When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

and the collapse of building 7 occurred exactly as you would expect from a building fire

It wasnt the first skyscraper fire, but it was the first and still only skyscraper to collapse from a fire. So no i wouldnt say its expected at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Even if you ask them

    "The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    There’s a first for everything. And after reading the report, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that a building under those conditions would be expected to fail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    like a first for govenment coverup of a building demolition disguised as a terror attack?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Could have been, but it wasn’t. It’s utterly absurd to think it was logistically possible to do so without anyone seeing or leaking anything. That plot wouldn’t make it out of 9th grade creative writing class.

  • source
  • parent