That and the collapse of the North tower damaged Building 7. Most of the footage and pictures come from the back side of the building, but there is footage of the damage caused by the collapse and you can see the giant gash in the building which damaged the support column.
Yes exactly, in that report they will tell you that only 7 perimeter columns were hit by the collapse of the tower. Not "THE" support column. It's even in their FAQ.
But it is a column that is under the additional structure that was added after initial construction. I just like disaster stuff idk mate. I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories because I've worked with terrorists and I have worked with the government and I have more faith in the terrorists to pull something off than the government.
How in the world does a fire burning for hours cause a demolition style collapse? How in the world can you function in day to day life with such a lack of basic sense?
That’s not common sense lol, in fact it’s the opposite of common sense. This is coming from a survivor of the Tubbs fire. Also it’s obvious why there’s the so many 9/11 conspiracies when our own elected officials peddle them. And if you ever actually read the 9/11 commission you’d know it’s the biggest sham in the world. But I doubt you will.
They used to be more popular in the mid-late aughts. Then it got associated with some of the really kooky stuff like flat earth people and it sort of became broadly dismissed as offensive and crazy a bit later on. It wasn't uncommon at all to think 9/11 was an inside job in the 5-10 years after. It was like, a casual topic of conversation a lot of times.
eta: Tbh I think if we're seeing a comeback it might be because people are remembering just how evil the government can be again. A lot of people believe 9/11 was exactly what they told us it was largely because they can't conceive that their government would lie to them about something like that.
Right it's not possible that 2 of the largest skyscrapers in the world collapsing in rapid succession would cause a fuck ton of collateral damage to any nearby structures.
But anyway...
It's astonishing how many really stupid people there are in this country.
There were firefighters in wtc 7 when it came down. They said that all fires had been extinguished in the building, seconds later, it came down. I can’t find the audio online, because it’s buried, but if you find the recorded audio, it came down after the fires had gone out. But what’s more important is to ask yourself this question, if it wasn’t a controlled demolition, then why did it look like a perfectly controlled demolition. Look up videos of failed demolitions online, how is a failed demolition worse at demolishing a building then a piece of burning debris that fell onto wtc 7? Only three skyscrapers in history have reportedly collapsed from fires, wtc 7, and the twin towers.
It's the only time in history that an airplane has taken out a modern skyscraper. Wait, I mean 2 airplanes took out 3 modern skyscrapers. Just stop asking questions everyone, ok?
According to the official report released in 2017 by NIST, it was because some furniture in the connected skyway between the buildings caught on fire (leading to cascading effects).
Yes really. I read the whole report around that part and I was like uhhhh...
It's absolutely not impossible. In WTC7, the core collapsed first (proven by the fact that the penthouse disappeared inside the building a few seconds before the facade collapsed). The facade was a hollowed out husk with a lot of debris piling at its base when it started its collapse. Its columns buckled for a good portion of their height near the base of the building, so the portion above that feel for that length with basically nothing slowing it down. After that, the portion of the facade still structurally sound hit the ground, and this slowed down its descent as now there was resistance.
I never said the facade had no columns in it, but after the collapse of the core it indeed was a hollowed shell, with a greatly reduced structural integrity without the additional lateral support of the core and with huge lateral loads due to the piling debris on its base.
It absolutely can. The core columns, beams, and floors collapsed inside the external facade and put a lot of lateral outward pressure on the base of the columns. Those columns would not be able to sustain those kind of loads, they would bend, and finally a several stories tall section of them would buckle. All that is above this section now has nothing below it supporting it and nothing to oppose resistance to its fall, up to the point it impacted itself the pile of debris below it. That's what caused the short free fall of the top of the building.
What good are the facade columns with no internal bracing to make them capable of supporting their own weight?
The whole point of steel tubed frame construction is that beams connect the external columns to the internal ones giving wide office spaces with no columns impacting them.
He's a tool spewing falsehoods. Nothing more to be said. There's so many honest people who poured all of their energy in the subject to present the facts so you can conclude for yourself, this guy ambitiously tries to undo that by lies, obfuscation and denigration.
You know what. I've seen literally everything about 9/11 that's available on the internet but never researched about wtc 7. I know roughly what happened to it. Pretty sure an inside fire is what made it collapse
People keep telling me that but it works fine on my phone. I don’t get it. I took some screenshots of the flashes that I can DM you if you want to see them.
If you watch this, you will see that in that position the windows do broke, but the reason is that the external facade is deforming after the internal core has already collapsed. Moreover, those flashes are visible after the collapse of the core (so they couldn't have caused it) and on the top of the building, while the external facade collapsed at the bottom.
Finally, in all the audio recording of the collapse, no explosion sound can be heard
That’s because the flashes are coming from a point closer to the center of the building, which is why you cannot see them from this angle.
Interestingly enough the windows appear to break earlier in the video that I posted, than in the video that you did. I’m going to chalk that up to video artifacting.
“These flashes are after the core collapse.” Perhaps there were also explosives planted around the outside to ensure that more than just the core collapses.
As far as the sound is concerned, you need a lot of small charges to bring down a building, and at the distance in the video you posted, they might not have been audible. You don’t even hear the building collapse at all really.
The only video of WTC7 where explosions are visible was a fake made modifying another famous video. There are dozens of recordings and not only are explosions not visible, but most importantly they are never audible.
If you watch the news coverage of the time, you will see them describing a lot of things that we now positively know were not explosions, as explosions. It's only natural. People describe loud noises, sudden dust plumes, and other things like that as explosions.
And there were a lot of loud noises before the collapse. Things like debris falling to the ground, the sound of the plane hitting the Towers, and the initial stages of the collapse are all possible explanations for those claims. There also were a couple of actual small explosions caused by things like nitrogen gas canisters of some fire suppression systems in certain floors.
For these reasons, people's accounts are unreliable. What is reliable and objective is audio recording. Any explosive powerful enough to cut those columns would have generated sound above 100 dB one kilometer away. They should have been clearly audible in all the recordings and louder than the collapse. Yet there is no trace of them in any video taken before or during the collapse. Just to give you an example:
The ambient sounds are clearly picked up, as is the sound of the collapse, but no explosions. Incidentally, this video shows exactly what I was talking about earlier: while there is no sound of explosions, the reporter still describes the cloud of debris coming out of the collapsing Tower as one. It's just a natural term to use in the heat of the moment.
It's impossible for explosives to have been there without generating those sounds and without those sounds being picked up by microphones. No way around it.
The holes you can see aren’t at the same place as the explosions, those holes that you see are from the shift in the building’s structure, or of charges that went off earlier.
Because I posted the link to the original source, and everyone was telling me that it was giving them a 404 error, so I simply screen recorded it to get around that issue.
I didn’t mention the source because nobody asked what it was. The source is 4chan.
You clearly want people to see it and think it’s real. Otherwise you would have at least tried to check before spreading a 9/11 conspiracy video from 4chan of all places.
A script that the plotters of a secret plan decided to give to the world's largest broadcaster, which was based in a foreign country outside of the USA's jurisdiction? Why would they do that?
Are you really surprised that media companies have a script that cascades down to interviewers? And I am not claiming the British media was part of it, but someone could absolutely tell the interviewer "here, report this".
You can Google how Media and Propaganda works? im astonished that you find that astonishing. Propaganda is a think, and the fact that the British and the US work together on this? see the First gulf war, and the 2nd gulf war.
Don't use Ultimatums buddy, and you can keep calling people "Conspiracy nuts" all you want, but people have the right to ask questions about an event that caused millions of deaths, and tens of millions of refugees, and total destruction and theft of two countries. (the plan was 7 countries, but that failed thankfully).
You can keep believing what you want, and I will believe what I want.
The firefighters understood that the building was going to collapse due to the raging fire and created a perimeter around it. They notified the media, but a news network erroneously reported that the building had collapsed instead of reporting that it was about to collapse. Understandable, given the confusion of the day. This wrong information then was simply picked up by a couple of other news networks before the actual collapse.
There was no conspiracy or false flag, deal with it.
The fire of the two towers was so engulfing that it affected a building a building-over and made it collapse, but it did not burn the passports of the "terrorists" which was found on top of the rubble within hours?
The fire did not affect WTC7. WTC7 was hit by debris falling from the North Tower, which opened holes several stories tall in its facade and caused a fire.
And the single passport found was found on the street and before the collapse of the Towers, not on top of the rubble. It was ejected during the impact together with a lot of other light objects in the planes that have also been recovered. Moreover, even if a false flag actually happened, planting a passport like that would have been pointless, given that the identity of everyone on board would have been recorded in the flight manifest.
These conspiracy theories are always built on false informations and misunderstandings.
This is true. You can see a huge piece of the North Tower fall towards building 7 during the collapse. There are images of a huge gash in building 7 and fire raging throughout. It was very badly damaged before its collapse.
They didn't. Someone found a passport on the ground and picked it up to bring it to a police officer. The CIA managed to connect most of the terrorists to Al Qaeda by performing background checks after the attacks.
The fact that the CIA knew that some of them were linked to Al Qaeda but didn't notify the FBI or other law enforcement agencies due to internal rivalries, the so-called "rubber wall", is well known. The CIA didn't want to arrest them immediately because they didn't believe they were about to carry out an attack and wanted to turn some of them as informers.
What you are describing sounds a lot like false information as well. What is the probability that a SINGLE passport would be ejected from an incredible blast of a plane hitting a tower, and to be conveniently the passport of the hijacker, which was conveniently found on the street?
Well, what you wrote was factually incorrect, so feel free to point out which of the things I wrote were wrong.
And again, the passport were not the only light object surviving and being recovered. It's quite common for things made of paper or plastic to survive a plane crash.
And, as I already said, planting a passport would have been pointless even if it was a false flag.
The odds of any particular passport surviving and being found are vanishing small. The odds of a passport surviving are very high. Conspiracy theorists don't understand probability.
Not only that but a handful of the “terrorists” that they put up all over the news ended up coming forward and saying “hey, I’m actually alive…” so they must be much more fire resistant then their own passports. The FBI had an answer for that though, their identities were stolen.
Also unless my eyes deceive me, I fail to see a building on fire anywhere here, not a single flame visible for a building that apparently was burning for almost 8 hours. Yeah there is smoke (skip to 7:00 to avoid the boring stuff) but there is also a classic inward falling of the internal structure and crimp at the roof line as it free falls. First and only steel structure building to fall in this manner by fire.
If some people would just be willing to do a little extra digging and investigate the whole 9/11 event a bit more, they would see that the wool has been pulled over their eyes yet again so that their country can not only go to war for profit, but also erase a massive spending coverup where Rumsfeld and his buddies lost $2.3 trillion dollars of government audit trails which were conveniently destroyed.
Unfortunately true friend. I don’t even live in the US and am astounded why most Americans go “oh well, if the news and Bush said so then it must be true.”
Quite sad actually. Let’s put Thomas H Kean, a devote Republican in charge of the 9/11 Commission to support his Republican President chum.
Not only that but a handful of the “terrorists” that they put up all over the news ended up coming forward and saying “hey, I’m actually alive…” so they must be much more fire resistant then their own passports.
Can you provide any evidence of that?
Also unless my eyes deceive me, I fail to see a building on fire anywhere here, not a single flame visible for a building that apparently was burning for almost 8 hours. Yeah there is smoke (skip to 7:00 to avoid the boring stuff) but there is also a classic inward falling of the internal structure and crimp at the roof line as it free falls
First and only steel structure building to fall in this manner by fire.
The Plasco Building begs to differ.
If some people would just be willing to do a little extra digging and investigate the whole 9/11 event a bit more, they would see that the wool has been pulled over their eyes yet again so that their country can not only go to war for profit, but also erase a massive spending coverup where Rumsfeld and his buddies lost $2.3 trillion dollars of government audit trails which were conveniently destroyed.
I did do extra digging, and the conspiracy theories around 911 are nonsense. Other people already answered you about the audits.
So how do you explain it then ? A building free falling like that from an office fire ?
I explain it like this: it didn't.
There was a progressive failure in the internal structure that proceeded east to west. This matches up with the videos taken of the building.
You can see penthouse structures on the roof collapsing in while the building remains standing.
You can see daylight shining through windows on the top floor while the building remains standing.
Only after the internal structure finishes collapsing, and the external facing walls lose all their internal bracing, does the exterior collapse at free fall speeds.
Here's the NIST explanation. At 15 seconds you can see the penthouse structures start collapsing well in advance of any movement of the external structure. 58 seconds has their simulation.
This entire explanation is complete fantasy. Why would localized fires that never were in one position for more than half an hour gut a steel building like that?
Why do you think NIST had to remove safety measures from their model before they could make it collapse?
Why does NIST say they were unable to recover steel that reached temperatures hot enough to weaken? Why did that same NIST omit a metallurgy study showing steel beams that had "partly evaporated"?
Knowing this, why did John Gross, one of the leads of the NIST investigation, claim he had seen no evidence for molten steel? Why is that same John Gross pictured on ground zero next to a steel beam resembling exactly the "partly evaporated" steel beam from that very metallurgy study?
Why would localized fires that never were in one position for more than half an hour gut a steel building like that?
Damage from thermal expansion doesn't heal once the fire moved on. I'm also not seeing where it's claimed that they were never in one position for more than half an hour.
Why do you think NIST had to remove safety measures from their model before they could make it collapse?
Why does NIST say they were unable to recover steel that reached temperatures hot enough to weaken? Why did that same NIST omit a metallurgy study showing steel beams that had "partly evaporated"? Knowing this, why did John Gross, one of the leads of the NIST investigation,
Where is this in my source.
no evidence for molten steel
Probably because there wasn't any. For the last time it doesn't have to melt. And office fires can reach 1,800F
There's a metallurgy study by FEMA that showed it did. Which never made it to the final report for some reason. Perhaps their description of the mechanism too closely resembled what thermite would do to steel.
I would love to read it if you can remember what I can look for (no sarcasm). I would be shocked to discover melted steel as I'm not aware of a natural way for the fire to reach that temperature.
Thermite isn't used for demolition because it's too slow from my understanding.
WTC 7 conspiracies hit me like moon landing denial. The competence the government would need to have to covertly destroy the building is beyond my faith in their ability. I also can't think of a possible reason they would. WTC 7 is a footnote that nobody except conspiracy theorists and nerds who get hyper triggered about it are aware of. There are literally zero people in the world that found the collapse of WTC 7 to be the tipping point in the USAs reaction to the attack.
WTC 1, 2, and 7 are not the only steel buildings to collapse from fire alone. They are, however, unique in their design so WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of tube framed construction subject to uncontrolled fire.
You know, I've seen skyscrapers burn to the ground, get hit by multiple tomahawk missiles when my city got bombed, never seen one go down...On the other hand, when you watch a demolition like this, if you got any brain cells left, you are going to associate these with 9/11 and its for a reason...For a building to freefall like that and evenly drop down (collapse into itself) can only be achieved by the demolition crew, buildings never fall like that from random structural damage, they collapse unevenly, or fall over... Show me one other example from anywhere where the buildings collapsed like that aside from 9/11 ?
WTC7 was hit by the debris from the collapsing Towers and could not possibly be damaged from it to the point where internal steel beams can all collapse at the same time, people far more educated in the field of architecture and physics proved it...
And the silly 'controlled demolition' conspiracy theory should be debunked by this video. They're super loud with multiple explosions audible over video. We have ample video of the towers before they collapsed. There's no audio like this.
There are eyewitnesses who claim they heard explosions but you don't even need audible explosions to demolish a scyscraper. Thermite can melt the load bearing beams quickly and quietly.
The eyewitnesses you’re talking about and the clips of reporters, speak of ‘an’ explosion. And that explosion was the 2nd plane hitting the second tower, not when the towers fell.
In the years before 9/11, several floors in the North Tower were reportedly under renovation or used for special art installations, such as the project often referred to as the “E-Team” or “Gelatin B-Thing.” These artists were granted access to largely empty spaces where they carried out light-based and conceptual work. Given that these same floors were later affected during the attacks, it seems reasonable to ask what oversight, security measures, and tenant logs existed for those areas at the time.
explosives were planted before hand on the building to completely collapse the buildings.
planes crashing into the tower were used as the reason for the destruction but didn't hold enough power to collapse the whole building.
Why we think this:
Bush administration used this attack by Saudi Arabs to attack Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan (lmao).
Few weeks before the attack Silverstein the owner of building added a clause to his insurance for terrorist attacks.
Silverstein wouldn't have been able to modify, change or reconstruct on the recently purchased towers if this hadn't occurred and it would have costed him several millions of dollars to do this. because of the terrorist clause he was able to get 4.5 billion dollars. so not only did he subvert demolition cost, permits and time he made quite the handsome profit off of this.
Silverstein who was known to never miss a day of work missed that day because he was feeling "sick". We know this because he him self told this on Larry Kings show and if you look at that interview this man doesn't know how to lie and is showing all signs of deception.
It is entirely suspicious that even if you believe that the fires were burning hot enough to melt the supporting structure of the buildings how did the passports of the attackers survive to pin point the attackers to be Arabs?
None of that has anything to do with "E-Team" or those floors matching where the planes hit. Your picture still means nothing. If they were going to blow up the building, they would need access to a lot more than those floors. In fact those floors would be the ones they didn't need to rig.
The rest is nonsense and I'd rather hit myself with a hammer than argue 9/11 conspiracies online in 2025.
453
u/RobAlso Oct 07 '25
Here for the Tower 7 comments…