MSM: these conspiracy theorists! its like, if they believe one conspiracy they are more likely to believe others! we cant let them believe in one single conspiracy theory!
You would have done well if you hadn't led with that crap before listing actual conspiracies. Might as well have led with flat Earth nonsense if you're going to go down that road since it also requires every country to somehow be in on a hoax, plenty of others who have sent probes to the Moon have had many chances to call out NASA if the landings were fake and would love to do so.
I mean, humanity has definitely been to space or else satellites would not be a thing. Its not too much of a stretch to think we've been a little bit further to the moon. We would not be able to communicate with the other side of the planet in near real-time without satellites.
Same, i knew I was going to war and just put on the game face and went. Looking back I can trace how I came to reject the narrative. It took trumps first election and what followed. It's not without pain that it comes. Buddies dead or grievously wounded... constant war drums for 20 fucking years. Unraveling the entire psyop from your brain takes its toll. Good news, won't ever happen again to me or many of us who are now awake. I cam guess the deep states song in about 2 notes now.
Building demolition of any size is an art, decades of experienced demolition experts have set the standards.... I gather the "students" learned their lessons well.
The WTC complex was on a plaza that is like 15 acres. It's a big space. Multiple buildings were on that plaza. The towers collapsed on those buildings.
WTC 7 is not even on this plaza. It across a city street from the plaza. Debris from one of the towers fell onto WTC 7 and took a chunk out of the corner of the building.
Watch video on report of the University of Alaska engineering department on collapse of WTC 7. A four year study concluding it was most likely a controlled demolition. And if so, was WTC 1 and 2 the result of box cutters on airplanes? https://www.bitchute.com/video/i8Vw1tU47dA/
I have. That's happening at the very end of the collapse sequence
I remember when Small Change came out I found it very persuasive. Especially on WTC 7, but a friend and I started discussing it and we found it was highly manipulative.
When you see the VIDEO EVIDENCE of WTC 7, there's a couple of things to note.
We don't see the bottom half of the building. This is where the collapse is believed to have started. The bottom half of building is blocked by other fairly tall buildings in NYC
The second thing a lot of sites don't show you the full collapse sequence, just the end. When you look at the full collapse sequence, you see all sorts things happening on one side of the building, then on the roof and THEN the building fully goes down.
As for the free fall.
Imagine two 12 foot ladders next to each other a few feet part.
Now imagine you stack them up 10 of these on top of each other. So you have 120 feet of ladders side by side
These wouldn't be able to stand up by themselves.
Now imagine for every 10 feet the two sides are connected to each other So one stack of ladders next to another with 12 connections running between them. Now you have a structure that can stand because these connections form a lateral brace where each ladder stack supports the other.
Now imagine there's structural failure towards the bottom of the ladders. A failure that starts ripping out the bracing from the bottom to the top. Once all those lateral supports are gone, the ladders are going to go down.
This is similar to what happened in WTC 7. It was built with a tube in tube structure.
So you have a inner box and outer box, but each box needs supports from the other.
So how's that affect my ladders. When basically imagine you can only see the outer ladder. The free fall collapse occurs after the inside ladder has fallen and all the supports are gone. And the video is only looking at the top of the ladders.
So where's my evidence for this? Does my metaphor stand up?
Here's a gif of the full collapse sequence. Is there evidence of some sort of interior collapse.
YES. Look at the roof. Something on the left side of the roof collapses INTO the building. Notice all the windows that start to break on the left. Then on the right.
https://i.gifer.com/MoI3.gif
The second thing to note is WTC had like 50 floors. It was over 700 feet high. We don't see all 50 floors here. Unlike 1 or 2 we don't see the point of collapse. It's blocked by other buildings.
Also fact about WTC? Hours before it collapsed the NY Fire Department cleared a collapse zone around it. Because they started seeing creaking metal and noticed earlier in the day, one of the corners of building started to bulge.....this is a sign of structural failure.
This argument is bogus completely. It is full of gratuitous complexity so as to hide the simplicity of the conservation of energy argument that I give elsewhere on this page. No amount of complexity can change the fact that, to quote the head of NIST at the first press conference after 9/11 "a structure cannot undergo progressive collapse at free fall".
Imagine two 12 foot ladders next to each other a few feet part.
I was 1/2 block away from 9/11. The 2nd plane flew over my head as I stood on the Battery. This is my wheelhouse. This is no innocent, ordinary conversation you're engaging in here. You are absolutely 100% a professional shill.
WTC7 was not really a building, it was a Category 5 bunker—that's literally the highest category attainable for any building anywhere in the world. Salomon Smith Barney's trading floor (two floors high, BTW) was right there in the middle of that building, and before they agreed to become tenants, they demanded that WTC7 spend an additional $150 million upgrading the building.
I'm sending you packing. You aren't welcome here. This isn't about creating an echo chamber. Your replied are so expertly fucked that you are guaranteed IC.
A building does not naturally fall into a neat pile within its own footprint.
It always looked wrong to me but I was in denial for so many years as I didn't want to believe it.
When you already knew they faked the moon landing, killed Kennedy, allowed Pearl Harbor, lied about Okl City.......
You saw 9/11 differently real time
… and then covid as eye opener for the masses.
White hats: to allow it and release the evidence of everything.
Has TCN more views than CNN yet?
MSM: these conspiracy theorists! its like, if they believe one conspiracy they are more likely to believe others! we cant let them believe in one single conspiracy theory!
You would have done well if you hadn't led with that crap before listing actual conspiracies. Might as well have led with flat Earth nonsense if you're going to go down that road since it also requires every country to somehow be in on a hoax, plenty of others who have sent probes to the Moon have had many chances to call out NASA if the landings were fake and would love to do so.
They would never be in on the hoax. See Antarctica. They were ALL controlled
I mean, humanity has definitely been to space or else satellites would not be a thing. Its not too much of a stretch to think we've been a little bit further to the moon. We would not be able to communicate with the other side of the planet in near real-time without satellites.
I really respect your willingness to see the truth.
Same here, and I was in lower Manhattan that day! (but I always questioned building 7)
I know that feeling fren. How times change
Same, i knew I was going to war and just put on the game face and went. Looking back I can trace how I came to reject the narrative. It took trumps first election and what followed. It's not without pain that it comes. Buddies dead or grievously wounded... constant war drums for 20 fucking years. Unraveling the entire psyop from your brain takes its toll. Good news, won't ever happen again to me or many of us who are now awake. I cam guess the deep states song in about 2 notes now.
AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION!!!
Simply not possible without human intervention. NOT POSSIBLE.
That's correct. See my argument using conservation of energy elsewhere on this page.
There's only one way to achieve that and that's if you do it just right.
Building demolition of any size is an art, decades of experienced demolition experts have set the standards.... I gather the "students" learned their lessons well.
The towers did not fall into their own footprint.
The WTC complex was on a plaza that is like 15 acres. It's a big space. Multiple buildings were on that plaza. The towers collapsed on those buildings.
WTC 7 is not even on this plaza. It across a city street from the plaza. Debris from one of the towers fell onto WTC 7 and took a chunk out of the corner of the building.
Have you watched the VIDEO EVIDENCE of Bldg 7 collapsing at free fall acceleration??
Please explain how this can happen without human intervention! I’ll wait.
Watch video on report of the University of Alaska engineering department on collapse of WTC 7. A four year study concluding it was most likely a controlled demolition. And if so, was WTC 1 and 2 the result of box cutters on airplanes? https://www.bitchute.com/video/i8Vw1tU47dA/
I have. That's happening at the very end of the collapse sequence
I remember when Small Change came out I found it very persuasive. Especially on WTC 7, but a friend and I started discussing it and we found it was highly manipulative.
When you see the VIDEO EVIDENCE of WTC 7, there's a couple of things to note.
We don't see the bottom half of the building. This is where the collapse is believed to have started. The bottom half of building is blocked by other fairly tall buildings in NYC
The second thing a lot of sites don't show you the full collapse sequence, just the end. When you look at the full collapse sequence, you see all sorts things happening on one side of the building, then on the roof and THEN the building fully goes down.
As for the free fall.
Imagine two 12 foot ladders next to each other a few feet part.
Now imagine you stack them up 10 of these on top of each other. So you have 120 feet of ladders side by side
These wouldn't be able to stand up by themselves.
Now imagine for every 10 feet the two sides are connected to each other So one stack of ladders next to another with 12 connections running between them. Now you have a structure that can stand because these connections form a lateral brace where each ladder stack supports the other.
Now imagine there's structural failure towards the bottom of the ladders. A failure that starts ripping out the bracing from the bottom to the top. Once all those lateral supports are gone, the ladders are going to go down.
This is similar to what happened in WTC 7. It was built with a tube in tube structure.
You can see that here. It's the one that looks like a box with a box. it's described here as a core tube is surrounded by an exterior tube that interact horizontally. https://theconstructor.org/architecture/tube-structural-system-types-features/560166/
So you have a inner box and outer box, but each box needs supports from the other.
So how's that affect my ladders. When basically imagine you can only see the outer ladder. The free fall collapse occurs after the inside ladder has fallen and all the supports are gone. And the video is only looking at the top of the ladders.
So where's my evidence for this? Does my metaphor stand up?
Here's a gif of the full collapse sequence. Is there evidence of some sort of interior collapse.
YES. Look at the roof. Something on the left side of the roof collapses INTO the building. Notice all the windows that start to break on the left. Then on the right. https://i.gifer.com/MoI3.gif
The second thing to note is WTC had like 50 floors. It was over 700 feet high. We don't see all 50 floors here. Unlike 1 or 2 we don't see the point of collapse. It's blocked by other buildings.
Also fact about WTC? Hours before it collapsed the NY Fire Department cleared a collapse zone around it. Because they started seeing creaking metal and noticed earlier in the day, one of the corners of building started to bulge.....this is a sign of structural failure.
Thanks for waiting.
This argument is bogus completely. It is full of gratuitous complexity so as to hide the simplicity of the conservation of energy argument that I give elsewhere on this page. No amount of complexity can change the fact that, to quote the head of NIST at the first press conference after 9/11 "a structure cannot undergo progressive collapse at free fall".
I was 1/2 block away from 9/11. The 2nd plane flew over my head as I stood on the Battery. This is my wheelhouse. This is no innocent, ordinary conversation you're engaging in here. You are absolutely 100% a professional shill.
WTC7 was not really a building, it was a Category 5 bunker—that's literally the highest category attainable for any building anywhere in the world. Salomon Smith Barney's trading floor (two floors high, BTW) was right there in the middle of that building, and before they agreed to become tenants, they demanded that WTC7 spend an additional $150 million upgrading the building.
I'm sending you packing. You aren't welcome here. This isn't about creating an echo chamber. Your replied are so expertly fucked that you are guaranteed IC.
Perma-ban.