3rd Beam Lights Up NYC Skyline for WTC 7

Source: 911truthnews.com...

This was a good idea, to say the least. It plants the right seed in the minds of the people and allows their own curiosity to look into building 7. People are much more likely to awaken, if their own curiosity is what drives them to the truth. We can preach and groan to passer's by all that we want and most of them will actually walk by without even so much as opening their minds to the possibility due to the disinformation, indoctrination and propaganda, though if they figure it out themselves, they are much more likely to drink.

Bravo, A&E for 9/11! It is small and subtle tactics like this that is ultimately going to be most effective, IMO.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

collapsed symmetrically at near freefall acceleration

Near freefall acceleration? So they had resistance? As in not freefall?

though only two were hit by planes.

Guess what all three had? Fires.

The people of New York need to see the light – that a third WTC skyscraper not hit by any plane was destroyed on Sept. 11.

I thought it was relatively common knowledge that more than the two WTC towers fell / were destroyed.

Just wanted to cross link this thread FOIA WTC-7 Video. No Question: MASSIVE FIRES! (not my thread, btw) since the two are related.

The intent of this thread was not to debate the the details and intricacies of WTC7, as opposed to the fact that people should look into, no matter what conclusion they come to, though I'll bite.

reply to post by Whyhi


Of course your not going to get perfect free-fall speed, unless of course you are in a sterile laboratory environment. I don't think any real-world wrecking demolition would be at perfect free-fall, given the variables existing in that moment in time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f3677fc2fa7.jpg[/atsimg]

It's a little odd that WTC7 was not even directly next the 1 and 2, yet it too collapsed along with them. The buildings that were directly next to the towers (6, 5, 4, 3) didn't collapse, even though they sustained the brunt of the collapsing towers.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/33fb159313f0.jpg[/atsimg]

So, if the buildings collapsed due to fire, then that is a first for a steel framed building, even though other buildings had burned hotter, to much higher degree and for a much longer time period and still never fell. If you want to use the excuse that WTC7 was clobbered by falling debris, then how do you explain buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 being clobbered by much more debris and yet they still stood?

The point I'm trying to make here is not that I know that WTC7 was brought down by explosives (though I highly suspect it was), only that it is very suspicious and nobody really knows for sure. Because of this and because of the implications, it certainly warrants an independent investigation.

WTC7 simply doesn't "jive" and so the American people deserve an investigation.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Third beam?

Guess what - NOBODY SAW IT! Gage is a stupid lying clown......

I was in Exchange Place, Jersey City NJ that night - which is on the Hudson River directly across from WTC
site. I didn't see the alleged third beam anything except the twin spires of light in tribute to the 2700 people who
died there

I could even see the twin spires of light from my neighborhood which is about 12 miles west of WTC.

No third beam.....

Looks like you fell for Gage's crapola again......

reply to post by thedman


That's because you were too far away so what was three beams, only appeared to be as two. The beams were in relation to where the buildings were so because 7 was some distance away from the towers, so was the light. The two lights representing the towers were close together, making them appear as one as one from a distance or a certain angle. They were there, beautiful as ever.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

That's because you were too far away so what was three beams, only appeared to be as two. The beams were in relation to where the buildings were so because 7 was some distance away from the towers, so was the light. The two lights representing the towers were close together, making them appear as one as one from a distance or a certain angle. They were there, beautiful as ever.

No I was not too far - Exchange Place is directly across the river from WTC - Could distincly see the twin spires
represeting the towers. No 3rd beam!

Gage is a clown and you keep falling for his act......

reply to post by thedman


What are you talking about? I was there and saw it perfectly. Unless someone slipped me a hallucinogenic drug, along with my son and friend, then there were three beams there. Two were closer together so from New Jersey it could easily be mistaken as one beam though I have a sneaky suspicion that you are lying in an effort to discredit someone else. By doing that, you are only discreditting yourself.


--airspoon

I just saw this but wanted to thank you for posting it anyway.

Rofl that someone would tell you "no one saw it" when you were there to witness it personally.

They will say anything just to give you hell, because these facts hurt them so much.

911truthnews.com...


Odd there are no birds in the third beam,