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.
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.
The fire doesn't have to "demolish" the steel frames. The fire only has to weaken them such that they don't work as a vertical support for the amount of weight they were holding up. Layers above where the fire was taking place were putting the weight on them in their weakened state. Eventually they gave.