Thanks, that does make sense now. It must have been the tense that threw me.
TENTS CAN THROW PEOPLE?! I’m off to start a website revealing this!
That’s because it is magic thermite. Invisible, heat proof, and leaves no trace.
I just want to reiterate here that this just isn’t true. Of course, the CIA doesn’t publish lists of their people, but there’s no reason to think that bin Laden worked for the CIA, and plenty of reasons to think he didn’t.
I get it people. The truth hurts. It hurts so much that you will believe lie after lie to protect your psyche. When you can’t handle the truth, you accept the lies.
It’s OK. I used to be like you. Once you allow yourself to see the inconvenient truth, instead of believing the re-assuring lie, you will question why it took so long to do so.
OR
you can stay in your bliss filled box of spoon-fed government dis-information.
Is it sweet? or sour? I can’t remember.
That’s like totally cosmic, dude.
Me, I don’t like considering “truth” or “lies”. The concepts are too slippery. Politicians make their living slipping in and out of them.
Me? I like numbers. Figures. Solid stuff like that. You know - stuff you don’t have to trust the government to “believe”. It’s stuff you accept because belief doesn’t even come into the picture - numbers are numbers. They don’t change.
Amusingly, this can be read as referring to belief in conspiracy theories, which is indeed belief in a lie to protect one’s psyche and avoid painful truths.
Does anyone remember building 7?
Thats the building that collapsed even though it was not struck by a plane. They say it was from fire, yet it went down “demolition style” just like the twin towers.
Any explanations for that?
Yes.
Abject, reinforced and deliberate ignorance on behalf of all those that say that any of those buildings went down “demolition style”.
You want an explanation for why a building that collapsed due to a fire did so in a similar fashion to two other buildings that collapsed due to fire? It’s not self-evident?
It didn’t even go down demolition style.
Parts of it fell on buildings next door ruining one for use entirely. And some of the upper floors were intact through the collapse. Haven’t seen many demolitions do any of that.
in 2008 NIST said building 7 collapsed at 40% free fall. NIST lead investigator was quoted saying, free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it."
to have no structural components would mean that they would have to be removed, i.e. explosives.
When they were challenged, the final draft of the report admitted that the building did in fact fall at free fall speed. What does that tell you?
Watch the footage. It just falls out of nowhere. It is a rapid decent that over 17,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the building, specifying that it should include a “full inquiry into the possible use of explosives.”
the roof is even level the whole time it falls! Are you trying to tell me that all 4 sides and corners gave out at the excact same time? C’mon.
http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wtc7_collapse.jpg
Im sure more demolitions have done that, than fires causing a 47 story steel frame highrise to fall straight down. Seeing how that had NEVER happened before 9/11
Don’t forget that those two other buildings were struck by PLANES!
Planes for crying out loud. I feel those are two completely different circumstances.
Can’t we just put together a master list of threads and tell him to come up with something new? This is beginning to feel like the Goldfish Scenario-“Look! A castle!” circle the bowl “Look! A castle!” circle the bowl “Look! A castle!”
Well, you’re mistaken. The planes didn’t knock the towers over, they started fires that caused the buildings to collapse.
You’re sure, are you? Got a cite for that? A single example? Especially for a steel framed building? One that wasn’t gutted beforehand?
-
It didn’t fall straight down. I already noted this part. Chunks of WTC7 fell on neighboring buildings.
-
A fire causing a steel skyscraper to fall didn’t happen before 9/11. Too specific. Hasn’t happened since, either - usually we have fire rescue in place and don’t have thousands of gallons of flammable fuel dumped on the joint.
What we DO have is plenty of examples of steel framed buildings collapsing (partially or totally) due to fire in a manner consistent with the collapse of the WTC towers. We also have partial collapses (without the jet fuel and with fire rescue in place) of steel framed skyscrapers, also in a manner consistent with what we know about the WTC attacks.
It’s worth noting that the 17,000 “architects and engineers” on that list fall into three broad categories: 1) people who are not, in fact, architects or engineers 2) people who have some background in engineering or construction, but no familiarity at all with large-scale construction or analyzing catastrophic engineering failures, and 3) people who had their names added to the list without their knowledge or consent.
A plane is small potatoes compared to what WTC7 was struck by: big heavy pieces of a giant-ass building. There was a huge gouge on its south face from top to bottom. But it wasn’t the impact damage that caused it to collapse, just like with the towers, it was weakening of the steel caused by fires.
Have you actually seen those collapses? They were completely different. The towers failed at the point of the plane impacts, then an avalanche wave took out the lower portions.
With WTC7, first you had the mechanical sub-building on the roof disappear, indicating massive internal failures going on, then a whole five seconds later the perimeter couldn’t stand anymore and it collapsed.
Those two look nothing like each other, and both differ in significant ways from a controlled demolition.