WTC7 - This is an Orange »
Posted by: entropy 1 year, 1 month ago254 Comments Report this Story
"A short 2 minute comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition."
Read Full Story at video.google.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 254
-
0%
entropy1 year, 1 month ago
Does fire destroy all the main supports of a building at the exact same time quite often? That's one intelligent fire.
Reply-
0%
torrent291 year, 1 month ago
Thank goodness it didnt eh?
Twoofer website:
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/0501...
Hardly looks like a an assymetrical collapse does it?
Reply-
0%
entropy1 year, 1 month ago
I don't think you realized this...but you just agreed with me when you sad "hardly looks like an asymmetrical collapse..." I think you mean symetrical...asymmetrical means it does not have symmetry. ;-)
But yeah, WTC 7 fell into itself from the middle first, as seen in the picture...like a demolition should, to avoid collateral damage. The building still fell onto its own blueprints which would mean many if not all its supports were cut with coordination. Fire doesn't work with coordination.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago
KEEP IT SIMPLE... lets say 9/11 never happened. Building seven would have beem occupied. Give any reason for the collapse. If the reason is something that could have easily happened, fire, earthquake... everyone in the building would have been killed. What kind of lawsuit would that have been????
Reply
-
-
-
0%
torrent291 year, 1 month ago
Nothing is stopping twoofers from making their own independent investigation. The problem is that they have no theory.
The NIST is still reviewing the data from WTC 7, and numerous other places have also looked into it.
If you are talking about a funded investigation, why should I have to pay for an investigation to satisfy a small minority of individuals who are far to ignorant to realize that they being mislead by individuals out for their money?
Who will lead this government investigation? Who will pay for it?
The reality, the truth is, that twoofers are perfectly capable of an independent investigation at any point in time of their own and have attempted to do so as well. But their lack of knowledge in the field limits them and the lack of evidence on their side hamstrings them.
Reply-
0%
entropy1 year, 1 month ago
NIST has had 6 years to find out what happened to WTC 7 and all they came up with is the ridiculous fire excuse that just doesn't hold up. They've had more than enough time! Maybe...if all the steel wasn't so quickly shipped over seas and melted down, NIST would have something to investigate! Giuliani was a lawyer for many years...I think he knows what to do at a crime scene...destroy evidence.
We are NOT a small minority anymore. Scripps poll found that 1 in every 3 American believe 9/11 was covered up. That's 100 million Americans.
Independent Scientists, engineers, and other qualified individuals who are in NO way connected to the government should run another investigation. President Bush appointed most of the 9/11 Commission...hmm that's not suspicious at all.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
Compelling video. We know from the 1999 PNAC white paper that the Neocon core of the Bush Administration wanted to take out Saddam, and that they recognized that short of a Pearl Harbor scale attack on US soil, they probably couldn't garner the political will to do so.
So what did they know about 911, and when did they know it.
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Pri...
Reply-
palamaComment removed: User banned.31 Replies
-
0%
torrent291 year, 1 month ago
Of course the PNAC paper that you are reciting here as proof called for change over the coming decades and did not call for a new pearl harbor like you suggest.
The video is not compelling in the slightest and instead attempts to lead you where it wants you to believe. Only to a twoofer is it compelling.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
I did not say that it called for a new Pearl Harbor, I said that it mentioned that as what would be needed to produce the necessary political climate to reform the Middle East.
Here is the exact quote from the 1999 White Paper. "Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event รข;; like a
new Pearl Harbor." Page 63.
www.newame...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
torrent291 year, 1 month ago
Actually the collapse was not at the same time. The one part of the building started the collapse earlier.
Most twoofers rarely take into account a great deal of information about the collapse and regularly ignore that the penthouse began the collapse earlier then the rest of the building.
Indeed, the collapse was not a symmetrical one but instead damaged surrounding buildings extensively.
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/0501...
Is a lovely image from a twoof website that shows the assymetrical image of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Here shows the extensive damage done to the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
And shows the nature of the assymetrical collpase that took well over 13 seconds.
Beware twoofer videos that tell you what to think and use scary music to accompany it. They are only misleading you.
Reply
