4 ms·

Agreed, but worth noting that "plausible" is subjective. WTC 1 & 2 collapsing after being hit by jets may be plausible. WTC 7 collapsing after simply being in t

Agreed, but worth noting that "plausible" is subjective. WTC 1 & 2 collapsing after being hit by jets may be plausible. WTC 7 collapsing after simply being in the area of the other towers... much less plausible.

ATsch 5y ago
I don't find it particularly implausible that one building near a massive building collapse happened to not have adequate fire protection
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Relevant gif of collapse of WTC7: https://c.tenor.com/0PG_F9eZVmEAAAAC/wtc7-building.gif https://c.tenor.com/0PG_F9eZVmEAAAAC/wtc7-building.gif
- pwned1 5y ago
  I love clips like this that completely remove all context. The building was on fire for hours. If you watch the entire collapse, you see parts of the building collapse at different times. The fires were so intense, flames were shooting out of the windows like a blowtorch. Gigantic chunks of the other two towers pierced the building like swords.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    I've seen the video of the fires but I haven't seen an angle that shows parts of it collapsing at different times. Would you mind sharing?
    - pwned1 5y ago
      Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc Simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        That's it? Alright. That's not what I visualized when you said "parts of the building collapse at different times." I thought you were talking about exterior parts. Though it's technically fair to say the inside collapsing before the outside is "different parts." In regards to the simulation, it's actually great evidence for the opposite side of the argument - NIST was not able to simulate a collapse that appeared at all similar to the actual collapse.
- orangepurple 5y ago
  The best part of this is that even if one believes jet fuel burning for many hours led to the collapse of at least one of the buildings (I don't buy this argument), in the basements of the collapsed towers where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen deprived environment, cannot be explained by combustion. On the other hand, thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered, and may ignite in any environment given sufficient initial heat. It burns well while wet, and cannot be easily extinguished with water—though enough water to remove sufficient heat may stop the reaction.
  - jl6 5y ago
    Eh, I find it far more plausible (in an Occam sense) that “literally molten steel” was a flawed observation than the alternative of invoking the enormous conspiracy machinery that controlled demolition implies. The jet fuel would have burned for ten minutes and then been exhausted. The consequent fire it started is what burned for hours.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      I don't know if ground zero at WTC7 burned for months, but ground zero below the twin towers definitely did. The claim being hours vs the claim being months is obviously significant.
      - rurban 5y ago
        It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense
        ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        > It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense It really isn't clear what this means / You're saying this relates to a nuclear weapon somehow?
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  In that gif, you can see the sky through the windows on the top floor on the left side; the building is already collapsing when that gif starts. In slightly longer versions of that clip, you can see the change occur in those windows: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc?t=15 https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc?t=15 Your gif starts approximately 8 seconds too late.
BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
WTC7 collapsed several hours after the other. If it was a controlled demolition, why wouldn't they bring it down at the same time as one of the other towers fell? The debris cloud from the larger towers would have covered their crime, and I don't think anybody would really find it very suspicious that one building was evidently crushed at the moment another was falling next to it. Therefore it makes more sense to me that WTC7 fell exactly as the official story describes. It was damaged and burned for hours, then the penthouse fell through knocking out much of the interior and the facade came down moments later.

ATsch 5y ago

I don't find it particularly implausible that one building near a massive building collapse happened to not have adequate fire protection

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

Relevant gif of collapse of WTC7: https://c.tenor.com/0PG_F9eZVmEAAAAC/wtc7-building.gif https://c.tenor.com/0PG_F9eZVmEAAAAC/wtc7-building.gif

pwned1 5y ago
I love clips like this that completely remove all context. The building was on fire for hours. If you watch the entire collapse, you see parts of the building collapse at different times. The fires were so intense, flames were shooting out of the windows like a blowtorch. Gigantic chunks of the other two towers pierced the building like swords.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  I've seen the video of the fires but I haven't seen an angle that shows parts of it collapsing at different times. Would you mind sharing?
  - pwned1 5y ago
    Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc Simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      That's it? Alright. That's not what I visualized when you said "parts of the building collapse at different times." I thought you were talking about exterior parts. Though it's technically fair to say the inside collapsing before the outside is "different parts." In regards to the simulation, it's actually great evidence for the opposite side of the argument - NIST was not able to simulate a collapse that appeared at all similar to the actual collapse.
orangepurple 5y ago
The best part of this is that even if one believes jet fuel burning for many hours led to the collapse of at least one of the buildings (I don't buy this argument), in the basements of the collapsed towers where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen deprived environment, cannot be explained by combustion. On the other hand, thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered, and may ignite in any environment given sufficient initial heat. It burns well while wet, and cannot be easily extinguished with water—though enough water to remove sufficient heat may stop the reaction.
- jl6 5y ago
  Eh, I find it far more plausible (in an Occam sense) that “literally molten steel” was a flawed observation than the alternative of invoking the enormous conspiracy machinery that controlled demolition implies. The jet fuel would have burned for ten minutes and then been exhausted. The consequent fire it started is what burned for hours.
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    I don't know if ground zero at WTC7 burned for months, but ground zero below the twin towers definitely did. The claim being hours vs the claim being months is obviously significant.
    - rurban 5y ago
      It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        > It isn't called Ground Zero for a reason. Do some research and check what that name means. Then the months long fire does make sense It really isn't clear what this means / You're saying this relates to a nuclear weapon somehow?
BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
In that gif, you can see the sky through the windows on the top floor on the left side; the building is already collapsing when that gif starts. In slightly longer versions of that clip, you can see the change occur in those windows: https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc?t=15 https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc?t=15 Your gif starts approximately 8 seconds too late.

BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago

WTC7 collapsed several hours after the other. If it was a controlled demolition, why wouldn't they bring it down at the same time as one of the other towers fell? The debris cloud from the larger towers would have covered their crime, and I don't think anybody would really find it very suspicious that one building was evidently crushed at the moment another was falling next to it. Therefore it makes more sense to me that WTC7 fell exactly as the official story describes. It was damaged and burned for hours, then the penthouse fell through knocking out much of the interior and the facade came down moments later.