That said, when looking at cases which bear some similarities, it’s not unreasonable to question not only the mode of collapse, but the factors which led to

I’m fairly sure that only one camp is using informed conjecture.

Out of the buildings shown above what fundamental design similarities do they have, and importantly what differences?

what do the fires have in common? E.G. were any of them caused by the flash ignition of 90,000 litres of fuel or did they start in one small location and spread from there over time? I’m fairly sure you know the answer already

…oh you were there?

Nope but there were one or two other people there and I’m led to believe that there might have been some news coverage too. Spookily enough no one has ever reported hearing explosives which, had they been used, would certainly have been heard.

If the whole of one side of a structure between floors stays intact whilst the other side collapses, then given the numbers here the sin of the angle is 4/70 – still an order of magnitude less horizontal forces even resulting from a collapse in such a fashion. The reality is that nowhere near that much offset happened during the collapse. I’m not sure where you think you’re getting a bigger bump angle than that affecting the whole structure, unless you’re completely discounting the floor by floor collapse model.

oh, and set fire to them too, just because it’d be fun 😉

I’ll just quote myself from two days ago, because I don’t think I was too far off the mark.

Multiple questionable or seemingly incongruous issues which open these rabbit holes in the conspiracy theorists mind and without expertise in multiple fields it’s impossible to fully rebuke or rebuff them.

Taking 9/11 as an example – someone who wants to disprove the conspiracy theorists needs to have expertise in aerodynamics, aviation, architectural/structural engineering, metallurgy, demolition….etc etc etc

Even if you happen to actually be a world renowned expert in one of those fields the conspiracy theorist will simply switch to another “fact” or more “evidence” of something else. Something which renders your expertise in the previous field irrelevant, and you are suddenly back on a level playing field of guesswork and supposition.

Also, I think it’s worth keeping track of the full spectrum of this conspiracy. Let me see if I can get this straight.

1. The jets which hit the Twin Towers were actually empty, and they were radio controlled.
2. The radio controlled jets were actually missiles disguised as planes, this is how they caused so much damage.
3. The twin towers were both destroyed by controlled demolition because it looked a bit like a controlled demolition.
4. WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, not fires caused by burning debris from the twin towers.
5. WTC7 had 91,000 litres of diesel in it, but this didn’t contribute to the fire because they found all that diesel in the wreckage…so they managed to blow the building up with explosives, but avoided rupturing the diesel tanks.

Don’t forget the unicorns.

Ah yes. The unicorns were controlling the jets missiles from the edge of the flat earth.

This is a democracy (sort of!)

Pffft. Clearly someone isn’t woke enough to know that the (flat) earth is run by a secret cabal of illuminati shape shifting lizard pedophiles who maintain the illusion of democracy and freedom to suit their own nefarious purposes.

Begone with your talk of votes and “evidence”. Come back when you’re able to lift the veil of lies from your eyes and see the world for what it really is. You are living in a dream world, and delusion and all of your “evidence” is exactly what “they” want you to believe.

And /sarcasm /smiley /somekindoffunnyanimated.gif

I’m guessing the people who are trying to explain away science with politics still think it was a conspiracy, the people that don’t understand science still think it’s a conspiracy, and the people that understand science still think they can convince the conspiracy theorists, is that about right?

FTFY

I’m not saying it’s the mind control dolphins.

…oh and just some people who were actually there ….

A) The WTC was hit and brought down by aircraft hijacked by terrorists: VOTES: 2

B) The WTC was brought down deliberately by some secret agency to cover some secret evidence or event, or to influence public opinion: VOTES: 0

A) The WTC was hit and brought down by aircraft hijacked by terrorists: VOTES: 2

B) The WTC was brought down deliberately by some secret agency to cover some secret evidence or event, or to influence public opinion: VOTES: 1

On this: planes were swapped in flight (youtube is your friend), with military planes, adapted/loaded with lord only knows,.. passenger planes were diverted landed (lord only knows what became of the passengers, don’t even want to think about that)… planes hit buildings. no plane hit WT7, that was demolished, so…that means 1 and 2 were too.

…there were supposed mobile phone calls made from loved ones….this has been proved impossible in 2001 from the height the planes were at at the time.

I see what you were getting at, but it’s still misplaced. I’ve tried to explain to that it behaves differently because it’s a different kind of structure. You might expect some toppling with a rigid structure but not a structure like the Towers, and especially once you take the scale difference into account.

There is still no external lateral force by the way (other than an initial push maybe), your Jenga tower topples due to the vertical force of gravity, the toppling is because it is able to transfer load between it’s rigid components and essentially pivot, at least until the pivot point moves, it doesn’t move sideways because of a continuing lateral input force, it topples due to gravity and the rigid nature of the structure. Once the bricks separate it all falls downwards of course, it doesn’t continue moving sideways other than any existing horizontal momentum.

TLDR, Jenga is different so not relevant.

Hang on, earlier in the thread, firefighters couldn’t possibly have predicted the collapse of WTC7 because they just spray water on fires, they’re not structural engineers or anything clever like that.

You really need to conspire with your fellow theorists to come up with a consistent story.

Edit:

Why? Why swop the planes if you were going to”disaster ” the passengers , why not just hijack the planes and crash the actual planes into the towers ?
“. planes hit buildings. no plane hit WT7, that was demolished, so…that means 1 and 2 were too.”
If you plan to demolish the buildings without the planes why bring planes into the equation just blow the buildings up.

Exactly. At lizard/illuminati HQ they got together and said “right then lads, we’re going to blow up the world trade centre” and someone said “oh, how, with a bomb?”. And they said “no, with what looks like planes. We’ve got our best men on it, and they’ve realised that actually a plane won’t make the building fall down so we’re going to make it look like planes but actually use *something else?!?!?* to get the job done”.

And nobody said “well, if planes wouldn’t do the job, wouldn’t someone figure it out?”

It’s like putting together a false-flag terrorist ‘atrocity’, only the bad guys are armed with supersoakers instead of AKs, and just hoping that nobody notices that supersoakers aren’t usually fatal.

From memory there were only two cell phone calls placed on 9/11. Both were from UAL93. Both were when the aircraft was below 7,000ft. Both did not last longer than a minute or so. Both took several attempts before the calls were connected due to poor reception.The bulk of the calls were from airphones the built in phones in the seatbacks. I guess the hostages were not worried about their credit card bills.

Indeed. Given if it was a conspiracy the amount of planning that must of gone into it, letting cell phone calls slip out, or make up a story that’s impossible would be a pretty big gaff.

5:40 …more people who knew WT7 was about to collapse…

Did you hear that? Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon…

wow, everyone is an expert, or everyone got to have a nice chat with an expert with a crystal ball