A lot of normies are about to wake up to this now that they see their Tyrannical government in action. I sent my co-workers a video of Tower 7 falling yesterday and they didn’t even know about tower 7. These were the only three skyscrapers in world history to collapse from fire, and these buildings were built with steel exterior beams, making them as strong of building as you can make.
Yeah I am way more suspicious of this event than I ever thought I would be but we need to cross our T's and dot our I's in our opposition. When you ask some of these questions, you'll get some reasonable sounding responses at times. For instance, the jet fuel didn't have to melt the steel. It just had to weaken it enough that along with a massive collision, would compromise structural integrity. I am NOT saying that it wasn't a false flag in some way. I'm only saying that we need to be analytical in the questions we ask, the accusations we make, and in the responses to reasonable comments we get when we ask our questions.
A plane hitting an exterior steel frame building would only damage the side that was hit. At the very most, the part of the building above that would crumple and tip over. There's no way in the world that would cause the entire building to drop straight down into it's own footprint.
A bomber flew into the Empire State Building a long time ago, and it just stuck. There was no explosion or anything but local damage. The plane was hoisted down, the building was repaired, and life went on.
Collapsing three of the strongest skyscrapers in existence with two "planes" is just total BS. The buildings were professionally demolished.
There were no planes involved in 911. There's a missile hole at the Pentagon, a crater in Shanksville, and explosions with Hollywood filming of planes melting into a steel building. The planes should have exploded upon impact with parts falling to the ground. Likewise, there should have been parts all over the ground at the Pentagon and in PA. There aren't. There were planes that took off, but I saw a video once that said the planes were changed over at an outer marker with missiles that flew in on the planes beacon. The planes landed, and the people on board were killed, perhaps after making calls to loved ones as their bargaining chip for their lives. Keep an open mind. With the ridiculous things we've seen play out in recent years, is it really so far fetched that this could be what happened? Anything is possible. John Lear of Lear jet fame, and many other pilots came out years ago and said that virtually no one could fly a plane at that speed 30 feet off the ground into the Pentagon. All these videos have long been scrubbed from the internet. There are dozens of questions that can't be answered if we believe planes were used. I believed the msm narrative until 9 years ago when I started to research after the Sandy Hooke and BB hoaxes. Over the years, I have shifted to the no plane theory after understanding the purpose of FF, the use of crisis actors, and the evil behind the need to do these events coupled with the fact that there are no plane parts at any of the 4 places where we are told planes crashed.
I can’t speak for the pentagon, nor PA but there were absolutely planes in NY. Did they cause the collapse? There are people much more educated than me and I do believe it was by design. But, even if it was just for optics, there were absolutely planes. I have many trusted friends who were there that day. I know many who perished. I was there at 11pm when my friends husband, who was a trader, showed up in the back of a pickup with five others covered in white dust on every part of his body but his eyes and nose area. I heard his story when he was finally able to come out of the shock. And I heard many other stories of people I know personally. Saying there were no planes at all, does not add any validly to the theory. Just my experience
My sweet grandfather use to say “I know enough to know I don’t know enough” and I don’t think we will ever truly know. As far as me producing video of planes, I don’t personally need that confirmation because I know dozens of people who were there, lived it, died, and saw the aftermath from getting out of a truck covered in dust to my children’s friends who buried their parents. I realize not everyone has the same experiences. You don’t know me, so why would you take my word? I don’t blame you at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the plane was carrying something in it. I can’t dismiss personal accounts of people I know.
There were mock drills of intercepting hijacked planes - and every fighter was tied up in that. This is not even a joke, its amazing all this happened and they got away with it.
All solid points except the jet fuel statement. I have no doubt that the building or at least 1 of the buildings got taken down via controlled demo as well. However while jet fuel is not hot enough to “melt” steel it is hot enough to re-arrange the molecules enough to weaken the tensile strength of steel. Not to mention the amount of damage that was done to the steel already by the impact. I really wish people would stop bringing the jet fuel thing up because it takes away for all the other valid points.
One of the main reasons skyscrapers are made of steel is because they are NOT subject to catastrophic failure due to fire.
Steel is the best conductor of heat. It disperses the heat throughout the entire structure, making it unlikely the original area of the fire would be a point of failure.
Those fires were not hot enough to even WEAKEN steel to the point that the fires could bring down such a building.
This is WHY no such building has ever collapsed in the history of steel-frame buildings. On 9/11, those 3 buildings were brought down with explosives and/or incendiaries that were pre-installed.
Yeah, and nevermind the seemingly molten steel spewing out of the side of the building. Even if jet fuel weakened the beams, itd only drop some floors, slowed and turned to the side as it hits non heated beams. The entire damn buildings steel didn't heat up from the top up from jet fuel ffs lol
Setting aside whether or not jet fuel actually could take down a building on its own, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is the line that is repeated over and over by people who want to paint all 9/11 investigation as crazy conspiracy theory. If you mention jet fuel, normies are instantly going to tune you out. If you want to actually get through to them, there are plenty of other convincing angles you can use without bringing up jet fuel.
All the black smoke means the steel would have never gotten hot enough to give way. Consider those buildings are designed to stay upright if they catch fire.
Yes, and they also found thermite, which can cut through and melt steel. But those have to be planted as devices inside the buildings. Jet fuel and office fires can never burn that hot. Building 7 had no jet fuel, only office fires -- i.e. paper and wood on fire, like in your fireplace (does your fireplace melt when you put wood and paper in it?).
and prime reason why building fire gets hotter than fireplace is that smoke and heat can stack on top instead of disperse (but even then, not so hot it could liquidity even iron,let alone steel)
These are great questions. Another question I always think of is why 9/11. I mean those numbers specifically. 911 is a very popular number. Why do people call it? It’s for emergencies. When your in trouble. So is it just another coincidence?
September 11th marks 2 major defeats for the Ottoman Turks… their defeat at the siege of Malta in 1565 and the breaking of the Siege of Vienna by based Polish and Lithuanian Calvary in 1529. Given that the Ottoman Empire is seen as the previous caliphate, yeah it would make sense for Muslims to want revenge on that date. (Never mind they lost battles against the west defending themselves, but that’s logic for those that worship a 6th century pedo barbarian warlord).
Then we are fed some fake “conspiracy” by Michael Moore (liberal) to make us think it was Left vs Right, Bush’s war for daddy’s oil.
When actually it was the cabal needing our men and women to die for their control/safety in the Middle East. Because these Zionists see others as cattle.
_ Why are widespread reports of mystery work crews in the WTC a couple of weeks before the demolition being ignored?
Why is clear videographic evidence of the controlled demolitions being ignored?
How is it possible that a purportedly and visually eccentric penetration of the towers caused a perfect, in-place collapse and not a lateral lay-down?
. . . etc etc etc . . .
Catastrophic damage caused in the way we are supposed to believe it happened does not lend itself to a building collapsing in it own footprint. Im a civil engineer, Ive seen some of the prints for these buildings and while I wont call myself an expert in structural engineering the narrative is not possible. If we are to believe that it was fire set by jet fuel then either one side of the building or the other would have begun to collapse first. Most likely the area where the planes entered the building. (Not that Im sure I even buy that planes were used) No way in hell the entire building collapses in unison. Theres built in redundancies that would have to fail too. Maybe in China this could happen but not here were codes are very strict.
As for the WTC 7 building narrative? Hahahahahahahaha Only a moron would believe that.
Full disclosure on my credentials: after college I never used my degree. I immediately began my own concrete construction company.
It’s not being ignored. It feels like an echo chamber in here, and that is frustrating because we want more people to see the obvious, but there are still a lot of us.
Yeah, agreed . . . swept under the rug, anyway. Prayerfully, all will be exposed and prosecuted -- ideally, without a 20-year delay for everyone else who're not already at Guantanamo.
Seriousl question - planes are aluminum, thus non-ferrous. "Jet fuel" is essentially higher refined kerosene. Kerosene has very low volatility. What was the source of immediate ignition? If the PA plane vaporized hitting dirt, how did a soft aluminum plane make it thru hard reinfoced concrete, steel etc... And have a Hollywood esque fireball exit on the opposite side? Thats like throwing a water balloon against your house and having it blow out the other side
The Pentagon plane did not vaporize. There are photos of an engine and other debris if you search for it. People could use those pictures to dimiss the rest of these questions in their mind. Yet, why there is no footage of this is still a mystery. Perhaps it was a different plane than stated and video would reveal this.
So the planes jetfuel is burning at the top of the building and breaking apart the molecular structure of the metal beams on those floors. But even if they collapse, wouldn't the unaffected floors beneath be able to/designed to withstand the weight of the floors collapsing on them?
think about how much weight you are talking about here... it's the top 1/3 of one of the tallest buildings in the world.
whats easier to stop while it's rolling down a hill... a golf ball or a bowling ball?
can you even imagine how much mass we are talking about here?
there isn't a building on the entire planet that is going to survive that, it's not designed to "catch" that much weight once it starts moving, especially when you consider that a large part of support in the design on the WTC was the core and skin which were both damaged... so the lower portion isn't even an intact structure it's already compromised.
the only thing stopping that much mass is going to be the ground.
WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed SPECIFICALLY to withstand a passenger jet impact because of the proximity to major airports.
The added weight was miniscule, and once the top floors were incinerated, the lower floors had LESS load than before. Progressive collapse was a physical impossibility because the collapse went down through the path of MOST RESISTANCE. Explosives are needed to bring down high rises this way.
ae911truth.org has hundreds of expert videos explaining all of this from an architectural/structural engineering standpoint.
the fucking buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a much smaller plane, low on fuel, lost in a fog looking for the nearby airport...
because that is exactly what happened when a b-52 flew into the empire state building.
they were NEVER designed to withstand the impact of much LARGER planes flying much faster and fully loaded with enough fuel to make it to the west coast (notice all flights were chosen to be west coast flights to have a full load of fuel)
they were built to survive an accident, not an on purpose.
and i'm not talking about the added weight of a fucking plane you moron it's a question of how in the fuck do you stop that much weight once it starts moving. we're talking millions of pounds... once it started falling there is no stopping it till it hits the ground.
how much do you think dozens of floors of one of the worlds largest skyscrapers weighs?
There's so many questions from top to bottom to be asked here, everything needs to be questioned.
That's why they go so grandiose, people are so blinded by the shock of the event, they don't look at the actual evidence. Plus MSM steers them away, and Bush with his Axis of Evil and "with us or against us" steered people from the event to vengeance.
The "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing is stupid. Jet fuel can burn hot enough to make steel incredibly malleable. It wouldn't actually need to melt it.
I always loved how Larry Silverstein, the owner of the wtc, was conveniently at a “dermatologist appointment” when the planes hit and neither of his kids were in the building who worked there everyday. One was in the parking garage and got out and the other was stuck in traffic. And got a multi billion dollar insurance settlement out of the whole thing.
Pentagon footage does exist, but the object striking the building is not a plane. I seen that video on 9/11/01 and a number of times since spread online. surprised it hasnt popped up today, been waiting for it to come up again so i can save it.
there were ' 2 ' crash sites at shanksville ... one was the plane, one was the left wing. I heard the jet that shot down the plane as did my neighbors, it flew out of a SAC base north of Detroit
What happened to the 1.6 trillion that went missing from the Pentagon?
It was more than that...just shy of 3 T wasn't it?
That’s what I think. Inside job to wipe the slate clean and take control of the sheep
This is all the proof anyone needs.
What happened to the hurricane?
A lot of normies are about to wake up to this now that they see their Tyrannical government in action. I sent my co-workers a video of Tower 7 falling yesterday and they didn’t even know about tower 7. These were the only three skyscrapers in world history to collapse from fire, and these buildings were built with steel exterior beams, making them as strong of building as you can make.
Yeah I am way more suspicious of this event than I ever thought I would be but we need to cross our T's and dot our I's in our opposition. When you ask some of these questions, you'll get some reasonable sounding responses at times. For instance, the jet fuel didn't have to melt the steel. It just had to weaken it enough that along with a massive collision, would compromise structural integrity. I am NOT saying that it wasn't a false flag in some way. I'm only saying that we need to be analytical in the questions we ask, the accusations we make, and in the responses to reasonable comments we get when we ask our questions.
A plane hitting an exterior steel frame building would only damage the side that was hit. At the very most, the part of the building above that would crumple and tip over. There's no way in the world that would cause the entire building to drop straight down into it's own footprint.
A bomber flew into the Empire State Building a long time ago, and it just stuck. There was no explosion or anything but local damage. The plane was hoisted down, the building was repaired, and life went on.
Collapsing three of the strongest skyscrapers in existence with two "planes" is just total BS. The buildings were professionally demolished.
A smaller slower much lighter b25.
Being a warplane, I doubt that it was a whole lot lighter. I'm pretty sure it was a lot heavier for its size than an airliner.
Up vote to cancel the logic-less down vote you recieved.
Some people don't respect logic, even though it is what makes us higher than all other animals. Logic. Reasoning. The Word.
There were no planes involved in 911. There's a missile hole at the Pentagon, a crater in Shanksville, and explosions with Hollywood filming of planes melting into a steel building. The planes should have exploded upon impact with parts falling to the ground. Likewise, there should have been parts all over the ground at the Pentagon and in PA. There aren't. There were planes that took off, but I saw a video once that said the planes were changed over at an outer marker with missiles that flew in on the planes beacon. The planes landed, and the people on board were killed, perhaps after making calls to loved ones as their bargaining chip for their lives. Keep an open mind. With the ridiculous things we've seen play out in recent years, is it really so far fetched that this could be what happened? Anything is possible. John Lear of Lear jet fame, and many other pilots came out years ago and said that virtually no one could fly a plane at that speed 30 feet off the ground into the Pentagon. All these videos have long been scrubbed from the internet. There are dozens of questions that can't be answered if we believe planes were used. I believed the msm narrative until 9 years ago when I started to research after the Sandy Hooke and BB hoaxes. Over the years, I have shifted to the no plane theory after understanding the purpose of FF, the use of crisis actors, and the evil behind the need to do these events coupled with the fact that there are no plane parts at any of the 4 places where we are told planes crashed.
I can’t speak for the pentagon, nor PA but there were absolutely planes in NY. Did they cause the collapse? There are people much more educated than me and I do believe it was by design. But, even if it was just for optics, there were absolutely planes. I have many trusted friends who were there that day. I know many who perished. I was there at 11pm when my friends husband, who was a trader, showed up in the back of a pickup with five others covered in white dust on every part of his body but his eyes and nose area. I heard his story when he was finally able to come out of the shock. And I heard many other stories of people I know personally. Saying there were no planes at all, does not add any validly to the theory. Just my experience
My sweet grandfather use to say “I know enough to know I don’t know enough” and I don’t think we will ever truly know. As far as me producing video of planes, I don’t personally need that confirmation because I know dozens of people who were there, lived it, died, and saw the aftermath from getting out of a truck covered in dust to my children’s friends who buried their parents. I realize not everyone has the same experiences. You don’t know me, so why would you take my word? I don’t blame you at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the plane was carrying something in it. I can’t dismiss personal accounts of people I know.
There were mock drills of intercepting hijacked planes - and every fighter was tied up in that. This is not even a joke, its amazing all this happened and they got away with it.
Not for much longer
All solid points except the jet fuel statement. I have no doubt that the building or at least 1 of the buildings got taken down via controlled demo as well. However while jet fuel is not hot enough to “melt” steel it is hot enough to re-arrange the molecules enough to weaken the tensile strength of steel. Not to mention the amount of damage that was done to the steel already by the impact. I really wish people would stop bringing the jet fuel thing up because it takes away for all the other valid points.
Wrong!
One of the main reasons skyscrapers are made of steel is because they are NOT subject to catastrophic failure due to fire.
Steel is the best conductor of heat. It disperses the heat throughout the entire structure, making it unlikely the original area of the fire would be a point of failure.
Those fires were not hot enough to even WEAKEN steel to the point that the fires could bring down such a building.
This is WHY no such building has ever collapsed in the history of steel-frame buildings. On 9/11, those 3 buildings were brought down with explosives and/or incendiaries that were pre-installed.
Yeah, and nevermind the seemingly molten steel spewing out of the side of the building. Even if jet fuel weakened the beams, itd only drop some floors, slowed and turned to the side as it hits non heated beams. The entire damn buildings steel didn't heat up from the top up from jet fuel ffs lol
I think you mean top-down, but yeah.
Setting aside whether or not jet fuel actually could take down a building on its own, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is the line that is repeated over and over by people who want to paint all 9/11 investigation as crazy conspiracy theory. If you mention jet fuel, normies are instantly going to tune you out. If you want to actually get through to them, there are plenty of other convincing angles you can use without bringing up jet fuel.
All the black smoke means the steel would have never gotten hot enough to give way. Consider those buildings are designed to stay upright if they catch fire.
Yes, and they also found thermite, which can cut through and melt steel. But those have to be planted as devices inside the buildings. Jet fuel and office fires can never burn that hot. Building 7 had no jet fuel, only office fires -- i.e. paper and wood on fire, like in your fireplace (does your fireplace melt when you put wood and paper in it?).
and prime reason why building fire gets hotter than fireplace is that smoke and heat can stack on top instead of disperse (but even then, not so hot it could liquidity even iron,let alone steel)
There were teams of service people checking “fire safety equipment” throughout the towers days prior. Perfect opportunity to set up their demo
How did they find intact passports of the hijackers after the crash?
These are great questions. Another question I always think of is why 9/11. I mean those numbers specifically. 911 is a very popular number. Why do people call it? It’s for emergencies. When your in trouble. So is it just another coincidence?
Many believe that was when Jesus was born.
Don't understand the downvote. This is a legitimate belief of many biblical historians.
Holy crap. It’s is at 9-11. That’s crazy.
September 11th marks 2 major defeats for the Ottoman Turks… their defeat at the siege of Malta in 1565 and the breaking of the Siege of Vienna by based Polish and Lithuanian Calvary in 1529. Given that the Ottoman Empire is seen as the previous caliphate, yeah it would make sense for Muslims to want revenge on that date. (Never mind they lost battles against the west defending themselves, but that’s logic for those that worship a 6th century pedo barbarian warlord).
Because the dancing Israelis (fake Jews) are very good at vanishing and setting many fingers to point to each other.
They have nearly perfected this technique over centuries.
Except to the few who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain not rotted.
Then we are fed some fake “conspiracy” by Michael Moore (liberal) to make us think it was Left vs Right, Bush’s war for daddy’s oil.
When actually it was the cabal needing our men and women to die for their control/safety in the Middle East. Because these Zionists see others as cattle.
_ Why are widespread reports of mystery work crews in the WTC a couple of weeks before the demolition being ignored?
Catastrophic damage caused in the way we are supposed to believe it happened does not lend itself to a building collapsing in it own footprint. Im a civil engineer, Ive seen some of the prints for these buildings and while I wont call myself an expert in structural engineering the narrative is not possible. If we are to believe that it was fire set by jet fuel then either one side of the building or the other would have begun to collapse first. Most likely the area where the planes entered the building. (Not that Im sure I even buy that planes were used) No way in hell the entire building collapses in unison. Theres built in redundancies that would have to fail too. Maybe in China this could happen but not here were codes are very strict.
As for the WTC 7 building narrative? Hahahahahahahaha Only a moron would believe that.
Full disclosure on my credentials: after college I never used my degree. I immediately began my own concrete construction company.
It’s not being ignored. It feels like an echo chamber in here, and that is frustrating because we want more people to see the obvious, but there are still a lot of us.
Yeah, agreed . . . swept under the rug, anyway. Prayerfully, all will be exposed and prosecuted -- ideally, without a 20-year delay for everyone else who're not already at Guantanamo.
Seriousl question - planes are aluminum, thus non-ferrous. "Jet fuel" is essentially higher refined kerosene. Kerosene has very low volatility. What was the source of immediate ignition? If the PA plane vaporized hitting dirt, how did a soft aluminum plane make it thru hard reinfoced concrete, steel etc... And have a Hollywood esque fireball exit on the opposite side? Thats like throwing a water balloon against your house and having it blow out the other side
And the big big question, what did 9/11 distract from or prevent from happening?
That would be an interesting dig.
Why hasn't the dig been done? It has been 20 years of avoidance.
The Pentagon plane did not vaporize. There are photos of an engine and other debris if you search for it. People could use those pictures to dimiss the rest of these questions in their mind. Yet, why there is no footage of this is still a mystery. Perhaps it was a different plane than stated and video would reveal this.
From what I remember, the engine at the pentagon wasn't the correct engine model for the type of plane that was supposed to have hit it.
There is a store across the river that had video of the incident, but was confiscated.
. . . AND it had no wings . . .
Exactly! What angle would it have to hit at for the wings to vaporize into the ground outside but the nose was able to hit the trillion dollar office?
Many think that the damage was caused by a missile.
also, there never was enough plane debris left to build even quarter of a plane
How hard would it be for them to fake some pictures of a wreckage?
Set off some explosives, throw some random aircraft pieces gotten from the junkyard and old engine in there, cover it all with soot
So the planes jetfuel is burning at the top of the building and breaking apart the molecular structure of the metal beams on those floors. But even if they collapse, wouldn't the unaffected floors beneath be able to/designed to withstand the weight of the floors collapsing on them?
No the steel is weakened and concrete fucked.they will fall.they fell surprisingly orderly though.you can vaporize steel with propane if you want to.
Yep, they make all sorts of things, magic bullets, magic jet fuel...
absolutely not.
think about how much weight you are talking about here... it's the top 1/3 of one of the tallest buildings in the world.
whats easier to stop while it's rolling down a hill... a golf ball or a bowling ball?
can you even imagine how much mass we are talking about here?
there isn't a building on the entire planet that is going to survive that, it's not designed to "catch" that much weight once it starts moving, especially when you consider that a large part of support in the design on the WTC was the core and skin which were both damaged... so the lower portion isn't even an intact structure it's already compromised.
the only thing stopping that much mass is going to be the ground.
WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed SPECIFICALLY to withstand a passenger jet impact because of the proximity to major airports.
The added weight was miniscule, and once the top floors were incinerated, the lower floors had LESS load than before. Progressive collapse was a physical impossibility because the collapse went down through the path of MOST RESISTANCE. Explosives are needed to bring down high rises this way.
ae911truth.org has hundreds of expert videos explaining all of this from an architectural/structural engineering standpoint.
the fucking buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a much smaller plane, low on fuel, lost in a fog looking for the nearby airport...
because that is exactly what happened when a b-52 flew into the empire state building.
they were NEVER designed to withstand the impact of much LARGER planes flying much faster and fully loaded with enough fuel to make it to the west coast (notice all flights were chosen to be west coast flights to have a full load of fuel)
they were built to survive an accident, not an on purpose.
and i'm not talking about the added weight of a fucking plane you moron it's a question of how in the fuck do you stop that much weight once it starts moving. we're talking millions of pounds... once it started falling there is no stopping it till it hits the ground.
how much do you think dozens of floors of one of the worlds largest skyscrapers weighs?
couple hundred pounds?
perhaps more than that?
B25 big difference.
yeah some sort of B whatever... point is they built the towers to survive an accident... a plane flying slow.
they weren't designed to have planes that big flying full speed into them with a full load of fuel.
Are you a structural engineer? If not shut the fuck up shill.
are you?
i live in a 3 story building built from corten steel 40 foot high cube shipping containers.
how bout you?
Nice credentials bruh
i built it, that was the implication
Even better credentials bruh.
explain or go fuck yourself.
hey dumbfuck...
i told someone to google a quote, you told me to google "physics"
you're the dumbest person i encountered in all these discussions, take pride in that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXYswf3lzU8
This will blow your mind in less than 5 minutes
Did Uninterruptible Autopilot play any role?
I rather think it did.
It was more than 3 buildings.
There's so many questions from top to bottom to be asked here, everything needs to be questioned.
That's why they go so grandiose, people are so blinded by the shock of the event, they don't look at the actual evidence. Plus MSM steers them away, and Bush with his Axis of Evil and "with us or against us" steered people from the event to vengeance.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/t5NkcrY0QfDU/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/A0xlzyNybsKv/
Great Links. Worth of a re-post today themselves.
I'm so sick of the lies more than anything.
And FUCK SILVERSTEIN.
Yeah I posted them solo several places.
The truth will set us free.
I think 911 was a burnt sacrifice to the Beast. The bodies were taken to Freshkills Landfill. I found that creepy.
One question I would love to have an answer for: What really happened to the people on the planes that were "hijacked"?
Where else were you going to take it.bodies went to an ice rink too.
It's long but unless you know it all here then don't consider yourself a skeptic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq9nUPs2RAk&feature=youtu.be
The "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing is stupid. Jet fuel can burn hot enough to make steel incredibly malleable. It wouldn't actually need to melt it.
Dr. Judy Wood.
Ten years ago I would’ve been irate with someone daring to ask those “absurd” questions. Today, I am the one asking those questions.
I always loved how Larry Silverstein, the owner of the wtc, was conveniently at a “dermatologist appointment” when the planes hit and neither of his kids were in the building who worked there everyday. One was in the parking garage and got out and the other was stuck in traffic. And got a multi billion dollar insurance settlement out of the whole thing.
How did anyone know to short the Airline stocks?
Pentagon footage does exist, but the object striking the building is not a plane. I seen that video on 9/11/01 and a number of times since spread online. surprised it hasnt popped up today, been waiting for it to come up again so i can save it.
there were ' 2 ' crash sites at shanksville ... one was the plane, one was the left wing. I heard the jet that shot down the plane as did my neighbors, it flew out of a SAC base north of Detroit
And who is Tim Osman? Well....we now know that it was Osama Bin Laden ex CIA yet we were led to believe the cave hopper was the one who did it.
I've so many who think 9m deranged for not buying the lies.
Anyone know what was in Building 7?
The SEC, CIA, Salomen Brothers, all the files from Enron. And most likely the paper trail leading back to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.