What's the science behind this?

A fire (caused by debris) would obviously make a building free fall. Don't you know anything, OP?

I've seen houses that were on flames for days and didn't fall down. How did an entire office building collapse in a matter of hours simply from some falling debris?

1 per a thousand posts in Veeky Forums, a big redpill:
PA plane which crashed in Shanksville was meant for WTC7. Some jet fighter driven by someone unware of the inside job missiled it before it happened, though.

OBVIOUSLY the CIA secretly planted explosives everywhere in that building for no reason and then accidentally set them off, even though the actual false flag scenario didn't involve a plane crashing into building 7 which might warrant explosions, fire or collapse. DUUUH.

Because it was built differently than those other buildings.

It was left burning for hours. Then some of the middle columns failed triggering a domino effect.

Why did they demolish the buildings and fly planes into them? It seems like just flying planes into the buildings would be more than enough.

There were no planes, of course. Just cruise missiles. "No wreckage", remember? All footage was digitally edited, all witnesses paid and bought or subject to mass hallucinations.

Wake up, sheeple.

Why are people like this even on Veeky Forums?

Are those houses carrying hundreds of tons above them?

I mean, with sufficient support you can have fires that burn for decades, and without support you can have buildings that collapse without any fire whatsoever.

Also, if you ever go to a coal mine please abstain from smoking. Just trust me on that one.

wtc 7 had 30 central support columns. you're telling me some debris fell on top of the building, and somehow that caused a massive fire within the core of the building which brought it down at near-freefall speed within hours? Hell, why don't we use that method to bring down buildings when we demolish them since it seems so effective

>at near-freefall speed
At what other speed would a structure collapse under gravity, you doofus?

Because all of the newer buildings in downtown Manhattan are glass castles especially all the wtc buildings. Did nobody notice the huge chunks of airplane exit through the other side? Clear through the support columns? I'd argue that no building in Manhattan after the 1950s would survive a free burning fire let alone huge chunks of burning skyscraper fall on it+ the earth literally shaking beneath it's feet.

Also, the side of building 7 we see in all these photos is the side facing away from the collapse

no it doesnt...wtc's were build to withstand a fire of hours...

really Veeky Forumsentific answers here...an I thought /x/ was edgy as fuck

the plane that was meant to hit it (heading for NYC aswell) was unfortunately shot down and they had to pull one of the least believable lies ever.

It was pulled. To claim otherwise is totally idiotic. Nothing happened to this building sufficient to make it fall down the way it did. 9/11 official report is such a pile of horseshit that it's insulting.

>Cut out first 10 seconds where you can see the penthouse fall through half the building
>Hurr what happened
OP, take a look at the upper lefthand corner of the building in the thumbnail. You should be able to see the sky through a few of the windows of the upper floors on the left side. There used to be a penthouse there.

.t CS majors

>buildings don't free fall after big fires caused by debris
That's is where you are wrong, user. Refer to peer reviewed sources for further information.

At a higher speed, because there should be some, at the very least some, resistance from the numerous columns which were on floors without a fire.

>be CIA
>plan to also crash a plane into the WTC7
>on its way to Manhattan, some random jet fighter wastes it
>"fuck!, wat nao?"
>use the thermite anyway, goyim will believe it
>WTC7 becomes the first modern building ever to ever free fall from a fire

>Big chunk of building gouged out by falling debris from other two buildings
>Half the building collapses from the inside
>whar's the resistance CIA confirmed

Veeky Forums BTFO:

collective-evolution.com/2017/09/10/2-year-study-confirms-world-trade-centre-7-brought-down-via-controlled-demolition/

>Now, new research conducted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has confirmed that the official NIST explanation surrounding how the WTC7 building fell is completely false.

>The study took place over two years and cost about $300,000 to perform. Leory Hulsey Ph.D., P. E., S.E., was the lead researcher on the study. He is the civil and environmental engineering department chair at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and well recognized in his field.

>this new study remodelled and recreated the entire day’s events around building 7 and proved very eloquently that the explanation is impossible and that the only logical and physical explanation is via a controlled demolition.

>University of Alaska Fairbanks
What method did they use? What data did they have access to? Do you have a link to the study?

there is a link to more info on the study
ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
which isn't working for me

and also a separate google drive file which has the data and analysis, it's 1 GB

> A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18.

>At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion.

>The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

also here is a pdf of one of the powerpoint presentations, seems interesting:

ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

>Ph.D., P. E., S.E.
And that's how you know it's bullshit. I've never seen a credible source flaunting titles around.

It's like IQ. Smart people generally don't brag about theirs.

there have been far, far worse fires in similar high-rises than the one at 7 WTC, and not one of them has ever caused a structural collapse. The building just becomes a burnt-out husk. Fires have never caused skyscrapers to collapse except (supposedly) at the WTC

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

I'm confused as to what this study is trying to establish, as there was never any suggestion that the building collapsed only due to fire. There was also significant structural damage from falling debris which eventually lead to collapse after fire did further damage and weakened the steel.

How many of them were hit by another falling building?

if the debris damage that caused the collapse was mostly from damage to one corner, then why did all four corners of the building collapse simultaneously and make the building pancake at free-fall speed? Why did it collapse straight down all at once instead of gradually toppling, starting at the damaged corner and pulling the rest of the building down with it?

It didn't, the opposite corner collapsed first and the entire structure failed soon afterwards

youtube.com/watch?v=BocmECgGCj8

Why do troofers always beg the question?

Have a look at the size of the east penthouse that you can see collapse through the building before it goes down. It takes up almost a third of the roof, and tears out the central structure of the building as it collapses down and across to the west. Then a few seconds later what is essentially just the outer shell of the building collapses down.

Why would any of this happen in a controlled demolition?

t. 9/11 Commission executive