posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Hopechest
It seems to me that the OP has proven it wasn't a controlled demolition.
From his own example, he states how impossible it is to create a freefall into the buildings own footprint. If even professional demolition people
can't do this with all the time in the world and in total public view, how would you expect a bunch of guys sneaking around during the early morning
hours to wire a 100% perfect demolition?
Therefore the only explanation left is that it was a freak of nature, not a controlled demolition.
"Therefore the only explanation left is that.."
Wow, you solved the entire 9/11 mystery in one paragraph! Congratulations!:@@
Good to know that *you* believe it was a freak of nature, alright guys let's pack 'er up, this poster solved it all. Their opinion is clearly an
undeniable fact and we should always take what is said without links as the absolute proof, because people would never lie.
You see how petty and immature it is to simply attack a posters words rather than what they said?
Anyway, there are quite a few orginizations (that have been listed countless times in countess threads, don't play stupid) that believe it was a
controlled demolition. They use things such as expertise in the field they've dedicated their lives to in order to form this conclusion, and unlike
impossible to cite supposition and conjecture they've taken what happened, what we were told what happened, and examined the discrepancies which is
now the backbone as to what really happened, how it happened, who constructed it, and to what gain.
But hey, lets always ignore many orginazations full of many people. Hopechest said on ATS that it wa a freak of nature.
I repeat: Hopechest said it was a freak of nature, everybody. Nothing to see here folks, move along. That mountain of inconsistencies and evidence
(and non-evidence alike) mean absolutely nothing, Hopechest solved it for us.
Thanks for more hearsay to muddle up yet another thread that's against your agenda.