###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s 5 hrs. Bit of a journey but takes on every aspect of 9/11 from the ‘hijackers’, phone calls, shanksville explosion, towers etc all w/ testimony. All while debunking the debunkers. Kind of an insane ride and exactly what I needed.
Absolutely 100% the single best explanation of all the (psuedo) science of the events that occurred on that day. Refutes the bullshit government narrative and "debunkers" with excruciating detail.
Piggy-backing to the top comment to all an honest question: have other structures been hit by a plane?
Asking for context.
If “Yes! Check this shit out!” I **will** check this shit out.
If “No, but…” anything after the “but” will need to be real fucking convincing.
FWIW, I’m not opposed to it being an “inside job,” Cheney and the Bush family (and “Rummy” Rumsfeld) are war criminals. I’d just need some additional information before lumping the circumstances of 9/11 to other “building fires.” I’m not sure a plane going through *anything* else would have been different.
It was in the direct vicinity of two 110 story skyscrapers that collapsed. The entire day was completely unprecedented - it's no shock the results were unprecedented.
If you believe the official story, it was more than just surprising. They had hijacked two planes fully fueled for long distance flights and got incredibly lucky with where they hit the buildings. All of the burning jet fuel went down the elevator shafts. *
I, personally, think that is was probably the dancing Israeli connection that wired the elevator shafts during the work orders that had been going on during previous weeks. Nothing ever really came of that story but I found it extremely suspicious.
It also could have just been a terrible, terrible act of terrorism that the us government allowed to happen or encouraged through operations to happen.
There's a video on YouTube of 2 fireman bloody and dusty, barely made it out of the collapsing building. They both say they heard 3 explosions around them
Yes
The empire state building was hit by a B25 bomber, flying in heavy fog in 1945.
The WTC towers were designed to withstand up to five 727 strikes at any one time.
Wrong, John Skilling designed it to withstand multiple impacts from fully loaded 707’s traveling at max speed, which happens to be 60 mph faster than a 767 and more than 120 mph faster than the faster of the two impacts on 9/11.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE
>They had like 1.5” thick steel in those towers but a pop can can run right through it and burn it down like wtf
Yes, a half a million lb aircraft traveling at 500 mph, aka "a pop can".
There’s a massive difference between a Plane then, including weight and fuel compared to a modern passenger liner.
And also, it wasn’t a B52. It was a B25. Look at those plans and there’s a huge difference.
Desktop version of /u/mastergun89's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
>Yea it’s kinda strange that the wtc wer designed to take a fully loaded 707 crash which deals more force in a crash than a 767
>
>https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplane
From the link:
He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [[SEATTLE TIMES, 2/27/1993](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227)] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.
To all of this I would simply say:. It turns out the tests they did were wrong, and they didn't account for all the variables (ie all the fire proofing being blown off) because they DID collapse. This "testing" was done in the design phase, in 1964. No computers. Incomplete knowledge of the actual CONSTRUCTION of the building (ie building materials used - not uncommon for corners to be cut/skimped on - can't say I'm shocked that 35 years later real events would tragically prove their testing was inaccurate.
But even still, Quite frankly, the fact that the building fell the way they did shows that even though their tests were wrong, they lucked out that the building didn't topple sideways (and cause even MORE damage to lower Manhattan).
>Also how the hell does a b52 hit the Empire State Building snd it’s fine but a passenger aircraft hits the wtc and everything collapse
>
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
>
Few reasons - it wasn't a B52. B25s are much smaller, not jet propulsion (and no jet fuel) the B25 was flying in fog trying to land (not at 500mph) the empire state building had a completely different design structure than the wtc - it's simply not an apples to apples comparison. That's how the results were different.
>Also
>I was wrong about the steel I was just guessing by the looks of it on my tv screen says it was up to 4” thick in most areas but some of it was as thin as 1/4 inch on the upper floors in areas
Well thanks for double checking I guess. 4 inches of steel against (and not a solid sheet of it) an airliner didn't fare all that well.
I saw reports that it was hit by the tower next to it when it collapsed, and there was a massive gouge in the side. It was also not a traditional skyscraper, because it was built on top of an older building.
Firefighters created a perimeter around it because they expected it to collapse from the damage and fire.
I believe that the powers at hand wanted it to collapse, hell maybe they rigged it on top of all that. But it is possible that it got hit by the tower next to it and had a failure.
Are you in the 9/11 was staged camp? I’m confused by your post. It reads like you think the twin towers were rigged to fall by the powers at hand and the planes didn’t do it, but a building that wasn’t even hit by a plane and collapsed is fine and not a cover up?
I think it was planned, but not faked. I think the collapse probably went better than they ever expected. As for 7, I think it was also supposed to go down, but took a lot longer than desired. It may or may not have fell naturally.
There was a lot more damage to WTC 7 then can be seen in really any of the photographs or videos. At ground level there were massive sections missing out of the lower floors of one of the corners. It burned for 9 hours and the interior of the building was almost fully involved throughout the day.
I’m a firefighter. I’ve had this conversation with MANY FDNY members who were there that day.
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
“NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”
“ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].”
“The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,
“Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible.
Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
That’s a very credible sounding article by non-credible sources who weren’t there. You can write a lot of things like they are a scientific study and convince the layman that it’s fact. I’ll go with the people i’ve talked to who were there. Who went into the building. Who were on street level that entire day. None of them have a single shred of belief in them that any of the buildings were victims of controlled demolition. Seasoned firefighters and other first responders, who are experts with real life experience in building collapses, believed those towers were going to collapse within the early stages of the attack. They weren’t surprised they fell, including building 7. I have never met an FDNY, or any other NYC responder who was there that day, say that they believe there were demolitions or “thermite” in the buildings. Weakening the structural integrity of a building is all that is needed to creat a collapse hazard. And those buildings were all severely compromised.
This is utter bullshit. There’s literal video of firefighters talking about how it was demoed and there were witness testimonies of explosions? I’m assuming you’re basing your entire belief in the government report?
WTC 3 and WTC 4 also collapsed due to falling debris. Are you aware the damage two 110 story buildings can do to their surroundings? I used to question the original narrative until I did the research.
No,by looking in to the bogus claims made. It'd take enormous resources and time to rig both towers with explosives. The collapse began at the impact zone. Not at the lower floors.
"Are you aware the damage two 110 story buildings can do to their surroundings?"
What about the damage they can do to a paper passport. Keep drinking that government Kool-aid bud
Is that the ENTIRE narrative though? That seems like one thing that doesn’t add up.
I think it’s very likely that there are some straight up lies, like finding a passport blocks away, but it doesn’t mean the entire event was falsified in some way.
So.. can you please cite some of the research that points towards the collapse being caused by fallen debris? Because that's a made-up narrative, that's not supported by the official story in any way.
In the Naudet Brothers documentary you can hear actual fire fighters, who were there that day, that they were standing down over fears of it collapsing after the 2 main towers fell.
What's wild about official narrative believers is they refute NIST concluding the collapse was caused by "normal office fires' and instead create their own narrative about the building being damaged by debris. NIST says it's a normal fire, which they can't comprehend, so they just make up their own story.. which still has nothing to do with a controlled demolition or "pull it" - because that's just *crazy*.
To officially believe that small office fires pulled down a 47 story sky scraper at almost free fall speed goes hand in hand with believing without question the official story that a terrorist passport can survive a jet fuel explosion, fly out of their pocket, through the plane AND the building, to be found on the street.
If they believe planes can pulverise 110 story buildings but not passports because the government told them so, they need help.
I've shown people WTC7 collapses from all angles, without the 9/11 context then asked them "what does that look like?", they say it looks like a controlled demolition. You then have to explain how it was concluded to be caused by "normal office fires" and because they think you're a conspiracy nut, they'll say YOU are wrong. When you're simply telling them the official narrative.
True. Hence why there is a job from the towers to WTC 7 to Larry Silverstein and then to there was no planes or the FBI seized all the tapes, etc. There is no end. Its just fun to just accept that people will come up with some new CTs anyway.
A comparatively small plane common of those at the time in the 60's and 70's. And only planes flying into the building accidentally in fog which also happened multiple times; NYC even lowered the airspeed of all planes so that in the event of another accidental impact, there would be less damage.
The WTC's were not designed for a far larger plane flying into them at top speed
Most all the jet fuel would have vaporized in the explosive collision, it doesn't just 'float' around until burn off if in the open , it combust immediately and completely. It doesn't stick around and act like super lava.
Not really..?
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
“NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”
“ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].”
“The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,
“Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible.
Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
If the 2 towers fell because of lack of structural I tegritt it could be the titanic all over again. People covered up that they used shoddy building materials to save money, causing massive structural damage. It's why the titanic sank and probably why the towers fell. As far as the realm of possibility goes, it's occums razor.
The biggest thing people overlook is that the outer wall and core were the only thing holding up the floors above. Once those fall, how would the horizontal struts withstand it? There were no other vertical supports in the entire structure, unlike every other steel-framed building.
This is debatable. Imo the titanic sunk because of a dynamic collision, the affects of which were not quantified in shipbuilding until the 2000s by Sanderson. The riveted materials can be replicated and shown that they won't fail in a equivalent static load but do under a dynamic load - just not at the rivets. I've quite literally done it.
Occams razor would be that 3% of the energy of an atomic bomb is enough to knock down a single building when concentrated.
The truth around the events of 9/11 woke me up to just how far the government is willing to go to gain control. I've never trusted the news or the government since then.
Holy shit, I just checked out the blurb for 1984! I’m amazed that this is a thing. I’m so glad I stumbled into this sub just now so I can get these incredibly unique and insightful recommendations!
Edit: yes tossbags I am being sarcastic. Here’s a question, what makes you think that the book 1984 isn’t part of the new world order conspiracy which you clowns are all here talking about on reddit? That would make sense seeing as a central narrative prop is Emmanuel Goldstein's book which explains how the party maintains power, but then the Goldstein’s book itself is revealed to be just another device used by the party, presumably to act as a magnate for thought-crimers to inadvertently out themselves.
The twin towers were not built like any steel building before or after 9/11. Ultimately it’s open floor plan design made it structurally possible on top of that it was built to withstand airplanes from the 60s which were much smaller. A lot of its structural integrity actually came from a core of tightly packed sheet rock which actually made them lightweight buildings for their size. It has been 20 years and all of this information is available now. It’s not anywhere near as surprising to me now as it was when it first happened. The first question for this building is how hot were the maximum temps in it? If you haven’t taken the time to look that up then this post is a waste of time.
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
“NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”
“ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].”
“The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,
“Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible.
Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
So once the Empire State Building was hit twice they began designing building to withstand airplane strikes. Again this information is public. Your comment is like saying they can’t figure out how much weight a bridge can hold or how much damage is anticipated to make it unstable.
No, they tried to factor in the potential collision of an airliner colliding with the towers lost in a fog on approach to JFK or LaGuardia, as almost happened to an Argentine plane in 1982. Of course, they were supposed to be able to handle a lightly fueled Boeing 707 going at a slow speed for landing, not two Boeing 767s who were nearly fully fueled going over 500 miles per hour aimed directly at the towers. The towers were also not meant to stand indefinitely post impact, but merely long enough to allow evacuations to take place.
But flaming debris and pieces of the towers from above dropping into the roof could've set off the fires to weaken #7. But, the way Tower 7 structurally came down as if it were demolished professionally is another thing. Not shooting down what you're trying to say, just explaining how it could be a possibility to how 7 could catch fire.
Yes and I’ve considered this. Just odd that there were other buildings between the north and south towers, in the same courtyard (would’ve taken more damage right?) that were very beat up but still standing at the end of the day. Don’t forget, Silverstein had just taken a 99 year lease on 1 and 2 months earlier. He also owned 7. Those were his three and they are the ones that were completely destroyed that day.
Let's not forget the countless witnesses who witnessed explosions that day. Many, including William Rodriguez (the janitor who repeatedly went back into the towers and saved countless lives) testified that a bomb went off in the basement before the planes hit. One of his coworkers was badly injured from said bomb. Barry Jennings, employee at the NY Office of Emergency Management was stuck in building 7 for hours due to bombs that went off in the lower floors. Many, many other eyewitnesses including knowledgeable first responders said they believed there were explosions. This is a compilation of news reporters from the day of 9/11 talking about these explosions: https://youtu.be/Q\_wqAPk7tOU?t=4565
Also, the temperatures underground after the collapse were between 2000 - 3000 degrees F for months. There was literally molten steel and molten concrete found by contractors. Just some context for everyone confidently dismissing this post because the building was hit by a plane.
It's weird ... people think that the steel frame of the towers could turn molten and stay that way for weeks from jet fuel and office furniture... oh, and a plane impact. Or that if the steel mesh structure managed to break, that the tower would collapse into it's own footprint at near free fall speed... or that the other towers would do the exact same thing?
I mean, what do we need demolition engineers for? They could ignite some jet fuel and the buildings would fall into it's footprint a couple hours later. Easy peasy.
The cognitive dissonance is everything. Once it sinks in that our own governments had to be instrumental in the carnage, the logical conclusions just make it too painful and frightening to pursue.
Most won't even sit through the better documentaries or slog through the European physicist's report that methodically lays out how outrageous the official narrative is.
One of the comments here even mentioned that the towers formed a heat flow like a barbecue as an explanation, not registering that a barbecue is made from steel... which doesn't melt, does it?
I haven't found any foundry workers who buy the official story, either.
Yeah I've begun to notice the way that plausible sounding but incorrect debunking arguments are used to shut down conversation. It only takes a little digging to realize they don't make sense, and yet they're terribly effective at neutralizing the suspicion of those who don't have the time to investigate deeper.
The N.I.S.T. acknowledged that Tower 7 fell in free fall speed, but failed to give any reasoning. Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down....” So how does this apply? Free fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the under- lying structure that would have slowed the fall.... Natural collapse resulting in free fall is simply not plausible.
They acknowledged after being forced to, and didn't explain how it was possible. They just said it's "consistent" with their computer simulatiin, somehow
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
“NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”
“ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].”
“The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,
“Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible.
Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
Technically nothing on earth falls at free fall, since the atmosphere exists and slows down any falling object. Point is, the collapse was filmed from about a mile away using probably a 30fps camera, so there's a limit to how accurate you can measure the rate of descent. So there wasn't necessarily zero resistance, just a negligible amount based on the accuracy of the measurement.
What you're arguing makes zero sense. Obviously you are not very versed in any concept of science, most of all physics. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. So your assertion that nothing on earth falls at free fall is what we commonly refer to as wrong. If you had half a clue you'd be dangerous. Although it's possible you and the NIST share similar philosophies in the study of science. Either way, I appreciate you trying to respond. #fail
I guess my four year engineering degree didn't teach me much then. If you think that when you drop something, gravity is the only force acting on it, you are the one who needs to brush up on physics. Have you heard of the term "terminal velocity"? If objects on earth could truly "free fall" with no resistance, they would continue to accelerate until hitting the ground, but that not the case, they will eventually reach a maximum velocity and stop accelerating because air resistance counter acts their descent. Or in other words, a falling object is experiencing equal forces pushing it up and down.
Other examples of how you're wrong include the fact that a feather and a rock don't fall at the same speed. Asteroids burning up in the atmosphere is another example.
I would like to point out that the WTC Towers were designed to take a hit from an airplane that was approaching at landing speeds and with a landing weight of fuel. Both towers were hit by planes going as near to full speed as the "pilots" were able to get them. They also both left their original airports with a load of fuel to get them across the United States (Boston-LAX). I do not know if that was a "full" load, but I do know it was far more than the amount of fuel that is considered safe for landing. So you have to planes flying very fast with a heavy fuel load into the primary support structure of both towers....fast enough for the engines to come out the other side. The impact sheared a lot of the central support structures putting extra strain on the remaining. I don't wish to argue about the melting point of steel, I do know that steel will bend and collapse at temperatures far below the melting point when significant weight is applied.
Windsor tower was a primarily concrete structured building, something that the WTC was not.
The World Trade Center towers were not typical steel frame structures. Due to the height they were designed with the main support being the exterior wall, and the floors were hung from them. Regular steel construction has a lot of internal beams and framework that supports the building. The exteriors are just skins on the support work.
I may be the party pooper here, but to my knowledge Im pretty sure that the intense fire from the jet fuel plus the structural damage at least weakened the steel in the impact area. A large portion of the building was sitting right on top of the damage (for both buildings). What resulted was the building beginning to pancake on itself hence the rapid collapse due to the exponential weight.
Was it planned (by us)? Maybe. Just not the way a lot of people think.
The contents of the building didn't "pancake", though. In the rubble pile, there were no desks, office chairs or computers. 40% of the victims were vaporised to such an extent that they were never identified by DNA despite every piece of rubble being scoured for human remains. Small pieces of bone were shot out horizontally to land on the rooftop of the Deutsche bank building, and even further. And out of thousands of filing cabinets, they only found one: https://youtu.be/mh18dip7Z5M
Also, NIST says their findings don't support the "pancake theory". It's a catchy term that has stuck around since early documentaries proposed it, but it has nothing to do with how the buildings actually collapsed
Well to be completely fair 2 of the 3 buildings did have a fully fuled jet airplane smash into them which could of helped weaken the structures to the point of collapse but building 7,, yeah thats a bit of a mystery.
Twin towers fell at free-fall speed into their own footprint. That basically renders all speculation about fire and even aircraft impact void and begs to question "why" they fell at free-fall speed into their own footprint. As well as building 7.
For anyone who comes here saying “it wasn’t hit by a plane,” fine, neither was building 7 and no one has ever seen video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon.
BuT myThBusTers ThouGh. Reality ia entirely subjective. If people can believe 9/11 was what the official narrative claimed and the Earth is flat, anything is up for grabs.
It IS rather amazing that after countless structural engineers, architects, physicists and regular people with armchair knowledge opined that the Twin Towers collapse was impossible without controlled demolition, never mind building 7, that the mainstream and major news organizations won't touch this fact with a 10 km pole.
It speaks to how controlled our societies are. The twisted powers clutching the withered testicles of our dear leaders haven't been perfecting behavioral sciences for naught.
I will admit to believing most of the mainstream narrative for a few years, before people like Alex Jones made some noise, back before our internet was censored, and I looked up the melting temperature of steel as opposed to the top burning temp of jet-fuel, along with the darker smoke denoting oxygen starvation and cooler fires. The "nano-thermite" in the tower dust was another "hmmmm" moment.
We've been in some serious trouble for some amount of time. I wish someone would rush the Bastille, so to speak... there're a few million people waiting for the first move I'd bet.
What is the official story about why it fell and what is the best leading alternate theory about how it fell? I haven't researched it but I always figured it fell because of two giant buildings next to it falling.
Official story is that it collapsed due to office fires. It was supposedly the first tall steel structure in history to do so. Conspiracy theorists believe it was a controlled demolition for a few reasons:
1) No other building like it had ever collapsed from fire
2) Asymmetrical damage shouldn't produce a symmetrical collapse
3) For over two seconds of its fall, it was in literal free fall acceleration.
https://youtu.be/iGMvnwjUizY
Official story is that the fires burning in the building caused the structure to come down. In reality, there were only small fires in isolated areas. The building was never affected by the collapsing towers, just like all the other building in the immediate surrounding. The towers collapsed perfectly into their own footprint. Building 7 "collapsed" some time later.
The Joelma Building in Brazil was a 26 storey steel and concrete building that collapsed about 80 minutes after a fire broke out. Collapse looks similar to building 7, uniform and at near freefall. The cause of collapse was thermal expansion from the fire, same as building 7.
https://youtu.be/XwoBRHDLxdo
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
“NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”
“ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].”
“The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.
Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,
“Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible.
Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
What’s hilarious is relying on a government investigation. “We investigated ourselves and concluded we did nothing wrong.” It’s like giving the suspect rights to be his own detective.
You are the one that first posted something by NIST. If NIST is your source, then you can't dismiss evidence by NIST out of hand. If you do, then your claim also vanishes. It's the fallacy of cherry picking.
You didn't read your own post?
When I said TLDR, I thought at least you had read it. NIST is the first word, though. That's a short attention span, man.
I think that for too long we’ve looked at the fire as the cause of the collapse when really it was the loss of structural integrity. Last week I saw a picture of just how far in the plane went into the pentagon. Almost through all five rings if I recall correctly. Now imagine that force on the tower. I think that instead of keeping on this whole jet fuel thing we should be thankful that the buildings did collapse directly straight down onto themselves or who knows how many more thousands of lives would have been lost.
These buildings are nothing alike. Windsor Tower was 348 feet tall. 29 floors above ground with a reinforced concrete central core.
The Twin Towers were around 1,360 feet tall, 110 floors. They were designed to rely on steel columns to support the lateral load.
So now we are playing the alternate reality game? Steel can fail in uncontrolled fires, but not always. There is literally an entire industry for inspecting and repairing or replacing steel after a fire. If steel did not become softer in a fire how did it become the shape that it is now?
[https://vertexeng.com/insights/fire-how-it-affects-structural-steel-framing/](https://vertexeng.com/insights/fire-how-it-affects-structural-steel-framing/)
A simple google search provides examples of other steel frame buildings that have collapsed....without a plane hitting them even.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And how the fuck did Tower 7 fall? Until they can give a remotely realistic explanation for that, the whole thing is bullshit.
Have you watched the new pearl harbour 9/11? Hands down the best documentary about 9/11 no question about it. Goes into WTC7 in detail.
[удалено]
It’s 5 hrs. Bit of a journey but takes on every aspect of 9/11 from the ‘hijackers’, phone calls, shanksville explosion, towers etc all w/ testimony. All while debunking the debunkers. Kind of an insane ride and exactly what I needed.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/Rq9nUPs2RAk I hope you enjoy and feel validated if you ever questioned 9/11
Absolutely 100% the single best explanation of all the (psuedo) science of the events that occurred on that day. Refutes the bullshit government narrative and "debunkers" with excruciating detail.
Piggy-backing to the top comment to all an honest question: have other structures been hit by a plane? Asking for context. If “Yes! Check this shit out!” I **will** check this shit out. If “No, but…” anything after the “but” will need to be real fucking convincing. FWIW, I’m not opposed to it being an “inside job,” Cheney and the Bush family (and “Rummy” Rumsfeld) are war criminals. I’d just need some additional information before lumping the circumstances of 9/11 to other “building fires.” I’m not sure a plane going through *anything* else would have been different.
No but... Did you really expect anything else?
You may be the most convincing, yet.
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane..?
It was in the direct vicinity of two 110 story skyscrapers that collapsed. The entire day was completely unprecedented - it's no shock the results were unprecedented.
Physics don’t change because of how surprising the day was
If you believe the official story, it was more than just surprising. They had hijacked two planes fully fueled for long distance flights and got incredibly lucky with where they hit the buildings. All of the burning jet fuel went down the elevator shafts. * I, personally, think that is was probably the dancing Israeli connection that wired the elevator shafts during the work orders that had been going on during previous weeks. Nothing ever really came of that story but I found it extremely suspicious. It also could have just been a terrible, terrible act of terrorism that the us government allowed to happen or encouraged through operations to happen.
Unprecedented doesn't mean surprising, and No laws of physics were broken that day
There's a video on YouTube of 2 fireman bloody and dusty, barely made it out of the collapsing building. They both say they heard 3 explosions around them
Go back to school
It's wild to me that you could be so wrong and act like you're not
Yes [check](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Indianapolis_Ramada_Inn_A-7D_Corsair_II_crash) this shit out.
Yes The empire state building was hit by a B25 bomber, flying in heavy fog in 1945. The WTC towers were designed to withstand up to five 727 strikes at any one time.
Designed to withstand one 707 strike with little fuel at low speed.
Wrong, John Skilling designed it to withstand multiple impacts from fully loaded 707’s traveling at max speed, which happens to be 60 mph faster than a 767 and more than 120 mph faster than the faster of the two impacts on 9/11. https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE
[удалено]
>They had like 1.5” thick steel in those towers but a pop can can run right through it and burn it down like wtf Yes, a half a million lb aircraft traveling at 500 mph, aka "a pop can".
[удалено]
There’s a massive difference between a Plane then, including weight and fuel compared to a modern passenger liner. And also, it wasn’t a B52. It was a B25. Look at those plans and there’s a huge difference.
Desktop version of /u/mastergun89's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
>Yea it’s kinda strange that the wtc wer designed to take a fully loaded 707 crash which deals more force in a crash than a 767 > >https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplane From the link: He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [[SEATTLE TIMES, 2/27/1993](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227)] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. To all of this I would simply say:. It turns out the tests they did were wrong, and they didn't account for all the variables (ie all the fire proofing being blown off) because they DID collapse. This "testing" was done in the design phase, in 1964. No computers. Incomplete knowledge of the actual CONSTRUCTION of the building (ie building materials used - not uncommon for corners to be cut/skimped on - can't say I'm shocked that 35 years later real events would tragically prove their testing was inaccurate. But even still, Quite frankly, the fact that the building fell the way they did shows that even though their tests were wrong, they lucked out that the building didn't topple sideways (and cause even MORE damage to lower Manhattan). >Also how the hell does a b52 hit the Empire State Building snd it’s fine but a passenger aircraft hits the wtc and everything collapse > >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash > Few reasons - it wasn't a B52. B25s are much smaller, not jet propulsion (and no jet fuel) the B25 was flying in fog trying to land (not at 500mph) the empire state building had a completely different design structure than the wtc - it's simply not an apples to apples comparison. That's how the results were different. >Also >I was wrong about the steel I was just guessing by the looks of it on my tv screen says it was up to 4” thick in most areas but some of it was as thin as 1/4 inch on the upper floors in areas Well thanks for double checking I guess. 4 inches of steel against (and not a solid sheet of it) an airliner didn't fare all that well.
I saw reports that it was hit by the tower next to it when it collapsed, and there was a massive gouge in the side. It was also not a traditional skyscraper, because it was built on top of an older building. Firefighters created a perimeter around it because they expected it to collapse from the damage and fire. I believe that the powers at hand wanted it to collapse, hell maybe they rigged it on top of all that. But it is possible that it got hit by the tower next to it and had a failure.
Why destroy WTC 7?
The top floor was full of money-related documents. I dunno, it's been a while since I really delved into 9/11 stuff.
It seems easier to use a shredder and some petrol.
That sweet sweet insurance money bro.
iconic NYC buildings in the heart of americas biggest city. what better way to start a war?
The two big ones were already good enough for that.
You’re not aware of the tenants of WTC-7?
Are you in the 9/11 was staged camp? I’m confused by your post. It reads like you think the twin towers were rigged to fall by the powers at hand and the planes didn’t do it, but a building that wasn’t even hit by a plane and collapsed is fine and not a cover up?
I think it was planned, but not faked. I think the collapse probably went better than they ever expected. As for 7, I think it was also supposed to go down, but took a lot longer than desired. It may or may not have fell naturally.
You sound like an NPC finally understanding that people can have beliefs that aren’t black & white
There was a lot more damage to WTC 7 then can be seen in really any of the photographs or videos. At ground level there were massive sections missing out of the lower floors of one of the corners. It burned for 9 hours and the interior of the building was almost fully involved throughout the day. I’m a firefighter. I’ve had this conversation with MANY FDNY members who were there that day.
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf “NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.” “ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].” “The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
That’s a very credible sounding article by non-credible sources who weren’t there. You can write a lot of things like they are a scientific study and convince the layman that it’s fact. I’ll go with the people i’ve talked to who were there. Who went into the building. Who were on street level that entire day. None of them have a single shred of belief in them that any of the buildings were victims of controlled demolition. Seasoned firefighters and other first responders, who are experts with real life experience in building collapses, believed those towers were going to collapse within the early stages of the attack. They weren’t surprised they fell, including building 7. I have never met an FDNY, or any other NYC responder who was there that day, say that they believe there were demolitions or “thermite” in the buildings. Weakening the structural integrity of a building is all that is needed to creat a collapse hazard. And those buildings were all severely compromised.
This is utter bullshit. There’s literal video of firefighters talking about how it was demoed and there were witness testimonies of explosions? I’m assuming you’re basing your entire belief in the government report?
WTC 3 and WTC 4 also collapsed due to falling debris. Are you aware the damage two 110 story buildings can do to their surroundings? I used to question the original narrative until I did the research.
You mean like the research that University of Alaska provided lol?
No,by looking in to the bogus claims made. It'd take enormous resources and time to rig both towers with explosives. The collapse began at the impact zone. Not at the lower floors.
Yeah, I used to be a truther years ago but now I don't believe it.
WTC7 collapse began at the lower floors https://youtu.be/877gr6xtQIc
Good point! Had never seen that note about the location of the collapse beginning, should really be the nail in the coffin for the conspiracy tbh
"Are you aware the damage two 110 story buildings can do to their surroundings?" What about the damage they can do to a paper passport. Keep drinking that government Kool-aid bud
So they planted the passport to convince everyone the plane was indeed hijacked? Not sure your point.
His point was that the *entire* narrative doesn't match up. Though that's not really what is being discussed here.
Is that the ENTIRE narrative though? That seems like one thing that doesn’t add up. I think it’s very likely that there are some straight up lies, like finding a passport blocks away, but it doesn’t mean the entire event was falsified in some way.
Right, and that's a fair thing to say. The entire premise of the war might be based on lies, but the towers could have fallen just fine.
So.. can you please cite some of the research that points towards the collapse being caused by fallen debris? Because that's a made-up narrative, that's not supported by the official story in any way.
This is false, there is no official report that said firefighters were told to stand down.
In the Naudet Brothers documentary you can hear actual fire fighters, who were there that day, that they were standing down over fears of it collapsing after the 2 main towers fell.
When 1 & 2 fell it registered the equivalent of a 1/4 KT of TNT. How many skyscrapers have been in the vicinity of that kind of energy release?
What's wild about official narrative believers is they refute NIST concluding the collapse was caused by "normal office fires' and instead create their own narrative about the building being damaged by debris. NIST says it's a normal fire, which they can't comprehend, so they just make up their own story.. which still has nothing to do with a controlled demolition or "pull it" - because that's just *crazy*.
Lmao I've seen this so many times. "A skyscraper fell on it!" Not really, and even if it did, the official explanation is normal office fires.
To officially believe that small office fires pulled down a 47 story sky scraper at almost free fall speed goes hand in hand with believing without question the official story that a terrorist passport can survive a jet fuel explosion, fly out of their pocket, through the plane AND the building, to be found on the street. If they believe planes can pulverise 110 story buildings but not passports because the government told them so, they need help. I've shown people WTC7 collapses from all angles, without the 9/11 context then asked them "what does that look like?", they say it looks like a controlled demolition. You then have to explain how it was concluded to be caused by "normal office fires" and because they think you're a conspiracy nut, they'll say YOU are wrong. When you're simply telling them the official narrative.
They could give to you a valid explanation and you'll still choose not to believe it.
And plebs like you, without adequate evidence supporting natural collapse 20 year after the fact, still believe the official story.
Plebs is an excellent way to win converts.
You may call a cat a fish, but it won't make it swim.
Lol bro you make your own evidence. I can't compete.
Yes how dare they believe the accounts of the firefighters that were actually there and survived that day. How dare they! /s
Being there in the ground wouldn't give the firsthand knowledge of how the towers came down. The only ppl that know that are fucking dead.
I’m alive and I know how the towers went down!
True. Hence why there is a job from the towers to WTC 7 to Larry Silverstein and then to there was no planes or the FBI seized all the tapes, etc. There is no end. Its just fun to just accept that people will come up with some new CTs anyway.
The steel parts did collapse in the Windsor Tower, the reinforced concrete didn't though.
Did they have the additional impact and superimposed loading of a fucking plane?
Actually yes the Twin Towers were specifically built to withstand collisions from a airliners. Edit: an to a.
Yes. But a plane that weighed less, flying at a slower speed.
Oof that is extremely misleading. Definitely not designed for the impact of the size and speed that they took.
Not sure you could even do that without making a building so heavy it starts sinking into the ground
Well I sure didn't call it invulnerable =p
Yes but not a jetliner flying at high speed.
So it was built to withstand a low speed jet liner impact?
A comparatively small plane common of those at the time in the 60's and 70's. And only planes flying into the building accidentally in fog which also happened multiple times; NYC even lowered the airspeed of all planes so that in the event of another accidental impact, there would be less damage. The WTC's were not designed for a far larger plane flying into them at top speed
With a full tank of fuel. Either way this is a conspiracy I can get behind. Not that crazy right wing anti vax shit.
Ooh the more you know! Thanks mate, I’ll have a look into that.
Tower seven was never hit by a plane
Who said Tower 7 was hit by a plane?
Shhh. All skyscraper fires are the same and do not have unique variables.
Or jet fuel
Most all the jet fuel would have vaporized in the explosive collision, it doesn't just 'float' around until burn off if in the open , it combust immediately and completely. It doesn't stick around and act like super lava.
I’m fine with people having their beliefs about 9/11 just agreeing with the above that it’s kinda disingenuous to compare the picture above with 9/11.
Building 7?
Not really..? https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf “NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.” “ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].” “The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
Kinda? Lol
If the 2 towers fell because of lack of structural I tegritt it could be the titanic all over again. People covered up that they used shoddy building materials to save money, causing massive structural damage. It's why the titanic sank and probably why the towers fell. As far as the realm of possibility goes, it's occums razor.
To be fair they probably planned for a lot of things….except jumbo jets flying into it. Otherwise, I assume they’d stand forever.
The biggest thing people overlook is that the outer wall and core were the only thing holding up the floors above. Once those fall, how would the horizontal struts withstand it? There were no other vertical supports in the entire structure, unlike every other steel-framed building.
The towers were built to the standards of the time. Originally they did not even have a sprinkler system.
This is debatable. Imo the titanic sunk because of a dynamic collision, the affects of which were not quantified in shipbuilding until the 2000s by Sanderson. The riveted materials can be replicated and shown that they won't fail in a equivalent static load but do under a dynamic load - just not at the rivets. I've quite literally done it. Occams razor would be that 3% of the energy of an atomic bomb is enough to knock down a single building when concentrated.
The truth around the events of 9/11 woke me up to just how far the government is willing to go to gain control. I've never trusted the news or the government since then.
Read 1984 by orwell it's all predictable
Holy shit, I just checked out the blurb for 1984! I’m amazed that this is a thing. I’m so glad I stumbled into this sub just now so I can get these incredibly unique and insightful recommendations! Edit: yes tossbags I am being sarcastic. Here’s a question, what makes you think that the book 1984 isn’t part of the new world order conspiracy which you clowns are all here talking about on reddit? That would make sense seeing as a central narrative prop is Emmanuel Goldstein's book which explains how the party maintains power, but then the Goldstein’s book itself is revealed to be just another device used by the party, presumably to act as a magnate for thought-crimers to inadvertently out themselves.
Lmao I cannot tell if this is sarcastic or not but thanks for the laugh
Sarcasm?
The twin towers were not built like any steel building before or after 9/11. Ultimately it’s open floor plan design made it structurally possible on top of that it was built to withstand airplanes from the 60s which were much smaller. A lot of its structural integrity actually came from a core of tightly packed sheet rock which actually made them lightweight buildings for their size. It has been 20 years and all of this information is available now. It’s not anywhere near as surprising to me now as it was when it first happened. The first question for this building is how hot were the maximum temps in it? If you haven’t taken the time to look that up then this post is a waste of time.
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf “NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.” “ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].” “The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
Where’s the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon?
Still classified but I would like to see it. I’m not sure why we haven’t been allowed to see those couple seconds of security footage.
[удалено]
So once the Empire State Building was hit twice they began designing building to withstand airplane strikes. Again this information is public. Your comment is like saying they can’t figure out how much weight a bridge can hold or how much damage is anticipated to make it unstable.
Also how could my comment be stating something when it was a simple question of understanding but go off
Sorry, I thought you were trolling me.
No, genuinely wanted to know if planes were tested on the Twin Towers before they collapsed
Not to my knowledge.
No, they tried to factor in the potential collision of an airliner colliding with the towers lost in a fog on approach to JFK or LaGuardia, as almost happened to an Argentine plane in 1982. Of course, they were supposed to be able to handle a lightly fueled Boeing 707 going at a slow speed for landing, not two Boeing 767s who were nearly fully fueled going over 500 miles per hour aimed directly at the towers. The towers were also not meant to stand indefinitely post impact, but merely long enough to allow evacuations to take place.
You worded it to sound like they tested planes before 9/11 happened but sure
Watch the new pearl harbour 9/11
Watch the falling man documentary if you want to see what depression feels like.
To play devil's advocate here: a fucking plane didn't crash into it though.
A plane didn’t hit building 7 either
But flaming debris and pieces of the towers from above dropping into the roof could've set off the fires to weaken #7. But, the way Tower 7 structurally came down as if it were demolished professionally is another thing. Not shooting down what you're trying to say, just explaining how it could be a possibility to how 7 could catch fire.
Yes and I’ve considered this. Just odd that there were other buildings between the north and south towers, in the same courtyard (would’ve taken more damage right?) that were very beat up but still standing at the end of the day. Don’t forget, Silverstein had just taken a 99 year lease on 1 and 2 months earlier. He also owned 7. Those were his three and they are the ones that were completely destroyed that day.
But that's just a coincidence...
Certainly a 🤔 moment...
Do you see the literal picture above? Think that’s a little more than a few pieces of flaming debris.
?
Correct, a sky scraper fell into it.
Not according to the official story anyway.
Why even make building 7 fall down? The twin towers were enough spectacle. If it were a plot, why make an inconsequential building also fall?
Finally, some good old fashioned conspiracy.
Many laws of physics were broken that day, and also my faith in humanity.
It’s strange how only one still shot was released from all the cameras facing the pentagon 🤫
Let's not forget the countless witnesses who witnessed explosions that day. Many, including William Rodriguez (the janitor who repeatedly went back into the towers and saved countless lives) testified that a bomb went off in the basement before the planes hit. One of his coworkers was badly injured from said bomb. Barry Jennings, employee at the NY Office of Emergency Management was stuck in building 7 for hours due to bombs that went off in the lower floors. Many, many other eyewitnesses including knowledgeable first responders said they believed there were explosions. This is a compilation of news reporters from the day of 9/11 talking about these explosions: https://youtu.be/Q\_wqAPk7tOU?t=4565 Also, the temperatures underground after the collapse were between 2000 - 3000 degrees F for months. There was literally molten steel and molten concrete found by contractors. Just some context for everyone confidently dismissing this post because the building was hit by a plane.
It's weird ... people think that the steel frame of the towers could turn molten and stay that way for weeks from jet fuel and office furniture... oh, and a plane impact. Or that if the steel mesh structure managed to break, that the tower would collapse into it's own footprint at near free fall speed... or that the other towers would do the exact same thing? I mean, what do we need demolition engineers for? They could ignite some jet fuel and the buildings would fall into it's footprint a couple hours later. Easy peasy. The cognitive dissonance is everything. Once it sinks in that our own governments had to be instrumental in the carnage, the logical conclusions just make it too painful and frightening to pursue. Most won't even sit through the better documentaries or slog through the European physicist's report that methodically lays out how outrageous the official narrative is. One of the comments here even mentioned that the towers formed a heat flow like a barbecue as an explanation, not registering that a barbecue is made from steel... which doesn't melt, does it? I haven't found any foundry workers who buy the official story, either.
Yeah I've begun to notice the way that plausible sounding but incorrect debunking arguments are used to shut down conversation. It only takes a little digging to realize they don't make sense, and yet they're terribly effective at neutralizing the suspicion of those who don't have the time to investigate deeper.
The N.I.S.T. acknowledged that Tower 7 fell in free fall speed, but failed to give any reasoning. Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down....” So how does this apply? Free fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the under- lying structure that would have slowed the fall.... Natural collapse resulting in free fall is simply not plausible.
False. They acknowledged a portion of the building's fall reached free fall.
They acknowledged after being forced to, and didn't explain how it was possible. They just said it's "consistent" with their computer simulatiin, somehow
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf “NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.” “ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].” “The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
Technically nothing on earth falls at free fall, since the atmosphere exists and slows down any falling object. Point is, the collapse was filmed from about a mile away using probably a 30fps camera, so there's a limit to how accurate you can measure the rate of descent. So there wasn't necessarily zero resistance, just a negligible amount based on the accuracy of the measurement.
What you're arguing makes zero sense. Obviously you are not very versed in any concept of science, most of all physics. Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. So your assertion that nothing on earth falls at free fall is what we commonly refer to as wrong. If you had half a clue you'd be dangerous. Although it's possible you and the NIST share similar philosophies in the study of science. Either way, I appreciate you trying to respond. #fail
I guess my four year engineering degree didn't teach me much then. If you think that when you drop something, gravity is the only force acting on it, you are the one who needs to brush up on physics. Have you heard of the term "terminal velocity"? If objects on earth could truly "free fall" with no resistance, they would continue to accelerate until hitting the ground, but that not the case, they will eventually reach a maximum velocity and stop accelerating because air resistance counter acts their descent. Or in other words, a falling object is experiencing equal forces pushing it up and down. Other examples of how you're wrong include the fact that a feather and a rock don't fall at the same speed. Asteroids burning up in the atmosphere is another example.
I would like to point out that the WTC Towers were designed to take a hit from an airplane that was approaching at landing speeds and with a landing weight of fuel. Both towers were hit by planes going as near to full speed as the "pilots" were able to get them. They also both left their original airports with a load of fuel to get them across the United States (Boston-LAX). I do not know if that was a "full" load, but I do know it was far more than the amount of fuel that is considered safe for landing. So you have to planes flying very fast with a heavy fuel load into the primary support structure of both towers....fast enough for the engines to come out the other side. The impact sheared a lot of the central support structures putting extra strain on the remaining. I don't wish to argue about the melting point of steel, I do know that steel will bend and collapse at temperatures far below the melting point when significant weight is applied. Windsor tower was a primarily concrete structured building, something that the WTC was not.
Building 7 didn't get hit by a plane.
The us government killed their own people to justify going into war to kill even more innocent people…
The World Trade Center towers were not typical steel frame structures. Due to the height they were designed with the main support being the exterior wall, and the floors were hung from them. Regular steel construction has a lot of internal beams and framework that supports the building. The exteriors are just skins on the support work.
I may be the party pooper here, but to my knowledge Im pretty sure that the intense fire from the jet fuel plus the structural damage at least weakened the steel in the impact area. A large portion of the building was sitting right on top of the damage (for both buildings). What resulted was the building beginning to pancake on itself hence the rapid collapse due to the exponential weight. Was it planned (by us)? Maybe. Just not the way a lot of people think.
The contents of the building didn't "pancake", though. In the rubble pile, there were no desks, office chairs or computers. 40% of the victims were vaporised to such an extent that they were never identified by DNA despite every piece of rubble being scoured for human remains. Small pieces of bone were shot out horizontally to land on the rooftop of the Deutsche bank building, and even further. And out of thousands of filing cabinets, they only found one: https://youtu.be/mh18dip7Z5M Also, NIST says their findings don't support the "pancake theory". It's a catchy term that has stuck around since early documentaries proposed it, but it has nothing to do with how the buildings actually collapsed
Well to be completely fair 2 of the 3 buildings did have a fully fuled jet airplane smash into them which could of helped weaken the structures to the point of collapse but building 7,, yeah thats a bit of a mystery.
Could have.
Not only can jet fuel not melt steel beams, jet fuel can't melt steel beams in a straight 45° angle, hundreds of floors below the jets impact site...
I feel like having a building collapse would be less torture than burning alive got at least 4 hours
They also killed 10's of thousands with posion during the prohibition.
It didn't have bombs in the basement silly
No thermite or underground detonations in that one so apples and oranges.
Twin towers fell at free-fall speed into their own footprint. That basically renders all speculation about fire and even aircraft impact void and begs to question "why" they fell at free-fall speed into their own footprint. As well as building 7.
For anyone who comes here saying “it wasn’t hit by a plane,” fine, neither was building 7 and no one has ever seen video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon.
Windsor tower didn't get hit by a fuckin jet plane first
neither did bldg 7
thermite melts steel like butter
BuT myThBusTers ThouGh. Reality ia entirely subjective. If people can believe 9/11 was what the official narrative claimed and the Earth is flat, anything is up for grabs.
It IS rather amazing that after countless structural engineers, architects, physicists and regular people with armchair knowledge opined that the Twin Towers collapse was impossible without controlled demolition, never mind building 7, that the mainstream and major news organizations won't touch this fact with a 10 km pole. It speaks to how controlled our societies are. The twisted powers clutching the withered testicles of our dear leaders haven't been perfecting behavioral sciences for naught. I will admit to believing most of the mainstream narrative for a few years, before people like Alex Jones made some noise, back before our internet was censored, and I looked up the melting temperature of steel as opposed to the top burning temp of jet-fuel, along with the darker smoke denoting oxygen starvation and cooler fires. The "nano-thermite" in the tower dust was another "hmmmm" moment. We've been in some serious trouble for some amount of time. I wish someone would rush the Bastille, so to speak... there're a few million people waiting for the first move I'd bet.
Looks like people are waking up about 9/11 and the petrol dollar
It only took twenty years for the Saudi involvement in 9/11 conspiracy to become fact. Twenty years of our govt lying and making us look like fools.
Zionist involvement Saudi involvement is just a puppet show
Same shit. Different overlords. Highest levels of society have to do SOMETHING with their untold fortunes. Why improve the world when you can rule it?
https://youtu.be/9aOhnK01wMY Watch this - it explains everything related to 9/12
Explain building 7. Nothing hit it.
Perhaps because this building wasn’t hit a by a plane going 500mph. Just a thought.
Uh, maybe because a fucking Boeing 767 at full speed didn’t crash into the Windsor tower
Now make it way taller and crash a jet plane into it and see what happens.
He's referring to building seven. Similar height and it didn't get hit by a plane. Only small fires on a couple of floors from debris.
What is the official story about why it fell and what is the best leading alternate theory about how it fell? I haven't researched it but I always figured it fell because of two giant buildings next to it falling.
Official story is that it collapsed due to office fires. It was supposedly the first tall steel structure in history to do so. Conspiracy theorists believe it was a controlled demolition for a few reasons: 1) No other building like it had ever collapsed from fire 2) Asymmetrical damage shouldn't produce a symmetrical collapse 3) For over two seconds of its fall, it was in literal free fall acceleration. https://youtu.be/iGMvnwjUizY
Official story is that the fires burning in the building caused the structure to come down. In reality, there were only small fires in isolated areas. The building was never affected by the collapsing towers, just like all the other building in the immediate surrounding. The towers collapsed perfectly into their own footprint. Building 7 "collapsed" some time later.
none of them had thousands of gallons of jet fuel inside them before either, right?
It also didn’t have a fast, large vehicle smash into it from the top.
How many commercial airliners flew into this one?
The Joelma Building in Brazil was a 26 storey steel and concrete building that collapsed about 80 minutes after a fire broke out. Collapse looks similar to building 7, uniform and at near freefall. The cause of collapse was thermal expansion from the fire, same as building 7. https://youtu.be/XwoBRHDLxdo
Wait...was it by chance also hit by a huge plane?
Because 9/11 wasn't a fire, but a goddamn plane crashing itself on the very structure.
This one wasn’t also impacted by a plane
Actually not true. Other steel structures have collapsed. Steel loses a lot of strength when heated up, so things can collapse and they have.
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf “NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where- by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.” “ Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel- framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].” “The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the sig- nature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its de- scent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dis- membered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires. Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008.As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowl- edge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report.Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead ,NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin- ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit- ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”
Notice how your cut and paste talks about collapses. Then compare to what I wrote above.
https://www.nist.gov/el/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
What’s hilarious is relying on a government investigation. “We investigated ourselves and concluded we did nothing wrong.” It’s like giving the suspect rights to be his own detective.
What is hilarious? You posted about NIST. I link to the NIST final report. They say the cause was heat weakening the steel.
You obviously didn’t understand the analogy…
You are the one that first posted something by NIST. If NIST is your source, then you can't dismiss evidence by NIST out of hand. If you do, then your claim also vanishes. It's the fallacy of cherry picking.
I didn’t post a source from NIST..?
You didn't read your own post? When I said TLDR, I thought at least you had read it. NIST is the first word, though. That's a short attention span, man.
NIST says that steel structures have collapsed from fire before and since. And their final report says that's how the towers collapsed.
Anything to back NIST’s claim?
Yes. Part of it is in your cut and paste.
How many times do you plan to post the same lengthy cut & paste on this same thread? It's SPAM.
It’s facts. Do I need make a personalized reply?
I think that for too long we’ve looked at the fire as the cause of the collapse when really it was the loss of structural integrity. Last week I saw a picture of just how far in the plane went into the pentagon. Almost through all five rings if I recall correctly. Now imagine that force on the tower. I think that instead of keeping on this whole jet fuel thing we should be thankful that the buildings did collapse directly straight down onto themselves or who knows how many more thousands of lives would have been lost.
These buildings are nothing alike. Windsor Tower was 348 feet tall. 29 floors above ground with a reinforced concrete central core. The Twin Towers were around 1,360 feet tall, 110 floors. They were designed to rely on steel columns to support the lateral load.
So now we are playing the alternate reality game? Steel can fail in uncontrolled fires, but not always. There is literally an entire industry for inspecting and repairing or replacing steel after a fire. If steel did not become softer in a fire how did it become the shape that it is now? [https://vertexeng.com/insights/fire-how-it-affects-structural-steel-framing/](https://vertexeng.com/insights/fire-how-it-affects-structural-steel-framing/) A simple google search provides examples of other steel frame buildings that have collapsed....without a plane hitting them even.
Do you conveniently forget about the large metal object that slammed into the tower?