Yeah, kind of like how an earthquakes shaking can cause a building to fall.
You can find a final report on the collapse of 7 WTC in the below link:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
The collapse was fire-induced and had nothing to do with vibrations.
As was a 15-story CUNY building. A significant portion of 7 crossed Broadway and fell on it.
Some facts to keep in mind:
The entire complex, being owned by the Port Authority, was exempt from building & fire codes.
7 was built on a site that had been prepped for a building with a much smaller footprint, leaving the southern façade with no direct ground contact. It had to be cantilevered out.
Directly under 7 was a ConEd station with two huge fuel tanks. More fuel tanks were scattered throughout the building.
One floor (5, IIRC) had so much electronic equipment that it was not covered by the sprinkler system.
The sprinkler system shouldn’t have been working too well, anyway, due to all the firefighting in the area earlier that day and being severed by the impact by debris from 1.
Yeah, you gotta love the retarded Builidng 7 logic. Like, the whole attack was just a smokescreen so they could demolish Building 7.
Uh, why do they need to demolish Building 7? I mean, if there’s secret plans there, just send your team to shred the secret plans. You don’t need to secretly do secret stuff, you control the government, the government can openly do secret stuff. “We’re moving these big boxes of equipment.” “Why?” “Can’t tell you. It’s secret.” “OK.” And scene. Or how about just not put all your secret evidence in a high-rise building at the World Trade Center? What’s wrong with Area 51? Or Area 51a? Plenty of room for secret projects there.
At least when the Illuminati blow up the WTC to trick America into attacking Iraq, there’s a story there. I mean, if I were an Illuminatus I’d make the hiackers Iraqi if the goal is to invade Iraq, but whatever. But destroying WTC7? That’s your plan? That’s the mission that must be accomplished no matter that thousands of people have to die in a very public and brutal fashion? When you want to quietly get rid of evidence, why not just quietly get rid of evidence? Getting rid of evidence by blowing up the building the evidence is contained in seems very risky to me. What if some of the evidence is left over in the wreckage? Now you’ve got to track down and murder all sorts of random firemen and construction workers. It’s a logistical nightmare.
Maybe you’re the lost cause?
I don’t think “the US” did anything. I do know the US invaded - because of a small cohort of raving lunatics - a whole country on a false pretext and most of the USA bought into that. I do know Oliver North and Iran/Contra happened. I do know the whole nation was/is illegally under surveillance and no one spoke out. I do know elements in Saudi Arabia and elements of power in the US have a deep and longstanding relationship based on mutual interests. I do know Saudi Arabia got zero backdraft for 9/11.
And that’s a little of what we do know, sometimes due to someone occasionally speaking out on a random topic. It will be the top of the iceberg.
Could there have been some degree of facilitation by an elite?
The people of the US have been manipulated by conspiracies as big. It ain’t no thing to some people. That’s all we know.
You’ve already gotten a couple of explanations, but I’d like to add:
When the two towers collapsed, the first avalanche-like wave took out the floor joists and perimeter columns, but left much of the large core columns standing - you can see them in the videos, standing for just a few seconds. But the core columns depended on the rest of the building to keep them vertical - without that, there was not enough sideways support to hold them upright and they fell too. There were core columns sticking up 50 or 60 stories tall immediately after the collapses.
Some of the columns from the North Tower fell over and struck building 7, leaving a large gouge in the south face. At the same time, fires started in building 7 and the sprinklers didn’t work because there was no water pressure. The fire department elected not to fight it, and knew that it would collapse, which it did after burning for several hours.
Given all that, it’s not weird at all that it collapsed.
Yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that given the fact that you’ve provided absolutely nothing in terms of an argument supporting the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, that’s probably not the case.
This is what we call "JAQ"ing off(JAQ=Just Asking Questions), in which a person looks as if they are asking a question, but in reality is open only to responses that support an already formed opinion.
No one’s disputing that the government (or at least some people in government) can, and has, done evil and underhanded things. They’re disputing this one specific thing, based on a total lack of evidence combined with the ludicrous plot that we’d have to believe in.
So, you give a ranting list of things you supposedly do know about and then imply that, because some things happened that means it’s plausible that the US really did it? Despite the lack of evidence, your evidence is ‘well, the US did other things so, there you go, you lost cause you’??
Yeah, pretty compelling. I’m militantly shocked that, along with your other positions you are also a closet 9/11 Truther type…or, at least a 9/11 JAQer.
Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, invaded Iran, conquered Kuwait, tortured and murdered political opponents. So he must have had a nuclear weapons program, with all the bad stuff we know he did he’s bound to have done the bad stuff he was accused of doing even though the evidence that he had a nuclear weapons program is sadly lacking. It just stands to reason that a horrible person like Saddam would have done other horrible things, including this one particular horrible thing that it turned out there’s no evidence that he did. But he probably did it anyway, because he was horrible.
So, since Dick Cheney is a horrible person, he must have been behind 9/11. It just stands to reason that someone like him who has done some evil stuff must have done this particular evil thing, even though there’s no evidence he did. He’s evil, right? Connect the dots!
The memo that some say gave Cheney authority over DoD that day? It also enables that authority to be bypassed in case of extreme emergency. If four hijacked jetliners being used as missiles necessitating the grounding of all civilian aircraft isn’t an extreme emergency, I don’t know what is.
Logic can’t melt dank memes.
Thankfully, the CT Is stupider than it could have been, which limits its spread. It has a nice start: PNAC said they needed a Pearl Harbor, and what do you know, a couple years later they get one. But then you get to the part where the towers fell not because of planes, but because of thermite charges. Wait…wut? It would make more sense if the actual hijackers brought down the buildings but were funded and organized by the CIA or Mossad (whether the hijackers themselves knew this or not), not that they were just for show. That’s bananas. Or if not airplanes, why not just have a bigger, better bomb like the '90s attack? Not as flashy, perhaps, but they wouldn’t have to worry about internet detectives unraveling their whole scene.
Appealing to Bush’s incompetence shouldn’t work, since the supposed CT goes back to the '90s, and he was just a puppet for the elite anyway.
Reportedly, the problem with that bomb was being parked too far from any supports. The same bomb parked directly against a support should have brought down one, if not both, Towers.
9-11 Truthers
Bush Derangement Syndrome
Obama birthers
Trump haters
Ardent feminists
Black Lives Matter groups
Fox New Haters
They come from both sides of the political aisle. Hear only what they want, believe only what they want, and no matter what you tell them it is wrong and incorrect. They all rely on data and news from exceptionally bias sources.
Is futile to talk to any of them.
The key word is “truther”.
Someone who has fervently bought into the conspiracy angle is extremely unlikely to be swayed by facts, no matter how overwhelmingly and convincingly presented. A person who is troubled by a particular claim but who has critical thinking skills is capable of listening to a solid explanation and changing their mind. Truthers - no way.
Similarly, antivaxers, Holocaust deniers, antifluoride fanatics and anti-GMOers are virtually impervious to reality, and arguing with them (beyond amusement value) is useless.*
*on rare occasion, extreme self-interest can win out. For example, an antivaxer bitten by a rabid animal might just allow herself to receive rabies vaccine. :dubious:
Trump haters? Black Lives Matter? Fox News Haters? lol
I’ll give you Bush Derangement Syndrome because there were a few on the left who believed that Bush was going to usher in some sort of permanent right-wing theocracy; but disliking Trump, criticizing Fox News, and complaining about the devaluing of black lives do not belong on your list.
Ardent Feminists is too fuzzy a term. It may or may not belong on the list depending on how you’re defining it.
There is inner peace to be had at the realization that you can’t change anybody’s mind.
About anything.
Only they can do that.
Given that the only person who could change a given person’s mind is that person, it follows that if a person is emotionally invested in not changing their mind, they’re not going to change their mind.
I submit truthers are invested in not changing their minds.
You forgot Fence Sitters and Water Muddiers.