Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,241
And they say the official story has too many holes in it!Are you saying the towers collapse wasn't a controlled demolition but wtc 7 was?
And they say the official story has too many holes in it!Are you saying the towers collapse wasn't a controlled demolition but wtc 7 was?
And they say the official story has too many holes in it!
Of course not. You've put up a video of a single expert saying it visually looked like one whereas the experts who conducted the actual investigation said the opposite. I'll go with the majority who actually know all the details.
I'm guessing @Jim Tolmie's Underpants is trying to work out how he can say the twin towers was a controlled demolition without discrediting the only credible expert he could come up with. Either that or he'll change the subject or we won't see him for a while.
So you believe that - for the first time in human history - office fires brought down a steel structured building? You believe this building fell at free-fall speed straight down into the path of most resitence? You believe the symmetrical collapse due to asymmetrical damage isn't at odds with the principles of structural mechanics? You believe "“No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses," despite this:
And this:
And this:
Well, you carry on blindly believing the word of these so-called "experts", then. I'll continue to think for myself.
I see you're going for the change the subject and not answer the question about the twin towers option.
And they say the official story has too many holes in it!
More holes than Swiss cheese, mate. Here's a thing: Why did people know they were going to blow up the building?