is it any wonder that the official blueprints for wtc 7 have never been released? real engineers and architects would be all over this, and NISTs ass of course.
NIST could solve all of the controversy by releasing their reports and data for peer review. Anyone who does not agree with this is either a shill or a complete moron. There is no logical reason why NIST can't submit their reports and data for peer review. What's so illogical about demanding that NIST submit its reports and data for peer review?
Skeptic - Cole is a total troll. the man is deluded, and is one of the many, many people who refuses to see the evidence that is right in front of him. he is either too shitscared, too stupid, or too bought to accept the truth and/or shut his gob. He has spewed the same crap all over the other pages, and has not once addressed any of the issues raised by the people who challenge the official lies.
I know we need to keep up the fight but he will never see what he does not want to see.
@ThePassiveFist Thanks! It is pretty obvious that some people just will not address actual evidence. Many of them work for the government. GWB is not smart enough to discuss actual evidence....of anything. Dick Cheney is smart enough to use GWB as a sock puppet and lie to the 9/11 Omission.
there are people like Cole who spend ages spreading disinformation. the sad thing is that in a lot of cases, these people do just enough to convince the average Joe that we're the ones who are deluded. never once do i get an answer from any of them regarding their reason for not wanting a new investigation. if there's nothing to hide, they should just allow it and then they can call us idiots. truth is, they never will because they know we have physics and facts on our side.
Also, if you are so sure the building fell at the much-ballyhooed "free fall" yet you can see other debris CLEARLY out accelerating the building.
What say you to this? Are you going to lay a "Well, there were "extra" rockets on those faster pieces" argument on me next? You 911 conspiritards always ahve another hare-brained excuse when reality andyour paranoid BS don't match up. You're all "physics-challenged" .
@HeliVis NIST acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters. It did NOT drop at free fall acceleration for its entire descent; only for 25 meters. What does that fact tell us?
It tells us that a 25 meter segment of vertical support was removed from all over the base of WTC7, suddenly and at nearly the same time (within 0.5 sec). Once WTC7 dropped 25 meters, it no longer accelerated downward. Why not? Because the undamaged floors hit the ground.
If 25 meters of support was instantaneously removed from the base of WTC7, then explain how phase-1 of the global collapse sequence is possible...where frame descends 2m @ 1.75s (well below freefall-A). The building should have gone into freefall immediately if this were the case. Do you have an explanation for this Skeptic121?
@Lazurus464 The debris, or crime scene evidence, was destroyed so we cannot know for sure. My speculation: more than one type of demolition or sabotage device was used. Thermate devices were used to weaken the building silently, WITHOUT explosions. Once the building was weakened by thermate, it could be brought down by fewer and less powerful explosive charges than are usually used for CD. The penthouse and initial slow drop were caused by thermate/thermite weakening. You sound angry; why?
You presented a theory that 25m were instantaneously removed...a theory that is immediately disproven when we consider phase-1 of time table. Even if thermite could somehow be retrofitted to weaken a vertical support, it still doesn't explain the 2.2M drop @1.75s. Why not consider the fires as the culprit in WTC7 collapse - we KNOW multi-floor office fires were present - we don't need to invent unknown forces to explain this event
@Lazurus464 "Do you have an explanation for this Skeptic121?" sounds angry to me...
I suppose fire OR thermate could explain the slow drop called "Phase 1"
However, for reasons discussed by Dr. Sunder of NIST, fire cannot explain the 25 meters of free fall. Why not? Because free fall means NO upward force on the falling building. In addition, NIST acknowledges that the east and west upper corners of the north facade dropped within 0.5 seconds of each other. Good timing for chaotic fires!
'Because free fall means NO upward force on the falling building.'
Much of the building mass were already in descent by the time of Global collapse, this debris would have attained a velocity well above 9.8 m/s - and when impacting lateral facets (beams - floors etc). would have increased descent speed of facade as momentum was transferred. We see the East penthouse cave in way before total collapse in WTC7 videos.
The corners would have dropped at nearly the same time because this is a solid 1-piece parallelogram. AS the core failed, vertical loads were simultaneously redistributed to the structural frame elements. When these columns buckled, the remaining structure collapsed as a single unit.
So you believe thermite/fire caused the initial collapse - 2.2m drop...and then a 2'nd collapse event was triggered 1.75s later. Talk about timing. Not to mention completely pointless for any conspiracy theory.
@roxxphatcox Perhaps some of the engineers at NIST "prove their own hypothesis false" deliberately. Dr. Sunder is a Brahmin, a member of the highest caste in India, comprising intellectuals and priests. As such, Dr. Sunder is extremely reluctant to tell a bare face lie. OTOH, he is unwilling to disparage his "host", NIST, in any way. Thus, he answered David Chandler truthfully but did not speculate on any implications. In contrast, John Gross lies without shame.
@The4LA2Baker0 David Ray Griffin has covered WTC7 and the NIST report in his new book, which is the definitive report on this subject. Griffin is not a scientist but he does not write for scientists. He writes for intelligent laymen. It is obvious that real scientists have helped him. He mentions some, but there are obviously others who helped but declined to be mentioned in the acknowledgment section. If you read the book, pay particular attention to the work of Prof. Jonathan Barnett.
@Skeptic121 Thanks for your speedy reply, but i was wondering if there was a sequel to this video on youtube. I am well aware of Dr Griffin, i have new pearl harbor and omission and distortions. I actually live right by the school of theology where he taught for many years. I really liked this video and was hoping you could direct me to more of the like. Thanks again.
Give me your facts. My job involves being highly knowledgeable in aerospace engineering, which actually doesn't matter much in regards to HISTORY in this case. Dogma? ...Oh, the irony. How the majority of humans on this planet believe 911 to be an inside job because of the unconvincing dogma outside of government facts. Damn dogma.
My response to two nasty comments below: Some regular guys think WTC7 was an obvious CD and say so bluntly. Others think the only reason to SAY it was a CD is because "you're a twoofer faggot who hates America and wants the terrorists to win".
Neither comment is an example of good writing or deep thinking.
Yes, I say so bluntly. You have to be pretty slow to not understand false flags by now. I could go deep into it, but only for someone who can handle it. Good writing? On a comment...yeah, done that, been there. We should already be past this subject...leave it to people like LOLCATS. They trust Gov history(nationalism).
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
Insurance company executives probably decided they did not want to be called anti-Semitic Arab-loving terrorists who hate America, especially not right after 9/11/2001 with patriotism running strong. Not a great career move! After all, it's not their money.
WTC1&2 fell very differently from WTC7. This video is about WTC7 only.
"Insurance company executives probably............"
PROBABLY?
You're going to start arguing your pathetic case with the word "probably"? No wonder you're stuck on youtube pitching your magical theories to teenagers and NOT in a court of law.
So you're just going to ignore WTC 1 &2?
Marvin Bush proves 911 twoofers are a bunch of uneducated gullble morons who will believe any the puppet masters tell them.
@ctcole77 Dude, when I say "probably" they don't want to be called anti-Semitic terrorists that was a JOKE. Of course they don't want to....get a sense of humor!
You are getting WAY too worked up over a comment on YouTube.
@ctcole77 You misunderstand the rhetorical device called a "straw man".
Here is an example: "Ron Paul wants Arabs to take over America and make women wear burkhas." Ron Paul does NOT want Arabs to take over America; he just wants the US out of Iraq. If Arabs tried to come here, he would vote to fight them off.
The "straw man" is the fake position attributed to Ron Paul of wanting Arabs to take over. His opponent attacks the fake position instead of his real one, getting out of Iraq.
FACT: G.w.Bush, in his first 8 months in office as president spent 42% of this time on vacation. Washington Post. FACT: President Bush approval rating down 42%. Gallop Poll. FACT: Highly publicized set of public appearance, scheduled for Sept 11th 2001 in Fl. A.P, Washington Post. FACT: G.W.Bush company , heavily invested in, as well as personally tied tied to Bin Laden Family. SEC. FACT:Aug 6th 01 G.Bush given Intelligence Briefing, stating Osama planning multiple high jack of planes in U.S
FACT: G.W.Bush and Dick cheney refused to testify under oath at the 911 commision. W.Post,N.Y. Times,A.P,FOX,ABC,NBC,CBS. They later answer questions while together and no recording, no press, are allowed. Any notes taken were then reviewed and screened before given back
This was a really well put together video. I'm actually considering using it in a film I'm making about WTC 7. But only if that's okay with you of course.
Let me try to provide a quick example of a report for a CD hypothesis in regards to freefall:
Custom designed LSC's totaling 648 units capable of withstanding fires and debris damage were attached to the 81 columns on each 8 floor span. Collapse of penthouse > window damage and following 1.75s ~ 7ft. descent (1'st phase) was part of a seperate event to support collapse theory fabrication. Absence of decibel peaks, seismic data & PSI blowouts were edited from video footage / records. Cont...
LCS = "linear shaped charge" containing copper, which becomes a steel-cutting plasma when compressed by the RDX = "Royal [British] Demolition eXplosive"
There are witness accounts of loud explosions right at the onset of WTC7's collapse.
I still say NIST refused to simulate a real controlled demolition because everyone would have said "Yes, that's what happened!"
Indeed, this may be the reason why NIST refused to consider a vanilla controlled demolition initiated on all support columns in the basement. The report would have been brief, the model would have matched the videos, and the public--including discriminating engineers and demolition professionals, would have concurred.
But then, the public may start to complain that some criminal investigation was in order...What a can of worms!
Since the prog. collapse was triggered by failure of col. 79, the NIST blast hypothesis was tested using the smallest possible LSC explosive powerful enough to sever col. 79. (why would they try to examine a more complex CD?) They concluded the energetic blast required to sever col. 79 would generate pressure waves, dbA & seismic readings that were not recorded.
Much smaller 31 story Landmark demo at a distance:
>> 'there are witnesses that claim to have heard explosions from WTC7 before its collapse'
Original video footage is the most credible and accurate representation of any event. Testimony is not irrelevant but I haven't seen a compilation of witness accounts testifying they heard explosives within 15 seconds of the WTC-7 collapse. Please source this material. The 06' TX landmark demo is relevant to a CD hypothesis as it demonstrates what we could expect when explosives sever steel columns.
LSC - RDX composites are the most potent form of CD. Simulating with other explosives would have been meaningless for this test since energy required to sever steel remains constant. The simulation was intended to analyze the db(A) - PSI output generated by a blast powerful enough to sever a critical core column and apply those results to WTC-7 site. The report clearly states more than 1 charge would be used for a real CD, but multiple blasts wouldn't support CD theory if 1 blast refutes it.
Sorry; you are BS'ing us here. The question is whether a CD could make the structure drop as we saw it drop in the videos. That question alone would justify simulation of a proper demolition.
>> 'The question is whether a CD could make the structure drop as we saw in the videos. That question alone would justify simulation of a proper demolition'
Yes, but you can't just stop at that question and ignore everything else observed to form a scientific model. A refuting hypothesis has to account for these documented events. The NIST publications explaining prog. collapse consist of over 1000 pages. "WTC7 was a CD" is not a report. That's like if NCSTAR just said "WTC-7 collapsed".
Most of the debunkers concede free fall for 2.25 seconds. Only a very few of them try to explain it. Some deny that it means anything. Others ignore it. Algonquien3 below concedes the 2.25 seconds but notes that much of the collapse was NOT at free fall, which is correct.
My interpretation: 2.25 sec = 25 meters segment of vertical support suddenly GONE, throughout the base of WTC7 within a half second (NIST). Weakened steel won't explain it; the 25 meters was GONE, not weakened.
NIST's "40% slower than free-fall" is total bullshit. They picked an arbitrary fall starting point so they can falsely claim a total of 5.4 seconds collapse time. There was over two seconds during which there was absolute free fall. NIST's bogus computer simulation cannot account for this.
This is a blatant lie. The word bomb in never mentioned in the NCSTAR-1A report. The image at 6:04 is fig. 3-1 from chapter 3 and is simulating "two shaped charges applied to column 79". The purple area is not designating a crater...it's representing the PSI that would be caused by a hypothetical BLAST scenario. Station numbers in blue being the predicted window failure locations from pressure waves. The color key can be seen on pg 27 of NCSTAR-1A.
Point taken; bomb was the wrong word. But, there are better cutter charges they could have used for their simulation.
MOST important: they could hardly expect to simulate a controlled demolition with only ONE column rigged with cutter charges of any kind. The point is, they didn't try very hard to show us what a CD would have looked like in WTC7.
In regards to free-fall: See pg 602 of NCSTAR1-9. Free-fall was not noted during initial descent. The observed fall time of the visible top 18 stories was 40% greater than free-fall. This can be divided between 3 phases: 1'st phase NIST reports a slow descent time consistent with column buckling. 2'nd phase NIST does report free-fall for 105 ft (2.25s) resistance being negligible in computation. Then a decreasing acceleration when north face encountered resistance from below structure.
The question of why structure descended at free fall for 2.25s is relevant...I don't have an answer but I can present a possible hypotheses: The NIST simulation showing the lower 8 floors folding outwards could be 1 explanation. Another possibility is the failed core mechanisms descending at time of global collapse may have pulled the structure downwards during there descent. While it might be an unusual phenomenon, is not unexpected or unexplainable given the known circumstances.
Cont - However, how would one explain these results with a CD hypothesis? If controlled demolitions were the cause of structural failure, 8 stories would have had to instantly and completely disappear to achieve 2.25s of gravitation free-fall acceleration.
I wanted to address the NIST 3-phase decent breakdown to correct the record that they never actually "denied" free-fall...the first draft of the NIST report allowed for a period of free-fall, they simply didn't quantify it.
Al, you are quite correct about the 2.25 meters of free fall acceleration. As I have been writing for years, it means almost eight floors of vertical support suddenly GONE. Not weakened. Not bending. Suddenly gone. You are right: it would not be easy, even with explosives. BUT, that fact also means it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to bring about with fires. No one claims fires were on eight contiguous floors of WTC7 at the same time!
>> 'it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to bring about with fires'
Agreed, fires would be IMPOSSIBLE to cause 8story free fall. But I never said fires accounted for this. Fire is just what initiated column 79 buckle > eastern collapse trigger > multi-floor cascading > H-VT core failure > exterior column buckling (global collapse) > free fall phase*.
Neither of my 2 theories were addressed / refuted.
Not to mention: You totally are forgetting, that the bottom 7 or 8 floors of building 7, were hollow, and that they provided NO RESISTANCE to the other collpasing 39 stories above! Those floors, had to accumulate at the bottom of the pile before the collpase time could be slowed! And there is NO ADEQUATE RECORD OF BUILDING 7's TOTAL COLLPASE! Therefore, there is NO WAY to definitively detrmine the actual collpase time of building 7!
was building 7 on fire all those years?..Was building 7 suffering from a 25% scoop gouged out of it's side all those other years?...Use some common sense! And before You give Me the ridiculous retort that "fire can't collapse a steel framed building" response, just answer as to why they are fire-proofed to begin with?...
FACT: tHE 911 Commission did not even try to explain how WTC 7 collapsed until 8 years later under pressure to do so and came up with the ''new phenomena'' THEORY. In essence they say that physics changed over night that caused a steel framed multi story building collapse into its own footprint.
@GGcaptmandrake How does calling me a dipshit from the safety of your keyboard prove your point?
I have ALWAYS said the mystery of WTC7 is NOT its collapse. The mystery is the MANNER of its collapse. NIST admits the east and west corners of the north facade dropped within a half second. NIST also admits the north facade dropped at free fall for 25 meters. That means some "event" suddenly removed 25 meters of vertical support from all over its base. What was that "event"?
How are You gonna imply a free-fall: [insisteing that there was an "event" that took place] then tell Me that the wasn't?...I said that the bottom floors were hollow! You said that there was an acceleration, I replied that there HAD to have been one, since there was nothing to repel or slow the collpase! You are the one that is confused! You need to explain how a hollow bottom section is gonna somehow repel the rest of the buildings' collapse!
You are begging the question: WHY did the "hollow bottom section" support the north and west facade for hours after the north tower collapsed, then fail all over the base within a half second, according to NIST? BTW, the word "Me" is not capitalized unless God is speaking!
If you watch the simulation, watch the bottom. Notice the bulge that develops. At that bulge, the building "kicks out". After the kick out, nothing is supporting the structure (in essence). Also the main difference between the computer model and the real thing is that the facade is missing. While the facade isn't really structural, it would help keep the collapse a tad neater as observed.
To model the exact collapse sequence is impossible cause 7 wasn't transparent :)
Your explanation is what I call the "knee joint" hypothesis in which the beams offer little resistance once bent. Engineers call it "buckling".
Problem with the hypothesis: how did all of the beams all over the base happen to buckle at the same time, within a half second according to NIST? No one claims the fires were uniform.
They didn't It was very close to the same time. When one fails the loads transfer immediately, When the next beam overloads in a veryshort amount of time it fails, so on and so forth until the entire structure cannot take the shifting loads and fails globally.
This all happened between the time the east penthouse STARTED to collapse and global collapse.
Hence why I feel editing out the E mechanical Penthouse collapse in videos is one of the most dishonest things truthers ever do.
Fine, we have to explain why they all buckled at the same time, within 0.5 seconds according to NIST.
NIST reported that the east and west corners of the north facade dropped within a half second of each other. If you want to claim the interior collapsed progressively, we still have to explain why the north and west facades dropped together and intact.
what did I say about the facade and how it's not in NISTs model?
When the entire building dropped is when the buckle happened. What is supposed to stop the 2 corners from dropping within a 1/2 second when almost nothing is supporting the entire structure?
You see the answer in front of your face yet you dont connect what happens in the model to what happened in real life.
If we want to explain free fall by bent steel then we must propose that, once bent beyond a certain point, the steel either snapped or offered negligible resistance.
The second hypothesis proposes that the falling interior knocked 25 meters of support from under the north and west facades, allowing them to drop at free fall, AND that the falling interior did so nearly simultaneously.
The NIST simulation shows the interior falling progressively, however.
If you look at simulation at time of global collapse (4:16 in video) as well as figure 3-16 on pg. 84 of NCSTAR-1A report, it shows the lower exterior columns buckling between floors 7-14. Once all axial loads were transferred to the perimeter columns, it took 1.75s for them to buckle at a 2.2m drop (period where columns folded - possibly snapped). This is consistent with the structural analysis model A showing exterior columns buckling outwards.
pg. 592 of the NSCTAR1-9: fig.12.4.6 is a good visual aid for what I'm trying to propose. By the time of free-fall, the core had already failed and floors were in collapse. Portions of falling debris would have attained a velocity well beyond the 9.81 m/s^2 given columns buckled at base. This debris accelerating faster than g colliding with lateral elements still attached would have transferred its momentum to the descending curtain wall; accounting for the increase.
If you could tell me why both these explanations are impossible, I'd like to hear it. If you're going to say they're unlikely, than at least provide a more probable scenario for the 2.25s freefall rather than just discarding issue entirely. (If you're actually looking for a narrative). Many of my previous critiques were ignored. I'm a 9-11 agnostic, I don't accept the NIST report as the absolute explanation, it simply presents the most likely one. That's how the scientific method works.
>> 'the collapse videos do not show any damage to the facade at a time when the interior was supposedly completely destroyed'
As stated, we do see windows breaking so how is it concluded the curtain wall exterior wasn't suffering damage? Because we don't SEE any fracture in the granite facade panels from a video taken from hundreds of yards away? How would you expect the exterior braced shell of a tube-frame structure to react given the NIST collapse model where initiation begins in core?
Cont...Following collapse of east penthouse (79 > 80 > 81), why wouldn't the spandrel braced perimeter columns provide sufficient support for the curtain wall to stay relatively intact until total collapse? Once the core failed, vertical loads were redistributed to the structural frame elements simultaneously. When these columns buckled, the facade collapsed with remaining structure as a single unit. What is the alternate theory for the kink and windows breaking at areas seen in clip?
yep.. you and the wierdo here with the edited voice to make it more scary conspiracy sounding are smarter than the people at NIST.... lmao... riiiight :P and yep NIST are realy going to get their physics wrong on purpose... riiight.. lmao what are you people hoping to achieve from blaming the government for this? a civil war? a new religeon of truthers who will preach it for thousands of years? you people are insane and wasting your life.
Me? I'm not a twoofer, and he says the sound is edited, because he like his job, not only would no one recognize his voice he couldn't get fired over being a moron.
Dude, it's not MY voice. Some of us actually CAN get fired for being controversial. It's called a "responsible job"...I don't suppose you will ever have one!
i did not say the voice was yours, and what kind of twoofer is he if he gonna be scared of revealing his voice? nice excuses.. we all know it is cos twoofers love this kind of scary conspiracy theory voice, makes it soune more.... freaky for you freaky nuts =)
Regarding the Purdue and the NIST simulations: if a simulation does not look like the real event, one usually concludes that he does not understand the real event well enough. I am sure it would be very easy to simulate the collapse of WTC7 exactly, but only if thermite and explosives are assumed.
Thermite and thermATE are not silent but are nearly so compared to real "high" explosives.
There are hundreds of thermite videos on YouTube. In any case, there are witnesses who say there was a countdown to the collapse of WTC7 and a loud explosion at onset.
Unfortunately, the "Veoh video" has no sound. The person who took it messaged me with encouragement but would not explain why there is no sound. Perhaps he does not want his voice to be recognized.
A countdown on radio is one of the most stupid and ridiculous things that has popped into the head of a twoofer, ever. From Red Cross guy covering an inside job to the sheer stupidity of ever having a radio countdown for a black-op for.. some.... reason....... Try OPSEC.
/watch?v=1lhwCM_dicc
Show me thermite cutting anything vertical. And tell me how much thermite you'd need to bring down an entire building...
Maybe it was not YET a secret operation when WTC7 was brought down. Perhaps the official story went out later and everyone got in line to support our president in time of war, except for kook-tard twoofer faggots who hate America and want Muslims to take over the world sarcasm off
That would explain the countdown and the construction workers' remarks "Keep your eye on that building; it'll be coming down" and "That building's gonna blow up"
Yeah, everyone's covering it. Maybe you'd be the first in line to assisting in murdering your colleagues, but I'm sorry to tell you that not everyone's like that, and not everybody voted Bush. What's this "maybe it was not YET a secret operation..." for goodness sake are you listening to WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, insane!
Which construction workers. They were expecting 7 to collapse.
'Gee Barry Jennings said they had reports that a small Cessna had hit the WTC, must've been a small Cessna I guess...
You are right. I have seen that video. I believe it shows a THERMATE device, which, as I'm sure your know, is THERMITE plus sulfur. The flame in that video is energetic and white, as are the few other thermATE flames here on YouTube.
I believe large amounts of thermATE were placed INSIDE the hollow box columns of WTC7 and ignited to bring down the structure.
Perhaps conventional cutter charges were also used.
Yes, the tower core columns were very thick. BUT they were hollow. I believe the hollow spaces were filled with thermATE. The -ATE at the end of that word means sulfur added to the mix. The heated sulfur eats through steel like steam through ice.
"The simulation that you pulled out for your video, wasn't meant for comparison to the actual collapse."
EVERYONE: please read the statement quoted above. Read it over several times and decide for yourself. The statement speaks for itself better than any comment I might make. I made several intemperate ones and decided to delete them all...
Nagasama75 has several videos about WTC7's collapse. All of which I mostly agree with. You can support your argument here if you wish by arguing those points.
I should also comment that the original NIST videos were used to show a simulation comparison, between a building that had not been gutted by debris, and one that had been. The simulation supports that the building must have sustained damage to sustain internal damage to fall the way that it did. The simulation is not a direct composite to what actually occurred, as those elements were not include in the simulation (fire etc.).
NIST posted TWO simulations; the one I show is the better of the two. The other one looked even less like the collapse than the one I used. Even NIST rejected it.
Debris must have had an effect on buildings collapse.
Your conclusion: The simulation doesn't match the actual event, thus it is a lie and or wrong.
Your conclusion isn't based on what the evidence was for, its based on your own interpretation. The simulation that you pulled out for your video, wasn't meant for comparison to the actual collapse.
In the image linked, the yellow side represents the front side of the building we see collapse in the original video. The lines that you draw to show comparison of the yellow side to the simulation, is actually a comparison to none of the colours(sides). It is a side we cannot see. Your line would be the backside of the blue portion of the cube. In other-words, i would recommend reevaluating the dimensions of the simulation to that of the actual videos.
If you watch the videos and the simulation, you will note that the first of the two penthouses to drop was to the observer's (your) left. Thus, the simulation is oriented the same way as WTC7 in the videos we have all seen.
I understand that. What I was pointing out was the two vertical lines you drew were not to those of our perspective. You mention in your video that caving in occurs on the left side, is seen in the simulation, but not in the actual collapse. In the simulation, the caving in, is actually from the south side perspective, not the north which we view in the actual video.
All I drew in the image at 1:46 was the two vertical red lines. Everything else is copied from the NIST simulation. If you want to complain to NIST, I will agree with you.
Not complaining. If you listen to the narrative in how the simulation is to be interpretive, you wouldn't be making your wacky accusations. Read all my posts then give me a compound response. This was an initial response to a compound response as you responded about.
I don't think that they 'lied'. To lie would suggest motive, vs spending hundreds of hours on simulation and thinking of scientific explanation then just admitting to some conspiracy theory. I should also mention that in the original video, you can see @1:30 in the video of the actual collapse, at the top left, the building caves in as the simulation shows. So you are still able to draw similarities to the simulation and the collapse.
AF: you must remember that the simulation and the videos are all looking south at the north side of WTC7. If you watch the best videos carefully, you can see that the EASTERN edge of the north facade moves slightly EAST at collapse onset. In the simulation, by contrast, it moves significantly to the WEST.
I hope it wasn't you littering the video with words so no one could notice the details... Simulations are meant to be just that simulations. I bet if the simulation had random model generators, the collapse in simulation would happen a little differently each time. They focus certain elements in the simulation to match key events in the collapse to fit their theory. Still trying to figure out what you mean. Orienting ones self to a compass in a simulation and then in real life is disorienting.
If fact, if you consider what you pointed out, that the eastern edge appears to move east a bit before the building collapses, we have evidence for contortion, which is entirely inconsistent with explosives taking out entire floors. It shows that the building turned as columns on one side bent, and then it fell into the path of least resistance (the side that was dug out by tower debris).
Even if it was demolition charges and not a bomb that brought down the tower, you still would have heard explosions all over the city. Who's beating straw men now?
The NIST simulation actually matches the actual video quite well if you are willing to let go of your own biased assumptions.
I noticed that the real building collapsed without moving toward the west and without crumpling the north facade, as the simulation shows. In the video, the eastern edge of the north facade moved to the EAST as the collapse began, not the WEST. BTW, the real collapse continued all the way to the ground but the simulation stopped abruptly after three seconds. That alone ruined it for me!
you must be looking the wrong direction because it leans exactly the direction the simulation shows.
And the simulation doesn't need to show the rest of the collapse because from there its pretty predictable.. THE BUILDING FALLS, there really isn't much to show.
In both the simulation AND the videos the observer is NORTH of WTC7, looking south. If you look carefully at the videos, you can see the eastern edge of the north facade move very slightly to the EAST, not WEST.
What happened during the collapse, AFTER the simulation ENDS, is the heart of the controversy: the 2.25 second interval of free fall acceleration. No honest simulation of a fire collapse will reproduce free fall. Why not? Because WEAKENED, bending steel retains SOME strength.
Ah the key here is VERY SLIGHTLY, but if you look at the rest of the fall, you can clearly see the building leaning the other direction as it approaches the ground.
You people claim its ludicrous that a simulation matches so closely to the fall but then complain when it doesn't match exactly.
IF YOU ARE RIGHT, and the building didn't fall as the NIST report claims it did, you still have done NOTHING to prove that there were explosives. You can't assume explosives without some actual evidence.
My point, in two videos, was that 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration is simply NOT CONSISTENT with the official story. David Chandler and even Dr. Sunder of NIST made the same point. 2.25 seconds means 25 meters of vertical support suddenly gone. Not weakened; GONE. Not weakened gradually by fire; GONE SUDDENLY.
Not explosives demolition? Fine, what? I see two possibilities:
The two alternatives to demolition are brittle supports that shattered like glass once overloaded, and "knee joints" in the vertical supports that folded with minimal resistance once bent, like clipping in football.
Anyone else care to suggest another alternative to account for free fall acceleration?
Mine are not very likely, but can you do any better?
The problem is there is STILL NO EVIDENCE FOR DEMOLITION. no explosions, no residue, no cabling, no nothing. The collapse of a building is incredibly dynamic in nature. To think that any agency could hope to get it exactly right in the first place is absolutely unreasonable.
You wouldn't be satisfied if the entire complex was build, planes crashed into it and the whole thing was filmed from every angle.
Your rhetorical question does little to prove any point you may wish to make.
A rhetorical question is one that does not expect an answer. I very much would like an answer. I asked for alternatives to a demolition, I gave two examples and asked for more. You can't give me one and you won't comment on mine. You don't even like me asking the question. Why not?
your alternatives were straw men. In as much as you can suggest the only alternative is that supports shatter like glass, or are pre-equipped with knee joints for guaranteed failure, I can suggest that termites tore the building down.
A perfectly viable alternative has already been presented. THAT UNCHECKED FIRES CAUSED DISTORTIONS OF THE SUPPORTS WHICH ULTIMATELY CAUSED THE BUILDING TO FAIL, which you have yet to prove stands outside the realm of possibility.
Sorry, Dr. Sunder of NIST has explained why fire distortions CANNOT explain free fall. Note: Dr. Sunder is not a conspiracy kook-tard twoofer.
He explained that free fall means NO support, not weakened support. Dr. Sunder's explanation of why free fall is impossible was given at the time when NIST still denied free fall actually happened.
Dr. Sunder is not the only one to have verified free fall. See David Chandler. It is really not controversial any more. The INTERPRETATION is controversial. My side says controlled demolition took out 25 meters of vertical support simultaneously; your side says very little. I would like to hear your explanations. If mine are straw men, let's hear yours. But gradual weakening by fire cannot explain it.
oh, and don't accuse me of not liking questions. The question "Why did building 7 fall" is a legitimate one. No one can doubt that. I for one was able to see that the answers that people like you give are unsatisfactory.
I think the word 'gone' is taken out of context. Gone doesn't suggest explosives. Gone is not a word with limitations too two of your theories. Gone just suggests there isn't a current scientific way of proving what could have caused the building to fall faster, within those 25 meters. I'm sure the scientific community could think of dozens of reasons. A true scientist doesn't suggest his hypothesis without some kind of experiment in mind to prove it.
My conclusion, and David Chandler's, is that free fall for 2.25 seconds means 25 meters of vertical support was suddenly GONE. Not weakened by fire, but GONE in the sense of providing no upward force on the falling building.
Is that the most current quote, or an older one? I was reading that the face of the building we cannot see was damaged significantly, a large section was scooped out.
So how come observed, videod and photoed reality doesnt match the official explanation?
Answer: the explanation is wrong.
In fact it looks nothing remotely near it.
NIST heavily loaded this sim with unprovable facts to get as near as possible they could and its still nowhere near it.
Its pathetic but thats an official explanation for you.
Its expected to be totally be believed by everyone and anyone who questions it is labelled a retard a nut conspiracy theorist etc.
zenoist2 2 months ago
is it any wonder that the official blueprints for wtc 7 have never been released? real engineers and architects would be all over this, and NISTs ass of course.
vengencefrom1979 5 months ago
The Final Report on WTC building7 by NIST.
indocafe2007 5 months ago
Damn, this is excellent.
Daghead 6 months ago
NIST could solve all of the controversy by releasing their reports and data for peer review. Anyone who does not agree with this is either a shill or a complete moron. There is no logical reason why NIST can't submit their reports and data for peer review. What's so illogical about demanding that NIST submit its reports and data for peer review?
Daddyo930 8 months ago 2
The building was leaning to the south after the first 25-30m i saw it from wintergarden side!
74pbg 11 months ago
The building wss
74pbg 11 months ago
@HeliVis Which direction did YOU see the building lean in the simulation?
In the simulation, the north and west faces of WTC7 are shown, correct?
Thus, west is to the viewer's right, correct?
The simulated collapse shows the building leaning to the viewer's right, correct?
Help me out, please!
Skeptic121 1 year ago
Okay guys... ONE thin i dont et it at all.
WHY they would implode this building that has absolutly nothing to do with the twin towers?
Kuti210 1 year ago
watch?v=YResfXTXd1c
Watch it NOW, it's all info Alex Jones will never tell you
our real enemy is :
scorpionsSon 1 year ago
Skeptic - Cole is a total troll. the man is deluded, and is one of the many, many people who refuses to see the evidence that is right in front of him. he is either too shitscared, too stupid, or too bought to accept the truth and/or shut his gob. He has spewed the same crap all over the other pages, and has not once addressed any of the issues raised by the people who challenge the official lies.
I know we need to keep up the fight but he will never see what he does not want to see.
ThePassiveFist 1 year ago
@ThePassiveFist Thanks! It is pretty obvious that some people just will not address actual evidence. Many of them work for the government. GWB is not smart enough to discuss actual evidence....of anything. Dick Cheney is smart enough to use GWB as a sock puppet and lie to the 9/11 Omission.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
there are people like Cole who spend ages spreading disinformation. the sad thing is that in a lot of cases, these people do just enough to convince the average Joe that we're the ones who are deluded. never once do i get an answer from any of them regarding their reason for not wanting a new investigation. if there's nothing to hide, they should just allow it and then they can call us idiots. truth is, they never will because they know we have physics and facts on our side.
ThePassiveFist 1 year ago
Also, if you are so sure the building fell at the much-ballyhooed "free fall" yet you can see other debris CLEARLY out accelerating the building.
What say you to this? Are you going to lay a "Well, there were "extra" rockets on those faster pieces" argument on me next? You 911 conspiritards always ahve another hare-brained excuse when reality andyour paranoid BS don't match up. You're all "physics-challenged" .
HeliVis 1 year ago
@HeliVis NIST acknowledged that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters. It did NOT drop at free fall acceleration for its entire descent; only for 25 meters. What does that fact tell us?
It tells us that a 25 meter segment of vertical support was removed from all over the base of WTC7, suddenly and at nearly the same time (within 0.5 sec). Once WTC7 dropped 25 meters, it no longer accelerated downward. Why not? Because the undamaged floors hit the ground.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
If 25 meters of support was instantaneously removed from the base of WTC7, then explain how phase-1 of the global collapse sequence is possible...where frame descends 2m @ 1.75s (well below freefall-A). The building should have gone into freefall immediately if this were the case. Do you have an explanation for this Skeptic121?
Lazurus464 9 months ago
@Lazurus464 The debris, or crime scene evidence, was destroyed so we cannot know for sure. My speculation: more than one type of demolition or sabotage device was used. Thermate devices were used to weaken the building silently, WITHOUT explosions. Once the building was weakened by thermate, it could be brought down by fewer and less powerful explosive charges than are usually used for CD. The penthouse and initial slow drop were caused by thermate/thermite weakening. You sound angry; why?
Skeptic121 9 months ago
@Skeptic121
Angry? What was angry about the below post?
You presented a theory that 25m were instantaneously removed...a theory that is immediately disproven when we consider phase-1 of time table. Even if thermite could somehow be retrofitted to weaken a vertical support, it still doesn't explain the 2.2M drop @1.75s. Why not consider the fires as the culprit in WTC7 collapse - we KNOW multi-floor office fires were present - we don't need to invent unknown forces to explain this event
Lazurus464 9 months ago
@Lazurus464 "Do you have an explanation for this Skeptic121?" sounds angry to me...
I suppose fire OR thermate could explain the slow drop called "Phase 1"
However, for reasons discussed by Dr. Sunder of NIST, fire cannot explain the 25 meters of free fall. Why not? Because free fall means NO upward force on the falling building. In addition, NIST acknowledges that the east and west upper corners of the north facade dropped within 0.5 seconds of each other. Good timing for chaotic fires!
Skeptic121 9 months ago
@Skeptic121
'Because free fall means NO upward force on the falling building.'
Much of the building mass were already in descent by the time of Global collapse, this debris would have attained a velocity well above 9.8 m/s - and when impacting lateral facets (beams - floors etc). would have increased descent speed of facade as momentum was transferred. We see the East penthouse cave in way before total collapse in WTC7 videos.
Lazurus464 9 months ago
The corners would have dropped at nearly the same time because this is a solid 1-piece parallelogram. AS the core failed, vertical loads were simultaneously redistributed to the structural frame elements. When these columns buckled, the remaining structure collapsed as a single unit.
So you believe thermite/fire caused the initial collapse - 2.2m drop...and then a 2'nd collapse event was triggered 1.75s later. Talk about timing. Not to mention completely pointless for any conspiracy theory.
Lazurus464 9 months ago
@Lazurus464 "this is a solid 1-piece parallelogram." That's a new one!
Skeptic121 9 months ago
@Lazurus464 so? what about the front of the building being massively damaged by rubble and the other 3 sides not?
Cant debunkers get it into their thick skulls this is not EVEN damage?
all 4 corners are not damaged?
Uneven damage NEVER causes EVEN collapse, its a physical impossibility.
Ok now tell me why it fell at admitted free fall?
It took NIST years to find this out after it was pointed out to them.
Erm ok it fell at free fall and we dont why.
The whole thing is a pathetic lie.
zenoist2 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I feel lucky I know physics. So many people can't see the lie because they just don't know what they are looking at.
JSSTyger 1 year ago
Great video thanks!
katlovesall 1 year ago
The fun part being, NIST themselves prove their own hypothesis false.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago
@roxxphatcox Perhaps some of the engineers at NIST "prove their own hypothesis false" deliberately. Dr. Sunder is a Brahmin, a member of the highest caste in India, comprising intellectuals and priests. As such, Dr. Sunder is extremely reluctant to tell a bare face lie. OTOH, he is unwilling to disparage his "host", NIST, in any way. Thus, he answered David Chandler truthfully but did not speculate on any implications. In contrast, John Gross lies without shame.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
The fun part being, NIST themselves prove their own hypothesis false.
roxxphatcox 1 year ago 2
Is there a sequel to this?
The4LA2Baker0 1 year ago
@The4LA2Baker0 David Ray Griffin has covered WTC7 and the NIST report in his new book, which is the definitive report on this subject. Griffin is not a scientist but he does not write for scientists. He writes for intelligent laymen. It is obvious that real scientists have helped him. He mentions some, but there are obviously others who helped but declined to be mentioned in the acknowledgment section. If you read the book, pay particular attention to the work of Prof. Jonathan Barnett.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121 Thanks for your speedy reply, but i was wondering if there was a sequel to this video on youtube. I am well aware of Dr Griffin, i have new pearl harbor and omission and distortions. I actually live right by the school of theology where he taught for many years. I really liked this video and was hoping you could direct me to more of the like. Thanks again.
The4LA2Baker0 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
Oh yeah, David Ray Griffin is soooooo inteligent that NASA scientist Ryan Mackey has exposed over 50 ERRORS, LIES, & OMISSIONS in Griffins book.
Not only that, but Mackey has challeged Griffin NUMEROUS times o a debate.
David Ray Griffin has yet to address his LIES and is afraid to debate his magical theories.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
Give me your facts. My job involves being highly knowledgeable in aerospace engineering, which actually doesn't matter much in regards to HISTORY in this case. Dogma? ...Oh, the irony. How the majority of humans on this planet believe 911 to be an inside job because of the unconvincing dogma outside of government facts. Damn dogma.
blueprophet9 2 years ago
great video - Thank you for your level head!
woody91142069 2 years ago
My response to two nasty comments below: Some regular guys think WTC7 was an obvious CD and say so bluntly. Others think the only reason to SAY it was a CD is because "you're a twoofer faggot who hates America and wants the terrorists to win".
Neither comment is an example of good writing or deep thinking.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
@Skeptic121
Yes, I say so bluntly. You have to be pretty slow to not understand false flags by now. I could go deep into it, but only for someone who can handle it. Good writing? On a comment...yeah, done that, been there. We should already be past this subject...leave it to people like LOLCATS. They trust Gov history(nationalism).
blueprophet9 2 years ago 2
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since Larry Silverstein said pull it, demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there's evidence of fraud?
If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?
How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
Insurance company executives probably decided they did not want to be called anti-Semitic Arab-loving terrorists who hate America, especially not right after 9/11/2001 with patriotism running strong. Not a great career move! After all, it's not their money.
WTC1&2 fell very differently from WTC7. This video is about WTC7 only.
Forget Marvin Bush; he proves nothing.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
"Insurance company executives probably............"
PROBABLY?
You're going to start arguing your pathetic case with the word "probably"? No wonder you're stuck on youtube pitching your magical theories to teenagers and NOT in a court of law.
So you're just going to ignore WTC 1 &2?
Marvin Bush proves 911 twoofers are a bunch of uneducated gullble morons who will believe any the puppet masters tell them.
Skeptic121 DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 Dude, when I say "probably" they don't want to be called anti-Semitic terrorists that was a JOKE. Of course they don't want to....get a sense of humor!
You are getting WAY too worked up over a comment on YouTube.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
I'm just searching for the truth.
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77 You misunderstand the rhetorical device called a "straw man".
Here is an example: "Ron Paul wants Arabs to take over America and make women wear burkhas." Ron Paul does NOT want Arabs to take over America; he just wants the US out of Iraq. If Arabs tried to come here, he would vote to fight them off.
The "straw man" is the fake position attributed to Ron Paul of wanting Arabs to take over. His opponent attacks the fake position instead of his real one, getting out of Iraq.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Skeptic121
No, it's you who are mistaken.
"A steel building has never collapse due to fire"
This is a strawman argument. It doesn't mean ANYTHING.
Just because something has never happened doesn't mean it can't happen.
But the entire 911 twoof movement, especially Richard Gage, parades this useless statement as 100% proof that 911 was an outside job.
STRAWMAN = HOLLOW ARGUMENT = 911 TWOOF
ctcole77 1 year ago
@Skeptic121 why sucha big deal about muslins in america? You are being intolerant as cole is
Kuti210 1 year ago
@Kuti210 It was an example of a straw man argument! I do not believe Muslims want to take over America.
Skeptic121 1 year ago
Sweet Jesus! Anyone who still thinks the buildings fell because of fire is a sub-primal fucktwit or hack agent and can't be helped. Morons.
blueprophet9 2 years ago
blueprophet9 - YOU ARE A CLUELESS MORON !!!!!
LOLCATS3111 2 years ago
Watch out for disinfo agents here every day.
GGCaptMandrake tracked 339 posts on 26 videos | 24 hours: 1 | 48 hours: 6 | 72 hours: 36 | 1 week: 223
TrutherD1 2 years ago
@TrutherD1 My boss would fire my worthless ass if I did that!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
FACT: The 9/11 Commission gave no official response to bldg 7 collapse. They felt it was not necessary.
talltatguy 2 years ago
FACT: G.w.Bush, in his first 8 months in office as president spent 42% of this time on vacation. Washington Post. FACT: President Bush approval rating down 42%. Gallop Poll. FACT: Highly publicized set of public appearance, scheduled for Sept 11th 2001 in Fl. A.P, Washington Post. FACT: G.W.Bush company , heavily invested in, as well as personally tied tied to Bin Laden Family. SEC. FACT:Aug 6th 01 G.Bush given Intelligence Briefing, stating Osama planning multiple high jack of planes in U.S
talltatguy 2 years ago
FACT: G.W.Bush and Dick cheney refused to testify under oath at the 911 commision. W.Post,N.Y. Times,A.P,FOX,ABC,NBC,CBS. They later answer questions while together and no recording, no press, are allowed. Any notes taken were then reviewed and screened before given back
talltatguy 2 years ago
FACT: There were large pools of molten iron, not aluminum under all 3 bldgs. Any video image around.
talltatguy 2 years ago
FACT: There was no visibly recorded evidence of NIST statement that there was significant damage to the face of 7.
talltatguy 2 years ago
FACT: The 9/11 Commission did not even bother to draw a report up on tower 7.
talltatguy 2 years ago
FACT: "Each floor was sealed and shuttered to prevent the spread of fire and limit the available oxygen to the fire." Aaron Swisky, WTC designer.
talltatguy 2 years ago
This was a really well put together video. I'm actually considering using it in a film I'm making about WTC 7. But only if that's okay with you of course.
citizenfor911truth1 2 years ago
@citizenfor911truth1
Thanks!
Feel free to use it any way you like....Take a look at David Chandler's videos on the subject.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Thank you. I'll send you the film when I'm finished with it, which unfortunately is taking a bit longer than I expected.
citizenfor911truth1 2 years ago
Nist is not truthfull nor interested in the truth.
Their science t is one of the most severe insults of the wtc victims.
Its a deeply disturbing fact that these people will use science to attack the american mind.
In fact the nist report is a new attack on a different level.
These people must be charged as traitors and enemies of the public.
aburgheim 2 years ago
Let me try to provide a quick example of a report for a CD hypothesis in regards to freefall:
Custom designed LSC's totaling 648 units capable of withstanding fires and debris damage were attached to the 81 columns on each 8 floor span. Collapse of penthouse > window damage and following 1.75s ~ 7ft. descent (1'st phase) was part of a seperate event to support collapse theory fabrication. Absence of decibel peaks, seismic data & PSI blowouts were edited from video footage / records. Cont...
Algonquien3 2 years ago
LCS = "linear shaped charge" containing copper, which becomes a steel-cutting plasma when compressed by the RDX = "Royal [British] Demolition eXplosive"
There are witness accounts of loud explosions right at the onset of WTC7's collapse.
I still say NIST refused to simulate a real controlled demolition because everyone would have said "Yes, that's what happened!"
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Indeed, this may be the reason why NIST refused to consider a vanilla controlled demolition initiated on all support columns in the basement. The report would have been brief, the model would have matched the videos, and the public--including discriminating engineers and demolition professionals, would have concurred.
But then, the public may start to complain that some criminal investigation was in order...What a can of worms!
Love,
DanUuNoel 2 years ago
Since the prog. collapse was triggered by failure of col. 79, the NIST blast hypothesis was tested using the smallest possible LSC explosive powerful enough to sever col. 79. (why would they try to examine a more complex CD?) They concluded the energetic blast required to sever col. 79 would generate pressure waves, dbA & seismic readings that were not recorded.
Much smaller 31 story Landmark demo at a distance:
watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
WTC-7 collapse filmed within blocks:
watch?v=1KQA1KOKrPc
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
Again, there are witnesses that claim to have heard explosions from WTC7 before its collapse.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
>> 'there are witnesses that claim to have heard explosions from WTC7 before its collapse'
Original video footage is the most credible and accurate representation of any event. Testimony is not irrelevant but I haven't seen a compilation of witness accounts testifying they heard explosives within 15 seconds of the WTC-7 collapse. Please source this material. The 06' TX landmark demo is relevant to a CD hypothesis as it demonstrates what we could expect when explosives sever steel columns.
Algonquien3 2 years ago
LSC - RDX composites are the most potent form of CD. Simulating with other explosives would have been meaningless for this test since energy required to sever steel remains constant. The simulation was intended to analyze the db(A) - PSI output generated by a blast powerful enough to sever a critical core column and apply those results to WTC-7 site. The report clearly states more than 1 charge would be used for a real CD, but multiple blasts wouldn't support CD theory if 1 blast refutes it.
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
Sorry; you are BS'ing us here. The question is whether a CD could make the structure drop as we saw it drop in the videos. That question alone would justify simulation of a proper demolition.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
>> 'The question is whether a CD could make the structure drop as we saw in the videos. That question alone would justify simulation of a proper demolition'
Yes, but you can't just stop at that question and ignore everything else observed to form a scientific model. A refuting hypothesis has to account for these documented events. The NIST publications explaining prog. collapse consist of over 1000 pages. "WTC7 was a CD" is not a report. That's like if NCSTAR just said "WTC-7 collapsed".
Algonquien3 2 years ago
Tony:
Most of the debunkers concede free fall for 2.25 seconds. Only a very few of them try to explain it. Some deny that it means anything. Others ignore it. Algonquien3 below concedes the 2.25 seconds but notes that much of the collapse was NOT at free fall, which is correct.
My interpretation: 2.25 sec = 25 meters segment of vertical support suddenly GONE, throughout the base of WTC7 within a half second (NIST). Weakened steel won't explain it; the 25 meters was GONE, not weakened.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
NIST's "40% slower than free-fall" is total bullshit. They picked an arbitrary fall starting point so they can falsely claim a total of 5.4 seconds collapse time. There was over two seconds during which there was absolute free fall. NIST's bogus computer simulation cannot account for this.
TonyWicher 2 years ago
>> 'NIST simulated damage caused by a bomb'
This is a blatant lie. The word bomb in never mentioned in the NCSTAR-1A report. The image at 6:04 is fig. 3-1 from chapter 3 and is simulating "two shaped charges applied to column 79". The purple area is not designating a crater...it's representing the PSI that would be caused by a hypothetical BLAST scenario. Station numbers in blue being the predicted window failure locations from pressure waves. The color key can be seen on pg 27 of NCSTAR-1A.
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
Point taken; bomb was the wrong word. But, there are better cutter charges they could have used for their simulation.
MOST important: they could hardly expect to simulate a controlled demolition with only ONE column rigged with cutter charges of any kind. The point is, they didn't try very hard to show us what a CD would have looked like in WTC7.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
In regards to free-fall: See pg 602 of NCSTAR1-9. Free-fall was not noted during initial descent. The observed fall time of the visible top 18 stories was 40% greater than free-fall. This can be divided between 3 phases: 1'st phase NIST reports a slow descent time consistent with column buckling. 2'nd phase NIST does report free-fall for 105 ft (2.25s) resistance being negligible in computation. Then a decreasing acceleration when north face encountered resistance from below structure.
Algonquien3 2 years ago
"2'nd phase NIST does report free-fall for 105 ft (2.25s) resistance being negligible"
So...it looks like we agree about 2.25 seconds of free fall with negligible resistance.
Do you have an explanation for how this "negligible resistance" happened suddenly and within a half second across a 100 meter wide building?
Thanks!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
The question of why structure descended at free fall for 2.25s is relevant...I don't have an answer but I can present a possible hypotheses: The NIST simulation showing the lower 8 floors folding outwards could be 1 explanation. Another possibility is the failed core mechanisms descending at time of global collapse may have pulled the structure downwards during there descent. While it might be an unusual phenomenon, is not unexpected or unexplainable given the known circumstances.
Algonquien3 2 years ago
Cont - However, how would one explain these results with a CD hypothesis? If controlled demolitions were the cause of structural failure, 8 stories would have had to instantly and completely disappear to achieve 2.25s of gravitation free-fall acceleration.
I wanted to address the NIST 3-phase decent breakdown to correct the record that they never actually "denied" free-fall...the first draft of the NIST report allowed for a period of free-fall, they simply didn't quantify it.
Algonquien3 2 years ago
Al, you are quite correct about the 2.25 meters of free fall acceleration. As I have been writing for years, it means almost eight floors of vertical support suddenly GONE. Not weakened. Not bending. Suddenly gone. You are right: it would not be easy, even with explosives. BUT, that fact also means it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to bring about with fires. No one claims fires were on eight contiguous floors of WTC7 at the same time!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
>> 'it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to bring about with fires'
Agreed, fires would be IMPOSSIBLE to cause 8story free fall. But I never said fires accounted for this. Fire is just what initiated column 79 buckle > eastern collapse trigger > multi-floor cascading > H-VT core failure > exterior column buckling (global collapse) > free fall phase*.
Neither of my 2 theories were addressed / refuted.
1. perimeter outward buckle - floor folding
2. momentum transfer from falling debris
Algonquien3 2 years ago
Not to mention: You totally are forgetting, that the bottom 7 or 8 floors of building 7, were hollow, and that they provided NO RESISTANCE to the other collpasing 39 stories above! Those floors, had to accumulate at the bottom of the pile before the collpase time could be slowed! And there is NO ADEQUATE RECORD OF BUILDING 7's TOTAL COLLPASE! Therefore, there is NO WAY to definitively detrmine the actual collpase time of building 7!
GGcaptmandrake 2 years ago
@GGcaptmandrake
"the bottom 7 or 8 floors of building 7, were hollow, and that they provided NO RESISTANCE to the other collpasing 39 stories above"
So...how did WTC7 stay up all those years?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Hey dipshit!... I mean skeptic121:
was building 7 on fire all those years?..Was building 7 suffering from a 25% scoop gouged out of it's side all those other years?...Use some common sense! And before You give Me the ridiculous retort that "fire can't collapse a steel framed building" response, just answer as to why they are fire-proofed to begin with?...
GGcaptmandrake 2 years ago
FACT: tHE 911 Commission did not even try to explain how WTC 7 collapsed until 8 years later under pressure to do so and came up with the ''new phenomena'' THEORY. In essence they say that physics changed over night that caused a steel framed multi story building collapse into its own footprint.
breando1 2 years ago
@GGcaptmandrake How does calling me a dipshit from the safety of your keyboard prove your point?
I have ALWAYS said the mystery of WTC7 is NOT its collapse. The mystery is the MANNER of its collapse. NIST admits the east and west corners of the north facade dropped within a half second. NIST also admits the north facade dropped at free fall for 25 meters. That means some "event" suddenly removed 25 meters of vertical support from all over its base. What was that "event"?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Nothing was removed, it was hollow at the bottom! This is what led to the temporary increase in speed!
GGcaptmandrake 2 years ago
@GGcaptmandrake
You are embarrassing yourself in front of people who understand high school physics. Fortunately for you, that's a small group!
If you care, you might want to learn the difference between speed and acceleration.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
How are You gonna imply a free-fall: [insisteing that there was an "event" that took place] then tell Me that the wasn't?...I said that the bottom floors were hollow! You said that there was an acceleration, I replied that there HAD to have been one, since there was nothing to repel or slow the collpase! You are the one that is confused! You need to explain how a hollow bottom section is gonna somehow repel the rest of the buildings' collapse!
GGcaptmandrake 2 years ago
@GGcaptmandrake
NIST acknowledges 25 meters of free fall.
You are begging the question: WHY did the "hollow bottom section" support the north and west facade for hours after the north tower collapsed, then fail all over the base within a half second, according to NIST? BTW, the word "Me" is not capitalized unless God is speaking!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
@Skeptic121
Hi Skeptic.
If you watch the simulation, watch the bottom. Notice the bulge that develops. At that bulge, the building "kicks out". After the kick out, nothing is supporting the structure (in essence). Also the main difference between the computer model and the real thing is that the facade is missing. While the facade isn't really structural, it would help keep the collapse a tad neater as observed.
To model the exact collapse sequence is impossible cause 7 wasn't transparent :)
justin39640 2 years ago
Justin,
Thanks for that observation!
Your explanation is what I call the "knee joint" hypothesis in which the beams offer little resistance once bent. Engineers call it "buckling".
Problem with the hypothesis: how did all of the beams all over the base happen to buckle at the same time, within a half second according to NIST? No one claims the fires were uniform.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
@Skeptic121
They didn't It was very close to the same time. When one fails the loads transfer immediately, When the next beam overloads in a veryshort amount of time it fails, so on and so forth until the entire structure cannot take the shifting loads and fails globally.
This all happened between the time the east penthouse STARTED to collapse and global collapse.
Hence why I feel editing out the E mechanical Penthouse collapse in videos is one of the most dishonest things truthers ever do.
justin39640 2 years ago
@Skeptic121 They offer no resistance
they're not supporting the building once they have buckled
no support = building collapse.
justin39640 2 years ago
Fine, we have to explain why they all buckled at the same time, within 0.5 seconds according to NIST.
NIST reported that the east and west corners of the north facade dropped within a half second of each other. If you want to claim the interior collapsed progressively, we still have to explain why the north and west facades dropped together and intact.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
@Skeptic121
what did I say about the facade and how it's not in NISTs model?
When the entire building dropped is when the buckle happened. What is supposed to stop the 2 corners from dropping within a 1/2 second when almost nothing is supporting the entire structure?
You see the answer in front of your face yet you dont connect what happens in the model to what happened in real life.
justin39640 2 years ago
@justin39640 Sorry Justin!
I'm going with my lying eyes instead of the NIST model.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
@Skeptic121
So your eyes tell you that a building can stand with no support?
Eyes are never deceiving?
Your eyes could see through the buildings in videos to see the collapse zone that no one else taped during the collapse?
OK
Have fun with that....
justin39640 2 years ago
Thanks for the hypotheses!
If we want to explain free fall by bent steel then we must propose that, once bent beyond a certain point, the steel either snapped or offered negligible resistance.
The second hypothesis proposes that the falling interior knocked 25 meters of support from under the north and west facades, allowing them to drop at free fall, AND that the falling interior did so nearly simultaneously.
The NIST simulation shows the interior falling progressively, however.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
The NIST bent steel model follow-up:
If you look at simulation at time of global collapse (4:16 in video) as well as figure 3-16 on pg. 84 of NCSTAR-1A report, it shows the lower exterior columns buckling between floors 7-14. Once all axial loads were transferred to the perimeter columns, it took 1.75s for them to buckle at a 2.2m drop (period where columns folded - possibly snapped). This is consistent with the structural analysis model A showing exterior columns buckling outwards.
Algonquien3 2 years ago
Regarding my hypothesis:
pg. 592 of the NSCTAR1-9: fig.12.4.6 is a good visual aid for what I'm trying to propose. By the time of free-fall, the core had already failed and floors were in collapse. Portions of falling debris would have attained a velocity well beyond the 9.81 m/s^2 given columns buckled at base. This debris accelerating faster than g colliding with lateral elements still attached would have transferred its momentum to the descending curtain wall; accounting for the increase.
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
If you could tell me why both these explanations are impossible, I'd like to hear it. If you're going to say they're unlikely, than at least provide a more probable scenario for the 2.25s freefall rather than just discarding issue entirely. (If you're actually looking for a narrative). Many of my previous critiques were ignored. I'm a 9-11 agnostic, I don't accept the NIST report as the absolute explanation, it simply presents the most likely one. That's how the scientific method works.
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
@Algonquien3 "This debris accelerating faster than g colliding with lateral elements"
Falling debris accelerating FASTER THAN g???? What planet are we on? Or did the debris have rockets on the top of it, blasting it downwards?
CodeTwo2 1 year ago
>> 'the collapse videos do not show any damage to the facade at a time when the interior was supposedly completely destroyed'
As stated, we do see windows breaking so how is it concluded the curtain wall exterior wasn't suffering damage? Because we don't SEE any fracture in the granite facade panels from a video taken from hundreds of yards away? How would you expect the exterior braced shell of a tube-frame structure to react given the NIST collapse model where initiation begins in core?
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
Cont...Following collapse of east penthouse (79 > 80 > 81), why wouldn't the spandrel braced perimeter columns provide sufficient support for the curtain wall to stay relatively intact until total collapse? Once the core failed, vertical loads were redistributed to the structural frame elements simultaneously. When these columns buckled, the facade collapsed with remaining structure as a single unit. What is the alternate theory for the kink and windows breaking at areas seen in clip?
Algonquien3 2 years ago 2
yep.. you and the wierdo here with the edited voice to make it more scary conspiracy sounding are smarter than the people at NIST.... lmao... riiiight :P and yep NIST are realy going to get their physics wrong on purpose... riiight.. lmao what are you people hoping to achieve from blaming the government for this? a civil war? a new religeon of truthers who will preach it for thousands of years? you people are insane and wasting your life.
spacecoke 2 years ago
Me? I'm not a twoofer, and he says the sound is edited, because he like his job, not only would no one recognize his voice he couldn't get fired over being a moron.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Dude, it's not MY voice. Some of us actually CAN get fired for being controversial. It's called a "responsible job"...I don't suppose you will ever have one!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
i did not say the voice was yours, and what kind of twoofer is he if he gonna be scared of revealing his voice? nice excuses.. we all know it is cos twoofers love this kind of scary conspiracy theory voice, makes it soune more.... freaky for you freaky nuts =)
spacecoke 2 years ago
Diplomat?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
spacecoke
you seem to be wasting YOUR life right along with me!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
nah your insanity can be entertaining, its almost like satire. enjoy life xD
spacecoke 2 years ago
Where can I buy silent explosives?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
PS, are you blind, take a look at the top north eastern corner after the penthouse falls, you see through the windows.
Silent eh?
/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
If they can't even simulate building 7 well enough then why'd you expect them to be able to simulate the towers?
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Regarding the Purdue and the NIST simulations: if a simulation does not look like the real event, one usually concludes that he does not understand the real event well enough. I am sure it would be very easy to simulate the collapse of WTC7 exactly, but only if thermite and explosives are assumed.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
You can be sure all you want, simulation is not easy.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
How many people died in the collapse of Building 7.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
I do not know how many people died in WTC7.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
0......
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Thermite and thermATE are not silent but are nearly so compared to real "high" explosives.
There are hundreds of thermite videos on YouTube. In any case, there are witnesses who say there was a countdown to the collapse of WTC7 and a loud explosion at onset.
Unfortunately, the "Veoh video" has no sound. The person who took it messaged me with encouragement but would not explain why there is no sound. Perhaps he does not want his voice to be recognized.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Thermite and thermate are quiet.
A countdown on radio is one of the most stupid and ridiculous things that has popped into the head of a twoofer, ever. From Red Cross guy covering an inside job to the sheer stupidity of ever having a radio countdown for a black-op for.. some.... reason....... Try OPSEC.
/watch?v=1lhwCM_dicc
Show me thermite cutting anything vertical. And tell me how much thermite you'd need to bring down an entire building...
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
Maybe it was not YET a secret operation when WTC7 was brought down. Perhaps the official story went out later and everyone got in line to support our president in time of war, except for kook-tard twoofer faggots who hate America and want Muslims to take over the world sarcasm off
That would explain the countdown and the construction workers' remarks "Keep your eye on that building; it'll be coming down" and "That building's gonna blow up"
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Yeah, everyone's covering it. Maybe you'd be the first in line to assisting in murdering your colleagues, but I'm sorry to tell you that not everyone's like that, and not everybody voted Bush. What's this "maybe it was not YET a secret operation..." for goodness sake are you listening to WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, insane!
Which construction workers. They were expecting 7 to collapse.
'Gee Barry Jennings said they had reports that a small Cessna had hit the WTC, must've been a small Cessna I guess...
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
FYI, when someone gets angry at a YouTube post by a nobody like me....I wonder which nerve I have hit.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4 who sez:
Show me thermite cutting anything vertical. And tell me how much thermite you'd need to bring down an entire building...
Linear Thermite Cutting Charges
/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
one per column
LipsMalloy 2 years ago
@LipsMalloy
You are right. I have seen that video. I believe it shows a THERMATE device, which, as I'm sure your know, is THERMITE plus sulfur. The flame in that video is energetic and white, as are the few other thermATE flames here on YouTube.
I believe large amounts of thermATE were placed INSIDE the hollow box columns of WTC7 and ignited to bring down the structure.
Perhaps conventional cutter charges were also used.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Moar liek 1000 per column.
Weirdo10o4 2 years ago
@Weirdo10o4
Yes, the tower core columns were very thick. BUT they were hollow. I believe the hollow spaces were filled with thermATE. The -ATE at the end of that word means sulfur added to the mix. The heated sulfur eats through steel like steam through ice.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Skeptic121: "I believe the hollow spaces were filled with thermATE."
YES! I truly believe that drinking large amounts of water can damage the brain due to the added Fluoride.
WeNeedChanged 2 years ago
"The simulation that you pulled out for your video, wasn't meant for comparison to the actual collapse."
EVERYONE: please read the statement quoted above. Read it over several times and decide for yourself. The statement speaks for itself better than any comment I might make. I made several intemperate ones and decided to delete them all...
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Nagasama75 has several videos about WTC7's collapse. All of which I mostly agree with. You can support your argument here if you wish by arguing those points.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
I should also comment that the original NIST videos were used to show a simulation comparison, between a building that had not been gutted by debris, and one that had been. The simulation supports that the building must have sustained damage to sustain internal damage to fall the way that it did. The simulation is not a direct composite to what actually occurred, as those elements were not include in the simulation (fire etc.).
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
NIST posted TWO simulations; the one I show is the better of the two. The other one looked even less like the collapse than the one I used. Even NIST rejected it.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Sigh. My words are not even slightly penetrating.
Simulation 1 without debris
Simulation 2 with debris
Comparison.
Debris must have had an effect on buildings collapse.
Your conclusion: The simulation doesn't match the actual event, thus it is a lie and or wrong.
Your conclusion isn't based on what the evidence was for, its based on your own interpretation. The simulation that you pulled out for your video, wasn't meant for comparison to the actual collapse.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
In the image linked, the yellow side represents the front side of the building we see collapse in the original video. The lines that you draw to show comparison of the yellow side to the simulation, is actually a comparison to none of the colours(sides). It is a side we cannot see. Your line would be the backside of the blue portion of the cube. In other-words, i would recommend reevaluating the dimensions of the simulation to that of the actual videos.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
If you watch the videos and the simulation, you will note that the first of the two penthouses to drop was to the observer's (your) left. Thus, the simulation is oriented the same way as WTC7 in the videos we have all seen.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
I understand that. What I was pointing out was the two vertical lines you drew were not to those of our perspective. You mention in your video that caving in occurs on the left side, is seen in the simulation, but not in the actual collapse. In the simulation, the caving in, is actually from the south side perspective, not the north which we view in the actual video.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
I'm going to use an external source to explain dimensions, and why your comparison at 1:46 in your video is incorrect.
Using: 'wiki/File:Uniform_polyhedron_222-t012.png'
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
All I drew in the image at 1:46 was the two vertical red lines. Everything else is copied from the NIST simulation. If you want to complain to NIST, I will agree with you.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Not complaining. If you listen to the narrative in how the simulation is to be interpretive, you wouldn't be making your wacky accusations. Read all my posts then give me a compound response. This was an initial response to a compound response as you responded about.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
I don't think that they 'lied'. To lie would suggest motive, vs spending hundreds of hours on simulation and thinking of scientific explanation then just admitting to some conspiracy theory. I should also mention that in the original video, you can see @1:30 in the video of the actual collapse, at the top left, the building caves in as the simulation shows. So you are still able to draw similarities to the simulation and the collapse.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
AF: you must remember that the simulation and the videos are all looking south at the north side of WTC7. If you watch the best videos carefully, you can see that the EASTERN edge of the north facade moves slightly EAST at collapse onset. In the simulation, by contrast, it moves significantly to the WEST.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
I hope it wasn't you littering the video with words so no one could notice the details... Simulations are meant to be just that simulations. I bet if the simulation had random model generators, the collapse in simulation would happen a little differently each time. They focus certain elements in the simulation to match key events in the collapse to fit their theory. Still trying to figure out what you mean. Orienting ones self to a compass in a simulation and then in real life is disorienting.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
Comment removed
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
If fact, if you consider what you pointed out, that the eastern edge appears to move east a bit before the building collapses, we have evidence for contortion, which is entirely inconsistent with explosives taking out entire floors. It shows that the building turned as columns on one side bent, and then it fell into the path of least resistance (the side that was dug out by tower debris).
raythetse 2 years ago
Even if it was demolition charges and not a bomb that brought down the tower, you still would have heard explosions all over the city. Who's beating straw men now?
The NIST simulation actually matches the actual video quite well if you are willing to let go of your own biased assumptions.
raythetse 2 years ago
"The NIST simulation actually matches the actual video quite well if you are willing to let go of your biased assumptions."
Hmm...my biased assumptions...like my eyes?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
So you're eyes are better than mine? I looked at the simulation and it matches pretty damn well with what happened.
raythetse 2 years ago
I noticed that the real building collapsed without moving toward the west and without crumpling the north facade, as the simulation shows. In the video, the eastern edge of the north facade moved to the EAST as the collapse began, not the WEST. BTW, the real collapse continued all the way to the ground but the simulation stopped abruptly after three seconds. That alone ruined it for me!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
you must be looking the wrong direction because it leans exactly the direction the simulation shows.
And the simulation doesn't need to show the rest of the collapse because from there its pretty predictable.. THE BUILDING FALLS, there really isn't much to show.
raythetse 2 years ago
In both the simulation AND the videos the observer is NORTH of WTC7, looking south. If you look carefully at the videos, you can see the eastern edge of the north facade move very slightly to the EAST, not WEST.
What happened during the collapse, AFTER the simulation ENDS, is the heart of the controversy: the 2.25 second interval of free fall acceleration. No honest simulation of a fire collapse will reproduce free fall. Why not? Because WEAKENED, bending steel retains SOME strength.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Ah the key here is VERY SLIGHTLY, but if you look at the rest of the fall, you can clearly see the building leaning the other direction as it approaches the ground.
You people claim its ludicrous that a simulation matches so closely to the fall but then complain when it doesn't match exactly.
IF YOU ARE RIGHT, and the building didn't fall as the NIST report claims it did, you still have done NOTHING to prove that there were explosives. You can't assume explosives without some actual evidence.
raythetse 2 years ago
So...first I was wrong, now, well....maybe not.
But still, even if I'm right, it doesn't matter.
Thanks a lot!
My point, in two videos, was that 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration is simply NOT CONSISTENT with the official story. David Chandler and even Dr. Sunder of NIST made the same point. 2.25 seconds means 25 meters of vertical support suddenly gone. Not weakened; GONE. Not weakened gradually by fire; GONE SUDDENLY.
Not explosives demolition? Fine, what? I see two possibilities:
Skeptic121 2 years ago
The two alternatives to demolition are brittle supports that shattered like glass once overloaded, and "knee joints" in the vertical supports that folded with minimal resistance once bent, like clipping in football.
Anyone else care to suggest another alternative to account for free fall acceleration?
Mine are not very likely, but can you do any better?
Thanks!
Skeptic121 2 years ago
The problem is there is STILL NO EVIDENCE FOR DEMOLITION. no explosions, no residue, no cabling, no nothing. The collapse of a building is incredibly dynamic in nature. To think that any agency could hope to get it exactly right in the first place is absolutely unreasonable.
You wouldn't be satisfied if the entire complex was build, planes crashed into it and the whole thing was filmed from every angle.
Your rhetorical question does little to prove any point you may wish to make.
raythetse 2 years ago
A rhetorical question is one that does not expect an answer. I very much would like an answer. I asked for alternatives to a demolition, I gave two examples and asked for more. You can't give me one and you won't comment on mine. You don't even like me asking the question. Why not?
Skeptic121 2 years ago
your alternatives were straw men. In as much as you can suggest the only alternative is that supports shatter like glass, or are pre-equipped with knee joints for guaranteed failure, I can suggest that termites tore the building down.
A perfectly viable alternative has already been presented. THAT UNCHECKED FIRES CAUSED DISTORTIONS OF THE SUPPORTS WHICH ULTIMATELY CAUSED THE BUILDING TO FAIL, which you have yet to prove stands outside the realm of possibility.
raythetse 2 years ago
Sorry, Dr. Sunder of NIST has explained why fire distortions CANNOT explain free fall. Note: Dr. Sunder is not a conspiracy kook-tard twoofer.
He explained that free fall means NO support, not weakened support. Dr. Sunder's explanation of why free fall is impossible was given at the time when NIST still denied free fall actually happened.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
And his is final say? You are going to take one source that you later discredit as final say? Is this what you are saying?
And you still haven't god grounds to say explosives brought the building down seeing as there is no evidence for it.
raythetse 2 years ago
Dr. Sunder is not the only one to have verified free fall. See David Chandler. It is really not controversial any more. The INTERPRETATION is controversial. My side says controlled demolition took out 25 meters of vertical support simultaneously; your side says very little. I would like to hear your explanations. If mine are straw men, let's hear yours. But gradual weakening by fire cannot explain it.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
oh, and don't accuse me of not liking questions. The question "Why did building 7 fall" is a legitimate one. No one can doubt that. I for one was able to see that the answers that people like you give are unsatisfactory.
raythetse 2 years ago
I think the word 'gone' is taken out of context. Gone doesn't suggest explosives. Gone is not a word with limitations too two of your theories. Gone just suggests there isn't a current scientific way of proving what could have caused the building to fall faster, within those 25 meters. I'm sure the scientific community could think of dozens of reasons. A true scientist doesn't suggest his hypothesis without some kind of experiment in mind to prove it.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
So any expert is unlikely to give you an explanation until that point.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago
I have to admit "GONE" is my own word.
My conclusion, and David Chandler's, is that free fall for 2.25 seconds means 25 meters of vertical support was suddenly GONE. Not weakened by fire, but GONE in the sense of providing no upward force on the falling building.
Skeptic121 2 years ago
Is that the most current quote, or an older one? I was reading that the face of the building we cannot see was damaged significantly, a large section was scooped out.
AFSamizdat 2 years ago