4 ms·

Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. Wtc 7 did. Which do you think is worse getting hit by an airplane or getting hit by another massive building as it colla

Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. Wtc 7 did. Which do you think is worse getting hit by an airplane or getting hit by another massive building as it collapses?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. It experienced fire and partial collapse due to being hit with part of the fuselage of UA 175 and other debris from the North Tower. (“Without an airplane impact” is, of course, a false description.)
mistermann 5y ago
Was the collapse of WTC 7 due to getting hit by another building?
- dilyevsky 5y ago
  It was hit by north tower collapse then fire raged on for many hours as sprinkler system had failed etc. I think structurally it still shouldn’t have collapsed but it doesn’t require a grand conspiracy to explain the failure here.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    It may if you want your explanation to be correct though. And technically, a grand conspiracy is subjective, and a bit of a false dichotomy. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence The complexity of the problem is such that it is extremely difficult to not make a cognitive error during contemplation, even leaving aside the famous unreliability of the multiple systems this cognition sits on top of. Think of how hard it can sometimes be to debug a system for which you have the literal source code for, which sits on a highly trustworthy base. Now consider reality, for which you have no source code, but you do know (at least during certain mental states, but not necessarily all) that it is chock full of bugs, indeterminate behaviors, etc.
    - dilyevsky 5y ago
      A lot of $10 words to say “I don’t know anything so i choose to believe lizard people did it”
      - mistermann 5y ago
        Here you are not distinguishing between your perception of (or, rhetorical misinterpretation of) the ideas within my words, and the actual ideas themselves (as you also do with the events of that day). I wonder which one it is (maybe a little of both?).
  - danielschonfeld 5y ago
    Except that two people who were in that building, both claim a stairwell exploded under their feet before the towers came down. Not that the towers coming down should have anything to do with an explosion inside WTC7 but regardless, something exploded inside corroborated by the only two people who got out of that building. So something something grand conspiracy... Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building all at once?
    - anonAndOn 5y ago
      >Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building Yes, by way of having a hollow center (aka, the elevators) and dumping large quantities of jet fuel down it, essentially becoming massive chimneys. There are some awful survivor stories you can find about hearing people stuck in the elevators and getting cooked alive.
      - danielschonfeld 5y ago
        what jet fuel? no airplane hit WTC7 and to add to that, i believe NIST used the term "regular office fires" (... brought down building 7...) in their presentation.
        anonAndOn 5y ago
        IIUC, WTC7 just needed a long burn on floors 5-7 to weaken the weight transfer trusses. Once those give, you've got 30+ floors on their way down.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
      > Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Gravity is symmetric. Once fire weakens multiple individual structural members, collapse is both inevitable and rapid as the loads transfer within the materials to the remaining supports at the speed of sound.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  Although the big media outlets of the time (CBS, NBC, etc) have "lost" their footage, I specifically remember a reporter asking a question of a NYC Fire Chief (some borough), after the second aircraft hit. Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?" Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?" Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..." Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public." There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    One of my vivid memories of 9/11 is my sister's panic over the car bomb at the National Mall. We had some visitors staying with us that week, and 9/11 was the day they were going to go down to see the National Mall (needless to say, that was aborted). Yet, in trying to find more information about it, I have found absolutely no mention about such a car bomb. It's not on any "false rumors that got started during the day" lists; it's not picked up even by the most insane of conspiracy theorists as suppressed information. I'm actually kind of curious where the idea got into my sister's head--the closest I can figure is that the original attack on the Pentagon was reported as a blast in an unknown area to the southwest of the caller, and the National Mall was suggested as a possible site by the reporter. This goes to show two things. One, it's very easy to specifically remember facts (including reporting of facts) that never actually happened. Two, in a day of hectic reporting, it's very easy for wrong information to spread very quickly. FWIW, you can find archives of television news coverage of 9/11 here: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911 https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911.
    - 5y ago

Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. Wtc 7 did. Which do you think is worse getting hit by an airplane or getting hit by another massive building as it collapses?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Wtc 5 didnt collapse it was demolished. It experienced fire and partial collapse due to being hit with part of the fuselage of UA 175 and other debris from the North Tower. (“Without an airplane impact” is, of course, a false description.)

mistermann 5y ago

Was the collapse of WTC 7 due to getting hit by another building?

dilyevsky 5y ago
It was hit by north tower collapse then fire raged on for many hours as sprinkler system had failed etc. I think structurally it still shouldn’t have collapsed but it doesn’t require a grand conspiracy to explain the failure here.
- mistermann 5y ago
  It may if you want your explanation to be correct though. And technically, a grand conspiracy is subjective, and a bit of a false dichotomy. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence The complexity of the problem is such that it is extremely difficult to not make a cognitive error during contemplation, even leaving aside the famous unreliability of the multiple systems this cognition sits on top of. Think of how hard it can sometimes be to debug a system for which you have the literal source code for, which sits on a highly trustworthy base. Now consider reality, for which you have no source code, but you do know (at least during certain mental states, but not necessarily all) that it is chock full of bugs, indeterminate behaviors, etc.
  - dilyevsky 5y ago
    A lot of $10 words to say “I don’t know anything so i choose to believe lizard people did it”
    - mistermann 5y ago
      Here you are not distinguishing between your perception of (or, rhetorical misinterpretation of) the ideas within my words, and the actual ideas themselves (as you also do with the events of that day). I wonder which one it is (maybe a little of both?).
- danielschonfeld 5y ago
  Except that two people who were in that building, both claim a stairwell exploded under their feet before the towers came down. Not that the towers coming down should have anything to do with an explosion inside WTC7 but regardless, something exploded inside corroborated by the only two people who got out of that building. So something something grand conspiracy... Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building all at once?
  - anonAndOn 5y ago
    >Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Has fire become opinionated and decided to consume a steel scraper equally at all floors on all sides of a building Yes, by way of having a hollow center (aka, the elevators) and dumping large quantities of jet fuel down it, essentially becoming massive chimneys. There are some awful survivor stories you can find about hearing people stuck in the elevators and getting cooked alive.
    - danielschonfeld 5y ago
      what jet fuel? no airplane hit WTC7 and to add to that, i believe NIST used the term "regular office fires" (... brought down building 7...) in their presentation.
      - anonAndOn 5y ago
        IIUC, WTC7 just needed a long burn on floors 5-7 to weaken the weight transfer trusses. Once those give, you've got 30+ floors on their way down.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    > Also symmetric free falling, from a fire? Gravity is symmetric. Once fire weakens multiple individual structural members, collapse is both inevitable and rapid as the loads transfer within the materials to the remaining supports at the speed of sound.
Supermancho 5y ago
Although the big media outlets of the time (CBS, NBC, etc) have "lost" their footage, I specifically remember a reporter asking a question of a NYC Fire Chief (some borough), after the second aircraft hit. Reporter: "what about the new that there will be a controlled demolition of WTC 7 because of fear of collapse?" Fire Chief: "What? What are you talking about?" Reporter: "There's a rumor that building 7 needs to be brought down due to damage..." Fire Chief: "Listen miss, I don't know what you've heard, but there is no damage to building 7 and there's no reason to bring it down. If you suggest such a thing to someone else, I'll have you arrested for inciting a panic. We have a high amount of coordination and there is limited information available to the public." There was more to it, but that was memorable because, as a kid, I realized something. In a real disaster situation, people would be getting conflicting information. During 9/11, it was a real disaster. Nobody seemed to know wtf was really going on or going to happen and the reporters were, notably, just in the way of the real work. Later, when building 7 fell, I thought...well...that's quite a coincidence. I don't feel it was a coincidence anymore.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  One of my vivid memories of 9/11 is my sister's panic over the car bomb at the National Mall. We had some visitors staying with us that week, and 9/11 was the day they were going to go down to see the National Mall (needless to say, that was aborted). Yet, in trying to find more information about it, I have found absolutely no mention about such a car bomb. It's not on any "false rumors that got started during the day" lists; it's not picked up even by the most insane of conspiracy theorists as suppressed information. I'm actually kind of curious where the idea got into my sister's head--the closest I can figure is that the original attack on the Pentagon was reported as a blast in an unknown area to the southwest of the caller, and the National Mall was suggested as a possible site by the reporter. This goes to show two things. One, it's very easy to specifically remember facts (including reporting of facts) that never actually happened. Two, in a day of hectic reporting, it's very easy for wrong information to spread very quickly. FWIW, you can find archives of television news coverage of 9/11 here: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911 https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911.
  - 5y ago