Alex Jones Tv: Washington Times Article Supports 9/11 Truth Facts About Building 7

Alex talks about a washington times article supporting what the 9/11 truth movement has been saying all along about the strange way building 7 came crashing down at near free fall speed when no plane hit it that day.
http://prisonplanet.tv/
http://www.infowars.com/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• alex
• jones
• tv
• news
• infowars.com
• endgame
• prison
• planet
• Tv
• obama
• deception
• martial
• law
• police
• state
• 9/11
• truth
• inside
• job
• terrorism
• osama
• bin
• laden
• debra
• medina
• texas
• governor
• 2010
• tea
• party
• glenn
• beck
• fox
• cnn

[RandyBful1]

9/11 was a false flag event. It's obvious to anyone who's able to think for him/herself. You sheeple who believe the government had nothing to do with it are the same ones who got the flu shot and eat GMOs!

[frankiebones01]

It's nice to know people are waking up.

[skitchem]

they have been trying ever since to cover it up, that's failing now as the main stream media have no credibility about the subject they get ignored. Word of mouth and alternative press is where this world gets its news, not from wanna be celebrities who talk shit on TV. its not journalism and it isn't truth, its as real as wwf wrestling and we all know how fake that is. bad teleprompter readers programed with propaganda and trash , they speak in wizard tongue, no 1 listens.

[skitchem]

larry Silverstein (the weazel) is a huge part of 9-11, what he did was simple, he instructed somebody to demolish a building he owned and then claimed a multi billion dollar insurance policy, someone rigged that building b4 9-11, alot of corporate people made billions from it. 1 day time will catch up with the individuals, the truth is known, it being suppressed thats all.

[skitchem]

No1 can hide the truth, you can suppress the truth but u can not hide it.

more than enough people know who were responsible, Silverstein let the truth slip when he siad " i told them to pull it" (demolish it ) So before hand, somehow building 7 was rigged with explosives, which means, their was prior knowledge of what was going to happen, silverstein is a part of this, if they can rig one building to Demolish why couldnt they rig 3.

[jugeen7]

alex jones = inside job (like 911). people are still sheeple. search for "hegelian dialectics" or erich hufschmid avout alex jones and his connection to zionism. He ist just another deceiver!!!

[Emsworker68]

@Emsworker68 Further moreFormicHiveQueen, since the fires were isolated, if they had caused a collapse it is impossible for the collapse to have happened in the mannor it did. Isolated sections would have gone. It would not have been straightdown as it did. If you say the one side had heavy damage, that side would have gave and the structure would fall that way. Not straight down. I have seen no video or photographic evidence of damage to WTC7. Only fires.

[Emsworker68]

@FormicHiveQueen quite a bonefire...it was a simple content fire. That is not a hot fire. If content fires were hot enough to collapse steel structures we firefighters would not be able to stand in them and put them out. The fires that day were isolated and only on a few floors.The fiefighters could have stood back and watched the fire go out naturally and that building should have stood.

[FormicHiveQueen]

@Emsworker68: Quit calling me a liar. Your "light damage" is from pictures of the north, east, and west sides of the building. WTC 7's southern side was torn to bits, and videos of the southern side reveal there was quite a bonfire going on. Again, watch dprjones' videos on the subject. WTC was FAR from undamaged.

[Emsworker68]

@FormicHiveQueen You commented that the other buildings were only lightly damaged and that is why they stood while 7 took the brunt of it. Have you even looked at the other buildings. Google WTC 5 and 6 and look at that light damage you speak of. Than look at WTC 7 numerious videos, especially of the one when it fell and where is the brunt of the damage you speak of because it shows an intact building with only content fires. You are not even trying to educate yourself but just spew the lies.

[FormicHiveQueen]

@Emsworker68: So just because there were buildings between 1 and 7, 7 shouldn't have taken damage? Do you have any concept of what the World Trade Center even looked like? WTC 7 was three or four times taller than WTC 5 and 6; there is no way that they could deflect very much of that debris from hitting it, despite what you seem to believe.

As for evidence, watch dprjones' videos on the subject.

[Emsworker68]

@FormicHiveQueen First off, WTC 7 was not next to WTC 1 or 2. WTC 6 was directly between WTC 1 and WTC 7. WTC 6 was heavily damaged and burned uncontrolled for hours, yet it stood. WTC 6 had a huge crater and yet stood! WTC 5 also the same thing. Huge damage and fire yet it too stood. I have seen no video evidence of damage to WTC 7. Just content fire to several floors. A content fire is not a hot fire. It should have stood.