I write to discover what I believe
As shown here.
March 31, 2007 at 12:52 am
Popular Mechanics doesn’t ADMIT that days later firefighters were using the word “pull” as a demolition term on surrounding buildings but magically when Silverstein says they “pulled” WTC 7 it somehow meant nothing of the sort. Rightttt!
They don’t explain why parts of the steel beams were “EVAPORATED”. That’s NY Times, by the way.
They don’t explain why the first part to go was the central column.
They don’t explain why there were THERMAL HOT SPOTS showing unbelievably high temperatures underneath all three buildings DAYS and DAYS after the event.
They don’t explain why firefighters were reporting MOLTEN STEEL “pouring down the channel rails like a volcano”. Regular fire doesn’t do that, Honey.
They don’t explain why The BBC reported the building collapsed 25 minutes before it fell. How did they know it was going to fall accidentally?
They don’t explain why firefighters said the words “BLOW UP” regarding WTC 7.
And on and on and on….
A NEW thorough 9/11 INVESTIGATION would put all this to rest.
March 31, 2007 at 1:32 am
Heh, Jim is going around to all the blogs that denounce the conspiracies. Well done Jim! Right.
March 31, 2007 at 11:05 am
So let me get this straight, the BBC and the firefighters all knew that we blew up WTC7 as inside job? Seriously? And yet, this is still covered up and no one in the mainstream press has managed to find someone with proof? As M. Jones said, right. Ahem.
Sorry, I stand by the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is an idiot and people who truly believe a catastrophe of this nature and size could be (and remain) an inside job are either willfully ignorant or mentally defective. A link to a book by a professor of philosophy of religion and theology doesn’t cut it in the proof department either.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.