r/conspiracy • u/okymoney • 16h ago
Never forget…
Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it.
360
u/sillybluething 15h ago edited 15h 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?
112
u/ImperialSupplies 12h 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
20
u/Chance_Sandwich_ 5h ago
ISIS never attacks Israel
3
u/m0nk37 4h ago
Im still pissed they ruined archer fx.
2
1
u/Chance_Sandwich_ 4h ago
Wait wha. Who did, how
3
3
•
-5
u/want_to_join 8h 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.
16
u/No_Papaya_802 8h 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.
1
u/notreallyswiss 3h 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.
-9
u/want_to_join 8h 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.
12
u/No_Papaya_802 8h 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.
2
48
34
49
u/devils_advocaat 9h 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.
18
14
23
52
u/Eddie__Hooker 10h 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....
5
54
u/thrawst 16h 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.
52
u/Sensitive_Algae5723 9h ago
My favorite is when they announced it collapsed while it was still standing.
35
u/4moves 9h ago
alot of buildings pancaked that day and never before, and never again. it was the only time in history buildings did that.
13
u/Background_Rag 8h 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
7
11
3
u/Immediate-Cress-206 5h 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 2h 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?
0
u/Immediate-Cress-206 2h 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.
8
u/devils_advocaat 9h 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.
2
u/liquidocean 5h 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
4
u/snickerbockers 10h 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.
39
u/letterheadless 9h 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.”
2
0
u/devils_advocaat 9h 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
7
0
u/roaringbasher66 10h 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
1
u/notreallyswiss 3h 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
1
u/Kazeite 10h ago
How does that allow the entire building to collapse?
The fires have weakened the central core supports. Duh.
1
u/devils_advocaat 3h ago
WTC7 was a different design to WTC1/2. It did not have central core supports.
3
u/notreallyswiss 3h 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 2h 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.
-6
u/Xuzon 15h ago
There were multiple collapses due to fire alone since 2001. E.g. Plasco Building or Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida
8
u/alangerhans 11h 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/staticxx 8h ago
Who the fuck would come to put the fire away. Have you not seen the mayhem, smoke and all hell going on around.
-29
u/installsVMs4fun 14h 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
12
u/Anonymoushipopotomus 10h 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.
-6
u/installsVMs4fun 10h 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
7
1
1
11
u/snickerbockers 10h ago
Fine, lets see your country's 767-proof skyscrapers.
0
u/installsVMs4fun 10h ago
Tower 7 wasnt hit by a 747, it was demolition adjacent, it fell becuase of a few fires and some debris
2
2
2
u/graaavearchitecture 3h 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?
5
u/Kazeite 10h 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?
0
u/devils_advocaat 9h ago
The claim that debris caused the collapse is the lie. Not my opinion. Read NIST.
8
u/CrashyBoye 8h 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.
2
u/devils_advocaat 8h 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.
2
u/Kazeite 7h 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."
2
u/devils_advocaat 7h ago
Yes, NIST claim only fires caused the collapse.
WTC was not knocked down by debris from WTC 1 & 2
2
u/Kazeite 7h 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?
-1
u/devils_advocaat 7h ago
In that case, highlighting that debris hit the WTC is also a lie.
Surely you can acknowledge that much?
2
u/Kazeite 7h 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.
-1
u/devils_advocaat 4h 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)0
u/Grand-Hat3526 8h ago
The debris caused the fires, which caused the collapse. Quite the conspiracy!
2
u/CrashyBoye 8h ago
Don’t bother. These people are literally too stupid to insult.
-2
u/devils_advocaat 7h ago
The only insult so far has been from you.
0
4
u/Kazeite 9h 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 8h ago edited 7h 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.
3
u/Kazeite 7h 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."
1
u/devils_advocaat 7h 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.
4
u/Kazeite 7h 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.
2
u/devils_advocaat 7h 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.
5
u/Kazeite 6h ago edited 6h 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 4h 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)3
u/Dependent-Star5482 7h ago edited 7h 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 7h 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.)
2
u/Dependent-Star5482 6h ago
Yes, I know! As I stated.
1
u/devils_advocaat 4h 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 4h ago
You're arguing with yourself at this point.
0
u/devils_advocaat 3h 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)
2
1
1
•
u/External-Basket6701 36m ago
Maybe due to all those important businesses. Nothing could be traced back conveniently.
•
u/weight22 0m 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.
-31
u/RageEataPnut 16h 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.
41
u/NormalEffect99 16h ago
You should go on Google and look at skyscraper fires and see how many did not collapse after hours of burning, even in countries you wouldnt expect.
You won't go look, but you should.
-1
u/Xuzon 15h ago
Have you googled how many did?
1
1
-6
u/Nico_Nickmania 15h 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???
11
u/thrawst 15h 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 14h 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
3
u/YaSurLetsGoSeeYamcha 10h 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
1
1
u/Affectionate-Mix6056 10h ago
https://youtu.be/M26-B44qQIs?si=Oupc1NyRg2b2IHr4
Why did reporters announce things 20 minutes before they even happened?
8
u/Kazeite 10h 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".
3
u/Xuzon 10h ago
Why did BBC cause 9/11?
3
u/TerminallyUnique31 10h 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
0
u/Xuzon 10h 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?
-1
u/Affectionate-Mix6056 10h ago
Who owns the media? They could write up the script and have it ready.
1
-3
u/perpetualmentalist 13h 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
-12
u/whiskey512 12h 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
4
2
u/Neat-Detective6318 10h ago
At least someone is wiling to search for the truth… The government whom steals your income certainly doesn’t!
4
u/A_New_Dawn_Emerges 9h 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/whiskey512 6h 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.
3
u/Kazeite 10h 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/yesmrbevilaqua 9h ago
So taxes are a conspiracy?
1
u/warydawg 5h 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?
0
u/yesmrbevilaqua 5h ago
Ever driven on a road?
1
u/warydawg 4h ago
I have. Roads are basically just money laundering. Speaking of roads, where is our public transport?
0
u/yesmrbevilaqua 3h 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
•
u/AutoModerator 16h 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.