• I especially like how the video states that (like a bat hitting a ball) the﻿ jolt in many instances may be so small and occur so fast that you can't see it on the video, then tries to use a video to prove there was no jolt in the towers. Great Job.

• @MegaYeshua33

Don't be a pathetic hater because you can't﻿ make simple distinctions between different types of CD.

NO one claimed WTC7 was crushed from top, so stop your worthless shilling and grow a brain and a Spine.

#### Video Responses

• I'm a truther & skeptic. But I notice there is one thing that all these videos fail to account for (so far)

They all assume that the top block remains the same size. surely, once a floor has been impacted and it's supports give way, it﻿ BECOMES part of the block doing the crushing? Does the "crusher" not get larger as more of the "crushee" building below becomes part of the "crusher"?

If someone with the physics nous can explain why this is not the case, I'll be a happy man.

• A response like that really makes﻿ me wonder what you think about physicists. Dropping stones on top of each other and calculating the effects of 180 million pounds of gravity driven mass are slightly different. The towers were designed to carry 2-5 times their weight. When a mass falls the distance of one story it's weight is increased by a factor of 30. Try laying a bowling ball on your foot, then try dropping it on your foot from the ceiling. See if there is a difference.

• that has to do with the applied work to the bat during the swing. If you threw the ball at the bat, and hit the bat, the ball would most definitely visibly jolt,﻿ or slow down. The kind of outside force applied to the bat in the video from the person swinging it was not applied to the top of the towers. It was only gravity. There was however, a lack of resistance. Try these experiments yourself. Try crushing a large stone with a smaller stone of the same hardness.

• I got a better question. How can the Earth not﻿ have jolted in videos if the building came down on it?

• Pretty﻿ sure a bat hitting a baseball could be considered to have an insignificant jolt. Do you think a building that big could be as insignificant? It was pretty obvious on those cinder blocks, but they were smaller?

• great﻿ vid,narrator explains evidence superbly.

• Common sense﻿ dictates that a jolt too insignificant to show up in a low resolution video would not stop the acceleration. NIST acknowledges that the building reached free fall speed for a very short time period, the overall collapse took far longer.

• Wait a﻿ minnut , use some common sense -- You can see in the time-motion study that acceleration was continuous over a significant duration & distance, like 2.75 sec & 120 feet. Do you not understand the significance of that? JUST this alone means there was -zero- bldg resistance. Cole is SHOWING the difference between seeing the jolts & measuring them. Over 2.75 sec the bldg fell AT 32 f/s/s. WHAT's so complicated? This isn't even controversial or contradicted by NIST, as they openly admit it.