Almost every time I read your comments, it is as if you are living in a parallel universe to me.
I wholeheartedly agree, but that is of no real relevance.
Anyway, it is very simple - it is a simple video. Freefall took place for over 2 seconds.
NIST and Chandler agree on that point. Hell of a conspiracy ain't it?
The NIST lead man Sunder, at a press conference, states that for freefall to take place all support must be removed.
Again, NIST and Chandler presumably agree on that point also. No conspiracy.
For over 2 seconds of freefall, that is quite a few stories of WTC7 where all support must be removed.
This is where Chandler (and presumably yourself) depart into cloud cuckoo land. NIST's report exists primarily to explain how the support failed - you may not agree with their findings, but to claim that they are somehow burying the issue or ignoring it is 100% wrong. Their whole report exists to explain the collapse - Chandler seems unaware of this utterly obvious truth. He seems to want to pretend that the actual report doesn't exist.
NIST suggest that the freefall occured to the visible facade on the video - none of their models suggest that the whole building collapsed in this way, but that it was a chain reaction based on structural failures lower in the building. You will not find Chandler emphasising this key point because to do so would be for him to admit that the crux of his crusade is a gigantic straw man argument. In short, he is attacking NIST for things they do not claim, and making grand claims in seeming total ignorance of NIST's actual explanation of the collapse.
Chandler points out that NIST do not explain how all of the columns across the whole building suddenly fail at the same time.
Chandler doesn't give a toss what NIST are explaining. NIST never claimed that this made-up piece of conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo is required. Nobody in the truth movement can explain this tosh, because it is pure fantasy.
Please link to me where anybody in the truth movement explains how and why the columns 'across the whole building' have to fail at the same time. You can't, because it is made up nonsense. And this is the wafer thin misconception on which the whole house of cards is built.
As I say, please explain to me, or point me towards anything that explains how this theory possibly holds up to any real scrutiny. If you cannot, you and Chandler have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER.
They have a computer model but aren't releasing the figures that they threw into the model. It is that simple.
More nonsense. Whatever is 'hidden' from view is taken as evidence of conspiracy. Anything that NIST didn't publish is proof of foul play - an idiotic argument, utterly flawed logic. As Chandler himself admits, he cannot know whether their figures are correct or not. So why assume that they made them up? Because it confirms the conspiracy that HE has made up. Again a house of cards - all based on assumption, no actual evidence. Bottom line - there is only a conspiracy here if you make one up.
Maybe we should get simpler still. Have you ever played Jenga? ...If you have the full 18 story tower, how would you make it drop in freefall for a quarter of its height? You would have to remove all of the blocks for 4-5 levels - at exactly the same time. That is the only way to do it. Is that a lunatic theory? Can you achieve it by the removal of just a single block? Or a block at a time as fast as you can?
Sorry, this is utter nonsense. You would get laughed out of any science classroom with this tosh. Believe me when I say that this is irrelevant, childish nonsense - sorry to be so blunt but it is embarrassing.
Had WTC7 been built from large Jenga blocks in the same pattern as the popular game, your example would STILL be irrelevant, because it offers no discussion of the materials used, the problems of scale, the contribution of fire, fireproofing or the lack of, weight, mass, possible damage to the building, or the physical nature of the collapse itself.
The whole idea would be hilarious were it not for the fact that I have seen Richard Gage on video trying to explain the twin towers collapse using stacked cardboard boxes on a desk. Pathetic.
Do you actually get freefall at all? WTC7 was in freefall for over 2 seconds, can you explain how that is possible with fire alone?
NIST spent a whole report on the issue of WTC7. If you do not understand it, or want to make up reasons why it's a calculated fraud, then that is your right.