The Blue Origin vs. 9/11 WTC Comparison is a Fundamental Error
There has been a lively discussion on YouTube comparing the Blue Origin New Glenn explosion, and surviving tower, to WTC 9/11. The Blue Origin launch tower is a steel truss launch tower, an open lattice structure designed to deflect blast energy around it. There's almost nothing to catch the force. A rocket explosion is a brief, violent overpressure event with minimal sustained thermal load.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-29/blue-origin-rocket-explodes-during-test-jeff-bezos/106737482
The Twin Towers were fully enclosed, occupied office buildings hit by fully-fuelled commercial airliners. The comparison is meaningless.
The "Pancaking" Theory was Always DubiousThe official NIST narrative went through several iterations, but let's look at the actual problems:
1. No steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed from fire alone — before or since.Not one. The WTC 7 collapse is even harder to explain under the fire hypothesis, a 47-story building that wasn't hit by a plane, had isolated fires on a few floors, and collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint at near free-fall acceleration. It smacks of a controlled demolition, as many, including Tucker Carlson have argued:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1767072293999194
2. The "weakened steel" argument doesn't account for the totality of collapseJet fuel burns at around 1,000°C in open air. Structural steel begins losing strength at about 425°C and melts around 1,500°C. But here's the thing:
Most jet fuel burned off in the initial fireball outside the buildings.
The fires that remained were largely office contents burning, paper, carpet, furniture.
These diffuse, oxygen-starved fires wouldn't uniformly heat massive steel columns to failure point simultaneously.
The buildings collapsed symmetrically, at near free-fall speed, through the path of greatest resistance.
3. The collapse dynamics don't match a "pancaking" progressive failureProgressive collapse from fire-weakened steel would look like: local sagging → partial floor collapse → asymmetric, staggered failure as load redistributes. What we saw was:
Symmetrical, straight-down collapse
Near free-fall acceleration (WTC 7 in particular — 2.25 seconds of free-fall over 8 stories, meaning resistance was removed)
Total pulverisation of concrete into fine dust (requiring enormous energy input beyond gravitational potential)
Molten metal observed in the debris pile for weeks afterward (thermite reactions produce molten iron; office fires do not)
The Blue Origin tower survived because:
It's an open truss structure
The explosion was brief, not a sustained attack
No massive structural load above the blast zone
If anything, the comparison highlights why the official WTC collapse explanation is inadequate: you don't get symmetrical, total, near free-fall destruction of a massive steel structure from asymmetric fire damage on a few floors. The top section of the South Tower (hit lower, with more structure above) tilting and then the entire building disintegrating isn't explained by "weakened steel."
The real question isn't "why did one steel structure survive an explosion while another didn't" — it's why the official explanation for the WTC collapses keeps getting treated as settled science when it contradicts basic structural engineering principles and has no precedent before or since. Three buildings collapsed on 9/11. Two were hit by planes. Zero steel-framed high-rises have ever collapsed from fire before or since. That's not a coincidence that needs a strained tower comparison to explain away.
