its amazing how you believe the official story but cant realize that one small cutting charge could have accomplished the same results. Maybe you don't understand what you actually believe...
In normal C/D the building is EMPTY and everything is REMOVED. there is NO WAY you can compare this with normal C/D.
@infoseeker264 one small cutting? no evidence supports one small cutting so why would anyone believe that was the cause? It had a huge hole and many fires that lasted for hours uncontrollably.
oh, "truthers" are the ones who compare WTC7 to a CD. I say it does NOT look like a CD. and now you say that that is the reason that it is a CD... you believe yourself I bet, but noone else does... Talk about "all speculation"... The damage to WTC7 is fairly well documented.
@USAneedsaChange You don't even know what the official story is - do you? NIST said ONE column failed and the entire building followed. You think that you would have to place explosives all over. You claimed :Massive Amounts". Yet NIST said ONE column failed and the building collapsed. You don't even get it. One cutting charge on the same column could have done the same thing YOU BELIEVE HAPPENED.
I have to ask - have you even read the NIST report? It doesn't sound like it.
@infoseeker264 I have not read the full report, no. I saw parts of the press conference. They didn't know that only this one column had caused the entire building to collapse before the study. So, it's easy for you to say now. Beforehand it wasn't obvious.
Why are you convinced WITHOUT EVIDENCE!? Doesn't make sense at all...
@USAneedsaChange That is what makes it even more strange. NIST released its final report 7 years after the collapse saying it was Totally Unpredictable. Its like the totally ignored the eyewitness accounts.
@infoseeker264 It was unpredictable. It took them a long time to thoroughly investigate this collapse. It wasn't obvious, right off the bat or how you say it. Hm, I have heard several eyewitnesses, firemen for instance and they were not surprised. They had heard the building creak and see it lean on its side and they did not hear explosions. They also saw the fires. I have not heard any explosion in any video with sound.
Yeah, you have nothing and somehow you are convinced you are right?
@USAneedsaChange I never said I was right. I am trying to get to the bottom of this. I have read the reports and NOTHING explains exactly how these 3 towers collapsed. MANY engineers and architects don't understand it either. If you haven't heard the explosions you must be in denial.
I have heard the reports that the building was making noises but many Boweevers have told me much of this was normal fire noises. There are NO pix or video showing the building leaning...
@infoseeker264 I think they tried to understand what made it begin to collapse. After it started, nothing could stop it according to Les E. Robertson, one of those who built the towers. You can actually see beams buckle on the towers(the twins) before the collapse. No, no explosions have been heard as WTC7 falls in any video I've seen(seen many).
Normal fire noises? It was firemen who said they heard it crack, wouldn't they know? They had looked at the building up close too. No, but see south
@USAneedsaChange Look, If you really believe that there were no recorded explosions, YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I am not even going to waste my time with you.
You really need to do your research. By denying these explosions, you make yourself look like a fool.
@infoseeker264 I have looked at 9/11 for at least 5 years now, from both sides. I have seen videos of said explosions at unknown times at unknown locations. I do not know if those have been caused by explosives and of course I don't think so since no evidence support that. but I have heard no explosion sounds in any of the videos showing WTC7 falling down and that is fact. Beware that USA's enemies use these conspiracies against you and/or Jews. Russia and the Muslims love consp. in other words.
@USAneedsaChange You are in DENIAL. There are plenty of videos with sounds of explosions. Even the reporters made comments about SECONDARY explosions. There was MORE than enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the use of explosions.
NIST says that there were no explosions loud enough (130 to 140 db at 1/2 mile) to bring down #7 and you believe it. Not hearing a HUGE explosion is NOT evidence of other (possible smaller) explosions.
@infoseeker264 no there isn't! Explosions do not have to be caused by explosives you know... Yeah, I believe it because I saw videos WITH sound! and heard people(fire fighters for example) who saw the fall and heard no explosions.
First you say that there was a big explosion that I didn't hear. Then that there were smaller ones possibly. I think you just want this to be an inside job so bad... Yeah, you waste my time too. No inside job on 9/11. Move on you too.
@USAneedsaChange Whatever Dude! You are in DENIAL. You must be an idiot if you don't believe there was enough evidence to investigate into the use of explosives. I heard several different explosions. SO DID THE REPORTERS THAT DAY. DENIAL...
You said "Inside job". I NEVER SAID THAT. You boweevers cant get your point across so you twit things around. SO LAME.
I just don't think it was OBL. Like some guy living in a cave could do all this. Yes right. You people are so dam gullible.
@USAneedsaChange Think about it Jimmy. You say it couldn't be explosives because there are no videos of explosions, yet there are no videos of the building creaking or leaning, like the fireman claim, and you believe that.
Are you aware there are just as many firemen that claim they heard EXPLOSIONS and believe explosives brought #7 down?
It seems you only look at the eyewitness accounts that support your side.
What a joke !! How is it that when you see wtc 7 collapse in this vid the sudden smoke bursts (explosions) that come out of the windows on the right side of the bld are not as visible as in all other videos, And even better, it looks like this is the "other videos" so its the same but it has been doctored with!! How pathetic!!! These nist guys are criminally insane!!
The fire dept put a transit on b7 and it had a noticeable leal.You can clearly see the fire and smoke here. b7 was cleared at 3 because it was a lost case, 2 hours and 20 minutes later to no ones suprise
Haha, tool, that is what an explosion that would bring down 47 floors sounds like to you? That kind of proves the point of what people heard that day. That sound was no louder than something falling a couple of floors and wasn't nearly as loud as the sound of falling bodies from the towers, which many people heard, and many people at first thought sounded like explosions. Watch a real demoltion would you, listen to the sounds it makes
@jeffmay1 (1) Angel Rivera FDNY explosions in the Marriott Hotel before either tower fell "when we hit the 19th floor, something horrendous happened. It was like a bomb went off. We thought we were dead. The whole building shook. The brick coming out of -- the door to the hallway into the hotel blew off like somebody had thrown it. It shook all over the place. We were thrown on the floor. We looked inside the lobby after everything calmed down, and everything was collapsed."
Curious that the BBC and CNN both announced on the air that WTC7 had collapsed due to structural weakness caused by fire. Even though it was still standing in the live backround shot. They were working off a script written well in advance, but edited that afternoon when Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania on its way to NYC where it would have crashed into WTC7. When the BBC anchor was questioned about that incident years later, he couldn't remember if he was working on that particular day.
Oh wake up. Even if everything was planned by the gov't, and it was a total inside job, do you really think that the gov't would have to give overseas news media a script to follow so that they could report that a bldg collapsed at 5pm? Would every news outlet not report that the bldg collapsed when it did anyways? Would the report not still be the exact same? You don't have to write a script to tell the media to report a bldg falling when they would obviously report it anyways, use your head.
It's real hard to get around the fact that those buildings were demo ... there is far too much of those buildings that were not damage, yet there was no resistance and the buildings fell in seconds. Buildings design to withstand plane impacts and fire do not come crashing down in seconds.
Those building were tested to withstand an impact from a fully loaded 707 which has four engines ... which holds more fuel ... at 600 mph ... while a 767 only has two engines ... not to mention the fire NEVER got hot enough to damage the steel. Infra-red photos that were taken proves that. Also the fuel burn off in 15 mins after impact ... infra-red photos proved that as well.
Either stop sniffing glue, stop lying, or just learn some basic facts. PICK ONE!
You comments are 100% pure blatant lies. They were not designed to withstand a hit at 600mph and fully loaded with fuel
And for the record. They DID withstand the impact. That is the whole point. They did not topple over when they were hit. They remained standing, saving around 45,000 lives.
Of course the fires were hot enough to damage the steel, what kind of dumb comment is that?
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
"Of course the fires were hot enough to damage the steel"-
really...it's just TOO BAD that there is NO proof of this...
if YOU think there is...POST IT
because you WON'T find it in the NIST report...
There is No evidence of fire and heat being the cause of the INSTANT release of the more than 260 intact vertical steel columns that are left on the impact floors that have an average temp of 250C
"A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph
Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz ,Eric Lipton.
You obviously don't have a clue ... if anyone is making dumb comments it's you ... go back to school and learn basic physics ... perhaps your comments won't be as stupid as this one.
The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building.
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"
-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.
"look from the south side and you'll see fires... You know better than NIST"
ummmm...that WAS NIST
[NCSTAR1A-3.2] "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
I know that FIRE can NOT affect the perimeter vertical support that the facade was ATTACHED to, to CAUSE the free fall ACCELERATED symmetrical total global unified collapse as soon as the kink forms....if there is NO FIRE THERE!
@hgfbob Yes, of course much is not seen from below through the windows, but... You can watch BBC's documentary in the conspiracy files-series called "The third tower" about WTC7. Then you'll see videos from the south side and pictures and interviews with the firemen and others who were there and inspected the building and saw its condition.
Kink... the penthouse fell first showing that that whole part of the building fell first just like NIST says. plus it had a huge hole.
@hgfbob "All conspiracy theories thoughout history, were nothing more than interpretations with the intent to completely re-write history". Hole too small? IT WAS MISSILE OF COURSE!...light poles knocked down? A MISSILE COUDLN'T DO IT, SO THERES A COVER UP!...Little wreckadge? NO PLANE AT ALL YOU MEAN!...Buildings fall in a certain way that is not known to most? A TEAM OBVIOSLY RIGGED IT WITH EXPLOSIVES A WHILE AGO! Larry Silverstens "pull it"? JERKING OFF! WAIT...NO ...CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
@hgfbob I guess the hundreds of fire fighters who knew HOURS in advance that the towers were going to fall due to the fire weakening it based off looking at it and common sense.....were all liars? Was the reporter who predicted the collapse early" psychic", or did officials most likely tell her "the building is going to come down soon" and she misheard it thinking it was in present tense? Are all mainstream scientists who agree with NIST because they are both "in on it"? PARANOID ARE WE!!?
" going to fall due to the fire weakening it based off looking at it and common sense"
lol...post ONE....just one who used their vast experience to determine that fate of the towers since they had NOTHING to go by cause it has NEVER happened before.
Impacts caused less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage to EACH tower, there have been MANY with at least that much initial damage with WORST fires...and NOTHING from HISTORY reflects what we saw occur on 9-11 or since
On December 7, 1941, four US Battleships were sunk in an air attack, never before in history had a US battleship been sunk in an air attack -- and never since has a US Battlehip been sunk in an air attack
It never happened before does not maen it can't happen
@Denierbud11 "you stating there is not evidence is a lie, why do you lie" instead of TELLING, how about showing EVIDENCE of the OFFICIAL claims made. NOT a generalization..."oh it's in there"...the ACTUAL EVIDENCE! "photos" does NOT PROVE the WTC steel FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT "videos" does NOT prove the WTC steel FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT. "witnesses" does NOT prove the WTC steel FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT. where is your EVIDENCE denierPud?
do you expect me to read the investigations to you? the best evidence, is the statement of the NYFD on scene -- the ones that called for the evacuation of the area expecting a collapse
so feel free to prove these brave men were liars and part of the conspiracty that killed their brothers
@hgfbob Plus I mean science concludes that the Titanic was unsinkable by any standard, yet were mislead to believe an iceberg hit it made of fucking water?!.do they think I'm a sheep! The cameras on board the ship had may pictures being taken with them but NOT ONE of the impact or damage? Why weren't the people who said it was unsinkable not fired after it happened? It's quite obvious......CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
If that sounded silly to you, then maybe you should look in the mirror....
@hgfbob “In the magical universe there are no coincidences and there are no accidents. Nothing happens unless someone wills it to happen.” - William S. Burroughs
So , how's weather in that magical universe treating you?
so why don't YOU post something that will HELP solidify your claim.
" NO PLANE AT ALL YOU MEAN"
instead of LYING trying to INSERT claims that DON'T exist..how about PROVING the OFFICIAL CLAIMS....oh..YOU CAN'T...that is why your three post ramble on about NOTHING.
@hgfbob You mean apart from the videos, the photos, and the witness statements? That's all the proof that is needed, is it not? Or would you like me to build you a time machine and take you there personally so you can see the fire for yourself.
'witness statements? That's all the proof that is needed, is it not? '
LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".
yea..like the statements
if the sound IS collapse, and there is a 3 second DELAY in the SOUND reaching them from that distance, then HOW is it PHYSICALLY possible to HEAR it BEFORE they SEE IT impact the lower section to MAKE the SOUND?
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean"
if the sound IS collapse, and there is a 3 second DELAY in the SOUND reaching them from that distance, then HOW is it PHYSICALLY possible to HEAR it BEFORE they SEE IT impact the lower section to MAKE the SOUND?
uhm...THEY already gave their statement.....HUNDREDS of the SAME reporting....YOU just said,[see above], so.....if it's NOT the COLLAPSE making the NOISE because it has NOT impacted the lower section in order to MAKE THE NOISE!!!!
see a little problem here yet?
YOU would just like to IGNORE this and MOVE ON...huh
don't like to focus on physical impossibilities..huh!
'If there is an inconstancy between sight and sound, then go ask THEM about it. "
and I will say AGAIN for the IDIOT impaired.....they ALREADY made a claim of what they SAW and HEARD.
why was it NOT investigated but IGNORED?
it's a common sense statement Missy......why won't YOU touch it
because it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSABLE to HEAR it BEFORE it happens...isn't it....so MAYBE the "NOISE",[explosions], is SOMETHING OTHER than the building collapsing?
'The fire never went out. It was throughout the building."
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
lol..just NOT in the area where it MUST AFFECT ALL the perimeter vertical support that the facade is ATTACHED to for the GLOBAL UNIFIED MEASURED descent *EQUAL* to that of a bowling ball falling through AIR!
@jeffmay NYPD officer Craig Bartmer "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."
For every firefighter claiming that bldg7 shouldn't have fallen, there are hundreds that say they knew for hours that it was going to. There is video of firefighters (while 7 was still standing) saying that the bldg cannot be saved and will collapse. Only conspiracy nuts take the word of 1 over thousands.
According to Captain Michael Currid, Around 11 that morning, Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires in #7...they were TOLD, there would be a collapse
nice comments bob ... the guy obviously is stupid and doesn't have a clue ... each of his comments prove that. No matter how compelling the evidence some people are content being stupid.
The mystery is not the collapse but the manner: at nearly the same instant and at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 25 meters. NIST reported the east and west upper corners of the north facade dropped within a half second, even though 100 meters apart. Free fall for 25 meters means 25 meters of vertical support suddenly removed. Not weakened by fire, suddenly GONE. I believe there are possible explanations other than a CD but the official story is not one of them.
To account for the nearly simultaneous collapse and the 25 meters of free fall it has been suggested that the vertical supports were like "knee joints" that collapsed once bent, like clipping a football player. To account for simultaneous failure it has been suggested that the "knee joints" were linked together such that even one failure would cause the others to fold. Was WTC7 constructed in that way? We deserve a real investigation to answer that and other questions.
@Skeptic121 You clearly showed that you're not an engineer and you don't know what's in the NIST report.
NISTs report is coherent and consistent.
Crackpot delusions of 9/11 Delusioners are neither.
The east penthouse goes; daylight through the top floor windows shows complete collapse of the floors in the area of col. 79 in the NE corner of WTC as NIST describes.
Short delay and the exterior starts to move as the internal collapse propagates east to west.
I did not claim to be an engineer but I do know physics. Why not just explain your point and not say anything about me personally? If I were a boor, I would say I don't think you are a woman, or if you are, you are butch. You might ask how I know from 500 characters and why I care. You would be right. So, why not just make your point or answer one of mine?
@Weirdo10o4 No, the firefighters and police are NOT in on it. Most government workers do as they are told and think as they are told. They don't have the curiosity and the skepticism that many scientists and criminal defense attorneys have and that journalists USED TO have but don't anymore. Believers and skeptics are born, not made.
@Weirdo10o4 NO; listen and learn. Many in military and government do not question the information they receive from authorities. They do and think as they are told but have no idea of the "big picture". If they are told "Don't talk about the construction in the basement of WTC7 the week before 9/11; it was related to national security" they accept the order and the explanation at face value. They do not ask "What were they really doing?" they way other people do.
Basement... a fully occupied office building, none of the workers raises a brow when it collapses. What explosives can you shove in a fire for an hour and expect to work after that?
@Weirdo10o4 The bottom floors of WTC7 were occupied by an electrical facility. The occupants of WTC7 offices had no access to it and no reason to question "electrical workers" going in and out. The "investigation" of WTC7, such as it wasn't, did not report the electrical facility was on fire. My point: evil acts by high government authorities can easily be facilitated by people who do not know the big picture and do not care to find out.
Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
The entire building was engulfed. As you can see here at 0:04. As well as photos. Windsor building took 5, 7 took 7. I say 25% of the building isn't little.
Except those windows are very tough so the fires'd need to be extremely close to break them.
The stairwells that B. Jennings RIP is refering to were demolished during the collapse of the Tower. He was in a windowless stairwell and had no idea why it happened. That is when all the fires started, and he claimed they were very very hot and everywhere
All those uncontrolled major fires in WTC7 just burning up all the det cord wiring for the RDX, or the thermate, or the thermite or the nano-thermite or whatever the 9/11 Delusioners' delusion is.
Fire not only brought down WTC7, it thwarted the evil plans of those "PNAC Neocon" grand conspirators to controlled demolish WTC7 since it burnt up all the det cord wiring so they couldn't fire the charges.
However, never has happend such an incident of this scale. The elements were quite unique. So there aren't any good refrences to other incidents (fire followed by collapsing).
How hard we want it, we'll probably never know what exactly happend. But I always had the feeling that there was something strange going on.
I am very familiar with what happened in the Atherstone fire. The building was made of steel. Conspiracy theorists claim that fire can't weaken steel buildings. Atherstone is evidence that their claim is false (even though it was a warehouse not a skyscraper).
That is comparing cats with cows. The structure is not the same and prob the type of metal used is neither the same.
The only thing you do is take one specific phrase and make an entire case on that phrase.
BTW, WTC3 did indeed also fell. But if you know the place where wtc3 was located, that can't be to hard to believ. It was between WTC1 & WTC2, between the Twin Towers that is. So it's very logical that it was destroyed to.
Google for pics, type "map" & "wtc" and look for yourself.
WTC 5 & WTC 6 were standing between WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7.
But, indeed, WTC7 burned for hours. Indeed WTC7 was hit bad by debris from WTC1. But I can't see what that all proves.
Look, I'm not going to say "it was this" or "it was that". I don't assume anything. In fact, I haven't mentioned any conspiracytheorie or whatever.
I just give other facts than you. I let people look things up and judge for themselves. You, however seem to enjoy to indoctrinate what people ought to be thinking.
That's as maybe, but I was making points aimed at the inside job, conspiracy types who categorically state the flawed claim that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.
Well, I've never seen a large multi-storey building with steel frame and concrete come down after just a fire.
When you have fire there are often other factors who contribute to the result at the end, f i explosions.
WTC7 had the impact of objects from the crashing tower and the longduring fires. Still it remains a good question how it is possible that the building came nicelly down and especially, to the inside.
I haven't heard any good explanation for any theory, believer or non believer.
The fire at the faculty of Architecture TUDelft only caused a collapse of a very small part of the building. The main structure still stood after the fire.
There is a film of it on Youtube. Just search it in YT. Use these words in the searchbar:
LOOKK ITS THE PROOFS ,.,. HATE THE IIDIOTS WHO WONT LETS THE PHYSICS TALK .. so dahm teenbrains .. simple physics and the fire has rage for about 8 hours
FACT: It took WTC7 as long as 13 seconds to totally collapse. From the time the internal floors along with the East penthouse started to fail to the time the North face fell was 13 seconds, far from free fall. And steel building DO collapse from fire, just repeating it does not can't change that fact.
Gee, then how come all the truthers I meets are real idiots? I have yet to meet a smart one. And if you are an engineers, be sure to let your truthers ideas known to prospective employers so they know not to hire you or to only let you handle simple jobs.
Atherstone Warwickshire, steel framed warehouse collapsed during a fire killing four firefighters in 2007, they remained missing for several days whilst the fires still smouldered.
No plane hit the warehouse.
TU Delft Architectural Faculty suffered a collapse of a steel framed section following a fire started by a faulty coffee machine,
firefighters stood back and let it collapse as fire was too difficult to fight.
A steel framed warehouse is constructed totally different then WTC use your noggin. Trusses have further to go for a support beam in the construction of a warehouse compared to the trusses in the construction of the WTC. They are not comparable at all.
It is like comparing thermite to nano-thermite; not the same and do not react the same.
Yeah much less load in the instance of a steel framed warehouse.
WTC 7 was built to straddle a pre existing electrical substation its load was very widely distributed over just a few load bearing members, it was torn into by debris from the twin towers, it burned for seven hours, its upper penthouse collapsed into it causing total loss of structural integrity and it fell.
WTC3 also fell, but you don't hear the loons moaning about that one.
Large fires, small fires, it does not matter. Fire does not cause steel framed buildings to collapse. PERIOD.
If so, all demolition teams would just start the buildings on fire and let nature do her work but they don't because fire does not bring down buildings. They would save a hell of a lot of $ and time.
wouldint if a plane hit a building like jsut make it collapse becuase i mean im not very smart but it seems to me it wouldint make a whole bunch of fires and cars all burnt and all that it would jsut collapsed so thats why i think the goverment put bombs on the planes and flew it into the building =D
as time goes by, similiar post tragedy conspiricies mount. look at all the famous people who died. m. monroe, lady di etc. the conspiracy theory is all a scam to indirectly get u interested. then comes the books blah blah blah. now i heard that jimi hendrix was murdered.
the tales grow taller on down the line!
now lets say it's true, now what? get the picture? move along and accept it
Here's the funny part about all you low-IQ beleive-anything conspiracy duechtards...
If you REALLY REALLY BELEIVED, this was all a grand conspiracy? Ya know what you'd do?
You'd all get a huge fund going, everyone would chip in, including the wealthy goons among you, and you'd raise enough money, to build your own Trade Tower in the desert, buy your own jet, fly it remote into your building, and see what happens.
(But we all know if it fell, then THAT would be a "conspiracy" too lol)
right.. well, wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plan.. that's this vid, yes? .. and in this case easier just to look at history.. hm. nope, no still frame bldg has ever collapsed at near freefall speed due to fire..
WTC7 didn't fall at freefall speed. None of these buildings did.
Before 9/11, a skyscraper on fire didn't collapse, but all the steel portions (what the wtc was made of) of the building did collapse. The only thing remaining was the concrete core (which the wtc towers didnt have).
I said 'near' freefall speed. it was closer to freefall than to any kind of resisted speed... which ALL of these buildings did. do you have any references for steel buildings having collapesed due to fire ? if so please post. I'd like to see that.
So just because "it never happened before" we get to ignore or suspend the laws of physics, is this right??
They fell symmetrically at free fall speed. There's only one way that could happen - the simultaneous failure of ALL load bearing structure all the way down to the bedrock the buildings were built on. That would be so improbable that you would have a better chance of being hit by lightning 5 times & surviving.
as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other'PentHouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
In NISTs updated April 21, 2009, fact sheet, it states:
Q:Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC7?
A:NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
So there has been a slight change between August 2006 and April 2009 from there were no explosives or controlled demolition to the less dogmatic, unlikely.
Wait a min, I knew this was planned from the getgo. You can ask numerous people about 9/11. Right when it happened. Words spurtted out of my mouth. It has been planned. Look for our freedoms and liberties to be limited. Then it happened. I smell a revolution brewing in the USA. Get prepared.
Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
This has been flagged as spam show
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
"...myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide."
FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"
HUNDREDS of these witnessed reports DEFYING NATURAL physics.
hgfbob 3 months ago
your a disgrace saying that didnt happen
scottyrockstheshow 4 months ago in playlist More videos from mindgonehaywire
That's building 7
danp5648 5 months ago
Truthers are fucking idiots. Retarded monkeys are smarter than Truthers
12weasel100 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's the gift that keeps on giving to the war profiteers who are running the country.
73849309378 7 months ago
I thought they evacuated everyone long before it happened?
How did that guy get so close? did he live?
ehealthy222 8 months ago
I dont think it was that shortly before WTC7 collapses, because the firefighters created a collapse zone quite early on as they knew it was going to collapse because of how unstable it seemed.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
i guess its a fake because the collapse of 7 wtc there was 5:41, 20 mins later than the actuall collapse...
domitechture 10 months ago
Notice that all the cars in this clip are missing their door handles, sometimes made of cast iron & sometimes plastic. Look into Directed Energy Weapons & the Hutchison Effect. The unanswered questions of 911 are enough to fill the towers if they were still there. If Osama pulled this off by himself he is a god; it's more likely he was a tool of powers above government.
zzinglish53 11 months ago
NCSTAR1-3 p.iii, 7.7.3..."no steel was recovered from WTC7"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"
-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.
hgfbob 1 year ago
anyone who can't see the twins were exploded to kingdom come is an idiot. AT FREEFALL SPEED?!!!!! And building 7 was done the old fashioned "vegas" style control demo.To go along with the zionist who are robbing us and bombing us to go to war with their enemies is treason. You weak weak cowards.Stop blaming truthers. Truthers are 100% right and you're a coward for not supporting the victims families. Do you know that two zionist judges are stopping anyone who tries get answers through court?
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
OH good grief people. Cut the melodramatics. It was an inside job. Mossad and Dick Cheney's neocons and rogue military pentagon bastards did it. Stop it with the stupidy and oh worra' worra' worra'!!!
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
It didn't look or sound like #7 was going to collapse in this video. How did they all know it was going to collapse? Strange.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
People... This is a video WITH sound! No explosion is heard. Compare to a CD... And the raging fires are clearly seen from the SIDE of the building(not even the front). You can also see that the portion underneath the penthouse falls first and some second after that the rest falls. Just a collapse people. and it's bad enough. Focus on the terrorists. Don't go against your country.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange All you boweevers think that to bring a building down you need huge explosives. In C/D they sometimes do use huge explosives as they are much cheaper than Cutting Charges.
No huge explosions if NOT proof that is wasn't brought down with C/D.
You cant use the LACK of evidence as proof. That would be FOOLISH.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 No it wouldn't. This was a giant building, 47 stories. To take it down you really need massive amounts of explosives and a long time to set it up. None was found and none was heard right in connection to it falling.
If you have seen any video of a CD, you have noticed that almost everyone have had huge explosions before the building collapses. The exceptions are the precut buildings or those pulled with cables.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange That is ALL SPECULATION. NIST proved that it only took ONE column to fail and the entire building collapsed.
Its amazing how you believe the official story but cant realize that one small cutting charge could have accomplished the same results. Maybe you don't understand what you actually believe...
In normal C/D the building is EMPTY and everything is REMOVED. there is NO WAY you can compare this with normal C/D.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 one small cutting? no evidence supports one small cutting so why would anyone believe that was the cause? It had a huge hole and many fires that lasted for hours uncontrollably.
oh, "truthers" are the ones who compare WTC7 to a CD. I say it does NOT look like a CD. and now you say that that is the reason that it is a CD... you believe yourself I bet, but noone else does... Talk about "all speculation"... The damage to WTC7 is fairly well documented.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange You don't even know what the official story is - do you? NIST said ONE column failed and the entire building followed. You think that you would have to place explosives all over. You claimed :Massive Amounts". Yet NIST said ONE column failed and the building collapsed. You don't even get it. One cutting charge on the same column could have done the same thing YOU BELIEVE HAPPENED.
I have to ask - have you even read the NIST report? It doesn't sound like it.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 I have not read the full report, no. I saw parts of the press conference. They didn't know that only this one column had caused the entire building to collapse before the study. So, it's easy for you to say now. Beforehand it wasn't obvious.
Why are you convinced WITHOUT EVIDENCE!? Doesn't make sense at all...
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange That is what makes it even more strange. NIST released its final report 7 years after the collapse saying it was Totally Unpredictable. Its like the totally ignored the eyewitness accounts.
What do you mean Without Evidence?
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 It was unpredictable. It took them a long time to thoroughly investigate this collapse. It wasn't obvious, right off the bat or how you say it. Hm, I have heard several eyewitnesses, firemen for instance and they were not surprised. They had heard the building creak and see it lean on its side and they did not hear explosions. They also saw the fires. I have not heard any explosion in any video with sound.
Yeah, you have nothing and somehow you are convinced you are right?
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange I never said I was right. I am trying to get to the bottom of this. I have read the reports and NOTHING explains exactly how these 3 towers collapsed. MANY engineers and architects don't understand it either. If you haven't heard the explosions you must be in denial.
I have heard the reports that the building was making noises but many Boweevers have told me much of this was normal fire noises. There are NO pix or video showing the building leaning...
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 I think they tried to understand what made it begin to collapse. After it started, nothing could stop it according to Les E. Robertson, one of those who built the towers. You can actually see beams buckle on the towers(the twins) before the collapse. No, no explosions have been heard as WTC7 falls in any video I've seen(seen many).
Normal fire noises? It was firemen who said they heard it crack, wouldn't they know? They had looked at the building up close too. No, but see south
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange Look, If you really believe that there were no recorded explosions, YOU ARE IN DENIAL. I am not even going to waste my time with you.
You really need to do your research. By denying these explosions, you make yourself look like a fool.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 I have looked at 9/11 for at least 5 years now, from both sides. I have seen videos of said explosions at unknown times at unknown locations. I do not know if those have been caused by explosives and of course I don't think so since no evidence support that. but I have heard no explosion sounds in any of the videos showing WTC7 falling down and that is fact. Beware that USA's enemies use these conspiracies against you and/or Jews. Russia and the Muslims love consp. in other words.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange You are in DENIAL. There are plenty of videos with sounds of explosions. Even the reporters made comments about SECONDARY explosions. There was MORE than enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the use of explosions.
NIST says that there were no explosions loud enough (130 to 140 db at 1/2 mile) to bring down #7 and you believe it. Not hearing a HUGE explosion is NOT evidence of other (possible smaller) explosions.
Please don't waste any more of my time. MOVE ON.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 no there isn't! Explosions do not have to be caused by explosives you know... Yeah, I believe it because I saw videos WITH sound! and heard people(fire fighters for example) who saw the fall and heard no explosions.
First you say that there was a big explosion that I didn't hear. Then that there were smaller ones possibly. I think you just want this to be an inside job so bad... Yeah, you waste my time too. No inside job on 9/11. Move on you too.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange Whatever Dude! You are in DENIAL. You must be an idiot if you don't believe there was enough evidence to investigate into the use of explosives. I heard several different explosions. SO DID THE REPORTERS THAT DAY. DENIAL...
You said "Inside job". I NEVER SAID THAT. You boweevers cant get your point across so you twit things around. SO LAME.
I just don't think it was OBL. Like some guy living in a cave could do all this. Yes right. You people are so dam gullible.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange Think about it Jimmy. You say it couldn't be explosives because there are no videos of explosions, yet there are no videos of the building creaking or leaning, like the fireman claim, and you believe that.
Are you aware there are just as many firemen that claim they heard EXPLOSIONS and believe explosives brought #7 down?
It seems you only look at the eyewitness accounts that support your side.
Jimmy, you really need to do your research.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
What a joke !! How is it that when you see wtc 7 collapse in this vid the sudden smoke bursts (explosions) that come out of the windows on the right side of the bld are not as visible as in all other videos, And even better, it looks like this is the "other videos" so its the same but it has been doctored with!! How pathetic!!! These nist guys are criminally insane!!
aburgheim 1 year ago
What you are looking at is computer imagery. This clip (as many others featuring WTC7) are analyzed here:
WTC7 STUDY
watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg
simonshack 1 year ago
look up verinage
timtak1 1 year ago
Was the destroyed bus an MTA express bus?
Bjorge861 1 year ago
Pyroclastic flow results at 1.22 MIN , no naturally pancake collapse can cause this.
9/11 was a controlled demoltion Walhalla.
Everyone with common sense knows this.
oegromov 1 year ago
A! arrest the emperor for
INDECENT EXPOSURE!
Charlie666XZ 1 year ago 2
The fire dept put a transit on b7 and it had a noticeable leal.You can clearly see the fire and smoke here. b7 was cleared at 3 because it was a lost case, 2 hours and 20 minutes later to no ones suprise
Obelisk2290 1 year ago
Around :58 seconds you can hear what sounded like a small explosion as this tool is talking.
geo8270 2 years ago
Haha, tool, that is what an explosion that would bring down 47 floors sounds like to you? That kind of proves the point of what people heard that day. That sound was no louder than something falling a couple of floors and wasn't nearly as loud as the sound of falling bodies from the towers, which many people heard, and many people at first thought sounded like explosions. Watch a real demoltion would you, listen to the sounds it makes
jeffmay1 2 years ago 2
(2)Angel Rivera FDNY
"The building was still shaking and
we're still hearing explosions going on everywhere, so we decided let's get out of here. We
ran all the way down to the fourth floor where we
ran out of stairs. There were no more stairs.
We were all like -- we could have been
over here. What happened, we looked out of the
window of the hotel, the wall, practically,
because the window was all blown up. There was
no way out. The only way out was the roof rope."
hgfbob 2 years ago
hgfbob 2 years ago
BUILDING ( 7 ) HOW ???
465160 2 years ago
Curious that the BBC and CNN both announced on the air that WTC7 had collapsed due to structural weakness caused by fire. Even though it was still standing in the live backround shot. They were working off a script written well in advance, but edited that afternoon when Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania on its way to NYC where it would have crashed into WTC7. When the BBC anchor was questioned about that incident years later, he couldn't remember if he was working on that particular day.
TheMiguelGrande 2 years ago
Oh wake up. Even if everything was planned by the gov't, and it was a total inside job, do you really think that the gov't would have to give overseas news media a script to follow so that they could report that a bldg collapsed at 5pm? Would every news outlet not report that the bldg collapsed when it did anyways? Would the report not still be the exact same? You don't have to write a script to tell the media to report a bldg falling when they would obviously report it anyways, use your head.
jeffmay1 2 years ago 2
Was there a voiceover at the end? Was the last sentence put in at a later time? The woman sounds so unaffected,,so unemotional:
"The collapse of World Trade Center Number 7."
EarthaKit2 2 years ago
It's real hard to get around the fact that those buildings were demo ... there is far too much of those buildings that were not damage, yet there was no resistance and the buildings fell in seconds. Buildings design to withstand plane impacts and fire do not come crashing down in seconds.
Didn't happen before 911 ... hasn't happen after.
spirittoo 2 years ago
That is 100% correct!!! There have been no bldgs hit by 757's at 500mph with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel before or after 9/11. Well stated
jeffmay1 2 years ago
Those building were tested to withstand an impact from a fully loaded 707 which has four engines ... which holds more fuel ... at 600 mph ... while a 767 only has two engines ... not to mention the fire NEVER got hot enough to damage the steel. Infra-red photos that were taken proves that. Also the fuel burn off in 15 mins after impact ... infra-red photos proved that as well.
spirittoo 2 years ago
Either stop sniffing glue, stop lying, or just learn some basic facts. PICK ONE!
You comments are 100% pure blatant lies. They were not designed to withstand a hit at 600mph and fully loaded with fuel
And for the record. They DID withstand the impact. That is the whole point. They did not topple over when they were hit. They remained standing, saving around 45,000 lives.
Of course the fires were hot enough to damage the steel, what kind of dumb comment is that?
jeffmay1 2 years ago
@jeffmay1
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
-- John Skilling, from City in the Sky p. 131
hgfbob 2 years ago
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
seattletimes. nwsource. com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
hgfbob 2 years ago
@jeffmay1
"Of course the fires were hot enough to damage the steel"-
really...it's just TOO BAD that there is NO proof of this...
if YOU think there is...POST IT
because you WON'T find it in the NIST report...
There is No evidence of fire and heat being the cause of the INSTANT release of the more than 260 intact vertical steel columns that are left on the impact floors that have an average temp of 250C
hgfbob 2 years ago
Infrred photos proved it wasn't hot enough
"A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph
Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. City in the Sky The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz ,Eric Lipton.
spirittoo 2 years ago
You obviously don't have a clue ... if anyone is making dumb comments it's you ... go back to school and learn basic physics ... perhaps your comments won't be as stupid as this one.
spirittoo 1 year ago
@jeffmay1
Captain Karin Deshore
explosions minutes before collapse
The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building.
hgfbob 2 years ago
It's a shame that not one single video out of the hundreds available actually show that. It is proven that, that is not the case
jeffmay1 1 year ago
@jeffmay1
so YOU say ALL these FDNY are...lairs?
Here is an FDNT talking last month at a Conference
Fire Fighters stand up and join. No longer silent, while
the pieces of their fellow NY Fire Dept. firefighters lay buried in the landfill without dignity or proper burial
watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I
does it make you feel accomplished to give these FDNY testimonies I posted ...a 'thumbs' down?
if one was really interested, they would follow the link below to the 503 transcripts and read for yourself
hgfbob 1 year ago
@jeffmay1
"It's a shame that not one single video out of the hundreds available actually show"-
....oh...I know......an ACTUAL total global collapse causing INFERNO in WTC7
HOW does a 47 story steel framed building..evenly, globally descend, as fast as an object falls...through the AIR
from FIRE that can NOT be seen from the windows.
what agent affects EVERY perimeter vertical support that the facade is attached to..for the INSTANT, even, global release
hgfbob 1 year ago 6
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"
-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.
hgfbob 1 year ago
@hgfbob look from the south side and you'll see fires... You know better than NIST?
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange
"look from the south side and you'll see fires... You know better than NIST"
ummmm...that WAS NIST
[NCSTAR1A-3.2] "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
I know that FIRE can NOT affect the perimeter vertical support that the facade was ATTACHED to, to CAUSE the free fall ACCELERATED symmetrical total global unified collapse as soon as the kink forms....if there is NO FIRE THERE!
so.....what DID!
hgfbob 1 year ago
@hgfbob Yes, of course much is not seen from below through the windows, but... You can watch BBC's documentary in the conspiracy files-series called "The third tower" about WTC7. Then you'll see videos from the south side and pictures and interviews with the firemen and others who were there and inspected the building and saw its condition.
Kink... the penthouse fell first showing that that whole part of the building fell first just like NIST says. plus it had a huge hole.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange
"of course much is not seen"
like it's EXPECTED...what fuckin planet are you on?
if NO FIRE is there to affect the VERTICAL support that the facade is ATTACHED to, then some other agent did.
This is what Shyam Sunder of NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, at around three min into the vid.posted below.
"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"
watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=channel_page
hmm..NOTHING BELOW!
hgfbob 1 year ago
@hgfbob "All conspiracy theories thoughout history, were nothing more than interpretations with the intent to completely re-write history". Hole too small? IT WAS MISSILE OF COURSE!...light poles knocked down? A MISSILE COUDLN'T DO IT, SO THERES A COVER UP!...Little wreckadge? NO PLANE AT ALL YOU MEAN!...Buildings fall in a certain way that is not known to most? A TEAM OBVIOSLY RIGGED IT WITH EXPLOSIVES A WHILE AGO! Larry Silverstens "pull it"? JERKING OFF! WAIT...NO ...CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@hgfbob I guess the hundreds of fire fighters who knew HOURS in advance that the towers were going to fall due to the fire weakening it based off looking at it and common sense.....were all liars? Was the reporter who predicted the collapse early" psychic", or did officials most likely tell her "the building is going to come down soon" and she misheard it thinking it was in present tense? Are all mainstream scientists who agree with NIST because they are both "in on it"? PARANOID ARE WE!!?
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@kushsmokkeralt
" going to fall due to the fire weakening it based off looking at it and common sense"
lol...post ONE....just one who used their vast experience to determine that fate of the towers since they had NOTHING to go by cause it has NEVER happened before.
Impacts caused less than 15% localized asymmetrical damage to EACH tower, there have been MANY with at least that much initial damage with WORST fires...and NOTHING from HISTORY reflects what we saw occur on 9-11 or since
hgfbob 8 months ago
@hgfbob
On December 7, 1941, four US Battleships were sunk in an air attack, never before in history had a US battleship been sunk in an air attack -- and never since has a US Battlehip been sunk in an air attack
It never happened before does not maen it can't happen
Denierbud11 4 months ago
@Denierbud11
"been sunk in an air attack "
because of BOMBS!!!
'never happened before does not mean it can't happen"
actually in THIS case it does.
was there EVIDENCE of those attacks--and those ships were sunk..
well...there is NO EVIDENCE of what is HYPOTHESIZES as the OFFICIAL STORY.
NO WTC steel examined that FAILED from the FIRES PRESENT, so they HYPOTHESIZE it did
however they REFUSE to release 68,00+ input and results from their collapse models.
think there is EVIDENCE--go look
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob you stating there is not evidence is a lie, why do you lie?
there is actualy more evidence for 9/11 then Pearl Harbor
more photos, more videos, more witnesses
Denierbud11 4 months ago
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob
do you expect me to read the investigations to you? the best evidence, is the statement of the NYFD on scene -- the ones that called for the evacuation of the area expecting a collapse
so feel free to prove these brave men were liars and part of the conspiracty that killed their brothers
Denierbud11 4 months ago
@Denierbud11
'the best evidence, is the statement of the NYFD'
absolutely!!
LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".
specially the 118 that gave testimony to HEARING the BLASTS to LOOK UP to SEE the START of collapse BEFORE it falls.
if the sound IS collapse HOW can they SEE it AFTER the 3 second DELAY it takes SOUND to reach them?
you calling them LIARS
hgfbob 4 months ago
@hgfbob So... you're trolling this video too?
Clarrisani 3 months ago
Comment removed
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hgfbob Plus I mean science concludes that the Titanic was unsinkable by any standard, yet were mislead to believe an iceberg hit it made of fucking water?!.do they think I'm a sheep! The cameras on board the ship had may pictures being taken with them but NOT ONE of the impact or damage? Why weren't the people who said it was unsinkable not fired after it happened? It's quite obvious......CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
If that sounded silly to you, then maybe you should look in the mirror....
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@hgfbob “In the magical universe there are no coincidences and there are no accidents. Nothing happens unless someone wills it to happen.” - William S. Burroughs
So , how's weather in that magical universe treating you?
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@kushsmokkeralt
"how's weather in that magical universe"
so why don't YOU post something that will HELP solidify your claim.
" NO PLANE AT ALL YOU MEAN"
instead of LYING trying to INSERT claims that DON'T exist..how about PROVING the OFFICIAL CLAIMS....oh..YOU CAN'T...that is why your three post ramble on about NOTHING.
hgfbob 8 months ago
@hgfbob "from FIRE that can NOT be seen from the windows."
Except for the fire that was. Such as the flames seen streaming out of the windows in THIS video.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani
"Such as the flames seen streaming out of the windows in THIS video."
for about 15 to 20 minutes BEFORE it WENT OUT!!!
That might amaze some, till they FIND OUT that it's ALL YOU HAVE!!! lol
and what I posted, which YOU seem to CUT OFF the author, was from the OFFICIAL REPORT,[NIST], of the collapses.
[NCSTAR1A-3.2] "It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
NO fire to GLOBALLY UNIFORMLY affect EVERY support for the INSTANT GLOBAL release
hgfbob 3 months ago
@hgfbob The fire never went out. It was throughout the building. Try again, troll.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani
"The fire never went out. It was throughout the building. Try again, troll.'
seems that is something that YOU NEED TO PROVE since there is NO EVIDENCE to support that claim...not me to DISPROVE it....lol
that is NOT the way it works sweetie!
hgfbob 3 months ago
@hgfbob You mean apart from the videos, the photos, and the witness statements? That's all the proof that is needed, is it not? Or would you like me to build you a time machine and take you there personally so you can see the fire for yourself.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani
'witness statements? That's all the proof that is needed, is it not? '
LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".
yea..like the statements
if the sound IS collapse, and there is a 3 second DELAY in the SOUND reaching them from that distance, then HOW is it PHYSICALLY possible to HEAR it BEFORE they SEE IT impact the lower section to MAKE the SOUND?
hgfbob 3 months ago
@hgfbob "heard the explosion" does not mean explosives. As for the sound delay - go and ask THEM.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
@Clarrisani
'"heard the explosion" does not mean explosives"
THAT is NOT what I asked SHILL asshole!
LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean"
if the sound IS collapse, and there is a 3 second DELAY in the SOUND reaching them from that distance, then HOW is it PHYSICALLY possible to HEAR it BEFORE they SEE IT impact the lower section to MAKE the SOUND?
hgfbob 3 months ago
@Clarrisani
"As for the sound delay - go and ask THEM."
uhm...THEY already gave their statement.....HUNDREDS of the SAME reporting....YOU just said,[see above], so.....if it's NOT the COLLAPSE making the NOISE because it has NOT impacted the lower section in order to MAKE THE NOISE!!!!
see a little problem here yet?
YOU would just like to IGNORE this and MOVE ON...huh
don't like to focus on physical impossibilities..huh!
seems the day of 9-11 was FULL of them...huh
coming to an end though
hgfbob 3 months ago
@hgfbob You're asking me to answer something only they would know. If there is an inconstancy between sight and sound, then go ask THEM about it.
Clarrisani 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Clarrisani
'If there is an inconstancy between sight and sound, then go ask THEM about it. "
and I will say AGAIN for the IDIOT impaired.....they ALREADY made a claim of what they SAW and HEARD.
why was it NOT investigated but IGNORED?
it's a common sense statement Missy......why won't YOU touch it
because it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSABLE to HEAR it BEFORE it happens...isn't it....so MAYBE the "NOISE",[explosions], is SOMETHING OTHER than the building collapsing?
hgfbob 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Clarrisani
'The fire never went out. It was throughout the building."
[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"
lol..just NOT in the area where it MUST AFFECT ALL the perimeter vertical support that the facade is ATTACHED to for the GLOBAL UNIFIED MEASURED descent *EQUAL* to that of a bowling ball falling through AIR!
hgfbob 3 months ago
@jeffmay NYPD officer Craig Bartmer "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."
hgfbob 1 year ago
For every firefighter claiming that bldg7 shouldn't have fallen, there are hundreds that say they knew for hours that it was going to. There is video of firefighters (while 7 was still standing) saying that the bldg cannot be saved and will collapse. Only conspiracy nuts take the word of 1 over thousands.
jeffmay1 1 year ago
@jeffmay1
hey IDIOT
According to Captain Michael Currid, Around 11 that morning, Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires in #7...they were TOLD, there would be a collapse
fireengineering. com/articles/article_display. html?id=158382
hgfbob 1 year ago
@jeffmay1
hey asshole...here is an FDNY spokesman speaking out...AGAINST the 'official HYPOTHESIS'
HUNDREDS of witnesses to EXPLOSIONS going off BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the towers fell...
Fire Fighters to stand up and join. No longer silent, while
the pieces of their fellow NY Fire Dept. firefighters lay buried in the landfill without dignity or proper burial
watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I
BTW...ONLY a structural engineer can make a determination of a buildings stability....NOT a fireman
hgfbob 1 year ago
nice comments bob ... the guy obviously is stupid and doesn't have a clue ... each of his comments prove that. No matter how compelling the evidence some people are content being stupid.
spirittoo 1 year ago
@hgfbob
are you a structural engineer bobby?
A firefighter would have a better judgement call if a building is going to collapse then highschool bobby
taledarkside 1 year ago
The mystery is not the collapse but the manner: at nearly the same instant and at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 25 meters. NIST reported the east and west upper corners of the north facade dropped within a half second, even though 100 meters apart. Free fall for 25 meters means 25 meters of vertical support suddenly removed. Not weakened by fire, suddenly GONE. I believe there are possible explanations other than a CD but the official story is not one of them.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
To account for the nearly simultaneous collapse and the 25 meters of free fall it has been suggested that the vertical supports were like "knee joints" that collapsed once bent, like clipping a football player. To account for simultaneous failure it has been suggested that the "knee joints" were linked together such that even one failure would cause the others to fold. Was WTC7 constructed in that way? We deserve a real investigation to answer that and other questions.
Skeptic121 2 years ago 2
@Skeptic121 You clearly showed that you're not an engineer and you don't know what's in the NIST report.
NISTs report is coherent and consistent.
Crackpot delusions of 9/11 Delusioners are neither.
The east penthouse goes; daylight through the top floor windows shows complete collapse of the floors in the area of col. 79 in the NE corner of WTC as NIST describes.
Short delay and the exterior starts to move as the internal collapse propagates east to west.
No sound of explosives. NO CD.
averageworkinggal 2 years ago
@averageworkinggal
I did not claim to be an engineer but I do know physics. Why not just explain your point and not say anything about me personally? If I were a boor, I would say I don't think you are a woman, or if you are, you are butch. You might ask how I know from 500 characters and why I care. You would be right. So, why not just make your point or answer one of mine?
Skeptic121 2 years ago 5
Saying the firefighters are in on it?
/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 No, the firefighters and police are NOT in on it. Most government workers do as they are told and think as they are told. They don't have the curiosity and the skepticism that many scientists and criminal defense attorneys have and that journalists USED TO have but don't anymore. Believers and skeptics are born, not made.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
So if you'd work in the government you'd participate in the murder of 3,000 people just because you're told to do so.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 NO; listen and learn. Many in military and government do not question the information they receive from authorities. They do and think as they are told but have no idea of the "big picture". If they are told "Don't talk about the construction in the basement of WTC7 the week before 9/11; it was related to national security" they accept the order and the explanation at face value. They do not ask "What were they really doing?" they way other people do.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Basement... a fully occupied office building, none of the workers raises a brow when it collapses. What explosives can you shove in a fire for an hour and expect to work after that?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 The bottom floors of WTC7 were occupied by an electrical facility. The occupants of WTC7 offices had no access to it and no reason to question "electrical workers" going in and out. The "investigation" of WTC7, such as it wasn't, did not report the electrical facility was on fire. My point: evil acts by high government authorities can easily be facilitated by people who do not know the big picture and do not care to find out.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Conjecture.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 Sure, it is conjecture. Some of us rather enjoy it. We call it curiosity" or just "thinking". We don't ask permission.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Well it's useless without evidence.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4
"useless without evidence"
kind of like the NIST Hypothesis's
what..PHYSICAL evidence do they have to back it up?
hgfbob 2 years ago
Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4
who is talking about the towers...and where the hell did my comment go? {:-o
hgfbob 2 years ago
7, well the firemen knew it was going to collapse, with the buiding creaking and deforming.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
wasen't from the SPOT fires present, nor the little damage the tower debris caused
hgfbob 2 years ago
The entire building was engulfed. As you can see here at 0:04. As well as photos. Windsor building took 5, 7 took 7. I say 25% of the building isn't little.
Except those windows are very tough so the fires'd need to be extremely close to break them.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
lol...your down to just ..typing anything now.....right
do YOU understand what..."engulfed"....means?
obviously not...so....needless to say, that YOUR 'photo's', will show pretty much the same
what you DO see, is a perfect shot that BACKS up B.Jennings claim of floors 6&7 exploding
BLASTING out those 2 floors, and LEAVING the floors ABOVE and BELOW...untouched
hgfbob 2 years ago
The stairwells that B. Jennings RIP is refering to were demolished during the collapse of the Tower. He was in a windowless stairwell and had no idea why it happened. That is when all the fires started, and he claimed they were very very hot and everywhere
jeffmay1 2 years ago
@jeffmay1
"B. Jennings"-
-you really need to learn...COMPREHENSION
that is NOT what B.Jennings claims, and is VERY CLEAR of the time line
he and Hess were trapped BEFORE the towers fell
just like in WTC3..the first 3 flights of stairs BLEW UP, trapping FDNY on the 4th floor...BEFORE the towers fell
as is stated in the FDNY testimony
FDNY A Rivera
graphics8. nytimes. com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01. html?scp=2&sq=FDNY9-11transcripts&st=cse
hgfbob 2 years ago
lol....well...if YOU have to be right about something....might as well be spelling....
oop's my mistake... THAT'S "spell-check"
hgfbob 2 years ago
Here's another fire-induced collapse
watch?v=ZaK5YVVaRCo&NR=1
at the former Faculty of Architecture Building, Delft University of Technology, in Holland.
iamgoddard 2 years ago
All those uncontrolled major fires in WTC7 just burning up all the det cord wiring for the RDX, or the thermate, or the thermite or the nano-thermite or whatever the 9/11 Delusioners' delusion is.
Fire not only brought down WTC7, it thwarted the evil plans of those "PNAC Neocon" grand conspirators to controlled demolish WTC7 since it burnt up all the det cord wiring so they couldn't fire the charges.
averageworkinggal 2 years ago
so much footage (video) of the raging fires at wtc 7 i can hardly believe it. my cup doeth runneth over.
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
So let's see, a WTC 7 video on youtube. Have all the truthers shown up to gloat about their stupidity and ignorance in the comments? Yep!
God damn these people are morons.
SSHitMan 2 years ago
However, never has happend such an incident of this scale. The elements were quite unique. So there aren't any good refrences to other incidents (fire followed by collapsing).
How hard we want it, we'll probably never know what exactly happend. But I always had the feeling that there was something strange going on.
fonzarellio 2 years ago
The fire at the Atherstone Warwickshire warehouse is also not comparable. Like Manwello15 posted, it is a complete different building.
Google for pictures and type:
Atherstone Warwickshire fire collapse
Look at the pictures and judge for yourself.
fonzarellio 2 years ago
I am very familiar with what happened in the Atherstone fire. The building was made of steel. Conspiracy theorists claim that fire can't weaken steel buildings. Atherstone is evidence that their claim is false (even though it was a warehouse not a skyscraper).
fulcrumpete 2 years ago
That is comparing cats with cows. The structure is not the same and prob the type of metal used is neither the same.
The only thing you do is take one specific phrase and make an entire case on that phrase.
BTW, WTC3 did indeed also fell. But if you know the place where wtc3 was located, that can't be to hard to believ. It was between WTC1 & WTC2, between the Twin Towers that is. So it's very logical that it was destroyed to.
Google for pics, type "map" & "wtc" and look for yourself.
fonzarellio 2 years ago
WTC 7 was in the shadow of WTC 1.
It was hit by debris from WTC 1. It caught fire, burned for seven hours, lost structural integrity and collapsed.
You assume I haven't done my research. You are wrong.
fulcrumpete 2 years ago
WTC 5 & WTC 6 were standing between WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7.
But, indeed, WTC7 burned for hours. Indeed WTC7 was hit bad by debris from WTC1. But I can't see what that all proves.
Look, I'm not going to say "it was this" or "it was that". I don't assume anything. In fact, I haven't mentioned any conspiracytheorie or whatever.
I just give other facts than you. I let people look things up and judge for themselves. You, however seem to enjoy to indoctrinate what people ought to be thinking.
fonzarellio 2 years ago
That's as maybe, but I was making points aimed at the inside job, conspiracy types who categorically state the flawed claim that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.
fulcrumpete 2 years ago
Well, I've never seen a large multi-storey building with steel frame and concrete come down after just a fire.
When you have fire there are often other factors who contribute to the result at the end, f i explosions.
WTC7 had the impact of objects from the crashing tower and the longduring fires. Still it remains a good question how it is possible that the building came nicelly down and especially, to the inside.
I haven't heard any good explanation for any theory, believer or non believer.
fonzarellio 2 years ago
The fire at the faculty of Architecture TUDelft only caused a collapse of a very small part of the building. The main structure still stood after the fire.
There is a film of it on Youtube. Just search it in YT. Use these words in the searchbar:
fire faculty TUDelft
Look it up, see it and judge for yourself.
fonzarellio 2 years ago
LOOKK ITS THE PROOFS ,.,. HATE THE IIDIOTS WHO WONT LETS THE PHYSICS TALK .. so dahm teenbrains .. simple physics and the fire has rage for about 8 hours
tonystealth 2 years ago
FACT: It took WTC7 as long as 13 seconds to totally collapse. From the time the internal floors along with the East penthouse started to fail to the time the North face fell was 13 seconds, far from free fall. And steel building DO collapse from fire, just repeating it does not can't change that fact.
motorartist 2 years ago
That's the Naday brothers video clip of WTC 7 with background sound added.
MrSammo1 2 years ago
Who is that reporter?
'Maybe in..in.. there's a chance it could collapse'
Another amazingly pyschic reporter.
Who is he?
GravityBoy72 2 years ago
Gee, then how come all the truthers I meets are real idiots? I have yet to meet a smart one. And if you are an engineers, be sure to let your truthers ideas known to prospective employers so they know not to hire you or to only let you handle simple jobs.
motorartist 2 years ago
Atherstone Warwickshire, steel framed warehouse collapsed during a fire killing four firefighters in 2007, they remained missing for several days whilst the fires still smouldered.
No plane hit the warehouse.
TU Delft Architectural Faculty suffered a collapse of a steel framed section following a fire started by a faulty coffee machine,
firefighters stood back and let it collapse as fire was too difficult to fight.
fulcrumpete 2 years ago
A steel framed warehouse is constructed totally different then WTC use your noggin. Trusses have further to go for a support beam in the construction of a warehouse compared to the trusses in the construction of the WTC. They are not comparable at all.
It is like comparing thermite to nano-thermite; not the same and do not react the same.
manwello15 2 years ago
Yeah much less load in the instance of a steel framed warehouse.
WTC 7 was built to straddle a pre existing electrical substation its load was very widely distributed over just a few load bearing members, it was torn into by debris from the twin towers, it burned for seven hours, its upper penthouse collapsed into it causing total loss of structural integrity and it fell.
WTC3 also fell, but you don't hear the loons moaning about that one.
fulcrumpete 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this.
It puts the lie...again..to the truther fantasy that there were only small fires in WTC 7.
FDNY thought 7 was coming down, and prepared for it. They were there on the day, they could see what was happening.
Case closed.
alienentity 2 years ago
Large fires, small fires, it does not matter. Fire does not cause steel framed buildings to collapse. PERIOD.
If so, all demolition teams would just start the buildings on fire and let nature do her work but they don't because fire does not bring down buildings. They would save a hell of a lot of $ and time.
Fools.
manwello15 2 years ago
Unfortunately you are factually incorrect. See the post by
fulcrumpete below for starters...
LOTS of steel framed buildings have partially OR totally collapsed.
Why do you think they put fire protection (by code) on steel? Use your noggin.
alienentity 2 years ago
Lol.
Controlled Fire Demolition.
How do you prepose they control the fire so the building collapses how they want?
idb87 2 years ago
wouldint if a plane hit a building like jsut make it collapse becuase i mean im not very smart but it seems to me it wouldint make a whole bunch of fires and cars all burnt and all that it would jsut collapsed so thats why i think the goverment put bombs on the planes and flew it into the building =D
HalfCAB969 2 years ago
you REALLY havent seen much burning petrol or fires in general have you?
you REALLY think hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel wouldnt have started fires exactly as it did?
get a life
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
as time goes by, similiar post tragedy conspiricies mount. look at all the famous people who died. m. monroe, lady di etc. the conspiracy theory is all a scam to indirectly get u interested. then comes the books blah blah blah. now i heard that jimi hendrix was murdered.
the tales grow taller on down the line!
now lets say it's true, now what? get the picture? move along and accept it
ronaldreika 2 years ago
Here's the funny part about all you low-IQ beleive-anything conspiracy duechtards...
If you REALLY REALLY BELEIVED, this was all a grand conspiracy? Ya know what you'd do?
You'd all get a huge fund going, everyone would chip in, including the wealthy goons among you, and you'd raise enough money, to build your own Trade Tower in the desert, buy your own jet, fly it remote into your building, and see what happens.
(But we all know if it fell, then THAT would be a "conspiracy" too lol)
slitheringinterstate 2 years ago
right.. well, wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plan.. that's this vid, yes? .. and in this case easier just to look at history.. hm. nope, no still frame bldg has ever collapsed at near freefall speed due to fire..
gee100 2 years ago
WTC7 didn't fall at freefall speed. None of these buildings did.
Before 9/11, a skyscraper on fire didn't collapse, but all the steel portions (what the wtc was made of) of the building did collapse. The only thing remaining was the concrete core (which the wtc towers didnt have).
myguitarsucks 2 years ago
I said 'near' freefall speed. it was closer to freefall than to any kind of resisted speed... which ALL of these buildings did. do you have any references for steel buildings having collapesed due to fire ? if so please post. I'd like to see that.
gee100 2 years ago
So just because "it never happened before" we get to ignore or suspend the laws of physics, is this right??
They fell symmetrically at free fall speed. There's only one way that could happen - the simultaneous failure of ALL load bearing structure all the way down to the bedrock the buildings were built on. That would be so improbable that you would have a better chance of being hit by lightning 5 times & surviving.
InquiringMind63 2 years ago
Obviously you are not well versed in physics,
motorartist 2 years ago
Obviously neither are you.
manwello15 2 years ago
Wow, hostile.
Nice sentence structure by the way. How ironic, you tell me to use my mind.
It is not my fault you cannot think for yourself. Your probably one of those fools who think Osama did 9/11 huh?
You use your brain for once and read a book.
manwello15 2 years ago
as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other'PentHouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.
hgfbob 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In NISTs updated April 21, 2009, fact sheet, it states:
Q:Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC7?
A:NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
So there has been a slight change between August 2006 and April 2009 from there were no explosives or controlled demolition to the less dogmatic, unlikely.
earthfiles. com/news.php?ID=1555&category=Science
hgfbob 2 years ago
Wait a min, I knew this was planned from the getgo. You can ask numerous people about 9/11. Right when it happened. Words spurtted out of my mouth. It has been planned. Look for our freedoms and liberties to be limited. Then it happened. I smell a revolution brewing in the USA. Get prepared.
stoneofrefuge 2 years ago
its just amazing that retarded 911 twoofers say there were only small fires in wtc7.
911TRUTHINATOR 2 years ago
Ive seen evidence that this video was fake.
Quintos 2 years ago
really Quintos? Provide a link, prove it.
guitarspeare 2 years ago
Small fires, big fires it does not matter. Fire does not bring down buildings. There was never a building that collapsed do to fire in the history of of steel framed buildings prior to 9/11 and even after 9/11. So don't BS me and try to say fire caused the buildings to fail.
Total BS and it goes against science.
manwello15 2 years ago 3
Well if a 15 year old kid says so lol!
Have you writen the ASCE of your concerns? I'm sure they'll slap themselves on the foreheads and see the light now!
SSHitMan 2 years ago