I hope the WTC 7 video was informative. Your support at Patreon is crucial for our survival - www.patreon.com/Sabins Hoping for your support, Cheers Sabin Mathew
I must say, I doubted this video would ever see the light of day, thinking the subject was too complex for the tools you were using. I also suspected if it did finally arrive, I would be underwhelmed. Now that it is here, *color me thoroughly impressed*. For the intended audience, this is pretty darn good, far better than I expected and a _much_ better than the very popular Twin Towers video from last year. For levels _above_ the intended audience this is still really damn good. A lot of critical details that all-too-frequently get ignored are presented and at just the right level of complexity. I do have a few quibbles on some points - notably the lack of attention to the role the floor systems played in providing lateral support (79 in particular) - but nothing which moves the needle in any significant way. For conspiracists, many of whom will no doubt soon fill the comments reciting dogma about _controlled demolition_ and _inside job_ having either not watched or not grasping this complex topic, they are not the intended audience. But their presence is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east. Indeed, it did not take long.
one thing i do want to point out is that it wasn't the antenna that created the gash as the antenna fell the other way towards the south not north. It was just debris
@@kadangkalerYes, the antenna fell towards the southern direction. The Gash was probably from the exterior collumns that were blown out from the North Tower
@@kadangkaler yeah the top section fell towards the south, which was caused by the collapse of the south tower, as the collapse created larger flames in the south side of the north tower,
@@imboredandtired9the south tower didn't affect the structure of 1 WTC Also your partially correct The antenna started to fall south but then went back north However idk what parts hit 7
@@Flyyn_Gaming_9 no, so the collapse of the south tower did affect the north tower, but not severely, you can see this if you look at videos of the south towers collapse from the south, and you can see flames growing on the south face because of the air being sucked down, and the antenna didn't fall back north as it was found in the same area as the Marriott and 90 West Street
I think it's from a couple of things. First of all no one was in WTC 7 when it collapsed as it was evacuated successfully, so naturally the focus is going to be on where the most fatalities were and not this seemingly insignificant building. Remember, 2,977 died that day. Other buildings around the WTC were also damaged and had to be demolished as explained in the video, and they didn't talk about those either. Also, for a while we just didn't know what happened. Without seeing videos like the WTC on fire and detailed breakdown analysis it can be confusing and that confusion can distract from what's more important to people. I really don't fault the media here.
WTC 7's infamy comes from it being brought up again and again by conspiracy theorists as "proof" that fires could not have brought down WTC 1 and 2. As this video shows, that's not what was going on with WTC 7 at all, but that's mainly where the interest in WTC 7 is coming from; as @cooljunkproductions says, by itself it was a relatively insignificant building compared to the Twin Towers.
A very good, straightforward explanation. This is probably the first time I have seen what the backside of WTC 7 actually looked like. That gash was huge.
@@johnstamos54288 A cover up by truthers maybe. This video makes their argument seems less compelling because to them, nothing was wrong with the building. But we can clearly see there was not only a long gash (as if something had fall on it) but fires that were going for several hours.
@@BurrosSWE 1. You're ignoring the massive vertical gash in the building as well as the fact that the fires were going for hours, which helps explain how it could have been hot enough to weaken the steel at critical failure, which can be enough to cause collapse given the right circumstances. And freefall... This is my favorite truther trope. At this point that's all it is. It's your own line in the sand you've drawn just like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" 😂 It's been close to 25 years and that's the best you can come up with.
@@cooljunkproductionssince we already got the classic "free fall" truther copypasta, the next scheduled one is "pull it", followed by "lucky Larry". What a joke. After they end up debunked they always go for the non physics questions and I love asking them every single time "so man just casually admits to insurance fraud when he had a hell of a time with the companies regarding the two incidents regarding the attack as one event compared to separate?" Mhmm sure
@@BurrosSWE how long have skyscrapers been around? Less than 200 years right? So maybe this is really the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed due to fire, simply because it's never happened at this scale before. you're acting like skyscrapers have been around for thousands of years. LOL
@@BurrosSWE Watch the video again and pay attention. MULTIPLE FLOORS were on fire for several HOURS. That's definitely more than some "tiny fires". The building also didn't collapse in "free fall".
The 3 buildings were clearly brought down with explosives, every explosives expert can see that. I can only say "professional work". Unfortunately, killing people and blaming others is timeless, especially when it seems very obvious that hijackers did it. Their passports survived anyway.
It still kinda surprises me that a lotta people don't know nearly the entire world trade center area was utterly decimated by the tower's collapses, but if anything at least a fre people will learn about the other buildings, too
I was 15 when this happened.....I didn't have to stretch my imagination to understand that 500,000 tons of material coming down in a place as dense as Manhattan wasn't just going to affect the footprint of the buildings themselves..... People will just disregard basic observation and go straight to conspiracy.
@@idk-cb8di younger people. I worked with an 18 year old that had never seen actual videos of the planes striking the towers- his school only showed him stills.
03:40 WRONG ! The Antenna of the North Tower Collapsed in South Direction , not in North ! Cleary to see in some Videos of North Tower WTC1 Collapse . Like the Video from the Hudson or from New Jersey 10:50 Good Video , very good explained and analysed collapse of WTC7 . The only Error i found was with 03:40 and the Antenna .
@@engine5 did you read my comment full or only the first section ? I wrote in my commcent in the second section that i find the video very good and i find the explaniantion of the video how WTC 7 collapsed good explained . My critic with the Antenna is only a minor .
@@bongopaterson265 in the past i have the same think , that reason was explosions but with the time i have changed my mindset and i no longer think that explosions was the reason . The video explain the collapse good . Thats the reason in the video . If you want go out of this swamp , with the WTC 7 Explosion Theories , than leave Daniele Ganser , unfollow him , go no longer to his events .
three buildings with different types of damage collapsed in the same way and at the same time, in a single day, they are the three most controlled uncontrolled demolitions that I have seen
6 buildings collapsed, not 3. The collapses were all different- some radically different - and were spread out over more than 7 hours, NOT simultaneously. Everything seems like a conspiracy if you don't take the time to understand how things work.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl So which other 3 buildings _collapsed_ on 9/11 Fitzshill? Oh wait I forgot, you will NEVER dare to answer questions on your stupid blahblah in your entire shitty "life"...
Tevhnically speaking, 8 buildings collapsed partially (7 buildings) or completely (1 building). Wtc1 nearly fully collapsed from a plane crash and subsequent fire. Wtc2 nearly fully collapsed from a plane crash and subsequent fire. Wtc3 nearly fully collapsed from falling debris. Wtc4 partially collapsed from falling debris. Wtc5 partially collapsed from falling debris and subsequent fires. Wtc6 partially collapsed from falling debris. Wtc7 completely collapsed from falling debris and subsequent fires. The Pentagon partially collapsed from a plane crash and subsequent fire.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Sir, I saw it live that day, after the collapse of the two towers at approximately five in the afternoon, building 7 collapsed in the same way as the previous ones live, the news anchors had not noticed, I have seen demolitions of buildings and collapse of others, it is perfectly clear what the difference is
Maybe this video will help you to understand there's a big difference between real acceleration and an illusion of acceleration. Einstein showed us how gravity is just an illusion of making things fall down in acceleration. ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html By Tom Siegfried October 4, 2015 at 5:30 am Albert Einstein opened humankind’s eyes to the universe. Before Einstein, space seemed featureless, flat, and changeless, as Isaac Newton had defined it three hundred years earlier. And time, Newton declared, flowed at its own pace, oblivious to the clocks that would measure it. But Einstein looked at space and time and saw a single dynamic change - spacetime - on which matter and energy strutted, generating sound and fury, signifying gravity. Newton’s law of gravity had united the earthly physics of falling apples with the cosmic dances of planets and stars. But he couldn’t explain why, and he famously admitted he had no theory of why. It took Einstein to figure out gravity’s true modus operandi. Einstein showed us that gravity does not make anything fall down. Gravity’s secrets succumbed to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, unveiled in a series of papers submitted over a century ago this November to the Prussian Academy in Berlin. A decade earlier, his special theory of relativity had merged matter with energy while implying the unity of space and time (soon to be christened as spacetime). After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newton’s naïve idea that masses have a force that attracts masses to each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moves matter along in perfectly straight lines but does so in the curving pathways embodied in spacetime, where objects in motion must stay in motion unless acted upon or stopped by a force - paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves. As expressed decades later by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve, and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move. NIST has declared “The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is the first known instance of a total global collapse of a tall building primarily due to plain old normal office fires. ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 HOW DO THE TWIN TOWERS FALL FROM THE TOP DOWN IF THERE IS NO DOWNWARD FORCE THAT PULLS OR PUSHES? HOW DID THEY FALL SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES, THERE IS EITHER AN UPWARD FORCE, OR THERE IS NO UPWARD FORCE? THERE IS ONLY ONE FORCE THAT CAN BE EITHER SUSTAINED, REDUCED, OR REMOVED, AND IT COMES FROM BELOW...NO FORCE COMES FROM ABOVE TO MAKE ANYTHING FALL DOWN. ua-cam.com/video/bicMK7dE0so/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/dHfeks3yjUM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/R3LjJeeae68/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/_ZcVQCRvQWk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/bODvVAh6OJA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/UgudCmLobxw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/XRr1kaXKBsU/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Tdh_R7po6Dw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/_GjIgJPn47E/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/WMR1XC-Lce0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/bJ_seXo-Enc/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/BL7vNQqwuTM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/4ZrcDTjkIhI/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/GuLL_upE4zk/v-deo.html
Another thing I’ve noticed on UA-cam is that people don’t show the entire collapse; they start the collapse when the outer facade fell. They are ignoring a big part of the collapse!
@@fuzzydunlop7928 I don’t understand your question. The internal structure failed before the outer facade, you see one penthouse fall, then another, and finally the facade. Videos on UA-cam typically show the collapse beginning well after the two penthouses fall. Therefore, those videos leave out a big part of the collapse.
The damage was probably caused by random debris and not the antena, bc as you said, that's not where the antena fell. But at any rate, how are you so sure the antena couldn't cause that? It's just superficial damage to the facade, and some small secondary structural elements at most, so I don't see why a huge metal rod falling at great speeds couldn't cause it.
The only thing I disagree with in this video is the suggestion it "mysteriously" collapsed. It did not. It was abandoned hours before its collapse and its degrading status was noted throughout the day before it collapsed. They knew it would eventually come down, it was only a matter of time.
Not only that, but the Millennium Hotel and the Deutsche Bank building were expected to collapse that day, too. They did not, although the latter was ruined.
And the fire main was destroyed by the collapse of the twin towers, so no more water, locally anyway. Another reason why it was evacuated and abandoned to it's fate.
This is absolutely utter nonsense, no way symmetrical collapse would happen simultaneously by unsymmetrical damage , the owner larry Silverstein said they pull it , tvs knew about collapse before it happened, eyewitness barry Jennings who were trapped inside said he heard explosions all the time, the real reason wtc 7 collapse because the planned third plane was shoot down by usaf so they were forced to pull it manually, this channel is not neutral nor innocent
No. Everybody was watching WTC7 at 5:00pm waiting for its inevitable collapse, explaining why there were 24 cameras pointed at this unknown and unimportant building that wasn't attacked when it finally did fall about 20 minutes later.
nobody forgot it. In fact people remembered to the point that 23 years later they are still making videos about it and people are leaving comments. Wtf you talking about?
0:25 - You mention the "sharp V-shaped dent" as a critical observation. However, the V-shaped collapse you point out is not consistent with the near-simultaneous, symmetrical failure of all the building's columns. According to the University of Alaska Fairbanks study, the building's collapse was due to the simultaneous failure of all its columns, which contradicts the single-column failure theory. 1:22 - The claim about the structural design of WTC7 and the role of the transfer trusses is partially correct. However, it's important to note that the design included redundancy and robustness to prevent such failures. The NIST report itself admits that WTC7 was the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires, which was unprecedented and raises questions about the true cause. 2:58 - The video shows the south side with fire and damage. Yet, extensive fire and localized damage alone do not explain the symmetrical, free-fall acceleration observed in WTC7's collapse. The 2020 UAF report found that such a failure mode could not have occurred without the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. 4:09 - You highlight the bent girders as evidence of natural collapse. However, in controlled demolitions, such deformations are typical due to the sequence of detonations. The bent girders alone do not preclude a controlled demolition hypothesis. 5:03 - You argue that the kink observed is an optical illusion. This perspective overlooks the uniform, free-fall acceleration of the building for approximately 2.25 seconds, indicating no resistance, which is a hallmark of controlled demolition, as confirmed in multiple analyses, including those by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 7:19 - The mention of the core columns and the East Penthouse collapse does not align with the observed uniform collapse of the building. The **UAF study** emphasizes that the East Penthouse collapse should not have initiated the symmetrical global collapse observed without explosives. 8:30 - Your assertion that WTC7 did not fall at free-fall speed is inaccurate. NIST's own measurements confirmed a period of free-fall for about 2.25 seconds during the collapse, as noted in the NIST Final Report on WTC7. 9:06 - The comparison with WTC1 and WTC2 is not entirely valid. The mechanisms of their collapses differ due to varying structural designs and damage conditions. The crucial point for WTC7 is the simultaneous, free-fall acceleration indicative of controlled demolition. For a more detailed analysis, refer to the peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al., 2009, which discusses the presence of explosive nanothermite in WTC dust. The evidence for controlled demolition, including the presence of nanothermite, remains uncontested in scientific literature since its publication. I hope this clarifies the key points. Let’s continue to scrutinize and understand the evidence critically and logically.
0:25 - The V-shaped "dent" is proof of a progressive collapse and that there was no _near-simultaneous, symmetrical failure of all the building's columns_ . You should have watched the entire video. 1:2 - In December of 1906 the Wright Brothers made the first powered flight of a heavier than air craft. It was an unprecedented event. Does that call anything into question because it has not happened before? Does that mean that powered heavier than air flight is not possible? That airplanes do not exist. You are - as most conspiracists do - taking the wrong lesson from that. And also completely ignoring what The NIST concluded. Myself, I would argue the _tall_ bit is an irrelevant qualifier. Meaningless. Neither the fire nor the building knows or cares how tall it is. The behavior of steel in fire does not change based on some arbitrary height. 2:58 - That's the northeast corner genius. And we already covered the FACT the collapse was not symmetrical (we will probably get to NOT FREE FALL too). 4:09 - Are they? Says who? BTW - how many explosive controlled demolitions have been performed on steel framed high rise buildings while they have been _fully involved_ in fire? I would say if that is what you are claiming happened it would be the first known instance of a tall burning steel building brought down primarily by explosive controlled demoliton, which was unprecedented and raises questions about the true cause. 5:03 - The "kink" has nothing whatsoever to do with the utterly meaningless _average_ measurement of GA for one corner of the exterior moment frame at the very last stage of the collapse (see, I knew we would get to why free fall is meaningless). Also, how fast something falls, particularly after it has already been falling for more than 10 seconds can not possibly tell you what started it falling. 7:19 - The observed collapse of the building was not uniform. Do you agree the East Mechanical Penthouse is part of the building? Do you agree 3 columns underneath it - 79, 80 and 812 - are what hold it up on the roof? Do you agree the EMP drops into and indeed through the building? It's on video so good luck denying that. One moment the EMP is there, the next moment it drops into the building. Doesn't that mean the 3 columns holding it on the roof must have failed? How does that make a uniform symmetrical collapse? The UAF study BTW makes no such claim about the EMP and explosives. You read that about as closely as you watched this video. 8:30 - Here it is again. OK, fine. How long had Building 7 been collapsing before that measurement was taken? It's right there in the NIST report which you pretend to have read since you (sort of) quote from it. So how long was the gap between when the collapse started and when the measurement of an _average_ (there's that word again - why does that keep coming up?) of free fall was taken? Why is that gap important? What was actually being measured? IF the entire building was being measured that would require multiple measurement data points. But there was only one, and that wasn't even on _the building_ (defined as its center of mass_ but rather on the exterior moment frame (the empty cereal box) that was left over when all of what was inside the box was gone. Did I mention that one measured data point was not a continuous free fall but an _average_ over 2.25 seconds? Why is that important? Because during that (arbitrary) 2.25 seconds that single measured data point on the corner of the empty box starts out _below GA_ then accelerates up to and _ever GA_ then back down _below GA_ again. It's a curve, not a straight line. So what would cause an _over GA_ measurement? I know the answer and it's in that "kink" you hand waved away earlier. Now that we have covered all that can we talk about all the critical details you ignored?
So I should trust that a study funded by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is not biased towards their beliefs? That's like believing the cigarette company funded studies that said smoking is healthy.
Ok, so, there's just a SLIGHT issue. There IS no "University of Alaska Fairbanks study". That Hulsey worked there is entirely irrelevant. It's a HULSEY study. It's also nonsense, but that's another thing. Let's make a few things clear, shall we? 1, The supposed "study" of Hulsey's was bought and paid for by A&E911. Now, there's nothing wrong, per se, with that, feasibility studies and the like are bought all the time. But, considering that A&E911 have a vested interest, the impartiality of the "study" does leave some to wish for. 2, the "study" was to take 2 years to make. And then it got moved. And then it got moved again. And then it went very quiet for some reason for quite some time. And then it finally was released, 5 years after it was announced, and 3 years late. I'm not saying the "study" was massaged to fit the customers wishes, but it's rather interesting that it took TWO AND A HALF times as long as it was meant to. 3, the "study" was supposed to be open to criticism by the public, and then it was supposed to be peer reviewed after that. And then, for some STRANGE reason, that went away, and it was just quietly released into the wild with no mention. 4, the "study" findings were already determined before it had started. A&E911 asked for donations and organized a drive to be able to pay for it, at which point they announced what the outcome would be. Let's repeat that. A&E911 told the world what the "study" would say, even before they'd paid for it, much less before it started. 5, the "study" is more or less spent refuting the NIST report. However, NIST isn't the only report that say that the collapse started due to fires. These other reports are mentioned but aren't addressed. 6, Hulsey's "study" tries to so something impossible. It attempts to prove a negative, i.e. that fire could not have been the starting mechanism for the collapse. This, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of science knows, is impossible. You can prove what happened. You cannot prove what didn't happen. 7, Hulsey is not competent to make the "study" he did. While he is an engineer, his work has entirely, and solely, been about road-surfaces and bridges, as well as cold-weather effects on the same. There is NOTHING in his work that has anything to do with buildings, or fires. 8, the "study" is a shambles and a joke. There are holes in it so big you could drive an 18-wheeler through them. As just an example, the model showing the data and conclusions of the "study" has the engineering "penthouse" of the WTC 7 hinging in the middle, completely dissimilar to what visually happened, then collapsing, in one piece, through the building, without causing any damage to the rest of the building, stopping about a quarter of the way down, and then literally just hanging there, still in one, deformed but still mostly intact, piece. 9, the Hulsey "study" has been referenced, or even MENTIONED, in any reputable engineering publication, exactly NEVER. And, while it isn't an argument as such, it is very interesting to note that Hulsey went from being head of the department to being "Professor Emeritus" after his "study" came out. This rather suggests that, much like Steven Jones, he embarrassed the university and so, they shuffled him off to the "honorary" position so he wouldn't be quite so in the public eye.
While I was in college watching these events unfold, I had simply figured raging leftover fires had taken care of enough of WTC7's strength to have it collapse. I saw the raw footage that you briefly shared after the fact and of course yeah it's the side of the building no one talks about. I didn't know about the transfer truss methodology to connect to the sub station below but it does make sense that heavy penthouse plus only a few weakened core columns is enough to place overdue stress onto the rest of the building. Great video, excellent logic and animations!
The hazmat suits were needed by the rescuers who got cancer after spending days looking for bodies that never made it to Ground Zero. 90% never recovered!
@@Larry26-f1w people in the surrounding area also got cancer. The lady in the famous photo covered in soot and dust also got cancer. Breathing in fumes and dust like that does that.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 still comments about fucking thermite with hundreds of likes though 🤦♂ What really gets me is when they just state some random observation like "there was IRON DUST found near the remnants of the towers!" as if it's some kind of ace in the whole proving their conspiracy theory
@@mikaham681right, when fire does affect steel, paper, and other things suspectable to damage, they're often rendered into a state of rubbish. Good observation!
It wasn’t because of the rubble damage that it collapsed-it truly did collapse because of the fire and internal structural design. But the structural damage caused by the tower did have a significant influence over *how* it fell seemingly as one piece from the outside.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl It takes a special combination of hubris and stupidity to believe that you piece of shill shite spend so much time on exposing yourself as a liar and as an complete idiot just for free Fitzshill.
Who cares? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse mechanisms discussed in this video. Also, that question has been answered about a million times in the last 20 years. Do try and keep up.
If BBC had idea about the collapse, what kind of stupid people should they be to report that before it actually happen. I'm no genius, but I'm not foolish enough to do that, then what makes you think that those experts would commit such mistakes in their crimes?
while this video supports some explanations as to what could have happened. but as for the probability of all core columns being fractured after the collapse of 1 & 2 is highly impractical. Building 7 as per the nist report collapsed due to uncontrolled fires. However it should be noted that WTC 7 is the only steel structured building to ever completely collapse due to Building fires. that is fact. other buildings have had partial collapses due to fire and those were burning hot and heavy way way more than building 7. this steel was not pre 1950 steel this is modern steel building that completely collapsed nearly into its own footprint due to pockets of fires on less than 1/4 of the building. It has never happened previously and never happened again after that day. not saying conspiracy mumbo but that is something that never been addressed. the issue of it falling mainly into its own footprint and due to pockets of fires is insane. example the horrible Grenfell fire took 60hrs to put out..never fully collapsed its just odd.. nice video but it also leads to more questions.
"However it should be noted that WTC 7 is the only steel structured building to ever completely collapse due to Building fires" Other than the other ones, of course. "that is fact." After all, you said so. Meanwhile, here in the adult world, "that is fact" is not an argument. "other buildings have had partial collapses due to fire" And complete. "those were burning hot and heavy way way more than building 7" "Hotter and heavier" than "fully involved in fire" for 7 hours? That's the words of the actual experts on scene. "this steel was not pre 1950 steel this is modern steel " Here's a shock for you: Steel "pre 1950" was no different from now. 98% Iron, 1.03% Manganese, 0.4% Silicon, 0.26% Carbon, 0.2% Copper, 0.05% Sulfur and 0.04% Phosporus makes the exact same thing now as it did then. "building that completely collapsed nearly into its own footprint" WTC 7 collapsed across two separate, 4-lane streets, one to the West and into the Verizon building, and one to the North-East, into Fiterman Hall. This is about as not "into its footprint" as you're likely to get. "due to pockets of fires on less than 1/4 of the building" Which, as noted above, was "fully involved". It's well known that the entire building burned, on more or less every floor, all over the floors. " It has never happened previously " So what? Not only is "never happened before" a completely meaningless statement, nothing in history had ever happened before...until it did, that's the point of history, but also you may have failed to notice the OTHER "never happened before" things that happened, like terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers, or skyscrapers collapsing onto other buildings. "never happened again after that day" The "it" that entails a large structure collapsing due to overwhelming fires have happened both before AND after, several times. " not saying conspiracy mumbo" It's just that you're spewing nothing but "conspiracy mumbo". Imagine that. " that is something that never been addressed" There are at least 4 different, reliable and trustworthy, engineering reviews of what happened to WTC7. There's also the reports from the actual experts on the scene. It's been addressed multiple times. It's just that, those addresses don't fit in with the "conspiracy mumbo" and so you have carefully ignored those. "the issue of it falling mainly into its own footprint and due to pockets of fires is insane" It might have been, if that had happened. But, since it didn't, but rather, as we see previous, it fell WAY outside it's "footprint", due to 7 hours of building-wide fires, there IS no "issue", insane or not. "example the horrible Grenfell fire took 60hrs to put out" Grenfell Towerwas a 24-story, concrete, apartment building built almost perfectly to have a raging fire happen, being actively fought by the firefighters the whole time. WTC 7 was a all-steel, framed tube office building that was deliberately NOT fought at all. If you're going to try to argue an "example", you might want to actually use an example instead of a flaunting of your complete lack of understand of the separate cases. "never fully collapsed its just odd" No, it is, as noted, quite easy to understand and very clear. " it also leads to more questions" From what we can see, it's fairly obvious that everything that doesn't fit neatly and perfectly into your "conspiracy mumbo" fairy tale bring more questions. Until they're answered, not truthfully and factually, but in a way that suits you.
This video does not claim all the core columns were fractured after the collapse of Building's 1 & 2. Why do I feel like you were not paying attention?
It is truly twisted logic to argue that someone inserted a secret demolition project in a badly damaged building that the first responders said was going to collapse.
Really good explanation but I still have some questions: did it had a bad project? Do we had any other build being broke like this before? Do we know any building made the same way? Are those transfer columns safe? What different things on the project could help with that specific problem?
The problem is that we have absolutely nothing to compare 9/11 to. It was and forever will be an absolutely unique event. Therefore the physics that caused these buildings to collapse took some time to understand. Unfortunately our inexperience with such a violent event is what led to all types of wild theories that exist to this day and will continue to exist
@@IMIv2 totally different bro, 9/11 was a barbaric act of Mass Murder. Men willing to commit suicide just so that thousands would die and thousands more would brush with death and live the rest of their lives with guilt, depression, and sickness. After 9/11/01 the world would never be the same.
dang lucky larry sure got lucky. just happened to at the doctor as his newly purchase buildings got attacked by 2 seperate terror attacks. thankfully he had terror insurance , and they paid for both of the attacks.
@@Kudde23 _" All he tries is to cover up the obvious controlled demolition."_ Do you have any evidence that it was a CD? You not understanding the collapse isn't evidence of that.
@@MarkH-cu9zi They wouldn´t employ cheap shills like you to cover up the controlled demolition if it wasn´t a controlled demolition. You not understanding the collapse won´t help you.
Newton's theory of universal gravity was attacked from 1687 by some of Europe's leading intellectuals, including Huygens and Leibniz, because it rigorously excluded any hypothetical mechanism, and implied that forces could be transmitted between material objects across empty space without contact, and without a theory. In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth’s gravity. Einstein’s interpretation was that these objects do not fall from a force. Forces always come in pairs between objects - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs. Einstein concluded objects can only have a force that prevents them from falling, if not then they are free from any forces acting on them. Locally gravity is identical to accelerating upwards in a rocket...and there is no downward force pulling you down. Weight is the reaction of the physical contact to the earth. ua-cam.com/video/WMR1XC-Lce0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/PjT85AxTmI0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/v-deo.html
Appreciate the visual attempt at this as many ignore building 7. I see a problem with fires with no jet fuel being hot enough to do damage to the columns, though. And the antenna fell away from this building.
The core (mostly) fell straight down; the exterior structural columns flung off hundreds of feet in all four directions. There are debris maps which show the debris pattern of WTC1 and WTC2 across approximately 2-3 blocks.
I've seen the same thing with the south tower's collapse.. outer columns from the very top part of the building decided to fly outwards as if they stopped and changed directions mid collapse. The collapses never made sense to me, there's no way 15 floors perish 85 floors without slowing down.
@@MrDefreeseflung, great use of science with that word. The columns just flung. Like in a wile-e-coyote cartoon. Let's just ignore the fact that the "flung" requires some form of lateral propulsion
@@oliver9089 we could use technical language, but the Truthers seem incapable of using or comprehending that advanced technical language. Since you want to try this approach, the external columns fell off to the sides because of gravity induced collapse of the twin towers; that damage was caused by the impact of the two jets and exacerbated by the resulting fires in the twin towers. Did you have anything to contribute here or substantive questions to seek? The Truther arguments were obsolete on 9/11/01.
@MrDefreese you still did not explain the source of horizontal component of the movement of the outside columns. I find it amusing that you claim to care about the truth about why this tragedy happened while using the worth "truther" as a slur. You are irreparably hypnotized by the media propaganda and complicit in the murders that your government committed against your own people and millions of Arabs in order to hand world domination to a small group of tyrants. 🖕
People will happily accept the effects of war and earthquake effects on collapsing building, but a building stood in the same vicinity of two massive explosions a collapses had to be a conspiracy when it collapses itself. Great video and explanation.
The conspiracy isn't around they collapsed, it's the WAY they collapsed. Three skyscrappers that fell in a perfect way in a row. Apparently, the way these buildings were designed was to marginally support their own weight, like a bunch of house of cards.
I must say, I doubted this video would ever see the light of day, thinking the subject was too complex for the tools you were using. I also suspected if it did finally arrive, I would be underwhelmed. Now that it is here, *color me thoroughly impressed*. For the intended audience, this is pretty darn good, far better than I expected and a _much_ better than the very popular Twin Towers video from last year. For levels _above_ the intended audience this is still really damn good. A lot of critical details that all-too-frequently get ignored are presented and at just the right level of complexity. I do have a few quibbles on some points - notably the lack of attention to the role the floor systems played in providing critical lateral support to the columns (79 especially) - but nothing which moves the needle in any significant way. For conspiracists, many of whom will no doubt soon fill the comments reciting dogma about _controlled demolition_ and _inside job_ having either not watched or not grasping this complex topic, they are not the intended audience. But their presence is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.
Fascinating video. I've never really known what to think about WTC 7 building's collapse as I don't recall it at the time. A stressful time, plus the internet was much different. You couldn't get 18 replay angles within a week. That took a decade more at least. Very well done. My favorite part of it? Your kind words, remembrance and tribute to your mentor, Joe Hill. You both sound like class acts.
This presentation invokes some scientific aspects, but is mostly made in a way that impresses - and convinces - those who don't know much about physics, mechanics, or structures. It is very well made for the masses, as it uses impressive graphics, bright colours, sharp pictures, clear/assertive voice tone of the speaker - all pretty and convincing - but it does not hold against the simplest scrutiny of someone with an eye for critical detail and some basic knowledge of physics, structures and probability. I strongly suggest to look into the thorough and prolific work that Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (ae911truth) have done, where they meticulously show why the "official" explanation - including this one about WTC7 - is not congruent with reality. Far from it.
Why? AE911T have not produced anything close to this thorough even though they have had 18 years and the alleged support of thousands of "experts". The only thing they get right is the date.
@@mikebyrd8278 NIST eventually admitted the free fall that the uploader didn´t even dare to mention because none of you shills can explain it (without controlled demolition)... Wait, who forced NIST again to admit the free fall they tried to hide at first? Oh right it was David Chandler, the guy who is also appearing on the conspiracy website you don´t like. But why don´t you like them? Oh right, because they forced NIST to admit the free fall that you shills can´t explain... So sad Mikeyshill, so sad...
@@yamilandres I have seen them all. I have probably forgotten more about Tricky Dick Gage and his clown-car of incompetents than you have ever known. My previous assessment of them and their 18 year track record of complete failure stands. You like them because they tell you what you think you want to hear and they use just enough technospeak to keep you from asking questions (if you were even so inclined). To prove all that I will happily rip apart any technical claim of theirs you wish to present and will do so without referring to my notes.
How did it collapse? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it’s somehow related to the other two buildings that collapsed right next to it beforehand. Maybe, just maybe, they’re related. 😅
Wow, genius. Never thought of this. Maybe you could explain, however, why the buildings that stood between WTC1 and WTC7 took way more damage than 7, yet didn't collapse. Or why the buildings 50 feet to either side of 7 (one of them being even closer to WTC1) got away practically without a scratch?
@@oliver9089 You are wrong, the buildings next to WTC 7 were VERY damaged. Please read the following passage: Besides the dust storm from the ruined Twin Towers, which clogged air filters on the backup generators’ turbines, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the Verizon Building caused structural damage. “I’m talking 20-, 30-foot steel beams we found up on the 10th, 12th floor,” Pullizzi said. “We’d find on the rooftop and setbacks on the building big, giant steel beams and debris. Overall, we took a good hit.” And here’s an article about how much it cost: About $400 million of LMDC funds have been appropriated to cover some of the costs of restoring telecommunications as well as other core infrastructure services. The LMDC, though, has not determined how it will distribute those funds. The funds could help cover at least some of the approximately $75 million uninsured loss that Verizon sustained to its transmission and distribution lines, which are the wires, conduits and pipes that run above and through the streets. Verizon had $25 million of separate T&D coverage, but its eventual loss could total $100 million. Sources: www.ecmag.com/magazine/articles/article-detail/safety-verizon-building-stands-tall-after-attack www.businessinsurance.com/article/20030406/AWARDS03/100012615/verizon-quickly-restored-service-after-terrorist-attacks
I don’t get why they limit comments on the NIST explanation video. If they want people to not believe in the conspiracy they should allow a proper public forum
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl National Institute of Standards and Technology made a video trying to explain what happened to building 7. They limited the comments, newest one was 9 years ago.
You can sit here and explain the laws of physics and truthers will still be like "I'M NOT A SHEEP I DONT JUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING" lmao. Also I love how truthers never show the damaged side with the huge gash of WTC 7, or never show the penthouse section collapsing on the entire building first.
Maybe this video will help you to understand there's a big difference between real acceleration and an illusion of acceleration. Einstein showed us how gravity is just an illusion of making things fall down in acceleration. ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html By Tom Siegfried October 4, 2015 at 5:30 am Albert Einstein opened humankind’s eyes to the universe. Before Einstein, space seemed featureless, flat, and changeless, as Isaac Newton had defined it three hundred years earlier. And time, Newton declared, flowed at its own pace, oblivious to the clocks that would measure it. But Einstein looked at space and time and saw a single dynamic change - spacetime - on which matter and energy strutted, generating sound and fury, signifying gravity. Newton’s law of gravity had united the earthly physics of falling apples with the cosmic dances of planets and stars. But he couldn’t explain why, and he famously admitted he had no theory of why. It took Einstein to figure out gravity’s true modus operandi. Einstein showed us that gravity does not make anything fall down. Gravity’s secrets succumbed to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, unveiled in a series of papers submitted over a century ago this November to the Prussian Academy in Berlin. A decade earlier, his special theory of relativity had merged matter with energy while implying the unity of space and time (soon to be christened as spacetime). After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newton’s naïve idea that masses have a force that attracts masses to each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moves matter along in perfectly straight lines but does so in the curving pathways embodied in spacetime, where objects in motion must stay in motion unless acted upon or stopped by a force - paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves. As expressed decades later by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve, and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move. NIST has declared “The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is the first known instance of a total global collapse of a tall building primarily due to plain old normal office fires. ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 HOW DO THE TWIN TOWERS FALL FROM THE TOP DOWN IF THERE IS NO DOWNWARD FORCE THAT PULLS OR PUSHES? HOW DID THEY FALL SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES, THERE IS EITHER AN UPWARD FORCE, OR THERE IS NO UPWARD FORCE? THERE IS ONLY ONE FORCE THAT CAN BE EITHER SUSTAINED, REDUCED, OR REMOVED, AND IT COMES FROM BELOW...NO FORCE COMES FROM ABOVE TO MAKE ANYTHING FALL DOWN. ua-cam.com/video/bicMK7dE0so/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/dHfeks3yjUM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/R3LjJeeae68/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/_ZcVQCRvQWk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/bODvVAh6OJA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/UgudCmLobxw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/XRr1kaXKBsU/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Tdh_R7po6Dw/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/_GjIgJPn47E/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/WMR1XC-Lce0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/bJ_seXo-Enc/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/BL7vNQqwuTM/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/4ZrcDTjkIhI/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/GuLL_upE4zk/v-deo.html
What I don't understand from this video is why the collapse was initiated on the left side (under the extra penthouse) when the major damage from the spire was on the right side (as seen at 9:00). What damaged the left side?
Fire. Collapse was due to the effects of 7 hours of unfought fires, not the physical damaged caused when the North Tower fell. That is spelled out in this video. The one significant complaint I have about this video is that it fails to address the critical role of the floor systems in providing critical lateral support to the core columns. As described in the video, the columns at the east end of the central core (79, 80 and 81) failed first and this was due to fire. They failed by buckling. Why they failed is because floors in the NE corner of the building collapsed, causing the columns to be laterally unsupported over an excessive length. This is not really covered in the video, but the cause was the fires, not the physical impact damage 7 hours earlier.
@@mgx9383 lol fire. That narrative is so absurd. The fire from all the foolscap paper that nobody stores near beams, that magically melted the beams ? That fire?! Or was it the desks that burn 10 times longer and hotter than any wood in a fireplace? Or the super cheap carpet that burns as hot as the sun? This happens all the time right?? Oh wait, it never happened before or since. But fire!
It is one of those weird, strange, awful things that people don't really think about, but all of the firemen that would ordinarily have responded to a fire at WTC 7 - *died* earlier that day in the collapses of WTC 1 and 2.
Why would he? The reporting on the collapse, which the engineers and firefighters accurately predicted would happen, is irrelevant to the physics of the collapse of WTC7
Yes, nothing to see there. All above board. Don’t look at the cars that magically exploded blocks away hours after the collapses. That’s normal. The vaccine also will guarantee you won’t get COVID. How much more government Kool Aid am I supposed to drink before I can have some crystal clear water?
Holy cow. When in the comments of your 911 video you said you would address the third building in another video, I thought that was just a tactic to evade the question. But you actually did it.
lmfao. yep a spire fell of WTC 1 or 2 and it ripped 7 to shreds, and the a part of 7 collapsed and the whole building collapsed in what looks like a controlled demolition onto its own footprint like the other 2 buildings. And all the steel is shipped away an melted down asap, nothing to see here. "Trust the science" Bullshit
UA-cam in "2010" of world trade center all videos of collapses towers, théories and facts ground zero facts, footages before the tower collapsing the multitudes explosions sounds of this videos amateurs, firemans, and cops caméras..., today 2024 all this videos dissapears from youtube...
Sadly, none of this will convince those that don't want to be convinced. This was a fantastic video. It explains everything very well and provides plenty of evidence too.
@@VETTEDZ06 It could have been peer reviewed by 15 people and those that want to believe Bush planted explosives and blew it up would still not believe anything else. There are flat Earthers that refuse to believe any evidence prevented. People are convinced we never went to the moon regardless of any evidence to the contrary. "They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love."
People always want to listen to the ONE engineer who says the collapse was impossible without human influence, but ignore the 20000 engineers who disagree. Why? Because our media consumption has taught us that the "lone outsider" who nobody believes is always correct. I can't count the number of examples in movies and television of the trope, "the one who nobody listened to was right all along." We always root for the underdog whether it makes any sense or not.
From the writing perspective, having a single character as the author of their theory VS having multiple characters is a lot better because it makes the story more focused on said character and it's less redundant to the reader/viewer.
Do you have any idea how many Architects and Engineers have put their names down to say that the official report is incorrect and demand a new investigation?
@@oliver9089 - Yes. None. Have you ever actually bothered to read the AE911T petition? Anyone signing it agrees to no such thing. Meanwhile, organizations such as the 130,000 member American Society of Civil Engineers and 85,000 member American Institute of Architects (among many others) fully support the fire induced collapse hypothesis.
The 2.3 trillion were never missing they just had a huge pile of cash laying around in exactly the wing that got hit by the "plane". It'd probably be this tier of cope.
@Pattern_Noticer actually the treasury department that is responsible for this is located in the 3rd ring on the opposite side from the plane crash. But I wouldn't expect you to know that
@@CheeseMiserActually not the case. Those offices and personnel in charge of investigating and tracing the 2.3 trillion were in fact relocated to the very area that had something catastrophic happen to it, at the Pentagon. And this relocation occurred not long before 9/11.
@Pattern_Noticer You are another victim of that ridiculous fake news. The U.S. government DID NOT “mysteriously lose” trillions of dollars the day before 9/11, as conspiracy theorists claim. This is a categorically false and misleading allegation that distorts the facts about $2.3 trillion in accounting entries that were poorly documented due to outdated technology. On September 10, 2001 then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion in a speech, but he was NOT implying that the money was missing. Instead, he was using the number to highlight the need for better financial management and modernization of the department’s system. These accounting problems were not a new revelation. They had been known and a subject of public concern for many years. The Pentagon's operations are highly complex, and its reliance on old financial systems made achieving transparent and efficient accounting extremely challenging. This issue was already recognized and steps were being taken to address it before Rumsfeld's announcement in 2001. Moreover, the specific transactions associated with the $2.3 trillion were all made in fiscal year 1999 and reported in early 2000, long before 9/10/2001. Rumsfeld’s speech had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any cover-up! Why would he even have mentioned such a thing had the U.S. been behind the attacks that he'd have known were about to occur the very next morning?! By the way, the same thing continued to occur and in 2016, $8 trillion couldn’t be accounted for, again due to poor practices and outdated technology. Conspiracy theorists that time claimed it was because the U.S. used the funds to build a massive spaceship capable of turning itself fully invisible, like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek…..
Is there really much interest in that? It was a 9 story building partially crushed by debris and it's not really that hot of a topic. I'm open ears though.
@@member57 Yes it was otherwise they would of collapsed straght after impact. Kero fires or office fires will never burn hot enough to bring down a building at free fall speeds, into their own footprint. All three were brought down by thermite explosives
The argument "I live in NYC so X" fails rather emphatically. So did another 8 million people at the time. Doesn't mean that he was right in that the antenna did what he said, but all the same, "I live in NYC" isn't an argument for OR against.
FYI, it was originally Larry Silverstein, when confronted by WeAreChange in 2008, who made the claim about the antenna slicing through the building. This video is the first time I've seen this easily refuted claim made since then. I wonder if there is a Silverstein-Lesics connection...
Larry Silverstein's acquisition of the World Trade Center lease and his subsequent insurance decisions are often cited by conspiracy theorists as indicative of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. However, a critical examination of these claims against the backdrop of standard real estate and insurance practices reveals a different picture, devoid of the sinister implications some attempt to draw. Firstly, the inclusion of terrorism coverage in Silverstein's insurance policy was not only standard and prudent, but REQUIRED. In other words, IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF SILVERSTEIN’S CHOICE. It wasn’t optional, but obligatory: the lenders required that such coverage be included or else Silverstein would not be loaned the funds necessary for the lease. This is hardly surprising as virtually any and all major buildings, especially in large, notable cities, were customarily expected to have terrorism coverage. Bear in mind the 1993 WTC bombing, and then the 1995 bombing of the federal building Oklahoma City! In addition to this, the use of the phrase "pull it," by Larry Silverstein in a documentary is another outrageous element fueling conspiracy theories despite being astonishingly simple to incontrovertibly disprove! The phrase been widely, wildly, and often deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented as a reference to demolishing Building 7. However, Silverstein was not referring to the building itself, but specifically to the team of firefighters inside at that particular moment. The infamous interview clip is from the PBS documentary America Rebuilds and here are Silverstein's exact words: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Firstly, in emergency fire response contexts, the phrase "pull it" ubiquitously refers to withdrawing the contingent of firefighters from a structure that is plagued by an ongoing fire. Silverstein was suggesting that withdrawing the firefighters might be prudent given the staggering loss of life already endured. He was NOT suggesting, let alone ordering, the demolishing of the building! Secondly, Silverstein clearly states, "And they made that decision to pull..." The operative word "they" refers to the Fire Department Commander, not Silverstein himself! Even if it were an inside job, why on earth would he be the one with the task or authority to authorize this? Why would anyone need to do so, rather than have it timed automatically? And why in God's name would he admit it in a PBS documentary?!?!?! The belief that PBS, which receives significant government funding, would air a documentary that includes anything remotely suggestive of a government-orchestrated inside job is ludicrous, untenable, irrational, and truly underscores the grievous lack of common sense pervasive among such a large contingent (pun intended) of the population
as a retired construction design manager, who worked on many high-rise building in MENA, UK and USA. This explanation would only convince somebody who has absolutely no understanding of how materials behave due to fire/temperature. its so silly, its not worth talking about.
@@firstpeoplegovernment - That's what the algorithm does genius. It pushes popular content. Why do you keep insisting on demonstrations of your low intellect? Not necessary. We get it. No need to double down on stoo-pid.
7 "original", but meaningless and useless, posts in less than 48 hours. Because as all "truthers" know, the more stupid shit you post, the more right you are. Really.
They had government offices in there, so conspiracy nuts try and argue its to destroy classified documents about 9/11, that, I guess they think they wrote on the same day? Lol.
Would it be safe to say that if the Penthouse was not added and carried solely by those three columns, it is highly likely that WTC7 would not have collapsed?
Don't think that that is safe to say. As long as the fire was raging, the more the columns were increasingly weakened. So, without the penthouse, there would have been less loads on the columns indeed, but with the fire going on, the resistance would continue to degrade, and the moment the Load is bigger than the resistance, a column fails. So likely, it would have taken extra time for the columns to buckle, but they likely would have buckled.
It sounds like structurally the WTC towers were quite unique. I did some research on how the jet fuel managed to damage the steel beams when other buildings have survived equally violent fires. I think there was a case of a lost bomber in the 1940s hitting the Empire State Building and although it burned for hours it didn't collapse. The fireproofing was done via a coating on the steel beams and one thing I found surprising was the effect that fire can have on steel. I have a member of my family who is convinced 9/11 was an "inside job". I've tried to scientifically argue with them but it doesn't make any difference. They still don't understand that you don't need to melt steel for it to weaken. The fire was hot enough and there have been tests done which demonstrate that if exposed to fire the steel can weaken. Plus, you can see with your own eyes how when the two main towers collapsed, they do so at the point where the aircraft hit the towers (though I know WTC7 collapsed solely due to fire). I'm not an engineer or an expert but try and understand as much as I can and it is frustrating when people like my father refuse to yield to the experts or educate themselves. Thanks for your replies guys. All the best, Dan. 🙂
9:21 I love what's happened to UA-cam, everyone feels the need to use superfluous stock footage, to the point we now have 'a guy watching 9/11 on his iMac'.
@@protosfotod2416ah the classic passport copypasta. Let's ignore the fact they weren't located after the collapses and all the varying debris from the other passengers survived the impact. This one isn't hard to explain, it's just easy to pretend it was part of a grand conspiracy.
I love how the "how did paper passports survive?!?!" People ignore the tsunami of paper that came from the same floors the planes hit reigning down after the floors were on fire because ya know... Lol "reasons".... I feel so bad for these people who lack basic critical thinking and can be so easily countered
Not in Building 7, so I don't know why you would bring that up here. That was at the North Tower _only_ I made a short video on this topic to clear up a lot of common misconceptions: ua-cam.com/video/pVDU5QKa8Wg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=MFitz
There was no thermite, and the angled cuts were made later during disassembly of the rubble. A number of conspiracy loons will quite happily lie about the dates of those photos.
Three buildings with non-symmetrical damage fell in their own footprint on the same day. I think this is the first the world has seen this. (We've seen high-rise fires lasting for days and the steel frame remains). Add to that, on the same day, two plane crash sites with no visible plane parts. What is the the chance of that happening? Probably one in a billion. That's a good explanation of WTC7 though.
OK, but how many of those high rises were impacted by commercial jets or by a collapsing skyscraper? There was visible airplane debris at all three locations. A simple google search will show you images of pieces of the planes
No building fell "in their own footprint". 10 buildings collapsed. This on the same day there were terrorist attacks on the buildings in that area. Even if your "first" had had any relevancy, which it did not, what of it? "First" only mean "first". No-one has seen fires lasting for days and the steel frame remain. Add to that 19 tons of visible plane parts in two of the THREE crash sites. So, the chances are 100% since you made it all up. You're welcome for the correction of your nonsense.
@@mooneyes2k478 There was no visible plane parts at the pentagon crash site nor in Pennsylvania - it's unusual to have planes disintegrate upon crashing. All the buildings collapsed in their own footprints, and yes planes hit the twin towers, but did not hit WTC7. The planes that hit the twin towers caused non-symmetrical damage on several higher floors - not a reason for the entire building to collapse, but a reason for those higher floors to collapse to the side There were not "19 tons of visible plane parts." Add to that many other anomalies on that day, and there is a definite possibility that is was a false flag, in part, in some way. Use your own brain and think about it, rather than defend a narrative. This is a systemic issue with lots of evidence, thus conclusions are made in probabilities and possibilities, not certainties. Anyone certain is defending, not thinking for themselves.
@@nova4005 " There was no visible plane parts at the pentagon crash site nor in Pennsylvania " Other than the aforementioned 19 tons or so, you mean? Yeah. "All the buildings collapsed in their own footprints" If by "footprint" you mean "covered 8 times more ground that when they were standing", that is. "and yes planes hit the twin towers, but did not hit WTC7" Or any of the other 7 buildings. Can you guess what DID hit them? " not a reason for the entire building to collapse, but a reason for those higher floors to collapse to the side" If, that is, you think that a building is a tree. Here on earth, they're generally not. "There were not "19 tons of visible plane parts."" Because if you go "SO THERE!", reality changes. Right? Right. "Add to that many other anomalies on that day" None of which you can actually name or support. Just like dozens if not hundreds of "truthers" over the past several years, who, when called on the "many", turned very noticeably quiet. "there is a definite possibility that is was a false flag" Ah, yes. "It was all about Iraq, so there!" Except, it was clearly and publicly stated that Saddam didn't have anything to do with it. Then, of course, there's the minor issue that, in near 250 years, the US has been at war for 225. And not ONCE in that time was a "false flag" ever needed. All that was required was, "because we want to". "Use your own brain and think about it, rather than defend a narrative" You mean the brain that could, in contrast to you, understand and follow the evidence and the science? The only "narrative" is the one you and your "truther" buddies peddle, the one that goes, "oh, doesn't it look suspicious, something much be wrong, trust me bro!" "Anyone certain is defending, not thinking for themselves." Or able to understand very basic, laymans levels of construction and physics. Could be that.
People don’t need to “buy” it, much the same as you don’t have to “buy” gravity. Put forward a well organized and provable hypothesis, and debate it from a place of science… otherwise accept the best explanations we got.
Question, the whole idea of making steal warp/bend from fire is ok in towers 1 & 2 but I was told that it was because of the thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning as paper and office materials like desks, chairs and office equipment didn't burn HOT ENOUGH to cause that so please explain how now you think jet fuel caused the fires in WTC 7 to burn hot enough. Also in WTC 1 & 2 it was the connectors holding the trusses that failed but you never explained a simmilar issue in WTC 7, how did they fail as the main load bearing were large I beams not small trusses that would need lower temps to fail. You skipped a bunch of needed information to explain your fire theory.
You were misinformed. The jet fuels ignition started the fires, but nearly everyone would agree that it had completely burned off by the time the collapse initiated, especially in WTC 1 that stood longer. Office furniture, equipment, and flammable building materials can certainly burn at a hot enough temperature to weaken steel and initiate building collapses. Notably on 9/11, that happened in WTC1, WTC2, WTC6, and WTC7. Contrary to what some truthers erroneously claim, there are plenty of other examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing, completely or partially, due to fire. The collapses of wtc2 and wtc1 were caused by the failure of the external columns being pulled inward by the sagging floor trusses. Though they likely played some role, the failure of the "connectors holding the trusses" was not what initiated the collapse. Interestingly, truthers don't talk about the partial collapse of WTC6 due to fire. I wonder why that is 🤔 Perhaps because Dylan made the decision to include WTC7 in loose change and not WTC6.
jet fuel is not the only thing in the world that burns and it was more than paper burning. The fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel. Learn before you speak.
@@pacman3556 You don't even understand the official explanation for the collapse. The collapse wasn't initiated by weakened steal. The main cause of the collapse was thermal expansion of the steal. The beams connected to girder A2001 experienced thermal expansion. The expansion pushed girder A2001 off its seat that was connected to column 79. When the girder fell of its seat, it caused column 79 to buckle & initiate the progressive collapse. The fires weren't actually hot enough to weaken the steal to the point of collapse. Skyscrapers are specifically designed to withstand being completely engulfed by office fires & remain standing. Engineers actually account for the steel weakening due to fires & ensure that the structure will remain standing even after the steel has been weakened. Skyscrapers have been fully engulfed by flames & remain standing.
@@john_hunter_ yes WTC7 the steel expanded causing a column to buckle. In WTC1 and 2 the steel weakened causing inward bowing. In both cases it was fire that caused the collapses. What skyscrapers are you referring too? List a few.....and remember make sure they are not concrete core but steel frame like WTC so you are comparing similar structures.
From that angle it looked like a controlled demolition, and fell perfectly on it's on footprint. What you couldn't see is that it actually fell against a building across the street. Controlled demolitions don't normally damage neighboring buildings, especially across a 4-lane street.
NANO THERMITE ~ EXPLOSIVE MILITARY WEAPON ~ FALLING BUILDINGS **DO NOT ** PRODUCE EXPLOSVES RESIDUE AND **DO NOT** CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL!! ~ ??? >> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY CONTROLLED DEMO OR FALLING BUILDING CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL ?? ... (DIDNT THINK SO!) >> NANO THERMITE IS IN ALL THE ASHES OF GROUND ZERO !! ... CASE CLOSED ~ IT WAS A 3X CONTROLLED DEMO!! >> BUSH CHENY RUMMY SAUDIS = GUILTY OF WAS CRIMES~! +++ OVER 280,000 PILOTS, FIREMEN, COPS, MILITARY, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS HAVE ALL TESTIFYED THAT 9/1 IS A GOVT COVER UP. ***PERIOD! ** DO NOT BELIEVE SLICK VIDEOS!! ... LEARN THE REAL FACTS!!
In fact exactly NO actual demolition companies agree with that. None. Zero. Pretending otherwise, or more likely blindly repeating nonsense that caters to your pet fantasy, doesn't change that.
This is the sort of thing that is really hard for a structural engineer to imagine is a major structural element suddenly failing singly. One structural column fails? All of the mass of the building stays the same but is instantly transferred to the adjacent columns, the weakest adjacent column fails, all of the mass of the building is instantly transferred to the adjacent columns, those columns start to fail, then everything starts to fail sequentially. The mass of the building never decreases, the number of elements holding it up decreases. It is not that complicated.
A structural engineer understands that is not how it happened. You are grossly over-simplifying while at the same time not understanding critical details, which you then replace with ignorance-fueled personal incredulity. We can fix that.
Check out the report published by university of Alaska. They basically came out and disagreed or at least stated that it’s unlikely NISTs findings are what actually happened
@@skibbitybopmdada - Ah yes, Judy Wood - the Sidney Powell of 9/11 woo_ . I did read Judy Wood’s book. Laughed my ass off. Lots of face palming. It is mind-numbingly stupid. Dumbest shit ever put to paper. Pathetically little and heavily cherry picked “evidence” with little to no analysis worthy of the name and she is careful to avoid drawing any conclusions she will have to defend. Typical conspiracy stuff. Be vague and obtuse. The target audience won't notice or care, just nod. When I found out Judy Wood wrote her book after _suffering a traumatic brain injury_ in a cycling accident which left her first in a long-term coma, then _ended her career in academia_ (where she studied the material properties of teeth) things made a lot more sense. Not the book mind it - it’s complete nonsense - but how someone who was once credible and scientifically minded could write something that awful. She's clearly not firing on all 8 and talking about things she has no knowledge or expertise in even when she was fully functional. If there were such a thing as a directed energy weapon powered by hurricanes and capable of turning the World Trade Center Twin Towers steel into dust (while at the same time mildly singeing some cars), where has this weapon been since 9/11/2001? This is a weapon literally capable of immediate world domination. It could end the War in Ukraine in a day! And Gaza!!! It could send the Chinese back behind their wall. Yet it only gets used once, and pointlessly at that??? Why use it at all in an attack that absolutely has to look like it was done using hijacked planes _and nothing else_ when it isn’t even needed? The whole idea is just so many levels of stupid it boggles the mind. There is no physics in her book and almost no analysis. It is entirely premised around magical thinking. This is why Wood has always been way out on the lunatic fringe, even among other fringy conspiracists. Even they aren’t _that_ clueless.
NANO THERMITE ~ EXPLOSIVE MILITARY WEAPON ~ FALLING BUILDINGS **DO NOT ** PRODUCE EXPLOSVES RESIDUE AND **DO NOT** CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL!! ~ ??? >> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY CONTROLLED DEMO OR FALLING BUILDING CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL ?? ... (DIDNT THINK SO!) >> NANO THERMITE IS IN ALL THE ASHES OF GROUND ZERO !! ... CASE CLOSED ~ IT WAS A 3X CONTROLLED DEMO!! >> BUSH CHENY RUMMY SAUDIS = GUILTY OF WAS CRIMES~! +++ OVER 280,000 PILOTS, FIREMEN, COPS, MILITARY, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS HAVE ALL TESTIFYED THAT 9/1 IS A GOVT COVER UP. ***PERIOD! ** DO NOT BELIEVE SLICK VIDEOS!! ... LEARN THE REAL FACTS!!
The spire of WTC 1 did fall to the south, you can see it in the Videos. Some parts from WTC did strike WTC 7 and it was burning 7 hours, but the spire had nothing to do with it.
we were extremely lucky on that day. Sure, many innocent people lost their lives, but how blessed and infinitely lucky we were that all the buildings gracefully fell into their own footprint, almost if by some impossible miracle. so much of a miracle and so lucky were we, that such luck might never be seen ever again. never forget how suspiciously lucky we were that more people didnt die from those buildings falling normally and instead falling in that perfect way they did. thank you god for all your blessings, you are very good at being god, the best, zero doubts in your talents god
WTC7 fell across a street and did billions of dollars in damage to the Verizon tower. You trying to suggest a street and another building was built inside WTC7 footprint (i.e. its basement). Explain that.
Wow! Education in America sucks bad as this comments section clearly shows! Here, we are 23 years later, and the American people still don't know what really happened that day. No wonder the country is in such a sharp decline. 🤦
Oh, no, the American people knows. You'll find that, since the American people DO know, they don't have to come here and post nonsense. Only the really die-hard "oh, it's all so very suspicious and conspiracy-y" minority fringe do that.
To be fair, person are still trying to figure out everything that happened with M/S Estonia 1994. Over 800 souls lost that day out of almost 1,000 on board. It's good people question things, but sometimes it's just dumb conspiracy theories.
I’ve been watching content about 9/11 to understand it, and this video plus the one on the WTC 1 & WTC 2 collapse are the most comprehensive i’ve seen on that aspect. Thanks a lot for all your work, this is very informative!
Crazy people are so delusional to believe somebody would admit to blowing up buildings on national television. He was talking about pulling out the firefighters
@@mikebyrd8278: he was clearly talking about the building, not the fire fighters. He said " the smartest thing to do was pull it, so they gave the order and watched the building collapse."
I hope the WTC 7 video was informative. Your support at Patreon is crucial for our survival - www.patreon.com/Sabins
Hoping for your support, Cheers Sabin Mathew
This was fascinating, thank you sir!
I must say, I doubted this video would ever see the light of day, thinking the subject was too complex for the tools you were using. I also suspected if it did finally arrive, I would be underwhelmed. Now that it is here, *color me thoroughly impressed*.
For the intended audience, this is pretty darn good, far better than I expected and a _much_ better than the very popular Twin Towers video from last year. For levels _above_ the intended audience this is still really damn good. A lot of critical details that all-too-frequently get ignored are presented and at just the right level of complexity. I do have a few quibbles on some points - notably the lack of attention to the role the floor systems played in providing lateral support (79 in particular) - but nothing which moves the needle in any significant way.
For conspiracists, many of whom will no doubt soon fill the comments reciting dogma about _controlled demolition_ and _inside job_ having either not watched or not grasping this complex topic, they are not the intended audience. But their presence is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east. Indeed, it did not take long.
Please make more animation shots like zackdfilms for engineering and science
This was very well done! Thank you for making this video.
Lol. "Give me a week" turned into 9 months. But OP delivered eventually.
one thing i do want to point out is that it wasn't the antenna that created the gash as the antenna fell the other way towards the south not north. It was just debris
The antenna fell the pther way?
@@kadangkalerYes, the antenna fell towards the southern direction. The Gash was probably from the exterior collumns that were blown out from the North Tower
@@kadangkaler yeah the top section fell towards the south, which was caused by the collapse of the south tower, as the collapse created larger flames in the south side of the north tower,
@@imboredandtired9the south tower didn't affect the structure of 1 WTC
Also your partially correct
The antenna started to fall south but then went back north
However idk what parts hit 7
@@Flyyn_Gaming_9 no, so the collapse of the south tower did affect the north tower, but not severely, you can see this if you look at videos of the south towers collapse from the south, and you can see flames growing on the south face because of the air being sucked down, and the antenna didn't fall back north as it was found in the same area as the Marriott and 90 West Street
3:36 WTC 1's antenna did NOT cause the long gash on the WTC 7's south facade. As seen in other footage, it fell towards the south, right over WTC 3.
Stop picking apart the government's lies, you'll get yourself arrested
Exactly. The Spire went away from WTC7. Gaslighting 101.
Even if it did i doubt a mere anttena can do that😂
@@KONAmustang50 The exterior of the North Tower did strike WTC7, like a bunch of steel claws falling from twice the height.
@@Sidsidsidsids Correct. 100% it was debris and not the spire.
the media always portrait that only 2 towers were collapsed ,but not so much on others .
Over for 23 years i did not know about these at all .
I think it's from a couple of things. First of all no one was in WTC 7 when it collapsed as it was evacuated successfully, so naturally the focus is going to be on where the most fatalities were and not this seemingly insignificant building. Remember, 2,977 died that day. Other buildings around the WTC were also damaged and had to be demolished as explained in the video, and they didn't talk about those either. Also, for a while we just didn't know what happened. Without seeing videos like the WTC on fire and detailed breakdown analysis it can be confusing and that confusion can distract from what's more important to people. I really don't fault the media here.
Look up the dancing israelis.
@@cooljunkproductions Incorrect, before they Killed Barry Jennings he was on tape saying he stepped over alot of bodies in WTC7.
WTC 7's infamy comes from it being brought up again and again by conspiracy theorists as "proof" that fires could not have brought down WTC 1 and 2. As this video shows, that's not what was going on with WTC 7 at all, but that's mainly where the interest in WTC 7 is coming from; as @cooljunkproductions says, by itself it was a relatively insignificant building compared to the Twin Towers.
You clearly have no idea how the MSM works...
That bit about the antenna is ridiculous. You can see it on numerous videos falling completely away from building 7.
A very good, straightforward explanation. This is probably the first time I have seen what the backside of WTC 7 actually looked like. That gash was huge.
@@johnstamos54288 A cover up by truthers maybe. This video makes their argument seems less compelling because to them, nothing was wrong with the building. But we can clearly see there was not only a long gash (as if something had fall on it) but fires that were going for several hours.
@@BurrosSWE 1. You're ignoring the massive vertical gash in the building as well as the fact that the fires were going for hours, which helps explain how it could have been hot enough to weaken the steel at critical failure, which can be enough to cause collapse given the right circumstances. And freefall... This is my favorite truther trope. At this point that's all it is. It's your own line in the sand you've drawn just like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" 😂 It's been close to 25 years and that's the best you can come up with.
@@cooljunkproductionssince we already got the classic "free fall" truther copypasta, the next scheduled one is "pull it", followed by "lucky Larry". What a joke. After they end up debunked they always go for the non physics questions and I love asking them every single time "so man just casually admits to insurance fraud when he had a hell of a time with the companies regarding the two incidents regarding the attack as one event compared to separate?" Mhmm sure
@@BurrosSWE how long have skyscrapers been around? Less than 200 years right? So maybe this is really the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed due to fire, simply because it's never happened at this scale before. you're acting like skyscrapers have been around for thousands of years. LOL
@@BurrosSWE Watch the video again and pay attention. MULTIPLE FLOORS were on fire for several HOURS. That's definitely more than some "tiny fires". The building also didn't collapse in "free fall".
23 years later, and it’s still one of the cleanest controlled demolition’s that wasn’t a controlled demolition…
It’s a sad example of what invisible stresses on buildings looks like.
@@saypuppy4266 wrg
:(
The 3 buildings were clearly brought down with explosives, every explosives expert can see that.
I can only say "professional work".
Unfortunately, killing people and blaming others is timeless, especially when it seems very obvious that hijackers did it.
Their passports survived anyway.
Because it was
Very kind that you gave tribute to Mr. Joe Hill.
It still kinda surprises me that a lotta people don't know nearly the entire world trade center area was utterly decimated by the tower's collapses, but if anything at least a fre people will learn about the other buildings, too
It still surprises me that nearly 25 years later people still think the World Trade Center was only the two towers!
I was 15 when this happened.....I didn't have to stretch my imagination to understand that 500,000 tons of material coming down in a place as dense as Manhattan wasn't just going to affect the footprint of the buildings themselves.....
People will just disregard basic observation and go straight to conspiracy.
@@jonathanlandau-litewski7405Who in the actual world thinks the WTC is only the twin towers? Whoever does needs help
@@idk-cb8di younger people. I worked with an 18 year old that had never seen actual videos of the planes striking the towers- his school only showed him stills.
@@jonathanlandau-litewski7405 Oh… even though I’m younger then that guy
03:40 WRONG ! The Antenna of the North Tower Collapsed in South Direction , not in North !
Cleary to see in some Videos of North Tower WTC1 Collapse . Like the Video from the Hudson or from New Jersey
10:50 Good Video , very good explained and analysed collapse of WTC7 . The only Error i found was with 03:40 and the Antenna .
Just checked some videos,you're right.
so what? that's not the reason the building fell anyway
@@engine5 did you read my comment full or only the first section ?
I wrote in my commcent in the second section that i find the video very good and i find the explaniantion of the video how WTC 7 collapsed good explained .
My critic with the Antenna is only a minor .
@@Teayo wtc7 came down with explosives
@@bongopaterson265 in the past i have the same think , that reason was explosions but with the time i have changed my mindset and i no longer think that explosions was the reason .
The video explain the collapse good .
Thats the reason in the video .
If you want go out of this swamp , with the
WTC 7 Explosion Theories , than leave
Daniele Ganser , unfollow him , go no longer to his events .
Rest in Peace, Joe Hill🙏
RIP Joe Shill 🪴💩🫡
3:40 it wasn't the spire that hit wtc 7, it was the tower's parameter columns. The spire fell on the south side.
three buildings with different types of damage collapsed in the same way and at the same time, in a single day, they are the three most controlled uncontrolled demolitions that I have seen
6 buildings collapsed, not 3. The collapses were all different- some radically different - and were spread out over more than 7 hours, NOT simultaneously.
Everything seems like a conspiracy if you don't take the time to understand how things work.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl So which other 3 buildings _collapsed_ on 9/11 Fitzshill? Oh wait I forgot, you will NEVER dare to answer questions on your stupid blahblah in your entire shitty "life"...
Tevhnically speaking, 8 buildings collapsed partially (7 buildings) or completely (1 building).
Wtc1 nearly fully collapsed from a plane crash and subsequent fire.
Wtc2 nearly fully collapsed from a plane crash and subsequent fire.
Wtc3 nearly fully collapsed from falling debris.
Wtc4 partially collapsed from falling debris.
Wtc5 partially collapsed from falling debris and subsequent fires.
Wtc6 partially collapsed from falling debris.
Wtc7 completely collapsed from falling debris and subsequent fires.
The Pentagon partially collapsed from a plane crash and subsequent fire.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Sir, I saw it live that day, after the collapse of the two towers at approximately five in the afternoon, building 7 collapsed in the same way as the previous ones live, the news anchors had not noticed, I have seen demolitions of buildings and collapse of others, it is perfectly clear what the difference is
Maybe this video will help you to understand there's a big difference between real acceleration and an illusion of acceleration.
Einstein showed us how gravity is just an illusion of making things fall down in acceleration.
ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html
By Tom Siegfried
October 4, 2015 at 5:30 am
Albert Einstein opened humankind’s eyes to the universe.
Before Einstein, space seemed featureless, flat, and changeless, as Isaac Newton had defined it three hundred years earlier. And time, Newton declared, flowed at its own pace, oblivious to the clocks that would measure it. But Einstein looked at space and time and saw a single dynamic change - spacetime - on which matter and energy strutted, generating sound and fury, signifying gravity.
Newton’s law of gravity had united the earthly physics of falling apples with the cosmic dances of planets and stars. But he couldn’t explain why, and he famously admitted he had no theory of why. It took Einstein to figure out gravity’s true modus operandi. Einstein showed us that gravity does not make anything fall down.
Gravity’s secrets succumbed to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, unveiled in a series of papers submitted over a century ago this November to the Prussian Academy in Berlin. A decade earlier, his special theory of relativity had merged matter with energy while implying the unity of space and time (soon to be christened as spacetime). After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newton’s naïve idea that masses have a force that attracts masses to each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moves matter along in perfectly straight lines but does so in the curving pathways embodied in spacetime, where objects in motion must stay in motion unless acted upon or stopped by a force - paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves. As expressed decades later by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve, and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move.
NIST has declared “The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is the first known instance of a total global collapse of a tall building primarily due to plain old normal office fires.
ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
HOW DO THE TWIN TOWERS FALL FROM THE TOP DOWN
IF THERE IS NO DOWNWARD FORCE THAT PULLS OR PUSHES?
HOW DID THEY FALL SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES, THERE IS EITHER AN UPWARD FORCE, OR THERE IS NO UPWARD FORCE?
THERE IS ONLY ONE FORCE THAT CAN BE EITHER SUSTAINED, REDUCED, OR REMOVED, AND IT COMES FROM BELOW...NO FORCE COMES FROM ABOVE TO MAKE ANYTHING FALL DOWN.
ua-cam.com/video/bicMK7dE0so/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/dHfeks3yjUM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/R3LjJeeae68/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_ZcVQCRvQWk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/bODvVAh6OJA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/UgudCmLobxw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/XRr1kaXKBsU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Tdh_R7po6Dw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_GjIgJPn47E/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/WMR1XC-Lce0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/bJ_seXo-Enc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/BL7vNQqwuTM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/4ZrcDTjkIhI/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/GuLL_upE4zk/v-deo.html
Another thing I’ve noticed on UA-cam is that people don’t show the entire collapse; they start the collapse when the outer facade fell. They are ignoring a big part of the collapse!
The internal collapse, you're referring to?
@@fuzzydunlop7928 I don’t understand your question. The internal structure failed before the outer facade, you see one penthouse fall, then another, and finally the facade. Videos on UA-cam typically show the collapse beginning well after the two penthouses fall. Therefore, those videos leave out a big part of the collapse.
The outer facade was tied to the core structure. There was no deformation of this outer facade, so it and the core collapsed simultaneously.
@@kencabeen7786 so the East and west penthouses failed over a minute before the facade because…?
@@iananderson8363 Horse shit! It was maybe 7 seconds after the penthouse collapsed. You need to come to terms with the truth of 9/11.
Sorry, but the antenna fell to the south. Besides the Antenna could never do that kind of damage.
This.
The damage was probably caused by random debris and not the antena, bc as you said, that's not where the antena fell.
But at any rate, how are you so sure the antena couldn't cause that? It's just superficial damage to the facade, and some small secondary structural elements at most, so I don't see why a huge metal rod falling at great speeds couldn't cause it.
You can even see those big facede perimeters from WTC falling toward B7
@@heuhen facede
I had been waiting on this break dow for MONTHS! Thank you guys so much, Lesics!
Been waiting for months, eh? What were you doing for the other 22 1/2 years since it happened?
Not doing any thinking for yourself, that’s for sure.
All this time they were trying to figure out how to explain it) watch the movie 👇
@@АбуАдам.123 Loose Change
Great another human brainwashed with lies! Wonderful
The only thing I disagree with in this video is the suggestion it "mysteriously" collapsed. It did not. It was abandoned hours before its collapse and its degrading status was noted throughout the day before it collapsed. They knew it would eventually come down, it was only a matter of time.
Some people -think- believe it was mysterious. Because they don't know and don't bother to find out. The mystery is more exciting.
I think it was more of an ironic hint towards conspiracy fans
Not only that, but the Millennium Hotel and the Deutsche Bank building were expected to collapse that day, too. They did not, although the latter was ruined.
And the fire main was destroyed by the collapse of the twin towers, so no more water, locally anyway.
Another reason why it was evacuated and abandoned to it's fate.
This is absolutely utter nonsense, no way symmetrical collapse would happen simultaneously by unsymmetrical damage , the owner larry Silverstein said they pull it , tvs knew about collapse before it happened, eyewitness barry Jennings who were trapped inside said he heard explosions all the time, the real reason wtc 7 collapse because the planned third plane was shoot down by usaf so they were forced to pull it manually, this channel is not neutral nor innocent
*everybody did forget WTC 7 on 5.00 PM 11 September 2001.*
Other than, well, everybody. Imagine that.
No. Everybody was watching WTC7 at 5:00pm waiting for its inevitable collapse, explaining why there were 24 cameras pointed at this unknown and unimportant building that wasn't attacked when it finally did fall about 20 minutes later.
nobody forgot it. In fact people remembered to the point that 23 years later they are still making videos about it and people are leaving comments. Wtf you talking about?
@@pacman3556people mostly focus on WTC 1 & 2, but a lot do focus on the other buildings.
Truthers forgot about all of the other WTC buildings. Since they weren't in Loose Change, I guess they don't exist.
0:25 - You mention the "sharp V-shaped dent" as a critical observation. However, the V-shaped collapse you point out is not consistent with the near-simultaneous, symmetrical failure of all the building's columns. According to the University of Alaska Fairbanks study, the building's collapse was due to the simultaneous failure of all its columns, which contradicts the single-column failure theory.
1:22 - The claim about the structural design of WTC7 and the role of the transfer trusses is partially correct. However, it's important to note that the design included redundancy and robustness to prevent such failures. The NIST report itself admits that WTC7 was the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires, which was unprecedented and raises questions about the true cause.
2:58 - The video shows the south side with fire and damage. Yet, extensive fire and localized damage alone do not explain the symmetrical, free-fall acceleration observed in WTC7's collapse. The 2020 UAF report found that such a failure mode could not have occurred without the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
4:09 - You highlight the bent girders as evidence of natural collapse. However, in controlled demolitions, such deformations are typical due to the sequence of detonations. The bent girders alone do not preclude a controlled demolition hypothesis.
5:03 - You argue that the kink observed is an optical illusion. This perspective overlooks the uniform, free-fall acceleration of the building for approximately 2.25 seconds, indicating no resistance, which is a hallmark of controlled demolition, as confirmed in multiple analyses, including those by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
7:19 - The mention of the core columns and the East Penthouse collapse does not align with the observed uniform collapse of the building. The **UAF study** emphasizes that the East Penthouse collapse should not have initiated the symmetrical global collapse observed without explosives.
8:30 - Your assertion that WTC7 did not fall at free-fall speed is inaccurate. NIST's own measurements confirmed a period of free-fall for about 2.25 seconds during the collapse, as noted in the NIST Final Report on WTC7.
9:06 - The comparison with WTC1 and WTC2 is not entirely valid. The mechanisms of their collapses differ due to varying structural designs and damage conditions. The crucial point for WTC7 is the simultaneous, free-fall acceleration indicative of controlled demolition.
For a more detailed analysis, refer to the peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al., 2009, which discusses the presence of explosive nanothermite in WTC dust. The evidence for controlled demolition, including the presence of nanothermite, remains uncontested in scientific literature since its publication.
I hope this clarifies the key points. Let’s continue to scrutinize and understand the evidence critically and logically.
0:25 - The V-shaped "dent" is proof of a progressive collapse and that there was no _near-simultaneous, symmetrical failure of all the building's columns_ . You should have watched the entire video.
1:2 - In December of 1906 the Wright Brothers made the first powered flight of a heavier than air craft. It was an unprecedented event. Does that call anything into question because it has not happened before? Does that mean that powered heavier than air flight is not possible? That airplanes do not exist. You are - as most conspiracists do - taking the wrong lesson from that. And also completely ignoring what The NIST concluded. Myself, I would argue the _tall_ bit is an irrelevant qualifier. Meaningless. Neither the fire nor the building knows or cares how tall it is. The behavior of steel in fire does not change based on some arbitrary height.
2:58 - That's the northeast corner genius. And we already covered the FACT the collapse was not symmetrical (we will probably get to NOT FREE FALL too).
4:09 - Are they? Says who? BTW - how many explosive controlled demolitions have been performed on steel framed high rise buildings while they have been _fully involved_ in fire? I would say if that is what you are claiming happened it would be the first known instance of a tall burning steel building brought down primarily by explosive controlled demoliton, which was unprecedented and raises questions about the true cause.
5:03 - The "kink" has nothing whatsoever to do with the utterly meaningless _average_ measurement of GA for one corner of the exterior moment frame at the very last stage of the collapse (see, I knew we would get to why free fall is meaningless). Also, how fast something falls, particularly after it has already been falling for more than 10 seconds can not possibly tell you what started it falling.
7:19 - The observed collapse of the building was not uniform. Do you agree the East Mechanical Penthouse is part of the building? Do you agree 3 columns underneath it - 79, 80 and 812 - are what hold it up on the roof? Do you agree the EMP drops into and indeed through the building? It's on video so good luck denying that. One moment the EMP is there, the next moment it drops into the building. Doesn't that mean the 3 columns holding it on the roof must have failed? How does that make a uniform symmetrical collapse? The UAF study BTW makes no such claim about the EMP and explosives. You read that about as closely as you watched this video.
8:30 - Here it is again. OK, fine. How long had Building 7 been collapsing before that measurement was taken? It's right there in the NIST report which you pretend to have read since you (sort of) quote from it. So how long was the gap between when the collapse started and when the measurement of an _average_ (there's that word again - why does that keep coming up?) of free fall was taken? Why is that gap important? What was actually being measured? IF the entire building was being measured that would require multiple measurement data points. But there was only one, and that wasn't even on _the building_ (defined as its center of mass_ but rather on the exterior moment frame (the empty cereal box) that was left over when all of what was inside the box was gone.
Did I mention that one measured data point was not a continuous free fall but an _average_ over 2.25 seconds? Why is that important? Because during that (arbitrary) 2.25 seconds that single measured data point on the corner of the empty box starts out _below GA_ then accelerates up to and _ever GA_ then back down _below GA_ again. It's a curve, not a straight line. So what would cause an _over GA_ measurement? I know the answer and it's in that "kink" you hand waved away earlier.
Now that we have covered all that can we talk about all the critical details you ignored?
So I should trust that a study funded by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is not biased towards their beliefs? That's like believing the cigarette company funded studies that said smoking is healthy.
I guess you don't want to cover all the critical details you left out then.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl I guess you can't stop liking your own comment
Ok, so, there's just a SLIGHT issue. There IS no "University of Alaska Fairbanks study". That Hulsey worked there is entirely irrelevant. It's a HULSEY study. It's also nonsense, but that's another thing.
Let's make a few things clear, shall we?
1, The supposed "study" of Hulsey's was bought and paid for by A&E911. Now, there's nothing wrong, per se, with that, feasibility studies and the like are bought all the time. But, considering that A&E911 have a vested interest, the impartiality of the "study" does leave some to wish for.
2, the "study" was to take 2 years to make. And then it got moved. And then it got moved again. And then it went very quiet for some reason for quite some time. And then it finally was released, 5 years after it was announced, and 3 years late. I'm not saying the "study" was massaged to fit the customers wishes, but it's rather interesting that it took TWO AND A HALF times as long as it was meant to.
3, the "study" was supposed to be open to criticism by the public, and then it was supposed to be peer reviewed after that. And then, for some STRANGE reason, that went away, and it was just quietly released into the wild with no mention.
4, the "study" findings were already determined before it had started. A&E911 asked for donations and organized a drive to be able to pay for it, at which point they announced what the outcome would be. Let's repeat that. A&E911 told the world what the "study" would say, even before they'd paid for it, much less before it started.
5, the "study" is more or less spent refuting the NIST report. However, NIST isn't the only report that say that the collapse started due to fires. These other reports are mentioned but aren't addressed.
6, Hulsey's "study" tries to so something impossible. It attempts to prove a negative, i.e. that fire could not have been the starting mechanism for the collapse. This, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of science knows, is impossible. You can prove what happened. You cannot prove what didn't happen.
7, Hulsey is not competent to make the "study" he did. While he is an engineer, his work has entirely, and solely, been about road-surfaces and bridges, as well as cold-weather effects on the same. There is NOTHING in his work that has anything to do with buildings, or fires.
8, the "study" is a shambles and a joke. There are holes in it so big you could drive an 18-wheeler through them. As just an example, the model showing the data and conclusions of the "study" has the engineering "penthouse" of the WTC 7 hinging in the middle, completely dissimilar to what visually happened, then collapsing, in one piece, through the building, without causing any damage to the rest of the building, stopping about a quarter of the way down, and then literally just hanging there, still in one, deformed but still mostly intact, piece.
9, the Hulsey "study" has been referenced, or even MENTIONED, in any reputable engineering publication, exactly NEVER.
And, while it isn't an argument as such, it is very interesting to note that Hulsey went from being head of the department to being "Professor Emeritus" after his "study" came out. This rather suggests that, much like Steven Jones, he embarrassed the university and so, they shuffled him off to the "honorary" position so he wouldn't be quite so in the public eye.
3:44 the Antenna falls the opositte side of the Building 7, was the perimeter collumns that hit Building 7.
Very true, but you can also see a massive portion of the WTC falling towards WTC7
@@Low_Speed_High_Drag_718 yup
While I was in college watching these events unfold, I had simply figured raging leftover fires had taken care of enough of WTC7's strength to have it collapse. I saw the raw footage that you briefly shared after the fact and of course yeah it's the side of the building no one talks about. I didn't know about the transfer truss methodology to connect to the sub station below but it does make sense that heavy penthouse plus only a few weakened core columns is enough to place overdue stress onto the rest of the building.
Great video, excellent logic and animations!
My favorite animations were the "real photographs."
\*dons hazmat suit*
"Welp, time to check the comments section"
Pleasantly surprised to find people more perturbed by the WTC1 antenna theory than having their weird conspiracy theories challenged? I know I was.
I can't twist that much
The hazmat suits were needed by the rescuers who got cancer after spending days looking for bodies that never made it to Ground Zero. 90% never recovered!
@@Larry26-f1w people in the surrounding area also got cancer. The lady in the famous photo covered in soot and dust also got cancer. Breathing in fumes and dust like that does that.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 still comments about fucking thermite with hundreds of likes though 🤦♂
What really gets me is when they just state some random observation like "there was IRON DUST found near the remnants of the towers!" as if it's some kind of ace in the whole proving their conspiracy theory
I always knew it was because rubble from the towers damaged it but I did not know all the details. Great explanation !
Rubbish, way up!
@@mikaham681right, when fire does affect steel, paper, and other things suspectable to damage, they're often rendered into a state of rubbish. Good observation!
It wasn’t because of the rubble damage that it collapsed-it truly did collapse because of the fire and internal structural design. But the structural damage caused by the tower did have a significant influence over *how* it fell seemingly as one piece from the outside.
You know that bs right?...
The same rubble that did not contain the 3000 bodies ? That was some powerful rubble! It made bodies disappear AND destroyed skyscrapers
How much did they pay you for your fantastic theories?
It takes a special combination of hubris and stupidity to believe someone disagrees with you only because they are being paid to do so.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl It takes a special combination of hubris and stupidity to believe that you piece of shill shite spend so much time on exposing yourself as a liar and as an complete idiot just for free Fitzshill.
@@Kudde23 Anything else princess?
@@joshd3192 Are you showing off all your skills again Poorpoo?
@@Kudde23 All done now princess?
So why did the BBC report building 7 collapse before it actually did.
To confuse YOU.
Who cares? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse mechanisms discussed in this video.
Also, that question has been answered about a million times in the last 20 years. Do try and keep up.
Link to that news coverage please..??
Live news makes allot of mistakes in general
If BBC had idea about the collapse, what kind of stupid people should they be to report that before it actually happen. I'm no genius, but I'm not foolish enough to do that, then what makes you think that those experts would commit such mistakes in their crimes?
I have never seen so many improbable events happen in a single morning
like what?
Improbable events like steel failing due to excess heat and damage, then collapsing?
@@tomwallen7271 Yo i think he just means it was a pretty crazy morning..
@@pacman3556 4 different veteran flight crews all failed to enter a 4-digit transponder code to indicate a hijacking-in-progress.
Takes
Guess there were no "improbably events" after all, hmmm?
while this video supports some explanations as to what could have happened. but as for the probability of all core columns being fractured after the collapse of 1 & 2 is highly impractical. Building 7 as per the nist report collapsed due to uncontrolled fires. However it should be noted that WTC 7 is the only steel structured building to ever completely collapse due to Building fires. that is fact. other buildings have had partial collapses due to fire and those were burning hot and heavy way way more than building 7. this steel was not pre 1950 steel this is modern steel building that completely collapsed nearly into its own footprint due to pockets of fires on less than 1/4 of the building. It has never happened previously and never happened again after that day. not saying conspiracy mumbo but that is something that never been addressed. the issue of it falling mainly into its own footprint and due to pockets of fires is insane. example the horrible Grenfell fire took 60hrs to put out..never fully collapsed its just odd.. nice video but it also leads to more questions.
"However it should be noted that WTC 7 is the only steel structured building to ever completely collapse due to Building fires"
Other than the other ones, of course.
"that is fact."
After all, you said so. Meanwhile, here in the adult world, "that is fact" is not an argument.
"other buildings have had partial collapses due to fire"
And complete.
"those were burning hot and heavy way way more than building 7"
"Hotter and heavier" than "fully involved in fire" for 7 hours? That's the words of the actual experts on scene.
"this steel was not pre 1950 steel this is modern steel "
Here's a shock for you: Steel "pre 1950" was no different from now. 98% Iron, 1.03% Manganese, 0.4% Silicon, 0.26% Carbon, 0.2% Copper, 0.05% Sulfur and 0.04% Phosporus makes the exact same thing now as it did then.
"building that completely collapsed nearly into its own footprint"
WTC 7 collapsed across two separate, 4-lane streets, one to the West and into the Verizon building, and one to the North-East, into Fiterman Hall. This is about as not "into its footprint" as you're likely to get.
"due to pockets of fires on less than 1/4 of the building"
Which, as noted above, was "fully involved". It's well known that the entire building burned, on more or less every floor, all over the floors.
" It has never happened previously "
So what? Not only is "never happened before" a completely meaningless statement, nothing in history had ever happened before...until it did, that's the point of history, but also you may have failed to notice the OTHER "never happened before" things that happened, like terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers, or skyscrapers collapsing onto other buildings.
"never happened again after that day"
The "it" that entails a large structure collapsing due to overwhelming fires have happened both before AND after, several times.
" not saying conspiracy mumbo"
It's just that you're spewing nothing but "conspiracy mumbo". Imagine that.
" that is something that never been addressed"
There are at least 4 different, reliable and trustworthy, engineering reviews of what happened to WTC7. There's also the reports from the actual experts on the scene. It's been addressed multiple times. It's just that, those addresses don't fit in with the "conspiracy mumbo" and so you have carefully ignored those.
"the issue of it falling mainly into its own footprint and due to pockets of fires is insane"
It might have been, if that had happened. But, since it didn't, but rather, as we see previous, it fell WAY outside it's "footprint", due to 7 hours of building-wide fires, there IS no "issue", insane or not.
"example the horrible Grenfell fire took 60hrs to put out"
Grenfell Towerwas a 24-story, concrete, apartment building built almost perfectly to have a raging fire happen, being actively fought by the firefighters the whole time.
WTC 7 was a all-steel, framed tube office building that was deliberately NOT fought at all.
If you're going to try to argue an "example", you might want to actually use an example instead of a flaunting of your complete lack of understand of the separate cases.
"never fully collapsed its just odd"
No, it is, as noted, quite easy to understand and very clear.
" it also leads to more questions"
From what we can see, it's fairly obvious that everything that doesn't fit neatly and perfectly into your "conspiracy mumbo" fairy tale bring more questions. Until they're answered, not truthfully and factually, but in a way that suits you.
This video does not claim all the core columns were fractured after the collapse of Building's 1 & 2. Why do I feel like you were not paying attention?
It is truly twisted logic to argue that someone inserted a secret demolition project in a badly damaged building that the first responders said was going to collapse.
🍿
@@jaidenshadow2710 Yeah, that's about as expected. "Oh, shit, I said stupid shit and they called me on it. What'll I DO!?"
Really good explanation but I still have some questions: did it had a bad project? Do we had any other build being broke like this before? Do we know any building made the same way? Are those transfer columns safe? What different things on the project could help with that specific problem?
Stronger perimeter?
The problem is that we have absolutely nothing to compare 9/11 to. It was and forever will be an absolutely unique event. Therefore the physics that caused these buildings to collapse took some time to understand. Unfortunately our inexperience with such a violent event is what led to all types of wild theories that exist to this day and will continue to exist
@@chrisadlc1 that day was too dark to believe. Everything was so absurd that it was easier to create stories than believing what was happening
It's the same as fukushima. As nobody expected an earthquake AND a tsunami at the same time there, nobody expected a chunk of a building to hit it.
@@IMIv2 totally different bro, 9/11 was a barbaric act of Mass Murder. Men willing to commit suicide just so that thousands would die and thousands more would brush with death and live the rest of their lives with guilt, depression, and sickness. After 9/11/01 the world would never be the same.
3:40 1WTC's mast tipped to the SE, away from 7WTC.
The north tower's exterior columns were expelled far enough from the collapse.
dang lucky larry sure got lucky. just happened to at the doctor as his newly purchase buildings got attacked by 2 seperate terror attacks.
thankfully he had terror insurance , and they paid for both of the attacks.
a finally reasonable explanation for the building 7 collaspe
BS. He doesn´t even try to explain the free fall for the height of at least 8 storeys. All he tries is to cover up the obvious controlled demolition.
@@Kudde23
_" All he tries is to cover up the obvious controlled demolition."_
Do you have any evidence that it was a CD?
You not understanding the collapse isn't evidence of that.
@@MarkH-cu9zi They wouldn´t employ cheap shills like you to cover up the controlled demolition if it wasn´t a controlled demolition. You not understanding the collapse won´t help you.
Newton's theory of universal gravity was attacked from 1687 by some of Europe's leading intellectuals, including Huygens and Leibniz, because it rigorously excluded any hypothetical mechanism, and implied that forces could be transmitted between material objects across empty space without contact, and without a theory.
In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth’s gravity. Einstein’s interpretation was that these objects do not fall from a force. Forces always come in pairs between objects - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
Einstein concluded objects can only have a force that prevents them from falling, if not then they are free from any forces acting on them.
Locally gravity is identical to accelerating upwards in a rocket...and there is no
downward force pulling you down. Weight is the reaction of the physical contact to the earth.
ua-cam.com/video/WMR1XC-Lce0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/PjT85AxTmI0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/v-deo.html
@@Kudde23 He literally does adress the "free fall". You can disagree with his explantion, but he did provide one.
Appreciate the visual attempt at this as many ignore building 7.
I see a problem with fires with no jet fuel being hot enough to do damage to the columns, though. And the antenna fell away from this building.
JEW GUFF. Won’t listen a second longer but to exclaim THEY DID IT...
and IT’S OBVIOUS.
question: if the north tower pancaked downwards, how would the material appear to be exploding outwards to reach towards wtc7?
The core (mostly) fell straight down; the exterior structural columns flung off hundreds of feet in all four directions. There are debris maps which show the debris pattern of WTC1 and WTC2 across approximately 2-3 blocks.
I've seen the same thing with the south tower's collapse.. outer columns from the very top part of the building decided to fly outwards as if they stopped and changed directions mid collapse. The collapses never made sense to me, there's no way 15 floors perish 85 floors without slowing down.
@@MrDefreeseflung, great use of science with that word. The columns just flung. Like in a wile-e-coyote cartoon. Let's just ignore the fact that the "flung" requires some form of lateral propulsion
@@oliver9089 we could use technical language, but the Truthers seem incapable of using or comprehending that advanced technical language.
Since you want to try this approach, the external columns fell off to the sides because of gravity induced collapse of the twin towers; that damage was caused by the impact of the two jets and exacerbated by the resulting fires in the twin towers.
Did you have anything to contribute here or substantive questions to seek? The Truther arguments were obsolete on 9/11/01.
@MrDefreese you still did not explain the source of horizontal component of the movement of the outside columns.
I find it amusing that you claim to care about the truth about why this tragedy happened while using the worth "truther" as a slur.
You are irreparably hypnotized by the media propaganda and complicit in the murders that your government committed against your own people and millions of Arabs in order to hand world domination to a small group of tyrants.
🖕
People will happily accept the effects of war and earthquake effects on collapsing building, but a building stood in the same vicinity of two massive explosions a collapses had to be a conspiracy when it collapses itself. Great video and explanation.
The conspiracy isn't around they collapsed, it's the WAY they collapsed. Three skyscrappers that fell in a perfect way in a row. Apparently, the way these buildings were designed was to marginally support their own weight, like a bunch of house of cards.
I must say, I doubted this video would ever see the light of day, thinking the subject was too complex for the tools you were using. I also suspected if it did finally arrive, I would be underwhelmed. Now that it is here, *color me thoroughly impressed*.
For the intended audience, this is pretty darn good, far better than I expected and a _much_ better than the very popular Twin Towers video from last year. For levels _above_ the intended audience this is still really damn good. A lot of critical details that all-too-frequently get ignored are presented and at just the right level of complexity. I do have a few quibbles on some points - notably the lack of attention to the role the floor systems played in providing critical lateral support to the columns (79 especially) - but nothing which moves the needle in any significant way.
For conspiracists, many of whom will no doubt soon fill the comments reciting dogma about _controlled demolition_ and _inside job_ having either not watched or not grasping this complex topic, they are not the intended audience. But their presence is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.
Fascinating video. I've never really known what to think about WTC 7 building's collapse as I don't recall it at the time. A stressful time, plus the internet was much different. You couldn't get 18 replay angles within a week. That took a decade more at least.
Very well done. My favorite part of it? Your kind words, remembrance and tribute to your mentor, Joe Hill.
You both sound like class acts.
No one's ever really known what to think about it...
Mostly because no one actually THINKS.
This presentation invokes some scientific aspects, but is mostly made in a way that impresses - and convinces - those who don't know much about physics, mechanics, or structures.
It is very well made for the masses, as it uses impressive graphics, bright colours, sharp pictures, clear/assertive voice tone of the speaker - all pretty and convincing - but it does not hold against the simplest scrutiny of someone with an eye for critical detail and some basic knowledge of physics, structures and probability.
I strongly suggest to look into the thorough and prolific work that Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (ae911truth) have done, where they meticulously show why the "official" explanation - including this one about WTC7 - is not congruent with reality. Far from it.
Yes who needs facts from the fire department or nist or even common sense. No let's get our information from a conspiracy website🙄
Why? AE911T have not produced anything close to this thorough even though they have had 18 years and the alleged support of thousands of "experts".
The only thing they get right is the date.
@@mikebyrd8278 NIST eventually admitted the free fall that the uploader didn´t even dare to mention because none of you shills can explain it (without controlled demolition)...
Wait, who forced NIST again to admit the free fall they tried to hide at first? Oh right it was David Chandler, the guy who is also appearing on the conspiracy website you don´t like. But why don´t you like them? Oh right, because they forced NIST to admit the free fall that you shills can´t explain... So sad Mikeyshill, so sad...
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl The videos are there, for anyone to easily find and watch.
I just cannot force you to see them. That's up to you.
@@yamilandres I have seen them all. I have probably forgotten more about Tricky Dick Gage and his clown-car of incompetents than you have ever known.
My previous assessment of them and their 18 year track record of complete failure stands.
You like them because they tell you what you think you want to hear and they use just enough technospeak to keep you from asking questions (if you were even so inclined).
To prove all that I will happily rip apart any technical claim of theirs you wish to present and will do so without referring to my notes.
How did it collapse? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it’s somehow related to the other two buildings that collapsed right next to it beforehand.
Maybe, just maybe, they’re related. 😅
I’m a conspiracy theorist and I gotta tell you.
Watch the video before commenting this 😂
@@isaiahking7957 this video is extremely reasonable.
Wow, genius. Never thought of this.
Maybe you could explain, however, why the buildings that stood between WTC1 and WTC7 took way more damage than 7, yet didn't collapse. Or why the buildings 50 feet to either side of 7 (one of them being even closer to WTC1) got away practically without a scratch?
@@oliver9089 You are wrong, the buildings next to WTC 7 were VERY damaged. Please read the following passage:
Besides the dust storm from the ruined Twin Towers, which clogged air filters on the backup generators’ turbines, the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the Verizon Building caused structural damage.
“I’m talking 20-, 30-foot steel beams we found up on the 10th, 12th floor,” Pullizzi said. “We’d find on the rooftop and setbacks on the building big, giant steel beams and debris. Overall, we took a good hit.”
And here’s an article about how much it cost:
About $400 million of LMDC funds have been appropriated to cover some of the costs of restoring telecommunications as well as other core infrastructure services. The LMDC, though, has not determined how it will distribute those funds.
The funds could help cover at least some of the approximately $75 million uninsured loss that Verizon sustained to its transmission and distribution lines, which are the wires, conduits and pipes that run above and through the streets. Verizon had $25 million of separate T&D coverage, but its eventual loss could total $100 million.
Sources:
www.ecmag.com/magazine/articles/article-detail/safety-verizon-building-stands-tall-after-attack
www.businessinsurance.com/article/20030406/AWARDS03/100012615/verizon-quickly-restored-service-after-terrorist-attacks
@@oliver9089think about what you just said for a minute
I don’t get why they limit comments on the NIST explanation video. If they want people to not believe in the conspiracy they should allow a proper public forum
What _NIST explanation video_ are you talking about?
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl National Institute of Standards and Technology made a video trying to explain what happened to building 7. They limited the comments, newest one was 9 years ago.
@@dr.woozie7500 - Ummmm,... link?
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Presumably ua-cam.com/video/PK_iBYSqEsc/v-deo.html
No-one "limited comments". It's just that "truthers" can't actually come up with any nonsense to spout, and so it isn't sexy enough.
Waited a long time for this video just to find out I never got notified for it 2 weeks ago thankfully I remember to search for it
You can sit here and explain the laws of physics and truthers will still be like "I'M NOT A SHEEP I DONT JUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING" lmao. Also I love how truthers never show the damaged side with the huge gash of WTC 7, or never show the penthouse section collapsing on the entire building first.
Blah blah blah blahblha
@@MetalMatrix92 Truthers spouting the same bullshit in a nutshell
It’s never ending, which I think is the objective
Maybe this video will help you to understand there's a big difference between real acceleration and an illusion of acceleration.
Einstein showed us how gravity is just an illusion of making things fall down in acceleration.
ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html
By Tom Siegfried
October 4, 2015 at 5:30 am
Albert Einstein opened humankind’s eyes to the universe.
Before Einstein, space seemed featureless, flat, and changeless, as Isaac Newton had defined it three hundred years earlier. And time, Newton declared, flowed at its own pace, oblivious to the clocks that would measure it. But Einstein looked at space and time and saw a single dynamic change - spacetime - on which matter and energy strutted, generating sound and fury, signifying gravity.
Newton’s law of gravity had united the earthly physics of falling apples with the cosmic dances of planets and stars. But he couldn’t explain why, and he famously admitted he had no theory of why. It took Einstein to figure out gravity’s true modus operandi. Einstein showed us that gravity does not make anything fall down.
Gravity’s secrets succumbed to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, unveiled in a series of papers submitted over a century ago this November to the Prussian Academy in Berlin. A decade earlier, his special theory of relativity had merged matter with energy while implying the unity of space and time (soon to be christened as spacetime). After years of struggle, Einstein succeeded in showing that matter and spacetime mutually interact to mimic Newton’s naïve idea that masses have a force that attracts masses to each other. Gravity, said Einstein, actually moves matter along in perfectly straight lines but does so in the curving pathways embodied in spacetime, where objects in motion must stay in motion unless acted upon or stopped by a force - paths imprinted by mass and energy themselves. As expressed decades later by the physicist John Archibald Wheeler, mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve, and spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move.
NIST has declared “The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is the first known instance of a total global collapse of a tall building primarily due to plain old normal office fires.
ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
HOW DO THE TWIN TOWERS FALL FROM THE TOP DOWN
IF THERE IS NO DOWNWARD FORCE THAT PULLS OR PUSHES?
HOW DID THEY FALL SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES, THERE IS EITHER AN UPWARD FORCE, OR THERE IS NO UPWARD FORCE?
THERE IS ONLY ONE FORCE THAT CAN BE EITHER SUSTAINED, REDUCED, OR REMOVED, AND IT COMES FROM BELOW...NO FORCE COMES FROM ABOVE TO MAKE ANYTHING FALL DOWN.
ua-cam.com/video/bicMK7dE0so/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/dHfeks3yjUM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/R3LjJeeae68/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_ZcVQCRvQWk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/sy6yY8PwSHo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/bODvVAh6OJA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/E43-CfukEgs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/UgudCmLobxw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/XRr1kaXKBsU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Tdh_R7po6Dw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_GjIgJPn47E/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/WMR1XC-Lce0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/bJ_seXo-Enc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/BL7vNQqwuTM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/4ZrcDTjkIhI/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/GuLL_upE4zk/v-deo.html
I suppose you also think that Gilmour is the greatest guitarist to ever marry a Jewess.
What I don't understand from this video is why the collapse was initiated on the left side (under the extra penthouse) when the major damage from the spire was on the right side (as seen at 9:00). What damaged the left side?
Fire. Collapse was due to the effects of 7 hours of unfought fires, not the physical damaged caused when the North Tower fell. That is spelled out in this video.
The one significant complaint I have about this video is that it fails to address the critical role of the floor systems in providing critical lateral support to the core columns. As described in the video, the columns at the east end of the central core (79, 80 and 81) failed first and this was due to fire. They failed by buckling. Why they failed is because floors in the NE corner of the building collapsed, causing the columns to be laterally unsupported over an excessive length. This is not really covered in the video, but the cause was the fires, not the physical impact damage 7 hours earlier.
no because .... ur conspiracy theory! You hate freedom and democracy!
@@MFitz12So trace amounts of Nano Thermite is a conspiracy theory?
@@mgx9383 lol fire. That narrative is so absurd. The fire from all the foolscap paper that nobody stores near beams, that magically melted the beams ? That fire?! Or was it the desks that burn 10 times longer and hotter than any wood in a fireplace? Or the super cheap carpet that burns as hot as the sun? This happens all the time right?? Oh wait, it never happened before or since. But fire!
@@southerncharity7928 How much of a background do you have in physics?
It is one of those weird, strange, awful things that people don't really think about, but all of the firemen that would ordinarily have responded to a fire at WTC 7 - *died* earlier that day in the collapses of WTC 1 and 2.
I didn't watch the whole thing, just wondering if you mentioned the fact that the BBC reported it falling 30 mins before it actually fell?
Why would he? The reporting on the collapse, which the engineers and firefighters accurately predicted would happen, is irrelevant to the physics of the collapse of WTC7
Why would he do that? It's entirely irrelevant, AND meaningless in itself.
Yes, nothing to see there. All above board. Don’t look at the cars that magically exploded blocks away hours after the collapses. That’s normal. The vaccine also will guarantee you won’t get COVID. How much more government Kool Aid am I supposed to drink before I can have some crystal clear water?
Do you have a link to prove that, please...?
@@smithbrownjones just search it.
or search "Anatomy of a Great Deception" movie.
Holy cow. When in the comments of your 911 video you said you would address the third building in another video, I thought that was just a tactic to evade the question. But you actually did it.
NIST release an identical explanation years ago. Dumb people in the comments just didn't care to look for it.
The government has a dog in the race, so it's not to be taken seriously.
Yah, I was pretty serious. The research of this topic took more than 6 months. My target that time was to solve the mystery in two weeks :)
@@1schwererziehbar1the big bad scary gobiment right
lmfao. yep a spire fell of WTC 1 or 2 and it ripped 7 to shreds, and the a part of 7 collapsed and the whole building collapsed in what looks like a controlled demolition onto its own footprint like the other 2 buildings.
And all the steel is shipped away an melted down asap, nothing to see here.
"Trust the science" Bullshit
is this a re-upload or is it any different to the previous one?
The previous one was about WTC-1&2 and this video is about WTC-7.
Nope literally posted 23 years later.. (2 weeks ago). LAME
Controlled demolition.
Why?
@@savagepanda8458to go to Iraq
@@savagepanda8458 Excuse for WAR$$$$$$$$
UA-cam in "2010" of world trade center all videos of collapses towers, théories and facts ground zero facts, footages before the tower collapsing the multitudes explosions sounds of this videos amateurs, firemans, and cops caméras..., today 2024 all this videos dissapears from youtube...
Sadly, none of this will convince those that don't want to be convinced.
This was a fantastic video. It explains everything very well and provides plenty of evidence too.
I missed the part where he had this peer reviewed... I'll wait
@@VETTEDZ06 It could have been peer reviewed by 15 people and those that want to believe Bush planted explosives and blew it up would still not believe anything else.
There are flat Earthers that refuse to believe any evidence prevented.
People are convinced we never went to the moon regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
"They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love."
@@fasfan If you think this wasn't controlled demolition you're dreaming.
@@Devdevbruh Has that theory been peer reviewed?
Or is this from your expertise in architecture, physics, explosives, demolition, and engineering?
@@fasfan It's common sense. lol.
RIP Mr Joe Hill. Your work is GREATLY appreciated and will never be forgotten.
Nice tribute to Joe Hill at the end.
People always want to listen to the ONE engineer who says the collapse was impossible without human influence, but ignore the 20000 engineers who disagree. Why? Because our media consumption has taught us that the "lone outsider" who nobody believes is always correct. I can't count the number of examples in movies and television of the trope, "the one who nobody listened to was right all along."
We always root for the underdog whether it makes any sense or not.
People like having their beliefs confirmed. Correct or not has little to do with it.
From the writing perspective, having a single character as the author of their theory VS having multiple characters is a lot better because it makes the story more focused on said character and it's less redundant to the reader/viewer.
@@lastyhopper2792 - From the conspiracist perspective, one person saying exactly what they want to hear drowns out everything else.
Do you have any idea how many Architects and Engineers have put their names down to say that the official report is incorrect and demand a new investigation?
@@oliver9089 - Yes.
None.
Have you ever actually bothered to read the AE911T petition? Anyone signing it agrees to no such thing.
Meanwhile, organizations such as the 130,000 member American Society of Civil Engineers and 85,000 member American Institute of Architects (among many others) fully support the fire induced collapse hypothesis.
Excellent analysis. My initial suspicions about its collapse have been removed.
Please analyze the Pentagon next!
The 2.3 trillion were never missing they just had a huge pile of cash laying around in exactly the wing that got hit by the "plane".
It'd probably be this tier of cope.
@Pattern_Noticer actually the treasury department that is responsible for this is located in the 3rd ring on the opposite side from the plane crash. But I wouldn't expect you to know that
@@CheeseMiserActually not the case. Those offices and personnel in charge of investigating and tracing the 2.3 trillion were in fact relocated to the very area that had something catastrophic happen to it, at the Pentagon. And this relocation occurred not long before 9/11.
@cable5474 they most definitely weren't. They still are on the opposite side, they haven't moved in over 40 years
@Pattern_Noticer
You are another victim of that ridiculous fake news.
The U.S. government DID NOT “mysteriously lose” trillions of dollars the day before 9/11, as conspiracy theorists claim. This is a categorically false and misleading allegation that distorts the facts about $2.3 trillion in accounting entries that were poorly documented due to outdated technology. On September 10, 2001 then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion in a speech, but he was NOT implying that the money was missing. Instead, he was using the number to highlight the need for better financial management and modernization of the department’s system. These accounting problems were not a new revelation. They had been known and a subject of public concern for many years. The Pentagon's operations are highly complex, and its reliance on old financial systems made achieving transparent and efficient accounting extremely challenging. This issue was already recognized and steps were being taken to address it before Rumsfeld's announcement in 2001. Moreover, the specific transactions associated with the $2.3 trillion were all made in fiscal year 1999 and reported in early 2000, long before 9/10/2001. Rumsfeld’s speech had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any cover-up! Why would he even have mentioned such a thing had the U.S. been behind the attacks that he'd have known were about to occur the very next morning?! By the way, the same thing continued to occur and in 2016, $8 trillion couldn’t be accounted for, again due to poor practices and outdated technology. Conspiracy theorists that time claimed it was because the U.S. used the funds to build a massive spaceship capable of turning itself fully invisible, like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek…..
Короче рассчётов изгибающих моментов по предмету Сопромат отсутствуют! Говорить тут больше не о чем, всё остальное это просто красивый мультик...
Next video would be : Physics behind the Dancing Israerlis 😊
The stupidity behind the Dancing Israeli's Myth. Why do conspiratards still fall for this?
FTFY
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl It's not a myth. Why do you lie? Are you jewish?
proof they are israelis
What's dancing Israelis?
@@namento45_yt youtube will banned my comment if i explained or give u a link about it. Maybe you can try in another platform
Thank you for your video! It's explaining a lot!
Fascinating video! Thanks for the explanation and visuals
Next do a video on the partial collapse of WTC6 due to fire
Is there really much interest in that? It was a 9 story building partially crushed by debris and it's not really that hot of a topic. I'm open ears though.
Again, totally ignoring damage from the collapse of WTC 1&2. It wasn't JUST a fire that destroyed these other buildings.
@@member57 does a fire from the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 explain the thermate(thermite with sulfur added)they found on the surviving steel beams?
@@member57 Yes it was otherwise they would of collapsed straght after impact. Kero fires or office fires will never burn hot enough to bring down a building at free fall speeds, into their own footprint. All three were brought down by thermite explosives
What a great video, and lovely tribute to Mr. Hill❤ RIP Joe, your contributions are remembered and appreciated 🎉
This is the first time I've heard of another building collapsing after the Twin Towers collapsed
I live in NYC so u telling me the antenna destroyed that building...bullshit
The argument "I live in NYC so X" fails rather emphatically. So did another 8 million people at the time.
Doesn't mean that he was right in that the antenna did what he said, but all the same, "I live in NYC" isn't an argument for OR against.
@@mooneyes2k478 you Israeli public manipulation team?
@@fpsOklahoma You lacking in any form of argument?
The fuck does you living in NYC have anything to do with your argument?
@@mooneyes2k478 free Palestine
FYI, it was originally Larry Silverstein, when confronted by WeAreChange in 2008, who made the claim about the antenna slicing through the building. This video is the first time I've seen this easily refuted claim made since then. I wonder if there is a Silverstein-Lesics connection...
Where was the antenna found in the rubble? That's the only way to know for sure where it fell.
Dusregard that. I discovered that a photographer named Joel Meyerowitz documented the location of the antenna to be on Liberty.
Larry Silverstein's acquisition of the World Trade Center lease and his subsequent insurance decisions are often cited by conspiracy theorists as indicative of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. However, a critical examination of these claims against the backdrop of standard real estate and insurance practices reveals a different picture, devoid of the sinister implications some attempt to draw. Firstly, the inclusion of terrorism coverage in Silverstein's insurance policy was not only standard and prudent, but REQUIRED. In other words, IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF SILVERSTEIN’S CHOICE. It wasn’t optional, but obligatory: the lenders required that such coverage be included or else Silverstein would not be loaned the funds necessary for the lease. This is hardly surprising as virtually any and all major buildings, especially in large, notable cities, were customarily expected to have terrorism coverage. Bear in mind the 1993 WTC bombing, and then the 1995 bombing of the federal building Oklahoma City! In addition to this, the use of the phrase "pull it," by Larry Silverstein in a documentary is another outrageous element fueling conspiracy theories despite being astonishingly simple to incontrovertibly disprove! The phrase been widely, wildly, and often deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented as a reference to demolishing Building 7. However, Silverstein was not referring to the building itself, but specifically to the team of firefighters inside at that particular moment. The infamous interview clip is from the PBS documentary America Rebuilds and here are Silverstein's exact words: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Firstly, in emergency fire response contexts, the phrase "pull it" ubiquitously refers to withdrawing the contingent of firefighters from a structure that is plagued by an ongoing fire. Silverstein was suggesting that withdrawing the firefighters might be prudent given the staggering loss of life already endured. He was NOT suggesting, let alone ordering, the demolishing of the building! Secondly, Silverstein clearly states, "And they made that decision to pull..." The operative word "they" refers to the Fire Department Commander, not Silverstein himself! Even if it were an inside job, why on earth would he be the one with the task or authority to authorize this? Why would anyone need to do so, rather than have it timed automatically? And why in God's name would he admit it in a PBS documentary?!?!?! The belief that PBS, which receives significant government funding, would air a documentary that includes anything remotely suggestive of a government-orchestrated inside job is ludicrous, untenable, irrational, and truly underscores the grievous lack of common sense pervasive among such a large contingent (pun intended) of the population
as a retired construction design manager, who worked on many high-rise building in MENA, UK and USA. This explanation would only convince somebody who has absolutely no understanding of how materials behave due to fire/temperature. its so silly, its not worth talking about.
Which explains why this is supported by the 130,000 member American Society of Civil Engineers, among others.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Can you prove that Fitzshill? Oh no you can´t, you´re just a pathetic liar...
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl I think you will find there are political reasons why the official narrative is accepted by companies and societies.
@@tonyjones7372 I think I will find you making excuses to hand wave things you don't like.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Thanks for fulfilling my prediction Fitzshill.
Watch How the Mysterious Sabin with a wave of his wand, teleports this video to the 'TOP 'of the search results with amazing accuracy!
Recent release with nearly 450k views. The algorithm does that, dummy.
@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Of course Google does not manipulate the search results!
Moron!
@@firstpeoplegovernment - That's what the algorithm does genius. It pushes popular content. Why do you keep insisting on demonstrations of your low intellect? Not necessary. We get it. No need to double down on stoo-pid.
7 "original", but meaningless and useless, posts in less than 48 hours. Because as all "truthers" know, the more stupid shit you post, the more right you are. Really.
@@mooneyes2k478 ?
If you believe they put a man on the moon 🎶 😇
🙄
Can someone please explain to me _why_ “the government” would want to bring down WTC7?
@@theovolz3073 you are so cute
@@thestructuresguy8355thank you!
@@thestructuresguy8355 Lame.... try again...
They had government offices in there, so conspiracy nuts try and argue its to destroy classified documents about 9/11, that, I guess they think they wrote on the same day? Lol.
Maybe it held the Epstein client list.
Would it be safe to say that if the Penthouse was not added and carried solely by those three columns, it is highly likely that WTC7 would not have collapsed?
@@danielmorris6523 it was just collapsed. It was pulverized.
Don't think that that is safe to say. As long as the fire was raging, the more the columns were increasingly weakened. So, without the penthouse, there would have been less loads on the columns indeed, but with the fire going on, the resistance would continue to degrade, and the moment the Load is bigger than the resistance, a column fails. So likely, it would have taken extra time for the columns to buckle, but they likely would have buckled.
The damage and heat would probably still make it collapse. Its still a sh*tload of material
It sounds like structurally the WTC towers were quite unique. I did some research on how the jet fuel managed to damage the steel beams when other buildings have survived equally violent fires. I think there was a case of a lost bomber in the 1940s hitting the Empire State Building and although it burned for hours it didn't collapse. The fireproofing was done via a coating on the steel beams and one thing I found surprising was the effect that fire can have on steel. I have a member of my family who is convinced 9/11 was an "inside job". I've tried to scientifically argue with them but it doesn't make any difference. They still don't understand that you don't need to melt steel for it to weaken. The fire was hot enough and there have been tests done which demonstrate that if exposed to fire the steel can weaken. Plus, you can see with your own eyes how when the two main towers collapsed, they do so at the point where the aircraft hit the towers (though I know WTC7 collapsed solely due to fire). I'm not an engineer or an expert but try and understand as much as I can and it is frustrating when people like my father refuse to yield to the experts or educate themselves.
Thanks for your replies guys. All the best, Dan. 🙂
it would be safe to say it would probably collapse in a different manner
9:21 I love what's happened to UA-cam, everyone feels the need to use superfluous stock footage, to the point we now have 'a guy watching 9/11 on his iMac'.
Question?
Did they ever find the BLACK BOXES?
Yes.
@@protosfotod2416ah the classic passport copypasta. Let's ignore the fact they weren't located after the collapses and all the varying debris from the other passengers survived the impact. This one isn't hard to explain, it's just easy to pretend it was part of a grand conspiracy.
@@james_fischOk CIA bot.
@@protosfotod2416 OK flatearther..
I love how the "how did paper passports survive?!?!" People ignore the tsunami of paper that came from the same floors the planes hit reigning down after the floors were on fire because ya know... Lol "reasons".... I feel so bad for these people who lack basic critical thinking and can be so easily countered
Thermite and angled cuts were found on the beams. It doesn’t get simpler than that.
😂
Not in Building 7, so I don't know why you would bring that up here. That was at the North Tower _only_
I made a short video on this topic to clear up a lot of common misconceptions: ua-cam.com/video/pVDU5QKa8Wg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=MFitz
Wait a minute, you mean to tell me they found iron oxide and aluminum in the world trade center rubble? Well that confirms it then!
There was no thermite, and the angled cuts were made later during disassembly of the rubble. A number of conspiracy loons will quite happily lie about the dates of those photos.
"So we decided to pull it..."- Larry Silverstein, owner of the builing WTC 7
I hope you’ve got your hard hat and bulletproof vest on, here come the nutters and the ignorant. 😱
Great, logical and sensible post. 👍
That's actually really interesting, I've never seen an explanation for this before
Shithead doesn´t even mention the free fall no-one can explain without controlled demolition.
@@Kudde23 All done now princess?
@@joshd3192 Are you showing off all your skills again little Poorpoo?
@@Kudde23 All done now princess?
Thank you so much for this video. This answers a question i was asking to myself for more than 20 years. Thank you so much.
Watch a few more videos where engineers explain that it was thermolite that took down all 3 buildings. All three went straight down, man.
@@garsonprice3441 thermite, not thermolite
@@PrinceCbass
You're right. Thermite. Thanks for the heads-up.
@@garsonprice3441 your comment exudes your high level of practical intelligence
@@garsonprice3441 correct
Three buildings with non-symmetrical damage fell in their own footprint on the same day. I think this is the first the world has seen this. (We've seen high-rise fires lasting for days and the steel frame remains). Add to that, on the same day, two plane crash sites with no visible plane parts. What is the the chance of that happening? Probably one in a billion. That's a good explanation of WTC7 though.
OK, but how many of those high rises were impacted by commercial jets or by a collapsing skyscraper?
There was visible airplane debris at all three locations. A simple google search will show you images of pieces of the planes
No building fell "in their own footprint". 10 buildings collapsed. This on the same day there were terrorist attacks on the buildings in that area. Even if your "first" had had any relevancy, which it did not, what of it? "First" only mean "first". No-one has seen fires lasting for days and the steel frame remain. Add to that 19 tons of visible plane parts in two of the THREE crash sites. So, the chances are 100% since you made it all up.
You're welcome for the correction of your nonsense.
@@mooneyes2k478 There was no visible plane parts at the pentagon crash site nor in Pennsylvania - it's unusual to have planes disintegrate upon crashing. All the buildings collapsed in their own footprints, and yes planes hit the twin towers, but did not hit WTC7. The planes that hit the twin towers caused non-symmetrical damage on several higher floors - not a reason for the entire building to collapse, but a reason for those higher floors to collapse to the side There were not "19 tons of visible plane parts." Add to that many other anomalies on that day, and there is a definite possibility that is was a false flag, in part, in some way. Use your own brain and think about it, rather than defend a narrative. This is a systemic issue with lots of evidence, thus conclusions are made in probabilities and possibilities, not certainties. Anyone certain is defending, not thinking for themselves.
@@nova4005 " There was no visible plane parts at the pentagon crash site nor in Pennsylvania "
Other than the aforementioned 19 tons or so, you mean? Yeah.
"All the buildings collapsed in their own footprints"
If by "footprint" you mean "covered 8 times more ground that when they were standing", that is.
"and yes planes hit the twin towers, but did not hit WTC7"
Or any of the other 7 buildings. Can you guess what DID hit them?
" not a reason for the entire building to collapse, but a reason for those higher floors to collapse to the side"
If, that is, you think that a building is a tree. Here on earth, they're generally not.
"There were not "19 tons of visible plane parts.""
Because if you go "SO THERE!", reality changes. Right? Right.
"Add to that many other anomalies on that day"
None of which you can actually name or support. Just like dozens if not hundreds of "truthers" over the past several years, who, when called on the "many", turned very noticeably quiet.
"there is a definite possibility that is was a false flag"
Ah, yes. "It was all about Iraq, so there!" Except, it was clearly and publicly stated that Saddam didn't have anything to do with it. Then, of course, there's the minor issue that, in near 250 years, the US has been at war for 225. And not ONCE in that time was a "false flag" ever needed. All that was required was, "because we want to".
"Use your own brain and think about it, rather than defend a narrative"
You mean the brain that could, in contrast to you, understand and follow the evidence and the science? The only "narrative" is the one you and your "truther" buddies peddle, the one that goes, "oh, doesn't it look suspicious, something much be wrong, trust me bro!"
"Anyone certain is defending, not thinking for themselves."
Or able to understand very basic, laymans levels of construction and physics. Could be that.
@@nova4005 - I guess you never did a Google images search for _Flight 77 wreckage_
🤦♂🤦♂
Nobody is buying this
by nobody you mean just you and your fellow uneducated truthers.
Why do we have to?
No one intelligent is buying your stupid controlled demolition bullshit that makes you feel like some special, freethinking American
People don’t need to “buy” it, much the same as you don’t have to “buy” gravity.
Put forward a well organized and provable hypothesis, and debate it from a place of science… otherwise accept the best explanations we got.
I knew this long ago from WTC7 that collapsed like 15+ years ago.. NOW more people begin to know about this how crazy is that 😢
"This video was funded and brought to you by the Central Intelligence Agency"
Are you new here? YT videos are funded by people watching. So, if anyone is funding the video, it is you
@@mikero6225 So how much did you pay for watching this video, shill?
lol
Nobody even cares about the conspiracy anymore
And like they’re going to pay this dude to make these videos lol
@@Icannottolerateitit's completely feasible for the CIA to pay for propaganda.
@SupecupCorporation
Anyway, probably some Deep State organization. The deception and distraction continues.
This was an excellent explanation. I didn't know about the substation in the bottom and the trussing. It makes much more sense now.
The Patriot Act
Great video. R.I.P Joe Hill.
What happened to the thousands of porcelain lavatory bowls and hand basins? Turned to dust as well?
Yep.
ua-cam.com/video/CvlFQ0JLhaI/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Shhh.....don't question the narrative they give us.
@@walterdayrit675 can you give me your version of events, from 8:45 am, sep 11 2001 to 12 am sep 12 2001?
yeh but papers survived and flew in the sky in the other towers lol cough bomb cough
So what’s the importance of building 7 for demolition teams to bring it down?
Thank you for great analysis, I always enjoy watching your videos.
Question, the whole idea of making steal warp/bend from fire is ok in towers 1 & 2 but I was told that it was because of the thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning as paper and office materials like desks, chairs and office equipment didn't burn HOT ENOUGH to cause that so please explain how now you think jet fuel caused the fires in WTC 7 to burn hot enough. Also in WTC 1 & 2 it was the connectors holding the trusses that failed but you never explained a simmilar issue in WTC 7, how did they fail as the main load bearing were large I beams not small trusses that would need lower temps to fail. You skipped a bunch of needed information to explain your fire theory.
You were misinformed. The jet fuels ignition started the fires, but nearly everyone would agree that it had completely burned off by the time the collapse initiated, especially in WTC 1 that stood longer.
Office furniture, equipment, and flammable building materials can certainly burn at a hot enough temperature to weaken steel and initiate building collapses. Notably on 9/11, that happened in WTC1, WTC2, WTC6, and WTC7. Contrary to what some truthers erroneously claim, there are plenty of other examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing, completely or partially, due to fire.
The collapses of wtc2 and wtc1 were caused by the failure of the external columns being pulled inward by the sagging floor trusses. Though they likely played some role, the failure of the "connectors holding the trusses" was not what initiated the collapse.
Interestingly, truthers don't talk about the partial collapse of WTC6 due to fire. I wonder why that is 🤔 Perhaps because Dylan made the decision to include WTC7 in loose change and not WTC6.
Building 7 was on fire five times longer than the Twin Towers. The formula for collapse is *Fire (heat) + Time + Gravity = Collapse*
jet fuel is not the only thing in the world that burns and it was more than paper burning. The fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel. Learn before you speak.
@@pacman3556 You don't even understand the official explanation for the collapse. The collapse wasn't initiated by weakened steal.
The main cause of the collapse was thermal expansion of the steal.
The beams connected to girder A2001 experienced thermal expansion. The expansion pushed girder A2001 off its seat that was connected to column 79.
When the girder fell of its seat, it caused column 79 to buckle & initiate the progressive collapse.
The fires weren't actually hot enough to weaken the steal to the point of collapse.
Skyscrapers are specifically designed to withstand being completely engulfed by office fires & remain standing.
Engineers actually account for the steel weakening due to fires & ensure that the structure will remain standing even after the steel has been weakened.
Skyscrapers have been fully engulfed by flames & remain standing.
@@john_hunter_
yes WTC7 the steel expanded causing a column to buckle. In WTC1 and 2 the steel weakened causing inward bowing. In both cases it was fire that caused the collapses.
What skyscrapers are you referring too? List a few.....and remember make sure they are not concrete core but steel frame like WTC so you are comparing similar structures.
Thank you for your work! This is a video to fill a gap! 🎉
The gap between your ears could hide 3000 victims of 9/11 !
best video about wtc7!!
From that angle it looked like a controlled demolition, and fell perfectly on it's on footprint. What you couldn't see is that it actually fell against a building across the street. Controlled demolitions don't normally damage neighboring buildings, especially across a 4-lane street.
NANO THERMITE ~ EXPLOSIVE MILITARY WEAPON ~ FALLING BUILDINGS **DO NOT ** PRODUCE EXPLOSVES RESIDUE AND **DO NOT** CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL!! ~ ??? >> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY CONTROLLED DEMO OR FALLING BUILDING CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL ?? ... (DIDNT THINK SO!) >> NANO THERMITE IS IN ALL THE ASHES OF GROUND ZERO !! ... CASE CLOSED ~ IT WAS A 3X CONTROLLED DEMO!! >> BUSH CHENY RUMMY SAUDIS = GUILTY OF WAS CRIMES~! +++ OVER 280,000 PILOTS, FIREMEN, COPS, MILITARY, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS HAVE ALL TESTIFYED THAT 9/1 IS A GOVT COVER UP. ***PERIOD! ** DO NOT BELIEVE SLICK VIDEOS!! ... LEARN THE REAL FACTS!!
Total control demolition, All demolition companies totally agree.....America got played big time on 9/11😢
In fact exactly NO actual demolition companies agree with that. None. Zero. Pretending otherwise, or more likely blindly repeating nonsense that caters to your pet fantasy, doesn't change that.
How could demolition charges and cables survive in a building that was burning all day? Sick of people promoting this stupid theory
Source or you like men
list even one demo company that agrees.
The US government attacked us and we responded just how they wanted 😢
well explained, nice video!
This is the sort of thing that is really hard for a structural engineer to imagine is a major structural element suddenly failing singly. One structural column fails? All of the mass of the building stays the same but is instantly transferred to the adjacent columns, the weakest adjacent column fails, all of the mass of the building is instantly transferred to the adjacent columns, those columns start to fail, then everything starts to fail sequentially. The mass of the building never decreases, the number of elements holding it up decreases. It is not that complicated.
A structural engineer understands that is not how it happened. You are grossly over-simplifying while at the same time not understanding critical details, which you then replace with ignorance-fueled personal incredulity.
We can fix that.
Check out the report published by university of Alaska. They basically came out and disagreed or at least stated that it’s unlikely NISTs findings are what actually happened
@@skibbitybopmdada - Ah yes, Judy Wood - the Sidney Powell of 9/11 woo_ . I did read Judy Wood’s book.
Laughed my ass off. Lots of face palming. It is mind-numbingly stupid. Dumbest shit ever put to paper. Pathetically little and heavily cherry picked “evidence” with little to no analysis worthy of the name and she is careful to avoid drawing any conclusions she will have to defend. Typical conspiracy stuff. Be vague and obtuse. The target audience won't notice or care, just nod.
When I found out Judy Wood wrote her book after _suffering a traumatic brain injury_ in a cycling accident which left her first in a long-term coma, then _ended her career in academia_ (where she studied the material properties of teeth) things made a lot more sense. Not the book mind it - it’s complete nonsense - but how someone who was once credible and scientifically minded could write something that awful.
She's clearly not firing on all 8 and talking about things she has no knowledge or expertise in even when she was fully functional.
If there were such a thing as a directed energy weapon powered by hurricanes and capable of turning the World Trade Center Twin Towers steel into dust (while at the same time mildly singeing some cars), where has this weapon been since 9/11/2001? This is a weapon literally capable of immediate world domination. It could end the War in Ukraine in a day! And Gaza!!! It could send the Chinese back behind their wall. Yet it only gets used once, and pointlessly at that???
Why use it at all in an attack that absolutely has to look like it was done using hijacked planes _and nothing else_ when it isn’t even needed?
The whole idea is just so many levels of stupid it boggles the mind. There is no physics in her book and almost no analysis. It is entirely premised around magical thinking.
This is why Wood has always been way out on the lunatic fringe, even among other fringy conspiracists. Even they aren’t _that_ clueless.
Building 7 didn't kill itself
No one is claiming it did.
where did you come up with the idea that anyone said that?
Freefalling!
NANO THERMITE ~ EXPLOSIVE MILITARY WEAPON ~ FALLING BUILDINGS **DO NOT ** PRODUCE EXPLOSVES RESIDUE AND **DO NOT** CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL!! ~ ??? >> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY CONTROLLED DEMO OR FALLING BUILDING CREATE RIVERS OF MELTED STEEL ?? ... (DIDNT THINK SO!) >> NANO THERMITE IS IN ALL THE ASHES OF GROUND ZERO !! ... CASE CLOSED ~ IT WAS A 3X CONTROLLED DEMO!! >> BUSH CHENY RUMMY SAUDIS = GUILTY OF WAS CRIMES~! +++ OVER 280,000 PILOTS, FIREMEN, COPS, MILITARY, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS HAVE ALL TESTIFYED THAT 9/1 IS A GOVT COVER UP. ***PERIOD! ** DO NOT BELIEVE SLICK VIDEOS!! ... LEARN THE REAL FACTS!!
@@pacman3556 It's a joke based on the "Epstein didn't kill himself" meme.
Pull it.
we don't care what you do in the shower.
@@pacman3556 You think of weiners a lot huh?
Silverstein loves to "Pull it". 💥 🍆
Stupid shit.
@@cheechicana😅😅😅😅
The spire of WTC 1 did fall to the south, you can see it in the Videos. Some parts from WTC did strike WTC 7 and it was burning 7 hours, but the spire had nothing to do with it.
Well, the north tower´s spire had to do with it since it was north tower´s core columns which caused the gash on WTC7.
we were extremely lucky on that day. Sure, many innocent people lost their lives, but how blessed and infinitely lucky we were that all the buildings gracefully fell into their own footprint, almost if by some impossible miracle. so much of a miracle and so lucky were we, that such luck might never be seen ever again. never forget how suspiciously lucky we were that more people didnt die from those buildings falling normally and instead falling in that perfect way they did. thank you god for all your blessings, you are very good at being god, the best, zero doubts in your talents god
WTC7 fell across a street and did billions of dollars in damage to the Verizon tower. You trying to suggest a street and another building was built inside WTC7 footprint (i.e. its basement). Explain that.
I now await for the demolition theorist to come forward with their video. Or wait they can't provide one 😂
23 years and still waiting.
Why would you need a video about that?!? If you have specific questions, just ask them.
Wow! Education in America sucks bad as this comments section clearly shows! Here, we are 23 years later, and the American people still don't know what really happened that day. No wonder the country is in such a sharp decline. 🤦
Oh, no, the American people knows. You'll find that, since the American people DO know, they don't have to come here and post nonsense. Only the really die-hard "oh, it's all so very suspicious and conspiracy-y" minority fringe do that.
People who hate the government so much will generally try to blame huge tragedies on them without evidence.
You have a point there dude.
To be fair, person are still trying to figure out everything that happened with M/S Estonia 1994. Over 800 souls lost that day out of almost 1,000 on board.
It's good people question things, but sometimes it's just dumb conspiracy theories.
@@djnorth2020 fr dude.
It's good to be skeptical. What country are you from? Probably a third world shit hole.
Great analysis. Thank you.
This is the 1st time I've seen a comprehensive review of what happened to WTC 7. Excellently done and presented.
I’ve been watching content about 9/11 to understand it, and this video plus the one on the WTC 1 & WTC 2 collapse are the most comprehensive i’ve seen on that aspect. Thanks a lot for all your work, this is very informative!
"We got the order to pull it."
Said no one ever
"You were to much of a failure to understand basic English"
Crazy people are so delusional to believe somebody would admit to blowing up buildings on national television. He was talking about pulling out the firefighters
we don't care what people tell you in your little circle jerks.
@@mikebyrd8278: he was clearly talking about the building, not the fire fighters. He said " the smartest thing to do was pull it, so they gave the order and watched the building collapse."