WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

Visit AE911truth.org where you will find over 1000 Architects & Engineers demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11 and the demolition of 3 skyscrapers in NYC.

This is a revised analysis of WTC7 freefall collapse by David Chandler a High School Physics teacher. He has included an analysis evaluating the claims made by NIST in their Final Report of WTC7. However, what is most compelling about this video analysis is the pure, unbiased scientific scrutiny that David gives to the collapse. He is truly "spot on" with his application of the universally applicable law of free fall bodies due to the acceleration of gravity. After any open-minded, logical person views and comprehends what they watch in this video, there can be no doubt that that building came down at virtual free-fall speed...which raises the question, how could that be? The only reasonable answer is via controlled demolition...and that raises the question how could that be pulled off on the very same day "a surprise attack" was perpetrated on the US. After all, controlled demolitions take weeks and weeks of planning and coordination to put in place and test. A whole series of questions then follows...Could Arab terrorists have access to this building or the twin towers? If not then who? All unanswered questions, that to date have no good answers...that the 911 commission report failed to uncover or even discuss. Please watch this video and pass it along to other technically-inclined and savvy folks. Thanks to ae911truth.org!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• WTC7
• free-fall
• collapse
• freefall
• building
• controlled
• demoliton
• NIST
• final
• report
• 9/11
• 911
• bombs
• Architects
• Engineers
• truth
• ae911truth.org

[Daddyo930]

Science. That is what tells someone who believes in numbers and facts that 911 was an inside job. Brilliant work! Pythagoras was right. Numbers don't lie, people do.

[winston2015]

@TheNYLibertarian: Nothing conspiratorial or theoretical about the rate and manner in which wtc 7 came down. Not to mention the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers...the 100 day fires, molten *metal shown in the fema bpat appdx. C, the iron microspheres, the squibs, the pulverized concrete, 1100 missing human beings, or the hi-tech thermitic explosives found in the dust. The evidence is so broad and well documented the conclusion that they were demolished with explosives is irrefutable.

[RuinSonic]

@Daddyo930 Fuzzy math, even a demolition wouldn't drop faster than the acceleration of gravity.

[waketheoblivious]

"Let us never tolerate the outrageous 9/11 Fairy tale - malicious lies, deception and fraud. A criminal effort to shift the blame away from those who committed treason. Traitors label of the search for the truth a conspiracy, which effectively muzzles the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech allowing the Bush Administration/CIA/Traitors to shift the blame away from themselves, away from the guilty." - We The People

[zenoist2]

@winston2015 well put.

[andrewada]

This is very intelligent and very well put. Thank you.

[silvernail6]

thank you controlled opposition 

[swu880]

@TheNYLibertarian

Why dont u do ur math? go MEASURE the acceleration frame by frame for yourself. Then come back. else your opinion is meaningless, null & void- just hot air blown out of an ass

[TheNYLibertarian]

More conspiracy lies.

[TheChineseEmpire]

The government didn't like JFK. When he was killed the FBI didn't investigate the killing. A president is killed and they said there was a magic bullet. Obviously there was more to the story and they may have even done it themselves. If a normal person is killed they do better investigations than that. JFK's head went backward which means he was shot from the front. They said Oswald was behind in the 6th floor of the building would be impossible to make that shot. We were lied to.

[AdamRainStopper]

I thank you for your work. Real scientific analysis is needed to bring some actual attention to the matter. All too often, people conclude one way or another about 9/11 before hearing any of the evidence, and the argument becomes a contest of how many mistakes one side can point out about the other, or which side of the argument has the most "crazies", and the hard science gets ignored or bypassed. I am someone who sees a need for investigation, not a "theorist". We need facts, not theories.