Continuing the video- I've watched for about thirty minutes so far and all I've seen is a repetitive dialogue about "WTC 7 must be a controlled demolition because it looks like one."
Yes and a drag queen must be a woman because she looks like one.
The same tactics are being used in this portion that I've been watching so I won't bother to rehash what I said above in regards to this.
Let's examine WTC 7.
World Trade Center building 7 was not struck by any airplane.
WTC 7 was struck by significant debris.
WTC 7 had an unusual occurrence in building fires: Under normal circumstances, a building fire is immediately responded to and fire suppression systems kick on. However, since WTC 1&2 had been hit prior to this, were burning, both buildings had civilians trapped within needing rescue-- all reserves were taxed. WTC 7 had little water pressure for its fire suppression systems and fire fighters on the ground were stretched thin.
PHD's, doctorates are making the claim that it looks like a controlled demolition. Their degrees, experience and knowledge in the field carries weight and merit.
In spite of this, not once during the video did any of these doctors give a plausible explanation for their claim that WTC7 must be a controlled demolition other than that it
looked like one.
This is a bit absurd because a collapsing building of such size will, by principle, look like a controlled demolition.
Let's take a closer look: Did it look like a controlled demolition?
There were no explosions prior to collapse. None.
The building was visibly bulged, creaking and many people, including fire chief Nigro, believed that the building was at imminent risk of collapsing. He pulled his crew out before the building came down and thanks to the warning signs of a structurally unsound building- there were no causalities of WTC7's collapse.
Unlike most recorded building fires, there was an uncontrolled burn within the building which had gone on for 7 hours or so. Fire suppression systems had minimal response. Just as in the case of WTC 1 & 2, intense heat and flames had compromised the structure of the building.
That alone, was not fully enough.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The massive weight coming down would have been more than enough to collapse the structure below. That's a bit like hitting a nail set upright on a stone with a 12 lb sledge hammer full force- it WILL fold upon itself. While sound as columns on a daily basis, there is only so much striking force anything can handle. Given the location of column 79, a sequential catastrophic failure along that line of the building would show bulging and during collapse, the middle would sink lower than the outer structure which was significantly less compromised.
Which is exactly what is seen happening in every WTC 7 coverage video.
Let's conclude, given the strong evidence; It's just as plausible that the events outlined above led to the collapse of WTC 7 as the idea that controlled demolition is.
What is required to support demolition? The absurd monkey-brained antics of trying to plant the explosives in the building in order to bring it down. When, exactly, did this happen, with the massive quantities of explosives needed and without being seen?
Considering the absurdity here and the plausibility of the heavily damaged building losing structural support, combined with the lack of explosions, bulging of the building so noticeably that experts on site gauged the building as doomed to fall AND the video matching the collapse following catastrophic failure of a critical column perfectly- I think we can call "inside Job" busted.
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
My conclusion on the interviews of phd's commentary:
They are correct. It does look a lot like a controlled demolition. They are absolutely right in describing how it looks. However, looking like something doesn't make it into that something. It just means they look a lot alike and in this case- that is not surprising in the least that they would.
I'm sure these guys are very smart. I'm sure they are very good at designing buildings and architecture. But that doesn't mean they had any knowledge to contribute to the conspiracy theory- in fact, none provided any other than that it looked similar to a controlled demolition.
None gave any explanation as to how the building
should have looked coming down or even, if it could look differently coming down. This is because it would look the much the same at such a size.
Let's re-introduce psikeyboy back into the Universe:
That is a curious point by itself.
It is publicly available and the only curious point is your perseverance to straw men.
You deliberately leave blank critical areas of information in your presentation in order to give a slant to the proposed conclusion. Should you provide that critical information- your conclusion would not hold. Which is exactly why you're not a truther, but a douche with an agenda to push.
http://wtcdata.nist.gov/index2.htm
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909241
Any missing documents? Feel free to simply ask for them:
http://www.nist.gov/director/foia/
But regardless of the data on the building why can't you or anyone else build a physical model that can be collapsed by its top 15% or less? Why hasn't any engineering school given us such a demonstration?
psik
Again, you neglected key information here, such as structural integrity being compromised heavily, and the massive weight of the collapsing floors hammering down on everything below it.
NIST did model exactly that. Granted, the model was a computer simulation, not a physical model. This is better because the simulation can duplicate to high accuracy the actual physical factors involved whereas a small physical model would be very impractical given the behavior of girders and columns at specific lengths, fire damage, and the extremely massive weight involved. In order to build a physical model that could even come close to approximating the weight involved in WTC 1&2, the model itself would have to be over 8 stories tall. It would not even count as a
miniature building at that point. Although you still wouldn't be able to fit in the front door.
