OPEN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION!
NIST VIDEO OF WTC 7 COLLAPSE CAUSED BY FIRE.
PICK A SCENARIO TWOOFERS.
1. WTC7 was rigged with demolition charges before 911 using fireproof charges and wiring, got severely damaged by WTC1 collapse and was then allowed to burn out of control for SEVEN hours with absolutely no firefighting and then blown up in the quietest and most perfect building demolition ever ever.
2.a team of secret demo experts entered a burning WTC 7 and in just hours rigged it for demo and then blew it up quietly and perfectly.
which one twoofers?
NIST is funded by the Federal Goverment... go figure.
indyfan22k 27 minutes ago
@ksr622002 Let not forget, a. if you watch that interview he says "they made the decision" I doubt he's going to let an agency that has no authority to demolish buildings destroy his. Not to mention, you should do some research they were pulling the firefighters out due to safety... Pulling is only a demolition term if the building is pulled over on its side with cables... Read a book sometime, go outside... Get good
ToddFucxer 1 day ago
There's nothing in the world, ever, to compare it to... And one guy yes owned all the buildings... They were all right next to each other, odds were pretty high that once events started rolling there would be much much more damage
ToddFucxer 1 day ago
@ksr622002 Yep, you busted it wide open, thats why one of the towers actually started falling at a 20 degree angle, you know, for symmetry, look at the videos, they did not go free fall, debris and dust are actually falling faster and since they have less mass, volume, and weight, in a free fall they should be passed by massive falling building. In addition how many buildings can you think of that have been hit by commercial passenger jets and allowed to burn for so long after?
ToddFucxer 1 day ago
@ksr622002 If you actually watch the videos debris is falling faster than the building... not exactly "freefall" now is it? And into it's own footprint? My friend you are sorely mistaken, many buildings had to be demolished or heavily repaired due to parts of this building hitting them, not exactly what I'd call, "landing in the footprint"
ToddFucxer 1 day ago
@malikshah2004 Just because fires have never collapsed a building before, does not mean that it cannot happen! How many jumbo jets have slammed into buildings? How many small planes? How man office fires? Comparing them together is rather stupid. If a jumbo jet slams into another building by any means, and the building does not collapse, then you have a story! But again, the jets were flying over 500 miles an hour, and force is multiplied by the velocity ya know!
BaldurdashWoW 1 day ago
@Frigid519 Wrong... he wasn't a shareholder in securacom since early 2000
ToddFucxer 1 day ago
@ksr622002 Yep. A very convenient 6 month long, top to bottom 'elevator maintenance' was performed in WTC towers 1 & 2. Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center right up 'til Sept. 11th.
Frigid519 3 days ago
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA !! This is just a joke SNL skit, right ??
Frigid519 3 days ago
Ohhh...it burned for 7 hours. Well that explains it. Interesting how every other historical towering inferno burned 2 and even 3 times longer than that and yet remained standing. So far, after 11 years, no one has been able to provide an example from history or by way of experiment to show that fire can cause buildings to collapse in this way. But NIST has their computer models. Also interesting is that the computer models do not look like any of the video footage :) Nice try NIST!
dwheel39 3 days ago 2