I'm all for shitting on stupid, bogus conspiracy theories. Such as Flat Earth.
But the official story for 9/11 is absolutely false beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it really does point to a controlled demolition (Yes, the planes hit the towers too.) Give this a read.
Also, the moon landing never happened. The link here is one of the funniest reads you'll ever have, check it out - Read this
Some bad peeps took advantage of 9-11 to do some bad shit. Controlled demo doesn’t make sense.
Not because the bad actors wouldn’t do it, but bc of the complexity described above
Browsed through article and images of sketches etc.
Read bb-18 is type of fuse connection terminal that allows for ease of modification plus quicker alterations.
noted the ‘gelatin’ word play/ reference to explosive charges.
Noted the placement of external balcony and unfettered access to the structure.
Read statement that the ‘art project’ was in same location as the ‘cartoon images’ of the aluminum plane damaging or destroying steel supports.
Also recall claims from time of attack that all Israeli and most Jewish people were not present at time of wtc collapse.
Assuming, arguendo, that all of the foregoing is accurate, why would so many “clues” have been left by the people orchestrating the attack?
Why allow or announce to newspaper that art exhibit is going on and let them take pics of fuse boxes?
Why have a public name ‘gelatin’ or whatever it was that could be so easily tied to the type of explosives that were purported to take down the towers?
Why would a book with weird sketches like that be published after the attack?
I am not taking any certain position on the veracity of the claims, just asking questions regarding the breadcrumbs left behind that the article describes.
In my mind, I can’t think of any reason why a complex operation would INTENTIONALLY leave all of these “clues” behind, almost asking to be caught.
The official narrative regarding how the buildings fell makes a lot of sense.
Jet fuel heats up floor joist steel. Steel expands under heat. Expanded floors put a lot of pressure on joints that transfer the load to the vertical supports. Central joints fail. Remaining joints cannot handle load. Floor falls onto floor below.
All of the other stuff going on on 911 is fishy as hell. Buildings falling seams like an unplanned expense.
that will take a long time as I have seen several videos since then. the video commented on him being there when it was constructed and making coments about puting charges into the framwork before concrete.
It would be easier to demolish because it exist and you dont have to demolish concrete to place charges. he mentions it makes sense but you wouldnt tell employees because they wouldnt like working in a building rigged to blow.
Okay then, if there's no proof for a controlled demo - explain building 7? How did it come down when no plane hit it? It collapsed at free fall speed into it's own footprint.
I know, NIST did a half-assed report on it, (In fact, the investigation into 9/11 cost less than the investigation into Trump's Russian collusion.)
However, NIST's own investigation was proven false by a team of Engineers over at University of Alaska Fairbanks. Dr. Halsey simulated the conditions with state-of-the-art computing and could not replicate the collapse without some type of demo.
I'm all for shitting on stupid, bogus conspiracy theories. Such as Flat Earth.
But the official story for 9/11 is absolutely false beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it really does point to a controlled demolition (Yes, the planes hit the towers too.) Give this a read.
Also, the moon landing never happened. The link here is one of the funniest reads you'll ever have, check it out - Read this
5 news agencies had the same angle. but half of them didnt have plane approaching. yeah in one angle you see a tomahawk missle.
That is well reasoned 45willwinagain.
Some bad peeps took advantage of 9-11 to do some bad shit. Controlled demo doesn’t make sense. Not because the bad actors wouldn’t do it, but bc of the complexity described above
Do not underestimate the clowns in action
Browsed through article and images of sketches etc. Read bb-18 is type of fuse connection terminal that allows for ease of modification plus quicker alterations. noted the ‘gelatin’ word play/ reference to explosive charges. Noted the placement of external balcony and unfettered access to the structure. Read statement that the ‘art project’ was in same location as the ‘cartoon images’ of the aluminum plane damaging or destroying steel supports.
Also recall claims from time of attack that all Israeli and most Jewish people were not present at time of wtc collapse.
Assuming, arguendo, that all of the foregoing is accurate, why would so many “clues” have been left by the people orchestrating the attack?
Why allow or announce to newspaper that art exhibit is going on and let them take pics of fuse boxes?
Why have a public name ‘gelatin’ or whatever it was that could be so easily tied to the type of explosives that were purported to take down the towers?
Why would a book with weird sketches like that be published after the attack?
I am not taking any certain position on the veracity of the claims, just asking questions regarding the breadcrumbs left behind that the article describes.
In my mind, I can’t think of any reason why a complex operation would INTENTIONALLY leave all of these “clues” behind, almost asking to be caught.
Thoughts?
The official narrative regarding how the buildings fell makes a lot of sense.
Jet fuel heats up floor joist steel. Steel expands under heat. Expanded floors put a lot of pressure on joints that transfer the load to the vertical supports. Central joints fail. Remaining joints cannot handle load. Floor falls onto floor below.
All of the other stuff going on on 911 is fishy as hell. Buildings falling seams like an unplanned expense.
trump thinks otherwise
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vsT4rOS03wXi/
this is one
that will take a long time as I have seen several videos since then. the video commented on him being there when it was constructed and making coments about puting charges into the framwork before concrete.
It would be easier to demolish because it exist and you dont have to demolish concrete to place charges. he mentions it makes sense but you wouldnt tell employees because they wouldnt like working in a building rigged to blow.
Okay then, if there's no proof for a controlled demo - explain building 7? How did it come down when no plane hit it? It collapsed at free fall speed into it's own footprint.
I know, NIST did a half-assed report on it, (In fact, the investigation into 9/11 cost less than the investigation into Trump's Russian collusion.)
However, NIST's own investigation was proven false by a team of Engineers over at University of Alaska Fairbanks. Dr. Halsey simulated the conditions with state-of-the-art computing and could not replicate the collapse without some type of demo.