No matter what happened OBL would declare it a victory. The plan was so simple in execution and depended so much on people acting according to a well known playbook more than 30 years old, that no matter what was the result, it would be a propaganda coup for Al Queda.
That’s not how science works.
It’s like saying “no rocket ever took humans to the moon before the Apollo 11 mission, therefore the science is on the side of the moon landing deniers.”
13 Likes
It was brought down by soap made from human flesh.
1 Like
Conspiracy theorists are infuriating wherever they pop up, but I guess I could sympathize with people who couldn’t wrap their minds around WTC7 collapsing for, like, a couple years after the event. There was still a lot we didn’t know about the situation, and it’s easier to invent fantastical government plots than to confront the realities of terrorism. But this article is about a bunch of idiots who are still denying an official report that came out years ago. The precedent has been set.
4 Likes
To address this point in a different way, should we reconsider the modeling we use to build high rises? Other buildings have caught fire or been hit by planes and nada. So maybe those building designs should be studied, along with the failure modes in the WT buildings, and some improvements to new designs could be made.
2 Likes
I’m fairly certain someone somewhere has done an analysis of this building collapsing and that there are entirely logical explanations… 
3 Likes
Jackie did it!
1 Like
like giant chunks of another building hitting it for example
3 Likes
All of the WTC 7 theories are based on the same limited and faulty source. Video from one side of the building (from the West Side Highway perspective) that totally misses the fact that the remains of two large towers were raining down upon it. Something far more visible from views facing the other direction.
-
What is often conveniently left out of the story are actual reports from NYFD firefighters at the scene, which describe huge, raging, unfought fires on many floors at once and visible deformations and creaking of the building prior to its collapse (Roberts 2008). Tower 7 was not hit by an airplane; however, it was struck by a 110-story flaming skyscraper, the North Tower. The fires raged for hours, and they eventually caused a critical column (#79) to fail because of thermal expansion; NIST determined that this column was crucial to the building and could even be considered a design flaw. Its failure would have collapsed the building even without the other structural damage from WTC 1’s collapse and the fires.
-
WTC 7’s brief 2.25 seconds of free fall is now the Truthers’ best “smoking gun.” The claim usually goes like this: “The fifty-eight perimeter columns would have resisted and slowed the collapse to much less than freefall. The ‘freefall’ of WTC 7, admitted to by NIST, proves it was controlled demolition.” The problem is that this is a straw man argument. NIST found the collapse occurred in three stages. The first stage, which lasted 1.75 seconds, is when the fifty-eight perimeter columns were buckled; during this interval, the rooftop actually fell only about seven feet. This is because the breaking of columns saps speed, indeed making the collapse slower than free fall. In the second stage, which lasted 2.25 seconds, the already-buckled columns provided negligible support, and the north face of the structure free-fell about eight stories. (Try taking a plastic drinking straw and buckling it by folding it over and then pushing down on the bent straw with your hand. The crimped straw provides almost no resistance to vertical forces, and neither did the buckled columns of WTC 7.) The third stage described by NIST, which lasted 1.4 seconds, was again less-than-free fall, as the structure fell another 130 feet as it impacted more non-buckled structures toward the bottom of the building (NIST 2010).
-
The other half of the equation is that WTC 7 resembles a “classic controlled demolition” because it supposedly “imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint” (Gage 2011). In actuality, it twisted and tilted over to one side as it fell, and parts of the building severely damaged two neighboring buildings (the Verizon and Fiterman Hall structures). When challenged with the obvious fact that Tower 7 spilled far outside its footprint, however, Truthers will often change their tune and start saying that any resemblance to a natural collapse is part of the cover-up .
12 Likes
< many here already know this , and you may have been sarcastic , but - - - >
one doesn’t ***need *** to melt them , one only needs to weaken them
see https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a18578/metalworker-shows-why-jet-fuel-cant-melt-steel-beams-is-such-a-dumb-argument/
The WTC attacks were pretty unique in a lot of ways.
Usually when there’s a fire in a high rise it starts in one location on one floor, not in a catastrophic event that 1) simultaneously ignites several floors, 2) creates enough concussive force to blast the fire-resistant insulation off a bunch of structural support beams, 3) simultaneously destroys in-building fire suppression infrastructure, and 4) brings a shit-ton of highly combustible material (jet fuel) that wasn’t already in the building.
Even though Building 7 was spared the direct force of the planes’ impact, it received catastrophic damage across multiple areas of the building at once. It’s also unusual for a fire response team to have to abandon the fight to save a burning high-rise in a major city, as the FDNY was forced to do for safety reasons.
Also, the claim that no other high rise buildings have been brought down by fire damage alone is false.
3 Likes
Could have just stopped there.
I just moved into a new house and there was a semi-dead tree in the front lawn. I cut all the branches down, but the trunk was still there. I tried explaining to it that it was dead. I tried kicking it. I even tried to mulch over it. Still there.
Then I realized I was yelling at a log. And I swear-to-god the bark on the branch started smiling and I knew…right then…the log had won.
Don’t let the logs win. Don’t reason with idiots.
10 Likes
But how could THAT knock down a whole building? /s
3 Likes
As usual, all the 9/11 conspiracy theories collapse (pun very much intended) the moment you take the time to actually look at the facts, instead of relying the cherry-picked, frequently entirely inaccurate claims of the truther crowd.
2 Likes
I never took them seriously in any way. I was there.
The overwhelming majority of their nonsense made zero sense compared to what happened, what was experienced by people right there, and what it looked like.
As I noted, the WTC 7 theories largely are based on looking at the same video and pictures from the same perspective. Armchair forensic bullshit. Also a lot of it was based on people who had never been there before and didn’t really know how things were laid out there.
This is why my first post was about the WTC Health Program by Bellevue Hospital. Better to focus on real things and real problems that came from 9/11.
1 Like
well yes but that’s not really the stuff I or the Truthers am talking about
“Truthers” are still at it and I still don’t have the time or headspace to pay any attention to their shit.
I could not give less of a fuck about what shiny new arguments they have this week or any week.
As they have no new arguments, just an endless retread of debunked ones just given a new coat of paint, not giving a fuck about them is very easy indeed. 
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
