I always found that particular angle to be hilarious. Like, if you didn’t know the towers were sorta built like a bundle of wires on end and that deforming even the tip of the bundle with heat could cause the roof to fall in and split the whole thing open, then the argument from the conspiracy theorist that it was a controlled demolition sounds plausible. How could that tiny plane hitting so high on the tower knock it down, twice?
Suddenly the WTC-7 guy appears. He’s wearing a literal tinfoil hat and he hasn’t showered in a week. He hijacks the entire conversation to explain how a building that was slapped by the (burning) tallest building in the world couldn’t have possibly collapsed after 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.
By now you’re probably realizing you have somewhere else to be, and that’s fine, because the two crazies are now shouting over each other about why the Pentagon didn’t collapse, how the entire attack was cover for UA 93 to flee for South America, or whether it was the CIA or aliens who orchestrated the whole thing.
Like, if you didn’t know the towers were sorta built like a bundle of wires on end and that deforming even the tip of the bundle with heat could cause the roof to fall in and split the whole thing open
Yeah… The wtc was basically supported by a center frame tube support structure tied together with a couple hundred perimeter support beams by giant hat truss. If the hat truss is damaged the whole thing collapses under its own weight.
how a building that was slapped by the (burning) tallest building in the world couldn’t have possibly collapsed after 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.
But but, no sky scraper had ever been brought down by fire before… They always forget the part where a giant chunk of building fell on it doing a ton of structural damage before a multi floor uncontrolled fire burnt for 7 hours straight. Plus, there have been several buildings of similar size that have collapsed due to fire since 2001.
People who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition simply do not not know enough about engineering to have an educated opinion. There are only a few demolition companies in the world large enough to take on a project that size, and it would have taken months of hundreds if not thousands of civilian workers and engineers working onsite around the clock to execute.
Yeah… The wtc was basically supported by a center frame tube support structure tied together with a couple hundred perimeter support beams by giant hat truss.
Do you have a source? Not doubting, just curious to see the schematics myself since I didn’t know it had that kind of structure
I don’t have the schematics or as-built on hand. If you read through the development tab on the buildings wiki I’m sure you could parce it out. The towers were built to be almost transparent, so the architect wanted the minimal internal support and a lattice work of perimeter support. It really was a uniquely designed building for the time, but the actual construction was a bit sloppy to say the least.
And where do you suppose the government is going to find hundreds/thousands of civilian bluecollar workers willing to murder thousands of their fellow citizens?
There are only a few demolition companies in the world large enough to take on a project that size, and it would have taken months of hundreds if not thousands of civilian workers and engineers working onsite around the clock to execute.
Eh… I’m no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there’s one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don’t care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
But yeah, let me reiterate, it was not a controlled demolition, and the buildings collapsed due to steel supports being weakened by fire and airplane impact.
*The one 9/11 conspiracy I am kind of on board with is that various US intelligence agencies were aware of the impending attack and failed to do anything about it. Either because they were grossly incompetent … or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen, because the people in charge (Bush administration) wanted it to happen: that way they could have excuses to justify new wars in the Middle East, the Patriot Act, forming the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE), etc.
*Oh, and a further 9/11 conspiracy I could get on board with: Flight 93 (the hijacked plane that didn’t hit anything) was supposedly taken down because the passengers on board had heard of the other attacks and decided to fight back, and the plane lost control in the struggle and crashed. But I suspect that might be a cover story. I suspect that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile, and the story of heroic passengers fighting back was invented in order to absolve the US government of the guilt of shooting down a civilian plane full of innocent passengers. With that cover story, the passengers are self-sacrificing heroes, rather than victims of collateral damage who’d been sacrificed by their own government.
Eh… I’m no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there’s one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don’t care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
Not really, successful planned demolitions are definitely a legitimate engineering feat. Safety of course requires a ton of planning and work, but that’s mainly because you have to issue temporary evictions to anyone living in the surrounding area.
Even planned demolitions where you don’t really have to worry about collateral damage go tits up all the time. Which ends up being an expensive mess to clean up afterwards. You really have to know what you are doing to make sure there just isn’t a partial collapse, and as I said there aren’t many companies that specialize in it.
Either because they were grossly incompetent … or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen
I mean, there’s been plenty of evidence of just how incompetent us intelligence agencies were behaving before 9/11. It’s one of the reasons they created the department of homeland security afterwards. The agencies were to busy fighting for funding and getting caught up in dick measuring contest to actually do there jobs.
I think it’s just a case of a politician “not letting any good tragedy going to waste” rather than someone allowing something to happen. The risk vs reward of that scenario is just too unpredictable for someone like Cheney or Bush to be on board.
The wtc never achieved free fall speed. Parts of building 7 achieved free fall speed, but that was just the facade falling in after the internal structure had already collapsed.
Into its own footprint?
Kinda to be expected when the building’s floors falling on top of each other was what initiated the vertical collapse.
been hundreds of structual engineers who have come forward calling it a controlled demolition.
The list of “engineers and architects” for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have never been verified, nor does it differentiate between what kind of engineering specialty they claim to belong to. At the time anyone could join that group and claim they were an engineer or architect and be counted.
How exactly do you suppose the proposed demolition team laid miles of det chord and thousands of pounds of explosives without being seen? Why wasnt there any evidence of explosives witnessed or collected at the scene? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition…? They aren’t exactly hard to miss.
That 9/11 was a false flag attack and the buildings were demolished by the government. It was a meme even. “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” etc.
WTC-7 was seen by these people as proof of the conspiracy because it fell without being hit by a plane.
Because we all know planes are the only thing that can cause a building to fall.
Every time a high rise is demolished, someone has to fly a plane into it. It’s pretty much what the Boeing 737 Max was designed for.
And pool noodles. Never hit a building with a pool noodle!
I always found that particular angle to be hilarious. Like, if you didn’t know the towers were sorta built like a bundle of wires on end and that deforming even the tip of the bundle with heat could cause the roof to fall in and split the whole thing open, then the argument from the conspiracy theorist that it was a controlled demolition sounds plausible. How could that tiny plane hitting so high on the tower knock it down, twice?
Suddenly the WTC-7 guy appears. He’s wearing a literal tinfoil hat and he hasn’t showered in a week. He hijacks the entire conversation to explain how a building that was slapped by the (burning) tallest building in the world couldn’t have possibly collapsed after 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.
By now you’re probably realizing you have somewhere else to be, and that’s fine, because the two crazies are now shouting over each other about why the Pentagon didn’t collapse, how the entire attack was cover for UA 93 to flee for South America, or whether it was the CIA or aliens who orchestrated the whole thing.
The US government is the one spreading the most unhinged theories to discredit the more credible ones, change my mind.
Yeah… The wtc was basically supported by a center frame tube support structure tied together with a couple hundred perimeter support beams by giant hat truss. If the hat truss is damaged the whole thing collapses under its own weight.
But but, no sky scraper had ever been brought down by fire before… They always forget the part where a giant chunk of building fell on it doing a ton of structural damage before a multi floor uncontrolled fire burnt for 7 hours straight. Plus, there have been several buildings of similar size that have collapsed due to fire since 2001.
People who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition simply do not not know enough about engineering to have an educated opinion. There are only a few demolition companies in the world large enough to take on a project that size, and it would have taken months of hundreds if not thousands of civilian workers and engineers working onsite around the clock to execute.
Do you have a source? Not doubting, just curious to see the schematics myself since I didn’t know it had that kind of structure
I don’t have the schematics or as-built on hand. If you read through the development tab on the buildings wiki I’m sure you could parce it out. The towers were built to be almost transparent, so the architect wanted the minimal internal support and a lattice work of perimeter support. It really was a uniquely designed building for the time, but the actual construction was a bit sloppy to say the least.
I don’t know. If you’re not worried about casualties or collateral damage then it gets a lot easier.
And where do you suppose the government is going to find hundreds/thousands of civilian bluecollar workers willing to murder thousands of their fellow citizens?
Eh… I’m no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there’s one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don’t care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
But yeah, let me reiterate, it was not a controlled demolition, and the buildings collapsed due to steel supports being weakened by fire and airplane impact.
*The one 9/11 conspiracy I am kind of on board with is that various US intelligence agencies were aware of the impending attack and failed to do anything about it. Either because they were grossly incompetent … or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen, because the people in charge (Bush administration) wanted it to happen: that way they could have excuses to justify new wars in the Middle East, the Patriot Act, forming the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE), etc.
*Oh, and a further 9/11 conspiracy I could get on board with: Flight 93 (the hijacked plane that didn’t hit anything) was supposedly taken down because the passengers on board had heard of the other attacks and decided to fight back, and the plane lost control in the struggle and crashed. But I suspect that might be a cover story. I suspect that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile, and the story of heroic passengers fighting back was invented in order to absolve the US government of the guilt of shooting down a civilian plane full of innocent passengers. With that cover story, the passengers are self-sacrificing heroes, rather than victims of collateral damage who’d been sacrificed by their own government.
Not really, successful planned demolitions are definitely a legitimate engineering feat. Safety of course requires a ton of planning and work, but that’s mainly because you have to issue temporary evictions to anyone living in the surrounding area.
Even planned demolitions where you don’t really have to worry about collateral damage go tits up all the time. Which ends up being an expensive mess to clean up afterwards. You really have to know what you are doing to make sure there just isn’t a partial collapse, and as I said there aren’t many companies that specialize in it.
I mean, there’s been plenty of evidence of just how incompetent us intelligence agencies were behaving before 9/11. It’s one of the reasons they created the department of homeland security afterwards. The agencies were to busy fighting for funding and getting caught up in dick measuring contest to actually do there jobs.
I think it’s just a case of a politician “not letting any good tragedy going to waste” rather than someone allowing something to happen. The risk vs reward of that scenario is just too unpredictable for someone like Cheney or Bush to be on board.
Free fall speed? Into its own footprint? There have been hundreds of structual engineers who have come forward calling it a controlled demolition.
The wtc never achieved free fall speed. Parts of building 7 achieved free fall speed, but that was just the facade falling in after the internal structure had already collapsed.
Kinda to be expected when the building’s floors falling on top of each other was what initiated the vertical collapse.
The list of “engineers and architects” for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have never been verified, nor does it differentiate between what kind of engineering specialty they claim to belong to. At the time anyone could join that group and claim they were an engineer or architect and be counted.
How exactly do you suppose the proposed demolition team laid miles of det chord and thousands of pounds of explosives without being seen? Why wasnt there any evidence of explosives witnessed or collected at the scene? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition…? They aren’t exactly hard to miss.
I don’t think the person you replied to believes the conspiracy, they’re just answering the question about what the conspiracy is.
You’re correct, but I don’t think disorderly thought I believed it.
Don’t even mention the Pentagon
Isn’t that where the missile hit on that fateful day?
Oooh. Yeah. There’s insane people on every point of the political spectrum.