Some months back, someone asked the board what was the most outlandish theory that they researched, and/or came to believe; answers varied, but included things like simulation theory and multiverse theories such. I enjoyed reading that thread.
I want to ask the reverse. Where you do think that the "official narrative" or "conventional wisdom" is correct?
I'll go first.
-
Jet fuel may burn hot not melt steel beams, but the fires did weaken them enough to lose their structural integrity.
-
Space is not fake and gay.
Firstly, you are making the mistake of generalizing everyone here as being "this board" right out of the gate. You then go on to have other probems.
Even concerning the two things you claim:
You then need to demonstrate how weakened beams amount to collapsing like a controlled demolition.
Nobody believes that space is fake.
Meh. I've been on "this board" enough to generalize. Shit, the banner at the top says pretty much all there is to say.
Of course you do. "Weakened beams" would in no way make three buildings pancake.
The people who post that are fake and gay.
Anyway, you're set in your mind so no matter what is presented you'll not be swayed. I've been down this road before. The real conspiracy in 9/11 is Saudi involvement and that Bush likely let it happen.
That is not true at all. I just don't believe weakened steel would cause collapses like that to happen every time. I think they took down the buildings as part of a secret disaster protocol. If you can show me evidence that fire can reliably demolish steel frame skyscrapers, I'll look at it.
This is exactly what I believe, but with even more to it. People knew in advance and used it as an opportunity.