3
Debate: Did 9/11 really bring down Building 7 the way the official story says?
I was in New York visiting family on September 11, 2001, and watched the towers fall from a rooftop in Brooklyn. What always stuck with me was Building 7 coming down later that day at 5:20 PM, even though no plane hit it. The official report says it was from fires and debris damage, but I remember reading about how it fell at nearly free-fall speed, which seems odd for a steel-framed building. Critics point to that speed as evidence of controlled demolition, while engineers say fires weakened the structure enough. I've gone back and forth on this for years, looking at both sides. What do you think-does the official explanation hold up, or is there something more to it?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
sanchez.pat1mo agoMost Upvoted
Man that's the thing, once you notice one weird detail it makes you question everything else they tell us.
9
the_derek1mo ago
That part about "free-fall speed" is what gets me too. A buddy of mine named Tim worked as a fire safety inspector for a construction company in lower Manhattan back then. He told me once that he stood on Broadway watching Building 7 fall and said it didn't look like a normal collapse to him, more like a building coming straight down perfectly without spilling debris sideways. Tim said he saw the whole thing from about four blocks away and it dropped like a rock, not like something falling apart from fire damage. He still brings it up at barbecues sometimes and people just nod and change the subject.
7