Video

We didn't start the fire,....

If it was impossible then it would not have happened, so you either do not understand what happened or you do not understand what happened. Either way we have identified the real problem.

Ummmm,... no he doesn't. No idea where you get that delusion from.

​@@MFitz12 Yes, he definitely did.

@@trueelectsupremea.m.mosttr4786 - OK then, please provide the exact quote where _ This guy states off by explaining without saying We gave our evidence to china after the 100 story building fell into its own footprint_ and the time stamp where it can be found He has to hit every one of those points.

@@MFitz12 Watch the video dummy

@@trueelectsupremea.m.mosttr4786 - *Your claim* therefore *your burden of proof* I am under no obligation to do your homework for you because you are either too dim, too lazy, or desperately trying to hide the fact you said stupid made-up shit you know is made-up stupid shit and are now trying to stall for time to save face. I consider your claim falsified for lack of evidence. I wish you luck with your continued epic fail. I really hope that works out for you someday.

Pulverized

Anyone who says "do your research" got their education on CZcams. Derp.

Anything Littlejohn(Thomas) hates must be good

😂??

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

OK. You asked. Building 7 is one of the most studied engineering disasters in history yet remains a mystery to some, leading to lots of speculation, myths and & BS. If you somehow managed to miss the volumes of extant technical analysis I prepared this brief summary explanation, based on my own analysis which does not require Rube Goldberg levels of complexity, makes logical sense and cares not who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks or why. Lets begin with what most leave out - relevant context; The unknown and unimportant Building 7, one of six to collapse and 9th of 10 destroyed on 9/11 confuses a lot of people. It was not famous, not a terrorist target, no one was killed in it and thus most people know very little about it, making them susceptible to utter bullshit. When the North Tower collapsed at 10:28am it bombarded the steel framed Building 7 with thousands of tons of burning debris, badly damaging the south and west faces and starting building-wide fires burning out of control for the next 7 hours. With half the responding FDNY firefighters having been killed, others injured, units in disarray, much of their equipment destroyed, no water pressure, and the greater urgency of Search & Rescue efforts, firefighting efforts at B7 were abandoned as futile. The building wasn’t going to be saved and was left to its fate. czcams.com/video/g_SvpwyC17M/video.html&ab_channel=MFitz Collapse of a burning structure is always a concern for firefighters. Steel buildings subject to fire _rely on active fighting of the fires_ to survive. Left to their own devices they will collapse. Buildings are designed around 1 to 3 hours of fire resistance, allowing time for occupants to escape and _ACTIVE fire fighting_ to get started, after which all bets are off. In B7 the occupants escaped, passive and active fire protections were compromised and *active fire fighting never got started* which left the building to take its chances. It lost. Odds on Building 7 would eventually collapse,… and it did. No big deal in logic. That is the sort of choice firefighters make every day in brush fire situations - which houses to save and which ones to let go. Only real difference here is moving the decimal on the size and cost. *FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro* ; _The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47 story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the buildings structural integrity was in serious doubt. I issued orders to PULL BACK the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; We could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to PULL EVERYONE OUT, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties and the collapse terrain_ *FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden* - _We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement in the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse in the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said 'In its current state you have about 5 hours_ With its deteriorating condition being reported throughout the day, the collapse of Building 7 expected by the FDNY, bystanders and the media. Which meant at least 24 video cameras recorded some or all of the collapse. Everyone at the time knew what was coming and why. czcams.com/video/OY5S5k3tMHI/video.html&ab_channel=911InvestigationVids Building 7’s collapse was totally different to the Twin Towers, harder to understand and most of the details difficult to see. This does not mean however, we can’t sort out what happened through careful analysis and observation before, during and after the collapse. What follows is *MY EXPLANATION* of the collapse sequence using the best available information and relying on no authority. B7 was complex structure, a 47-story building built on top of a smaller existing 3-story building, requiring several lower floors dedicated to complex load transfer structures instead of usable office space. Of trapezoidal shape and all-steel tube-in-tube construction, B7 (above the 7th floor) consisted of a central core of steel columns carrying most of the gravity load, perimeter steel columns around the outside of the structure carrying the remainder of the gravity loads and long span beams and girders to tie those elements together and form the floors. On the outside of the building hung a moment frame - the last part of B7 to fall. *Phase 1* : Collapse initiation for B7 is *notably quiet* with observers not realizing the building was collapsing! There was no audible warning in the form of say hundreds of eardrum busting 180-190dB explosive bangs preceding the collapse. The first externally visible signs of collapse initiation occurred at 5:20:28 pm. Here at 12:00 a local CBS affiliate reporter is talking 10 blocks from B7 when collapse begins. People don’t start to notice the collapse until 12:11. Then at 12:45 is the famous CBS fixed camera clip of Building 7’s collapse Again, note how quiet it is. czcams.com/video/t5tEy6mXSE8/video.html&ab_channel=fresnosean379 Collapse initiation was due to multiple lower floor failures above the load transfer region (7th floor) in the NE corner of the building. In this video at 0:45 you can see the NW corner from inside the building while under construction, with Column 79 just out of frame on the left. That big angled steel beam across the top of the frame connects to Column 79 at one end. Those girders connect to the beam. That beam and all those girders _depend on just one connection_ czcams.com/video/nP3TNHPCIVU/video.html&ab_channel=EdwardCurrent *Phase 2* : Lower floor failures left core Column 79 laterally unsupported over an excessive length and it buckled. If you look at a floor diagram of Building 7 (see above) and look at all the structures that depend on column 79 you quickly realize _this one column was a relatively isolated structural element on which a disproportionately greater fraction of the structure depended_ . Externally we see a vertical progression of window breakage along the 44-46 line and a kink in the roof of the East Mechanical Penthouse at the top of the building, consistent with C79 failure. The transition from full capacity to almost no capacity occurs in virtually an instant. *Once the buckling failure occurs there is almost no resistance* Normally with a buckling column, the load could very well be redistributed to other columns, meaning the buckling could stop after a while. With C79 that is not the case - the failure did not redistribute the load, so the collapse rapidly progressed to the roofline, sinking the rooftop penthouse. *Phase 3* : With C79 gone, B7’s progressive, non-symmetrical collapse continues with C80 and C81 at the east end of the core left laterally unsupported and quickly buckled and failed as well, sending the EMP down through the building. C79-81 all have no diagonal bracing, which I believe is a major reason why they could not redistribute a lot of vertical loads among one another. From there *collapse progressed from east to west through the central core until the core was gone* taking all of the interior floors and structures and probably most of the perimeter columns with it. You can see the horizontal progression of window failures low in the building and the dropping of the remaining rooftop structures into the building. One of the big takeaways from the NIST Building 7 study (that gets completely ignored) was their modeling which determined C79 failing under _ANY circumstances_ would have initiated the same collapse sequence. *Phase 4* : After about 10 seconds only the exterior moment frame - a hollow shell mostly supported by the 4 corner columns and quite unable to stand on its own - remains, creating the illusion the building is still standing since little has changed externally. That’s just hollow empty shell. The north leans inward, forming a V in the roofline. The last remaining perimeter columns buckle under the strain so there is almost no resistance and the moment frame free falls, landing _on top_ of the 7-story high debris pile. This blocked surrounding streets, heavily damaged the Verizon Building and destroyed Fiterman Hall at 30 W. Broadway, all of that well outside of Building 7’s “footprint”. It is only here at the very end that a single measurement of alleged _free fall_ is taken. Start to finish the collapse took 18-20 seconds, or *less than 1/3 of true free fall*. Not that we really care since how **_fast something falls can not tell you what started it falling_** in the first place. The **_free fall_** argument is about the collapse of the outer shell AFTER *all* of the critical structure had already failed. It completely ignores about 80-90% - of the collapse. Folks who bang on about “free fall” don’t understand that on a fundamental level. Building 7’s progressive, non-symmetrical collapse was incidental and unintended collateral damage due to the combined effects of fire + time + gravity started by the collapsing North Tower. That is *true no matter who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks or why* . The collapse was of so little consequence it barely even registered at the time, a mere footnote. Now reply with "Thank You" to prove you actually read this. You’re welcome. I sincerely hope this helped. Serious comment or questions are welcome, one point at a time please. No Gish Gallop whataboutisms.

@@MFitz12 *_"Building 7’s progressive, non-symmetrical collapse... "_* NON-symmetrical???

@@432b86ed - Did I stutter? Did you bother to read the whole thing? Obviously not although you clearly got that far. Just decide to skip to the end?

When hot, steel does not bend. It buckles, snaps and cracks as shown in video. Most would think the heated steel structure would begin to warp to the pull of gravity and bend to contact the undamaged floors which would arrest the collapse.

The guy who made the claim (in 2001) was not in any way qualified to make it. Irrelevant anyway.

This 'claim' was made by Frank Di Martini not long before 9/11. He stated that the impact of an airliner on the towers was like a pencil being poked through a screen door and that the structures could withstand multiple such impacts. The only problem is that he was dead wrong, and that he was utterly unqualified to put forth any opinion on the matter. Di Martini was neither an engineer nor an architect, nor did have have any role whatsoever in the design or construction of the WTC towers. Di Martini was a Project Manager at the WTC, and he died on 9/11. As for refuting the claim, go to the main man himself, Leslie Robertson. His statements regarding what the towers were designed to withstand are well documented. In short, Robertson said that the towers were designed to not collapse immediately if they were struck by a single Boeing 707 flying low and slow and almost out of fuel. This aircraft was the largest flying at the time, but was nowhere near as large nor as heavy as the aircraft which struck on 9/11, and they were flying much faster than the design parameters were meant to withstand. Finally, Robertson clarified that none of their test scenarios ever envisioned such high speed impacts that would blow off the fireproof coating on the steel elements, particularly the lightweight trusses which were very prone to failure due to heat. Consequently, their design scenarios never anticipated the collapses of the trusses which in turn allowed the perimeter walls to bow outwards and lose their capacity to support the weight of the floors above the impact points. So, not propaganda. It was analysis of fact-based evidence that the conspiracy theorists don't want to acknowledge because their own pet theories would evaporate.

An inside job to set up a false flag that includes doing something that makes it obvious that it is an inside job and thereby causes it to fail as a false flag? Okay.

😂the problem here is your brain go sideways

😂😂😂😂😂😂

The Earth is surely flat for you.

_only the strength to keep water out_ is a funny way to try and load an argument. The tub walls were underground and far enough away. It's not that hard.

Do you think that those 'bathtub' walls were made of porcelain?

Get real. Do you think those retaining walls would have been built to withstand the impact of 500,000 tons of steel hitting them from those heights? Yes or no?

@@432b86ed No, they weren't, any more than the towers were built to withstand a 757 being flown into them at 400 knots. Your question is moot because what you described didn't actually happen. The massive support structures for each tower were still there when the upper floors collapsed, and much of the debris cascaded laterally rather than descending straight down. Also, the walls were reinforced by hundreds of steel rods which braced the walls and were essentially screwed into the surrounding rock (these can be seen in the 9/11 Museum). Further, the walls in question separated the building foundational structure from millions of tons of earth and rock which surrounded the 'bathtub'. It's not like these walls were just standing independently like a fence in a hurricane.

@@kyle381000 _"The massive support structures for each tower were still there when the upper floors collapsed,... "_ Don't be silly. Those core columns were disintigrating into *dust* as the towers were brought down. It's probably why the sub-level retaining walls remained undamaged and kept the site from flooding. Dust isn't as heavy as huge steel beams, is it?

Your ability to hear silence as explosion wins you a trip to the funny farm.

If so, what was the point of the airplanes? Why not just blow the towers and blame whoever you want?

😂😂😂😂😂

​@@kyle381000 Dramatic effect

You're a demolition.

If so, what was the point of the airplanes?

Evidence please not theory

😂😂😂😂😂

And yet 1800 victims were identified. Truthers don't math.

How many were also hit by planes with the energy of a ton of TNT? How many of them had no active firefighting? How about the _steel framed_ high rises that have collapsed due to fire? Maybe, just maybe, every circumstance is different and needs to be judged on its own merits rather than ignorantly making blanket bare assertions.

The Towers' construction was unique. You lie by implication.

@@tonyduncan9852 Yes, they were unique, which makes comparisons with 'many other skyscrapers' somewhat moot.