WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse
Uploaded by: lnielsen76
Video Description:
WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds. The rate of free fall for the 47 story building is 6.8 seconds.
Tags for this video: 911 boeing bush hijack terror wtc
Find more videos in the "Howto" category
See more videos uploaded by lnielsen76
| WTC7 - Incriminating evidence | WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial | WTC 7 Explosive Energy |
 |  |  |
| WTC 7 9-11 | Jeckyll Hyde - Freefall | 911 WTC DEMOLITION SEQUENCE FINALLY REVEALED |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
| Comments for this video on YouTube |
| NIST stated that ... ( 3 days ago by smitty121981) |
| NIST stated that WTC7 (not hit by a plane) fell a distance of 8 stories in complete freefall. What happened to those 8 floors? If they had provided ANY resistance, any at all, it WOULD NOT have been freefall. How can 8 floors of 82 steel columns go from holding all the weight to suddenly not holding any weight at all? The ONLY answer is that they had to be removed by some force OTHER than the weight of the building. |
| Those 8 floors of ... ( 2 days ago by pixman83) |
| Those 8 floors of interior columns fell before the exterior collapsed. The collapse of the Penthouse was only one of many signs that the interior was falling before the exterior did. The entire building was vibrating from that internal collapse before the exterior even began to fall. That is also why the initial collapse starts out so incredibly slowly, much slower than the acceleration due to gravity. |
| How could flight 93 ... ( 2 days ago by pixman83) |
| How could flight 93 have been aimed for building 7 when its flight path never approached NYC? It started heading towards DC, or maybe Baltimore, as soon as it was taken over. |
| Just another rumour ... ( 2 days ago by chookter1) |
| Just another rumour but im amazed people like to overlook the squibs going off before the planes went in. |
| Nist stated that a ... ( 2 days ago by JLaw012) |
| Nist stated that a "critical column" has be destroyed by the falling debris which lead to the eventual collapse, remember skyscrapers are not built to topple over like a tree smashing half the city. if they fail they fall straight down. Besides it does not even make sense, use planes on 2 of the WTC but not WTC7 and do it 9 hours later?? i mean come on... |
| JLaw012, actually ... ( 2 days ago by smitty121981) |
| JLaw012, actually you are wrong, if you are going to use NIST's story you have to get it right. NIST says that the falling debris did NOT lead to the collapse of the critical column but instead fire and 'thermal expansion' was the culprit. I know, it's ridiculous, but that's what they say. "if they fail they fall straight down." The only time that has ever happened is on 9/11/2001. Again that is also what NIST says. watch this building topple over: watch?v=-1X8j53U1So |
| NIST exact quote " ... ( 2 days ago by JLaw012) |
| NIST exact quote "An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay. Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse. |
| The "squibs" ... ( 2 days ago by pixman83) |
| The "squibs" weren't going off before the planes hit, conspiracy theorists say they went off as the buildings were collapsing. As far as I know there are no records of anything that could be confused to be pre-collapse "squibs." |
| JLaw012, that quote ... ( 1 day ago by smitty121981) |
| JLaw012, that quote is from the working hypothesis that NIST put out in December of 2006. However, since then their story has changed. The draft report was published in August 2008 and claimed that fire was the cause of collapse. This video is straight from the horses mouth: watch?v=rawrAdoccDk notice how their computer simulation never actually completes the collapse and the outer shell deforms noticeably, that is very important - they were unable to simulate what we all saw with our eyes! |
| I agree, people ... ( 1 day ago by chookter1) |
| I agree, people were standing with smoke machines at the windows to mark the end of their lives. Sorry, I should have thought of that in the first place. |
| Just because you ... ( 1 day ago by pixman83) |
| Just because you don't understand what happened, because you don't have an expert education on the subject, doesn't mean that you have to make up stuff to explain what you see. On an unrelated side note, smoke from small smoke machines don't look like squibs. |
| NIST "After each ... ( 1 day ago by JLaw012) |
| NIST "After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analysis accounted for conservation of energy" |
| Yes i dont ... ( 1 day ago by chookter1) |
| Yes i dont understand what i see in the footage. Can you explain it to me? Tell you what, just tell me its all my imagination, nothing really happened did it. Nobody died, it was a video movie because the networks all decided to stop and shag each other. |
| Im totally and ... ( 1 day ago by chookter1) |
| Im totally and completely incapable of forming an opinion for myself so i need someone like you to tell me what i see please. P.s if you wish to assume this position you have to wipe my ass and such. |
| Before you reply to ... ( 1 day ago by chookter1) |
| Before you reply to these and previous messages, given that you cant spot sarcasm, you couldnt spot the u.s airforce if it hit you in the face. |
| You'd be surprised ... ( 1 day ago by pixman83) |
| You'd be surprised how many people would use your words and quote them as supporting evidence. I responded the way I did because I have seen other sites which seriously listed smoke generators as a possible cover for why people didn't see any explosive flashes. |
| JLaw012, why waste ... ( 1 day ago by smitty121981) |
| JLaw012, why waste my time with that COMPLETELY irrelevant quote? It has NOTHING to do with WTC7 and it has NOTHING to do with freefall. |
| Ok but alot of ... ( 1 day ago by chookter1) |
| Ok but alot of people, serious hardcore nutjobs dont realise that this is the equivalent of a school playground |
| They have to get ... ( 1 day ago by pixman83) |
| They have to get quotes here because they can't get good supporting quotes anywhere else. What might seem obviously stupid to us sounds like a perfectly acceptable notion to others. There are still people who still seriously believe in a flat earth after all. |
| It wouldnt happen ... ( 6 hours ago by chookter1) |
| It wouldnt happen here, the courts are above the government here you see. |
| Doesn't the UK not ... ( 5 hours ago by pixman83) |
| Doesn't the UK not have a Supreme Court yet? I thought they were still making it. I'm not going to claim a full understanding of the UK legal system, but aren't the "Law Lords" pulled from the House of Lords, which is a political position? Last, but not least, the power of stupidity should never be underestimated. :) |
| The courts are ... ( 4 hours ago by chookter1) |
| The courts are above it all in terms of criminal investigation House of lords agree legislation proposed in the house of commons but this can be overruled |
| it has everything ... ( 4 hours ago by JLaw012) |
| it has everything to do with freefall, this was not talking about 7. But you still have not shown where there is evidence of demolitions on 9/11 freefall does not = demolitions. You would clearly see blast marks on the core columns of each building if demolitions where used, but no one found any evidence of that. |
| It's funny that you ... ( 45 minutes ago by smitty121981) |
| It's funny that you would mention that there would be evidence of demolition if people looked, because NIST did their entire 10,000 page WTC7 report without looking at any physical evidence. None at all! Look it up if you don't believe me and please don't respond with some random quote. When researchers with FEMA looked at steel from WTC7 they found a sulfur rich corrosion attack that liquefied the steel. That certainly makes NIST's "office fire only" story a pitiful cover up at best. |
Tell a friend: