Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
BS - Physical evidence proves the head shot came from behind. Mrs. John Connally also stated so.The head shot came from the storm sewer.
View attachment 698250
George W Bush couldn't tie his own shoes without permission from Dick Cheney ,Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz , J Paul Bremer and that whole gang.It's awful how Bush allowed CIA asset Bin Laden's followers to attack & murder US so he could attack the Middle-East, blowing $trillions, oppress us with draconian tracking photo ID's & strip our civil rights.
Jump to 35:00BS - Physical evidence proves the head shot came from behind. Mrs. John Connally also stated so.
Was there generator fuel also in WTC1 & 2 and if so where was it stored? Also for WTC7 as well, where exactly was the fuel stored?
Nonetheless my comparison was not about fuel sources per se, it was the explanation that the jet's fuel supplies rained down into the towers, catching fire and thus weakening it's steel structure which ultimately collapsed. That didn't happen to WTC7 but honestly to my unschooled mind, it would make "more" sense if the damage to the buildings occurred at the bottom instead of them being hit at the top. That is easier for me to imagine causing the whole structure to give way but that's not what happened.
Back in 1988 the First Interstate Bank building in Los Angeles caught fire. It is a 62 floor skyscraper and was the tallest in Los Angeles at the time. A fire began on the 12th floor which ultimately encompassed 5 floors total. It burned for a little more than 3 1/2 hours before they got it extinguished or under control. At the time the fire broke out, the building was having a fire sprinkler/suppression system installed which was approximately 90% completed.
A fire that raged for more than 3 1/2 hours on the lower 15% of the building did not weaken the structure of the building enough to cause a collapse even though that was a concern for the firefighters. The building is still standing today:
Fire-damaged Interstate tower reopens
Have you ever tried to have a conversation with anyone who states definitively that the reason that the towers fell is because they each got hit by a fully fueled passenger jet and that the fuel then spilled down into the building allowing the floors below to catch fire and weaken the underlying structure causing the entire building to collapse in it's own footprint a few hours after being hit?
That explanation actually sound like it makes plenty of sense and is easy to visualize especially if you don't know anything about construction and steel temperatures, and the laws physics, etc.
But the first time I ever heard of WTC7 I had this horrifying feeling of panic, which I now understand was cognitive dissonance. I kept insisting that there were only two towers that collapsed on 9/11 BECAUSE we all saw it on TV and I couldn't understand how there could have possibly been a third building collapse without me having known about it or having seen the footage of it since everyone was glued to their T.V.s that day, leaving me to conclude that I had either forgotten something very monumental (how was that even possible) or I never knew about it to begin with which also frightened me that something so significant had somehow escaped my attention. I felt completely discombobulated and had to research WTC7 myself. What I discovered was very disconcerting.
It is not our fault that our generation and those following us grew up watching T.V. and have witnessed what a controlled demolition looks like. Even the first news commentators mentioned that the collapse of the buildings looked just like a controlled demolition but then that got shut down in fairly short order.
So the question remains, at least for me, is that if the towers collapsed due to being hit by the planes, the fuel running down to the lower floors, those lower floors catching on fire, the steel softening and then the whole thing collapsing, then why did WTC7 collapse in what appears to the naked eye, in exactly the same manner, in what looked like a control demolition in spite of not being hit by an airplane, no jet fuel running down the building, softening the steel structure which subsequently caused the building to collapse into it's own footprint just like the other two buildings?
So WTC1 & 2 fell because they got hit by a passenger jet, while WTC7 fell in exactly the same manner because it didn't?!?
Asking questions doesn't constitute believing in a conspiracy theory.
Oh and by the way, insurance companies are notorious for weaseling out of having to pay out to policy holders on their often valid claims yet the person who held the lease on the towers Larry Silverstein, who obtained the 99 year lease just six weeks before the events, got them to pay out double on the claim by alleging that the two separate hits were two separate claims, not just a single "terrorist" attack. He then tried to sue the airlines alleging having lax security that allowed the events to occur.
Silverstein Loses Battle Over 9/11 Payouts
Dick Cheney knew what was going to happen.
Construction companies made a fortune.
www.corbettreport.com
This is an interesting documentary if you folks like the financial aspects of this day. One should wonder, why did the SEC, after investigating the origins of the supposed, "foreknowledge," of 911, then proceed to destroy all records of supposed foreknowledge?
Hmmmmm. . . part of routine government record keeping? Most folks would suppose not. Think if Trump destroyed the records that he took. It seems to me, I remember HRC doing the same.
9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
Episode 308 – 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money | The Corbett Report
Forget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a crime. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: Follow the money. This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail.
Jump to 35:00
I would say just about everything he says is absolutely true starting with killing a pedophile when he was 11 at BellevueThe comments in this interview are hilarious. You don't actually believe all this, do you?
IMO?I would say just about everything he says is absolutely true starting with killing a pedophile when he was 11 at Bellevue
www.mintpressnews.com
it did damage in the back end due to the tumbling affectOnce again, if the bullet has enough speed to break bone, it will be damaged in the process.
Trump once bragged about predicting 9/11 years ahead. He definitely knows more than he tells
It also hit a rib. And it had enough velocity to fracture the wrist bones exit the wrist and penetrate into the thigh. And my point is that any bullet (even jacketed) that strikes none with sufficient power and velocity to break bones will be deformed.I'm not saying a FMJ can't be deformed if it strikes the bone with sufficient velocity.
I want to see proof that bullet would always be deformed after it traveled long distance, went through soft tissue of 2 body torsos before striking bone. Likely there was not much velocity left to deform it.
I am not afraid of the truth. I’m not even afraid of your paranoid delusions. I speak for the truth. You don’t.Then why are you afraid of the truth and trolling here with the fake news crowd ?
I became a Trump supporter in 2017 when I saw how corrupted the FBI and the Democrats are.
But again, this has nothing to do with 9/11 chump.
I don’t doubt it tumbled. Forensic evidence and the wounds in particular confirm that.it did damage in the back end due to the tumbling affect
Humped by a CamelotAll speculation with no evidence.
I had already posted and cited the University of Alaska study, you choose to ignore it, that, if anyone had wanted to look at the scholarly work that made the work of NIST irrelevant, they could have read it, it is open to be peer-reviewed, and looked at by the public;
Post #18. It is why I did not respond to your post on WTC 7, because it is clear, you do not want an honest conversation, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Mine are based on facts, science and engineering, yours are based on classified data, classified modeling, and government propaganda. Thus, we can't have an honest conversation. No point in even trying.
New Yorkers are totally ignorant about what happened on 9/11.
Yes, the buildings all came down in a natural way, according to the laws of physics. Except for one nagging question that's never been answered. How did they show building 7 coming down before it came down. Cause I saw it on t.v. Could they have done a dress rehearsal with another building in...www.usmessageboard.com
World Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report - Daily Commercial News
A group of engineers and architects is demanding the American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) retract and correct a 2008 report that concluded one of three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel supporcanada.constructconnect.com
World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks
The principal conclusion of the University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7...ine.uaf.edu
"
Here is what you base your entire world view, and premise of the collapse of WTC7 on;
View attachment 697208
And. . .
View attachment 697209
More than likely, the same folks. . . generationally, the same cabal, is involved in it all.
View attachment 697259
(We could throw the COVID scam and election rigging in there too if you like?)
