Have you ever tried to have a conversation with anyone who states definitively that the reason that the towers fell is because they each got hit by a fully fueled passenger jet and that the fuel then spilled down into the building allowing the floors below to catch fire and weaken the underlying structure causing the entire building to collapse in it's own footprint a few hours after being hit?
That explanation actually sound like it makes plenty of sense and is easy to visualize especially if you don't know anything about construction and steel temperatures, and the laws physics, etc.
But the first time I ever heard of WTC7 I had this horrifying feeling of panic, which I now understand was cognitive dissonance. I kept insisting that there were only two towers that collapsed on 9/11 BECAUSE we all saw it on TV and I couldn't understand how there could have possibly been a third building collapse without me having known about it or having seen the footage of it since everyone was glued to their T.V.s that day, leaving me to conclude that I had either forgotten something very monumental (how was that even possible) or I never knew about it to begin with which also frightened me that something so significant had somehow escaped my attention. I felt completely discombobulated and had to research WTC7 myself. What I discovered was very disconcerting.
It is not our fault that our generation and those following us grew up watching T.V. and have witnessed what a controlled demolition looks like. Even the first news commentators mentioned that the collapse of the buildings looked just like a controlled demolition but then that got shut down in fairly short order.
So the question remains, at least for me, is that if the towers collapsed due to being hit by the planes, the fuel running down to the lower floors, those lower floors catching on fire, the steel softening and then the whole thing collapsing, then why did WTC7 collapse in what appears to the naked eye, in exactly the same manner, in what looked like a control demolition
in spite of not being hit by an airplane, no jet fuel running down the building, softening the steel structure which subsequently caused the building to collapse into it's own footprint just like the other two buildings?
So WTC1 & 2 fell because they got hit by a passenger jet, while WTC7 fell in exactly the same manner because it didn't?!?
Asking questions doesn't constitute believing in a conspiracy theory.
Oh and by the way, insurance companies are notorious for weaseling out of having to pay out to policy holders on their often valid claims yet the person who held the lease on the towers Larry Silverstein, who obtained the 99 year lease just six weeks before the events, got them to pay out double on the claim by alleging that the two separate hits were two separate claims, not just a single "terrorist" attack. He then tried to sue the airlines alleging having lax security that allowed the events to occur.
Silverstein Loses Battle Over 9/11 Payouts
en.wikipedia.org
