Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Alex Jones u0026 Eddie Bravo on Tower 7 | Joe Rogan" video.

@scottkeenan537 you keep insisting on the melting but no melting is necessary to weaken steel. Literal fucking NPCs on all sides.
2
@krocketonboost5236 that building had concrete supports.
2
@Turdfurgasonschode it was a B-25 you lunatic Please look up the B-25,it's nowhere near the size of a B-52. EDIT: sorry in the middle of the confusion I though you were a truther
2
The Badman because it had concrete support, and concrete resists the temperature better than steel. It can still fall like it happened in Teheran, but it's better protected.
1
@Alex Pittman 1. Most of those buildings were concrete and steel, concrete supports the steel during high temps. 2. Confirm it was steel.
1
The Badman because CONK CRETE BABEEYYY
1
@Rammy What what if I told you the thermal expansion made junctions pop out? If you break the connections between pillars wouldn't a building come down?
1
The Badman ... precisely... The tower that burned but did not collapse has concrete in the construction.
1
The Badman https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/WTC_bathtub_east.JPG/1024px-WTC_bathtub_east.JPG it was meant to be a steel structure. The tube frame design was meant to save weight, concrete would have defeated the purpose.
1
The Badman the whole point of the WTC design was having open floor space. I'd assume most floors would be furnished with lightweight prefab construction but even if someone was enough of a maniac to haul concrete slabs to make divisions in his floor that wouldn't mean anything because there would be no load bearing from the concrete. The steel fails, the concrete comes down. In the case of other buildings with concrete sections that actually can bear a load, the concrete's lower sensitivity to heat allows it to stand.
1
The Badman because the towers "easily" supported the impact, the tower was designed to take severe wind loads (every once in a while the East Coast gets big storms) and even a plane due to the possibility of an airplane trying to land in fog getting lost (although I think it was designed to hold up against an impact of a plane of a smaller size). I'm gonna try to explain something about engineering - we make things with a margin of safety. And when people are involved, the liability involved with the loss of human lives requires those margins to be pretty high. So when the planes impacted the towers, one lost I think around 15% of the wall beams and another lost around 20% of the wall beams. But, the walls were designed if I remember correctly to take 40% of the load while the core of the building was designed to take 60% of the load (in fact in one of the collapse videos you can see to core sticking out of the smoke because that part of the structure was stronger). So while the buildings had pretty much one face taken out of the equation most of the load was still placed on the cores, and even assuming that one of the faces of the building did not held up to the impact you still had the other 3 faces of the building carrying the remaining 40% of the weight. Back to margins, when the building was designed they figured, assume that the building is filled with the weight of all the people, offices and elevators and now assume that it's going to suffer hurricane winds. How strong does the building need to be to hold up? You then figure out how many beams/how thick each beam is to support that load. The engineering team then says, okay now make it twice as strong. That means the hypothetical project I made had a factor of safety of two. When the planes crashed, they're mostly made out of aluminum so while the steel got bent and junctions broke off, the plane was heavily damaged and shredded itself on impact. It was like a huge shotgun blast going off inside the building, which tore off fire insulation from the struts and pushed the contents of the office into corners, meanwhile fuel was sprayed everywhere and stuff caught on fire. If the fires were put out the building could have actually been repaired and it would be still standing to this day, because workers could have gone in over the following months and cut off and replaced the damaged steel. But the heat made the horizontal steel sag. The horizontal steel beams were connected to the outside wall and the core. By sagging, the steel started pulling on the walls. This is seen right before collapse, there's sections that should be straight on the WTC 1 and 2 walls but they started bending inwards because they were connected horizontally to beams that were being pulled down. You'd think that the top of the building should have tipped over like a tree being cut but what brought the towers down was not cutting action. It was the side walls that were pulled from the inside until they snapped. When they snapped the building was unable to hold the weight of the top section and gravity pulls things straight down. When a tree is brought down they deliberately weaken one of the sides so that the tree follows that direction and doesn't kill the lumberjack. When the towers came down there was no "weakened" side to make it tip over, it lost support on the whole 4 sides at roughly the same time. You see the top tipping a little when the collapse begins but gravity isn't pulling it sideways, it's pulling things down. It also didn't drop from the bottom, this can be seen on videos shot from the ground. The bottom is waiting, rock solid, while hundreds of tons of building crash into it. Videos from above do make it seem the bottom of the building is collapsing under it but video shot from the ground makes it clear. If you look at controlled demolitions videos you'll hear explosions going off like Chinese firecrackers but with thousands times the power. They're compromising all the structure simultaneously. The reports of loud bangs do not match controlled demolitions. There would be also traces of detcord spread all over New York and the beams would have had the copper from the linear cutting charges fused to them. There were so many firemen and rescue personnel on the scene, they would have been able to grab some evidence.
1
The Badman but it was... when the towers collapsed WTC 7 was showered by debris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4 0:42 Those debris carved a huge chunk out of the building, it's hard to see it in pictures but the firemen described the building had been gutted. The fires burned for hours and there were three diesel generators in the building. Again if I remember correctly heat made a steel beam expand which popped the junction bolts/rivets causing an elevator shaft to come down. The whole penthouse collapsed and pulled the insides of the building with it. At this point you can see in the video that WTC 7 is hollow - you can see the blue sky through the windows. Seconds later the walls simply buckle due to the fact they have no support and the "skin" of the building comes down. The firemen responding that day predicted that WTC 7 would collapse hours beforehand and had the area evacuated, why would demolition be necessary when the firemen involved already knew the building was coming down from the extensive damage it received?
1
The Badman why? I want to know why. Are there legitimate holes in the explanation? Are you just refusing to listen to contradicting evidence?
1
The Badman oh yeah the story is shady as shit. If you want to "look into it" the Corbett Report has videos on the fact that a Saudi on a terror watchlist was part owner of a private contractor auditing several federal agencies and they were the ones who suggested doing the hijack drills. I am a firm believer that the government knew. But I don't think they planned it. But why does it look like a controlled demo?
1
The Badman I'm not sure about Silverstein. The fact is that all-risk coverage before 2001 often included terrorism in their commercial clauses because the assumption was that events of terrorism were so rare that insurers would put that on the contract. In 1993 the WTC suffered a terrorist attack and the insurers paid. After 9/11 he did manage to get them to pay for two terrorist attacks but they still only awarded 4.5 billion with the NY Port Authority having to cover the other 3 billion to rebuild. The story that he made a huge profit... hmmmm it's not like I would put it past him but the story doesn't make sense once you put it into context: he ended up losing money, the insurance policy was actually taken 2 months in advance and the WTC was highly profitable. Before the attacks it was at 98% occupancy, the mall was one of the most profitable in America and the "windows on the world" was the highest grossing restaurant. "Controlled demos the buildings ''fall from the bottom''" - okay but the WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w 3:04 the bottom of the building is not moving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 from another angle 1:02 no movement in the bottom 2:03 again you see the top section coming down while there's no movement in the bottom. "so it does not impact the surrounding areas" - but it did... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSQYOq71io8 6:45 if it was a controlled demolition then it was the worst ever considering how many buildings it damaged. The Marriott Hotel was destroyed, the Verizon building suffered heavy damage (but the masonry facade protected the internal structure), etc. The Deutsche bank suffered so much damage it had to be taken apart despite not collapsing. When there's a controlled demolition they set off small charges that weaken the building so that it can come apart. Then they blow the load bearing struts to take away the support, the building crashes into the ground, since the building is weakened it crumbles floor by floor and you see the building "vanishing" into the ground with a cloud of dust forming at the bottom. The WTC 1 and 2 did not have that first sequence of weakning charges and when it started coming down you see that the bottom stands, but the top of the building is coming down. The smoke cloud formed on the top floors crashing into the bottom section and accompanied the crash, didn't form at the floor level. Again, in WTC 7 the firemen heard creaking sounds at 2:00, started evacuating at 3:00 and let the fires burn until it collapsed at 5:20. If the firemen predicted that fires would bring the building down why were explosives used 3 hours and 20 minutes later?
1
The Badman for some reason as soon as I wrote Deutsche several paragraphs of my writing changed colour to red. I don't know what that is - but it happens when I'm typing controversial comments. I have googled it before and I have no idea because it seems nobody else is asking about this issue. So if my comment got shadow banned and you can't see it that might be it.
1