and down it comes in a classic controlled demolition.
perfectly even and symmetrical at free fall speed
Anyone who says its fire damage is talking out of their arse.
Please show me all these buildings before or after 9/11 that have collapsed symmetrically due to fire at anywhere remotely near free fall if you disagree.
It would obviously have been too implausible for a highrise in an adjacent block to suddenly drop after the destruction of the north tower, especially as WTC 7 wasn't nearly completely engulfed in a debris cloud. Anyway, in its final report from this November NIST has now dropped years of speculation of huge (and unsubstantiated) damage and diesel fuel as contributors to the collapse. They now claim that failure of column 79 for any reason would have levelled the skyscraper. Horrible design!
I don't think it's a gay liberal thing to call 9/11 an inside job. It is just hysteria and lust for revenge on any pretext. A lot of the blather starts from white nationalist sites. (They're kind of big on lynch mobs, don't you know?) I'm left of John Edwards and think that WTC 7 fell due to impact and fires. But then, what would a veteran fire fighter know about that?
Good point, rjs87, although the "gay liberal" thing was unfortunate. Tower 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of Tower 1. Fires inside burned uncontrolled for 6 hours, possibly exacerbated by the diesel fuel in the basement and the diesel lines. On site witnesses assumed it would fall and that it was just a matter of time. There is no evidence of an intentional explosive demolition.
if this was a controlled demolition then why didn't they bring down the building just after the twin towers fell and the whole area was engulfed in a huge cloud of smoke....why would they do it after the smoke cleared and everyone could see. It's amazing how you gay liberals buy into this conspiracy shit.
not sure if the comment was against mine or if you buy into the theory. but either way yeah i shouldn't have said the "gay liberal" comment 9/11 isn't about liberal vs conservative but some people hate bush so much that's the only reason they believe the theory. it's rediculous!!
Why? There is some speculation about the collapse of that building. Apparently it wasnt severly damaged when the towers fell. Some hours after it, the structure neatly folds to rubble with no obvious reason at all. Experts found that puzzling, just read the internet about it.
evidence will be leaked during the 9 11 anniversary
anthrax, shanksville, pentagon, bldg 7, twin towers
ryanshaunkelly 6 months ago 2
Pull it!
and down it comes in a classic controlled demolition.
perfectly even and symmetrical at free fall speed
Anyone who says its fire damage is talking out of their arse.
Please show me all these buildings before or after 9/11 that have collapsed symmetrically due to fire at anywhere remotely near free fall if you disagree.
zenoist2 1 year ago 2
It would obviously have been too implausible for a highrise in an adjacent block to suddenly drop after the destruction of the north tower, especially as WTC 7 wasn't nearly completely engulfed in a debris cloud. Anyway, in its final report from this November NIST has now dropped years of speculation of huge (and unsubstantiated) damage and diesel fuel as contributors to the collapse. They now claim that failure of column 79 for any reason would have levelled the skyscraper. Horrible design!
Finnquirer 3 years ago
I don't think it's a gay liberal thing to call 9/11 an inside job. It is just hysteria and lust for revenge on any pretext. A lot of the blather starts from white nationalist sites. (They're kind of big on lynch mobs, don't you know?) I'm left of John Edwards and think that WTC 7 fell due to impact and fires. But then, what would a veteran fire fighter know about that?
leftysergeant 4 years ago
Good point, rjs87, although the "gay liberal" thing was unfortunate. Tower 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of Tower 1. Fires inside burned uncontrolled for 6 hours, possibly exacerbated by the diesel fuel in the basement and the diesel lines. On site witnesses assumed it would fall and that it was just a matter of time. There is no evidence of an intentional explosive demolition.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
"Tower 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of Tower 1"
that claim has been thoroughly debunked
QymLym 3 years ago 2
Well, NIST said the damage didn't contribute to the collapse, but who "thoroughly debunked" that it was heavily damaged?
PoetryHound 3 years ago
photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts prove it wasn't severely damaged.
QymLym 3 years ago 2
if this was a controlled demolition then why didn't they bring down the building just after the twin towers fell and the whole area was engulfed in a huge cloud of smoke....why would they do it after the smoke cleared and everyone could see. It's amazing how you gay liberals buy into this conspiracy shit.
rjs87 5 years ago
This has nothing to do about being gay or liberal - but being a total freaking idiot.
TheSeanba 5 years ago
not sure if the comment was against mine or if you buy into the theory. but either way yeah i shouldn't have said the "gay liberal" comment 9/11 isn't about liberal vs conservative but some people hate bush so much that's the only reason they believe the theory. it's rediculous!!
rjs87 5 years ago
@rjs87 sure that would make it too obvious that it was controlled demolition
nb45001 9 months ago
thats a blatent demolition, people are just content to ignore the truth
gringolazlo 5 years ago
hahahaha i think he was
daanesh7 5 years ago
Aliens did it!
jbath81 5 years ago
Well if the internetz says so, than it must be true...
HerrHess 5 years ago
Why? There is some speculation about the collapse of that building. Apparently it wasnt severly damaged when the towers fell. Some hours after it, the structure neatly folds to rubble with no obvious reason at all. Experts found that puzzling, just read the internet about it.
wolfsheim80 5 years ago
I find it amazing and somehow mysterious how neatly the building collapses, almost as if somebody planned to fall like that. Insurance fraud?
wolfsheim80 5 years ago