This documentary categorically shows how ridiculous the official account of 9/11 really is....there is more but this is good for starters...
Dr. Leroy Hulsey has confirmed the lunacy of NIST's WTC7 "collapse" theory in scientific terms. If their WTC theory is not workable or trustworthy why should anyone accept their twin tower "collapse" theory as legitimate?
I watch this documentary every year to remind myself how ridiculous the official story is. Outstanding work by the filmmaker.
To the mentally challenged it is probably like you say, but to people who have the brains and courage to analyze and question, it provides lots of answers to the unanswered questions about the 9/11 inside job.
Your "documentary" is crap. Didn't you expect the towers to collapse? The planes cut their spines and fire did the rest. They fell down as opposed to over. I know you have heard of gravity.
Is that all supposed to be serious? Expected to collapse? They fell down? Keep your day job Margot, science and comedy just aren't quite your forte.
You have never used any science at all and you have consistently ignored the fact that science crushes and destroys your every assertion and claim. Follow your own advice boy. Keep flipping burgers you are wholly unqualified at anything else
Actually, I specifically remember thinking on that day that the top portions might fail but not the entire structures. Gravity and fire alone don't destroy the remaining 80 floors of a steel structure in seconds.
So you don't find it at least a little curious what was done with Minetta's testimony? Let alone the rest of it.
If you knew anything at all about the design or the architect or the aluminum skin, you would also have expected it to fall (collapse) into its own footprint.
Not including an important piece of testimony in the report AND changing both the wording and timing of the events is irrelevant? I didn't ask about evidence. I asked if you thought it was curious what happened to Minetta's testimony.
Ok I'll bite, what is it about the design, the architect and/or the aluminum skin that would cause me or anyone to "expect it to fall (collapse)"? Are you saying the architect built it with the expectation that it would "fall (collapse)"? And is that true for all 3 towers? And why is it not the case for any of 40+ high rise steel frame towers that didn't "fall (collapse)" in their entirety before and after 9/11 despite some having infernos engulf the entire building, last much longer and even one that was hit multiple times by missiles but stood and is currently in use? And for bonus points, why didn't the North Tower "fall (collapse)" during the 1973 fire that encompassed at least 9 stories if it was designed with the expectation that it would "fall (collapse)"? Or these buildings?:
A reminder too that all skyscrapers are built with airplanes in mind. It's why they have red, blinking lights on the roofs/antennas.
No it is irrelevant. The evidence completely refutes and debunks the conspiracy foolishness displayed in your video. Even the details you are talking about are irrelevant and evidence of...........nothing
Because that is an apples and oranges comparison. The 1973 fire was not started by a plane crash. Massive fail but you knew that.
It probably wasn't started by the debris either. There were 2 buildings immediately on either side of WTC7 and neither caught fire from the debris. But of course there was never any arson investigation as required by NFPA protocol.
No one said it was but it was a bigger fire and the building was badly damaged by debris. The point is that each building fire or collapse is different and asking idiotic questions like " why didn't this one fall the same way " merely shows a lack of intelligence.