reply to post by easybreezy
Alright, so the first few minutes have nothing to do with anything. It's rhetoric.
"Promised another attack." Fantastic, so far these facts are blowing me away.
Physical evidence that the main stream media won't report on? Ok, what evidence? Great, polls. Were these polls taken on sites that were bombed with
responses from conspiracy websites? Polls are rarely proof of anything.
Truth movement growing by millions. Go to their website, blah blah blah. Purchase the DVD online. 7 minutes in now.
Not conspiracy theorists. Ok. Great. Technical truth. Inevitable conspiracy (meaning you're conspiracy theorists). Mysterious building 7?
Shock-induced trance, assuming that everyone but you cannot examine evidence clearly.
Steel frames of the buildings believed to have given way due to hot fires. Called a myth, CLAIMS STEEL MELTED IN THE OFFICIAL STORY. This is getting
stupid already. 10 minutes in.
Planting the official story in peoples' minds. FEMA and experts. Scientific method from 7th+8th grade. Hypothesis needs to be corroborated by
multiple sources. This is true. Fires cause creep and fall... over? That's dumb. There has to be enough resistance pushing up to resist the collapse
before another path becomes the path of less resistance. By the way, creep was reported in the buildings. Building 7 even had a transit proving
No chance of a collapse in a PROTECTED STEEL STRUCTURE. They just admitted that unprotected (damaged) steel cannot resist office fires causing damage.
All it takes is for the steel to lose enough strength to fail. The damage to the floor makes the strength lost far more severe. 15 minutes in.
High rise demolition examples. Great. Thousands of cutter charges. Precise order. Implosion at free-fall. Characteristics: Sudden from the base,
straight and symmetric, free-fall, dismemberment of structure, minimal damage to other structures, loud explosions, squibs, cutter charge remains.
Now, I bet they're going to say this was all present for WTC 7. Idiots. The videos didn't have explosions before the collapse! I've compared
demolitions to Building 7. They don't match. 18 minutes in.
Not hit by an airplane. Will they mention that it was hit by the North Tower? Ah good, they did. They show fires that spread to the North Side. The
files lost were mentioned. None of the investigations were ended though, and they convicted on some of them. Sound byte now. Sound of thunder as
building 7 came down. Thunder is not sharp cutter charge noises. Why do all the explosive witnesses start their narration AFTER the collapse starts?
21 minutes in.
Some guy's opinion is that dynamite is needed to take down a building like 7. Awesome. Now they're comparing the collapse to a demolition, excluding
the penthouse collapse. Core columns must be removed to bring the outside in on itself. Fire is not capable of damaging steel. Now they claim that the
debris did not cause the collapse. Jeez. The debris damage influenced the WAY the building collapsed and allowed the fire to damage the steel more
through damaging water lines and exposing structural steel. So far A&E is winning no arguments here. 25 minutes in.
Now they are asserting that each floor had their columns removed instantaneously, ignoring the possibility of debris collapsing out of the damaged
walls to remove resistance.
Now he talks to a guy describing the building, again, after it begins to collapse. The thumps begin after the collapse initiates. This is the opposite
of a controlled demolition.
Now they say that they need way more heat than fire can cause. Claiming that melted aluminum doesn't glow. They ignore the fact that it was not pure
aluminum. Mixed with burning office contents and such causes a golden glow in the molten substance. This color stuff is for PURE metal. Besides, there
was a lead battery floor right on that floor. A&E for 9/11 truth seems to be unaware of these facts. 29 minutes in.
Guy says he saw melting of girders in Building 6. Guess taking a picture was out of the question. All we have to go on here is a man's opinion, in
which it is impossible to tell what melted material is by eye.
Quoting loose change now? Fantastic. His facts were always so accurate (sarcasm). Apparently these guys have never heard of underground fires before.
They get really hot. This isn't unusual.
Ah, now thermite is on their mind. I bet they missed that paper that did a chemical analysis and found no elemental aluminum. It was the composition
of paint. 33 minutes in.
Again, claiming that people can tell molten steel by eye. There was plenty of lower melting temperature material. Once again, bewilderment at
underground fires. These guys have no experience with firey collapses. Most fire collapses have water poured on them so underground fires can't
continue. So the claim is that thermite burned slowly over weeks? 35 minutes in