So Let Me Ask
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (147)
sorted by:
point 1: take a look at the arieal photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ground_zero_aerial_view.png In the top left quadrant we see 2 standing buildings with holes in their roof, and further to the top left corner we see a pile of rubble. It's irrational to think wtc7 in the top left corner would fall to rubble while the 2 buildings closer to ground 0 would have just some holes in their roof. Result: valid question.
Point 1b: to even consider your point as factual, you would need to claim there was horizontal ejection from wtc1 & 2, and that energy would have had to come from somewhere to send a piece from (here) ------------------------> (to here)
Point 2: there was a security footage, but was scrubbed/cut leading to suspicion.Result: valid question.
Point 3: not nearly enough debris was found to suggest a plane, however scattered debris indicated placements. In the Pennsylvania crash, magically the plane was swallowed up by the whole ground and caved back in, which would be impossible even if it was flying down perfectly perpendicular to the ground. Result: valid question.
Point 4: Jet fuel cannot melt steel. Even if it could, there's not nearly enough jet fuel in a plane to weaken steel in the 1st to 80th floor, significantly below the impact, so that wtc1 and 2 could completely collapse to the ground floor. Result: valid question.
point 5: misdirection, while they were in the air, NORAD was up north in war games. Result: valid question.
Point 6: further misdirection: people living were promoted.Result: valid question.
Point 7: 'they didn't attack SA because saddam was bad man' doesn't answer the question. . Result: valid question.
Point 8 - dismissed not question related
Point 9: ad-hominem response Result: valid question.
BTW thx for that
explain that please.
the gov came in a snatched up all available cameras in hopes of finding evidence of what the fuck happened and who did it... they don't return it... it's all sitting in a box somewhere in a basement probably. either way lack of evidence isn't evidence.
there was a massive debris field in PA, they blamed it on wind but they found metal parts scattered all over that area... it's very mountainous out that way... near a couple ski resorts... there was debris everywhere and it only happens that way if the plane fell apart in the sky... from being blown the fuck up.
nobody says it has to melt, all you have to do is get it hot and hammer on it (force), it's how swords have been made for thousands of years.
180th ANG was in the air while the 4th plane was headed to DC... they are who shot it down.
you're assuming these "promoted people" were responsible... thats ridiculous. the people who did it were in the planes
the question was why iraq, the answer is violating multiple UN resolutions and running terrorist training camps and having WMD's, and having gas trucks, and gassing the kurds, and flying over the line he wasn't supposed to fly over... etc... etc... you can't say i'm wrong about the first half of the question because you were hoping i would answer the other half.
(you're not good at this)
Explain why WTC 7, if damaged in that bottom corner, and were to fall, did not topple, and instead came straight down? Unexplainable without demolition or at least explosives.
Cameras: who knows what's on it except those who have seen it.
PA flight 93 debris field? yes.. it's massive /s
More misdirection. floors 1-80 were built to hold the upper floors up. no fire was there, no fuel was there. why would they suddenly give way?
emergency crew was supposedly scrambled.
you're assuming that. people were promoted, and evidence points to it's likely they knew what was going on beforehand.
the question was why not Saudi Arabia. 'iraq is doing something we don't like so we went there instead' isn't valid.
(you're horrible at this)