Safe Mode: On
WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

I've noticed a lot of rhetoric calling those who question 9/11 idiots, retards, lunatics, #$!@ morons, dingbats, etc...etc...

This would imply that there is a much broader window of knowledge out there that many seem to have missed altogether when analyzing at this event.

If this is the case, can anyone please explain to me how the following is possible? Thanks!



NIST initially denied that WTC7 fell at freefall. In their final report in Nov 2008
they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its significance.


Added: Sep-12-2013 Occurred On: Sep-12-2013
By: lioneljoseph
In:
Conspiracy
Tags: WTC7, Freefall, 9/11
Views: 2322 | Comments: 176 | Votes: 10 | Favorites: 4 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Obviously experienced demolition crews helped excavate the huge debris piles that were WTC 1,2,6,7, & others in the area. The spread the debris over 16 acres and going over it never saw one piece of evidence of a controlled demolition. The larges ever controlled demolition had miles and miles of detonation cord, thousands of placed explosives that leave very easily identifiable marks of a demolition.

    The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that dozens if not hundreds of American de More..

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (3) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 

      It could have been "painted on" super-thermite. That may be the reason they chose fully fueled jets to activate it and the reason they didn't attempt to put out the fire in WTC 7. It's certainly not impossible or even unrealistic. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy or that I know who did it, but there is evidence of thermite and Super and/or Nano thermite can be "painted on" to structural columns, activated by a fire created by a large fire caused by jet fuel.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @Your Huckleberry 

      First you need to research these things you seem to believe are actually capable of doing the things you think.

      A better thing to research would be linear thermal expansion. Find out, like I did, how long the exterior beams were, then calculate the amount or thermal expansion a heated I beam incurs at different temperatures. Then find out the plumb tolerance for the exterior supportive structure, that is, how far out of plumb can it get before it stops supporting whatev More..

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Your Huckleberry "It could have been "painted on" super-thermite."

      Not even remotely. To melt the iron requires 6 times in weight the amount of thermite needed to melt the iron. I believe that assumes the iron is horizonal. Given the density of iron vs thermite, the size necessary would have to be like 55 gallon barrels around each column, not painted. See: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 

      I completely agree with you that thermite could NOT have been used. But Super Thermite and Nano Thermite are what could have been "painted" on. It is NOT the same thing as thermite. Look it up man. It's crazy shit.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Your Huckleberry  Are you sure it wasn't simply harmonic delamination caused by low frequency directed energy waves from the Al Qaeda Death Star, stealthily orbiting while concealed by an invisible cloak?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

  • bush was definitely responsible for this one

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (3) | Report

  • For all those people who think fire caused the building to collapse, look up the TVCC building fire in Beijing. The ENTIRE BUILDING was an inferno, the worst steel framed high rise building fire ever, the building was not even completed yet, contained over 700 high explosive pyrotechnic devices (big fireworks), burned for over 5 hours and didn't collapse. In fact, NO steel frame high rise has EVER collapsed from fire alone...EVER. But it happened 3 TIMES in one day? I think not.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (3) | Report

    • @Your Huckleberry "In fact, NO steel frame high rise has EVER collapsed from fire alone...EVER."

      Incorrect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 but 9/11 wasn't fire alone.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @k88n 

      Since when is a 4-story building a "high rise"? Since when is 11 floors of a 35 story builing partially collapsing a total pancake collapse and how exactly does that even remotely compare?

      Why don't you check out the TVCC Building fire instead of using other peoples obviously bias and uncomparable examples instead of looking into it for yourself? The BEST example of a comparable situation is TVCC in Beijing and it didn't collapse. Why not check it out for yourself. I chec More..

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Your Huckleberry 

      I'll be your Huckleberry… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 

      One more for your collection:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

  • So where's the control building?

    He should be showing a known demolition for comparison.

    An egghead with too much time on his hands.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Comment of user 'Mud Duck' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • blah blah blah

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Show me an example of how a building collapses when a plane runs into it and let's compare.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @Area6x A plane didn't hit WTC7 so why would that matter?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'billybobb' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @donavon james 
      Your right, a plane didn't hit B7...but two buildings ( that had been hit by two planes ) weighing approximately 1 Million metric tons collapsed beside it.

      That may have caused a bit of damage to B7 ( that and the fact it was on fire for nearly 7 hours ).

      No?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'billybobb' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Area6x You mean like the plane that hit the empire states building in 1945 and that building never collapsed?

      http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • It was sucked down to the earth by the polarizing micromagnetic fields caused by an abundance of tinfoil hats in the region.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @Kalazam 

      For those wondering NIST reviewed this exact same video data, and reversed their original claim of no free fall (9.8 meters per second squared) acceleration.

      They now admit it did in fact fall at the *FULL* (not 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% but....100%) acceleration of gravity..very key concept.

      So WTF?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'RickyBobby104' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Kalazam your so funny!! ahhaahh ahahhah ahahah...NOT

      Just another mindless zombie drinking diet cola sheeple

      Posted Sep-16-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'conect111' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Comment of user 'Ithinkthat1' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Ithinkthat1 

      That site gives me nothing in regards to this video, or maybe I'm missing it.

      Did you watch the video?

      WTC7 fell within 1% of 9.8m/s2

      How?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'Ithinkthat1' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @lioneljoseph 
      A little thing called gravity.
      did you know that physicists calculated how much time would be lost due to resistance of floors impacting each other in the two towers and it worked out to 27 milliseconds. In essence almost zero resistance at all once the collapse begins.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Ithinkthat1 Checked that site out, doesn't account for the acceleration of WTC7.

      Interestingly enough, it has a "free fall" page where it shows a graph of free fall acceleration, WTC1's acceleration, and WTC2's acceleration. The graph correctly shows that both towers fell well below free fall speed; however, it leaves out WTC7's acceleration on that graph.
      Source - http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

      The WTC7 page doesn't even mention the acceleration during collapse, o More..

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @DOWNPLANE Then why did they fall at 64% of free fall speed?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • So your telling me the US Goverment is corrupt and dirty. wow
    tell us something we dont already know.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'NorthernTwat' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • no fire fighters, let it burn

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @Airedale 

      Find me ONE SINGLE example of a steel framed high rise collapsing because of fire and I will listen. Good luck, you'll be searching forever because it has never happened, and there have been MUCH worse fires in high rise, steel framed high rise buildings and they didn't collapse. Instead I'm supposed to believe that it has NEVER happened in history, yet happened 3 TIMES in the same day? Sorry but no.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • I need to know how such a large section of the building's structure essentially instantaneously vanished as though it were thin air.

    The reason I say "thin air" is because the building fell straight down through itself as though it was literally traveling through air.

    How is this possible?

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

  • "...can anyone please explain to me how the following is possible?"

    Yes, and I'll start off by saying this high school teacher is an idiotic, retarded moron. Fast forward to the part where he references a drag race and the car is revving the engine- his claim being that NIST began the clock on the collapse too soon. Bullshit! Conveniently this moron cuts out 8 very important seconds from the beginning of the collapse… 8 seconds!

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnJ6jIij More..

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Brought to you by the same dumbasses who think bush is responsible for today's economy

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Troother...










    lolz I kid. Its SOOO easy these days to just say "Fuck it!" and not think, and then call people simple names.
    I commend you on your efforts.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @wasr103 
      No, what's easy is too stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes and keep parroting the same conspiracy theorist nonsense for 12 years in the face of reason, logic and, most importantly, the opinions and knowledge of people far, far more qualified to talk on the subject than paranoid schizophrenics sitting in their Mothers basements listening to alex jones and david icke.
      These idiots don't want to listen to reason so why respect their vacuous and plain ludicrous ideas?.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Donegal 

      If you can explain to me how, I'm all ears.

      Were not talking close to the acceleration of gravity...were talking 9.8m/s2

      Literally unencumbered free fall.

      It's not possible to instantaneously negate a large structural section of that building into the exact equivalent of thin air without some kind of generous assistance.

      If it is, I would like for you/anyone to explain how.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Donegal Wow, such a VISCERAL response to a simple comment of mine. Let me go look up some more $15 words to talk with you about this. Nah, fuck it. While I am not wholly convinced that the Jews, Israelis, GW, or some other nefarious force actually planted nano explosives all around the towers. Nor, do I say that the one plane half disappearing then reappearing, nor the markings being clearly seen...I am not mentioning ANY of that. We are talking about the free fall of tower SEVEN. Nothing hit More..

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @wasr103 
      I wasn't aiming the comment directly at you personally wasr, I was merely leaving it hanging out there as a counter balance to all the idiot nonsense that floats around these type of videos. In a perfect World this type of crap would/should be ignored...but there you have it.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (2) | Report

    • @Donegal Gotcha. +1 for honesty.

      Posted Sep-13-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

  • As soon as you mentioned "Controlled demolition" about 30 seconds in I stopped watching.
    Go fuck yourself uploader, narrator and anybody else involved in making this tripe!
    You are scum of the earth, even lower than the cunts that hijacked the planes!

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @it is a lot of monies thanks for that science lesson sir. feel free to slash your wrists

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @f00n Science? what the fuck you talking about idiot?

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @it is a lot of monies you obviously have no clue so im not gonna debate it with you.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @it is a lot of monies 

      This very same "tripe", as you put it, was reviewed by NIST, and it led to them reversing their original claim of no FULL (understand the physical concept/reality of full) free fall acceleration.

      They now admit it did in fact fall at the *FULL* acceleration of gravity, thus traveling straight down through itself as though it were dropping through thin air, not reinforced vertical steel columns, concrete, smashing into subsequent floors, etc..

      Again, t More..

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'morganson281' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • All you have to do is research TWA flight 800 to realize that the gov't is more than willing to use fake science, tamper with evidence, strong-arm it's own investigators and suppress eye witness testimony to achieve a preconcieved result.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @Your Huckleberry 

      ..and it would appear the guy that made this video proved this, and made NIST literally eat their own words.

      So badly that NIST had to change their report over it, and admit he was right.

      Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

      (1) | Report

  • The reason must be the cameras recording it were just recording TOO FAST

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Look, if the 9/11 disaster was truly a conspiracy, what hope would the victims have in a traditional trial? Would Bush and Cheney get on their knees and burst into tears in front of the world? It's delusional to think that any 'justice' can be extracted from them. The suicide bombers who did this murdered THEMSELVES as well as other people, they WANTED to die. Where do they stand on that philosophy?

    I think that truthers are people who just cannot accept that america was attacked on 9/11 and More..

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'morganson281' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • we should just kill the conspiracy 9/11 freaks

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • A large amount of debris destroyed the first 18 floors of south side of wtc7. here is a video the the north side clearly showing intense fire ravaging entire floors, ultimatly contributing to the failure of column 79, a critical support structure, leading to complete structural failure.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4SEhMpbo74#t=93
    http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
    http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=284

    also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk
     

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Blind people with science

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • How was it supposed to fall?

    Answer me that and back it up with proof then I might take you seriously.

    Be sure to include past instances of the same things happening to the same building.

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • as soon as this video started with big words.... the ignorant stopped watching and called truthers names. What I like to do is show them the laws of physics. When they fail to even understand any of it I say "now fuck off".

    Posted Sep-12-2013 By 

    (0) | Report