Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
In simple English, they didn't fucking know. The newscaster said "We are getting reports that building seven is on fire, and may have collapsed". He didn't say "It's going to fall down" or "It did fall down".
He said the same exact fucking thing that any ten year old with two eyes would have said - - The building is on fire and might collapse". Doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to figure that out.
My god, people are idiots. How many millions of tons of iron, concrete, and what not shifted at that site on that day, and how many tons of crap of physically pushed building seven off of it's foundation on that day?
|
So before 911, if a building was on fire you would immediately assume it would collapse because that is what buildings on fire do. And why was wtc 7 the only building to collapse when other building had huge metal beams that was ejected from the wtc 1 and 2 explosions lodged in them. I am sorry, it does not make any sense.
Again, look at the perfect collapse, like something out of a demolition documentary on discovery. Why was the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 violent explosions and wtc 7 perfect implosion? It does not make sense since the official story claims both towers structural integrity where weakened due to fire.
Why did the 911 commision report completely ommit the wtc 7 collapse?