Minus the ad homenum, I agree that
- You may not reach many normies here.
- Normies may not be suceptible to an argument that relies on an agreement on the third tower falling being proof that a conspiracy theory is correct. An aside on that, I'm part normy here in that I believe an earthquake can cause a building to collapse. - not just demolition explosives. A better example would be to say the Watergate scandal was a conspiracy theory propagated by Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post.
Glad to have "Conspiracy Theory" used in the way Elon Musk did. More of that will help remove the association of fictional conspiracy theories among the masses.
Excellent comment!
I remember when I first saw them fall I told my coworker that I think it might come out that a controlled explosion was triggered to protect the surrounding buildings. Maybe these charges are in place in other buildings, just in case. A secret like that would probably also be covered up. I heard an accepted explanation is that the momentum of the upper floors falling down - having their moorings molten by the aircraft fuel fire - caused every floor below to continue crashing straight downward. The tower that was not hit? Good question. Maybe the shock waves to its foundation affected it like with the hotel in Florida. Do you know where these non-conspiracy theories have been discussed? I have to remind myself that these are not toy or model sized towers whose weight is far outmatched by the strength of the material they are built with. The question is, do the physics formulae involved calculate to cause this result.
I have to say it. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. This is why there are oxy-acetylene torches.
Unless it was built that way. I would need to eliminate more likely causes before digging on this one. I am not sure lasers from the sky would be more likely than this theory.