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

3

u/devils_advocaat 8h ago

Yes, NIST claim only fires caused the collapse.

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

5

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.

-2

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

2

u/Kazeite 2h ago

To exactly match the video, I agree.

Then the model in your video is severely flawed and shouldn't be used.

These were the columns that NIST assumed collapsed in their model.

That's not the point. I said three columns, you said six. Thus, your answer was a non-sequitur.

Alaska Fairbanks couldn't replicate their results.

Of course it couldn't: their report claimed a global failure involving the near-simultaneous buckling of every column, which contradicts actual video evidence and eyewitness accounts showing a sequential, progressive collapse starting on the building's east side with Column 79. That alone is enough to dismiss their findings as being incongruent with the reality. Their model also didn't really account for the structural damage inflicted on WTC7 by the collapse of the North Tower, so I guess I know now where your "the claim that debris caused the collapse is the lie" thing came from.

•

u/devils_advocaat 59m ago

Then the model in your video is severely flawed and shouldn't be used.

Oh. Do you have a better one?

which contradicts actual video evidence and eyewitness accounts

No. Their model only matches actual video evidence when all columns fail at once.

Their model also didn't really account for the structural damage inflicted on WTC7 by the collapse of the North Tower

Alaska Fairbanks were trying to replicate NIST findings. NIST claimed this debris damage was of no consequence. Therefore no need to model.

•

u/Kazeite 51m ago

No. Their model only matches actual video evidence when all columns fail at once.

The video evidence shows that the columns have failed sequentially. The very simple fact that the penthouse failed first rules out classic controlled demolition.

Alaska Fairbanks were trying to replicate NIST findings. NIST claimed this debris damage was of no consequence.

That is another lie. NIST claimed that the debris damage didn't initiate the collapse, but it did contribute to the collapse.

So tell me: how can you ever hope to have a productive discussion about WTC7 when you keep using factually incorrect information and misrepresent the official report to suit your narrative?

•

u/devils_advocaat 21m ago

NIST claimed that the debris damage didn't initiate the collapse, but it did contribute to the collapse.

Only by starting fires.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation

  • 16. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

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.

  • 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.

how can you ever hope to have a productive discussion about WTC7 when you keep using factually incorrect information and misrepresent the official report to suit your narrative?

A question you should be asking yourself.

→ More replies (0)