Open you own company -- "demolition while-u-wait". Litter building with trash. Sprinkle some walls and some trash with jet fuel. Light camping cooker and toss onto one of the trash piles. GET THE HELL OUT. Watch building collapse into its own footprint. So easy anyone can do it!
Demolition experts are busybodies and charlatans who don't provide ANY value. It's just mumbojumbo with computers, big words and high explosives.
At the risk of getting hog piled here, I don't, because it makes zero sense to me to have airplanes crash into a both towers but do a controlled demolition on a side building without having anybody that works there notice them stringing up the explosives necessary for a controlled demolition.
Planes were CGI. i went to the trouble of researching the names of the supposed victims on the planes. Most of them had generic names like Bob Smith from Las Vegas, and the names that were more unique like Janet McSmith from El Paso were all dead ends. The only place those names exist, are within the context of 9/11.
Explosives would not be necessary in a top-down, progressive collapse, as shown in this video
The planes were not CGI. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard regarding 9/11, and I've heard some whoppers. There wasn't the technical capacity to do holograms in 2001, nor even today to do explosions like that via holograms.
The planes may not have been CGI, but they definitely weren't commercial passenger planes. There's been research done on this, but you'd need to approach it with an open mind.
I am approaching it with an open, albeit skeptical, mind. I'm just as likely to disbelieve an internet conspiracy theory about 9/11 as to disbelieve the government's official party line.
But when people spout stupid shit about the 9/11 planes being holograms, it makes me even more skeptical about the "9/11 was an inside job" take on 9/11.
The collapse of the two towers was equivalent to an earthquake. It severely damaged WTC7.
But my main argument against "controlled demolition" is logic. If someone was going to use explosives to take down the buildings and blame terrorists, why not just do that? They'd already tried it once before, in 1991. Just blowing up the buildings with no warnings would have meant far more casualties. Adding hijacked airliners makes no sense because the hijackings might not succeed (Flight 93) or might not hit their intended target (Flight 77). The hijacking would have been an extra complication with a great risk of failure, and as we saw, half of them did fail.
Without the hijacked airplanes, we wouldn’t get a great reset on how we travel and surveillance. Furthermore, the primary argument for controlled demolition is near perfect building disintegration at terminal velocity. Mathematically speaking, even earthquakes cannot produce that effect on building akin to an avalanche gaining momentum as it accrues more mass.
These people are fucking stupid.
And, too narcissistic to consider that they are fucking stupid.
Bldg 7 falling just like the other two and all the firsthand reports of bombs in the building... like c’mon. Sloppy work.
BRO....
we all do.
you are like us...
until you decide to fuckn do something about it...
... then we will be like you.
Worked as an architect at a notable firm in Manhattan. Somehow my friends still don't believe me...
They all know. But they took the blue pill to remain in fantasy land. Not willing to accept truth.
Here is the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on WTC7. It proves 7 didn't come down the way NIST says it did. http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
Open you own company -- "demolition while-u-wait". Litter building with trash. Sprinkle some walls and some trash with jet fuel. Light camping cooker and toss onto one of the trash piles. GET THE HELL OUT. Watch building collapse into its own footprint. So easy anyone can do it!
Demolition experts are busybodies and charlatans who don't provide ANY value. It's just mumbojumbo with computers, big words and high explosives.
Anyone have a link to the footage?
It's called confirmation bias. Many people suffer from this.
At the risk of getting hog piled here, I don't, because it makes zero sense to me to have airplanes crash into a both towers but do a controlled demolition on a side building without having anybody that works there notice them stringing up the explosives necessary for a controlled demolition.
Planes were CGI. i went to the trouble of researching the names of the supposed victims on the planes. Most of them had generic names like Bob Smith from Las Vegas, and the names that were more unique like Janet McSmith from El Paso were all dead ends. The only place those names exist, are within the context of 9/11.
Explosives would not be necessary in a top-down, progressive collapse, as shown in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s
The planes were not CGI. That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard regarding 9/11, and I've heard some whoppers. There wasn't the technical capacity to do holograms in 2001, nor even today to do explosions like that via holograms.
The planes may not have been CGI, but they definitely weren't commercial passenger planes. There's been research done on this, but you'd need to approach it with an open mind.
I am approaching it with an open, albeit skeptical, mind. I'm just as likely to disbelieve an internet conspiracy theory about 9/11 as to disbelieve the government's official party line.
But when people spout stupid shit about the 9/11 planes being holograms, it makes me even more skeptical about the "9/11 was an inside job" take on 9/11.
The collapse of the two towers was equivalent to an earthquake. It severely damaged WTC7.
But my main argument against "controlled demolition" is logic. If someone was going to use explosives to take down the buildings and blame terrorists, why not just do that? They'd already tried it once before, in 1991. Just blowing up the buildings with no warnings would have meant far more casualties. Adding hijacked airliners makes no sense because the hijackings might not succeed (Flight 93) or might not hit their intended target (Flight 77). The hijacking would have been an extra complication with a great risk of failure, and as we saw, half of them did fail.
Without the hijacked airplanes, we wouldn’t get a great reset on how we travel and surveillance. Furthermore, the primary argument for controlled demolition is near perfect building disintegration at terminal velocity. Mathematically speaking, even earthquakes cannot produce that effect on building akin to an avalanche gaining momentum as it accrues more mass.