An expanded/updated version of my 2011 video “Building 7 Explained,” focusing on 7 World Trade Center’s construction. The tube-frame steel design explains why its collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition — thus creating a generation of modern conspiracy believers.
The animation at 5:00 is scale-accurate: The east face of the frame really did tip that much to the north (the smaller building shown is Fiterman Hall). Meanwhile, the west face appears to have tipped to the south. There is no evidence whatsover that the frame collapsed “into its own footprint.”
Addressing other top talking points:
“Thousands of architects and engineers disagree…” And many, many thousands more agree. I made comedy out of the generally poor professional qualifications of those who have signed the petition put forward by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: https://youtu.be/lpEnvGBfgnI
“You haven’t looked into the evidence…” Actually I have, because I used to be a Truther: https://youtu.be/UULUQfEQFuU
“A collapse like that due to fire would violate the laws of physics.” That’s interesting since NIST created a simulation that was quite accurate up to the last (and hardest to model) part of the collapse, using the program LS-DYNA, which — believe it or not — relies on the laws of physics to operate. If you don’t like the job NIST did, you can make your own simulation and see what happens — the construction and materials of the building are a matter of public record. In the meantime, feel free to point to one paper in a legitimate peer-reviewed engineering journal that supports this “violation of physics” claim.
“Professor Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska just released the results of a two-year study…” With funding by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Hulsey and two graduate students computer-modeled two floors where NIST found that collapse initiation *might* have taken place, and found scenarios where the collapse did not initiate. The team did not attempt to model any other cases where the collapse might have initiated. Not exactly an exhaustive scientific investigation, but hey, they’re still seeking donations to keep this hope alive.
“You believe everything the government tells you.” The government in reality is fairly incompetent. And, you’re asking people to believe that this same government pulled off a perfectly executed secret operation AND has maintained this secret conspiracy for 16 years and counting, after the operation was carried out and with hundereds of thousands of people worldwide working to expose a cover-up. The skeptical person finds this to be a highly unlikely scenario. See: “How to Apply Occam’s Razor”: https://youtu.be/AQNxNeQ9cxw
“Witnesses heard explosions in WTC7 before it collapsed.” Lots of things explode in fires. Transformers, gas lines, fire extinguishers, fuel tanks, even pneumatic office chairs have been shown to explode in a fire. That’s very different from high-velocity detonations necessary to cut even one major steel column of a skyscraper, which would exceed 150 decibels a half mile away.
“You are obviously paid by the government to make these videos.” Thank you for demonstrating your standards for evidence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs.
“But military-grade super-nanothermite that no one knows anything about . . . .” Okay, we’re done.
OR . . . Static Versus Dynamic Loading
By Dave Burton via Burton Systems Software – (burtonsys.com)
Some conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.
After all, they reason, “only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?”
This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don’t understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.
What the conspiracy theorists apparently don’t understand is the difference between static and dynamic loading. (“Static” means “while at rest,” “dynamic” means “while moving.”)
If you don’t think it can make a difference, consider the effect of a stationary bullet resting on your chest, compared to the effect of a moving bullet striking your chest. The stationary bullet exerts a static load on your chest. A moving bullet exerts a dynamic load.
As a more pertinent example, consider a 110 story building with a roof 1,368 feet high (like the WTC Twin Towers). Each floor is 1368/110 = 12.44 feet high, or aproximately 3.8 meters.
Now, suppose that the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses. (Note: I’m using as an example 2 WTC, which was the building that collapsed first.)
The collapse of the 80th floor drops all the floors above (which, together, are equivalent to a 30 story building!) onto the 79th floor, from a height of aproximately 12 feet.
Of course, the structure of the lower 79 floors has been holding up the weight of the top 31 floors for many years. (That’s the static load.) So should you expect it to be able to hold that same weight, dropped on it from a height of 12 feet (the dynamic load)?
The answer is, absolutely not!
Download HD version of this video for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr
- “You Know You Are a Conspiracy Theorist If…” (illuminutti.com)
Embarassing Conspiracy Theories Follow up:
9/11 Controlled Demolition: WTC 7
via The Soap Box
On my previous blog debunking the belief that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in a control demolition, I discussed how the Twin Towers were not brought down in a controlled demolition, but as the result of massive structural damage brought on by the collision of a couple of jumbo jets.
The collapse of World Trade Center building 7.
The main reasons why so many Truthers (almost all in fact) believe that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives is because the building itself was not hit by any planes, and it doesn’t look damaged in many of the photos and videos of that day, and in the videos of the collapse it does kind of look like a controlled demolition to the untrained eye. Also, it is believed that the order “pull it”, which was given shortly before the building came down, is a common order that demolition experts use right when they bring down a building.
While the building itself was not hit by any planes, it was in fact hit by the falling debris from the World Trade Center towers, as was a lot of other building near the Twin Towers, and was heavily damaged, as was a lot of the buildings near the Twin Towers as well. Most people can’t tell this from looking at photos and videos of it after the towers collapsed because of all the smoke and dust. All that most people have ever seen is what appears to be an undamaged building.
In fact, it was very heavily damaged. 25% of it’s bottom floors were just gone. Added to the damage from the falling debris was the fact that the building was on fire, and that those fires were most likely fueled by the diesel generators located inside the building itself, so those fires just kept on going on and on.
After being on fire for seven hours, and having been heavily damaged, one of the steel trusses finally gave way, which resulted in … (Keep Reading): The Soap Box: ECT Follow up: 9/11 Controlled Demolition: WTC 7.
[Download a HD version of this video for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr]
- Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: 9/11 Controlled Demolition (illuminutti.com)
- Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Drones were what really hit the WTC towers and the Pentagon on 9/11 (illuminutti.com)
- WTC Building 7: controlled demolition? Hardly (halfbyteblog.wordpress.com)