Did you hear about how the back rims of cars melted around WTC and those cars that were parked around the building all had their back rims melted. I think it was some kind of EMP.
Hutchison effect. Hutchison effect also explains reports of cars flying past people, vehicles burned blocks away from the towers, and the oxidation patterns on some of the vehicles.
Infrastructure, with only few exceptions, is of a much lower quality these days. The old buildings were built to last. Maybe the underground bunkers are high quality.
But even if you are correct that an airplane theoretically could bring them down, planes absolutely weren't actually involved. 1) cgi planes. 2) bizarre 'crash' behavior, also cgi. 3) only metal towers in the world that burned that way. 4) all the weird surrounding evidence showing that some kind of unknown energy wrapon was used - the melting cars etc. 'Where did the towers go' video 5) 30,000+ engineers and professionals signed that they doubted the official story.
9/11 is #1. Look at the rest.... they dont just fall into neat little piles. They half fall apart, or tip over, or in one case it did pancake but it took 10 seconds for 7 floors in the case where they removed supports before the concrete had fully cured.
Op's picture is proof they didnt skip out on supports. The entire thing was built to prevent what happened.
In the case of 1 WTC, it took about 12 seconds to reduce the tower to rubble.
There is no way this could happen without explosives being rigged in the building. And the biggest MATTER OF FACT debunk that is used, is when they would have put explosives in the building?
In the 9 months before 9/11, there was a massive elevator renovations project involving the towers' 15 miles of elevator hoistways.
That would have been the time to do it, while this was common knowledge in 2001, seems most people think this is fake now.
Also op is right about one thing. Buddy saved alot of money when those towers come down, because a recent report had recommended they be decommissioned, mainly because of the asbestos if I remember right.
Not only did he not pay for the destruction, he got a massive insurance payout for it.
Was going to cost well over a billion to remove the asbestos from the towers. Lucky larry silverstein.
According to some estimates, the Twin Towers contained 5000 tons of asbestos materials. As long ago as the mid-1990s, the New York Port Authority was looking at an asbestos abatement bill of as much as $1 billion dollars – representing well over 12 times the buildings' original cost. When the buildings' insurers, Affiliated FM, refused to cover the asbestos removal/abatement costs and won their subsequent lawsuit over the the matter, the Port Authority was left with some untenable choices. The outdated buildings could not be demolished because of the asbestos; for the same reason, they could not be remodeled and updated in any cost-effective manner. The only other option was to slowly dismantle the Towers a piece at a time – the cost of which would have run into several billions of dollars.
Convenient. Even got a bunch of free first responders killed for removing the rubble for him. Poor bastards are still fighting for government care which, you know they should have gotten decades ago.
Whatever happen to the millionaire who bought land in Thailand and purchased identical abandoned sky scrapers and 747’s to re-act the 9/11 event for scientific reasons… ?
This discussion is all well and good. The real question is what brought down WTC7, it certainly wasn't an aeroplane.
There are way to many coincidences here.
Did you hear about how the back rims of cars melted around WTC and those cars that were parked around the building all had their back rims melted. I think it was some kind of EMP.
Hutchison effect. Hutchison effect also explains reports of cars flying past people, vehicles burned blocks away from the towers, and the oxidation patterns on some of the vehicles.
I heard it was a direct energy beam test
just find a good source but I don’t count it out
All that aspestos.
planes smash into building.
nothing happens for an hour.
collapses into own footprint at freefall.
(nuclear demolition)
Dustification
judy wood is a CIA limited hangout.
she dismisses nuclear demolition as if it was a joke, but "space DEWs are real!"
lol, whatever, cunt.
Occam's razor comes to mind.
9/11 was a nuclear event.
Hutchison effect explains the metallurgical anomalies.
What do we know that we know?
look up Hutchison effect. some crazy stuff, and that's what us civilians know. no way u.s. govt hasn't researched more into it.
i'm just getting into electric universe theory now, and Hutchison effect might be connected.
Hutchison effect is interesting; however, does not explain "metallurgical anomalies" - has nothing to do with 9/11.
Infrastructure, with only few exceptions, is of a much lower quality these days. The old buildings were built to last. Maybe the underground bunkers are high quality. But even if you are correct that an airplane theoretically could bring them down, planes absolutely weren't actually involved. 1) cgi planes. 2) bizarre 'crash' behavior, also cgi. 3) only metal towers in the world that burned that way. 4) all the weird surrounding evidence showing that some kind of unknown energy wrapon was used - the melting cars etc. 'Where did the towers go' video 5) 30,000+ engineers and professionals signed that they doubted the official story.
how you going to disrespect the dead and say it was a CGI plane
Looks like a vertical PT
Lol.
In the case of an emergency, they prefer the buildings didnt fall down at all while people are still inside.
Anyway, have there been any other incidences like this? Are buildings really designed that way?
https://www.bestonlineengineeringdegree.com/the-10-worst-high-rise-building-collapses-in-history/
9/11 is #1. Look at the rest.... they dont just fall into neat little piles. They half fall apart, or tip over, or in one case it did pancake but it took 10 seconds for 7 floors in the case where they removed supports before the concrete had fully cured.
Op's picture is proof they didnt skip out on supports. The entire thing was built to prevent what happened.
There is no way this could happen without explosives being rigged in the building. And the biggest MATTER OF FACT debunk that is used, is when they would have put explosives in the building?
That would have been the time to do it, while this was common knowledge in 2001, seems most people think this is fake now.
Also op is right about one thing. Buddy saved alot of money when those towers come down, because a recent report had recommended they be decommissioned, mainly because of the asbestos if I remember right.
Not only did he not pay for the destruction, he got a massive insurance payout for it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wtc-terrorism-insurance/
This is just fucking hilarious..
while "technically" true........
https://levinlaw.com/news/asbestos-towers
Was going to cost well over a billion to remove the asbestos from the towers. Lucky larry silverstein.
Convenient. Even got a bunch of free first responders killed for removing the rubble for him. Poor bastards are still fighting for government care which, you know they should have gotten decades ago.
Whatever happen to the millionaire who bought land in Thailand and purchased identical abandoned sky scrapers and 747’s to re-act the 9/11 event for scientific reasons… ?