Dude that Building 7 debunked has run into 3 complications with facts in the first 37 seconds.
1 Steel framed structures have never collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11,
2 In the largest office fire simulations known the steel bent and misshaped but the overall structure held together.
3 the weakening of steel by fire cannot cause steel to melt or explode.
at 47 sec The Beam they show you in the film collapsed at 2000F where you'd be lucky to get above 1200 in an extremely hot office fire. Making this completely irrelevant to their argument of the beams in WTC (ANYTHING let alone) 7.
At 55 Sec they say "Beams 'CAN' Break and put the whole structure at risk,
this is what happened to building 7", they show no evidence to suggest this, just a cartoon!
Probably because they couldn't find any real evidence of this happening in the real world where physics isn't used in conjunction with voodoo or large pointed purple hats.
1:07 "The collapse of the north tower ejected burning debris" How exactly do you push burning debris in all directions? Let alone the extremely heavy beams that were flung clear across the plaza and adjacent streets into the sides of some buildings surround the WTC complex? No explanation is given here either.
1:13 They show a fire on the side of the building, and by 1:17 talk about a damaged water main and a sprinkler system not working. See this sky scraper in china here? It didn't collapse!
1 Steel framed structures have never collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11,
2 In the largest office fire simulations known the steel bent and misshaped but the overall structure held together.
3 the weakening of steel by fire cannot cause steel to melt or explode.
at 47 sec The Beam they show you in the film collapsed at 2000F where you'd be lucky to get above 1200 in an extremely hot office fire. Making this completely irrelevant to their argument of the beams in WTC (ANYTHING let alone) 7.
At 55 Sec they say "Beams 'CAN' Break and put the whole structure at risk,
this is what happened to building 7", they show no evidence to suggest this, just a cartoon!
Probably because they couldn't find any real evidence of this happening in the real world where physics isn't used in conjunction with voodoo or large pointed purple hats.
1:07 "The collapse of the north tower ejected burning debris" How exactly do you push burning debris in all directions? Let alone the extremely heavy beams that were flung clear across the plaza and adjacent streets into the sides of some buildings surround the WTC complex? No explanation is given here either.
1:13 They show a fire on the side of the building, and by 1:17 talk about a damaged water main and a sprinkler system not working. See this sky scraper in china here? It didn't collapse!
By 1:20 they say "firefighters were diverted elsewhere" and that's true, because they were busy telling everyone that the building was about to blow up and to get back on CNN!
1:28 "fires burned uncontrolled for nearly 7 hours" Those were incidentally the offices of the SEC who were investigating fraudulent wall street trading at the time, no other offices had fires in them, except the ones collecting large amounts of paper documents and financial records of financial crimes. The water main busts and sprinklers don't work either, and the firefighters get called back from the building as it blows up and comes down.
1:58 they use NIST figures which they took 7 years to release and 200,000 man hours with 10,000+ page report that only 3 weeks was allowed for public debate, deeming it to be enough time to then say it's the "final" report and they constantly contradict themselves.
1:58 they use NIST figures which they took 7 years to release and 200,000 man hours with 10,000+ page report that only 3 weeks was allowed for public debate, deeming it to be enough time to then say it's the "final" report and they constantly contradict themselves.
2:33 "Penthouse collapse...This video is often not shown on conspiracy websites, and because they don't mention this it appears that the entire building collapsed at free fall speed" Um actually yes they do. & NIST even admits that WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed at near free fall speed. The penthouse as they call it collapsing before the rest of the building is a common feature of controlled demolition in order to collapse buildings in on themselves you set charges in sequence so that when the connections to beams and columns are severed they implode into the center, rather than blast into the street covering everyone in debris.
"Collapse is the inevitable consequence of a steel framed structure being exposed to an uncontrolled fire" which AGAIN! HAS NOT HAPPENED BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11!
2:56 They imply that a 47 story Skyscraper, one of the most secure in the whole of New York City, designed to withstand earthquakes, fire, plane impact & hurricane force wind, is somehow just as weak as a freeway overpass designed to withstand the weight of trucks traveling over it?
"It's the only steel framed structure to collapse due to fire alone in history because it's the only one in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours, it's that simple" That's a complete lie, other skyscapers have burned for 18 hours, one 32 story in Madrid for 2 days and didn't collapse! http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
"Collapse is the inevitable consequence of a steel framed structure being exposed to an uncontrolled fire" which AGAIN! HAS NOT HAPPENED BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11!
2:56 They imply that a 47 story Skyscraper, one of the most secure in the whole of New York City, designed to withstand earthquakes, fire, plane impact & hurricane force wind, is somehow just as weak as a freeway overpass designed to withstand the weight of trucks traveling over it?
"It's the only steel framed structure to collapse due to fire alone in history because it's the only one in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours, it's that simple" That's a complete lie, other skyscapers have burned for 18 hours, one 32 story in Madrid for 2 days and didn't collapse! http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
| 
|
There, That's how you look at and debunk someones evidence, rather than switching off and saying "they're not credible"
RSS Feed