Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why should they mention an empty building that collapsed after hours of un-fought fires???
Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?
That would depend.
What was the insurance cover like and what did you want to lose?
Lets say something was in there you wanted forgotten.
Take it out and destroy the building/
Of course, to do that you would have to have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
Translation = the forum retard subscribes to conspiracy theories about WTC 7, and has decided this means everyone knows it.Everyone knows 7 was brought down by controlled demo.
WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling
What else needs to be told? Nobody died
Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?
Translation = the forum retard subscribes to conspiracy theories about WTC 7, and has decided this means everyone knows it.Everyone knows 7 was brought down by controlled demo.
WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling
What else needs to be told? Nobody died
WTF??? Are you saying it's normal for a tower to collapse because 2 towers a block away collapsed.?? THINK
Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?
That's the big question. As far as justifying wars, all the warmongers needed was the collapse of the twin towers.
There was likely some very incriminating evidence stored in 7. It did house lots of govt data.
Without controlled demolition?How did it fall?
Straight down into its footprint?
In eight seconds?
How are buildings supposed to fall?
Slower.
[youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]
An interchange connecting highways to the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday,April 29 2007, after a tractor trailer hauling 8,600 gallons of gasoline caught fire. ...
The board notes you have problems drawing conclusions from premise. Thanks for admitting you have the mental capacity of a 7 year old.The board notes all you have is personal attacks. Thanks for admitting i'm right.
Do you happen to know what that still significant portion of the population is?[youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]
From that video's description:
An interchange connecting highways to the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday,April 29 2007, after a tractor trailer hauling 8,600 gallons of gasoline caught fire. ...
Disregarding the absence of fuel or fuel-oil fires in the case of building 7, the design and construction of freeway overpasses aren't remotely analogous to those of steel-framed skyscrapers. Sections of that overpass collapsed onto the road below, mainly because of the lack of physical resistance from below in the spaces between the vertical supports, once the horizontal supports had given way. Building 7, on the other hand, fell straight through what the laws of physics tell us should have been the path of greatest resistance, as if it had been transformed by magic into the path of least resistance.
According to the "scientific analysis" that was conducted by the government's own science lackeys (NIST), all physical resistance to the downward motion had somehow been removed or circumvented for approximately 2.25 of the 5.4 seconds that were analyzed on video. That's something along the order of 100 sq. feet or about 8 floors worth of building materials that violated the third law of motion in their collective descent on 9/11. NIST's explanation for this, a "fire-induced progressive collapse", is entirely non-explanatory. That is, the forces required to remove or circumvent ALL physical resistance for any period of time, couldn't possibly have arisen in a "progressive" collapse of that kind, because resistance would have been a necessary consequence of the sort of physical interaction described (from "structural element to element", as stated by NIST). The official storyline then, would apparently have us believe that the laws of physics can be broken for a couple of seconds at a time, so long as doing so fits into some authorized narrative.
I, too, find it a little hard to believe that building 7 isn't represented or mentioned anywhere in the new museum; but I'm also confident that its mysterious "collapse" is one of those 'anomalies' certain people would much rather forget about than try to explain to the still significant portion of the population that hasn't heard about it.
2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration doesn't usually happen without some help, no?Without controlled demolition?How are buildings supposed to fall?
Slower.
What would make you think that?
Once a structure fails, it fails
2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration doesn't usually happen without some help, no?Without controlled demolition?
Slower.
What would make you think that?
Once a structure fails, it fails
