Why Building Seven is the best evidence we have

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndrewLoweWatson
  • Start date Start date
A

AndrewLoweWatson

Guest
The official story, that WTC7 collapsed as a result of damage from falling debris, has one huge logical flaw in it. Or, not a flaw maybe, but an admission of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. For how could a 'pancake collapse' of a building falling under its own weight be responsible for ejecting debris hundreds of feet outwardswith a force capable of making a huge '20 storey hole' in the South side of another structure - without the use of explosive charges?
 
ALHOUGH I remain firmly convinced that the North and South towers were blown up by pre-positioned explosives, not because this or that Professor or structural engineer says so, but because I stood there in front of the telly in my London apartment one sunny day in September and watched two buildings come down much, much too fast.

If you disagree I won't call it bullshit, but I will wonder how you manage to ignore the evidence of your eyes.
 
And I think it more than possible that they were primed with charges when they were built, though I have no way of knowing it it could be true. Just a hunch.
 
AndrewLoweWatson said...
And I think it more than possible that they were primed with charges when they were built, though I have no way of knowing it it could be true. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

yeah that crossed my mind as well
 
AndrewLoweWatson said:
And I think it more than possible that they were primed with charges when they were built, though I have no way of knowing it it could be true. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...

If that were true, the definition of "planning ahead" would drastically be changed. hehe

But seriously, in the weekend before 9/11 there were all sorts of security things and power downs goin on. And all the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. Keep in mind Marvin Bush, the Presidents brother, is part of the security company which has a contract with the WTC.
 
And that is why I don't dwell on that other random passing thought of the building being primed decades in advance for demolition.

The events leading up to 9/11 and the connections of all the people, plus a whole a lot of other anomalies and deductions, make it quite likely that it was done more or less as we suspect by Bush and his crew.

The exact details are not even all that important anymore, as far as I can tell. But I'd still like to know more about how 'they' did this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top