4186
Comments (574)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
29
HerrBBQ 29 points ago +56 / -27

I'm extremely confident in saying that the way the Twin Towers fell is entirely explainable by their shoddy 70s new age construction. Remember, their structural stability relied on the outer web of steel, not a steel and concrete core like most skyscrapers. The heat of the fires caused the steel that supported the floors to deform and sag (not melt!), which pulled the outer web of steel inwards. The stress of being bent and pulled in by the sagging floors while having to support the rest of the building above caused the outer steel at those floors to break at some points. When some of these beams broke, it increased the load on surrounding beams, which also broke. Eventually there wasn't enough strength to support the rest of the building above, so the entire thing catastrophically fell down into the next floor, which instantly failed, leading to a chain reaction.

Building 7 was sketchy as fuck. "Pull it"

57
RichyCunningHAAM 57 points ago +59 / -2

You just have to see the fact that when a large number of the hijackers couldn’t get approved for visas, the cia station chief in Saudi Arabia forced the state department to issue them.

His name was John Brennan.

31
DonaldWashington 31 points ago +31 / -0

I believe this without even looking into it

14
WhitePowerRanger 14 points ago +15 / -1

John Brennan eats babies

8
DonaldWashington 8 points ago +8 / -0

Wouldn’t surprise me.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah but what kind of mustard does he use with that dish?

3
Oldnormal 3 points ago +3 / -0

😦

28
TDS_Consultant 28 points ago +34 / -6

Even soft buckled steel causes resistance to the falling mass above. This little resistance would be enough to cause the off tilt top mass to rotate. Regardless of construction, buildings constructed of steel on and concrete don't instantly convert into zero structural resistance dust almost instantly.

12
HumanityWakeUp 12 points ago +12 / -0

Dude this entire thread is better than any movie, like every single of these comments would be deleted and banned on the communist social media like twitter or youtube. Its such a breath of fresh air to see something being talked freely without any hate or violence, just communication and freedom of speech. I wish they allowed to talk about the vaccines like that also, to let people openly speak about it without getting de-platformed.

5
JS_Mill 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't think it was inside job, but to appreciate seeing conversation about it. I remember being shown the folded $20 to look like a burning twin towers.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +2 / -1

LOL, nothing like "proof"

One thing we now know for sure; our government really would kill that many of us. And cause all the related destruction. Without blinking an eye.

The John Brennan thing is the most solid evidence we've got. Of course Billy BigMacs Barr never arrested him.

tRuSt sEssIoNs

2
Oldnormal 2 points ago +2 / -0

Reasons why this site is growing

-1
maleitch -1 points ago +1 / -2

Except that it isn't. Stop with yet another fairytale

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

We talk about vaccines here. We even talk about (gasp!) HCQ!

5
Pb82_Awards 5 points ago +7 / -2

Thermite in the dust, to boot!

3
QisntAtimeTraveler 3 points ago +8 / -5

thermite is literally just rust dude, also you're supposed to say nano-thermite.

3
-1
maleitch -1 points ago +1 / -2

Super thermite with nano technology... Haha... You fucking kids

1
magajew 1 point ago +2 / -1

It couldn’t have been that hot anyway since there was a person standing in the hole of one of the buildings waving. I think there’s a case to be made for some kind of directed energy weapon but I don’t know enough about science to make it. I’ve seen others talk about it tho.

13
Slap_A_Commie06 13 points ago +16 / -3

Nah those towers were built to last. They were built to survive major earthquakes and hurricane force winds. Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel used in the construction of the twin towers. Also George Bush’s cousin recently became the CEO of the security company that was contracted to protect the towers. 2 weeks before the attack the did a so called security update on the software and cameras within the tower. Think of that what u will. Also why did they sell all the scrap steel to China after the attack during the clean allowing no scientist to examine the steel. That’s just a drop in the bucket of info we were never told.

3
IcyHue 3 points ago +4 / -1

I thought the "jet fuel don't melt steel beams" thing was but a meme by now. You don't have to actually melt steel in order to have it lose its bearing capacity. But I guess you know that quite well (?)

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're not accounting for any of the evidence of molten steel. There's tons of that. Still red hot weeks later.

1
JuanTitor 1 point ago +5 / -4

I don't doubt shenanigans, but the physics of the collapse itself makes sense, as it isn't just heat for that type of steel but pressure combined with heat. There still were like 30 floors above where the impact was, that is a lot of weight for heated steel to hold, even on the bottom end of a house fire at 1,000 degrees.

2
SurfingUSA 2 points ago +2 / -0

SImple physics disproves this. The building is designed at all times and all places to hold the weight above. A little jet fuel at the 89th floor, hypothetically weakening certain parts of the steel structure and leading to partial collapse, would pancake no more than 4 to 5 floors below the 89th floor.

Then the engineered support, which always and in all places, is designed to hold floors 85-101, would stop the collapse. The jet fuel which is about as threatening as Sterno is long burnt off.

You have to look at the fact that no steel building has EVER burned down, and the amount of jet fuel is dinky compared to the mass of the buildings. There are some excellent graphics demonstrating this.

1
JuanTitor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Have you ever used lighter fluid? Played with fire at all? The jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning. Heat weakens steel a lot.

There is also a big difference between a static load and a dynamic load; the supports weren't designed to hold against the momentum of collapsing floors above them.

1
TwoPlusTwoEqualsFour 1 point ago +1 / -0

They were also designed and built to take multiple aircraft collisions.

1
HerrBBQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's all fine and yeah a lot of sketchy stuff but you didn't read what I wrote. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but it doesn't need to. It just had to burn hot enough to soften and deform them, which it did, causing them to bend and sag and destroy the outer beams.

0
PraiseBeToScience 0 points ago +2 / -2

This comment brought to you by a guy who probably only has a GED.

12
prayinpede 12 points ago +14 / -2

I saw an interview of fire fighters that took place maybe a year or 2 after. One fireman said he saw molten steel flowing down "it looked like a foundry" were his words.

8
blueandgold777 8 points ago +11 / -3

I actually saw the video on this when it was happening.You literally could see what looked like hot lava pouring out of (a few) of the windows.That's a trademark of thermitic detonation, because thermite generates it's own heat, very intensely-and contains it's own oxygen as it burns.I am positive that the videos i've seen are genuine.

5
prayinpede 5 points ago +5 / -0

I crawled down this rabbit hole back in 2005 on a whim. I was bored one day and thought "i wonder if there are any 9/11 conspiracies" i was floored after seeing loose change then finding AJ.

4
Oldnormal 4 points ago +4 / -0

Dude I had loose change on dvd. Someone was passing them out on the street one day. Sigh long gone now good times

4
FormerGraveheart 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don't suppose you had downloaded any, or know where those videos could be seen now?

2
SurfingUSA 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you go to YouTube and search on 9/11 truth or similar terms, "what really happened" on 9/11, you will see excellent video analysis that usually zooms in on the molten rivulets, the distinctive puffs of demolition charges at every other floor as the towers rode down, etc.

0
PraiseBeToScience 0 points ago +4 / -4

I'm still waiting for any of you dingdongs to explain how the government rigged the busiest buildings in the city to destruct without anyone noticing anything.

Also, like I'm gonna fucking believe that some contractors killed 3,000 Americans and were totally okay with it.

5
SmartWomenLoveTrump 5 points ago +5 / -0

The owner of building 7 admitted to it. “Pull it” he said

http://911research.wtc7.net/~nin11evi/911research///wtc/evidence/pullit.html#admission

0
CuomoisaMassMurderer 0 points ago +2 / -2

You never saw this explained. That makes you the "ding dong."

2
CuomoisaMassMurderer 2 points ago +2 / -0

How do you explain that without at least thermite?

Much of the rest of the world "knows" it was a nuclear explosion(s)

-2
SurfingUSA -2 points ago +2 / -4

Mini nukes. The molten steel was still going strong 3 weeks later.

1
SurfingUSA 1 point ago +1 / -0

For downvoters, starting digging information-wise: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.htm

8
QueenMAGA 8 points ago +8 / -0

I never went down this rabbit hole. What happened with building 7?

26
RichyCunningHAAM 26 points ago +31 / -5

It caught fire and collapsed perfectly like a controlled demolition. Building 1&2 where hit by planes with full fuel tanks so they run with super heated beams and the impact caused the collapse. Building 7 is the only building in history to catch fire and perfectly pancake.

It also had an exchange in the basement with massive holdings of gold bullion. No gold was ever recovered.

12
prayinpede 12 points ago +13 / -1

It also had offices for alphabet agencies and was to act as a shelter for mayor/gov/president. It was over constructed

3
EricCharliemella 3 points ago +3 / -0

All the Enron documents were there too apparently. If you watch the owners interviews, (Silverstein I think was the guys name) he said something like, "there was already so much death that day, so I told the guy department to leave, to pull it".

How does that make sense? He tells the fire dept what to do? Who uses the phrase "pull it"?

4
John_Rambo 4 points ago +4 / -0

Don’t forget that major news agencies were reporting that building 7 had collapsed before it even happened. That was odd.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

What's the name of that action movie about a crime ring creating a diversion in NYC so they could steal the gold from the Fed?

I'm wondering if this came out before 911

1
StrongPeacemaker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Die Hard 3

-2
IcyHue -2 points ago +2 / -4

It got hit by debris from the falling towers, burned for hours and hours, the sprinklers didn't do shit. Of course it collapsed eventually. But it was out of sight from most cameras' perspectives so the real damage was hard to see which got the rumors started.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

This doesn't explain it pancaking like a controlled demolition.

15
Quality 15 points ago +18 / -3

A kid threw a rock at it and it tumbled to the ground at free-fall speed. The conspiracy nuts claim it was demolished, but clearly the speed & angle at which the rock hit the building was enough to send a minor vibration to the inner steel columns, causing them to very briefly lose stability just long enough slightly shift the weight of the building and buckle the support structure resulting in the entire skyscraper falling to the ground in seconds. Easily explainable. A guy also farted and blew a hole in the Pentagon.

6
DonaldWashington 6 points ago +7 / -1

I can confirm this in its entirety

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Silent but deadly! Lol