9/11 as an inside job is pretty straightforward to see , once you can persuade your eyes to look at the footage instead of being blinded by trauma.
The official idea is that the impact of the plane plus combustion of the jet fuel was enough to destroy the structural integrity of the towers. From that point gravity pulled them down to the …
9/11 as an inside job is pretty straightforward to see , once you can persuade your eyes to look at the footage instead of being blinded by trauma.
The official idea is that the impact of the plane plus combustion of the jet fuel was enough to destroy the structural integrity of the towers. From that point gravity pulled them down to the ground.
However the footage clearly shows debris going high into the sky, as opposed to dropping straight down the ground.
It looks like a giant firework. Not small bits of smoke, but vast amounts.
Ok thats normal in a controlled demololition, but displaced air shooting up is a very weak argument- think 3rd building falling the same way, free fall speed of collapse, pentagon office getting hit in the office currently investigating pentagon malfeasance. These are better arguments
All three buildings fell at near free fall speed, which can’t happen if each floor’s weight has to pound the support of the one below, and then the average speed of combined group of floors gets reduced each time a floor is added to the part that’s falling.
Many bits fall faster than gravity, change direction, go upwards, or fly out sideways damaging other buildings. So that's something other than gravity propelling these bits. Which can only have happened if propellents had been applied beforehand.
The idea that a small bit of damage near the top (relative to the size of the building) could cause the entire building to disintegrate, is absurd.
It's the brain numbing effect of the trauma that prevents it from being immediately obvious. On top of the dumbing down of our education and lived experiences.
I didn't really think very much about the world trade center narrative being completely unreasonable for years. The only thing that nagged at me was the Pentagon - because we had all seen the pictures of the Pentagon with a smallish hole and absolutely no sign of a plane except for small parts that could have been carried in.
The people that think the twin towers fell under controlled demolition are closer to the truth than those who think they collapsed under their own weight. WTC 7 certainly looks like a controlled demolition job.
WTC 1 and 2 were largely turned to dust. You can see that in closeups of some of the "wheatchex" falling, and in the remaining 65 or 70 story "spire" (core columns) that turns to dust before falling. What weapon did that, I don't know. Judy Wood waves her hands and says "directed energy weapons", but there is no known or even theorized directed energy weapon that could do that.
Other people say mini nukes took down the towers. I don't see that as being the only thing that could have been used, although it's possible it was part of the destruction sequence.
9/11 as an inside job is pretty straightforward to see , once you can persuade your eyes to look at the footage instead of being blinded by trauma.
The official idea is that the impact of the plane plus combustion of the jet fuel was enough to destroy the structural integrity of the towers. From that point gravity pulled them down to the ground.
However the footage clearly shows debris going high into the sky, as opposed to dropping straight down the ground.
It looks like a giant firework. Not small bits of smoke, but vast amounts.
Ok thats normal in a controlled demololition, but displaced air shooting up is a very weak argument- think 3rd building falling the same way, free fall speed of collapse, pentagon office getting hit in the office currently investigating pentagon malfeasance. These are better arguments
All three buildings fell at near free fall speed, which can’t happen if each floor’s weight has to pound the support of the one below, and then the average speed of combined group of floors gets reduced each time a floor is added to the part that’s falling.
Many bits fall faster than gravity, change direction, go upwards, or fly out sideways damaging other buildings. So that's something other than gravity propelling these bits. Which can only have happened if propellents had been applied beforehand.
The idea that a small bit of damage near the top (relative to the size of the building) could cause the entire building to disintegrate, is absurd.
It's the brain numbing effect of the trauma that prevents it from being immediately obvious. On top of the dumbing down of our education and lived experiences.
It's hard to explain it well in a post like that. Loose change discusses the problem of the near free fall speed and the symmetrical collapse at about the 1:10 mark: https://rumble.com/v46cfa0-911-loose-change-final-cut-full-documentary.html
I didn't really think very much about the world trade center narrative being completely unreasonable for years. The only thing that nagged at me was the Pentagon - because we had all seen the pictures of the Pentagon with a smallish hole and absolutely no sign of a plane except for small parts that could have been carried in.
Are you saying that it all fell down under gravity, and that no explosive or incendiary chemicals were involved?
The people that think the twin towers fell under controlled demolition are closer to the truth than those who think they collapsed under their own weight. WTC 7 certainly looks like a controlled demolition job.
WTC 1 and 2 were largely turned to dust. You can see that in closeups of some of the "wheatchex" falling, and in the remaining 65 or 70 story "spire" (core columns) that turns to dust before falling. What weapon did that, I don't know. Judy Wood waves her hands and says "directed energy weapons", but there is no known or even theorized directed energy weapon that could do that.
Other people say mini nukes took down the towers. I don't see that as being the only thing that could have been used, although it's possible it was part of the destruction sequence.