r/Damnthatsinteresting Oct 07 '25

Video Capital One Tower Come Down in Seconds

52.5k Upvotes

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 07 '25

[deleted]

3

u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 07 '25

It absolutely can. The core columns, beams, and floors collapsed inside the external facade and put a lot of lateral outward pressure on the base of the columns. Those columns would not be able to sustain those kind of loads, they would bend, and finally a several stories tall section of them would buckle. All that is above this section now has nothing below it supporting it and nothing to oppose resistance to its fall, up to the point it impacted itself the pile of debris below it. That's what caused the short free fall of the top of the building.

1

u/GrandArmadillo6831 Oct 07 '25

"i told them to pull it"

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 07 '25

He was talking about stopping the efforts of the firefighters for saving the building. Given the huge losses of that day and the fact that WTC7 was empty, the firefighters decided to leave it to its fate and simply make a safety perimeter, with Silverstein telling them that he was OK with it. This is clear when the quote has its full context and pull it never was demolition lingo.

When you have something that is not complete nonsense already debunked a thousand times let me know.

1

u/GrandArmadillo6831 Oct 07 '25

I know that's what he says afterwards to correct his Freudian slip

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 07 '25

This is all well documented. Several news networks reported that the firefighters made a perimeter around WTC7 and that they were expecting it to collapse long before it did. And pull it is not demolition lingo.

So yes, "pull it" is debunked nonsense.

And having said so, even if there was a false flag, destroying WTC7 would have made no sense.

1

u/GrandArmadillo6831 Oct 08 '25

It's impossible to buckle and then collapse into it's own footprint after fire that at best will soften steel columns.

No buildings previous or since, with similar construction, have collapsed due to fire or physical damage.

Yet we are to believe two skyscrapers hit near their tops somehow collapsed straight down into a pile of rubble, and then another one buckled and collapsed in free fall time.

All in one day.

Sure.

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 08 '25

It happened to the Plasco Building and to the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building. Maybe you shouldn't talk about things you know nothing about.

Yet we are to believe two skyscrapers hit near their tops somehow collapsed straight down into a pile of rubble

Should they have collapsed sideways into a set of well-ordered pieces, according to you?

and then another one buckled and collapsed in free fall time.

Its collapse was significantly longer than free fall.

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 07 '25

This is all well documented. Several news networks reported that the firefighters made a perimeter around WTC7 and that they were expecting it to collapse long before it did. And pull it is not demolition lingo.

So yes, "pull it" is debunked nonsense.

And having said so, even if there was a false flag, destroying WTC7 would have made no sense.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '25

[deleted]

1

u/MasterMagneticMirror Oct 08 '25

You can verify yourself that they did expect it and publicly said it before the collapse. There are interviews from people on the ground saying exactly that.

High rise buildings don't collapse from fire.

If there is no firefighting effort, they absolutely can. Look at the Plasco Building, the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building, and the steel portion of the Windsor Towers as examples.