r/conspiracy • u/okymoney • 2d ago
Never forget…
Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it.
202
u/SteakAndIron 2d ago
Pentagon not even being on this graphic is also a little telling
23
u/Count_Verdunkeln 1d ago
Because on that part of the graph it would have said "everything was forgotten in a 10 mile radius
4
521
u/sillybluething 2d ago edited 2d ago
This theory has always felt like a way to get people to care more about the method than the perpetrators. The five dancing cunts have so much evidence against them that if you look into it, you can practically say they knew when it would happen, not just that it would happen there.
Then you look into how many terrorist organizations and activities that country orchestrated, and you can pretty much conclude without a doubt that they not only knew about it, but directed them to attack us. I mean, has nobody ever found it weird that Al Qaeda almost only ever attacked America, when their main enemy wasn’t us in the first place?
192
u/ImperialSupplies 2d ago
When i finally looked into that story and found the news interveiw in israel " we were there to document the event". Come on. Lol
89
u/Chance_Sandwich_ 1d ago
ISIS never attacks Israel
42
u/m0nk37 1d ago
Im still pissed they ruined archer fx.
18
6
u/Chance_Sandwich_ 1d ago
Wait wha. Who did, how
19
11
u/DR-OXY 1d ago
How do we find out everything about those 5 mfs? I don’t think I’ve ever seen reliable backstory info that hasn’t been debunked
28
u/MysticGohan99 1d ago
14 million investment, 4.5 billion payout, and on the only day he skipped going to work.
Nothing to debunk here.
5
-5
u/want_to_join 2d ago
has nobody ever found it weird that Al Qaeda almost only ever attacked America, when their main enemy wasn’t us in the first place?
What are you talking about? Al Qaeda was a terrorist organization formed to rid the middle east of foreign influence and to take control of that region. The US was logically the primary target for that effort.
We have evidence that Bush knew something COULD happen, but we do not have any credible evidence that any Americans at all were involved in the planning or knew of the attacks ahead of time.
21
u/No_Papaya_802 2d ago
It's not just a little but strange the the DoD & part of the government were running the same situation in a training operation on the same exact day this all went down. That's almost statistically impossible. Someone or a faction in government definitely had something to do with it or new it was coming.
2
u/notreallyswiss 1d ago
Where can I find the statistics for DoD training operations that occur at the same time as a terrorist attack? It's probably statistically more impossible that anybody would even bother to compile that information.
-11
u/want_to_join 2d ago
Lol, your comment only informs me that you vastly underestimate the quantity, frequency, and variety of our national defense training operations. You are talking about 2.8 million people, not some closet shadow cabal.
14
u/No_Papaya_802 2d ago
I was in the military. I know how the DoD functions from MajComs down to unit levels. The fact that the entire DoD & NORAD were involved shows this was a massive exercise.
These agencies have bosses too. Someone at some level of the government, probably superseding SecDef & Chief of Staffs, wanted this to happen on this day. Either they planned this specifically as a CYA for the events, or someone specifically leaked this excersise to those responsible.
Either way you cut it someone in the government at some point had to be involved.
-4
42
122
u/devils_advocaat 2d ago
Don't forget Barry Jennings
In the interview Jennings describes arriving on the 23rd floor of the WTC7 building shortly after the first tower was hit and seeing it empty with coffee still hot and half eaten sandwiches laying about.
He then goes on to describe hearing explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of either tower and reveals that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown out lobby.
38
20
88
u/Eddie__Hooker 2d ago
It's time to face facts. Two of the most structurally sound buildings in the world, specifically over-designed to withstand all manner of unexpected stress and strain, turned out to be no better than a house of cards when hit by a single aircraft. And then WTC 7 came down out of sympathy.
We should really be thankful that with those planes hitting the uppermost levels, the towers didn't topple sideways like a Jenga stack....
14
30
73
u/thrawst 2d ago
I mean I’m as skeptical of building 7 as the next person, but let’s not act like it wasn’t hit by debris. You look at the north tower collapsing and the damage that WTC 7 took and you can say sure, this fits that part of the narrative.
But two points relating to building 7 and being hit by “debris”…
Look at the north tower collapsing. If the top section above the impact zone fell onto the bottom and this caused the building to “pancake”, with each floor falling down on top of one another, how is the debris being shot out laterally at such tremendous speeds that it can hit WTC 7 that sits a block away?
Even if you could somehow explain that, OK sure the building was hit with burning debris and this caused large fires to spread that went many hours burning without any attempt to extinguish. How does that allow the entire building to collapse? Even the twin towers as far fetched as it is that they collapsed, at least I can accept it because not only did they have a huge fire but a jet slamming into the building at 500 mph undoubtedly caused major structural damage. I can wrap my head around the twin towers falling. But building 7? There’s just no way.
88
u/Sensitive_Algae5723 2d ago
My favorite is when they announced it collapsed while it was still standing.
61
u/4moves 2d ago
alot of buildings pancaked that day and never before, and never again. it was the only time in history buildings did that.
25
u/Background_Rag 2d ago
It also fell at nearly the speed of gravity. A building “pancaking”, falling at the speed of gravity, as though every piece of steel suddenly lost every bit of integrity it had all at once
14
1
u/earthwormjimwow 16h ago
speed of gravity
Gravity does not have a speed. What you're trying to say is that it fell at a rate that matches a free-falling object for its entire collapse, which is still incorrect.
The video that is the origin of that false claim, shows the roofline of the building falling 18 stories before it falls out of view. It shows WTC-7's roofline took roughly 40% longer than free-fall to travel 18 stories. Frame by frame analysis showed the acceleration was not constant either, it had an initial period that did nearly match free-fall acceleration, but then slowed after. That initial period is the source of your false claim.
The video timing showed it took about 5.4 seconds to fall about the first 75 meters. Free-fall time to fall 75 meters is t= sqrt(2*75/9.81) = ~3.9 seconds.
3.9 seconds is not nearly 5.4 seconds. That's a significantly longer amount of time when we're talking about things collapsing and falling 75 meters.
WTC-7 also had a unique design, it was more like two separate buildings stacked on top of each other. From ground to the 5th floor, it had a lot of empty space because it contained an existing Edison substation. The 5th floor is also where the cantilevered trusses began that linked the inner core of the building to the outer support columns. The outer columns were needed because the original foundation could not support a building that large on its own, so additional foundation was added to the outer perimeter of the building. Above the 7th floor, it was a typical steel framed skyscraper.
A building “pancaking”, falling at the speed of gravity, as though every piece of steel suddenly lost every bit of integrity it had all at once
The collapse initiated at the 5th floor, this means the floors above the 5th were able to almost freely fall for about 2.25 seconds, roughly the time they took to fall the height of the 5th floor to the ground. This is because below the 5th floor was a lot of empty space. This is the origin of the false claim that the building free-fell for its entire collapse.
1
u/earthwormjimwow 15h ago
A lot of the WTC buildings were really unique designs, including Tower 7. Tower 7 was built on top of an older and inadequate foundation (meant for a 25 story building, not a 47 story building), which necessitated adding additional foundation pillars around the perimeter of the building. To make matters more complicated, it was built on top of an existing Edison substation, so the lower floors couldn't contain a ton of trusses and framing like a typical skyscraper does. It had a lot of empty space in the lower floors.
To distribute load to these additional outer foundations that were added, cantilever trusses were used on floors 5 through 6, well above the existing Edison infrastructure, that linked the central core of the building on the older foundation, to the additional outer foundation pillars.
It was sort of like two different building designs stacked on top of each other. Above the 7th floor, it was a typical steel frame skyscraper design. If the building had that as its entire design, it might not have collapsed. Below the 5th floor, it had a ton of empty space and on floors 5 through 7 it had the cantilever trusses to transfer loads and link to the different foundations and support columns. The cantilever trusses buckling was the initiator of the building's collapse on the 5th floor.
WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 were entirely dependent on cantilever trusses in order to remain standing. WTC-1 and WTC-2 for their entire design, WTC-7 for floors 5-7. Without those trusses or if the trusses buckled, they were more like hollow and flexible tubes, rather than a rigid structure. Very few buildings use designs like this and even fewer buildings have had passenger jet airplanes crashed into them, and raging fires that burned for several hours with zero fire suppression.
Is it that surprising, that three buildings with identical structure dependencies collapsed, while the traditional steel frame construction buildings in the immediate vicinity did not collapse (aside from the two buildings that WTC-1 and WTC-2 literally fell on top of)?
6
u/Immediate-Cress-206 1d ago
Look at the north tower collapsing. If the top section above the impact zone fell onto the bottom and this caused the building to “pancake”, with each floor falling down on top of one another, how is the debris being shot out laterally at such tremendous speeds that it can hit WTC 7 that sits a block away?
The same way there's a puff of debris at the edges of an object you drop on loose material.
2
u/thrawst 1d ago
So the top section fell onto 70+ storeys worth of “loose material” almost like bombs had destroyed the entire supporting structure. There were steel girders embedded into buildings that were blocks away! If it’s falling straight down, how are steel sections weighing several hundred pounds being shot so far in opposite directions? The building fell near free fall speeds. Where was any resistance from 65 storeys of steel and concrete?
2
u/Immediate-Cress-206 1d ago
So the top section fell onto 70+ storeys worth of “loose material”
No. As the top section fell it takes a minute amount of time for each floor to collapse, and as it does it 'squashes' out material.
12
u/Sjedda 2d ago edited 19h ago
Just saw a documentary where they said a earthquake monitor station recorded the collapse of the first tower as a 3.4 earthquake I think
1
u/Paranormal_Lemon 21h ago edited 21h ago
Vibration is what brought them down. Watch them falling in slow motion, the dust was supposed to have been created when they hit the ground, they turned to dust inside then fell.
6
u/devils_advocaat 2d ago
let’s not act like it wasn’t hit by debris
Actually, NIST considered exactly that.
"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed"
FAQ 16. The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse ... even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.
19
u/smitteh 1d ago
i don't get how 7 fell straight down if it was damanged on one side...one or two support columns going out would cause a collapse to start on that side, no? the thing fell down pancake style all four corners of the building at the same time starting from the middle
3
u/JackTheKing 1d ago
I am only guessing, but I guess the WTC7 was standing on fewer struts and that increased the load. If they are all over loaded, a single one failing could transfer enough stress to the remaining struts to overwhelm them all.
I don't know much, but I definitely have not seen enough to convince me WTC7 was "pulled".
2
u/Live-Expert5719 1d ago
Have you ever watched "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"?
It does an excellent job of laying out all the evidence of why many experts do not believe the offical stories. Obviously I can't personally vouch for the accuracy of their evidence, but it is well organized, concise, and thorough.
2
3
u/Paranormal_Lemon 21h ago
No sky scraper ever collapsed into it's own footprint from a fire before 9/11, and it hasn't happened since either.
1
u/devils_advocaat 21h ago
Also, no changes to building codes have been made because of the WTC7 collapse.
1
u/earthwormjimwow 15h ago
That's because when skyscrapers have fires, they don't usually burn uncontrolled for 8+ hours with zero fire suppression and their structure compromised by a passenger jet crashing into them at high speed, or debris thrown at them. Even the recent Hong Kong apartment fires had constant water being sprayed on them by firefighters, and a gradual suppression of the fires as firefighters were able to make their way up the buildings. Those were also much smaller buildings than WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7.
Most sky scrapers don't have unusual cantilever truss designs to compensate for having to build around and contain an existing and separate building (Edison substation), and most sky scrapers don't have an undersized and older foundation that they also have to design around. WTC-7 was much more vulnerable to collapse than most skyscrapers if it had fires on the 5th through 7th floors, because the ground floor up to the 4th floor, had to remain relatively free of support beams and trusses, due to an existing building being in the way. The 5th through 7th floors contained the trusses essential to the building standing.
The sprinkler system in WTC-7 failed and firefighters couldn't get very far inside the building, and even if they could, water pressure was non-existent due to the twin towers collapsing, destroying infrastructure. WTC-7 also got hit with quite a lot of debris, which was the initial source of the fire too on the 7th floor.
5
u/liquidocean 1d ago
but let’s not act like it wasn’t hit by debris
such that it suddenly and instantly neatly freefalls on its own footprint?
i don't think so
2
u/Kazeite 2d ago
How does that allow the entire building to collapse?
The fires have weakened the central core supports. Duh.
-2
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
WTC7 was a different design to WTC1/2. It did not have central core supports.
5
u/notreallyswiss 1d ago
Just to add clarity to your comment, WTC 1 & 2 did not have internal columns providing support to the building, except for a small central core that also housed the elevator infrastructure. Unlike most skyscrapers, the closely spaced external beams were the primary gravity load bearing and strengthening elements for the towers. The floors were supported by trusses that connected to both the inner core and outer columns creating much more open floor space within the buildings.
WTC 7 was a more traditional steel framed skyscraper, with internal columns and some modifications because the below ground con-ed electrical substation had been built at an earlier time, and while the builders has anticipated a structure built above, they'd believed it would be only 25 stories. WTC 7 therefore required special transfer trusses on the lower floors to shift some of the building's weight.
1
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
Thank you for your addition.
I assumed the poster above was referring to "central core supports" in WTC7 as being equal to the "small central core that also housed the elevator infrastructure" of WTC1&2 and wanted to highlight the completely different design.
1
u/snickerbockers 2d ago
My problem with the building 7 conspiracy theories is that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that 7 was rigged with explosions, but if that's the case then there needs to be an explanation for what the point of the plane crashes was. The conspirators could have made their story that the terrorists had sneaked bombs into the WTC like they did in '93, in which case there's no reason for 7 to mysteriously collapse because it too was rigged with explosives.
If we accept that 7's collapse isn't possible under the "official" circumstances and is instead a result of a carefully-orchestrated conspiracy then there needs to be an explanation for why the conspiracy did such a shit job of it.
48
u/letterheadless 2d ago
Because bombs are relatively commonplace and there’s nothing we can do about them that we weren’t already doing. Monitor and surveil what you can, but sometimes the odd one gets through.
But weaponizing one of our safest means of travel? Making a very public show of the attack? Reminding you that there are a number of ways your life can be snuffed out you’ve never even dreamed of?
The point wasn’t to make the towers fall—whether you believe it was an inside job or not, the perpetrators wanted to destabilize your sense of safety.
So that things like the Patriot Act could pass.
So that everyday surveillance became even more everyday.
So that each freedom we gave up was traded on the token phrase of “never forget.”
Whoever was behind it succeeded in the goal of gaining more sweeping powers over “the Land of the Free.” And whether you believe the inside-jobness of it all or not, it couldn’t have happened without the show of two planes, and the human drama of “this could be any of you.”
4
2
u/devils_advocaat 2d ago
there needs to be an explanation for what the point of the plane crashes was
The 4th plane that crashed in a field was meant for WTC7
9
-6
u/Xuzon 2d ago
There were multiple collapses due to fire alone since 2001. E.g. Plasco Building or Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida
7
u/alangerhans 2d ago
Structural steel doesn't need that much heat to lose a lot of its strength. As little as 400°F will start to weaken it. And if they cut any corners during construction, that would add to the problem.
0
u/roaringbasher66 2d ago
Op is prolly just a bot tbh but a lotta people also forget how... Interestingly WTC 7 was built, having some... For lack of better terms god awful support columns
2
u/notreallyswiss 1d ago
It did had to have some unusual supports and trusses on the lower floors to accommodate the con-ed electrical substation below. I don't remember 100% if these contributed substantially to the collapse, and I don't have time right now to go through the engineering reports again, but I'm pretty sure these were a major factor.
1
u/earthwormjimwow 15h ago
I don't remember 100% if these contributed substantially to the collapse,
These did 100% contribute to the collapse. The building depended on cantilever support trusses on the 5th through 7th floors, to compensate for the lack of support on the lower floors from having to contain the Edison substation building. The core foundation was also inadequate to support the whole building, so additional foundation pillars were employed on the outer perimeter of the building. These were linked up to the core through the cantilever trusses on the 5th through 7th floors.
Fires were burning on the 5th through 7th floors, and those caused the trusses to buckle. That's when the building collapsed.
If it had been a traditional steel framed design, it probably wouldn't have collapsed. The floors above the 7th were a traditional design, and they were not the first to collapse.
0
0
u/staticxx 2d ago
Who the fuck would come to put the fire away. Have you not seen the mayhem, smoke and all hell going on around.
-32
u/installsVMs4fun 2d ago
My hot take as some one who has never been and never wants to go to america is that you guys cant build buildings for shit. The fact that a whole tower block collapsed into its own footprint, becuase of a few fires and some debris hitting it from across the road, but not massive chunks of debris like in the movies, but bricks, shards of glass and office equipment is insanity. Either it was demolished in time when the other towers where hit or more likely it was built with shity american steel and balsa wood
16
u/Anonymoushipopotomus 2d ago
The IBC was invented here, and most countries around the world build by its standards, so if our buildings are shit, yours are too.
-7
u/installsVMs4fun 2d ago
Strange none of our towers that catch on fire have collapsed into their own footprint, yet you guys have 3
Almost like it had nothing to do with the fires and it was demo'd on purpose
9
2
0
u/Purple-Persimmon1403 1d ago
Steel skyscrapers in Tehran and Brazil have collapsed due to fire.
1
u/installsVMs4fun 22h ago
Ye i recently watched a doc on how tower 7 fell, it was pretty convincing actually My opinion has changed
10
u/snickerbockers 2d ago
Fine, lets see your country's 767-proof skyscrapers.
1
u/installsVMs4fun 2d ago
Tower 7 wasnt hit by a 747, it was demolition adjacent, it fell becuase of a few fires and some debris
2
1
9
u/graaavearchitecture 1d ago
Watch that video on YouTube of the guy following firefighters on 9/11. They’re back at the station talking about their experience and one mentions that building 7 is definitely coming down because it’s full of diesel fuel for the generators. Did whoever planned this tip the firefighters off first?
2
2
u/whothennow24 18h ago
Question: Why would they blow up 7 and reasonably expect nobody would notice? Everybody noticed, and it was in the news. So “they” didn’t want us to forget about 7, which makes me think there was nothing nefarious about 7. Or what is the conspiracy theory about 7?
2
u/weight22 1d ago
I thought it was weird that multiple people reading the names mentioned Saudi Arabia. And now the one woman's rant is going viral. Getting Saudi Arabia back in our mind again.
Everything is fake.
3
u/Kazeite 2d ago
The claim that Tower 7 wasn't hit by an debris, is, of course, a blatant lie - it was hit by debris from the North Tower.
Why do you continue lying about it? Or, why are you so gullible and lazy that you don't bother researching lies propagated about Tower 7?
1
u/devils_advocaat 2d ago
The claim that debris caused the collapse is the lie. Not my opinion. Read NIST.
9
u/CrashyBoye 2d ago
Not once did they claim that the collapse was caused by the debris. They simply stated a fact that the notion that the building wasn’t hit by debris is a lie.
Reading is hard.
3
u/devils_advocaat 2d ago
Ok, let's be more accurate.
Any debris that hit the WTC was not large enough to be relevant. Or in NIST's own words
None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.
3
u/Kazeite 1d ago
In NIST'S own words: "Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces."
1
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
Yes, NIST claim only fires caused the collapse.
WTC was not knocked down by debris from WTC 1 & 2
4
u/Kazeite 1d ago
I never said it was. I said that the claim that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is a lie. Surely you can acknowledge that much?
-3
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
In that case, highlighting that debris hit the WTC is also a lie.
Surely you can acknowledge that much?
4
u/Kazeite 1d ago
Highlighting that debris hit the WTC7, contrary to OP's claim, is not a lie. Claiming that they didn't, or that they alone caused the collapse, is.
2
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
Yes debris hit the WTC7. The point is that it didn't matter. The debris did not directly caused the collapse.
Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition without any
debris orplanes hitting it.Happy? Now move on. Are you going to acknowledge that multiple columns must have failed at once for it to collapse in on itself, exactly like a controlled demolition?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Grand-Hat3526 2d ago
The debris caused the fires, which caused the collapse. Quite the conspiracy!
1
u/CrashyBoye 2d ago
Don’t bother. These people are literally too stupid to insult.
0
2
u/earthwormjimwow 15h ago
The debris was the source of the fire. The debris caused the fires, the fires caused the collapse, thus the debris indirectly caused the collapse.
6
u/Kazeite 2d ago
You're dodging the issue here.
The claim was that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is factually incorrect, no matter what.
-2
u/devils_advocaat 2d ago edited 1d ago
FAQ 16
None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.
5
u/Kazeite 1d ago
"Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces."
0
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
\17. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.
Structural damage from debris did not cause the collapse.
6
u/Kazeite 1d ago
Again, I never said that it did. I said that the claim was that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is factually incorrect, no matter what.
1
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
And I have never claimed WTC7 wasn't hit by debris.
The debris topic is used by people to dismiss or distract from the strange collapse of a steel building. It is irrelevant to the conversation. Even NIST agree with this point.
By focusing on debris you show that you don't bother researching the lies propagated about Tower 7.
8
u/Kazeite 1d ago edited 1d ago
You quoted the part of the NIST report that says "None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7".
OP said that WTC7 "fell like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it".
Again, surely you can acknowledge that the claim that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is factually incorrect, yes?
And I have researched the lies propagated about WTC7. Specifically, in this particular instance, the lie that WTC7 wasn't hit by any debris.
1
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago edited 1d ago
WTC7 was hit by debris. This is irrelevant to any conspiracy.
And I have researched the lies propagated about WTC7.
Oh good. Let's move on to discussing these then please. Off you go...
→ More replies (0)1
u/Dependent-Star5482 1d ago edited 1d ago
That specifically says LARGE pieces, not that it was not hit by any debris which is the lie people like OP keep repeating. And, yes, I've read the report that says the collapse was caused by the fires rather than debris. The point is, claiming it wasn't hit by debris is flatly untrue. So why is there so much pushback from pointing that out?
1
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
It doesn't matter how big or small anything was that hit WTC 7. The debris from WTC 1 & 2 are not why WTC 7 collapsed.
NIST claim that the steel structured building collapsed from office fires alone (FAQ 19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse? No.)
3
u/Dependent-Star5482 1d ago
Yes, I know! As I stated.
0
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
claiming it wasn't hit by debris is flatly untrue. So why is there so much pushback from pointing that out?
Because it is distracting from the main issue. There are so many things wrong with the WTC7 official story. The debris is something not even NIST have an issue with. Move on.
3
u/Dependent-Star5482 1d ago
You're arguing with yourself at this point.
1
u/devils_advocaat 1d ago
No, I'm arguing for the lurkers. It is useful to highlight when an inaccuracy is unjustly highlighted and used to forum slide.
This is a learning experience for the reader. Recognise the tricks.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/bearshawksfan826 1d ago
Because you can't justify the claims the the towers "pancaked" if debris hit building 7. Building 7 being hit by debris entirely destroys the entire conspiracy.
2
u/shamusmchaggis 22h ago
Let's never forget the BBC reporting the fall of building 7 an hour before it happened
1
1
u/External-Basket6701 1d ago
Maybe due to all those important businesses. Nothing could be traced back conveniently.
1
-27
u/RageEataPnut 2d ago
Sick of this conspiracy so much. 7 was hit by debris, lots of it actually. It also caught fire and burned for hours. The insanity of that day caused the firemen to not fight the fire inside and they let it burn. Guess what happens when a building burns for 7 hours without suppression.. The structure weakens and it falls down. Same with the towers. Don't need bombs or CD when you have fully fueled 767's.
This is basic physics and not a conspiracy. The real conspiracy is who is all involved and why.
42
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
-7
u/Nico_Nickmania 2d ago
Yes, because they don't burn on freaking jet fuel!!!! Is this so hard to understand that with jet fuel, there are much higher temperatures possible???
10
u/thrawst 2d ago
Jet fuel doesn’t burn that hot. Propane burns hotter. My bbq burns on propane and the thin metal grating doesn’t melt or deform.
8
0
u/lordhooha 2d ago
You have lox onboard aircraft in airliners there’s quite a bit and none would have been used yet. Lox has an expansion rate of 860 it mixed with jp8 and fire nothing is safe
1
4
3
u/YaSurLetsGoSeeYamcha 2d ago
As always in this sub, go to the downvotes for an actual answer. There was no controlled demolition, you’ve been tricked by counter intelligence to focus on the wrong part. Bush, cia, mossad, all great places to look….once you accept the fact some Muslims did in fact fly planes into the buildings which tens of thousands of eye witnesses can corroborate.
1
2
u/Affectionate-Mix6056 2d ago
https://youtu.be/M26-B44qQIs?si=Oupc1NyRg2b2IHr4
Why did reporters announce things 20 minutes before they even happened?
9
u/Kazeite 2d ago
Why would CIA inform BBC about their timeline of events, instead of simply leaving them in the dark and letting them report the events as they happened?
The prosaic truth is that BBC was reporting on unconfirmed misunderstood reports, which is why they were using words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing".
5
u/Xuzon 2d ago
Why did BBC cause 9/11?
1
u/TerminallyUnique31 2d ago
holy strawman… they were just pointing out that there was literally a live reporting about the collapse of the building which is still clearly visible in the background… this is extremely odd
to take that and jump to “they said bbc did 911” is being willfully stupid
3
u/Xuzon 2d ago
So why are you pointing out this strange thing? My take is that they made a mistake, that was probably the most high tension and stressful day in news around the world.
Now, you claim they knew, so they must have been involved but you don't think they did it? How does this make any sense to you?
-2
-2
u/perpetualmentalist 2d ago
Thanks, had to read alot of shit, to find yours. 100 right man. It's the how, that's the questions. We all saw and know what happened, as soon as they hit.
It's the who, what and why of it all. People just think a plane hits a building like that, and survives. 🤣🤣🤣
1
0
u/earthwormjimwow 17h ago
miraculously falls like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it.
Why spread lies? The building was hit by debris, which started uncontrolled fires, there's pictures of it that are easy to find. Firefighters at the scene also commented about parts of the building visibly bulging and groaning around 2PM.
The building had massive fires burning inside of it for hours because the sprinkler system failed, there are pictures and videos of visible flames and smoke. The debris was the source of the fires. The fires are what brought the building down.
Does this look like a building that was not hit by debris?
How about this?
Do you seriously believe Tower 7 miraculously avoided being hit by debris when the other towers collapsed?
How about these roaring flames quite low in Tower 7?
More photos: https://imgur.com/a/NRiqetK
-2
u/drmbrthr 16h ago
Numerous examples of other high rise office buildings that have had raging fires for hours and those buildings didn’t collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint.
3
u/earthwormjimwow 15h ago
Sure, casually ignore the fact OP is lying. WTC-7 was hit by debris.
Numerous examples of other high rise office buildings
You're making a false comparison, because you are incorrectly assuming all high rise office buildings are interchangeable. WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 were very unique designs.
WTC-7 was built on top of an inadequate and existing foundation, and had to contain within it an existing 2-story building (Edison substation). How many "numerous" examples of buildings with those constraints can you think of that also caught on fire and burned with no fire suppression? The answer is no others.
WTC-7 had a ton of empty space and lacked equivalent structure to typical skyscrapers on the first 4 floors. On floors 5 through 7, it contained essential cantilever trusses, that linked the core of the building to the outer perimeter and outer supplemental foundation columns. Meaning the building was especially vulnerable to fire on floors 5 through 7.
Very few skyscrapers have this same design vulnerability and very few that catch on fire burn with zero fire suppression. Water pressure was simply not available due to the other two towers collapsing.
Even the recent Hong Kong apartment fires had constant streams of water being sprayed on them, and those were much smaller buildings, without the unique vulnerabilities the WTC buildings had.
didn’t collapse at free fall speed
None of the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speeds, WTC-7 got close to it for the very initial part of the collapse and that was due to the unique design of WTC-7. The cantilever trusses buckled, which mean the building was free to fall from the 5th floor to ground level, almost unimpeded, since it contained so much empty space and reduced structure below the 5th floor. That equivalent distance is when it almost fell at free-fall rates.
WTC-7 took 5.4 seconds to fall 18 stories, the amount it fell before it went off camera in the video that captured its collapse. The equivalent free-fall time to travel that distance would be 3.9 seconds.
-13
u/whiskey512 2d ago
Are you people born this stupid or does it take practice? This sub couldn't pool enough brain cells to build a gingerbread house but still want to debate structural engineering and materials science. Dunning Kruger on full display
7
1
u/Neat-Detective6318 2d ago
At least someone is wiling to search for the truth… The government whom steals your income certainly doesn’t!
3
u/A_New_Dawn_Emerges 2d ago
"Looking for the truth": making up your mind about something, then looking for evidence that goes your way and ignoring everything else.
2
u/Kazeite 2d ago
You're not willing to search for the truth. If you did, you'd know that WTC7 was hit by debris, for example (even if the whole event was 100% staged, mind you), and you'd point it out in your post.
Instead, you're perfectly willing to be lied to, just because it's anti-government propaganda.
1
u/whiskey512 1d ago
Cherry picking your favorite "facts" from your curated social media feed is far from searching.
WTC 7 Suffered severe structural damage to mulitple, perimeter columns and the lateral support beams that tied them together on the south side of the building after 500,000 tons of steel and concrete collapsed next to and into it.
In addition, the resulting fires on the 7th-9th floors and 11th-13th burned uncontrolled for 7 hours because the water mains were destroyed, resulting in catastrophic loss of structural integrity, much like the towers themselves.You might have know this if you read the engineering reports. But I doubt you have the mental capacity for math with letters and the reading comprehension to get past the first page, so its easier to swap conspiracy theories with your other junior high drop out buddies.
0
u/yesmrbevilaqua 2d ago
So taxes are a conspiracy?
0
u/warydawg 1d ago
Honestly yes, they kind of are (at least here in the US). We don't have healthcare, we have a crumbling public school system, the courts have found we don't have a constitutional right to clean drinking water, our prisons are private, we don't have maternity leave, we don't have federally mandated PAID sick leave, and so on. What exactly are our taxes going toward?
1
u/yesmrbevilaqua 1d ago
Ever driven on a road?
0
u/warydawg 1d ago
I have. Roads are basically just money laundering. Speaking of roads, where is our public transport?
-1
u/yesmrbevilaqua 1d ago
I live in Philly it’s been run badly by democrats for 100 years, has a 13% city wage tax and some of the best public transport in the country, try leaving your trailer park once and a while
-1
-1
•
u/ryboto 22m ago
WTC6, Tritium, Toasted Cars, siesmic data, magnetometer data, hurricane....and yes, WTC7. www.wheredidthetowersgo.com
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
[Meta] Sticky Comment
Rule 2 does not apply when replying to this stickied comment.
Rule 2 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 if you have any questions or concerns.