10 YEARS ON, and I am still meeting "Intelligent" Individuals from many Countries and backgrounds, and They Haven't got a "CLUE" about "Building 7!" This IS The overwhelming POWER the Jewish OWNED/CONTROLLED "WORLD" Media has over The MASSES!! IT'S "TIME WORLD!" To STOP LISTENING TO THE ZIONIST/JEWISH Propaganda TOOL and NO LONGER ACCEPT "THEIR" Intimidating use of Blackmail that ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS "THEM!" IMMEDIATELY Becomes an "ANTI-SEMITIC!" This IS HOW THEY HAVE "SILENCED THE TRUTH/FACTS"
Why, after destroying the two main towers, would it be necessary to destroy a third smaller tower? Doesn't make sense. Haven't any of you conspiracy buffs thought about that?
These were three badly built structures - lots of cut corners, bad engineering.
Where are any video footage of the building 7 after the fall? From a very small fire the whole building falls??? Why are matches still allowed in buildings at all?
Believe me only government paid big mouths respond to conspiracy theories. There was a conspiracy to destroy these buildings that's a fact.
Simply put: it was a top-heavy buidling with reduced lateral and virtical support elements in the bottom 7 floors, to accomodate the ConEd substation. The failure came from above where the mass was greater and where the greater potential energy was concentrated and where the lower floors would be unable to resist the failure of those elements. Once one failed, others failed, until the whole thing could no longer remain at rest. This building was doomed to collapse. Short and sweet.
It was all a horrific planned demolition. Its really sad that this could even be concieved of let alone carried out by people you're supposed to trust with your own country. I understand why people wouldnt want to believe it though. I mean the thought that someone could do this to their own country is pretty freakin scary if you ask me. I kinda wish I could be blissfully ignorant too, but the evidence is pretty undeniable.
dude anyone who doesnt know that 911 was an inside job is blind, distracted, or just angry to face the truth. There's too much evidence supporting a demolition job. you have to lie to yourself or just simply be out to debate and not wanting to be wrong. The evidence all points to a demolition job using thermite.
I have seen what you are talking about. So whats so special about it? It still looks alot like controled demolition using thermite. Thus why they found molten Iron on the base of all three buildings and why you can see in plain view a thermite reaction where molten iron is just pouring out in one of the WTCs just before it collapses. Im not trying to argue with you Im just trying to let you see the other side of the coin.
@Origin305 I'm no pro with this 9/11 inside crap but there was a bomb on the plane and when it hit, the terrorists in the cockpit may have just ignited it as it crashed.
It could have been, but that wouldnt explain the 47 steel columns below just making way so that the building could fall at free fall speeds. This was an inside job sadly. I feel so stupid that I come to realize this NINE YEARS LATER!!!!
@Origin305 Yea I found out from my sis the other day. OMG she said the the twin towers were crashed by a remote controled millitary plane that crashed and that it was because it ment the USA could blame it on the other country and take there oil! :O She also pointed out how it hit the middle but collapsed like a controled demolition. One more thing is that she watched a program that showed the AA and UA airlines landing at a millitary airstrip! OMG those goverment bastards!
@Origin305 I ran outta charactars lol. Also by remote controled I mean a real plane, but no people in it. Also the program had interviews with the passengers.
@Origin305 What's special about the penthouse and front of the building collapsing 13 seconds before the rest of the building? Hmmmm, let me get back to you on that whilst you continue to convince yourself the collapse was a free fall demolition job.
Even if the building was tottaly collapsed from the inside and there would be only outershell still it would feel resistance and would not fall with freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, its acknowledged by NIST that it did but they try to say that it has no significant meaning.
@Matu1 Hmm, if the only tier of the building offering resistance (i.e vertical pressure) is the remnants of the lower structure, and that lower structure fails catastrophically - then building would drop the distance of that collapsed upward force with little to no resistance.
I.e. if you knock out the legs of a chair, do you expect the table to levitate, and should it or should it not fall vertically?
NIST would be more than correct in stating that free fall is not evidence of anything.
Please, starting point of science is observation.What you are describing here does not appear on any building 7 videos let alone that there was not outershell standing there, our you would see trough the whole building.
@Matu1 I described the NIST hypothesis in as layman terms as possible.
Nobody ever said the building was hollow, only that the collapse had already begun long before this video shows the non-supporting structure fail.
Resistance of downward motion vs force of gravity vs downward momentum vs unevenly distributed weight in a specifically constructed building with an inherent design flaw exactly at the point of failure.
Hmmm, you are talking about resitance of downward motion but the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds, this is alot. If the bulding would have fell in video footage like nist computer model did, there would be no big problem but it didn´t thats the thing, it just goes down symmetrically. This does not look like collapse due to fire and gravitation. If you only would know how buildings are built, they are built with reserve strengths so one collumn collapse ...
...could not lead to all building connections collapse and failure of entire building. Please look up here youtube building collapse or failures, all they feel resistance(like fail demolition) or would just tip over to side its damaged. Now building 7 did tip over at end of "collapse" but it still falled on to its own footprint. Buildings are built to hold up to gravity wich is pulling always them to the ground and they have to consider earthquackes, storms and other natural forces...
...wich has alot stronger force and could lead to building failure alot easier but still it would not fall trough it self. Try to imagine ten metal cans top eachother. Now you make intense fire in each can, would it just fall on to its foot print?
@Matu1 Tin cans are a very very poor analogy. The only equivalent is to set fire to a house of cards. At least then it would share the same basic structural basis.
House of cards, are you fucking kidding me? I think this discussion is over, you have no idea how buildings are built, no idea of physics at all. Even if you would set house of cards in to a fire, it still would not fall trough it self symmetrically! Go look up for A&E for 9/11 truth, 1400 independent scientists do not agree with NIST. Research about NIST investigations and how it was set up. But you probably would not. Once upon in a time there was house of cards called building 7 on flat earth
@Matu1 Yes, a house of cards. The basic construction of the modern high rise has more in common with the way a house of cards is constructed compared to the comparison to a stack of tin cans. The equivalent to a set of tin cans would be something along the lines of a smoke stack or chimney.
You attempted to construct a false equivalency.
And yes a house of cards would indeed fall through itself symmetrically (or a closer approximation to the asymmetrical collapse of WTC7).
@Matu1 Go check who those 1400 architects and engineers are, then come back to me with the list of hundreds of thousands of Architects and Engineers that have absolutely nothing to do with the absolute mental fringe to which you are trying to ally a theory with.
I'll stick with my very fundamental but nonetheless accurate understanding of science thanks.
Ok, you can punch 100 holes in to cans, put core columns in there and tie it all up with floors. It would not still fall trough itself. House of card is nothing like a building, it is just shitty core structure of cards that fails even if you breath on it.
I have checked who is on those list and they are legit and independent people there. There are thousands more who are afraid of their jobs and do not speak. But in NIST there are people who are depending on government funding.
@Matu1 So effectively you just changed the entire construction of the building...but they still retain the physical properties of cans - which bears absolutely no similarity to WTC7.
A House of Cards at least shares the physical properties of balance, tiers, weight distribution that follow similar principles to that of high rise construction.
If we're going to follow your analogy then we may as well just build WTC7 again and then test the model...oh wait, they did that at NIST.
I changed my cans to much closer to WTC7 than your fucking house of cards. Your house of cards do not have any vertical columns and does not have any connections that ties them together. Also my point was not to make exact replicate of wtc7 but to show that structures just does not fall trough itself. They are built to resist gravity! Go look up high rises on fire like windsor building and others. They were like torches, flames out of every corner but did not fail, no suprise!
@Matu1 Your cans had no vertical columns, nor connections that tie them together. More importantly the structure of a can completely flies in the face of modern construction techniques due to sealed seams etc. So no number of holes drilled through it would achieve accuracy.
A house of cards at least follows the principles - if not the construction methods.
The Windsor meanwhile - look at the parts that were not concrete supported, they collapsed completely.
@Matu1 You cannot use the excuse that people are "afraid" to bolster the 1400 retards who put their names to a study already critically debunked by engineers within their own community (and in peer review journals).
Absolutely no element of the A&E4T published documents has ever reached published consensus within even its own movement.
Nist did not built any physical model. They only used computer model wich did not fall anything like wtc7 did, they actually falled like naturaly building would fail from gravity but they didn´t even opened the data what they put in to simulator so its not peer reviewed! And simulated image only shows to halfway to the collapse...why??? Maybe because their model would tip over and not fall trough itself... And please direct me link that they have debunked one of Richard Cages presentation.
@Matu1 The NIST computer model was about as accurate as you could expect for a model. It showed the critical element - i.e. the catastrophic failure. What happens higher up (and whether said model replicates 100% what you saw in the video) is irrelevant. The building is clearly shown collapsing from the damage to the structure at the base systematically dismantling itself due to its inherent design and structure.
And his name is Richard Gage, and he repeated already debunked junk.
It showed critical failure and all other is irrelevant?? You are so full of shit... You do not want to debate, you just repeat like a parrot not even thinking about it. Yes he is Richard Gage, im sorry for that typo and he do not repeat debunked junk... Actually you are the one who is doing that and i have to school you comment after comment, instead you should research about it. Oh and i forgot to mention one thing before that there is peer-reviewed papers, you are living in 2004??
@Matu1 There are no peer reviewed papers. Specifically the peer reviewed papers related to the engineering etc all debunk every claim Gage has made (and his claims are specifically not engineering based, but simply rehashed pseudo-science from the truther movement that he latched onto).
The only single report related to the science that was allegedly "peer" reviewed was the Thermitic compound analysis - which was junk science from the start with a flawed premise.
I will let you comment here alone because you obviously do not debate you are just denying, comment after commen "nano thermite = junk science! freefall = does not prove anything! AE911Truth = not real architects and engineers!
Only what you do is just bash people... There is no point for me to connect dots for you, you are a denier.
@Matu1 And yes, the critical failure of the lower structure is all that is required for the model to demonstrate that the critical failure is all that was required to bring down the building.
That the model does not match 100% what you see from the two video angles (the reasons for which NIST specifically does not deal with because it's irrelevant) is irrelevant.
There is no evidence for any hypothesis other than critical failure of the structure. Everything else is pure conspiracy woo.
@Matu1 WTC7 did anything but fall into its own footprint. It specifically damaged several buildings in its vicinity, destroyed the skywalk etc and fell over forwards and sideways.
Unsurprisingly it fell in exactly the same pattern you'd expect a building to fall if it suffered the damage proposed by NIST.
@Matu1 The building fell at various speeds for multiple seconds - the "free fall" element remains a complete red herring as it means absolutely nothing in terms of demolition or otherwise. You either accept a building can collapse at free fall when it suffers a catastrophic failure of its structure (in this case a building with a well published weakness and not uniformly aligned structure) or via demolition, or you don't.
We're not on about 1 column for the entire building to collapse.
According to page 48 of NIST's final report, issued Nov. 20, 2008, "after a more detailed analysis" "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds." NIST doesn't explain how the structural steel that supported those floors magically got out of the way so that they could fall as if nothing was below them, since the only possible explanation is controlled demolition. During freefall, all gravitational energy becomes motion.
This has been flagged as spam show
10 YEARS ON, and I am still meeting "Intelligent" Individuals from many Countries and backgrounds, and They Haven't got a "CLUE" about "Building 7!" This IS The overwhelming POWER the Jewish OWNED/CONTROLLED "WORLD" Media has over The MASSES!! IT'S "TIME WORLD!" To STOP LISTENING TO THE ZIONIST/JEWISH Propaganda TOOL and NO LONGER ACCEPT "THEIR" Intimidating use of Blackmail that ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS "THEM!" IMMEDIATELY Becomes an "ANTI-SEMITIC!" This IS HOW THEY HAVE "SILENCED THE TRUTH/FACTS"
einrib4truth 3 months ago
a perfect demolition
firestones18 5 months ago
Explosives!
mikestheman3 6 months ago
I don't say Americans are fraud, but your government is a fraud.
If your parents contrived all of these, what do you want to say about the Iraqi War, invasion in Afghanistan, war on terrorism?
The nuclear weapon was not found in Iraq, after all.
You created the principle of dirty financial capital such as the issue of subprime loan.
What an America!
nexttheworld 9 months ago
@nexttheworld yeah it's true our gov. sucks and is corrupt 50% or us are waiting for the revolution
grimrotten 9 months ago
Why, after destroying the two main towers, would it be necessary to destroy a third smaller tower? Doesn't make sense. Haven't any of you conspiracy buffs thought about that?
These were three badly built structures - lots of cut corners, bad engineering.
bogglerful 10 months ago
Where are any video footage of the building 7 after the fall? From a very small fire the whole building falls??? Why are matches still allowed in buildings at all?
Believe me only government paid big mouths respond to conspiracy theories. There was a conspiracy to destroy these buildings that's a fact.
TheBelldiver 11 months ago
Anyone who doesn't see this as a controlled demo job is simply a government lier
TheBelldiver 11 months ago
Simply put: it was a top-heavy buidling with reduced lateral and virtical support elements in the bottom 7 floors, to accomodate the ConEd substation. The failure came from above where the mass was greater and where the greater potential energy was concentrated and where the lower floors would be unable to resist the failure of those elements. Once one failed, others failed, until the whole thing could no longer remain at rest. This building was doomed to collapse. Short and sweet.
Slipstream300 1 year ago 2
It was all a horrific planned demolition. Its really sad that this could even be concieved of let alone carried out by people you're supposed to trust with your own country. I understand why people wouldnt want to believe it though. I mean the thought that someone could do this to their own country is pretty freakin scary if you ask me. I kinda wish I could be blissfully ignorant too, but the evidence is pretty undeniable.
BLoWphish91 1 year ago
The Nist report doesn't explain anything. It is nothing but lies. 9/11 was a demolition job.
PoetryFound 2 years ago
Hey PoetryFound, I thought you were a idiot! Wait, that's poetryhound...:)
thehipsterofnewyork 2 years ago
@thehipsterofnewyork
why dont you pay attention to the evidence instead of name calling. dimwit, maybe you could learn the truth?
Origin305 1 year ago
@Origin305 fuck you.
thehipsterofnewyork 1 year ago
@thehipsterofnewyork
dude anyone who doesnt know that 911 was an inside job is blind, distracted, or just angry to face the truth. There's too much evidence supporting a demolition job. you have to lie to yourself or just simply be out to debate and not wanting to be wrong. The evidence all points to a demolition job using thermite.
Origin305 1 year ago
@Origin305 fuck off
thehipsterofnewyork 1 year ago
beleiving that the government had nothing to do with 911 is like beleiving in Santa Clause.
Origin305 1 year ago
@Origin305 Now u confusing me, i thought u was a debunker.
thehipsterofnewyork 1 year ago
@thehipsterofnewyork
yeah I thought so, dimwit
Origin305 1 year ago
thats only half of the collapse
you cut out the east mechanical penthouse falling 8 seconds before global collapse
this edit is deceptive
why do you think they cut half of a 20 second video????
"truth"ers are vile like that
justin39640 2 years ago
@justin39640
what r u talking about? Theres several different footages of this building free falling. This is not the only video or angle.
Origin305 1 year ago
@Origin305
obviously you haven't seen the entire video.
The east mechanical penthouse collapsed into the building seconds before this part of the collapse shown here.
justin39640 1 year ago
@justin39640
I have seen what you are talking about. So whats so special about it? It still looks alot like controled demolition using thermite. Thus why they found molten Iron on the base of all three buildings and why you can see in plain view a thermite reaction where molten iron is just pouring out in one of the WTCs just before it collapses. Im not trying to argue with you Im just trying to let you see the other side of the coin.
Origin305 1 year ago
@Origin305 I'm no pro with this 9/11 inside crap but there was a bomb on the plane and when it hit, the terrorists in the cockpit may have just ignited it as it crashed.
zakman246 1 year ago
@zakman246
It could have been, but that wouldnt explain the 47 steel columns below just making way so that the building could fall at free fall speeds. This was an inside job sadly. I feel so stupid that I come to realize this NINE YEARS LATER!!!!
Origin305 1 year ago
@Origin305 Yea I found out from my sis the other day. OMG she said the the twin towers were crashed by a remote controled millitary plane that crashed and that it was because it ment the USA could blame it on the other country and take there oil! :O She also pointed out how it hit the middle but collapsed like a controled demolition. One more thing is that she watched a program that showed the AA and UA airlines landing at a millitary airstrip! OMG those goverment bastards!
zakman246 1 year ago
@Origin305 I ran outta charactars lol. Also by remote controled I mean a real plane, but no people in it. Also the program had interviews with the passengers.
zakman246 1 year ago
@Origin305 to take 9 years to eventually be convinced by lies from the "Truth" movement is a sad indicator of just how retarded humanity is.
koncorde 1 year ago
@Origin305 What's special about the penthouse and front of the building collapsing 13 seconds before the rest of the building? Hmmmm, let me get back to you on that whilst you continue to convince yourself the collapse was a free fall demolition job.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
Even if the building was tottaly collapsed from the inside and there would be only outershell still it would feel resistance and would not fall with freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, its acknowledged by NIST that it did but they try to say that it has no significant meaning.
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 Hmm, if the only tier of the building offering resistance (i.e vertical pressure) is the remnants of the lower structure, and that lower structure fails catastrophically - then building would drop the distance of that collapsed upward force with little to no resistance.
I.e. if you knock out the legs of a chair, do you expect the table to levitate, and should it or should it not fall vertically?
NIST would be more than correct in stating that free fall is not evidence of anything.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
Please, starting point of science is observation.What you are describing here does not appear on any building 7 videos let alone that there was not outershell standing there, our you would see trough the whole building.
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 I described the NIST hypothesis in as layman terms as possible.
Nobody ever said the building was hollow, only that the collapse had already begun long before this video shows the non-supporting structure fail.
Resistance of downward motion vs force of gravity vs downward momentum vs unevenly distributed weight in a specifically constructed building with an inherent design flaw exactly at the point of failure.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
Hmmm, you are talking about resitance of downward motion but the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds, this is alot. If the bulding would have fell in video footage like nist computer model did, there would be no big problem but it didn´t thats the thing, it just goes down symmetrically. This does not look like collapse due to fire and gravitation. If you only would know how buildings are built, they are built with reserve strengths so one collumn collapse ...
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1
...could not lead to all building connections collapse and failure of entire building. Please look up here youtube building collapse or failures, all they feel resistance(like fail demolition) or would just tip over to side its damaged. Now building 7 did tip over at end of "collapse" but it still falled on to its own footprint. Buildings are built to hold up to gravity wich is pulling always them to the ground and they have to consider earthquackes, storms and other natural forces...
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1
...wich has alot stronger force and could lead to building failure alot easier but still it would not fall trough it self. Try to imagine ten metal cans top eachother. Now you make intense fire in each can, would it just fall on to its foot print?
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 Tin cans are a very very poor analogy. The only equivalent is to set fire to a house of cards. At least then it would share the same basic structural basis.
koncorde 1 year ago
House of cards, are you fucking kidding me? I think this discussion is over, you have no idea how buildings are built, no idea of physics at all. Even if you would set house of cards in to a fire, it still would not fall trough it self symmetrically! Go look up for A&E for 9/11 truth, 1400 independent scientists do not agree with NIST. Research about NIST investigations and how it was set up. But you probably would not. Once upon in a time there was house of cards called building 7 on flat earth
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 Yes, a house of cards. The basic construction of the modern high rise has more in common with the way a house of cards is constructed compared to the comparison to a stack of tin cans. The equivalent to a set of tin cans would be something along the lines of a smoke stack or chimney.
You attempted to construct a false equivalency.
And yes a house of cards would indeed fall through itself symmetrically (or a closer approximation to the asymmetrical collapse of WTC7).
koncorde 1 year ago
@Matu1 Go check who those 1400 architects and engineers are, then come back to me with the list of hundreds of thousands of Architects and Engineers that have absolutely nothing to do with the absolute mental fringe to which you are trying to ally a theory with.
I'll stick with my very fundamental but nonetheless accurate understanding of science thanks.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
Ok, you can punch 100 holes in to cans, put core columns in there and tie it all up with floors. It would not still fall trough itself. House of card is nothing like a building, it is just shitty core structure of cards that fails even if you breath on it.
I have checked who is on those list and they are legit and independent people there. There are thousands more who are afraid of their jobs and do not speak. But in NIST there are people who are depending on government funding.
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 So effectively you just changed the entire construction of the building...but they still retain the physical properties of cans - which bears absolutely no similarity to WTC7.
A House of Cards at least shares the physical properties of balance, tiers, weight distribution that follow similar principles to that of high rise construction.
If we're going to follow your analogy then we may as well just build WTC7 again and then test the model...oh wait, they did that at NIST.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
I changed my cans to much closer to WTC7 than your fucking house of cards. Your house of cards do not have any vertical columns and does not have any connections that ties them together. Also my point was not to make exact replicate of wtc7 but to show that structures just does not fall trough itself. They are built to resist gravity! Go look up high rises on fire like windsor building and others. They were like torches, flames out of every corner but did not fail, no suprise!
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 Your cans had no vertical columns, nor connections that tie them together. More importantly the structure of a can completely flies in the face of modern construction techniques due to sealed seams etc. So no number of holes drilled through it would achieve accuracy.
A house of cards at least follows the principles - if not the construction methods.
The Windsor meanwhile - look at the parts that were not concrete supported, they collapsed completely.
koncorde 1 year ago
@Matu1 You cannot use the excuse that people are "afraid" to bolster the 1400 retards who put their names to a study already critically debunked by engineers within their own community (and in peer review journals).
Absolutely no element of the A&E4T published documents has ever reached published consensus within even its own movement.
koncorde 1 year ago
@
Nist did not built any physical model. They only used computer model wich did not fall anything like wtc7 did, they actually falled like naturaly building would fail from gravity but they didn´t even opened the data what they put in to simulator so its not peer reviewed! And simulated image only shows to halfway to the collapse...why??? Maybe because their model would tip over and not fall trough itself... And please direct me link that they have debunked one of Richard Cages presentation.
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 The NIST computer model was about as accurate as you could expect for a model. It showed the critical element - i.e. the catastrophic failure. What happens higher up (and whether said model replicates 100% what you saw in the video) is irrelevant. The building is clearly shown collapsing from the damage to the structure at the base systematically dismantling itself due to its inherent design and structure.
And his name is Richard Gage, and he repeated already debunked junk.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
It showed critical failure and all other is irrelevant?? You are so full of shit... You do not want to debate, you just repeat like a parrot not even thinking about it. Yes he is Richard Gage, im sorry for that typo and he do not repeat debunked junk... Actually you are the one who is doing that and i have to school you comment after comment, instead you should research about it. Oh and i forgot to mention one thing before that there is peer-reviewed papers, you are living in 2004??
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 There are no peer reviewed papers. Specifically the peer reviewed papers related to the engineering etc all debunk every claim Gage has made (and his claims are specifically not engineering based, but simply rehashed pseudo-science from the truther movement that he latched onto).
The only single report related to the science that was allegedly "peer" reviewed was the Thermitic compound analysis - which was junk science from the start with a flawed premise.
koncorde 1 year ago
@koncorde
I will let you comment here alone because you obviously do not debate you are just denying, comment after commen "nano thermite = junk science! freefall = does not prove anything! AE911Truth = not real architects and engineers!
Only what you do is just bash people... There is no point for me to connect dots for you, you are a denier.
Matu1 1 year ago
@Matu1 Come back when you don't fail every test to this; atheismresource*com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg
koncorde 1 year ago
@Matu1 And yes, the critical failure of the lower structure is all that is required for the model to demonstrate that the critical failure is all that was required to bring down the building.
That the model does not match 100% what you see from the two video angles (the reasons for which NIST specifically does not deal with because it's irrelevant) is irrelevant.
There is no evidence for any hypothesis other than critical failure of the structure. Everything else is pure conspiracy woo.
koncorde 1 year ago
@Matu1 WTC7 did anything but fall into its own footprint. It specifically damaged several buildings in its vicinity, destroyed the skywalk etc and fell over forwards and sideways.
Unsurprisingly it fell in exactly the same pattern you'd expect a building to fall if it suffered the damage proposed by NIST.
koncorde 1 year ago
@Matu1 The building fell at various speeds for multiple seconds - the "free fall" element remains a complete red herring as it means absolutely nothing in terms of demolition or otherwise. You either accept a building can collapse at free fall when it suffers a catastrophic failure of its structure (in this case a building with a well published weakness and not uniformly aligned structure) or via demolition, or you don't.
We're not on about 1 column for the entire building to collapse.
koncorde 1 year ago
According to page 48 of NIST's final report, issued Nov. 20, 2008, "after a more detailed analysis" "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds." NIST doesn't explain how the structural steel that supported those floors magically got out of the way so that they could fall as if nothing was below them, since the only possible explanation is controlled demolition. During freefall, all gravitational energy becomes motion.
uncledevo 2 years ago
Wow...
DaddlerTheDalek 2 years ago
Go to the BBC Jane Standley deja-vu 'miracle' and make your own mind up!
... And the BBC's S+O+U+R+C+E was?
Ravenbright 3 years ago