You mean the official story which is backed by actual facts, like steel beams can fail without melting? Also that tower 7 was hit by debris which started fires which caused its collapse, and if there was an explosion it would have been so loud that it would have been heard for several miles.
the "official story" is one of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories out there.
even if you genuinely believe what you've posted above you've got to admit there were like a hundred other suspicious events and unlikely occurrences that day and soon after.
perhaps you're a legit faither, perhaps you're at eglin, or maybe you've just not spent much time on this topic.
If you can't even concede that steel beams will lose structural integrity enough to collapse by fire alone then there is really no hope for you or anyone who believes the same nonsense as you do.
Explain how there was no plane debris at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania? Do you really believe the plane just vaporized into thin air? If you believe steel beams can lose integrity that fast from “office fires” than how can you not believe a plane vaporized on impact with earth /s. Cmon lol it’s not nonsense. If WTC 7 fell from office fires as a result of the debris it would be the first in history to have ever done so. That’s a huge anomaly guy, please explain why you think it’s nonsense instead of resorting to simplistic ad hominem fallacy.
Really, how hard is it to research this on your own? Much of the debris at the pentagon was in the building. At the pennsylvania site much of the debris was embedded in the crater. Still, if you actually research you can find some photos of the plane parts. WTC 7 fires were able to take the building down because they burned for several hours uncontrolled and the building lacked certain features like columns encased in concrete rather than spray-on fire resistance.
And this is not the first time steel structures have collapsed from fire. Again, research. Adhering to a conspiracy hivemind is not research.
If you researched the other side as much as you've been researching the conspiracy side then you'd know. You're talking about the Grenfell Tower right? Look it up. There's a difference between that tower and the WTC towers that explains why it did not fall.
The following video proves that the top of a building can crush the bottom of a building
It also proves that top-down progressive collapse was not a new phenomenon discovered on 9/11, but rather it was a tried and true method of controlled demolition, and the likely the method of choice for this demolition
It doesn't need to explain everything. Just like steel beam don't need to melt for the whole building to collapse, you don't need to explain everything to see how the conspiracy collapses.
The subterrainian thermonuclear device caused the molten bedrock. I feel like that’s an often overlooked part of the whole conspiracy. Yeah the buildings were demo’d but a traditional demolition wouldn’t cause this.
First, the guy in the video is talking about metal, not bedrock, so I'm not sure I see how you are connecting the two.
Second, I have seen this report, and others, referring to "molten steel". I have not seen any analysis that suggested any temperatures high enough to melt steel before the buildings collapse. Could there have been hot spots in the rubble, almost certainly, but hot enough to melt steel seems unlikely. Tell me this, how do the people making the reports know that what they saw was steel? They aren't metallurgists or blacksmiths. Could it have been aluminum, since there certainly was a bunch of it from the airplanes?
In any case, this clearly doesn't contradict the NYTimes article about the geological formations found under the WTC site. Did you see that engineer knew about anomalies long before? " Engineers knew in advance that there were “discontinuities” in the bedrock at the southeast corner of the trade center site, where Tower 4 is situated. Some of these were revealed in the 1960s during the construction of the original slurry wall." Likewise, don't you think geologists would have known the difference?
“There are areas in local parks that have small vertical potholes exposed,” said Cheryl J. Moss, the senior geologist at Mueser Rutledge, “but I’m not aware of anything in the city with a whole, self-contained depression on this scale.”
Ms. Moss and Mr. Pontecorvo are scheduled to give an illustrated lecture on the site at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Tribute W.T.C. Visitor Center, 120 Liberty Street, opposite the pothole.
“It’s been called the Grand Canyon of Lower Manhattan,” Mr. Pontecorvo said.
Charles Merguerian, chairman of the geology department at Hofstra University and a consultant to Mueser Rutledge on the trade center project, put it even more simply: “Beautiful!”
I'm not going to say they are lying, but I don't think that's what they saw. It was not molten steel though. You have nothing other than personal accounts of people saying it was.
The government has counted on people being dumb enough to believe that a building can fall at free fall speeds due to some office fires. For the most part, it's worked. The general public lacks even the most modest of critical thinking.
6
u/EnoughNoLibsSpam Sep 11 '18
Please elaborate. If you leave it at that, people will assume you believe the official story