Russia

You have looked at dozens of photographs on the Internet, yet you have failed to locate a pool of sparks flowing like lava.

Is that not significant?

It is not the responsibility of the truther community to determine who committed the crime. Law enforcement terrorism units, Homeland Security, and the FBI are responsible for conducting this type of investigation. Can examine the science and disciplines surrounding the collapse in order to determine whether the official narrative is accurate or not. You and your "buddies" still do not seem to be getting this point. 

Keep insisting there is no evidence for the controlled demolition of building seven, which only makes you look foolish. . Others have demonstrated for at least a decade that this statement is false.

Is there any evidence?

For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed solely due to fire. That alone makes this event very unusual, happening periodically over the course of history. I would not disagree with your point of view.  

 Let us take a look at what is known to be true. 

As the organization responsible for the mainstream engineering world's study of the collapse, NIST's conclusions matter.

We have discussed on this site many times how the trigger event that triggered the collapse is terribly flawed and contains many errors, flaws, and omissions. NIST must therefore consider other explanations as to why building seven collapsed. 

Their refusal to release their raw data for outside analysis is yet another indication they do not trust their work. NIST's virtual model of the collapse is inaccurate as there is no freefall at all, so how can you claim that the building collapsed due to fire in the way you believe it did?

You do not indicate where the freefall took place in the NIST model !!!!!. Ignore that point.

If you do not wish to have a serious discussion, then so be it. . Please locate the freefall in the NIST virtual model, and display it to all users here. It is not my intention to close my mind. I wish to offer you a chance to prove me wrong. I will wait to see how honest you are. 

Also, the NIST collapse of Seven is not symmetrical.

The building's architecture collapsed symmetrically. This final collapse in the NIST model shows deformations and looks as if someone put their hand into the building, closed it tightly, and began crushing it. Video evidence of the actual collapse does not display any of these features. The walls are coming down in a straight line. You will see all the deformations on video if all those deformations are really occurring inside the building.

As a result of NIST not understanding what took place within the building that day, perpetuating lies and making mistakes, and hiding the truth continuously. In a situation where their own technical engineering is inconsistent, confusing, and does not make sense, they can not expect people to accept their explanation.

T                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

This is not my responsibility or the responsibility of the truther community. On the contrary, NIST and debunkers claim there was freefall due to fire in the collapse. In which of the virtual models does freefall occur?

That is why you avoid this at all costs because it is bullshit. 

After denying freefall for seven years, NIST's final report stated that it had occurred during their new, nonsensical three-stage process. However, the virtual model does not match the data on paper. 

The truther movement has relied on this fact to determine NIST is lying here, and the first statement they made regarding freefall reflects their true, accurate assessment of that collapse. In order to cover up, they needed to act quickly since they would be forced to take into account that someone actually brought down the building on September 11, 2001  

You got a chance, but you ignored it again. Can't debate the debunkers because they avoid the subject.

In any case, the Earth is not round, so we must deal with that. Given that the Earth is not flat, I do not want to waste time discussing it.

You may comprehend that freefall is an object falling under the influence of gravity alone, but you have not incorporated the significance of this event in terms of the collapse of seven. In one instance, a person was working in the field of engineering ( who came on here and explained why freefall could not occur in a building like seven. He has not posted since unforunately.. This is not merely my opinion. 

By finally acknowledging the freefall, NIST is acknowledging that the building is falling through its structure with no resistance.

In a moment, I will explain why there are flaws with the current NIST hypothesis,  

 Exactly how could fires on a few floors destroy 80 plus interior and perimeter columns in less than a second across the entire building's corners? The revised NIST paper contains no information regarding how this was achieved. Because freefall occurred, all mainstream engineering reports, including the NIST report, must also detail how it happened in a fraction of a second. However, they do not.

 The support low down in the building was there just before it collapsed, but then something happened and within a second it all disappeared and the top half fell. In the case of a natural collapse due to fire alone, the falling building collapses and demolishes the supporting structure below. In this scenario, freefall would not be possible. 

The 9/11 truth version of the collapse makes the most sense. 

 Explain why further, doubt you get this?

The NIST virtual model of the collapse depicts the descending building crushing the lower half. That's not what happened (explained above)

The debunkers do not seem to understand this and NIST is promoting lies about a buildup to a freefall. Since there was no build-up to freefall, they be forced to accept the truther argument that the building was destroyed by explosives. This was avoided.

Instead, NIST said the final collapse occurred in three stages (revised paper) 

 Stage 1 NIST analysis is fiction. There is also an error here because there is second building sits right above the steel core and next to the penthouse, so the timing of the collapse can be determined accurately.In any case, Stage 1 doesn't even match the final collapse features. The claim is that the acceleration in Stage 1 is less than gravity, but if you look at their virtual model and the collapse on video, the building has fallen for two seconds already.

 At this point of the collapse, stage 1 the building would already be in freefall. And that is how we know NIST stage one breakdown is all nonsense. 

Stage 1 is fiction. NIST is a lying organization, so they could not even match the stages 1 to 3 accurately here..

I will illustrate my point with a video from NIST. Obviously not stupid, but are too headstrong to recognize the validity of the truthers' arguments about the collapse.

Watch the video of the collapse here falling 18 stories. The video was stopped at 2 seconds into the fall of seven. I captured a screenshot of the video. Second screenshot (where it matches the NIST virtual model). 

Can you see where I highlighted it in red?  First screenshot.

This is due to the bending of beams, girders, and floor space. According to NIST, the buckling phase occurs in the first stage with a time of 0 to 1.75 seconds.

There is no rocket science behind the fact that the building began falling two seconds before this point in both the video and screenshot. It is impossible for the building to still buckle two seconds after the fall of seven. 

It wouldn't be possible to have freefall here if energy was used to crush and bend members. Guys should know that Freefall is not limited to one area, but occurs from all directions. That blue fill in NIST's model shouldn't be there. 

By finally acknowledging the freefall, NIST is acknowledging that the building is falling through its structure with no resistance.

Considering that the NIST model exhibits resistance after two seconds of collapse, how is a freefall caused by fire possible?

Before this collapse, freefall had already been achieved for two or more seconds.

I would love to see a science teacher on this forum, as I would like to see what he has to say. Model belongs to NIST and has nothing to do with conspiracy theorists.  

The video of the real collapse at 2 seconds and the model at 2 seconds clearly indicate that something is amiss.

There is no way that the building can collapse as shown in the video until all 8 floors of low support have been removed. See the NIST model. As shown on the right side( blue area) at 2 seconds after the collapse of seven, the floors and columns are still buckling 100 percent.

The laws of Newton's motion are well known. Give it another go and see if you can figure it out. Provide a truthful response. 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NIST_

WTC_7_collapse_model_with_debris_impact_damage.ogv

FiniteNIST element model First screenshot.

rests here. Are you in agreement?

The entire shaded blue area represents the steel frame of the building, inside columns, connections, concrete, windows, and everything on each floor? Are you in agreement?

Forward on the model. Second screenshot.

We now have a collapse on the left (the east face of the north face). The blue shaded area collapsed, all the beams, girders, concrete, every bolt and connection falling to the ground. Is that correct? At the end of the collapse, all that blue section was gone. Do you agree?

Now let's talk about why freefall matters. The blue shade must be completely gone from the east side to the west side on eight floors for freefall to occur. There must be no resistance anywhere on those floors. A scientific fact, not just some speculation or assumption. 

Third screenshot.

Again, let us examine the NIST model in which they claim that freefall is consistent with their analysis. This will be highlighted in the paint once again. The collapse began at the lower end of the building. In order to collapse from A to B, eight floors would need to be destroyed. As long as half of the other side of the building provides structural resistance, there can be no freefall. Freefall means zero resistance, nothing can make this clearer.  In NIST's model, all these beams bend after two seconds of the final collapse (Black DOT AREA) By using energy for other purposes, such as destroying beams and columns, you negate freefall. That is a matter of science. 

The NIST model presents a second issue, and there are numerous others.

Where is the freefall happening? What are they thinking occurred? How long until freefall begins? Between two and four seconds after the final collapse?

There is no logic in their thinking since the building has collapsed halfway down already at 4 seconds

In order for freefall to occur, 84 steel columns must be destroyed across the entire structure.  In fact, the model NIST claims to be scientific fact is anything but that.

Once a science teacher or even someone working in the field of engineering or science sees what NIST is attempting to pass off as the actual event, they should state the same. 9/11 came and went, and nobody really looked at their work closely. Their model does not include free fall. You may close the thread, but I am happy with the knowledge that I am not living in denial.

That is not bait, but a request for an honest discussion. Is there freefall in the NIST model, yes or no. Is it as simple as that?

It appears you do not understand the evidence I am showing you for reasons I am unable to grasp,

Don't even want to go there, as it upsets your world view regarding the collapse on 9/11.

Answer the questions in post 83 and examine each stage of the collapse. You can notice the places where there are problems. For instance, the last screenshot shows no freefall is possible, yet this is the claim that freefall occurred and was the result of the fire. 

One may find it difficult to comprehend how one can disregard the history of the West for the past twenty-odd years. Two military campaigns have been conducted with disputed facts and even fake evidence. During the 2003 Iraq war, two leaders of the so-called free world decided to invade Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/.11 and did not care that the military action was authorized by the UN. In your bizarre version of reality, only the facts are presented to the public all the time and the intelligence is infallible. There are so many propagandas, manipulations, and fakery all the time, that you have to work through it all to find the truth.  

This conflict is on their doorstep, not thousands of miles away in another country. I can understand the Russian point of view. Ukraine and Russia have a shared history. Why did the west think it was acceptable for Ukraine to join a military alliance hostile to Russia? We that not naive here this basically a civil war.