Building 7 was heavily damaged by debris from the towers and uncontrolled fires brought it down after several days.
Why did the BBC report that it had fallen before it had? Did they already know it was going to fall from the damage it already had sustained??
How poorly built was tower 7 I know the mafia used poor quality concrete in New York buildings was that a factor??
If they made such a report it was errant.
The building was well built but not even steel and concrete can survive out of control fires lasting days.
Remember due to the damage from buildings 1&2 all water to the area was lost very early on day one and with the snarled traffic trucking water in just wasn’t a reasonable option until most of the debris could be removed.
With thousands of tons of rubble blocking the roads it took over a month to clear them.
Anyone who still believes the offiicial version needs to read the attached doc
2 Likes
Most of which has been completely debunked and or explained logically, factually, and scientifically which you know since you participated in the discussions of all those points and more.
2 Likes
Just curious. Is there any possibility you’ll ever come up with anything factual from a credible source or are you just going to continue spamming us with this kind of crap?
I wonder how many ppl agree with you?
You completely misunderstand me - I am not trying to ‘‘prove’’ anything I’m just asking q’s coz I’m curious.
Horse hockey, you’ve asserted numerous times it was an inside job or that the Israelis were responsible. Don’t lie, you’re not very good at it.
Obviously most people have accepted the truth or there would long ago been a complete meltdown over it if they indeed believed it was either an inside job or that Israel was responsible.
Are you sure?
To this day, about one third of Americans do not believe the official story. In other parts of the world, the number of skeptics reaches upwards of 90% of the population.
I know it’s not in the top 100 issues Americans care about and 30% is a small minority.
Don’t you think to cover up or conceal evidence is tantamount to being an accessory to a crime and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal?
An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.
That would be “accessory after the fact” and no, there’s no evidence to support such a claim.
What do you find most convincing about the theory that 9/11 was an inside job???
All of which has been completely debunked.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong I believe tower 7 was built in 1987 may can anybody find a building built in a similar time. Being destroyed by fire so we can compare a controlled demolition vs a similar building coming down from fire damage
Amerika is the most asleep nation in the world but even there 30% do not believe.
More tellingly 90% of the rest of the world do not believe.
What do you think the average red neck is gonna do when he finds out who was really behind 911/Iraq/Epstein -
To me an accessory is also someone who stays silent when they know of wrong doing but are afraid to speak up.
1 Like