Hi Shill. Chiming in here. I was on Broadway in front of City Hall on 9/11 along with thousands others, staring up at towers 1 and 2 with plumes of smoke coming out from the damaged sections of the buildings. I can't say for certain that I heard anything when Building 7 fell, but about 20 minutes before the south tower fell, a loud explosion like sound rumbled and echoed through the street which sent every single person into a panic and every single person turned and ran at the same time. Old ladies were knocked down and trampled by people fearing for their lives. about 20 minutes later the South tower fell. I am certain something went off in those buildings and it would not surprise me if the same is true for tower 7. Hell of a sight for an 18 year old.
One thing for you is sure tho, silverstein and friends would be proud. they don't even need to pay shills like you to try and sow doubt amongst truth seekers. Never change, this way your life will continue to be meaningless.
Do you see the building with the word 'alamy' on it, above the WTC 1 & 2 derbis? That and the building to the right are severely damaged but still stood. Why did the building right above it collapse neatly into its own footprint, (wtc7) and the building to the left and right of it remain standing?
The fact is, WT7 is the smoking gun for controlled demolition, and even if it had been damaged by falling debris, it would not have fallen straight down into its own footprint because the support furthest away from the collapse couldn't have been weakened in such a way that it would fall straight down like a controlled demolition.
Let me rephrase it:
How is it logical to think WTC7 fell due to damage from WTC1/2, when the supports along barclay street of WTC7 wouldn't have been impacted?
How do you logically get a building falling straight down with supports still in place?
At any rate, the Univertity of Alaska Fairbanks has done some great research on wtc7 and they have indicated the claimed cause (fire) did not cause the collapse. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
You said there were 'holes' in the ae911 videos. Can you be specific about the 'holes' in this video: 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg ? It's an hour, and as a skeptic i'm sure you have either already watched it, or will find it of great interest if you haven't. I'm very interested in what holes are in this video. Or if time is an issue, more specifically the section surrounding WTC7: https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=340 to https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=470 (2 minutes and 10 seconds)
Can you explain what you think happened to WTC7 on 9/11, through all of your years of study?
Ranting on about the audio is weak too, because it's a common red-herring weaker people used years ago. if you really like audio, there's analysts years ago who examined the audio tracks and found noticeable muting in various tracks from msm, you should look for them.
No one gives a shit about the fake stuff. Like you said, lets focus on the truth and what we can prove. So saying only that demolition explosives were not used, nor was there any evidence of explosives found or firing system infrastucture found flies in the face of truth from evidence that we do have, because there's evidence of explosives!
I think you're on the right track that it was planned and allowed to happen. As for who did it, i can't say, i'm in agreement with the A&E 9/11 investigators, that it needs more investigation because the official report is bunk. The leading theory right now is explosives of some form, it's quite difficult to deny in light of all available evidence.
Anyway i'm done, but it might be good to let go of your assumptions, and open up to some new theories.
Is that how you think damaged buildings fall?
It's how a lot of us watched it
I don't think it was silent.
Hi Shill. Chiming in here. I was on Broadway in front of City Hall on 9/11 along with thousands others, staring up at towers 1 and 2 with plumes of smoke coming out from the damaged sections of the buildings. I can't say for certain that I heard anything when Building 7 fell, but about 20 minutes before the south tower fell, a loud explosion like sound rumbled and echoed through the street which sent every single person into a panic and every single person turned and ran at the same time. Old ladies were knocked down and trampled by people fearing for their lives. about 20 minutes later the South tower fell. I am certain something went off in those buildings and it would not surprise me if the same is true for tower 7. Hell of a sight for an 18 year old.
One thing for you is sure tho, silverstein and friends would be proud. they don't even need to pay shills like you to try and sow doubt amongst truth seekers. Never change, this way your life will continue to be meaningless.
I heard speculation of that explosion was the initial charges separating the foundation from the bedrock
haven't you seen the Architects and engineers 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
I concur with u/americanjerky/ you come across like i shill. I've dealt with many people like you in the time after 9/11.
Take a look at this photo:
https://c7.alamy.com/comp/CWB8XY/world-trade-center-aerial-photograph-of-the-world-trade-center-taken-CWB8XY.jpg
Do you see the building with the word 'alamy' on it, above the WTC 1 & 2 derbis? That and the building to the right are severely damaged but still stood. Why did the building right above it collapse neatly into its own footprint, (wtc7) and the building to the left and right of it remain standing?
The fact is, WT7 is the smoking gun for controlled demolition, and even if it had been damaged by falling debris, it would not have fallen straight down into its own footprint because the support furthest away from the collapse couldn't have been weakened in such a way that it would fall straight down like a controlled demolition.
Let me rephrase it: How is it logical to think WTC7 fell due to damage from WTC1/2, when the supports along barclay street of WTC7 wouldn't have been impacted?
How do you logically get a building falling straight down with supports still in place?
At any rate, the Univertity of Alaska Fairbanks has done some great research on wtc7 and they have indicated the claimed cause (fire) did not cause the collapse. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
That's a better picture. But why aren't you answering the question and deflecting? this is shilling behaviour.
I examined your history, i see now, you consider the troll hive metabunk to be legit source. You talk just like them on this topic too.
metabunk, which you consider to be a source on this topic. you act just like them.
Last question on this topic:
You said there were 'holes' in the ae911 videos. Can you be specific about the 'holes' in this video: 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg ? It's an hour, and as a skeptic i'm sure you have either already watched it, or will find it of great interest if you haven't. I'm very interested in what holes are in this video. Or if time is an issue, more specifically the section surrounding WTC7: https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=340 to https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=470 (2 minutes and 10 seconds)
Can you explain what you think happened to WTC7 on 9/11, through all of your years of study?
You're discussing this topic dishonestly, bringing in the personal digs is a terrible angles of discussion, very weak.
Clearly you have a lot more to dig on this topic, especially if 30+ year demolition experts can look at wtc7 and say conclusively it was a demolition. Additionally ignoring many experts in the field stating there is evidence for explosives.
Ranting on about the audio is weak too, because it's a common red-herring weaker people used years ago. if you really like audio, there's analysts years ago who examined the audio tracks and found noticeable muting in various tracks from msm, you should look for them.
No one gives a shit about the fake stuff. Like you said, lets focus on the truth and what we can prove. So saying only that demolition explosives were not used, nor was there any evidence of explosives found or firing system infrastucture found flies in the face of truth from evidence that we do have, because there's evidence of explosives!
I think you're on the right track that it was planned and allowed to happen. As for who did it, i can't say, i'm in agreement with the A&E 9/11 investigators, that it needs more investigation because the official report is bunk. The leading theory right now is explosives of some form, it's quite difficult to deny in light of all available evidence.
Anyway i'm done, but it might be good to let go of your assumptions, and open up to some new theories.