WTC 7 Collapse (All Angles)

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
2,864
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Mar 6, 2009

Analyzing the collapse of WTC Building 7

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 4 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • The official story supporters try to divert the discussion by arguing about how long WTC7 took to hit the ground and when the collapse really started. They don't understand the concept of "instantaneous acceleration." No shame in that; no one understood it until Isaac Newton. NIST has admitted that WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or 25 meters. That means a 25 meter section was removed from the vertical support columns suddenly. Not weakened by fire; suddenly GONE !

  • 47 stories straight down in 6.6 seconds. Massive dust cloud, minimal damage to surrounding buildings. Looks like a professional controlled demolition. The rubble pile from building 7 so perfect. Broken down into small ready to dispose of pieces. Had these buildings fell from natural forces, large undamaged sections would of remained intact.

see all

All Comments (25)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • For a fire induced collapse the building seems to be fairly devoid of....fire...

  • @LyriMetacurl Not according to at least 1 witness.

  • @162747

    "It was invented solely for lumping & ridiculing."

    If the boot fits...

  • @Weirdo10o4

    "Why do they leave out the penthouse, that's when the collapse starts"

    Simple. Conspiracy theorists are fucking morons

  • In the 7th tower there was no explosion and there were no deaths. Bear that in mind.

  • Why do they leave out the penthouse, that's when the collapse starts.

  • You're the only one here who looks like a TOOL, seeing as you said "inside jobby/job/ct"...

    TOOL...

    Where is your evidence? We have nanothermite (explosive evidence) Where's yours?

  • "a mountain of strong evidence"

    wait, are you suggesting there is a "a mountain of strong evidence" supporting the inside jobbyjob/CT?

    did someone say something about sounding like a complete tool?

    to your final point, I typically use truthtard when I want to lump & ridicule. either one works for me, but thanks for the advice. anyway, those who still buy into this idiocy don't need my help to look stupid.

  • Thanks for posting this video!

    ,

  • @unclesamsnephew666

    With every subject, you're going to find people who really know what they're talking about and people who have their facts mixed up.

    That's just the way it works.

    We don't get to dismiss a mountain of strong evidence just because of a couple misstated facts or premature conclusions.

    I wish it were that simple, but it's not.

    And, by the way .. when you use the label "truthers", it just makes you sound like a complete tool.

    It was invented solely for lumping & ridiculing.

    ,

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more