As always, zero evidence. The hallmark of the Zero Evidence Club.
Another baldfaced lie. Does the actual video show the sides and top folding in on itself? Not a hope in hell. Why would you lie like this when there is a video that clearly illustrates you are lying?
Look from 1:58 to the end of the video. There is a sharp kink in the center that is much much more pronounced than reality. The simulation shows the building almost folding in half vertically, which does not remotely approach reality. By the time the building has folded virtually in half in NIST's simulation, the vertical collapse has hardly even begun. The roof line on the right side is not falling at the same speed as the rest of the roof line, which is what reality shows.
Look at the final frame at 2:08. Hold your cursor on the top of the building on the right side. The wall on the right side is still close to the same vertical height as when the building was standing at full height.
This fraudulent piece of NIST "science" doesn't reflect reality in the least.
Neither does your approach to these issues or the science.
Reality shows a small kink in the roof line and then the building falls virtually perfectly symmetrical throughout the free fall of 2.25 second.
You are describing an impossibility. Had that occurred the building would have leaned. There was zero lean. The building went from full support to zero support which as you well know can only occur with a controlled demolition, which is proven by the nanothermite in WTC dust, the molten and vaporized WTC7 structural steel, the 6% of WTC dust iron microspheres, a major by product of the USA military nanothermite which was discovered and proven by Harrit et al.
This is incredibly nonsensical. There is no need to make a simulation when there are videos that show the actual event.
How did the "high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation" occur?
Do either of NIST's computer simulations look like the actual collapse of WTC7, mike?
You have answered this question above, beautifully by not answering it. Pretending, with no connection to reality that NIST's wacky simulations are at all close to reality.
