By now, we are all familiar with the catastrophic high-rise collapse in Bangkok following the powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake in Myanmar. It has become almost as iconic as the images of the destruction of each of the Twin Towers on 9/11/01. But have you actually watched their destruction side by side? We learn something very revealing when we do. What do YOU notice?
(Left) The Explosive Destruction of the North Tower of the World Trade Center
This tower starts out looking like a collapse for the first 3 seconds — down. But then, it develops into a series of hundreds of explosions, a geometry of fireworks, freely flying structural steel sections weighing 4 to 8 tons each, laterally ejected (that’s OUT) at 80mph (clocked by physicists), landing up to 600 feet in every direction — trailing thick white smoke clouds. It has been calculated that there is enough energy in each ejection to fire a 200-lb cannonball 3 miles — and there are hundreds of them. Look deeper into it with our new White Paper.
(Right) The skyscraper in Bangkok
This particular high-rise destruction was quite different. Because it was not laced with explosives, even though the bottom of its columns was violently pulled to one side in less than a second and then to the other, breaking them, leaving the building above with nowhere to go but down. Did I say “down”? That is how gravity actually works (except on 9/11). The building falls, but not at free-fall. That’s because not all of the columns throughout the building were initially broken — mostly just the ones at the bottom. Much of the rest of them had to be “crushed” by the weight of the building above — which slowed down the fall rate. But even during that massive “crushing” event, we don’t see columns that are ejected “OUT,” as seen in the Twin Towers.
This is the difference between a very explosive demolition (Twin Towers) vs. a natural gravitational collapse (due to an earthquake). The incomplete state of construction in the Bangkok tower undoubtedly contributed to its structural failure, and its concrete frame may indeed have played some part in the structural vulnerability. These are certainly notable differences compared with the steel frame of the Twin Towers; however, they do not in any way account for the “OUT vs. DOWN” behavior that we notice in the two examples above.
We should also carefully compare the aftermath of collapses. The 30-story Bangkok tower created a pile 10 stories tall. They are stacked up — like pancakes. You can almost count each of the floors.
Whereas, in the North Tower, we had 110 stories (almost 4 times the Bangkok tower height) and each an acre in size, yet we see only a pile 4 to 6 stories tall (about half of the Bangkok pile) — and not floors. There are no floors to count — not 110, not 50, not 10, not even one visible floor of any size readily apparent in the pile. Check it out:
It just doesn’t add up.
Think critically. Question official narratives. Do your own research.
Thanks to Gene Laratonda for putting that great video compilation together — for all of us. His readily apparent 9/11 truth lesson has reached almost 7 million views on X!
AHA! THERE it is!!
Thanks, Richard.
The two look VERY different. Myanmar's collapse debris field was contained largely within its footprint - it didn't look like a mushroom, with debris arcing up and out from the point of destruction, as the North Tower did. It more resembles the collapse of WTC7 - but there was no 7.7 earthquake in Manhattan on 9/11 contributing its destructive energy to WTC7.