Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ubetcha's avatar

Well he also explicitly describes the failure as due to structural failure from heat of the fire. Yet this does not explain the total collapse for the remaining 60 floors that had no fire damage.

Additionally the reporter already suggests another building may collapse at any time due to damage. We can only assume that would be WTC 7, which no one on earth would assume it would fail due to either damage or fire, yet the media predicted it all day long until magically it collapsed on itself. This is excellent proof of the known result, before it happened.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

No matter who the guy actually was, my question is

WHY should the official narrative so closely align with what this guy said, is he some sort of super brain that could have figured it all out, or was this a lucky guess? in any case, my thought on the subject is QUESTION EVERYTHING.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts