NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell

New York City. 2001. No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire but that’s exactly what investigators believe.


New York City. 2001. No tall building had ever
collapsed primarily due to fire but that’s exactly what investigators
believe happened to the 47-story World Trade Center Building
7 on September 11, according to a 3-year, comprehensive building and fire
safety investigation just completed by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, or NIST. World Trade Center 7 collapsed because of fires. We really have a new kind of progressive
collapse that we have discovered here, which is a fire-induced progressive collapse. In fact, we have shown for the first time
that fire can induce a progressive collapse. NIST used detailed data describing
the building and its contents to create the most complex computer
simulation of a structure collapse ever made. Falling debris from Tower 1 started
fires on 10 floors in Building 7. A break in the city water main from the
collapse of the towers disabled sprinklers in the lower half of WTC 7, allowing
fires on those floors to burn for 7 hours. The NIST computer model was validated
with evidence from videos, photos, witness accounts, and other data. It shows that heat from fires
expanded long support beams, causing connections and floors to fail. So you look at the floors failing here and
eventually this column 79 is going to buckle. It fails, and then the entire
vertical progression takes place. The buckled column caused additional
collapsed floors and falling debris that removed support from
adjacent interior columns. A chain reaction then caused other interior
columns to fail in quick succession. The outside shell of the building fell. The NIST team found no evidence that
explosives were involved in the collapse. Our analysis showed that even the smallest
explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it
occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels about a half a mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud
sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or witnesses
that we have talked to. The team found that World Trade Center
7’s design was generally consistent with the relevant building
codes when it was built. Our high rise buildings in this
country are very, very safe. Having a collapse of this
nature is a very rare event. Nevertheless, to ensure that buildings do not
collapse in fires even when sprinklers fail or are not present, the NIST team urges
re-evaluation of the fire performance of structures with long span floors and
other design elements similar to WTC 7. The team’s report also calls
for stronger codes, standards, and practices so that other
buildings don’t suffer the same fate.

100 thoughts on “NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell”

  1. its such a rare event as to be impossible in fact. Truther posts are about physics and whats possible and impossible
    This is impossible in physics if you accept the fire explanation.
    Im one of these nutcases who beleive laws of physics can not be changed. No wonder it took so long to come up with a totally laughable explanation once explosives or thermite were instantly removed from the so called investigation .
    Exactly like a murder case the first thing you do is to destroy any evidence.NOT

  2. Explosives werent even tested for.
    Reason?
    They didnt produce 130 decibels half a mile away.
    What the hell kind of explosion is that?
    It has to be a totally crap criteria on which to ignore evidence.
    Tons of eyewitnesses reported explosions.
    Isn't that a really pathetic excuse for not testing for explosives or thermite?

  3. good vid ,showing the official explanation.
    The actual truth is totally contridactory to this.
    Oh, we'll rule out explosives or thermite before we even start.
    No wonder it took 7 or 8 years to come up with something remotely possible explaining the totally impossible physics.

  4. "Looks like a perfect implosion"
    to me too! (didn't know fire can do that to steel).

    Gov needs to reconsider spending half a billion dollars on destroying U-233 needed to start THORIUM fission in molten salt reactors, ~1,000 better than conventional nuke plants! Instead, spend it on the LFTR development for complete SOLUTION to CO2 issues. (or at least spend it on advance solar automation and electrical storage…)

  5. wow the construction industry has heared the prayers! There won;t be any building collapsing in this unordinary way in the future.

  6. Super-nanothermite charges don't make much noise only lots of white smoke and cut big steel beams like butter. They can also pulverize concrete, create pyroclastic flows and heat the underlying deb rise to create molten pools of iron and steel just like was observed when the site was being cleared.

  7. A lot of important agencies including the secret service had offices in that building, Rudy let it slip in an interview, I think he regretted saying it after wards but it was too late by then he had already blabbed it out.

  8. Hey Shyam Sunder! You claim that NONE of the witnesses that you talked to heard explosions???!!!?!?! Well maybe you should of talked with Barry Jennings, William Rodriguez, Jay Schroeder or even Kevin McPadden who heard a frikin COUNTDOWN prior to building 7 being blown up!!! Get your head out of your ASS!!! History will remember you as being complacent in this huge cover up! People are waking up!!!

  9. As far as the "pull it" comment.. do people seriously think that the owner of the building calmly admitted in a public documentary that he was personally part of some kind of conspiracy to destroy the building? Seriously? "And that's when we decided to destroy the building, which of course required secret non-explosive devices planted months in advance. Did I mean we should pull the firefighters out? No, I meant the huge conspiracy of which I am a part. Yeah you can show this in the film." 😐

  10. @rubenpena Do people seriously think that the owner of the building calmly admitted in a public documentary that he was personally part of some kind of conspiracy to destroy the building? Really?

    And that's when we decided to destroy the building, which of course required secret non-explosive devices. We couldn't use explosives or people would know. Oh, did I mean we should pull the firefighters out? No, I meant the huge conspiracy of which I am a part. Yeah you can show this in the film.

  11. @rubenpena They are researching the physical data as to why the collapse occurred. Why would they explain that Larry Silverstein said "Pull it" to authorities? Simply saying "Pull it" is such an arbitrary phrase to put out that it can be taken in different ways. You can say he meant a controlled demolition or you can say he meant pulling out the people inside. Your argument holds no ground.

  12. Question for NIST: Why is there no explanation for the collapses? WTC 1/2/7.
    Since this was the main objective for the report. As of this date there is
    proposed hypothesis for the initiation of failure mode, And none of these hypothesis have been validated/proven through replicable experimentation. Not even the dataset for the computer simulations has been released for independent verification rendering the conclusions of the reports
    at best: well-documented suggestions.

  13. If you are going to be very scientific, open-minded, etc, then one has to at least recognize that their "computer model" looks NOTHING like the ACTUAL collapse. Therefore, their theory would have to be taken on the value of "authority" rather than any conclusive evidence.

  14. This is an excellent analysis of the collapse of WTC7. Not putting out the fires in the building which burned for 7 hours was the critical fact of the collapse. Steel beems are not static structures, they expand and contract even under normal temperatures. But will expand, sag and cause structure failures under extreme temperatures (1,000 degree F).

  15. @MikeG11986 So you have a strong education in physics and a career full of relevant professional experience? If not, I don't see how you're more qualified than NIST to comment.

  16. Go ahead click on the link for more info…….. oh wait it doesn't exist anymore. I guess you'll have to believe the cheesy computer animation for what it is.

  17. hey if your pants got on fire would you fall down like wtc 7 in a perfect manner or kinda like the witch from the wizard of OZ.

  18. If explosions caused the collapse you should be able to hear it? I thought it could collapse without any explosives XD fail

  19. "Investigators beLIEve"
    believe- verb= to have confidence in the truth,existence or reliability of something, although with out absolute proof that one is right in doing so. To suppose or assume; understand.

  20. Building 7's collapse was unusual – it's never happened before or since.
    Unusual in the extreme.
    Long-span floors expanding from the heat?
    Loss of support across the whole building?
    Sounds like dodgy science to me.
    How come they never even considered explosives?
    It's plain that the whole investigation was compromised.
    That's all.

  21. the problem is with conspiracy theories is that whenever some official voice comes out and "proves" that whatever happened wasn't a conspiracy it will never be good enough for some people who will always believe that its always Government propaganda and lies…

  22. this video is pure bull. nist didnt even mention wtc 7 in its initial reports until david chandler (a high school physics teacher) pointed out that wtc 7 was in a state of freefall. this is just more damage control from the right wing war machine.

  23. Those liberals who think that 9/11 was an inside job, have lost contact with reality to a degree that can only be described as psychotic. (To normal liberals, I understand that these 9/11 nut-jobs represent a small fraction of all liberals.) I'm truly in awe sometimes of how much liberals exude the very characteristics they profess to deplore. How about open-minded? These nut-jobs shout down anyone who disagrees with them and spew more non-sense. They have no clue about what they are saying.

  24. @RC365247 Look up the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Then come back here and explain to us how your point is not a text book example of a logical fallacy.

  25. @StevenM818

    The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received. The video and audio were not edited in any way by NIST. NIST received video footage from many different sources and audio levels may be different between these sources.

  26. you only need some diesel and a lighter to get rid of those core columns!…man those demolition experts are dumb! using shape charges…il do you're next demolition for $50 and a chocolate muffin.

  27. High school physics is enough to prove that NIST is lying.

    (And the computer model looks ridicously different from the actual collapse.)

  28. NIST said they found no evidence of explosives in any of footage they studied. Well, this video NIST released from a lawsuit against them has audio evidence of an explosion just before collapse. Link: /watch?v=783mtK_0zhE

    This explosion on this next link was from earlier in the day of WTC 7. Link:/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

    NIST, I request that you issue a retraction and correction of your statements that there were no audio evidence of explosives found in the videos that day.

  29. @ryangi5 actually, the same by inference can be said of yours. You do mean to suggest that since this is NIST, that it therefore be authoritative?

  30. @MikeG11986

    Uh, the National Institute for Science and Technology vs. some random guy on the Internet?

    I'll take the NIST's word on this thank you very much.

  31. Why has NIST failed to produce a scientifically replicable experiment in an effort to prove the theory`s probability/validity? The failure modelling software being used would necessarily allow freefall over several floors and countless structural members. On accord with the fundemental laws of physics , this is factored into any physics modelling software. The deceleration between floors/structural members on the vertical axis would always be in a measurable quantity. NIST`s appearantly does not

  32. Why is anyone surprised that NIST is concealing the demolition? NIST is not an independent research institution but is an agency of the US government which automatically renders their evidence suspect. Oddly their FDS-simulator assumes no thermal-conductivity of the steel, the collapse of the building in the model shows contorting of the structure that is not evident in the video, and they rule out demolition entirely on the basis that the noise from WTC7 did not exceed 120-decibels a mile away.

  33. The Abu from Simpsons states:

    We really have discovered a new type of collapse here!!!!!!!
    A fire induced progressive collapse..

    What a sick joke.

    Haven't seen explosions? well I've seen them in HD..

  34. @iBlindGame What is stopping you from conducting your own simulation using the same Data as NIST other than the fact that you don't have the knowledge or resources to do so?

  35. Did NIST recommend that a criminal investigation be initiated regarding the willful destruction of forensic evidence, i.e. selling the World Trade center 7 steel for scrap prohibiting a forensic examination of one single piece of steel from WTC 7?

  36. Why go to a university to get an engineering or physics degree when you can just look at TV footage of the collapse of World Trade Center buildings and become an instant Ph.D., complete with experience in strength-of-materials, combustion, explosives, dynamics, the ability to do 3D finite element calculations mentally, as well uncover sabotage plots and the national security secrets of governments? It sure beats studying math, reading textbooks, and actually thinking; reality is too much work.

  37. Where is the explanation of free-fall speed?

    "Outside shell" of the building collapsed? What a bizarre statement.

    Hundreds of witnesses, firemen, reporters, etc, HEARD and were IN large explosions in the basements. WTF?

    The symmetry of the fall is also unexplained.

    This smells of a poorly done COVER-UP.

  38. @eleutheromaniac You're right. It is NOT a "rare" event. It is an event that has NEVER happened, therefore could never have been predicted. But somehow, firemen, police reported that the "building was coming down," for four hours, maybe longer?

    Who knew?

  39. @usnistgov If you had nothing to hide, you would respond @9Talent11. It looks like you started with your conclusion and worked backwards.

  40. OK…it never ceases to amaze me how the 911 CT Teenagers can spot tons of CD evidence, but not a single Senior NYFD Chief can see anything of the kind.
    Sorry 911 Nutters…when you can explain that one, I'll listen. Till then you are simply…well…Nutters.
    Try to seek lives.

  41. @MikeG11986 I hold a physics degree. The testimony presented in this video seems to be perfectly reasonable to me.

    So I'm curious: how did you develop your intuition of physical principles?

  42. NIST calls this a progressive collapsed! WTC7 fell altogether in one motion in 7 seconds! Not progressively! They cant even model it on the Computer because its not possible! Thermate does not make a bang. Why didn't WTC5 WTC6 not fall after been eating by fire? How did the BBC report it had fallen 21 minutes before it happened? Why don't NIST show there model data and have it peer reviewed? Yow know one day people will realised you lied and then what will you do?

  43. NIST never explained how this building could have collapsed in free fall speed. The only way that is possible is with explosivs.

    NIST is corrupt.

  44. What? The cullums pushed? Thought warm metal got softer and those columns rather would hang than push. Have this theory been tested on real scale models and found to be conclusive?

  45. NIST has requested that I watch this 3 minute video about the collapse of WTC 7. They have broken down 10,000 pages of research in 3 minutes. Let's break it down.

    (0:15)
    "No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire."

    That claim is still a FACT to date!

    Continued…..

  46. Molten metal?
    I guess like most conspiracy theorists, you don't know much about metals. Some metals can melt in a small bonfire. Lead melts at a little above 300°C. Aluminum will melt in office fires, and it obviously did on 9/11. Shall I go on?
    Are you claiming "nano-thermite" made the towers melt and collapse like ice cream melting in the sun? Hilarious theory. Thanks for making me laugh.

  47. Pure nonsense.
    The free fall occured when the building already had gone through internal collapse, and 1.5 seconds into the collapse of the facade.
    Are you claiming "they" blew up the building with explosives when the building was already collapsing anyway?!?
    With explosives that make no noise. At daytime in the middle of New York.

  48. "And none of these hypothesis have been validated/proven through replicable experimentation."
    Well, go ahead and build yourself a new twin tower, crash a plane into it, and voila, experiment done. Sounds good?
    I'll wait for your results which you will hopefully publish in some engineering magazine rather than going the preferred conspiracy theorists's way of uploading it to your obscure blog.

  49. I´m sorry but they say "No tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire" but they didn´t even test for explosives, which as we know would and has caused buildings to collapse.
    I would probably believe them, if they had tested for eplosives and made a simillar video investigating controlled demolision, then compared the two concluding fire was more likely.
    But this is not science.

  50. Sorry, but you can't be trusted. None of us can. If that information were to be released and engineers looked at it…well, that would be bad.

  51. " Highrise buildings in this country are very, very safe. Having a collapse of this nature is a very rare event"
    In fact, it's so rare it only happened once, and that was on 911. Therein lies the problem with the whole NIST and 911 Commission report. Everything from the buildings falling to the failure of our air defense is attributed to very rare events. All these "very rare events" just happened to occur on the same day in the same place. Too much coincidence to be believable.

  52. " Highrise buildings in this country are very, very safe. Having a collapse of this nature is a very rare event"
    In fact, it's so rare it only happened once, and that was on 911. Therein lies the problem with the whole NIST and 911 Commission report. Everything from the buildings falling to the failure of our air defense is attributed to very rare events. All these "very rare events" just happened to occur on the same day in the same place. Too much coincidence to be believable.

  53. Hello! I am an engineer in Brazil. The engineering world abe that WTC7 was achieved by WTC1 to collapse. You take a blow from one iron bar in the face will not stand. Worse as the burning wreckage of WTC1 that WTC7 fell into the water and did not. The fire system was destroyed as well as water pipelines street. There is no mystery. WTC1 was no fire and the water to clear. Firefighters confirm the WTC7 and not the CIA. If you want I can send links and videos on the engineering 9/11.

  54. ok considering most these comments are old… ill just break down what im reading from idiots.
    FIRST TIME IN HISTORY = proof of inside job…. yea, no it doesnt mean squat very rare things happen all the time, in no way does it shows a conspiracy.
    They didnt test for explosives. Well in science you dont look for something to prove it wasnt. you look whats there then make the hypothisis. nothing screamed explosives so yea..
    nano thermite . no test has showed nano thermite was there.

  55. Wasn't most of the structural evidence exported to China for scrap before crime investigators had a chance to look at it?

  56. On the clips the model does not fall vertically. First one side, without symetry. Could you please show the model overimposed with the video point of view, with transparent layers.

  57. where is the explosive "bloom" of dust and concrete (like WTC 1&2) from building 7…ejecting large portions of 7's walls blocks away and into and into adjacent buildings. why no dust bloom why do they appear so different, yet have same causes?? Fires leading to steel weakening and collapse… just wondering why…still 12 years later…

  58. it's called LOGIC. the reason fires have not brought buildings down in that manner b4 or after 911 is cos it is IMPOSSIBLE. the FACT that the building fell EXACTLY like a building being demolished ie symmetrically and at free fall speed also is a smoking sun. if nist was right the building would have fallen towards the damage, very much like a tree being chopped down. even engineers and architects have a problem with nist's misinformation. look up architects and engineer for 911 truth

  59. They needed three years to fabricate this rediculous advertising for their hilarious lie. Hahahaha … And they payed some indian artist to present this nonsense.
    It is a very pretty simulation you see, just having obviously nothing to do with WTC7. Where is the free fall?
    Mr. Sunders needed two years to learn the nonsense he says by heart. Thank You for playing…

  60. come on, we actually should believe this explanation.
    In Building 7 was the Nuclear bunker of NY's major, so this huge building fell cause of fire, like never before or after a steel building like this fell in nearly free fall speed.
    how could all of the structure fail at the same moment, when there were only fires in some parts of some levels of building 7 ?

  61. Impossible? So then I suppose you think a steel building won't fall no matter how long it burns or how hard? Arnie, we know for a fact that heat has the ability to bend steel, so buildings simply can not be impervious to the effects of continuous fire.

    Also no, WTC7 did not fall into it's own footprint, there are aerial pics that demonstrate this.

    The building would not have fallen in the manner you suggest, it was engineered to fall as safely as possible.

  62. Symmetry. Through the point of greatest resistance. Into its own footprint. Perfectly. In 6 seconds. Comon now.

    50 videos right here on Youtube of firemen and others saying "get out of the way, this building is going to fall." Countless eyewitness accounts of "count downs."

    NIST itself admitting free fall for a short period. Zero resistance. Steel? It offered zero resistance. The truth will come out.

    I note that all posts to this video undergo censorship before posting.

  63. uh huh … so.. let's REVERSE the question … why have other buildings that have had burning passenger jets imbedded in them in a very similar fashion remained completely intact, some burning for years? Why didn't all this mumbo-jumbo BS 'science' have the same effect in those cases? NONE of these other building ever eventually collapsed… the fires eventually burnt out, leaving the structures'
    shell.

  64. In their analysis of this collapse NIST have made many errors. The connection at column 79 that they say failed has been misrepresented by them, They got dimensions of some elements wrong, and missed out other crucial elements entirely. Also, their thermal expansion calculations for the beams to the east of the girder that they say failed are just plain.. If the correct elements, figures and equations are used it becomes clear that NISTs explanation for WTC7 is pure fiction.

  65. Why are you easy on a modern building getting severely compromised that way?

    I understand the tragic circumstances surrounding the event, but are really the responsible of those shortcoming not being asked for answers?.

    "Lack of water" is actually a poor excuse, After an earthquake or other catastrophic events, water pipes are easily cut and disrupted. How many buildings out there may suffer WTC 7's fate?

  66. It's not impossible. Reason it hasn't happened before is because firefighters have been able to extinguish the fire before it brings the building down. In this case the fire lines had been destroyed by the WTC collapse and so fire fighters did not have the means necessary to bring the fire under control. Instead the fires continued to rage hour and hour and eventually the structure gave in and the building collapsed. This is not the first time something happens for the first time in history.

  67. The bldg didn’t fall symmetrically into its own footprint; it fell east to west causing millions of dollars worth of damage to the Verizon bldg across the street.
    6 seconds….try 18.
    The firemen were told 3 hrs prior to the collapse to leave the area because they knew the bldg was unsafe and going to collapse.
    Countless eyewitnesses to a count down; try one, that’s it, one lone guy.
    When a steel column buckles how much resistance does it offer?

  68. When a plane crashes, massive resources are put into recovering, examining and identifying every piece possible. Sometimes the ocean is dredged to recover wreckage (cf Swissair 111).

    By contrast, despite being a mass-murder scene, and despite the unprecedented manner of collapse, the steel from WTC was shipped to China for recycling, leaving NIST with only "videos, photos, witness accounts and other data".

    A simple question for NIST: didn't you find that ever so slightly extraordinary?

  69. Can I tell my opinion?If it was damaged on the right side,79th column and nearby,why it fell straight like in a controled demolition?Actually I hate all the conspirative teorists,but I think,that the owners of the building used the moment to collect the insurance:))

  70. “The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.
    “I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down – all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in “total ruins.

    Barry Jennings – 9/11 Early Afternoon ABC7 Interview

     The first,absolutely clean,outspoken and unaffected interview with Barry Jennings,just after his rescue on 9/11/01.He is speaking about what had happened straight after the first plane strike.He was at the 23th floor and he heard the first explosion,much before the towers collapse.
     He died in August 2008,couple of days before the final NIST report about wtc7 ,in "unclear circumstances"…Sounds like an episode from the parody with Leslie Nielsen-Police Squad.

  71. 0:15 – Incredible bad quality CBS' West Street video, compared to the version in the Naudet documentary "9/11". What happened? Did the TV networks refuse to release complete unedited HQ raw videos? If so, then why didn't the NIST National Construction Safety Team use its sub-poena power given by the National Construction Safety Team Act? Or was the NIST Team not interested in RAW HQ and COMPLETE 9/11 footage of WTC 7 at all?
    The WTC 7 collapse videos released through NIST FOIA are heavily degraded, mostly due to VHS quality loss. 2:00 – How can anybody perform precise analyses on such ruined material? Visual and acoustical analyses?
    I think, the NCS Team knows what the GIGO principle is.

  72. 0:27 – A three year investigation into WTC 7? 2005 through 2008? That's not true!
    Many of WTC 7 aspects such as structural system, if comply with New York City Building Code, emergency power, alterations to fire safety/structural system, fire supression, fireproofing and HVAC were investigated much earlier by NIST WTC NCSTeam, parallel to the Towers investigation (Aug. 2002-Sep. 2005).
    That's proven by the 2005 public draft/final reports NCSTARs 1-1, 1-1A, 1-1C, 1-1D, 1-1E, 1-1G, 1-1I, and 1-1J. NCSTARs 1-4B, C, and D. NCSTAR 1-6A regarding WTC7's fireproofing Monokote MK-5.
    You can see a summary of all WTC7 relevant NIST reports in report NCSTAR 1-9, pp. 6-7, PDF pp. 50-51.

    From Sep. 2005 through Nov. 2008 only the remained aspect, the structural collapse of WTC 7, was investigated (WTCI Project 9, before Sep. 2005 planned as to be part of Project 6).
    In fact, the over three years, Sep. 2005-Nov. 2008, was a huge delay in the NIST's WTC7 investigation. That was actually the reason why the collapse of WTC7 was segregated from WTCI Project 6 ("Structural Collapse") and was put into a new Project, Project 9 ("Structural Collapse of WTC 7").

  73. 2:04 – One should examine the content and quality of the WTC 7 collapse videos obtained by NIST, then it would become quickly apparent why they didn't hear any explosion sounds.
    Lesson #1: Never make audio analyses on TV post-production mess and VHS degraded garbage!

    That the explosion sounds weren't picked up by of the videos is clearly not true, rather a lie by Mr. Sunder! See and hear NIST Cumulus clip "CBS-Net Dub5 09.avi". What's about that, Mr. Sunder?
    Not to speak about the witnesses. Maybe you have talked with "wrong" witnesses, who were miles away or not in NYC at this time at all, Mr. Sunder?

  74. Sorry column were blown with explosives, only way a building like that is going to fall in  its own foot print

  75. Give me a break.  If you're stupid enough to believe this then you deserve to be lied to and manipulated. 

  76. He actually said "We actually have a New kind of progressive collapse We have DISCOVERED here which is a "Fire Induced Collapse" and In "Fact" We've shown for the FIRST TIME that Fire can induce a collapse". That is NOT a scientifically sound conclusion! We don't know what Happened But We can Make up a New discovery to Explain our position! And we don't need Proof "Trust Us aahh come on come on why would we lie we love you so much Trust us we love you long time come on if not for me then do it for Uncle Sammy you know you want to come on Your only Cool if you believe us"! This is supposed to be a Group of Geniuses Top of their fields no wonder Levees fail and disaster befalls our Infrastructure LOOK who's making the rules it would be funny if so many people died as a result of their guidelines.

  77. Who said anything about traditional explosives? Obviously those would be out of the question. Is it possible that thermite could have weakened structure? Let's not forget what was found in an independent study in the dust. What happened to the fireproof coating on the steele? Did you take this into account in your "simulation"? One day the truth will come out, I hope it's in my lifetime so the families of the victims can finally have some peace.

  78. I think the comments on this video clearly demonstrate how rampant paranoid delusions are in the human population.

  79. The statement "We have shown for the first time that fire can produce a progressive collapse," illustrates why so many people don't believe this. Not saying it's a conspiracy, but every time it's "the first time" something "rare" happens, you're going to have people calling bullshit. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *