the internet ropes you in...

@shavixmir said
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

CNN reported that “another building was on fire and looks to be collapsing or has collapsed.”
The BBC reporter probably, picking up in that report, said it during her piece.

Take a stand back folks.
There’s a major disaster unfolding, buildings have come down in a major city, hijackers, pla ...[text shortened]... not mean a massive conspiracy, because I think the US government invited the planes in. Ridiculous.

@wildgrass said
You suggest there were controlled explosions to take down these buildings but it wasn't a conspiracy?

Thousands of people would have needed to know about this and coordinate that effort. All of them would have been forced to secrecy or death. None of them would come forward with their story. And we don't even pretend to posit how they could have pulled it off in such conditions.

If that happened, why the coverup?

@shavixmir
You suggested explosives were used which is a conspiracy. What you don't want to admit is that the explosives were placed there before the buildings were hit by jets.
Placing explosives in just the right places takes days, not hours. Ask any controlled demolition expert.

https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/09/05/university-of-alaska-fairbanks-study-definitively-concludes-fire-did-not-cause-building-7-collapse-on-9-11/

https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/08/01/new-york-fire-commissioners-call-for-new-9-11-investigation-overwhelming-evidence-of-explosives/

Explosives were used so they had to export the evidence of it. China bought the scrap steel from the towers.

@metal-brain said
@shavixmir
You suggested explosives were used which is a conspiracy. What you don't want to admit is that the explosives were placed there before the buildings were hit by jets.

@shavixmir said
How would I know?
I told you what it looked like to me. I told you what the experts say. And I gave you a way to attempt to verify what the experts were saying.

Me thinks I've done enough to help you along with this one, darling.

@metal-brain said
What experts? Who are these so called experts?
What are their qualifications? Are they controlled demolition experts or lying politician experts? There is a difference ya know.

These are real experts:

https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7

@shavixmir said
No they're fukking not.

Experts as in the experts who wrote the report that was commissioned. So people who know about buildings, structural integrity and all that sort of thing.

Stop calling right-wing morons experts.

@metal-brain said
The people who wrote the report are lying politicians, not controlled demolition experts.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

@shavixmir said
Don't be silly.
Politicians commission a report and the experts write it.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/about-investigation/investigation-team-members

You are obviously or uninformed or deliberately lying.

Here's a summary of the findings:
https://www.asce.org/publications-and-new ...[text shortened]... pse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.[/quote]

@metal-brain said
Now you are contradicting yourself again. You said they came down because of controlled demolition and the report says no. Do you want to revise your theory?

"Politicians commission a report and the experts write it"

Did the Warren Commission let the experts write about the magic bullet?
Nobody believes that either.

@shavixmir said
I did not say they came down because of controlled demolition.

I said it looked that way to me, but that I am no expert, and can see how it breeds conspiracy theories.

Learn to fukking read.

@shavixmir said
Well, point 3 could be true. Not that it’s got anything to do with anything. There are sketchy CIA locations every-fukking-where.
And DGSE, MI6, FSB and MSS too. Indeed, the world’s like a huge Savoy nowadays.

Anyhoo..

Point 1: heard it before.
I can see why this fuels conspiracy theories. If I was to hazzard a guess, I would think that the buildings’ integrity were ...[text shortened]... ppened, the BBC reporter was probably talking about one of the buildings that had already collapsed.

@metal-brain said
You said you guessed it was controlled demolition and all 3 buildings.
You are wrong about point 2. I posted video of people warning the building was about to come down. It was also CNN as well as the BBC. Point 2 is a fact.

@shavixmir said
Stop squealing like a raped pig, man.

As I already stated, in an emergency situation all sorts of miscommunications happen. It’s not strange for false reporting to happen, or reporters, stuffed full of adrenaline, to tell what they just heard or exaggerate.

Maybe if you stepped out your bedroom, removed the tinfoil hat and looked around for once, you’d notice that thi ...[text shortened]... blow up a huge fukking area of one of your largest cities.

Dumb-fukkery if you think they would.

@metal-brain said
Watch the CNN video. You are in denial of facts again.

"You think the US government is going to stage a terrorist attack of that scale, with the potential of killing 100.000 Americans, just to start a war? "

Absolutely! They have planned these false flag events before. This is not new to them. Look up the USS Maine and Operation Northwoods. Why the hell would you th ...[text shortened]... It is exactly their method of operation. Look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident too. It never happened.