High Rise Building "Experts Speak Out" about 9/11

[video=youtube;BFDt4YApyks]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=BFDt4YApyks[/video]

here's good unedited video of WTC 7 collapsing.

first the penthouse and other (*)(*)(*)(*) on the south side ofthe building collapses, followed SEVEN seconds later by the collapse of the rest of the top of the building.

NO controlled demolition acts like this.

its too bad we don't have video of the collapse of WTC 7 from the south side, inside the smoke, as I'm sure we would see all sorts of things happening that would make the mechanics of the collapse clear as day.

 

the large penthouse section on the right collapsed 7 seconds before the rest of the building.

that most likely means a large portion of the right south side of the building collapsed with it...and then the rest of the building went.

that is a very unusual collapse, nothing like a controlled demolition.

 

And urine can look like lemonade.

What's your point?

So because you don't have the knowledge of structural engineering to understand how these collapses happened due to impacts and fire, you can only go by the fact that they LOOKED like demolitions? That's your argument?

Can you please point me in the direction of any whitepaper, complete with calculations, that proves that those buildings came down due to explosives? I would LOVE to see that. I would love to have explained how explosives or thermite were used on WTC7 to create a lean in the building proven by a transit that was set up. How were explosives used to create a bulge in WTC7 witnessed by firefighters? How did these explosives create building movement seen in analysed videos of WTC7 prior to collapse? What caused the roofline to descend at a non freefall speed PRIOR to the freefall period shown in both NIST's and Chandler's graph? Couldn't have been explosives because explosives cause FREEFALL.

 

no my friends, the collapse of this building was NOTHING like you standard controlled demolition.

 

There's a sucker born every minute!

 

My Daughter just finished Kindergarten last year, when did they start teaching physics? Let's put it this way, If we took your understanding of physics, we would all die as food consumption would be impossible, because according to your understanding we would never be able to chew food. How you don't get this is beyond me.

 

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition. That is what the high rise building experts, some with over 40 years engineering experience, are proving in the OP video. The new evidence about column 79 is significant.

 

How many controlled demolitions start from the top and progress down, every one I have seen starts at the bottom.

 

Only to amateurs.

Too bad all the actual experts in controlled demolition say your "experts" are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

Actually no. It's not.

 

Yes, it is. The new evidence surrounding column 79 is damning evidence of NIST lies. They claimed that WTC building 7 collapsed because column 79 was unrestrained which made some sense ... sort of ... because it could cause a partial collapse. A full collapse at 60% of freefall seemed unlikely. Now that they have admitted that column 79 was restrained that is a game changer. There is no way building 7 collapsed from office fires with all the columns intact.

 

Please post a link to this evidence, and to the NIST admission.

The only thing I have found is this:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

That is from 2010.

The FOIA for this document was released in 2012. I am relying on a source I trust. Ben Swann is an independent reporter who states it specifically in this report. Watch this video. Ben Swann makes that claim at 5:00 into the video.

[video=youtube;A7tSfwkKaUo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

 

In other words... you got nothing.

 

Please... point me exactly where in the NIST report is ever said that "column 79 was unrestrained." I am very familiar with the report, and I have never read that particular detail.

Ignoring that you have yet to demonstrate this is anything more than another example of truther fabrication... you do realize that "restrained" and "intact" are completely different things, right?

 

Explain to our audience the difference between restrained and unrestrained. What do you "think" it means?

 

You can deflect later.

But for now you need to show us where NIST ever said column 79 was unrestrained.

 

You missed this part, BJ.

 

that is simply FALSE

a controlled demolition doesn't have one major piece of the roof collapse through the building first, then 7 seconds later the rest of the building falls.

....and without any loud bangs before or during the collapse.

that's no controlled demolition, at least not like the ones we have ever seen before or since.

 

You have never heard of Hush-A-Boom ™ explosives?

 

You can read it for yourself. 3. MISSING SHEAR STUDS

 

I've read it. I have a copy of the report. Where does it say the column was unrestrained. The comment that a contributing factor was "(1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint" does not say there were "missing chear studs," nor does it say the column was "unrestrained." There were many shear studs associated with column 79, something acknowledged repeatedly by NIST. But there were no shear studs "that would have provided lateral restraint." They were simply not part of the design.

No subsequent truther complaint contradicts that statement.

 

There is nothing anyone can do for people who claim that snow is black. The report is clear as a sunny day for the rest of us. Lack of shear studs means unrestrained column which was false and what NIST laid their idiotic claim that column 79 gave way and started the collapse. But you can believe them if you like. I don't.

 

If you were an engineer, you would not have said anything quite that stupid.

Then why do you repeatedly lie about what it says?

No. It doesn't. NiIST never said there were no shear studs. They never said the column was unrestrained. They said that there were specifically no studs that would have provided lateral restraint. I know you really, really, really don;lt want to have to admit you understand the difference, but that doesn't matter.

The truther claim remains a lie. Go look at the drawings. The ones released as the result of the FOIA request. Guess what they show?

There actually were no shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.

I believe the drawings. You guys can't even apparently read them.

 

And lots of people can read things that they do not come close to understanding. This appears to be your current problem.

No. It's not your problem. In fact... it's not a problem at all.

Nonsense. It took hours for those fires to bring down WTC 7. And once they had taken the building to the point of catastrophic failure, gravity took care of the rest.

Stop waving your hands and whining. Show me. The drawings are all right there on line. Show me exactly where there were shear studs that could have provided lateral restraint between Column 79 and the critical north-south girder described by the NIST report. Because it is now crystal clear to all that your repeated assertion that the NIST report said that "column 79 was unrestrained" is a bald face, absolute lie. The report never says that once, not in any of its versions from first draft to final.

Of all the people on this thread, the only person less qualified to make the judgment that it is impossible is Koko. You have both run screaming from any and every challenge to actually demonstrate that you understand the physics or engineering involved. You are doing that again here.

You lied about what the NIST report said. You have been called on it. You have proven unable to defend it.

Be a mensch. Suck it up.

 

You are the person who believes that office fires can demolish buildings at near freefall acceleration. It is impossible Perilica grad Ameriku. It is sad that you do not understand that. I am trying as I might to help you understand it. Keep resisting the truth to your own peril. Office fires do not bring buildings down a near freefall speed because we have, for centuries, have engineered buildings to stay on fire for hours so that firemen can save people trapped in burning buildings.