Watch it, share it...be aware.

[seandelier]

That video you linked is not of a building collapsing of fire damage it is of one being demolished by controlled explosion!

Thats why I said it was CD, try paying attention. If you want me to show you a steel framed building that failed from fire it is very easy. One such incident happened across the street from my work. Steel framed building completely collapsed from fire alone. Clark & Rose, portlethen, Scotland. Look it up.

Now, do you now admit that the collapse did not take 6.6 secs?

Surely you are contradicting yourself with that? You can't link a fire damaged building falling in that way because it has never happened before and has not happened since.

See above, pay attention. That was to show you what a real demo sounds like. Please show me one video from the hundreds ffrom that day that showed those explosions.

This is what a fire damaged skyscraper (44 floors) looks like:
YouTube - CCTV/TVCC fire in Beijing (HD version) 北京央视大楼ç€ç« - close-up of fire explosion
Lots of flames which is what you would expect in a fire, especially such a destructive fire, one so hot it can melt steel. For the record this skyscraper did not collapse. As I said before none have ever collapsed like WTC7, not one, anywhere in the world.

Except that tower was reinforced concrete and steel construction and WTC7 was not, WTC7 burned for about 8 hours and was damaged by the WTC towers falling on them. There was no water to fight the fires and the FDNY was pulled back and they had to let it collapse. It did not melt the steel it weakened it. And in fact two skyscrapers collapsed prior to WTC7 that very day due to a combination of aircraft impacts and fire.

Check out the Kader Toy Factory for a failed steel framed building.

Look at WTC7 before it falls, look at how it falls, look at the lack of flames, the speed at which the main build of the structure falls and ask yourself does that look like fire damage, honestly? A fire that miraculously did not start in one of the neighbouring buildings but only in this one and that managed in approximate 8 hours to consume/weaken/expand the steel structure sufficiently for the building to fold that way all at once (even in your example of 16 seconds you have to admit it seems unlikely that the whole would collapse simultaneously when it has already been burning out of control for 8 hours, meaning no part of the structure resisted more than any other part). Then there is the fact that after 8 hours on fire buildings generally look burnt and charred and the windows break from the heat. Let's not also forget the hundreds of testimonials from NY residents about the "explosions" they heard just prior to all the collapses that day, WTC7 included.

Please read the NIST report on WTC7 and then come back and tell me what they got wrong. I have read it, it is only about 400 paged. Will you?

And as for neighbouring buildings that is a bare faced lie as well. WTC5 and 6 were both set on fire that day. The FDNY say that most of the floors in WTC7 were on fire and NIST has evidence that at least 13 floors were fully involved in fires in a building that was the size of a city block in area, you need to look at the photos from the south face not the north face. A heat of 500 deg C will weaken steel to more than 50% of its normal strength and normal house fires often reach temps of about 1000 deg C. What do you think happened to the steel frame in that building at those temps?

The building engineer, Mike Catalano, had to escape from the building that day and he said it was a huge fire and the building would have collapsed even without the damage from the WTC1/2 collapses.

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)

YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)

YouTube - WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

This proves that you have not read the report. You do not know what essentially means do you? They said that for 2.5 secs, only one part of the building fell at "essentially" freefall. The idiot liars at AE for 911 do not tell you that do they? Richard Gage is a lying piece of shit who make money from the deaths of the those people on 911. Chandler is nothing more than a physics teacher at a school.

I don't know what the truth is but I know what a lie looks and sounds like

No, you do not because you have been suckered by the liars and charlatans in the 911 truth movement who take advantage of politically biased angry young men who have no experience or credentials who want to think they are smarter than "them".

Here is a good site that shows Gage and his cronies up.

AE911Truth.INFO : Site Information

Here is a good refutation of David Ray Griffins claims about 911 written by NASA scientist Ryan Mackey. DRG has refussed to discuss or debate this paper. I guess you will not read it as it is a little long.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

 

[seandelier]

Let's not also forget the hundreds of testimonials from NY residents about the "explosions" they heard just prior to all the collapses that day, WTC7 included.

I do not have to explain to you what a simile is do I? Not all explosions are caused by explosives.

You do know that a lot of the quotes that the 911 truth movement use to say there were explosions are actual descriptions from the fire fighters of the noises the bodies were making from the people who jumped from the towers ,due to the fire, hitting the deck eh?

Sick lying pieces of crap.

 

[seandelier]

And just for good measure here is the Idiot Gage contradicting himself about explosives.

YouTube - Richard Gage - Explosive Contradictions

And here is an excellent paper written by Brent Blanchard of Protec. One of the largest demo compnaies in the world.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf