Added: 5 years ago
From: thetruthwillout
Views: 322,123
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (3,684)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @johnnyblazeksgldp You're right. If people cannot put up what they believe to be the truth (or there opinion) then there is no point in the internet.

  • this video is the reason why sopa was created

  • This guy sounds like a fucking twat! Muslim lover

  • @tehhhhhd How often do buildings fall under their own weight? For no reason?... Of course he's not gonna have vids of "uncontroled" demolitions. No such thing!

  • If buildings had the potential to just fall down like that from a fire, like NIST says, who would ever go in one? If I thought this building could fall down on me for no apparent reason, do you think I would be sitting here calmly typing? duh. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but damn, right?

  • youtube/uFJa9WUy5QI

    now shut the fuck up.

  • Denial is normal acting b4 this horrible incident. Who could believe own country men did it. WTC7 is crystal clear evidence since it happened and an epic fail and was a turning point to this whole incident. We should understand those who hiding behind total denial. It asks much to admit it was an inside job. It's not wonder that when u show clear evidences they close their eyes and b4 even think "what if..." they call u with names and deny everything.

  • It would help to show some "uncontrolled demolitions" along with the controlled to have something to refer to. This is retarded, 10 different demolitions that look like another don't prove anything.

  • @tehhhhhd just search collapsing buildings. demolition = control collapse. or they use a wrecking ball... people probably don't remember wrecking balls and how much force it actually took to destroy a building by hitting it on it's side like that... i am not saying this proves anything, but it looks like every other demolition out there... no different.

  • You should have shown some non-controlled demolitions too...

  • @zigginh0

    i was just about to say that, how would a non or un-controlled demolition look? i think the same

  • @zigginh0 /watch?v=uKeENdyIluI , and there is no such thing as a "non-controlled demolition" part of demolition = controlling it... there are videos of collapsing buildings though...

  • i mean it could becontrolled because when something collapses it doesnt fall that fast but if it was controlled they would have to pack alot of fire power into that 11 was not a controlled demoiltion they tries to te terrorist but the plane was real a conspiracy is that the illuminati hit it so that they can have an exuse that the terrorist hit it so they can fight in m east 4 oil 4 the nwo order our marines would never fight against us remember the ILLUMINATI HAS ONLY BUT 1 EYE TO SPARE

  • Funny to see that a couple of simple arguments get ignored every time.It does not matter.Go watch "extreme prejudice".Then you understand why it happened and it fit all together.Exposing the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation.

  • No evidence for controlled demolition was found its all conspiracy bullshit. The walls would have to be packed with explosives and would have taken months to set up, people would have noticed... Tower 7 fell because the structure became weak from the fires that broke out on various floors, It was left unattended due to Fire Services attending to the twin towers

  • Comment removed

  • @DanSVTO3 According to NIST,collum 97 on lvl 12 caused the collapse.Let's say that that one did,then that particulary collumn will only cause a partely collapse,if you look close into it.Not a total collapse.And also woudn't fall the way it did.Never did a scyscraper fall through fire,there are indeed known cases that were burning more severe and longer.And this particulary fire that supposedly started it was already out 2 hours before as well.....

  • @thepuzzleandsolution Why did it "have to be" hit by a plane to collapse? The building was an inferno and abandoned by all first responders. All that fire will eventually weaken the steel to the point of failure if you just let it burn and that's what happened. It's not being blind, it's fucking common sense. Well... except on all these dumb, shit stained youtube conspiracy videos...

  • @DanSVT03 Inferno? haha lol

  • @XxRushx There you go, downplay an uncontrolled fire allowed to grow as big as it wants to inside a fully operational 47 story sky scraper.

    Enough of your bullshit, you've got stuff to do. Get those fucking pizzas delivered!

  • IS this the honey badger guy?????????

  • No plane struck building seven. It had fires burning on a few floors that it was designed to easily withstand. One of the leading demolition experts in Europe took one look at the footage and said it was without question a controlled demolition. 1200 architectural specialists have risked their reputation to campaign for the truth on this specific issue. Building seven is the smoking gun. they did this right out in the open and the people believed whatever they were told.

  • they where evacuated at 11:52 if i am right, they said pull it at around 5 in the veneing (just moments before the collapse) nothing the government says is true!

  • i mean if you're gonna blow up you're own towers atleast make it look real god the goverment is really fucking reatrded these days

  • Furthermore,you keep going on audio recordings or lack of evidence,but you fail to see the lack of evidence and contradictions from the official report as well.So far,your arguments aren't very strong either.Architects and engineers alike around the world question the official report and they have every right too.This need to be invastigated properly and that didn't happen.Not by a longshot.

  • The official report state that office fire (lol) took down the building,not fuel fires or explosives.There were cases in other scyscrapers that were burning way longer and intenser and never did that caused an collapse of one.And again,the fire that supposedly caused the collapse was out an hour before.It simple could not have been caused by fire.That all of the collums would brake at the same time and fell the way id did poitns to a controlled demolition.

  • Agreed.The other towers are not even relevant at this point.WTC 7 is the smoking gun.As said,the fires gone out an hour before in the area according to NIST cause the collapse.It came down symethically,with the first 30 M in free fall,in the classic way of a controlled demolition.All of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.And it minimizes damage to surrounding structures.C,mon.

  • That is not true.There are videorecordings that captured the sound of explosions as well.Cops,firemen,witnessess..­.They all tell the same thing.That they heard loud explosions.If not anything else,i'm going to make a sandwich now :)

  • The "explosives" theory is a joke. If 9/11 was a controlled demolition then it would have been by far the biggest controlled demolition that mankind has ever done. A controlled demolition of a mere 10 story office building is so loud that it can be clearly heard 5 miles away. And yet not one camera pointed at the WTC captured the slightest bit of sound from explosives going off. Nice try, conspiracy cheerleaders. Go back to making sandwiches at Quiznos where you belong.

  • There was asked for an investigation that follows national standards andthere is vitually not excuse to NOTt test for it.If they test for explosions back in 1993,why not now? NIST simply stated they did not found any evidence for explosions.They asked them "Did you look?" "No,we did not look for explosions or residue of explosions". Go figure.They are lying and they know it.

  • It is unscientific,because the evidence/circumstances for it is in fact overwelming,and therefore alone worth investigating for.Because they simply ignore conclusions that could be drawn from the evidence.A hypothesis for the most likely,not the least valid.They didn't even look.Instead they state conclusions that are either false or incorrect.All about the world question this, and not without reason.If all these witnesses heard explosions,why did they not look for it?

  • So basically it's the other way around.The official report state conclusions that are basically no evidence for and the most likely scenario get ignored,because they don't expect (!) to find any evidence for explosions and therefore no point in looking.That is probaly the most unscientific thing you can do.And you can't do science when all the evidence is taken away,a month later before the FEMA investigaters got there.

  • @wahooka123 How is that unscientific? If someone said deer antlers took out the towers would you waste time/ money/ resources trying to search for them? No...You can't waste time/ resources/ money trying to satisfy the curiosity of paranoid conspiracy theorists based of theories that have no scientific backing in the first place. Many samples were taken anyway and nobody found any traces of explosives being used.

  • Video recordings of firemen and eyewitnessess clearly speaks otherwise."We have to bring it down" "the building is about to blow up,move it back" "Keep your eyes on that building,it's coming down." Many eyewitnesses say that they clearly heard explosions.Even reporters recognized it as a controlled demolition.The NIST report has many faults and contradictions with reality.I mean,c,mon.And yeah,you can't prove anything cause they removed all the evidence,wich is a criminal act on itself.

  • There's a reason why this video has no audio.

    Watch this video and tell me how these demolitions differ from the collapse of WTC7. Hint: it has something to do with SOUND! watch?v=eem7d58gjno&feature=re­lated

  • Wow, shit, really? When a large building collapses, there's dust at the base? When my pile of uni books collapses there's dust you nutcase. I'd like to point out that in all your controlled demolitions, the floor with the explosives in it crumples first and makes a visible wave pattern in the building. The floors doing most of the falling/crushing in the WTC do NOT. All you have is "Shit guys, there was dust and debris, its a fucking conspiracy!"

  • @OpinionatedAussie actually they have said that they purposefully pulled (demolition term for control demolished) building 7 you dumbass, only buildings 1 and 2 are attacked

  • Comment removed

  • @johnshepherd2011 Actually, only John Kerry said that it was a controlled demolition and was completely shut down by a total lack of evidence and Larry Silverstein, the person whom I assume you're relying on for your assertion, said he used the word pull to mean pull the firemen out of the building. Whether or not this is true, it's the official statement and position, countless inquiries have not shown otherwise and you truthers are all bloody conspiracy theorists. Dumbass.

  • @OpinionatedAussie Part 1 Actually he said pull IT!(the building)not pull THEM out(the firemen) like you are applying he said.Whatch the video interview with Silverstein its on youtube as you should know."PULL IT" used by demolition teams all over the world basicly..meaning taking down a building.Question who planted those explosives? and do you think that that is done in just a few hours? NO! It takes days maybe weeks! In other words THIS WAS PLANNED and planes was used to cover up that fact..

  • @OpinionatedAussie Part 2 ..that the building was rigged with explosives.Listen to what the 1st responders say,fire fighters etc. they all say that it was bombs going off in the buildings.Are they all lying??? What about those survivors that was in the basement/garage that said bombs exploded in the basement are they lying? why would they lie? what would they gain by lying?

  • @MegaCL2011 There are plenty of realistic reasons for why people heard "explosions" in the buildings. They were all filled with mechanical equipment that can and will explode if damaged or on fire, so that's no big supprise to me. If the source of the explosions came from demolition charges, then the sounds would have been extremely audiable for miles. Not one single camera pointed at ground zero captured the sound of explosives going off on 9/11.

  • @DanSVT03 Good arguement,but what about building 7 then? Everybody allways avoid talking about building 7.I dont buy the storie that a couple of small fires(documented) in a few offices would bring down a whole building,do you?? That building was brought down in controlled fashion witch is admitted by Silverstein himself on video by saying he gave the order of pulling the building(WTC 7)And it takes days maybe weeks to prepare a building for demolition. Planned??

  • @MegaCL2011 A common tactic for "truthers" is to downplay the size of the fires in WTC 7. The fires in WTC 7 were not "a couple of small fires" by any means. They were much larger and much more intense than "truth seekers" say, per witnesses of the NYFD and NYPD who both predicted the building would eventually collapse. The fires burned for 8 hours completely out of control. That's more than enough to cause a building to collapse especially if you effect critical structural areas.

  • @MegaCL2011 And the same case with WTC 1&2 holds for WTC 7. You say building 7 was brought down in a "controlled fashon." Ok, well how come there wasn't any audio recorded of those explosions going off either? How come there isn't one single bit of evidence that explosives were used on 9/11 other than the notion of it "looked like" a controlled demolition? How come the vast majority of engineers (including myself) don't believe any of this "truther" nonsense?

  • @DanSVT03 buildings just don't collapse like that without a controlled demolition

  • this is just one of the mere proof that the 9/11 was an initiative by the us government .i was watching a documentary on national geographic .they told that there used to be a huge gold vault under the wtc and just the day before 9/11 all the gold was shifted to another place.

  • lies

  • Occam's razor, “the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." CD? Yes, follow the money and reasons for doing it and you will have your answer. GWB and his crew are war criminals, Larry A. Silverstein --insurance fraud. These assholes are cooking up another shit storm. What do you think all those FEMA caskets liners are for, growing flowers? :]

  • The twin towers and building 7 were controlled demolition jobs.

  • 1 and 2 towers were NOT a controlled demolition

  • The area wich supposedly collapsed the building by fire according to the nist report has actually gone out an hour before! Also,nist never explained why wtc 7 fell the first 30 meters in free fall (they did admit it at least).This means there was no resistance whatsoever.It symmetrically fell,wereby all the 30 collums had to break at the same time,in one motion.Wich is impossible.Even demolition experts say it is a classic example of a controlled demolition.Center of the core/penthouse area,etc.

  • That was not a controlled demolition. The other side of the building (the side facing the towers) was gouged open and was like a raging inferno for 3 hours. The fire chief said that the building was going to collapse and then it did. How did they rig that building and towers 1 and 2 with no body noticing?

  • @ grafikfeat I think you misunderstood me.Focusing on wtc 7,the most likely scenario was a controlled demolition.I was merely replying to an argument before,that in the case they did gave the order to pull wtc 7,they could not have done that the same day,unless it was planned and already there.Prepering for a controlled demolition normally takes weeks,not a few hours,and it is also hard for a team to place them when a building is on fire.So that argument will be a contradiction on itself.

  • @wahooka123 Yes... and they had weeks to set them was what I was saying. Sorry.

  • Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.So,even when they admit they pulled the bulding down,they could not have done that the same day.(it collapsed totally at about 5:20 p.m. on the evening of September 11th) Especially not with anybody noticing that.Unless it was already there? One way or another,it makes no sense at all.

  • @wahooka123 Do you know the Towers were completely closed on weekends in July and August of 2001.

    Do you even understand controlled demolition? Charges designed to cut steel are placed on load bearing columns. How can you say it takes considerable time? They don't pull a building down. They cut the legs out from underneath it. That's what the term pull it means. Pull the legs out from under it... Or Drop it. All three buildings fell into their own foot print. Fire did not drop them. Demolition.

  • @grafikfeat Jesus, you are such a dumbass. Get your head out of your ass buddy, and wake the fuck up, Enough with the Pseudo-intelligent bullshit

  • @ElectricTurkey1 Offer something intelligent ok? Go sit back down asshole.

  • I dont remember ever seeing smoke from a fire on building 7 either but I may be mistaken who knows. It just seems like it wouldn't have happened the way it did either...

  • Let me see if I have this straight: This conspiracy, perpetrated by George Bush, also had the complicity of John Kerry, of the opposing Democratic Party, who ran against Bush. I see. I guess after the two 110 story buildings were demolished, they saw that maybe people weren't pissed off enough, and decided to throw in a 47-story one for good measure? How diabolical!

  • i completely forgot about building 7. to all the victims i am sorry and we need justice for yall.( r.i.p to my wonderful cousin on flight 11)

  • Silverstein admitted they pulled the building then John Kerry when asked confirmed just that. John carry when asked about Silverstein's decision to demolish the building:

    John Kerry: "I do know that that wall [I do remember] was in danger and I think they made a decision based on the danger [that it had destroying other things] that they did it in a controlled fashion".

    Link to the video of Kerry confirming a controlled demolition of building 7:

    /watch?v=rJsJjYwYOAA&feature=r­elated

  • Everybody knows that metal columns inside buildings get pulverised simultaneously

  • Wow you people who believe it was a controlled demoltion are really dumb. How else would a building fall? Gravity pulls downward, not to the side, if I drop a 10lb weight, hell even a 2lb weight, its going to go straight down.

  • @Username4453 And you think a precision fall straight down make sense as a natural occurrence? Why would one side not start to fall faster than the other because of more weight being on that side? Let me ask you this. Following your logic, you don't need much skill to do a professional demolition. If buildings naturally fall straight down, then all you need is training in explosives. Just light it and boom the building comes straight down. No need to worry about it falling sideways or anything.

  • everyone knows buildings are suppose to fall over like trees!!!!

  • @SonsOfLiberty65 Yeah everyone know buildings and trees are alike, I've seen a tree collapse in on itself when it was cut across the trunk *sarcasm*.

  • 9-11 explained in 3 easy steps.

    1. Jews realize world economy unraveling due to usurous monetary policy means USA golem will no longer be able to protect Jews.

    2a. Jews stage false flag event to preemptively force regime change, depopulate and destabilize all local threats in Middle East before USA breaks.

    2b. Jews force diversity in White countries to thwart future nationalism caused by economic collapse.

    3. Shlep downtown for bagel and lox.

  • 1 and 2 towers where also controlled demolition 

  • @barthoedemaker /watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=c­olike

    watch and you will be amazed. you're theory has no proof or grounding. this shows how it wasn't controlled. first off if it was controlled you would hear explosions. none were heard, only floors smashing into other floors and glass.

  • All my comments on mainstream media about 9/11 inside job, and other people's ones have been all removed.. funny huh? Open the website of murdered Danny Jowenko who's interview is here on Youtube... his last name and then dot com. The intro will show how building 7 was done.

  • /watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

  • im no conspiracy theorist but im no asshole either..i would have understood if the fires burned for days at high intensity and a partial collapse occured,this buildings weight was spread out over a bigger area cos of its rectangular shape so the domino collapse from fire seems so damn,,we impossible..hard to look at the vid clip and not think domolition..

  • anybody who still believes building 7 collapsed from invisible fires is simply a sheeple moron.

  • The 911 report doesn't mention building 7 once. They couldn't even pretend to explain it.

  • Didn't the secret service have their biggest field office there? Could a detonation be a safety precaution incase the building and state secrets within were compromised?

  • @coolbritannia1979 thats a very good observation !

  • @whitaker4973 i said it was controlled demolition and if you dont see that your blind, and what i mean that it should with stand it, if a building collapses neer building 7 shouldnt eefect it only if building 7 its self is detonated with explosives obviously it going to collapse

  • @TheBillynab you comment is contradictory, your saying it's not controlled demolition but it should with stand this? Wtf are u on about

  • Yes, let's supervise an attack from the protected 23rd floor and hope none of the floors below get taken out and that we all die. Idiot video for idiots.

  • @coolbritannia1979 zogbot trolls, patriotards and other assorted douchestains like yourself, all scared of a new investigation for their respective reasons. lol

  • @grasshopperjunction scared of a new investigation? you're deluded. you spend your life looking for "answers" to 9/11 because you just can't face the horrible truth. US foreign policy spurned a small band of terrorists into hijacking planes and spilling blood on US soil. true fact, Iraq has had far worse horrors unleashed upon it than we saw on 9/11. and that's heartbreaking, because watching 9/11 from my comfy couch thousands of miles away was already hard enough.

  • @coolbritannia1979 ....um...ok. So you saw that no plane crashed into this building right? And there was no "jet fuel" to "weaken the steel" to make the building collapse, (even though a fire has never brought down a steel framed building) but yet, it did, at freefall speed, into it's own footprint, and you STILL don't think that it was controlled demolition?? O0

    Not sure if serious....

  • When the U.S.M.C searched Saddam bin Ladden's Computer, they found this video in a folder named 'Porn'

  • lol, you can see the penthouse falling right into the middle of the building. It's a clear 100% controlled demo.

  • lol the 24th floor had a good view too, idiot video. Why the hell would one need to supervise a bombing? What would be the difference?

  • @chris518ny so what if the goverment owns it, doesnt mean they blow it and kill inocent people, and how the hell did they blow it up that quick, so obvious they knew it was going to happen, the us goverment is greedy for oil and wants world dominance, even if it has to wipe out the entire state. TRULEY YOU ARE A SHEEP.

  • you got to be blind not to realize that this is not controled demolshing, study physics. i lived threw the lebanese civil war and lebanese israeli war and seen buildings hit by missiles at the base of the building several times and didnt collapse this way, this is a new york building, as if it wouldnt resist such pressure. WAKE UP YOU SHEEP

  • @TheBillynab you got to be def..the cia and american government said it crytsal clear on tv that they destroyed building 7 to get rid of secret documents seing how the cia and other agencys had offices in the building, building 7 was government owned they can blow it up rebuild or color it pink, its there property,just shut the fuck up

  • cool story,bro.

  • building 7 falls faster than all of the controlled demolitions and it was supposed to be a terrorist who did it? fuck out of my face

  • I'd be willing to believe that any building knocked down in any way would produce a lot of dust and debris.

  • Every blind man sees that this was a controlled takedown.

    "Internal fires" my ass.

    The commission tried to fraud us all. They should be executed for lying to us.

  • Oh yeah, poor structural design made it want to collapse on the same special day 2 others met their fate to trained by the CIA hijackers. How smart.

  • ,,london reports unlikely collapse previous to unlikely collapse..."get 'er dun"...=/

  • the building went down after it was reported so yeah

  • @WildFan1985 <<< dissinfo government shill

  • building 7 report was made but the very people who did it.. same with the commission report and investigation on the towers.. its like a judge killing somebody then giving himself a verdict ... how can you trust or even believe anything theses books say when you know the government put them out there?

  • LOL YOU CRAZY PEOPLE ARE CRAZY

  • Folks just don't want to believe it. It's how religions were created over the millennium. Man sitting in a dark cave staring up at the night sky afraid to think they are alone in all that vastness... It's the same here... The refusal to to believe there are people willing to do this to their fellow countrymen.

    There are way too many coincidences here.

    Google Marvin Bush. (who?) See what his job was leading up to 9/11. And where it was.

    It's OK to be afraid. It's not OK to be complacent.

  • @grafikfeat Let's see. Marvin Bush was on the board of a company that had a contract to do some security work for the Port Authority Police Dept. So what?

    Marvin left that company's board a year before 9/11.

  • @PoetryHound I lived in NYC. Do your homework.

    Meanwhile... Enjoy your brand of koolaid. It's more bitter than mine.

  • Comment removed

  • @bagintree You Win. Hooray.

  • @bagintree Ha.

  • The conspiracy kooks are those who believe in miracles. Miracles are "events that defy the laws of nature". The government's explanation of the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7 required 3 laws of nature to be violated: Newton's 3rd law of motion, the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of momentum. Furthermore, the 19 kids with no combat experience ran rings around the $multi-trillion defense/security establishment, without challenge, for almost two whole hours. Kooks!

  • watch?v=nJ6_WBwgNuM

    it reminds you something?

  • #1- Planned controlled demolition would require convincing radical Muslims (known to al Qaida) to fly jumbo jets precisely into the exact areas necessary to work together with the pre-arranged positioning of dynamite sticks to bring the towers down...or # 2- jumbo jets slamming into the upper floors (which would be easier and more distructive than aiming for the lower floors) would result in a demolition-like effect. Gravity would be the final determining factor.

  • I feel sorry for the poor brain washed who still believe the government version of events.

  • The problem is not about building 7 collapsing without any reason,but its dust has covered the brains of the sheeple .

  • 171 people are sheep that listen to the Government.

  • @Yogotronx More sheep listen to fools making videos all over the internet. Think they have an agenda? Check out my profile and learn the truth

  • Rumor is Chuck Norris had a hand in it.

  • @ant4love oh fuck off with your patheic jokes this is serious shit you fucking retard

  • @ant4love ..

  • why are "thay" supervising the attack, it´s make no sense ??

  • 9/11 was'nt just about attacking Iraq, It was about planting the seed of hatred towards the entire middle east, so we can conduct many wars, not just one. We'll be at war for a very very long time over 9/11.

  • @dmoneytuttle Bingo!, and it worked well. "Terrorism is the best politic weapon. for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death" Adolf hitler."

  • This was no classic controlled demolition, of course they'll try to hide things, these people are extremely crafty. the zombie theory makes a lot of sense, that would make them like 90% of the population. Bet you dont believe in chem trails, gmo's, fixed elections, going to war without taking proper steps, wmd's, social security, bank failures,and all the other lies were fed. I'm sorry but there's no way that building would fall that way just by being hit with debri. Reason for war.

  • You show this video to a chicken ,and it'll say: 9/11 was INSIDE JOB...

    But unfortunatly you show this to million of so called HUMAN beings ,they will tell you...Oh government LOVES us ,government will never do a thing like this!!

    They won't even bother go and find out about GMO food or vaccines , water they drink or the CHEMTRAILED air they breath !

  • you could show this to ALOT of people, and they still would not believe for anything. Just crazy.

  • @dmoneytuttle Where is the river of detonation cords that can be seen if it was a classic controlled demolition? where are the multiple bright flashes from explosions that should be seen if if there actually any were explosives? Where are the squibs (REAL squibs) that should be seen on all demolitions? A job that big would take 6 months to prep, how did they do it with the employees inside, considering you have to strip a building bare to get to it's support? Were the workers zombies?

  • @NWODisinfoAgent You working for the gov.?CIA?What?

  • Comment removed

  • @NWODisinfoAgent they shut parts of the elevators down for SO called maintance, so well over 5-6 months, also did the same in towers 1 +2 :) oh and armed guards were present thoughout this period of time.

  • Jewish activist/toilet paper mogul Sol Weinbergwitz says: “It isn’t much of a leap to go from ‘I don’t buy the official 9/11 story’ to ‘Israel was involved with 9/11.’ That’s really what some of them think.” (Yep, that’s what some of them think.)

  • It's kinda like that Ted Bundy dude who killed all the coeds, The zhids won't admit their complicity until the last possible moment.

  • Waterboarding Larry Silverstein would save a lot of investigative work.

  • it was a controlled demolition because what building randomly colapses out of nowhere?

  • @kushsmokkeralt

    you are duped by your delusions, or just a trollbot

  • Comment removed

  • And here is the reason why the buildings were prepared for controlled demolition:

    youtube.com/watch?v=VCDELsbxFC­0