Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

The AE911TRUTH movement continues to gain momentum. Still, to this day, many people don't even know anything about WTC7 falling (and that NO PLANE ever hit it), much less that this was the easiest example to see that controlled demolition did indeed occur. If people could put down their smart phones (for just a few minutes) and read this article, maybe the stench of the lies about 9-11 can begin to be alleviated. The article here:
www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-attac...g-influence-of-the-911-truth-movement/5373217


Questions? Comments? Opinions? Disinformation attempts?

 

These two sentences contradict each other.

 

lol!!!!

yeah, reverse momentum. they keep shrinking and having less successes every year.

 

Full circle, and the return to the ridicule. That IS funny.

 

Smaller numbers, fading away ...

 

sorry bro, but A&E4911T is a horrible failure.

they deserve ridicule.

 

The lies continue to surface from ex-CIA, Donny Rummy, and even Dick Cheney is getting in on the action here:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html

How many more lies will it take before the Kean worshipers recede?

 

If for nothing else, the money they take from the gullible and ignorant.

 

Derails his own thread in under ten posts.

Desperate.

 

So, is it your goal to just spam the boards with Nutter misinformation? How many times can post the same bulsh?

 

An other time WTC7 ...
Look at this picture:
http://www.politicalforum.com/attac...nt-alpinluke-albums-maps-picture27897-wtc.jpg

Can you guess where the materials falling from one of the towers went? OH! Against WTC7 ... what a coincidence. How many damages did those materials cause? Enough for allowing firefighters to predict the fall of the building a hour before it fell down for real.

 

but the question remains,
why should you see the same result
that is the result of weeks of careful engineering
and placement of explosives and proper sequencing of said explosives
to achieve the result, when the damage and fires were not a focused event,
but had a random factor, therefore, random damage + fires = Controlled Demolition(?)
what?

 

The same? WTC 1 and 2 collapses were initiated near the top where the planes crashed. WTC, was initiated lower after suffering extensive damage from the tower debris.

You idiots have a hard time grasping the collapse of 7 was NOTHING like 1 & 2...you just need to frame it that way so, that begs the question, why are you so dishonest?

 

Was the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 complete?
How fast did they "collapse"?
what magic kept the "collapse" event going completely vertical for the towers?
and 7 dropping at free fall for 2.25 sec, how did the damage from the rubble
thrown off from the towers cause that to happen?

 

No
An average of 61.79% of free fall acceleration.
Gravity
The rubble caused fires and broke water mains.

 

and all of that still boils down to
Chaotic damage produces coherent collapse....
Roll snake eyes 100 times in a row..... about like that ....

 

Chaotic collapse.
Get it right.

 

Is he kidding?,There was NOTHING 'coherent' about the collapse

 

in order to produce the result observed
every nut&bolt/rivet/weld ( etc... ) would have to fail
exactly on time in sequence to produce that result.
coherent "collapse" that is what it was.

 

No, that's just a lie that truthers made up and their gullible fish swallowed without question.
Now they regurgitate the lie repeatedly.

 

Where is your PROOF that the building would indeed "COLLAPSE" in the manner observed,
with ONLY gravity as the motive force for the event.

 

Don't forget the planes, damage and fire.

 

ah yes, the airliner crash & fire .... but we are back to
can chaotic damage produce a coherent collapse and
you insist that its not a coherent collapse and what does
it take to show you that having 110 stories descend vertically
having each floor break evenly on the horizontal plane such that
the falling mass stays level, because if it did not say level, the tipping
would cause mass quantity of rubble to be lost over one side of the tower
thus stopping the action. so the connections in the tower had to all fail
on time and in sequence to obtain the result as observed.

 

Why dont you explain to us what the collapse should have looked like if planes had flown into the buildings

 

first of all, in the case of flying an airliner into the side of the wtc tower,
the nose of the aircraft may ( that is MAY ) penetrate by severing
5 or 6 box columns, however as soon as so much as one wing got
involved needing to sever another dozen of these box columns the
g forces involved in the deceleration of the aircraft would surely tear it apart
and the broken bits of the aircraft would strike and then bounce off the wall,
because of wing contact with the wall it may spill some fuel into the building
through broken windows but the damage would most certainly not be catastrophic.
at no time, would the structure be in danger of "collapsing" and in any case certainly
not "total collapse" as the NIST considered inevitable.

The claim has been made that an airliner was flown at >500 mph to strike the
tower with such force as to guarantee penetration, however it has never been proven
that any airliner could be flown at that speed so near sea level.

There is also the little problem in the official story about the alleged "FLT175"
penetration of the wall in that the port side wing contacts the wall before the starboard
side wing, and that would impose huge stress upon the aircraft.
there is no way for an airliner to penetrate the WTC tower as was alleged in the
case of "FLT11" & "FLT175"