I’m no expert on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I it seems the two reasons most people buy into them, aside from the erroneous claims in videos like “loose change”, is the question of a) why did building number 7 collapse even though it wasn’t hit by a plane, and b) why was there no wreckage of the flight that crashed like we see in airplane crash photos, big chunks of planes etc.
I will answer both, briefly.
Building number 7 collapsed because like many nearby buildings it was totally trashed by the debris from the twin towers falling. When they collapsed they didn’t just drop pretty little powder or tiny rocks of debris like it looked like in all those far-away photos. They dropped multi-ton debris which devestated nearby buildings.
Here is a nearby building that was hit by just one chunk of debris:
Here is WTC 6:
Now WTC 6 never got hit by a plane, but would anyone be surprised if it caught fire or collapsed?
How did the fire start? Well nobody knows for sure, which is true in many fires. It could have easily started via damage the the electrical system or gas heating system if there was one. Or simple physics – it takes only a spark’s worth of energy to cause a fire when there’s combustible fuel around (which there was, the fire was fueled by the emergency generators which kept pumping fuel into the fire for hours) and kinetic energy easily translates into heat energy on impact. If you don’t get what I’m saying think of metal hitting metal and making sparks, or hammering a nail into wood and then pulling it out and it being very hot to the touch. Only when you’re talking about these kind of weights hitting at these speeds, it can be enough to melt metal.
So yeah, WTC 7 collapsed, not surprisingly. Other nearby buildings had to be demolished.
Another bit of the conspiracy theory regarding WTC 7 is a clip played in these conspiracy videos of the guy who owned the building saying he told them to “pull it”, and claiming “pull” means demolish. When you look at the clip in it’s actual context however, he is saying he told the fire department to pull the fire support from the building because it wasn’t worth it, the building was shot. So they pulled it (the fire support) and the building collapsed some time later.
This one’s total bullshit, deceptive editing. The video is on youtube, the cut and uncut versions. I would post them but I’m lazy : D
But moving on… why was there no airplane debris?
Well when an airplane tries to land normally and crashes you see something with big chunks of plane in it.
Why is there less damage? Because of the PILOT. Because the pilot tried to land the plane, not let it spiral into the ground from 50,000 feet, going so fast the wings get ripped off at high altitude. Why did the impact look more like a missile than a plane crash? Because by that point the PLANE was more like a missile than a plane.
Ironically, if there were the type of wreckage you would imagine, conspiracy theorists would claim it had been faked because a plane dropping from that altitude “wouldn’t look like an ordinary plane crash!”
I hope that does away with these conspiracy theories for some of you with a lingering sense that they might be true.
Now does this mean that the response was not inept? Or that our leaders didn’t know something was coming and do nothing? Or that the then-commander-in-chief of the armed forces wasn’t a flipping MORON for sitting reading a childrens’ book for the better part of ten minutes after hearing that the country was under attack?
No, it doesn’t mean any of that.