• LrdThndr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I…. Uh….

    This makes way more sense than any other crackpot 911 theory I’ve ever heard.

    What if was less a structural weakness than actual demolition charges built into the superstructure of the building that few knew about that could be used in just such an event?

    Different materials burn at different temperatures, and a raging inferno near the top wouldn’t affect structural members near the bottom, so a fire might not be guaranteed to trigger the weakness, but charges could be placed to guarantee the outcome if the worst happened.

    Would explain SO much of the “evidence” that 911 conspiracy theorists talk about - the smell of chordite, the flashes in the windows, the clean collapse, that whole “the decision was made to ‘pull’ [building 7]” but no way they could have placed charges that quickly in that situation thing…

    Then, this begs the question - What other structures might be similarly equipped?

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Then, this begs the question - What other structures might be similarly equipped?

      I also think this theory is plausible, and if it is true I assume it’s stayed under wraps precisely because they didn’t want future terrorists to be able to just trigger the conveniently pre-installed explosives.