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…
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.
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.