I've already encountered much of the "debunking" literature. Most of it successfully debunks several straw man arguments, but nothing debunks the laws of physics. Building 7 in freefall is a smoking gun. BTW, NIST eventually admitted it was in freefall.
[–]Butterbread0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I have to admit that building 7 freefall is extremely strange.
However, is there footage from the other side of that building? Apparently, the collapse of the center of the building happened first, sort of leaving a shell that started collapsing about 1-2 seconds after. I believe this scenario is supported by the few images I have seen of the damage before collapse. Put another way, half the building started falling and then the other half began. This seems like a possible reason for the freefall.
[–] belphegorsprime ago
I've already encountered much of the "debunking" literature. Most of it successfully debunks several straw man arguments, but nothing debunks the laws of physics. Building 7 in freefall is a smoking gun. BTW, NIST eventually admitted it was in freefall.
[–] Butterbread ago (edited ago)
I have to admit that building 7 freefall is extremely strange.
However, is there footage from the other side of that building? Apparently, the collapse of the center of the building happened first, sort of leaving a shell that started collapsing about 1-2 seconds after. I believe this scenario is supported by the few images I have seen of the damage before collapse. Put another way, half the building started falling and then the other half began. This seems like a possible reason for the freefall.