4 ms·

> I believe in the entire history of buildings built as the world trade centers were, the only ones ever that burned down and collapse are these. How many of t

> I believe in the entire history of buildings built as the world trade centers were, the only ones ever that burned down and collapse are these. How many of the other buildings were struck head-on by fully loaded 767s traveling at 400+ mph? Is there any real-world example to compare?

Bob67568584 5y ago
WTC Building 7 was _not_ hit by a plane, yet it somehow spontaneously collapsed in a very curious way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0 EDIT: Of course, merely stating a plain objective fact, that doesn't challenge any narratives or make any controversial claims whatsoever, with a link to an AP archive video, will be downvoted negative within minutes. You are not allowed to even look at WTC7 collapsing. Don't even think about looking at it!
- deadbunny 5y ago
  https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/427...
  - Bob67568584 5y ago
    It's quite boringly predictable that someone would immediately link to a conspiracy debunking article. I have not mentioned anything whatsoever about a conspiracy theory. I merely stated that it is "curious", which it very much objectively is, no matter what else you choose to believe about the event. Also interesting is that if you actually read the official report that your link references, it does not provide a detailed explanation of how the WTC7 building actually collapsed. The event remains extremely curious 20 years later. Edit: In response to the reply below: Yes they basically say "it collapsed because the fire was hot and caused a critical column to collapse". It's a childish level of explanation, not rigorous and scientific. It says nothing about how such a thing could occur. I've studied mathematics, physics, engineering at university up to Bachelors level and to me this is a very amateurish childish level of analysis. The report is fluffed up with many pages of serious important looking official boilerplate, surrounding this one paragraph that basically says nothing. It's a tautology. No rigorous analysis in this report. That in itself is extremely curious to me.
    - deadbunny 5y ago
      The article literally describes what cause the building to collapse. > After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure. Perhaps read more than the headline and you would not think it so "curious".
      - Bob67568584 5y ago
        Yes they basically say "it collapsed because the fire was hot and caused a critical column to collapse". It's a childish level of explanation, not rigorous and scientific. It says nothing about how such a thing could occur. I've studied mathematics, physics, engineering at university up to Bachelors level and to me this is a very amateurish childish level of analysis. The report is fluffed up with many pages of serious important looking official boilerplate, surrounding this one paragraph that basically says nothing. It's a tautology. No rigorous analysis in this report. That in itself is extremely curious to me.
    - Crespyl 5y ago
      > It's quite boringly predictable that someone would immediately link to a conspiracy debunking article. It's almost as if the only people still going on about "interesting questions" regarding the destruction of the WTC buildings after two decades of analysis and reports are burner-account conspiracy theorists more interested in fantastic cover-ups than in the ugly and "boring" truth. It should indeed be no surprise that asking questions like a conspiracy theorist gets you directed to conspiracy theorist answers.
      - Bob67568584 5y ago
        I'm not a conspiracy theorist and haven't put forward any conspiracy theories. I am intellectually curious. Apparently you have some kind of religious aversion to curiosity.
mannanj 5y ago
Great question., In 1925, the Empire State was struck by a b-25 bomber. It did not collapse.

Bob67568584 5y ago

WTC Building 7 was _not_ hit by a plane, yet it somehow spontaneously collapsed in a very curious way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZiMG84hws0 EDIT: Of course, merely stating a plain objective fact, that doesn't challenge any narratives or make any controversial claims whatsoever, with a link to an AP archive video, will be downvoted negative within minutes. You are not allowed to even look at WTC7 collapsing. Don't even think about looking at it!

deadbunny 5y ago
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/427...
- Bob67568584 5y ago
  It's quite boringly predictable that someone would immediately link to a conspiracy debunking article. I have not mentioned anything whatsoever about a conspiracy theory. I merely stated that it is "curious", which it very much objectively is, no matter what else you choose to believe about the event. Also interesting is that if you actually read the official report that your link references, it does not provide a detailed explanation of how the WTC7 building actually collapsed. The event remains extremely curious 20 years later. Edit: In response to the reply below: Yes they basically say "it collapsed because the fire was hot and caused a critical column to collapse". It's a childish level of explanation, not rigorous and scientific. It says nothing about how such a thing could occur. I've studied mathematics, physics, engineering at university up to Bachelors level and to me this is a very amateurish childish level of analysis. The report is fluffed up with many pages of serious important looking official boilerplate, surrounding this one paragraph that basically says nothing. It's a tautology. No rigorous analysis in this report. That in itself is extremely curious to me.
  - deadbunny 5y ago
    The article literally describes what cause the building to collapse. > After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure. Perhaps read more than the headline and you would not think it so "curious".
    - Bob67568584 5y ago
      Yes they basically say "it collapsed because the fire was hot and caused a critical column to collapse". It's a childish level of explanation, not rigorous and scientific. It says nothing about how such a thing could occur. I've studied mathematics, physics, engineering at university up to Bachelors level and to me this is a very amateurish childish level of analysis. The report is fluffed up with many pages of serious important looking official boilerplate, surrounding this one paragraph that basically says nothing. It's a tautology. No rigorous analysis in this report. That in itself is extremely curious to me.
  - Crespyl 5y ago
    > It's quite boringly predictable that someone would immediately link to a conspiracy debunking article. It's almost as if the only people still going on about "interesting questions" regarding the destruction of the WTC buildings after two decades of analysis and reports are burner-account conspiracy theorists more interested in fantastic cover-ups than in the ugly and "boring" truth. It should indeed be no surprise that asking questions like a conspiracy theorist gets you directed to conspiracy theorist answers.
    - Bob67568584 5y ago
      I'm not a conspiracy theorist and haven't put forward any conspiracy theories. I am intellectually curious. Apparently you have some kind of religious aversion to curiosity.

mannanj 5y ago

Great question., In 1925, the Empire State was struck by a b-25 bomber. It did not collapse.