This comment made me realize @Millennial_Falcon is probably a WH insider. A strategic gatekeeper for a good reason, because once the Pedogate flood gates open, there is no turning back. The world will never be the same again.
I hate to be 'that guy' but pedogate is as far as its gonna go. If we couldnt make them implode with 9/11, nothing will happen and justice will not be served as a result of pedogate.
One can dream... I'm amazed that they've kept the 9/11 narrative afloat. Despite the scientific impossibilities that occurred that day, countless holes in the story, thousands of architects/engineers saying that it needs to be re-investigated... it does hurt my head quite a bit to think that there hasn't been an ounce of traction towards what really happened.
Building 7 bro... total free fall... until that can be explained, sorry. Fires cannot cause simultaneous collapse of 100% of the steel beams. It is not possible.
The collapse of Building 7 took 19 seconds that is not free fall. It was a progressive collapse that started in the interior of the building on one side, went up to the roof and to the other side of the building. Only after this this did the outer shell fall. The failure of the columns was not visible because it was happening on the inside of the building. The building was a tube within a tube design. The inside progressively collapsed and ripped out all the lateral support for the outer shell which then dropped like a stone.
Simultaneously collapse of the 100% of the Steel beams did not happen.
You can clearly see the left side of the roof collapse several seconds before the outer shell goes. And remember these is only showing the top of the building, at least 20 stories are not visible and the collapse was thought to start around floors 10-13
19 seconds!? Not even NIST claimed 19 seconds.Your gif is just under 10 seconds long, and 4 seconds if you count the time when the external structure began to fall (despite the view being obstructed from this angle - obviously not account for full collapse time)
According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling. Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed: at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.
This is how I calculated the time.
5:20:33 pm to 5:20:52 is 19 seconds.
However, Looking over the NIST report and not wikipedia, I see that NIST actually doesn't give a start time. So me using the FEMA time doesn't work. I assumed they agreed on this time, but NIST doesn't give a start time.
NIST breaks up the progressive collapse into two parts: initiating local failure and then the global collapse. They examine each separately. If you put the two together you get something like
NIST just says the start of the floor failures inside the building is 6.6 seconds before the penthouse collapse. So you have to add that back in.
It actually never gives a single number for collapse time because it calculated different scenarios and got different collapse times.
The collapse starts inside the building and you need to add that to total collapse time. I see other folks calculating this at 17 or 18 seconds.
I'll hand it to you - for a debunker, you are buttoned up. But relying on the official narrative too heavily could be your biggest weakness. As my immediate instinct to dismiss it, could be mine.
At the end of the day I've heard compelling arguments as to how models such as this simply are not possible. And when it comes to the official story of "fires initiating the collapse via weakened structural integrity" it becomes very odd to me that, based on the animated model above, ALL of the steel vertical beams fail nearly simultaneously on the right side of the building. If there was some* resistance, or even a topple to the left, or a crumple effect, it would be far more plausible.
The building almost fell entirely into its own footprint.
Ignoring the circumstantial evidence of "pulling" it, the firefighters rushing out saying "it's coming down soon" and the reporters telling people to move away because it is going to come down... despite the retroactive analysis from NIST admitting they've never seen anything like this before. On top of who actually occupied the majority of the building itself and Silverstein's insurance play, and the molten metal...
You really think all of that is just coincidental nothingness?
3 buildings on the same day, disappear, in unprecedented fashion, and nearly identical destruction sequences. While 1 of those buildings wasn't even hit by a plane?
I don't know. It's a very hard pill to swallow. I'm no architect, nor am I an engineer, but I've got a firm grasp of 3d modeling/physics and if you give me a 6 pack and 4 hours I could put together that same model. And it would do just as good of a job explaining how massive vertical steel beams failed on the right side at the same rate as the left, despite limited damaged and relatively small fires compared to other infernos building endured and remained standing.
Here's the thing the "official" narrative involves the work of hundreds of experts if not more.
And it's been peer reviewed. And outside experts have modeled it. All the data is available. So at some point, it just becomes science.
If AE911 Truth wanted to create their own computer model and submit to peer review, they have had this opportunity for a decade now. They won't do it though. It's like the work they did trying to show thermite, that paper is a mess. The tests they did were not the tests to determine if the material was actually thermitic. When this was pointed out to them they said they would run those tests. That was like 6 years ago. There's super easy test they could run to see if they were on the right track. Thermite will ignite in an oxygen free or "inert" environment because it contains its own oxidizing source, Fe2O3, ferric oxide. The thermitic reaction frees the oxygen and that's what it uses to burn. You can run this one test and immediately see if you do not have thermite. (You would need different tests to determine you do.) They won't do it.
it becomes very odd to me that, based on the animated model above, ALL of the steel vertical beams fail nearly simultaneously on the right side of the building. If there was some* resistance, or even a topple to the left, or a crumple effect,
If you look towards the bottom of that gif there is a crumple effect. You can see the corners turn in. Basically, you have an avalanche of structural failure going on. Failing parts, fall and pull down intact parts with them until parts that are not being pulled down can't bear the weight it's supporting. This is how any progressive collapse happens.
For example, imagine 1,000 people holding up a giant platform on top of which is some great weight, say 50,000 pounds. So every person is bearing 50 pounds of weight and it's manageable. Now lets say people start taking their hands down quickly in succession. Starting with the people on the middle left, then moving to the middle right. The folks on the edge don't take their hands away they stay as long as they can. Let's say there's 300 people on the edge who will never take their hands down. Soon you have 900 people all bearing 55 lbs. Then 800, then 700, then 600. Now everybody is holding up 83 pounds. So the load is getting redistributed and each support is carrying more. People keep taking their hands away, 500 supports, now 400, now 300. Would it still stand? Now people are having to support, 100 pounds, 125 pounds. With only 300 people left they each would have to support 166 pounds. They would just give out wouldn't they, they would go down in a heap. It probably would collapse before it even gets to the 300. It's the same principles, just the weight that massive steel columns would support would be much greater, but at some point, they would be all be overloaded and it's a simple chain reaction at that point. The other point to make is these massive columns need side support. WTC 7 was 600 feet tall. You can't simply, bolt a column to a height of 600 feet and expect it to stand. When the lateral support is removed the columns can now hold less. This is very good example of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGhTTUBuMYo
, or even a topple to the left, .......the firefighters rushing out saying "it's coming down soon"
People who have really looked this videos say, if you look at the top corners of the buildings you can see they are not 90 degrees that one corner wants to fall one way and the other side wants to fall the opposite way. And that we had an overhead view of the building this bending/twisting would be more apparent.
The firefighters thought 7 was coming down for a few reasons.
A. Two towers just fell.
B. The building was creaking and moaning, you could hear the steel beginning to fail.
C. There was a lot of fire going on for hours in WTC. Relatively small fire is absolutely false. WTC 7 was an enormous building. It was 600 feet tall had a floor size that bigger than a football field from goal line to goal line (if I did the math correctly.) It might have been a bigger fire than than the towers because it was on many more floors. The south face of the building shows smoke pouring out what seems like every floor. Fire was confirmed on like a dozen floors. And the building burned for 7 hours. The fire resistance was " two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns."
D The building was visibly bulging which is a real bad sign. If you go back to our metaphor of the people, holding up a great weight, if their arms or knees start bending, you know they won't be able to hold it for long. It was a minor scandal in NYC that the NYPD got its people out of the towers after it saw large chunks falling from tower 2. The helicopters could see the buildings were slowly becoming compromised stucturally. The NYPD told its people to get out, but their radios couldn't communicate with NYFD radios
At 9:52 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there". With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its officers to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed
15 minutes after this the NYPD helicopters say WTC 1 wasn't looking good either. 8 minutes before the building collapsed they reported the roof was leaning to one side.
the top of the tower might be leaning", and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south"
So because of this the NYFD had a surveyor's transit looking at the roof of WTC7 and they saw it was no longer 90 degrees but, bulging out.
You really think all of that is just coincidental nothingness?
3 buildings on the same day, disappear, in unprecedented fashion, and nearly identical destruction sequences. While 1 of those buildings wasn't even hit by a plane?
Personally, I would not trust a building with wide open offices built to Port Authority standards during a fire. If I was in one of these building during a fire, I would try to get as far away as possible. These three buildings shared somethings in common. The Port Authority was the controlling authority, not NYC and they had GIANT wide open offices (i.e less columns.) Look at the amount of space around the critical column in WTC7, number 79, the one that was right under the Penthouse on the roof.
Because of 9/11 building codes have now been revised for buildings with long span floors. They are required to have many more hour of fire resistance. I read a report by a NYFD fire inspector who believes the radical and novel design of the WTC 1 and 2 contributed to its collapse. They used far less concrete than say the Empire State Building. WTC 7 had spans up to 54 feet, longer than average. There's no way to do fire testing on a 54 foot system. I believe the biggest test furnaces are like 18 feet, so they test the components, not the assembled system.
And yes other buildings have burned longer, but they had different designs. A school in Holland had a partial collapse after 9/11 due to fire, the steel part of structure collapsed and the concrete part stood standing. And in Iran another building completely collapsed due to fire.
No seismic impact on the basin of New York
You can't fly planes at sea level and hit buildings, twice.
Paper Tumbling down streets indicates non thermal weapons
Passport survived (roflmao)
Newton's third law, a hollow aluminium tube should be obliterated by reinforced steel, not come out the other side with it's nose intact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo
All of these are nonscientific and ridiculous. As for your no plane nonsense I personally know three people who were in lower Manhattan that morning and witnessed the planes.
You can't fly planes at sea level and hit buildings, twice.
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but you make it sounds like planes never fly close to the ground which makes one wonder, how do they take off and land?
Passport survived (roflmao)
Ah, the classic argument from incredulity. I don't think something should have occurred so it's impossible. In addition to the argument from credulity, this is also classic anomaly hunting. You focus on the wierd bit and try to force the debunker to explain the anomaly. It helps if you don't list any of the other evidence.
Flight 93 went into the earth and they still found 7 boxes of personal effects like "a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency"
Also what does this prove. They had the passenger manifests, they had the names of these guys because they weren't trying to hide them.
Newton's third law?
You obviously don't understand physics or velocity or momentum. A soft lead bullet will punch through a car hood because of velocity. Ever see the effects of a category 5 tornado? Here's a piece of wood piercing concrete and a garden hose going through a tree
view the rest of the comments →
Millennial_Falcon ago
Could just as easily be a power play by Trump. Maybe Bannon will be more effective on the outside.
LA_Trump ago
This comment made me realize @Millennial_Falcon is probably a WH insider. A strategic gatekeeper for a good reason, because once the Pedogate flood gates open, there is no turning back. The world will never be the same again.
TrueAmerican ago
I hate to be 'that guy' but pedogate is as far as its gonna go. If we couldnt make them implode with 9/11, nothing will happen and justice will not be served as a result of pedogate.
LA_Trump ago
That's why 9/11 exposure goes first. ;) 9/11 is the key to the entire puzzle.
SoSpricyHotDog ago
One can dream... I'm amazed that they've kept the 9/11 narrative afloat. Despite the scientific impossibilities that occurred that day, countless holes in the story, thousands of architects/engineers saying that it needs to be re-investigated... it does hurt my head quite a bit to think that there hasn't been an ounce of traction towards what really happened.
RweSure ago
You know that's less than 1% of the architects and engineers in the US right? And virtually none specialize in building very tall buildings?
What impossibilties occurred that day?
SoSpricyHotDog ago
Building 7 bro... total free fall... until that can be explained, sorry. Fires cannot cause simultaneous collapse of 100% of the steel beams. It is not possible.
RweSure ago
The collapse of Building 7 took 19 seconds that is not free fall. It was a progressive collapse that started in the interior of the building on one side, went up to the roof and to the other side of the building. Only after this this did the outer shell fall. The failure of the columns was not visible because it was happening on the inside of the building. The building was a tube within a tube design. The inside progressively collapsed and ripped out all the lateral support for the outer shell which then dropped like a stone.
Simultaneously collapse of the 100% of the Steel beams did not happen.
You can clearly see the left side of the roof collapse several seconds before the outer shell goes. And remember these is only showing the top of the building, at least 20 stories are not visible and the collapse was thought to start around floors 10-13
https://media.giphy.com/media/nCMpf0vK0lgGY/giphy.gif
SoSpricyHotDog ago
Ok... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep.
19 seconds!? Not even NIST claimed 19 seconds.Your gif is just under 10 seconds long, and 4 seconds if you count the time when the external structure began to fall (despite the view being obstructed from this angle - obviously not account for full collapse time)
RweSure ago
from wikipedia
This is how I calculated the time. 5:20:33 pm to 5:20:52 is 19 seconds.
However, Looking over the NIST report and not wikipedia, I see that NIST actually doesn't give a start time. So me using the FEMA time doesn't work. I assumed they agreed on this time, but NIST doesn't give a start time.
NIST breaks up the progressive collapse into two parts: initiating local failure and then the global collapse. They examine each separately. If you put the two together you get something like
https://www.metabunk.org//files/WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif
NIST just says the start of the floor failures inside the building is 6.6 seconds before the penthouse collapse. So you have to add that back in. It actually never gives a single number for collapse time because it calculated different scenarios and got different collapse times.
The collapse starts inside the building and you need to add that to total collapse time. I see other folks calculating this at 17 or 18 seconds.
SoSpricyHotDog ago
I'll hand it to you - for a debunker, you are buttoned up. But relying on the official narrative too heavily could be your biggest weakness. As my immediate instinct to dismiss it, could be mine.
At the end of the day I've heard compelling arguments as to how models such as this simply are not possible. And when it comes to the official story of "fires initiating the collapse via weakened structural integrity" it becomes very odd to me that, based on the animated model above, ALL of the steel vertical beams fail nearly simultaneously on the right side of the building. If there was some* resistance, or even a topple to the left, or a crumple effect, it would be far more plausible.
The building almost fell entirely into its own footprint.
Ignoring the circumstantial evidence of "pulling" it, the firefighters rushing out saying "it's coming down soon" and the reporters telling people to move away because it is going to come down... despite the retroactive analysis from NIST admitting they've never seen anything like this before. On top of who actually occupied the majority of the building itself and Silverstein's insurance play, and the molten metal...
You really think all of that is just coincidental nothingness?
3 buildings on the same day, disappear, in unprecedented fashion, and nearly identical destruction sequences. While 1 of those buildings wasn't even hit by a plane?
I don't know. It's a very hard pill to swallow. I'm no architect, nor am I an engineer, but I've got a firm grasp of 3d modeling/physics and if you give me a 6 pack and 4 hours I could put together that same model. And it would do just as good of a job explaining how massive vertical steel beams failed on the right side at the same rate as the left, despite limited damaged and relatively small fires compared to other infernos building endured and remained standing.
RweSure ago
Here's the thing the "official" narrative involves the work of hundreds of experts if not more. And it's been peer reviewed. And outside experts have modeled it. All the data is available. So at some point, it just becomes science.
If AE911 Truth wanted to create their own computer model and submit to peer review, they have had this opportunity for a decade now. They won't do it though. It's like the work they did trying to show thermite, that paper is a mess. The tests they did were not the tests to determine if the material was actually thermitic. When this was pointed out to them they said they would run those tests. That was like 6 years ago. There's super easy test they could run to see if they were on the right track. Thermite will ignite in an oxygen free or "inert" environment because it contains its own oxidizing source, Fe2O3, ferric oxide. The thermitic reaction frees the oxygen and that's what it uses to burn. You can run this one test and immediately see if you do not have thermite. (You would need different tests to determine you do.) They won't do it.
If you look towards the bottom of that gif there is a crumple effect. You can see the corners turn in. Basically, you have an avalanche of structural failure going on. Failing parts, fall and pull down intact parts with them until parts that are not being pulled down can't bear the weight it's supporting. This is how any progressive collapse happens.
For example, imagine 1,000 people holding up a giant platform on top of which is some great weight, say 50,000 pounds. So every person is bearing 50 pounds of weight and it's manageable. Now lets say people start taking their hands down quickly in succession. Starting with the people on the middle left, then moving to the middle right. The folks on the edge don't take their hands away they stay as long as they can. Let's say there's 300 people on the edge who will never take their hands down. Soon you have 900 people all bearing 55 lbs. Then 800, then 700, then 600. Now everybody is holding up 83 pounds. So the load is getting redistributed and each support is carrying more. People keep taking their hands away, 500 supports, now 400, now 300. Would it still stand? Now people are having to support, 100 pounds, 125 pounds. With only 300 people left they each would have to support 166 pounds. They would just give out wouldn't they, they would go down in a heap. It probably would collapse before it even gets to the 300. It's the same principles, just the weight that massive steel columns would support would be much greater, but at some point, they would be all be overloaded and it's a simple chain reaction at that point. The other point to make is these massive columns need side support. WTC 7 was 600 feet tall. You can't simply, bolt a column to a height of 600 feet and expect it to stand. When the lateral support is removed the columns can now hold less. This is very good example of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGhTTUBuMYo
People who have really looked this videos say, if you look at the top corners of the buildings you can see they are not 90 degrees that one corner wants to fall one way and the other side wants to fall the opposite way. And that we had an overhead view of the building this bending/twisting would be more apparent.
The firefighters thought 7 was coming down for a few reasons.
A. Two towers just fell.
B. The building was creaking and moaning, you could hear the steel beginning to fail.
C. There was a lot of fire going on for hours in WTC. Relatively small fire is absolutely false. WTC 7 was an enormous building. It was 600 feet tall had a floor size that bigger than a football field from goal line to goal line (if I did the math correctly.) It might have been a bigger fire than than the towers because it was on many more floors. The south face of the building shows smoke pouring out what seems like every floor. Fire was confirmed on like a dozen floors. And the building burned for 7 hours. The fire resistance was " two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns."
D The building was visibly bulging which is a real bad sign. If you go back to our metaphor of the people, holding up a great weight, if their arms or knees start bending, you know they won't be able to hold it for long. It was a minor scandal in NYC that the NYPD got its people out of the towers after it saw large chunks falling from tower 2. The helicopters could see the buildings were slowly becoming compromised stucturally. The NYPD told its people to get out, but their radios couldn't communicate with NYFD radios
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Collapse_of_the_South_Tower
15 minutes after this the NYPD helicopters say WTC 1 wasn't looking good either. 8 minutes before the building collapsed they reported the roof was leaning to one side.
So because of this the NYFD had a surveyor's transit looking at the roof of WTC7 and they saw it was no longer 90 degrees but, bulging out.
Personally, I would not trust a building with wide open offices built to Port Authority standards during a fire. If I was in one of these building during a fire, I would try to get as far away as possible. These three buildings shared somethings in common. The Port Authority was the controlling authority, not NYC and they had GIANT wide open offices (i.e less columns.) Look at the amount of space around the critical column in WTC7, number 79, the one that was right under the Penthouse on the roof.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/images/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc082108.jpg
Because of 9/11 building codes have now been revised for buildings with long span floors. They are required to have many more hour of fire resistance. I read a report by a NYFD fire inspector who believes the radical and novel design of the WTC 1 and 2 contributed to its collapse. They used far less concrete than say the Empire State Building. WTC 7 had spans up to 54 feet, longer than average. There's no way to do fire testing on a 54 foot system. I believe the biggest test furnaces are like 18 feet, so they test the components, not the assembled system.
And yes other buildings have burned longer, but they had different designs. A school in Holland had a partial collapse after 9/11 due to fire, the steel part of structure collapsed and the concrete part stood standing. And in Iran another building completely collapsed due to fire.
SoSpricyHotDog ago
Holy hell, who are you? I've literally never heard such a good explanation with supporting information like that before...
You gave me a whole hell of a lot to think about. Thank you.
I retract all of my prior comments (which I make rarely on any forum) due to the incredible detail you put forth here.
The commission should have hired you to write the report. I am not kidding.
Upvoat.
GoDooer ago
Footage of no plane https://vid.me/HlVQF
No seismic impact on the basin of New York You can't fly planes at sea level and hit buildings, twice. Paper Tumbling down streets indicates non thermal weapons Passport survived (roflmao)
Newton's third law, a hollow aluminium tube should be obliterated by reinforced steel, not come out the other side with it's nose intact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo
Ugh, fire doesn't turn steel to dust. https://vid.me/xkYP
Who spun the lie? https://vid.me/5AwD4
RweSure ago
All of these are nonscientific and ridiculous. As for your no plane nonsense I personally know three people who were in lower Manhattan that morning and witnessed the planes.
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but you make it sounds like planes never fly close to the ground which makes one wonder, how do they take off and land?
What evidence? Well lots of items survived from the planes. Credit cards and IDs were popular ones. The paper flight itinerary was found. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-voices-personal-accounts-morning-rush-that-became-unthinkable-147869.html
Flight 93 went into the earth and they still found 7 boxes of personal effects like "a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency"
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/14/article-2628111-1DD5EA2600000578-986_964x616.jpg https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/sites.google.com_site_wtc7lies_Attack22.jpg
Also what does this prove. They had the passenger manifests, they had the names of these guys because they weren't trying to hide them.
Newton's third law? You obviously don't understand physics or velocity or momentum. A soft lead bullet will punch through a car hood because of velocity. Ever see the effects of a category 5 tornado? Here's a piece of wood piercing concrete and a garden hose going through a tree
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1d/ae/84/1dae847586947e4c809e141001c8503f--tornadoes-thunderstorms.jpg
http://i.cdn.turner.com/ireport/sm/prod/2011/06/01/WE00584856/1721619/hoseintreejpg-1721619_p9.jpg
Steel to dust? Good Lord that's ridiculous.
bopper ago
You can thank Dancing With The Stars.