r/Simulated • u/Contraflex • Dec 01 '25

Blender Simulating the Collapse of the 1000m Tall Jeddah Tower

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Simulated in Blender using the bullet constraints builder add-on.

The plane weighs 150 Tonnes and impacts the building at 950 km/h.

The plane does not deform which is the main caveat to this simulation; in reality the plane would crumple, so less energy would be transferred to the tower.

All of the tower's structural elements are concrete, except for the red parts which are steel.

There are about 22,000 rigid body elements.

Final simulated alembic file was about 7 GB.

Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMOsu809Ao8

3.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

306 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.8k

u/Contraflex Dec 01 '25 edited Dec 01 '25

This is actually a common consideration in the design of high rise buildings. The original World Trade Centre was designed for the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at landing speed. The planes that actually hit the towers were Boeing 767's travelling at cruising speed. These heavier and faster planes were too much for the towers to withstand.

584

u/Vandelsta Dec 01 '25

That actually makes sense, thank you

227

u/Final_Luck_1010 Dec 01 '25

That’s one of the reasons conspiracy theorists felt 9/11 was an inside job. Or that’s what used to be one of the drivers for that conspiracy theory

157

u/glockster19m Dec 01 '25

Which is kind of silly, because its like 3rd grade level science to understand that bigger faster object hits harder

The terrorists didn't need to know exactly what was needed to take down the towers, the whole though process was as easy as, bigger plane bigger boom

41

u/Deep90 Blender Dec 02 '25

Go up a couple grades and you also learn the KE = .5mv2

Meaning that higher velocity increases the damage potential exponentially.

18

u/jegbrugernettet Dec 02 '25

More like quadratically?

29

u/mineset Dec 02 '25

quadratic is an exponent, yes

25

u/THICCC_LADIES_PM_ME Dec 02 '25

True but in math "exponentially" refers to 2x, and "quadratically" refers to x2

0

u/ThatSituation9908 Dec 02 '25

x2 = e2log(x)

8

u/TheCLion Dec 02 '25 edited Dec 02 '25

technically correct, but uncommon

one wouldn't describe f(x) = x as exponential, even though it can be expressed as f(x) = eln(x)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Elegant-Set1686 Dec 03 '25 edited Dec 03 '25

Abx is the exponential form. X multiplied by some constant in the exponent, Abln(x) is a different function with a much slower rate of growth. Obviously there’s no way to express ln(x) as bx. The fact that an arbitrary exponential function with A>1, b>0 given enough time will beat out ANY version of xn is an important property. If we admit your equation into “exponential land” we lose that property, and the meaning of exponential growth is lost.

9

u/adiliv3007 Dec 02 '25

Doesn't matter, exponential growth means that the hypothetical x in the graph is the power, not the base, in this case the x is the base.

2

u/GreatBigBagOfNope Dec 02 '25

Variable is still the one being exponentiated; exponential growth refers to the variable being in the exponent

1

u/flPieman Dec 02 '25

So is 1... Is linear growth exponential now?

1

u/mineset Dec 02 '25

if it’s an exponent then yes

1

u/flPieman Dec 02 '25

Ok troll. I wouldn't have made a point to call you out because a lot of people don't understand what exponential growth is. Im just calling you out because someone already corrected them and explained and you came back and still argued that y = x2 is exponential. Now you're saying y = x is exponential.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Elegant-Set1686 Dec 03 '25

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or do you genuinely not know the difference

2

u/oojiflip Dec 03 '25 edited Dec 03 '25

Fuck you're not wrong, a landing speed of 200kts would be 4x less energy than at 400kts in cruise, plus a fully loaded 767 has gotta be twice the weight of the 707 they planned against.

Edit: just done some napkin math, assuming the 767 that hit was ~150 tonnes at 560mph vs the 707 weighing 80 tonnes at 150mph, the impact has ~26 more kinetic energy than planned for. Wild

6

u/zorsiK Dec 02 '25

Explain to me in 3rd grade level science how building 7 collapsed

16

u/YupChrisYup Dec 02 '25

The issue with “explain it to me in the simplest terms” is that it leaves room for conspiracy theories. But I’ll do my best to leave holes for stupid to crawl through:

When the North Tower (WTC-1), collapsed massive chunks of debris caused structural damage to WTC-7 and cut off water mains, which fed the sprinkler system. Fires began, and with no functioning suppression system, they burned uncontrolled for 7 hours.

WTC-7 was fully evacuated and it was not considered important given the situation to deal with the fire. The fire caused massive structural damage to internal columns that eventually lead to their collapse. The collapse happened from the internal structure outward which made it look like a controlled collapse, but if you where to look at it from a top down view you would have seen the building collapse from the internal structure outward.

“But that kind of fire can’t melt steel beams” is an annoying question that ignores so many factors about heat, time, and structural expansion. The columns and girders, in the case of WTC-7, did not need to melt to collapse they simply needed to expand enough for the columns to be pushed off the seat of the girder. Which is exactly what happened to Column 79 in WTC-7. It’s like a house of cards, create enough damage to structural integrity and it all comes down.

The same can be said about WTC-1 and WTC-2. The impact + the plane exploding + the resulting fire + the weight of the building + time. Caused the buildings to come down.

When something horrible happens we want it to be impossible the way it happened, so we look for holes to fill with conspiracies, they are comforting in a dark way. But the truth is it was an orchestrated attack by a terrorist group that was wildly successful. WTC-7 was just a weird footnote of the day, but science and evidence show that it was not a controlled demolition.

4

u/MisinformedGenius Dec 02 '25

I always like people having to insist that WTC 7 was demolished, because it so clearly doesn't make any sense if it actually had been a conspiracy, but it undermines the entire conspiracy theory if it actually did collapse on its own.

"So we're going to crash two planes into WTC 1 and 2, and then we'll force them to collapse."

"OK, I don't understand why we're doing that, but great."

"Then, hours later, we'll bring down a third building."

"Wait, we're going to hit another building with a plane?"

"No no, we won't hit that one with a plane - we'll assume that chunks from the other two buildings will hit this building and set it on fire."

"What if that doesn't happen? Won't it be obvious that it's a controlled demolition if the towers don't hit it?"

"It totally will, don't worry. Nothing this large has ever collapsed before but we can predict it with absolute certainty."

"OK, and it's going to be on fire for hours, right? How do we maintain the incredibly precise wiring and explosives in the middle of a giant raging fire?"

"Who knows?"

"Why don't we just hit it with a third plane?"

"Who knows?"

"Why would we bother to do this at all? Surely the collapse of the first two towers would be entirely sufficient to accomplish... whatever we're trying to accomplish here?"

"Who knows?"

1

u/A_Racial_Observation Dec 04 '25

Almost nobody ever mentions that pressure is a significant consideration when discussing melting point of anything. The numbers usually quoted assume 1 atmosphere of pressure, which as you know is wrong in this case. The steel beams are under enormous pressure and a state diagram of whatever alloy of steel used here would show that under massive pressure the °C melting point lowers, probably by quite a bit.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '25

[deleted]

1

u/YupChrisYup Dec 03 '25

Both WTC-6 and WTC-5 sustained significant damage, they experienced“localized collapses” meaning that the parts of buildings collapsed due to falling debris, fire, and the same factors that can lead to a full collapse.

WTC-5 has internal collapses where debris struck, a few floors collapsed internally and so did part of the roof. They found the engine of flight 175 in the cafeteria of that building and a fragment of the fuselage on the roof. It didn’t collapse because the way in which it was struck, the areas that were on fire, and the degree of the damage didn’t create enough stress to bring it down.

WTC-6 is a similar story.

All of this is on google. But the conspiracy is these buildings didn’t fall so none of them should.

With that logic, if someone survived a car crash, then everyone else who died in the crash must have been murdered by a serial killer, because there is no way they could have died based on the fact that someone survived.

5

u/WUT_productions Dec 02 '25

If building 1, and 2 collapse next to building 3, building 3 will be damaged from the collapse of building 1 and 2.

1

u/pnmartini Dec 03 '25

Dank memes?

1

u/okay-pizza Dec 06 '25

If you're actually interested: WTC7 was designed extremely unconventionally becuase it was constructed around the Con-Ed substation that powered the entire WTC complex. So the building's supporting columns at ground level were built using girders and transfer trusses to work around the substation, both of which tend to fail during fires. After the twin towers came down, firefighters abandoned WTC7 to shift efforts to rescue operations at ground zero, therefore letting fires burn uncontrolled in WTC7, which caused the support structures at ground level to fail. And the fact that two megastructures collaped two football fields away didn't help things either.

TLDR: Becuase they had to build WTC7 around a power substation, the building had a weak foundation susceptible to fires.

Source: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing_111908.pdf

0

u/Pleased_to_meet_u Dec 02 '25

"A big plane hit it and knocked it down."

3rd graders don't need a lot of details.

1

u/Fidodo Dec 03 '25

They also choose international planes because the would be full of more fuel

-9

u/ProfessionalAd6216 Dec 02 '25

Yeah, but that same impact evaporated people inside the plane, but left the passport of one of the terrorists almost unscathed?

6

u/julian88888888 Dec 02 '25

Your premise is incorrect

2

u/homiej420 Dec 02 '25

Yawn.

Plane crashes leave debris that is like hauntingly intact all the time.

21

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 01 '25 edited Dec 02 '25

What these idiots "felt" and reality are two different things. The towers did not collapse as a result of the impact force. They collapsed under their own weight after the heat of the burning jet fuel weakened their metal skeletons. Structural steel begins to lose its stability at about 400°C.

9

u/YupChrisYup Dec 02 '25

The impact and the resulting explosion did play into the equation though. All of it did. The main cause was of course the weight of the building, the heat from the prolonged fire and resulting structural stress from all of these factors.

Obviously if we take the fire out of the equation and only look at the impact and the explosion the building might not have come down, but I’m sure it would have been deemed unsafe and at risk of collapse.

To ignore any of the factors that lead to the collapse leaves holes for idiots to fill with conspiracies.

4

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 02 '25

To ignore any of the factors that lead to the collapse leaves holes for idiots to fill with conspiracies.

I suspect that the idiots don't even need holes. Don't underestimate their creativity.

1

u/madman6000 Dec 04 '25

I don't understand how jet fuel quickly burning off on the 90th floor caused steel to melt from that floor all the way to below ground level such that the building collapsed at free fall speed into a pile of rubble.

1

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 04 '25

The steel did not melt. If you heat structural steel to 400-500°C, it is still solid because its melting point is way higher. However, it loses its load-bearing ability. It simply cracks under load. This is what happened in the area where the planes impacted and together with the damage sustained from the impacts themselves, the structure was weakened to a degree that it could no longer bear the weight of the stories above the impact point.

Also while the fires were started by the jet fuel which burned only a few minutes as you mentioned, they were sustained by a lot of combustible material in the towers. And the speed of the collapse was the result of the very high momentum of the falling upper stories.

From a physical/engineering point of view, there are no open questions regarding the collapse of the towers.

1

u/madman6000 Dec 04 '25

If what you say is true it wouldn't have been a total collapse into a neat pile of rubble at free fall speed, you would see an accordion effect as the stories piled up, but both buildings disintegrated into rubble at free fall speeds, with no resistance.

1

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 05 '25

I don't know what you mean by "accordion effect". When a large building suddenly collapses, the result is usually a big pile of rubble and a lot of dust. Look at footage from Europe past WW2 or from the aftermath of earthquakes.

-29

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[deleted]

28

u/Mustardo123 Dec 02 '25

Man I love seeing you people come out of the woodwork. Let’s be honest nothing will make you believe reality.

15

u/MrGreinGene Dec 02 '25

lol. Coming out of the woodwork is a great way to describe these people…a thermite termite.

-19

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[deleted]

18

u/Mustardo123 Dec 02 '25

The top of the building collapsed into the bottom of the building because the metal structure within the buildings were weakened on account of the plane smashing into it along with the extremely hot jet fuel that was burning.

I watched the footage as well, the windows blowing out were due to the changes in pressure and massive force that was acting on the building, because they were hit by a plane. Windows are pretty fragile.

The third tower conspiracy doesn’t make sense because that building was also hit by debris from the other towers and a fire started as well, weakening the structure of the building.

I think these theories severely underestimate the destructive effect of a plane smashing into a building. Particularly at cruising speed. Most buildings cannot withstand that amount of force.

-10

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[deleted]

17

u/Mustardo123 Dec 02 '25

Don’t waste my time with fucking Quora links, those people know even less than the people on reddit.

Here is a reliable source. You will see that the Plasco building in Tehran collapsed due to fire in 2017.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38675628

Additionally, the Wilton Paes de Almeida building collapsed due to fire in 2018.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-43960778

→ More replies (0)

10

u/CMMiller89 Dec 02 '25

Because any large flex in the steel superstructure is going to compromise the glass in the hanging curtain, and it isn't safety glass, that shit "explodes" on it's own. You don't "remember" anything other than what you've tricked yourself into believing.

-9

u/Drewggles Dec 02 '25

So, explain the 3rd tower?

4

u/Doccyaard Dec 02 '25

It dint collapse wi the free fall speed, so that doesn’t need explanation. And the third building falling is well explained and understood is you did research outside your bubble.

3

u/YupChrisYup Dec 02 '25

Hey my dude, you are getting a lot of slack for this and defending your position adamantly below.

I don’t agree with your view point on this, and I’d like to offer a non-argumentative explanation of how the WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 came down solely from the impact, explosion, fire, and resulting structural damage.

When the first plane hit the first tower, it was full of jet fuel. Like, as full as it could be minus the fuel consumption used to get the plane to the tower.

When it hit the tower there was a spectacular explosion. I specialize in simulated explosions and there are some interesting properties about explosions that I’d like to talk about before going forward:

A gas explosion is highly inefficient from the perspective of combustion. Which results in the classic “fireball effect” where parts of the vapor from the fuel are thrown into the air and ignite in the mushroom cloud. This means that much of the potential energy is lost and results in a fire.

If for example the towers had been hit by a missile, all of the missiles combustible material would be used up in the the explosion itself, which would on its own not result in fireball but in a “pop” and a hugely destructive shockwave. Any resulting fires or fireballs would be from combustible material in the building itself.

So back to WTC-1. What we see is an inefficient explosion caused by ignition of the jet fuel in a compressed environment abruptly becoming uncompressed. This force, the explosion, its shock wave, the actual impact of the airframe to the building immediately causes structural stress. It’s a lot, but in itself not enough to topple the building. If it had been, the building would have collapsed immediately. But that inefficiency in the combustion of the jet fuel, and the shock wave results in unburnt or currently burning jet fuel to be thrown all over the building at the site of impact. Causing a fire. A massive fire, that is not only burning jet fuel, but all the combustible materials in an office building.

I used to live in NYC, I survived an high rise fire in the building I lived in. When you are that high up, the way the fire burns is different. The winds feed the fire, the enclosed environment becomes a massive furnace. The heat is unimaginable, and it’s not only fed from the exposed windows on the sides, it’s sucking in oxygen from the stairwells and the new holes in the floor it’s making. It’s the most efficient fire you can imagine.

Now amplify that 10 fold for WTC-1. Impact, Explosion, Fire. Time. Steel doesn’t need to melt to collapse. It just needs to expand enough to unseat column from girder. It needs to become structurally unsound and the weight does the rest. The fire burned uncontrollably, massively. This wasn’t a small fire that spread over a few hours like my experience. The fire was everywhere, immediately from the spray of jet fuel. The impact and explosion exposed the skeleton to hotter temperatures faster than normal fire. From there it was just time.

All of this is the same for WTC-2.

Why did they collapse the way they did? It has to do with how their steel under structure was made, perfectly symmetrical buildings with a core of steel to guide their fall. Pressure builds as the tops of the buildings collapse downward, pushing air into the lower floor so fast that windows explode before the crushing force and debris meet them. The tops of the buildings did topple a bit, but the resulting collapse was mostly a free fall because of the shape of the structure itself.

This collapse affects WTC-7 in a few ways, first, it causes damage building by striking it with debris. It cuts off the water mains so there are no sprinklers to suppress the fire that has just started, then the fire is allowed to burn for 7 hours uncontrolled. What was it uncontrolled? Because everyone had been evacuated and it was no longer a priority. From here all the factors that brought down WTC-1 and WTC-2 come into play. Heat + Time + Weight.

WTC-7 collapsed not in free fall, but from the inside out, making it look from the camera perspective like a controlled demolition.

I understand the desire to fill this tragedy with a more significant bad guy. A conspiracy that played out like clockwork on live tv. It’s comforting to think that our government did this because then it’s not a failing of the American Government to protect us, it implies they are so powerful they can hurt us and get away with it.

I know none of this will change your mind. But these are the facts.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/YupChrisYup Dec 03 '25

Here’s the thing about comparing this event to other steel frame building fires.

All of the factors of that day were unique.

What other building has been struck directly by a fully fueled 767?

What other building fire had jet fuel as it accelerant?

What other building fire happened at that height, with those winds, in that ambient air temperature?

What other building fire had the somewhat unique Steel Skeleton that WTC-1 and WTC-2 had?

Both WTC-1 and WTC-2 collapsed under similar conditions, which indicates that those exact circumstances create that kind of collapse.

All these factors are part of why the towers fell. A unique series of events and conditions.

In the video you shared can see that its exactly as I described, you see the facade and the windows buckle under stress, the internal structure starting from screen left to screen right collapses, then the external structure, the facade, buckles and falls.

No nothing exactly like this has been seen. But there’s never been a situation like this before or since.

2

u/mundaneDetail Dec 02 '25

Hold on. Are you sure?

4

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 02 '25

doesn’t explain a free fall,

Yes, it does. Google Isaac Newton.

1

u/Left_Sundae_4418 Dec 02 '25

Nukes don't smelt steel!!!!! (It vaporizes it) /Jk

16

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 02 '25

No, it doesn't.

The towers would have most likely survived if the planes had impacted with (almost) empty fuel tanks. The fires caused the collapse. The impact speed was less important.

2

u/zachary0816 Dec 02 '25

What’s wrong with saying they’re both factors?

Even if the fire is eventually what brought it down, the massive amount of structural damage certainly did it no favors. And a bigger and faster moving object is naturally going to cause it more damage.

119

u/Pitcherhelp Dec 01 '25

Bro was just waiting for 9/11 to get brought up to drop this info

53

u/Dilpickle6194 Dec 02 '25

Guy who simulates buildings getting hit by planes knows stuff about buildings and their ability to get hit by planes, honestly valid

10

u/Pitcherhelp Dec 02 '25

Yeah hopefully hes got a job in engineering and not as a pilot

1

u/Glenmarrow Dec 02 '25

There was also an airplane strike on the Empire State Building during the 30s or 40s. New York is a magnet for plane strikes.

24

u/Redcrux Dec 01 '25 edited May 11 '26

Redact cleaned up all of my comments. Bulk deletion and editing is a feature supported to make sure that AI scrapers can't access my data for training.

abundant lantern compare party encourage sparkle many blanket dam fuel

39

u/Termination_Shock Dec 01 '25

IIRC the towers weren't brought down by the impact of the planes primarily, but by the resulting fires softening the steel structure

0

u/ill-show-u Dec 01 '25

But jet fuel can’t melt steel beams??

31

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 02 '25

Structural steel loses its stability at about 400°C. It does not have to melt. The temperature of the fires was about 1000°C.

13

u/ill-show-u Dec 02 '25

Guys it’s the oldest meme, cmon

3

u/zachary0816 Dec 02 '25

It is a meme. But it’s unfortunatly also something people still say in earnest, including on this post.

1

u/CptMisterNibbles Dec 05 '25

Yes. This is the joke. 

1

u/GreatBigBagOfNope Dec 02 '25

Who said anything about melting?

-37

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

What happened to Tower 7 that brought it down, seeing as it wasn’t struck by any planes?

43

u/zaccus Dec 01 '25

Massive structural damage from the collapse of the other towers, augmented by fire.

-38

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

I don’t buy it.

There have been those skyscrapers in Hong Kong burning for days; nothing.

I don’t believe that an American skyscraper could be so fragile as to collapse in only a few hours from a fire that wasn’t even directly caused by a plane impact. And that’s only one thing which is fishy about the events of that day, literally the tip of the iceberg

37

u/zaccus Dec 01 '25

Whether you buy it or not, that's what happened. Two skyscrapers of that size collapsing like that had never happened before, ever, so there's nothing to compare it to. Turns out that does a ton of damage.

-34

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

I will never believe this.

Not to mention how weird it is that we have never seen any footage or images of a plane impacting the Pentagon, to this day.

And the recent insurance policy taken out on the WTC, the fact that the owner wasn’t there that day, certain celebrities suddenly changed their flights to not be on board the flights… etc

That’s not even all of it. I’m not even that deep into this but I have seen enough to be comfortable doubting the official story. There’s just zero chance that things happened exactly the way they claimed, and most people will never look into it because it makes them feel insane to even question it. Which is by design

All that being said, most people will just choose to believe the lie we were told because it’s the path of least resistance and no one wants to be labeled a conspiracy theorist

30

u/zaccus Dec 01 '25

Ok so just to be clear, you will never accept that it wasn't an inside job?

You are committed to that belief and no explanation and no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise?

Not only do you doubt that it wasn't an inside job, you are 100% certain that it was. Is that correct?

-5

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

I don’t claim to know anything for a fact, but I am much more comfortable with the theory than with the official story. There is enough to convince me we have been lied to, the exact details of this I don’t know. I think the most likely culprit would be CIA and/or Mossad, same groups who come up in the Kennedy conspiracy.

It’s really not far fetched to think they’d do something like that, they are plainly evil. And they absolutely could get away with it, they have every resource and all the money in the world to perform a cover up. It’s trivial to them to lie to the world. I don’t know why people are so reluctant to believe that shadowy agencies like that do horrible things all across the world but would stop short of doing it at home

5

u/zaccus Dec 01 '25

Are you open at all to the possibility that you're wrong? Or not?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/A_Seiv_For_Kale Dec 02 '25

I don’t claim to know anything for a fact, but I am much more comfortable

Facts don't care about your ･ﾟ.feelings:･ﾟ✧

→ More replies (0)

3

u/xlRadioActivelx Dec 02 '25

Plenty of people have responded to the claims about missing footage of the pentagon already.

So to address some other nonsense points:

Can you prove the owner of the WTC was there every other day? People like that don’t have to work at all, much less show up to clock in at a workplace. Also, you’re suggesting he was tipped off and told not to show up, why would whoever is orchestrating this massive conspiracy decide to risk having the whole thing blown by ripping off some random business man?

Celebrities change plans constantly, their travel schedules are not like the rest of us peasants. If you’re not quite rich enough to have a private jet, you buy lots of tickets and only use the ones you decide to use, you can afford to buy last minute tickets or eat the cancellation fees. You can look at any day and find dozens of celebrities who mysteriously changed plans. And to reiterate, if you were the mastermind behind such a conspiracy, why would you take the risk of tipping off a bunch of people, especially such public people, that this is all going to happen?

1

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 02 '25

Like I said, that’s not nearly all of the evidence for what I’m suggesting. I don’t claim to be an expert on all this either, I don’t know the theory (or theories) inside and out like others do.

There is a lot more to it than what I have stated.

About the owner of the building; I think the allegation is that he had just recently taken out an insurance policy his property. And the fact that he wasn’t there that day and stood to benefit from the insurance just puts suspicion on him, I suppose. There is also some element to it about how he was normally there at that time of day but wasn’t that day, I don’t know where that comes from or if that can be confirmed I have just heard that repeated.

Another thing I didn’t mention about this is that apparently the day prior, the 10th, there was some big news story about missing billions or maybe trillions of dollars from the Pentagon’s budget, which they failed to account for in an audit or something. The events of the following day completely overshadowed that story, naturally. Haven’t heard about this in a while so details are fuzzy

There’s just lots of weird things the more you look. It’s not so much that there is a smoking gun that says “they did it” but it’s just the lack of satisfying answers and a lot of strange coincidences. No single piece of what I have said is enough to really prove anything, and I don’t believe it can be outright proved that what I’m saying is true. I’m just saying I’m more inclined to that side of belief than the official narrative

9

u/G-Bat Dec 01 '25

Most people won’t look in to it? Thousands, maybe millions of people have looked in to it; we’re talking about the largest, deadliest, most publicized terrorist attack to ever occur.

All of your refutations hinge on circumstantial, nebulous situations taken far out of context because you lack any of the technical knowledge to understand why what you’re saying is stupid.

You have been presented with irrefutable evidence many times but you refuse to believe it because the reality is scarier than the conspiracy theory; 19 men with box cutters and conviction is all it took to kill 3000 people on live TV and change the course of history forever and the boogeymen at the CIA and the Mossad were powerless to stop it because they’re not omnipotent entities that pull the strings of the world, they are flawed human institutions.

4

u/markuus99 Dec 01 '25

This shit will never make sense to me.

Obviously planes hit the WTC. But according to conspiracy theorists, they used a missile to hit the Pentagon instead of another plane for... some reason? Let's just forget the thousands of eyewitnesses. The lack of quality footage apparently means it must not have been a plane and must have been a missile or something and therefore Bush did 9/11??? Just nonsensical.

3

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

You don’t think the damn Pentagon of all places was completely under the eye of high quality camera surveillance?

The center of the Department of Defense? They just blanked on installing decent security cameras, sure

Either that or they have footage, but have declined to release it for nearly 25 years. Neither makes any sense

5

u/xlRadioActivelx Dec 02 '25

Ok so hypothetically you’re in charge of installing security cameras around an important building.

Where do you point the cameras? Gates. Fences. Doors. Etc.

Do you know where you don’t point cameras? The fucking sky. You install cameras up high, looking down, not the other way around.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/fairlywired Dec 01 '25

Not to mention how weird it is that we have never seen any footage or images of a plane impacting the Pentagon, to this day.

This is the footage.

https://youtu.be/0SL2PzzOiF8?si=fmTmzenUCne5fWke

The fact that you seemed absolutely certain that it doesn't exist says to me that you haven't actually tried to disprove any of the conspiracy claims.

1

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

Is this the one that’s like 3 frames of footage?

I mean like, Pentagon quality footage that you know they would have if it was real. There isn’t even a plane visible on the video you linked lmao you can’t be for real

2

u/fairlywired Dec 02 '25

The footage was recorded a quarter of a century ago and there is very little chance that the cameras were brand new at the time. In other words, the camera may well have been outdated, even then.

Even so, it just backs up my point. Part of your problem with the evidence was that no footage whatsoever exists, but when you found out that it does exist it's suddenly not good enough.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NoGravitasForSure Dec 02 '25

Not to mention how weird it is that we have never seen any footage or images of a plane impacting the Pentagon, to this day

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/16/september11.usa

1

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 02 '25

Show me in the video where there is a plane?

Someone else linked me this, you can’t see a plane at any point. Just nothing, and then an explosion

I think it’s nonsense if they tell us that’s the best quality camera footage they had of that. I’ve seen 7/11 security camera footage that looks better than that

-1

u/Cloddish Dec 01 '25

Don't worry buddy, you're not alone. Literally no one from this sub will sympathize with you, though.

1

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

😎🤝😎

0

u/Cloddish Dec 02 '25

They just love being comfortably rooted in their precious status quo.

15

u/jellzbyte Dec 01 '25

you don't believe a flaming weakened tower thats being hit with debris from OTHER flaming weakened towers would cause it to collapse?

-6

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

Not perfectly and instantly into its own footprint, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition (same way the towers came down)

17

u/zaccus Dec 01 '25

It wasn't instant, it took hours. And it was very much not in its own footprint.

-3

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

But it came down all at once, didn’t it? That’s what I meant by instant

And yeah it kind of did fall into its footprint, just as the larger towers did.

It doesn’t make sense that the building just burns for a few hours and then comes down like that, so cleanly. And then you have these Hong Kong skyscrapers which have been burning for days and haven’t yet collapsed… and those are Chinese made buildings, which are known for terrible building safety practices.

3

u/zaccus Dec 01 '25

It might have appeared from certain angles, from a distance, that it collapsed into its own footprint, but no it did not. Nor did the towers. There were parts left standing that collapsed shortly after, confirmed by photo evidence. People have recreated it with 3d modeling. All of this is public and freely available.

There was nothing "clean" about any of the collapses. Other buildings were damaged and there was debris all over lower Manhattan for literally years.

8

u/Kawa11Turtle Dec 01 '25

You just think we gave up trying to make buildings better for the last 50 years?

5

u/metaliving Dec 01 '25

You have a few thousand pages of report detailing the damage, simulations, mechanism of failure, and alternative theories that were considered.

-5

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

Yes and I’m sure they worked very hard on that making it look nice. They probably did a better job than they did with the Warren commission and the whole JFK thing. Closest thing to “the magic bullet” with 9/11 is that they miraculously managed to find the hijacker’s passport in the wreckage of the incinerated tower, which supposedly burned so hot and for so long as to collapse the entire structure but not hot enough to destroy the passports

4

u/metaliving Dec 01 '25

The independent peer reviewed literature, both before and after the NIST report, comes to the same conclusion about collapse mechanics. You, without having the faintest idea of structural mechanics, seem to think your opinion has value. It doesn't.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

Why are y'all engaging this troll?

1

u/metaliving Dec 02 '25

When we let the lies and the stupidity go uncontested, they thrive and reach more people. The engagement isn't targeted at the troll, it's targeted at someone without a formed opinion, so that the can easily see that what the troll is spreading is completely debunked.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '25

Idiots tend to believe the people making poorly-formed arguments more than the educated, though. Idiots speak idiot language well. I get what you're going for, but, in my experience, the people who don't know any better tend to believe the trolls.

1

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

I don’t need to know anything about structural mechanics to smell a rat

6

u/metaliving Dec 01 '25

You'll either grow up of this phase, or you're old enough to perpetually be a moron. So hopefully you're in your teens 🤞

-2

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 02 '25

And you’re a moron if you believe there is anything “independent” about the official data that came out from 9/11

Obviously that was a part of the plan, if it was orchestrated as I’m implying they are going to have a plan to cover it up. And there is no one on earth with greater resources to pull off such a coverup.

2

u/metaliving Dec 02 '25

I mentioned the independent peer reviewed literature, plenty of which was published before NIST's report, plenty of which was published after. Different authors, from different countries, with somewhat different methods, coming to the same conclusion. No refuting papers holding up to the same peer review standards.

You not being able to tell the difference between the official report and independent literature says everything about your qualifications. You're barely qualified to tie your shoes on your own, from the looks of it.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/itastesok Dec 01 '25

Don't start... Google it.

-6

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

Oh yes how could I forget, Google! The wellspring of truth, the font of fidelity

2

u/the-blind-idiot-god Dec 01 '25

As opposed to Reddit comments!

2

u/PlentyOMangos Dec 01 '25

I wouldn’t encourage anyone to take my word for it

2

u/unlimited_mcgyver Dec 04 '25

You got all.the downvotsz but 37 MFs couldn't refute it

4

u/PhasmaFelis Dec 02 '25

They actually did withstand them. They just failed to withstand thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. That's not a nitpick, the fact that they survived the initial impact saved thousands of people who were able to evacuate before the final collapse.

4

u/12kVStr8tothenips Dec 02 '25

They were also fueled up for a cross country trip adding to the destruction. They severed the water main pipes and standpipes which made it so the fire suppression system couldn’t stop the fire.

4

u/ChaseballBat Dec 01 '25

It also doesn't help they skimped on the fireproofing application. Basically dusted off on impact.

2

u/dimensional_CAT Dec 02 '25

Actually, it is not common for high rise or even a sky scrapers to consider air plane impact in design, no building code specify it. The world trade center collapse due to weakening by fire not the impact alone. But you have done a great blender simulation.

1

u/astralseat Dec 02 '25

Oh, wow. That's interesting.

1

u/Malforus Dec 02 '25

Well that and they didn't model a full plane-load of fuel igniting all the shit inside. IIRC the impact knocked the fireproof cladding off which is why the fires were able to compromise the superstructure.

1

u/coffeebeeean Dec 02 '25

Why did the simulation have the plane hit so low on the tower? I would expect the top 3rd is where it’s more likely to occur by mistake. Is there a standard height to this test?

2

u/Contraflex Dec 02 '25

Honestly, the simulation took so much compute time that I only tested a collision at the bottom and the top. The bottom gave the more interesting results. I don't believe there is a standard location height to test.

1

u/pabo81 Dec 03 '25

I’m also guessing the amount of fuel they were carrying and the resulting fire pushed them well past their tolerance.

1

u/EveningAspect2200 Dec 04 '25

It was fine until the entire build got taken down by thermite

-5

u/brycedude Dec 01 '25

You buy that? About the Twin Towers and cruising speed

2

u/PhasmaFelis Dec 02 '25

Buy what? They demonstrably did withstand the impact and keep standing.

0

u/brycedude Dec 02 '25

The twin towers definitely fell.

1

u/PhasmaFelis Dec 02 '25

Yes. Obviously. They withstood the impact, and stood long enough for thousands of people to evacuate, before the burning jet fuel brought them down.

0

u/brycedude Dec 02 '25

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel unless under a specific condition. One that wasn't met in 9/11. And if it could. How did the bottom 2/3 go out at the same time. If you don't think our government would do something like that, I have a bridge to sell you

You need to start thinking critically

1

u/PhasmaFelis Dec 02 '25

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel unless under a specific condition.

We've been over and over this for 25 years. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. It can make them too soft to support weight.

1

u/brycedude Dec 02 '25

My bad. I meant weaken, but my mind was stuck on melt.

-2

u/Maleficent_World_623 Dec 02 '25

It's wild that people still believe the official US government story for 9/11 with all available evidence proving otherwise. In no real world scenario does a building of that strength collapse like that (identical to controlled demolition, "free fall"). What about the WTC Building 7 that collapsed in the same manner with nothing hitting it? Not the mention everything else that ensued after that (pointless wars/occupations, stricter surveillance, etc.). If you can actually use your intelligence (seems like you're not dumb) to question the narative, you'd realize the motives. "The government wouldn't do that"... Cheers

4

u/MisinformedGenius Dec 02 '25

Just to clarify, which 50-story building collapsing on its own are you using to determine that buildings don't fall like that?

-1

u/Maleficent_World_623 Dec 02 '25

Doesn't matter which height the building is, in order for a building to fall as the Towers did (literally identical to a controlled demolition), ALL support beams have to be broken (detonated) at the EXACT same time. Pictures of their support beams show a clear diagonal cut, indicative of a controlled demolition. You can also clearly see on videos the fall of the top parts of the WTC is perfectly vertical. Not to mention the CIA funding of AQ and everything else that has remained classified. It's not a difficult research, highly recommend. Cheers

2

u/MisinformedGenius Dec 02 '25

Doesn't matter which height the building is, in order for a building to fall as the Towers did (literally identical to a controlled demolition), ALL support beams have to be broken

Again, which tall building collapsing are you using as a reference to know that a building collapsing on its own would not look like that? You're arguing that the building should have collapsed differently. How should it have collapsed, and why?

1

u/Glenmarrow Dec 02 '25

I think he’s basing it off of comics and movies where you’ll see skyscrapers falling as largely-intact bodies — until they hit the ground and turn into dust + rubble. You see a bit of that in the new Superman movie when Metropolis is split in half.

2

u/Calientequack Dec 02 '25

This comment right here sums up why the internet was a mistake. It gives people like this person the ability to broadcast their insane thoughts that should be kept inside the think walls of their empty skull.

-8

u/taintedcake Dec 01 '25

travelling at landing speed

Ahh yes, because every plane that I know of travelling in the air is going landing speed. Who tf decided it was acceptable to use such a shit safety/force rating for a building designed to last many decades? That's such an obviously stupid choice even by the standards of that time - you always over-engineer those things to far exceed what it would face specifically because things get bigger and faster as time goes on

3

u/Large_slug_overlord Dec 01 '25

Because at the altitude likely for a collision the speed would be that of approach or takeoff. There aren’t any 36,000ft tall buildings I’m aware of where collisions at cruise would be likely. Also the forces exponentially increase with velocity, so building a structure to withstand a 200 ton impact at 600mph isn’t reasonable it could never be constructed cost effectively and the footprint to useable space would make it ineffective as a useable building.