All of the buildings in the videos, with one exception, were controlled demolitions; but one was peculiar, and another was of importance due to the peculiar one.
Introducing the "Saloman Brothers Building", more popularly known as "World Trade Center Building 7":
Looks pretty well conclusive that it was deliberately demolished, doesn't it? Not according to the government. You see, this video was taken in New York City, on September 11th, 2001. Yes, 9/11.
What's the significance? The 9/11 Commission Report (web-search it if you don't know what it is) says it collapsed due to fire. Even though it is a modern, steel-structured building, used by the CIA, it is only the third such building to ever collapse due to fire; the first two were the Twin Towers.
Okay then, if they said it collapsed due to fire, by golly, it collapsed due to fire!
What about the last video in the aforementioned post?
Introducing the "Mandarin Hotel" of China:
Look at the fires of Building 7, then look at this fire. Big diff.
Why didn't the hotel implode into its own footprint like Building 7?
Now, "debunkers of the conspiracy theorists" would tell us that there was severe damage to WTC 7 due to the collapse of the Twin Towers, and that also caused its perfect implosion. They cite this chart:
Okay, yeah, WTC7 was in the zone, huh?
What about WTC6 on the chart? See it? That puppy must have just been obliterated!
Hmm. The building had WTC1 literally fall on it, but it didn't even collapse.
Hmm. Does this make me crazy?
22 comments:
Personally, I find it hard to believe that 9/11 was caused by the government. Granted, I haven't completely looked into it, but I just don't see how Bush, who had been in power for about six months at that point, could have orchestrated such a conspiracy in such a short space of time. Perhaps it was someone else, but like I said, I've never actually looked into it.
I do think, however, that the government used 9/11 to do the follow-up to that- the PATRIOT act, and then to go to war.
Never heard about WTC6 before, interesting.
(Buildings in combat zones etc don't fall straight down, do they? Parts fall off, facades remain, they collapse sideways, but they don't fall into their own footprint...until 9/11.)
Why it's almost as if you're suggesting there are flaws in the official story...BLASPHEMY!!! :D
Liberty, I know what you mean.
There is little evidence suggesting Bush was involved in anything further than propaganda during and after the attacks, in my opinion.
I would definitely say, though, that elements within the federal government were involved.
Would you say there is sufficient evidence to demand a second, independent investigation?
AdamS, I heard about WTC6 in Martial Law: 9/11.
Oh, I would prefer beheading to burning at the stake after the inquisition, BTW; of course, a hot steak is better than a cold chop.
I think an independent study would be good, to verify that all is above-board.
Then we are in agreement.
Who said Bush did it? The Clintons could have had a hand in it. After all, they were the ones leaving the White House and their party had been defeated in the election. The Reps won.
They may have had a hand in it to make Bush look bad.
Also, who says the terrorists couldn't have planted bombs in the buildings? They may have been bombed, but that doesn't mean the government did it.
(I still haven't watched the 2-3 hour videos, so I may be missing something)
Rebecca, evil is bi-partisan.
At the top, there is no left or right; two sides of the same coin.
I would suggest you watch the videos, as I am really crummy at explaining stuff like this.
It is well-worth the watch; this and another such documentary literally changed my entire perspective on American politics, and it strengthened my resolve for defending the Constitution.
You've got guts man. Standing up against the "patriotic americans" that like to believe everything Fox news and the Republican Party spew out is not something many people do without facing ridicule. My question, steel melts at 2500 degrees farenheight, in open air, Jet fuel burns at just under 600 degrees farenheight, and its max tempurature (when in use) is 1500 degrees farenheight. Tell me, how did the jet fuel, burning in open air, melt the support struts of the WTC? Some things just don't add up.
And to think camel-jockeys living in a cave riding in goat carts brought them down with airplanes (and there are countless theories on that, that I won't even go into) is totaly ludacris. I don't know who or what did it, but I DO know what was not possible to do it.
----*chop**chop**chop**chop**chop*____
uh oh...... "they" are coming after me....
Deo Vindice.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
RG
"At the top, there is no left or right; two sides of the same coin."
Amen to that!!
RG
Thank you, RM.
I admit I've been silent on this issue ever since I got this blog, until I recently realized that if I'm afraid to lose friends or followers over this subject, what goodness or truth can I be spreading?
Now I have no fear, just questions.
Thank you for your encouragements.
"Evil is bi-partisan."
Does that mean that if the Clintons had a hand in it, Bush did too?
And again, why couldn't the terrorists have put bombs in the buildings?
What I meant was, there is no left or right at the highest levels of government. The higher powers don't care about Republicans or Democrats, Bush family or Clinton family.
They are figureheads... puppets, if you will. These people would know more about yachts and caviar than about explosive detonators and sequences.
Political science has shown "(R) vs. (D)" to be a classic method of political "divide and conquer" tactics. While we're saying, "Vote Republican/Democrat," the real men in power merely use the two-party system to their advantage to push common goals.
One is not the opposite of the other, as both push for common goals.
As to the possibility of cavemen setting up professional-grade explosives with precision sequences within a building partially operated by the CIA, particularly by government-run emergency management offices, I find this unlikely.
However, if that is a question that you think should be asked, do you not then support a second, independent investigation?
To be clear, the official account of exactly what happened that day, the 9/11 Commission Report, does not state that there were explosives used, even though most of the wreckage was shipped to China, thus hindering any investigation.
Apparently, though, there were explosives. Thus, the report is flawed.
Who says the terrorists were cavemen? They may be from the Middle East, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have done their research when it comes to bombs.
So, you're contending that the terrorists successfully placed explosives in a CIA-controlled building in New York and achieved such a successful collapse sequence that the building fell perfectly symmetrically into its own footprint at free-fall speed without leaving behind a single trace of evidence for the 9/11 Commission to retrieve?
Hmm, they must not have been very thorough. Well, let's have an independent investigation to find out if that happened, shall we?
All in favor say, "Aye!"
Aye!
S3, it may not be scriptural but I believe any person who would of been part of such a scheme (not saying I believe it), would forgo the forgiveness of Christ as this is sub human to it's core. But then again a similar force as strong and as well funded as our military could be such a sub human group. How much is Soros worth?
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
~2Peter 3:9
That's why it's a good thing for many that He is Lord and I am not. Please excuse me while I get this log out of my eye. S3, keep posting and I'll keep reading.
LOL!
Amen and thank you, Rattler!
(At least I think it's you, I can't see past this telephone pole.)
"There is little evidence suggesting Bush was involved in anything further than propaganda during and after the attacks, in my opinion."
Um, so you're saying he had no idea what his co-workers and family were doing in the months, weeks, and days before 9/11? He also had a magical TV, which enabled him to see film of the first strike before it aired nationally. Weird. This is one on which I wouldn't bother to cite sources, because the evidences are everywhere and easily available to anyone truly interested in debunking the official conspiracy theory. It is, though, a non-partisan affair.
Well, I don't see any evidence that he planned or helped carry out anything beyond propaganda.
He certainly didn't "sit in the basement of the White House with an explosives plunger", which is what Chris Matthews likes to say in order to "debunk" the truth.
Post a Comment