wtc7 in freefall explained

watch

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• wtc 7
• 9/11
• lisa beamer

[WilliamAztech]

@HurburBurburThe problem is that something like 98% of "truthers" on the internet are lunatics and idiots, so they do a disservice to any validity that the serious branch may have. There are obvious mistakes and some "shady" things regarding the official version, but the majority of the "anti-government" people are creating unreasonable hypothesis that make the whole questioning thing sound like a retarded goofy ignorant nerdy thing.

[HurburBurbur]

@WilliamAztech PART 2:

One important factor is "The Truth Movement" - the serious branch of those questioning the events. The hardcore centre is driven by scientists, schoolars and important professional categories connected to 9/11 such as pilots, firefighters, military officers and others. What differentiates them from the others is the focus on verifiable facts and credible sources and more importantly only a demand for a new investigation. When the public awakens, it'll be hard to deny it.

[HurburBurbur]

@WilliamAztech PART 1: Well I agree that it's a long way to walk but though much evidence have been deliberately destroyed, some devastating forensics remains. You have nano-thermite and iron spheres in the dust. You have some metal exposed to very high temperatures. You have numerous witness accounts of molten metal which are substantiated by thermal photograps 5 days after with temperatures above the melting point of aliminium. On top of that you have all testimonies NIST blocked out.

[WilliamAztech]

@HurburBurbur I don't think there will ever be a neat closure to this subject. Especially since all evidence is long gone (material evidence). And, on one side you have corrupt politicians and greedy businessmen, on the other side you have a great number of lunatics and paranoids (no-plane theories, cgi planes, no terrorists, etc). It's like a debate of a crackhead with a schizophrenic.

[HurburBurbur]

@WilliamAztech

The subject was eventually settled. NIST had to admit freefall for 2.25 sec

/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=r­elated (part 1, move on therefrom)

For someone unfamiliar with this it may seem unsufficient. That's not the case. It means that for 2.25 sec the building falls without ANYTHING under it. The short time before this can be regarded as so called onset time, an unclean start. The end period which below freefall is due to the building's starting to touch ground. Case closed.

[WilliamAztech]

interesting

[why760nitro]

9-11 debunked here lookee here

watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

debunk this vid

earthboy