Building 7 Explained: The Tube That Crumpled скачать в хорошем качестве

Building 7 Explained: The Tube That Crumpled

*THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN UPDATED* Please watch:    • Building 7 Explained: Comprehensive F...   Comments on this older video will no longer be approved and will not appear here. Watch the new video and comment there instead, please. ----- Long-debunked talking points: 1. "7WTC collapsed into its own footprint." There is no evidence of that. The animation at 5:00 is scale-accurate: The east face of the frame tipped that much to the north (the smaller building shown is Fiterman Hall). Meanwhile, the west face appears to have rotated to the south. The photos at the end of the video disprove the "footprint" talking point. 2. "Thousands of architects and engineers disagree." Actual skyscraper experts don't disagree. I made comedy out of the petition put forward by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:    • Truthers, Sorry I Ridiculed Your Experts   3. "A collapse with (a brief period of) freefall violates the laws of physics." Point to one paper in a peer-reviewed journal that supports this claim. I apparently violated the same laws in this experiment:   / 924052742338834432   4. "WTC7's collapse and fire were totally different from the Tehran building" Yes, and the difference in their collapses is explained beginning at 3:34. They were also very different in size and mass https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/... which affected not only their collapses but also how their fires appeared from the outside. WTC7 as seen from the south was also a raging fire    • WTC 7 South Side - Very Rare   . 5. "Professor Dr. Leroy Hulsey Ph.D. of the University of Alaska's two-year study…" With funding by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Hulsey (an expert on bridges, not buildings, who had never done fire analysis) and two graduate students computer-modeled two floors where NIST found that collapse initiation might have taken place, and found scenarios where the collapse did not initiate. AE911Truth would like you to believe that fire, therefore, was ruled out. This is not a scientific conclusion, it's a sensational statement bought and paid for by a 9/11 profiteering group. The study has been comprehensively debunked at https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf.... 6. "Witnesses heard explosions." Lots of things explode in fires: transformers, gas lines, water lines, air compressors, fire extinguishers, propane tanks, refrigeration systems. An "explosion sound" is different from the high-brisance detonation necessary to cut even one 14" x 22" steel column of a major skyscraper (let alone 58–82 of them), which would exceed 140 decibels a half mile away and be clearly audible from New Jersey. Meanwhile, seismographs picked up the collapse of the interior (preceding the collapse of the exterior frame), but no detonations. Regardless, such blasts would be loudly audible on all of the camera footage, seconds before the collapse began. There's nothing on the tapes. This is how demolitions actually sound:    • Implosionworld Explosive Demolition C...   Here are 12" steel pins failing, producing "explosion" sounds: (at 0:40)    • 1999 Big Blue crane collapse at Mille...   7. "The BBC reported that WTC7 had collapsed before it actually did." There was confusion and chaos on 9/11. Firefighters had cleared the area, because 7WTC was at risk of collapsing ( https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie... ). This was misreported by Reuters. BBC explains (at 43:32):    • WTC 7 - BBC The Third Tower - Conspir...   Anyway, that's a far less complicated explanation than that the BBC or Reuters were in on a conspiracy, and/or made a massive on-air blunder in a secret operation that remains perfectly covered up 19 years later. 8. "Larry Silverstein confessed to demolishing the building when he said it was pulled." He said the firefighting was pulled out. Watch FDNY chief Daniel Nigro discuss this decision (at 22:09):    • WTC 7 - BBC The Third Tower - Conspir...   "Pull" is not a term used in demolition except to yank small buildings down with cables. Silverstein didn't confess to massive insurance fraud in a scheduled sit-down PBS interview, only for that confession to be ignored by the insurers. One of the dumbest talking points ever. 9. "You must be paid by the government to make these videos." And your standards for evidence must be extremely low, if you're willing to convince yourself that this wild claim is true. (It's not. I make nothing from these videos.) 10. "Why not just set steel buildings on fire when they need to be demolished, instead of using explosives?" Because they might land on other buildings and destroy them, as WTC7 did. And maybe set them on fire, too. Setting a skyscraper on fire in a city, and letting it belch out toxic smoke from burning plastics for hours, is a very stupid idea. Okay, this is officially the dumbest talking point ever.