once again, for the people in the back... what actually hit the towers? bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧠 Memory Hole 🕳️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXvZ3jSxqm8
Sorry, it's too much of a stretch, completely breaks Occam's Razor and relies heavily on variable skepticism. Every variant has been thrown at 9/11 with the hope of something sticking and at best what you're left with is some incongruent noise. I remember watching Loose Change in the aftermath and thought it was interesting until I found the 100% point-by-point rebuttal, debunking everything they said. It's much easier to draw a line between decades of islamic terror attacks growing bolder and bureaucratic government stovepiping amidst the fog of war wrecking the response. Did some people in our government know? I'm sure. Did some others profit? I have no doubt. Was there some other grand conspiracy? I'm less inclined to believe.
Here's your occams razor. laughable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GppBpUeYg
haven't you seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg ?
It's quite convincing that there was explosive evidence. It's difficult to consider it reasonable that a plane could cause a building top to collapse into itself like a piledriver, overcoming the structure built to keep it up right down to the ground floor. 1/2 way and then the top part topples off would be a stretch too.
Thank you, I appreciate the alternative view. I just think we always need to be our own harshest critics. The thermite explanation in the video is interesting and I'd certainly like to understand it more. However, it's not a long search to find that a thermitic reaction involves iron oxide and aluminum and is accelerated by Manganese, which was supposedly in the ceiling tiles. So, the plane in the building is the precise environment to cause this to happen and I found a theory to that effect: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm
The one report said the WTC could withstand the impact of a 707. I don't know if that's assuming max speed/weight, but a 767 has a 25% higher weight so that would mean a substantial difference in the force applied.
One thing I also didn't know until reading the comments is that WTC 4,5&6 took so much debris damage that they were demolished in the aftermath. I take that to mean that 1. the loss of 7 is not as obscure as I had thought, and 2. the debris field was more damaging than a controlled demolition.
But in any case, I'm looking for the truth. My expertise is on the electrical not civil, so if one of those smart guys want to produce their own model or demonstrate how a building is strong enough to stop its own collapse, I'd be happy to see it.
he didn't watch. many have simply made up their mind and moved on...not worth their time at this point. It's too bad.
agreed