Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7?

"We" would if we had read chapter 5.
Screenshot_20230417-211557_Samsung Notes.jpg

It took me less than 2 minutes to find this, btw.
I meant that a way of making this concrete would be to describe the features of new designs that are specifically meant to prevent a WTC7-style collapses and/or the retrofits to existing buildings that have since been made.

I was aware that the report made recommendations.
 
I meant that a way of making this concrete would be to describe the features of new designs that are specifically meant to prevent a WTC7-style collapses and/or the retrofits to existing buildings that have since been made.

I was aware that the report made recommendations.
So you're aware your line of discussion would take you straight off topic?

I'm pretty sure I've seen this discussed here before, btw.
You were asking the same questions 2.5 years ago, but apparently forgot the answers.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...ccount-of-the-wtc-collapses.11323/post-241963 .
And make a new topic if you wish to pursue this anew.
 
The report's model has the building imploding on one edge, the footages show the building literally crumble like a pancake. I consider that a huge discrepancy. Also I find no credible explanation to why the similar building 6 did not crumble from a much bigger impact and fire. Building 6 was between the towers and building 7. Completely burnt out, getting more debree than the further building. And it stood? Why? How is that possible? I mean the report might explain why building 7 came down, because I admit gravity is the actual underlying reason. But it does not really explain what the hell happened imo.

I also believe the "FAQ" of the NIST report (or the report itself) does not even remotely explain why the model looks different to actual footages. The model and the report shows the fall to start at one edge, clearly. The actual videos show all the edges come down in unison.
 
Back
Top