I always push back on my friends claiming it collapsed due to outside influence other than the planes hitting it because I feel like it’s downplaying third world ingenuity as well as the very material reasons (blowback) that lead to the attack. Like, at worst the US state knew it was coming and did nothing bc it was politically convenient.
You are telling me buildings collapse when a commercial airliner crashes into it? Impossible.
Oh fucking hell. The very first line is "The 9/11 terrorist attack". I bet they're going to cover every element of the physics of 9/11 except for the mechanical faults that could have caused it. Right off the bat they're assuming it was intentional.
I don't understand what you're saying. This video is about how the aircraft collisions and ensuing fires resulted in the towers losing structural integrity and undergoing progressive collapse.
I don't understand what you're saying.
I think it's part of a running bit where he pretends to believe that it was just a random accident, and that the real conspiracy theory is that anyone meant to do it at all. In the vein of "what if Kennedy's head just naturally did that on its own?" jokes.
Kennedy’s head just naturally did that on its own?
Wait, yours doesn’t?
"what if Kennedy's head just naturally did that on its own?" jokes
Jokes?
they also had the hulk cutting the top of the tower off with a machete
The most obvious answer to me always seemed that the contractor(s) who built it just skimped out and it wasn't actually built to spec which is why they didn't survive the impacts. The thermal insulation spray in particular was not even applied above the 78th floor. Not that the floors they sprayed it on were would have fared much better since the insulation had a habit of falling off of the steel anyways.
They said in a week they'd have a sequel video on the WTC7 collapse too. It's been 12 days and no video.
They also mentioned some kind of experiment for that video, and money problems.
*in the meantime, I remember a video where someone simulated a progressive collapse of WTC 7, but it's not exactly a thorough case
https://youtu.be/VAkTbyENZ5s?si=XRjGKr_0WBm5BAwz
Were doing a 9/11 truther struggle session.
my dad and I are CIA so we already know the answer, but it's fun watching normies try to figure it outNot sure if y'all know, but an independent study of Building 7 found that fire could not have caused its collapse:
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Thanks, I'll take a look at it when I have time.
What bugs me about this is the basic story: why would someone want to bring down WTC 7, seven hours after the towers fell, with no casualties? Unless the report is really strong I'll probably end up concluding that they just failed to account for something and the fire and tower debris damage still caused it. Real buildings, structure fires, and structure collapses are more complicated than theoretical descriptions and computer models. For one thing, buildings can have construction defects that design documents do not attest to.
Wikipedia lists some conjectured motives people have put forward:
Some proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition theories suggest that 7 WTC was demolished because it may have served as an operational center for the demolition of the Twin Towers, while others suggest that government insiders may have wanted to destroy key files held in the building pertaining to corporate fraud. The WTC buildings housed dozens of federal, state and local government agencies.[68] According to a statement reported by the BBC, Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center.[68]
But like, is it really easier to rig an occupied building to blow than to just delete some files? Is it that hard to clear out an operational center and keep a light footprint? Why would an operational center need to be in WTC 7 in the first place? And for that matter, the operational center argument means you also need to believe the towers were a controlled demolition, and that's a whole other case that I'm not convinced of. Letting terrorists fly multiple passenger planes into buildings seems like casus belli enough.
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf
Page 3 of the report you linked (page 16 of the pdf) has a nice little summary of the arguments, but I'd need to read more to understand them.
There's also a nice summary at the very end, on page 109 (page 122 of the pdf), of how they think the collapse must have happened.
- Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse.
Maybe debris damage from the falling towers?
- The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.
This seems like it could have been caused by fire, but I'd need to read more of the report.
Anyway, I've saved the link and I'll dig into it when I have time, thanks again for sharing it.
even if this was not my profession, it would be stupid, but because it is my profession it is just an insult. there have been hundreds of engineers of many subdisciplines calling out these stupidities from the get go. and people forget that there has not been a complete official explanation for this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=za8QiuNxjJ0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rAoRsZaykQA
to get you started.
Thanks, I'll watch them when I have time.
I'll also take a look at this study I found after a quick search
https://web.archive.org/web/20150907011050/http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf
To be honest, because the controlled demolition theory seems so implausible to me, just the whole operation that would be involved, I'm gonna need some strong arguments that a high-energy event like the WTC collisions, fires, and collapses could not create, e.g., CNTs, or microspheres. It's not my area but I do have a little relevant background and it doesn't seem implausible to me.
There's also this article I found in my admittedly brief search on the topic:
https://www.machinedesign.com/home/article/21830429/another-blow-for-wtc-conspiracy-theorists
They claim that red-gray chips and iron-rich microspheres found in WTC dust are residue from thermite fires that support their idea about thermite.
But this claim took a hit this spring when the microscopy consulting firm MVA Scientific Consultants in Duluth, Ga. released a study of these chips collected from WTC dust. They used a stereomicroscope and polarized light microscopy, among other things, to analyze the samples. MVA says the analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison. Scientists there ran additional tests an the samples that included Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); SEM-EDS of cross-sections; low temperature ashing and residue analysis by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and EDS; and several other more involved methods.
Their conclusion: There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles that you would expect to see from a thermite burn. They say the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon-steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. And there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, so the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.
And WTC conspiracy theorists' claim that microscopic spheres of iron found in WTC dust could only have been formed with thermite was recently debunked by a group called New Mexicans for Science and Reason who pointed out that very small metal particles have a much lower melting point than bulk material. Wires and filaments from electronics in the WTC are the likely source of the microspheres. The NMSR group even produced a YouTube video showing how to create your own microspheres by burning steel wool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9wSD4Hcys&list=UUb1Lcha1B51ChVrbBi548OA&index=2&feature=plcp
I'll be sure to watch the videos when I have time and learn more about the topic, thanks for sending them to me
not to be confused, i am not saying that it was definitely a controlled demolition, it may ver well be something else. but it is far more closer to a demolition than anything put forward by nist.
