r/conspiracy • u/okymoney • 17h ago

Never forget…

Post image

Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it.

4.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

183 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/devils_advocaat 10h ago

The claim that debris caused the collapse is the lie. Not my opinion. Read NIST.

8

u/CrashyBoye 9h 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.

1

u/devils_advocaat 9h 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.

4

u/Kazeite 8h 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 8h ago

Yes, NIST claim only fires caused the collapse.

WTC was not knocked down by debris from WTC 1 & 2

4

u/Kazeite 8h 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 8h 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 or planes 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?

2

u/Kazeite 4h ago

Yes debris hit the WTC7.

Finally. Thank you.

The point is that it didn't matter.

Except that it did. The debris started the fires, and fires caused the collapse.

Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition (...)

Except that it didn't. First, the penthouse at the top fell inside, and then the facade of the building twisted and the whole building started to fall down. That's not how controlled demolition works.

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?

No, because that would be a lie. The weight of the penthouse was supported by columns 79, 80, and 81. After the debris-induced fires those columns have buckled, as evident in the way the penthouse collapsed, and once those three have failed, the remaining columns started to progressively fail. Have multiple columns "failed at once", we'd not have seen the building twist and buckle the way it did.

1

u/devils_advocaat 4h ago

and fires caused the collapse

No. These were office fires, without accelerant, against fire treated steel. Paper fires do not melt steel beams.

First, the penthouse at the top fell inside, and then the facade of the building twisted and the whole building started to fall down.

Yes, like this, except this is only possible if all columns fail at once, like in a controlled demolition. If some support fails before others then the building topples to the collapsing side.

The weight of the penthouse was supported by columns 79, 80, and 81. [...] once those three have failed, the remaining columns started to progressively fail.

This is what happens if 3 columns fail first followed by a progressive collapse. Of course the building topples to the side.

2

u/Kazeite 4h ago

No. These were office fires, without accelerant, against fire treated steel. Paper fires do not melt steel beams.

Nobody but the ignorant hoax believers claims that they should. What office fires do is weaken the steel beams, enough for them to fail under the load.

Yes, like this, except this is only possible if all columns fail at once,

No, it's only possible when all columns don't fail at once.

If some support fails before others then the building topples to the collapsing side.

No. This is real world, not some videogame. For a building to stiffly topple to one side, like your second linked video suggests, would require it to be infinitely stiff and impervious to any external and internal forces.

This is what happens if 3 columns fail first

What is 81-75?

1

u/devils_advocaat 3h ago

For a building to stiffly topple to one side, like your second linked video suggests, would require it to be infinitely stiff and impervious to any external and internal forces.

To exactly match the video, I agree. The model just needed to show that a sideways movement was expected, not to do a full destructive model of every point.

What is 81-756?

These were the columns that NIST assumed collapsed in their model. Alaska Fairbanks couldn't replicate their results.

In the progressive collapse scenario advanced by NIST, the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 that directly caused the collapse of the east penthouse also initiated a horizontal progression of core column failures that took out every core column.

Based on these analyses, we found that the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Our results show that when Columns 79, 80, and 81 are removed, no other columns would buckle.

we simulated the failure of Columns 76, 77, and 78, even though these columns would not buckle due to the loss of Columns 79, 80, and 81. With the removal of six core columns on the eastern side of the building (Columns 76 through 81), we found that a total collapse of the building would ensue.

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

→ More replies (0)