>>11565977It's a model. Unless you know the exact form of the damage that no one has photos of, and you have perfect parameters, you're not going to get an exact result. The model is clearly inaccurate in the last few seconds and the outer shell of the building does not deform nor tilt that much, but it demonstrates features of the collapse that are easily overlooked and trains the eye to look for what's happening inside the building instead of what's outside. Watch the top of the building, watch the windows, watch how the building flexes and loses its squareness in the final moments of the collapse. It's really obvious everything fell in on that left side and the hole radiated left to right from that spot. There's not a sound structure behind the interior walls that's being miraculously vaporized from the bottom as I used to believe.
>fire and gravity.fire and damage. If WTC7 collapsed from just fire I would be suspicious, as it wasn't a steel truss design. Stop repeating yourself and respond to my argument.
>I already outlined my thoughts but it seems you have ignored them. Perhaps you should reread my previous posts?So let me see if I understand. A conspirator blows up a building, and commands the media to report that the building is destroyed for no advantage. The media are co-conspirators and subordinate to the main conspirator. They recognize an anachronism in the conspirator's plan after they report the results of the plot before it happened, but they don't correct it and kill the feed of a reporter on scene, accomplishing nothing.
Here's how I would do it.
I blow up a building, the media sees that it is destroyed and reports it. I don't have to control the media whether I actually do or not, nor create unnecessary loose ends that could be witnesses against me, and there's no way an anachronism can draw suspicion.
>You don't need to because there is nothing you can say to excuse the lack of footageYeah I can, the government sucks
