13
I argued for years that the official story on 9/11 was solid, then I read the NIST report myself.
After finally reading the full 2005 NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 last month, I was struck by the specific mention of thermal expansion in a single column as the initiating failure, which seems like an incredibly precise and narrow point of failure for such a total collapse, so what's the most convincing counter-argument to the controlled demolition theory that you've heard?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
knight.mason1mo ago
Man, I went down that same rabbit hole a few years back. What finally clicked for me was talking to a friend who's a firefighter. He explained how steel loses most of its strength way before it melts, and that an office fire is nothing like a house fire. All that open space and fuel let it spread and get way hotter than people assume. Once a few key connections failed from the heat, the whole thing coming down straight made more sense to me than a secret demolition.
3
the_drew1mo ago
Exactly! I had a buddy in welding school who showed me how steel gets weird under heat. He heated a beam with a torch until it was just dull red, nowhere near melting, and you could bend it with your hands. Made the whole "pancake" thing make way more sense when you see how soft it gets.
3
jade5401mo ago
Talking to a guy at my station who used to work in steel construction changed my mind. He said those open floor offices are basically giant fuel cans with all the paper, desks, and carpet. The heat gets trapped and soaks into the steel frame for hours. Once a few beams sag from that heat, the whole load shifts and it's game over. It's not like a clean cut from explosives, it's a slow cook that suddenly gives way.
3