A number of aspects are apparent here. 1. How many people are aware of WTC 7 falling on 9/11? Even today i know people who whilst aware of 1, and 2 wtc, are not aware that any other buildings came down that day. Yet that information whilst publicly available, has been ignored and suppressed and so few are cognizant of it. Yet despite their lack of knowledge, they maintain that you couldnt cover up an event like 9/11. I could document easily a number of proofs of why you can, but this alone shows how if something that CANT be hidden, can still be eradicated from general awareness, then it is hardly a challenge at all to pull off something like 9/11. But what should you take specifically from the video? Well for a start watch it ALL, then compare 7s fall to that of proven demolitions. The discussions by Chandler are not made up, he is a physicist not a random guy with half assed ideas, it is based on actual science. More details are available on Youtube detailing the duration/speed of its collapse and how Nist lied about that if you wish to look for yourself. However let us look at the 2 salient elements 1. Nist lied, 2. Nist were incompetent and deliberately or incompetently so. 1. NIST claimed no audible or other evidence of explosions. It doesnt take long to source such evidence, and despite clearly shown that at least the booms heard dimly on the recorded footage with the news reporter, was prior to collapse, it is sure that some debunkers may claim the noise as that of the collapse itself, in most cases these precede collapse, however if they did not, the point is not WHAT made the sound, the point is THERE WAS sound, sound comparable to explosions. Therefore with visual, audio and eyewitness testimony NIST must have to say We lied or, We didnt bother to gather any evidence of explosions Now in case 1. That they lied, it means they cant be trusted because the reason to lie is to cover up a potential truth, that truth being that there WERE explosives,which if so the sole reason to lie is because they were placed specifically for demolitions purposes which Al Qaeda could simply never have done ESPECIALLY in Wtc 7. If they were just incompetent and didnt bother to look, then they cannot be trusted to be accurate in the rest of an investigation and likely missed vital evidence through the same -cant be bothered- attitude, and thus we HAVE to question the entirety of their work and its conclusions. But SHOULD they have ever looked? First and foremost in incidents like this or major fires the code of practice explicitly states that explosives must be ruled out, that is achievable conclusively only by using more methods than just saying, didnt hear it. Secondly we have as mentioned, had audio that shows there WERE what can be justifiably claimed to be explosives in use. Thirdly, of the witnesses, many are persons who have direct experience in their fields, of explosions versus loud noises and such count as more credible than the average Joe-Ie some were ex military. Fourthly, we mentioned visual evidence, this is in the pyroclastic flow of the dust, a similarity to demolitions Fifth, the ejections of matter from many floors below damage and collapse level, known as squibs in the demolition trade, claimed to be simply a compression of air by debunkers, that claim is easily debunked itself but even were it not, visually, it is similar to a known result of explosive demolition. Sixth, the extreme pulverization of material, in standard collapses of any building not by demolition, it has never yet been reproduced, nor ven prior to 9/11. This again makes it comparable to a controlled demolition Seventh, the case with 7 is again a visual element, the symmetrical collapse, asymmetrical damage has never ever in all history created a symmetrical collapse 7 was. Much like standard explosives driven demolitions are. Eight, fires that have burned longer and hotter have NEVER until 9/11 brought towers down fully, and even if we cite plane damage for 1 and 2, 7 had some superficial damage from debris, additionally the Cardington tests showed fires hotter and burning longer could stay standing, therefore OTHER options should be explored. Ninthly, and potentially the greatest of them all, Al Qaeda had and often did use bombs, in fact history books at the least if not Nist, recall them doing exactly so in 93 in the Wtc complex. So 9 clear reasons why they should have looked for explosives, 1 provable LIE why they didnt even look. And a building that broke the laws of physics and from asymmetrical fire damage, fell in free-fall (which they also lied about the free fall until a physics teacher-Chandler- proved it categorically), symmetrically. Ok so you STILL think you know the truth?
Posted on: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:39:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015