I was 11 when we were gathered in the library to watch this unfold on those TV carts. Most of us boys didn't understand why the buildings fell straight down, and we were thanking God they didn't lean over, not once. In a time of crisis like that, everyone runs off emotions and logic disappears. Just like the jfk killing. Logic tells you that Oswald wasn't the lone shooter. But emotions are powerful. For 60 years, boomers believed Oswald was a lone gun man. I highly doubt Oswald pulled a trigger that day.
Which direction does gravity work again? I never took physics in high school, but it mostly acts sideways, right? No? Straight down? Oh. hmm.
Well surely we design buildings to be just as strong laterally as vertically, so that they can stay intact as they fall over, right? No? Just enough rigidity to survive wind loads?
How many floors were above where the plane hit? You tell me the weight of those floors cause the entire structure to collapse on itself, and not lean even just slightly towards the weakened areas? You've clearly never built anything in your life. Go stack a hundred bricks in the air, 2x2, and take one out on 75% up.. I bet it doesn't fall straight down.
Even better, ever try heating up steel that is all bolted together and interconnected with a fire? Difficult to say the least. All that steel acts as a heat sink and just continuously draws the heat away. Is basic thermodynamics.
What about the large puddles of molten steel in the basements? I never hear these progressive pancake collapsers mention that? Where did that molten steel come from? Not from a fucking kerosene induced office fire. I remember seeing one of the firefighters commenting about how they found almost nothing recognizable when they were digging through the rubble, nothing. Everything was absolutely fucking pulverized.
Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that. I’ve heard them say that it was the remains of the aluminum facade of the building that that evil jet fuel MELTED.
There is a guy above who doesn't understand that bricks are perfectly rigid and indestructible at the scale of 100 bricks, but would turn to flowing sand at the scale of a 1300 foot building.
You are attempting to apply your experience with human scale fires to a scale beyond your imagination. Each building weighed a half million tons (plus another half million tons of foundation). Each floor of each building had an acre of rentable space, plus non-rentable areas. The "core" of each building was approximately the same size as the lot that my house is built on.
Every welder knows that it is easy to heat part of a large metal object before it can move the heat away. The local thickness is very important, but beyond a relatively small size, the overall size no longer matters. The limiting factor is the cross sectional area between the hot area and the cold area.
I called it a chimney/kiln for good reasons. We've known for thousands of years that a tall chimney with lots of mass is an excellent low tech way to maximize the heating of metal via carbon or hydrocarbon fuel.
Welders use acetylene and oxygen, not kerosene. Light a fire under a steel structure and see what happens. Also, people have this misconception on how these buildings were built. Most of elevators didn’t go top to bottom, uninterrupted. There were a few service elevators that did but all elevator shafts have fire rated walls. Theoretically those shafts could have been feeding a fire on the upper floors but that’s not going to cause the catastrophic failure that we saw. They use fire rated everything when they build these kinds of buildings, fire rated doors, fire rated walls. At worst, you are going to have isolated pockets of fire. The firefighters that arrived on the scene confirmed that and said that the fires were minor and isolated. I’ll take their word for it. Dry wall doesn’t burn, ceiling tiles don’t burn, metal doesn’t burn, concrete doesn’t burn. The stuff that was burning was the fuel, the carpet, furniture, paper. None of that stuff was associated with the core which is 47 steel box columns that were 4” thick on the lower floors of the building. Not bricks, 4” steel. There were no continuous shafts from top to bottom in that building. They take the chimney effect into account when they design these things.
The ironic part of the fact this argument is still part of your lexicon is that within six months of 9/11, a diesel tanker fire dropped a bridge in the Northwest. You'd think that would have ended that argument, but I guess some people are stubbornly blind.
Are you going to mention all the high rise buildings that went up in flames that didn’t collapse? Yeah, I know they weren’t hit by planes, neither were the bridges. Comparing bridges to buildings is a little disingenuous anyway, completely different design. Plus, when the towers fell, they were turning to dust and exploding outwards, negating the progressive collapse theory. Also, the steel in the buildings was progressively thicker and stronger as it neared ground level. We’ve all seen pictures of the buildings immediately after collapse and ….the ground and the surrounding area is covered in debris that was being thrown outward the entire time the building was collapsing. What I didn’t see is a big stack of debris that would should have been a few hundred feet high comprised of probably 80-90 floors, stacked up on top of each other. Everything was pulverized.
The fires weren't hot enough to melt any steel. They were hot enough to weaken it to 10% of its room-temperature strength.
The idiots always reply with the pics on the ground of cleanly cut steel beams, clueless as to the fact they were cut by recovery workers with torches/lances.
Isn't every single building in this country designed to withstand loads or pressures well above it's actual capacities? A 50 ton crane DOES NOT fail if you lift something that weights 51 tons. It fails at a much larger weight. A sling/strap can hold much more than it's designated capacity. Steel is no different.
You're telling me that a measly 10% loss in strength is what caused the building to freefall? That should scare everyone to never go into a skyscraper or an airplane or elevator or stadium.
Why do you believe the establishment view? Are you retarded?
If you want, you can find the exact type of steel used in these buildings and look up the exact curve for that type of steel, but you'll see the same basic S-shape.
For thousands of years, blacksmiths have used the heat of carbon fuel to get iron-bearing metals red hot, at which point they are weak enough to be shaped. To obtain those temperatures, they used muscle power to feed air in, but only because they couldn't build 1000 foot tall chimney/kilns.
The floors were able to support a shock load of 6 floors above it. They were shock-loaded with 11 plus a massive antenna. Simple math. And it absolutey did lean over on the way down and spray debris over a huge area.
It was a controlled demolition, and everyone knows it. We know it because you cannot say that publicly without being ostracized.
Just like you couldn't say ivermectin was a good medicine to use. Just like you can't say Biden didn't get 81m votes. Just like you can't say dying suddenly is a side effect of the jab. Just like you can't say the Nazis didn't kill 6 million Jews.
That's where you're wrong. It's not hard to design a building to collapse into it's footprint the same way the frames on cars are designed to crumple while dropping the engine straight down. In the case of cars, it happens regardless of the angle of impact on the front end, just like you can design floors to fall directly down. It's just a matter of where you put the weaker parts of the structure.
There's a reason why the controlled demolition crews can detonate a building with just a few charges on just one or two floors. The rest of the floors do what they're supposed to do, by design. You have to kick the can before it can roll down the road.
Think about it like this. You're building a building in the middle of a bunch of other buildings. You don't honestly think that when you're designing a building in the middle of a bunch of other buildings, you aren't going to consider what happens if there's a structural failure?
You need to study the processes and procedures a little better concerning what’s involved with prepping a building for a controlled demolition. Yes they weaken the lower floors but there is explosives in various places, not just the lower floors. I’m sure every building is different but if you watch some videos of controlled demolitions you will see this.
Well, I guess all those companies that bring down buildings for living can just close up shop then. No need to compromise the building’s foundation and lower floors and the entire structure in a symmetrical manner to ensure that the building falls straight down instead of falling over and making a big ol mess of everything else. Maybe they could just dynamite the the supporting columns about a 1/4 of the way down and have the building turn itself into dust. They could save a shitload of money on cutting torches, explosives, detonation cord, manpower, electronics to run it all. Hell of an idea. Maybe we could check with some experts that actually do that shit for a living and see what they think?
You do know that the collapses of the WTC towers damaged buildings for several blocks around, right? WTC buildings 5, 6 and 7 got fucked up by falling debris, as did the next building across the street from WTC 7 (even more distant from the towers).
They fell "mostly" straight down because that's how gravity works , but they weren't a clean or safe demolition by any stretch.
Yeah, alot of stuff was damaged in the surrounding areas, because the building was being exploded from the inside out. Have you watched the collapses recently? They didn't fall straight down like wtc7, they exploded from the top down(from the point of impact) and as they fell they continually ejected debris, concrete and steel in all directions, almost peeling a banana. The progressive collapse theory says that all the weight of the upper floors caused the rest of the building to pancake. I didn’t see any pancaking going on, just total disintegration of everything. Plus, all the steel on the lower half of the building was considerably thicker than the upper floors. As the upper floors started to drop, (above impact)they turned to dust also. I find it hard to believe that the dustification of the upper floors contributed to the total destruction of the lower floors, especially the lower 40 or 50 floors. All that was left was material ejected in all directions. And underground fires that burned for weeks afterwards. Once they got to the bottom, molten steel. How does that happen? Pools of molten steel, which is some of the most damning evidence that we are being lied to.
You're acting like he said it pulled a Biden and fell up, no shit gravity pulls down. If you understand anything about stress points and add in human error in construction you figure out why controlled demolitions are a thing.
If you have a tall ass tree you want to take down that's right next to your house, you hire someone to take it down correctly so it doesn't fall on your house.
Every year on this day, this site, and the internet in general, fills up with idiotic posts like this. Virtually all buildings fall essentially straight down. It isn't a conspiracy, it isn't a mystery, it isn't controlled demolition. It is gravity. Gravity pulls buildings down, and very few of them have the lateral strength to do anything else.
You're much better telling them that despite CARNIVORE being deployed to the FBI in 1997, and despite being notified by the flight school that 20+ foreign nationals were wanting to learn how to only fly a 747, and despite James Woods notifying the FBI about their supicious behavior on a flight he was on a week prior to 9/11, and despite them all using the same credit card for everything, and despite people of Middle Eastern descent hijacking planes since the 1970s, 9/11 still happened.
Yeah, that's a lot of "despites", but each one of those is verifiable history, not something some dude made up for a rumble video.
Every building connection is different and they will not fail simultaneously by themselves. Even with heating, beams would slowly bend as the temperature increased, and the first one to fail would determine the direction of tilt. The result would be portions tipping to one side or the other, and eventually the structure would tip over.
To prevent this and have a building fall straight down at free fall speeds, cutting charges are used to cut the steel beams, and each floor has a timed delay. It is a carefully orchestrated blasting event that requires advance preparation.
Oswald did nothing wrong. I don't think he even killed the police officer Iike they said he did. He supposedly doing that made it easier for them to take him into custody since they had no evidence he killed JFK and he wasn't able to defend himself in court because they fucking murdered him on national TV.
Stored energy being what it is, are there any videos of collapsing buildings not under controlled demolition? Some contrast would be good since there appears to be none here.
It is an affront to every single person who lost their lives that day to claim that it was a controlled explosive that took these buildings down. I know people who saw the planes hit and saw people jumping from these buildings to their death that day.
Steel weakens. Especially. when mixed with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel. And, well, Gravity at work here.
If it were a true government conspiracy, why on a work day? Why send hundreds of fire fighters and NYPD to their death? Why spend BILLIONS rebuilding? It makes zero sense.
I think I see where you're going, but I can think of two reasons off the top of my head: 1) our government / CIA had nefarious things they wanted to do with the money and didn't want anyone to know about it nor be able to follow where the money went. Not the top of the pyramid, but the higher levels simply wanting more. 2) if you want more tax income (control), you steal people's money and force them to borrow even more.
I had a third reason in my head, but lost it.
The thing is, we have to remember that these people truly are evil and sedicious. The normal human has love and empathy and trust in their hearts. These people are not like that. Whatever it takes to further their control, they will do. We may not have the ability to understand nor imagine the depths they would go or the things they would do. They take pleasure in our suffering and struggles.
The fact they had either positioned the control explosive devises the week before, or they had massive explosive experts on sight on said day, is testament, to the fact, these buildings all had control explosive devises installed weeks before the actual hoax was executed, and the American people bought into the ideal that the highly toxic thermic found on the steel structures of the building, was a mere coincidence....
It takes longer than a day to install implosion devices, and the fact that everyone who watched the implosion of building 7 on live TV, during the 5:00pm time frame of the news on said day, would assume that the building imploded like a controlled demolition that they use to bring down large buildi ngs under controlled implosion devises. let's stop acting like complete and utter morons, for the sake of humanity, and the people who are aware the government executed these building collapses.
I was 11 when we were gathered in the library to watch this unfold on those TV carts. Most of us boys didn't understand why the buildings fell straight down, and we were thanking God they didn't lean over, not once. In a time of crisis like that, everyone runs off emotions and logic disappears. Just like the jfk killing. Logic tells you that Oswald wasn't the lone shooter. But emotions are powerful. For 60 years, boomers believed Oswald was a lone gun man. I highly doubt Oswald pulled a trigger that day.
Which direction does gravity work again? I never took physics in high school, but it mostly acts sideways, right? No? Straight down? Oh. hmm.
Well surely we design buildings to be just as strong laterally as vertically, so that they can stay intact as they fall over, right? No? Just enough rigidity to survive wind loads?
How many floors were above where the plane hit? You tell me the weight of those floors cause the entire structure to collapse on itself, and not lean even just slightly towards the weakened areas? You've clearly never built anything in your life. Go stack a hundred bricks in the air, 2x2, and take one out on 75% up.. I bet it doesn't fall straight down.
Interesting experiment. Now stack millions of bricks over a one-acre footprint, and see if you can tip it over.
Even better, try melting steel with jet fuel.
Even better, ever try heating up steel that is all bolted together and interconnected with a fire? Difficult to say the least. All that steel acts as a heat sink and just continuously draws the heat away. Is basic thermodynamics. What about the large puddles of molten steel in the basements? I never hear these progressive pancake collapsers mention that? Where did that molten steel come from? Not from a fucking kerosene induced office fire. I remember seeing one of the firefighters commenting about how they found almost nothing recognizable when they were digging through the rubble, nothing. Everything was absolutely fucking pulverized.
Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that. I’ve heard them say that it was the remains of the aluminum facade of the building that that evil jet fuel MELTED.
Scale is a bitch.
There is a guy above who doesn't understand that bricks are perfectly rigid and indestructible at the scale of 100 bricks, but would turn to flowing sand at the scale of a 1300 foot building.
You are attempting to apply your experience with human scale fires to a scale beyond your imagination. Each building weighed a half million tons (plus another half million tons of foundation). Each floor of each building had an acre of rentable space, plus non-rentable areas. The "core" of each building was approximately the same size as the lot that my house is built on.
Every welder knows that it is easy to heat part of a large metal object before it can move the heat away. The local thickness is very important, but beyond a relatively small size, the overall size no longer matters. The limiting factor is the cross sectional area between the hot area and the cold area.
I called it a chimney/kiln for good reasons. We've known for thousands of years that a tall chimney with lots of mass is an excellent low tech way to maximize the heating of metal via carbon or hydrocarbon fuel.
Welders use acetylene and oxygen, not kerosene. Light a fire under a steel structure and see what happens. Also, people have this misconception on how these buildings were built. Most of elevators didn’t go top to bottom, uninterrupted. There were a few service elevators that did but all elevator shafts have fire rated walls. Theoretically those shafts could have been feeding a fire on the upper floors but that’s not going to cause the catastrophic failure that we saw. They use fire rated everything when they build these kinds of buildings, fire rated doors, fire rated walls. At worst, you are going to have isolated pockets of fire. The firefighters that arrived on the scene confirmed that and said that the fires were minor and isolated. I’ll take their word for it. Dry wall doesn’t burn, ceiling tiles don’t burn, metal doesn’t burn, concrete doesn’t burn. The stuff that was burning was the fuel, the carpet, furniture, paper. None of that stuff was associated with the core which is 47 steel box columns that were 4” thick on the lower floors of the building. Not bricks, 4” steel. There were no continuous shafts from top to bottom in that building. They take the chimney effect into account when they design these things.
Bricks, we aren’t talking about bricks.
3% of bridge failures in the United States are caused by diesel tanker crashes on those bridges.
https://www.structuremag.org/?p=13207
The ironic part of the fact this argument is still part of your lexicon is that within six months of 9/11, a diesel tanker fire dropped a bridge in the Northwest. You'd think that would have ended that argument, but I guess some people are stubbornly blind.
Are you going to mention all the high rise buildings that went up in flames that didn’t collapse? Yeah, I know they weren’t hit by planes, neither were the bridges. Comparing bridges to buildings is a little disingenuous anyway, completely different design. Plus, when the towers fell, they were turning to dust and exploding outwards, negating the progressive collapse theory. Also, the steel in the buildings was progressively thicker and stronger as it neared ground level. We’ve all seen pictures of the buildings immediately after collapse and ….the ground and the surrounding area is covered in debris that was being thrown outward the entire time the building was collapsing. What I didn’t see is a big stack of debris that would should have been a few hundred feet high comprised of probably 80-90 floors, stacked up on top of each other. Everything was pulverized.
The fires weren't hot enough to melt any steel. They were hot enough to weaken it to 10% of its room-temperature strength.
The idiots always reply with the pics on the ground of cleanly cut steel beams, clueless as to the fact they were cut by recovery workers with torches/lances.
What was the strength loss of the steel at WTC7?
Did all the steel lose 10% of it's strength?
Isn't every single building in this country designed to withstand loads or pressures well above it's actual capacities? A 50 ton crane DOES NOT fail if you lift something that weights 51 tons. It fails at a much larger weight. A sling/strap can hold much more than it's designated capacity. Steel is no different.
You're telling me that a measly 10% loss in strength is what caused the building to freefall? That should scare everyone to never go into a skyscraper or an airplane or elevator or stadium.
Why do you believe the establishment view? Are you retarded?
Try to read my comment more carefully. I said: "weaken it to 10% of its room-temperature strength".
This is not equivalent to saying a "measly 10% loss in strength."
Weaken to 10% strength means a 90% reduction in strength, not a 10% reduction.
Here are temperature/yield curve for various steels.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5470/8756347728_d288d2b9c8_z.jpg
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1353/temperature-strength-metals.png
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ana-Espinos/publication/281580209/figure/fig3/AS:667898276241409@1536250766059/Reduction-of-yield-strength-with-temperature-for-different-steel-grades.png
If you want, you can find the exact type of steel used in these buildings and look up the exact curve for that type of steel, but you'll see the same basic S-shape.
For thousands of years, blacksmiths have used the heat of carbon fuel to get iron-bearing metals red hot, at which point they are weak enough to be shaped. To obtain those temperatures, they used muscle power to feed air in, but only because they couldn't build 1000 foot tall chimney/kilns.
The weight had been on those floors for the prior 25 years. Fire doesn't make things heavier.
The floors were able to support a shock load of 6 floors above it. They were shock-loaded with 11 plus a massive antenna. Simple math. And it absolutey did lean over on the way down and spray debris over a huge area.
It was a controlled demolition, and everyone knows it. We know it because you cannot say that publicly without being ostracized.
Just like you couldn't say ivermectin was a good medicine to use. Just like you can't say Biden didn't get 81m votes. Just like you can't say dying suddenly is a side effect of the jab. Just like you can't say the Nazis didn't kill 6 million Jews.
But you can say the earth is flat.
That's where you're wrong. It's not hard to design a building to collapse into it's footprint the same way the frames on cars are designed to crumple while dropping the engine straight down. In the case of cars, it happens regardless of the angle of impact on the front end, just like you can design floors to fall directly down. It's just a matter of where you put the weaker parts of the structure.
Ahh, so the controlled demolition companies can just close up shop.
There's a reason why the controlled demolition crews can detonate a building with just a few charges on just one or two floors. The rest of the floors do what they're supposed to do, by design. You have to kick the can before it can roll down the road.
Think about it like this. You're building a building in the middle of a bunch of other buildings. You don't honestly think that when you're designing a building in the middle of a bunch of other buildings, you aren't going to consider what happens if there's a structural failure?
You need to study the processes and procedures a little better concerning what’s involved with prepping a building for a controlled demolition. Yes they weaken the lower floors but there is explosives in various places, not just the lower floors. I’m sure every building is different but if you watch some videos of controlled demolitions you will see this.
There's a reason you haven't used the internet to reveal just how full of shit that comment is. It's just not a good one.
Well, I guess all those companies that bring down buildings for living can just close up shop then. No need to compromise the building’s foundation and lower floors and the entire structure in a symmetrical manner to ensure that the building falls straight down instead of falling over and making a big ol mess of everything else. Maybe they could just dynamite the the supporting columns about a 1/4 of the way down and have the building turn itself into dust. They could save a shitload of money on cutting torches, explosives, detonation cord, manpower, electronics to run it all. Hell of an idea. Maybe we could check with some experts that actually do that shit for a living and see what they think?
You do know that the collapses of the WTC towers damaged buildings for several blocks around, right? WTC buildings 5, 6 and 7 got fucked up by falling debris, as did the next building across the street from WTC 7 (even more distant from the towers).
They fell "mostly" straight down because that's how gravity works , but they weren't a clean or safe demolition by any stretch.
Yeah, alot of stuff was damaged in the surrounding areas, because the building was being exploded from the inside out. Have you watched the collapses recently? They didn't fall straight down like wtc7, they exploded from the top down(from the point of impact) and as they fell they continually ejected debris, concrete and steel in all directions, almost peeling a banana. The progressive collapse theory says that all the weight of the upper floors caused the rest of the building to pancake. I didn’t see any pancaking going on, just total disintegration of everything. Plus, all the steel on the lower half of the building was considerably thicker than the upper floors. As the upper floors started to drop, (above impact)they turned to dust also. I find it hard to believe that the dustification of the upper floors contributed to the total destruction of the lower floors, especially the lower 40 or 50 floors. All that was left was material ejected in all directions. And underground fires that burned for weeks afterwards. Once they got to the bottom, molten steel. How does that happen? Pools of molten steel, which is some of the most damning evidence that we are being lied to.
You're acting like he said it pulled a Biden and fell up, no shit gravity pulls down. If you understand anything about stress points and add in human error in construction you figure out why controlled demolitions are a thing.
If you have a tall ass tree you want to take down that's right next to your house, you hire someone to take it down correctly so it doesn't fall on your house.
Every year on this day, this site, and the internet in general, fills up with idiotic posts like this. Virtually all buildings fall essentially straight down. It isn't a conspiracy, it isn't a mystery, it isn't controlled demolition. It is gravity. Gravity pulls buildings down, and very few of them have the lateral strength to do anything else.
You're much better telling them that despite CARNIVORE being deployed to the FBI in 1997, and despite being notified by the flight school that 20+ foreign nationals were wanting to learn how to only fly a 747, and despite James Woods notifying the FBI about their supicious behavior on a flight he was on a week prior to 9/11, and despite them all using the same credit card for everything, and despite people of Middle Eastern descent hijacking planes since the 1970s, 9/11 still happened.
Yeah, that's a lot of "despites", but each one of those is verifiable history, not something some dude made up for a rumble video.
No the Warren Commission convinced me otherwise. Not releasing the info for 50 years was a huge red flag.
Every building connection is different and they will not fail simultaneously by themselves. Even with heating, beams would slowly bend as the temperature increased, and the first one to fail would determine the direction of tilt. The result would be portions tipping to one side or the other, and eventually the structure would tip over.
To prevent this and have a building fall straight down at free fall speeds, cutting charges are used to cut the steel beams, and each floor has a timed delay. It is a carefully orchestrated blasting event that requires advance preparation.
Oswald did nothing wrong. I don't think he even killed the police officer Iike they said he did. He supposedly doing that made it easier for them to take him into custody since they had no evidence he killed JFK and he wasn't able to defend himself in court because they fucking murdered him on national TV.
Stored energy being what it is, are there any videos of collapsing buildings not under controlled demolition? Some contrast would be good since there appears to be none here.
They are on YouTube. Pretty easy to find if you really want to know.
It is an affront to every single person who lost their lives that day to claim that it was a controlled explosive that took these buildings down. I know people who saw the planes hit and saw people jumping from these buildings to their death that day.
Steel weakens. Especially. when mixed with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel. And, well, Gravity at work here.
If it were a true government conspiracy, why on a work day? Why send hundreds of fire fighters and NYPD to their death? Why spend BILLIONS rebuilding? It makes zero sense.
They stole TRILLIONS. What do they care about BILLIONS, especially when they can stoke hatred and retaliation with those billions?
And how did they steal "trillions?"
From the vaults in the "basement" of the Twin Towers and from the secured areas of the Pentagon. 9/11 was a coverup of a theft, primarily.
Why do “they” need to steal trillions when “they” can just print it?
I think I see where you're going, but I can think of two reasons off the top of my head: 1) our government / CIA had nefarious things they wanted to do with the money and didn't want anyone to know about it nor be able to follow where the money went. Not the top of the pyramid, but the higher levels simply wanting more. 2) if you want more tax income (control), you steal people's money and force them to borrow even more.
I had a third reason in my head, but lost it.
The thing is, we have to remember that these people truly are evil and sedicious. The normal human has love and empathy and trust in their hearts. These people are not like that. Whatever it takes to further their control, they will do. We may not have the ability to understand nor imagine the depths they would go or the things they would do. They take pleasure in our suffering and struggles.
They don't care about you.
Safe and effective! They just killed thousands with a bioweapon and you still don't get this.
The fact they had either positioned the control explosive devises the week before, or they had massive explosive experts on sight on said day, is testament, to the fact, these buildings all had control explosive devises installed weeks before the actual hoax was executed, and the American people bought into the ideal that the highly toxic thermic found on the steel structures of the building, was a mere coincidence....
There were explosives experts on site, that day? Really? Do you have a link or source i can run down? Please? Thank you.
It takes longer than a day to install implosion devices, and the fact that everyone who watched the implosion of building 7 on live TV, during the 5:00pm time frame of the news on said day, would assume that the building imploded like a controlled demolition that they use to bring down large buildi ngs under controlled implosion devises. let's stop acting like complete and utter morons, for the sake of humanity, and the people who are aware the government executed these building collapses.
Why would you imply that anyone thinks the bad actors only had a single day?
There have now been far more people killed by the toxic dust than actually on 9/11.
More FDNY and NYPD have been killed due to 9/11 dust syndrome than on 9/11!
They should be added to the official death toll.
More feds spewing the bullshit lie that government is all powerful so you should do nothing.
“Buildings fall down. Therefore WTC 7 was a controlled detonation.”
/QED