Burning skyscraper engulfed in flames and smoke collapses because of so much fire.

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Whatever you do, do not think this was a controlled demolition like these:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Make sure you believe it was burning and 'collapsing?' like this:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I think we got away with that. :chuckle:
:sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep:

 

[Gary K]

Ah, come on, Watchman, don't you see all the "smoke" at the base of building 7 during its collapse. It has to be burning because you know that where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Ah, come on, Watchman, don't you see all the "smoke" at the base of building 7 during its collapse. It has to be burning because you know that where there is smoke there is fire.

Yes that's right it was smoke. If anyone say's it's dust they are a loon. :chuckle:

 

[jaybird]

Burning skyscraper engulfed in flames and smoke collapses because of so much fire.

i dont see a fire.

 

[jaybird]

anyone remember back in the 50s when the bomber plane flew into the empire state building? strange why that building didnt fall down like it was made out of popsicle sticks?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

i dont see a fire.

Sure you can if you imagine really hard.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

anyone remember back in the 50s when the bomber plane flew into the empire state building? strange why that building didnt fall down like it was made out of popsicle sticks?

Yes I remember that, I suppose they just don't make them like they used to.

 

[jaybird]

Sure you can if you imagine really hard.

sounds like those luxury flats they lived in on monty python, they had to believe or their home fell down.

 

[Gary K]

i dont see a fire.

That's because you're not looking hard enough, or with the right colored glasses on.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

That's because you're not looking hard enough, or with the right colored glasses on.

I hope you're not one of these loony conspiracists! Everyone else can clearly see the flames!

:sozo:Look harder:sherlock:

 

[jaybird]

That's because you're not looking hard enough, or with the right colored glasses on.

maybe if we look hard enough we can see the gang of leprechauns fleeing the scene.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you are interested in the actual facts surrounding the WTC7 collapse, watch this.

 

[patrick jane]

If you are interested in the actual facts surrounding the WTC7 collapse, watch this.

NIST is Fake News. It was the third high rise in the history of the world that collapsed like a pancake demolition due to fire. The first two happened earlier that day.

 

[Gary K]

If you are interested in the actual facts surrounding the WTC7 collapse, watch this.

Ummm.... Take a look at your own video. For each of the buildings destroyed by fire we see those buidling entirely engulfed in flames. In building 7 we see fire coming out of a few windows on one side of the building. And, if what NIST says is true that one side collapsed first, with that type of construction that building should have leaned toward the side that buckled and then fallen in that direction due to the laws of physics. Instead we see an almost completely vertical collapse meaning all sides collapsed at the exact same speed. Only at the very last, as in the video you provided of deliberate demolition, does building 7 even begin to lean. 90% of its fall is entirely vertical and with no fire visible. That is exactly the opposite of the video evidence that supposedly demonstrates NIST's explanation.

 

[CabinetMaker]

NIST is Fake News. It was the third high rise in the history of the world that collapsed like a pancake demolition due to fire. The first two happened earlier that day.

Seems like you didn't even bother to watch the video. Its only 6 minutes, give it a go.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Ummm.... Take a look at your own video. For each of the buildings destroyed by fire we see those buidling entirely engulfed in flames. In building 7 we see fire coming out of a few windows on one side of the building.

How much fire is required to weaken the steel in a building? By how much I am asking how hot, duration, does location make a difference? i.e. Does a fire under a support junction have a greater impact than a fire in the middle of the floor.

And, if what NIST says is true that one side collapsed first, with that type of construction that building should have leaned toward the side that buckled and then fallen in that direction due to the laws of physics.

The NIST DID NOT say that one side collapsed.

Instead we see an almost completely vertical collapse meaning all sides collapsed at the exact same speed.

If you pay attention to what the report actually said you would see that the internal structure collapsed first. The external shell was left unsupported, its walls buckled and it collapsed.

Only at the very last, as in the video you provided of deliberate demolition, does building 7 even begin to lean. 90% of its fall is entirely vertical and with no fire visible. That is exactly the opposite of the video evidence that supposedly demonstrates NIST's explanation.

The animation matches the observed progression of the collapse.

All I can do is show you the engineering and physics of what happened. The main problem with controlled demolition is that there are no reports of multiple explosions immediately before the collapse began. That means the video evidence of the collapse does not match the hypothesis of a controlled demolition. I can show the engineering and the physics, but it requires some work on your part to understand. It took me six years of study to understand the physics and the engineering.

 

[patrick jane]

Make sure you believe it was burning and 'collapsing?' like this:

I watched the whole video and the building didn't collapse. :idunno: