17
Comments (7)
sorted by:
3
featherwinglove 3 points ago +3 / -0

Also, it was built like a brick shithouse, and was the least damaged of the other five buildings besides the towers after they collapsed. And IIRC both CNN and BBC reported it as having collapsed... ...before it had actually collapsed.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
George 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thermal expansion. It just so happened to be the first building of it's kind to collapse due to a fire (technically 3rd because of the first two). Mind you these buildings are built to survive fires, so if this was the first building to fall due to a fire you would expect new regulations for building new sky scrapers. Nope, never happened.

A fire is not going to take down one of these buildings. And a fire especially isn't going to cause these buildings to fall at free fall speed. Controlled demolition took down building 7 (actually all 3 of them)

2
highenergywinning 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup all of them. No way they collapse that way without perfctly placed detonators

2
featherwinglove 2 points ago +2 / -0

NIST produced a massive report, but it is about as informative about the cause of the collapse as the movie Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers. They said fire weakened one column on ...was it the 13th floor? I don't remember. One of about 80 main support columns. They stopped there, with a couple of FEA computer graphics that look nothing like the video footage of the collapse.

-3
Pedemic -3 points ago +1 / -4

Enough of the conspiracy BS.