I love James Corbett, he has produced some very fine material.
I just recently caught a bit of a tele program investigating the physical improbability of this the other night. The point, there is no way the steel frames design construction in the twin towers could fall due to fire alone. Especially not at this speed, and as happened, from the ground up! They were suggesting there had to have been earlier applied a particular chemical that could ignite at such a high temps in order to burn through the structured steel in the towers. Also, yes- there were three buildings and only two airplanes? – how was this never examined and more questioning, quieted so well?
If we discovered on Sept. 11 that a skyscraper could fall down from office fires, I think that would have initiated a global investigation into the design of these buildings. Think of the implication; all someone would need to do would be to use a simple incendiary device to take out a building, rather than say have to fly an airplane into it. It would be a coup for the demolition industry, which could save all kinds of effort by just setting a tower on fire and presto, it falls down on its footprint.
‘that’s some bullet’
kevin costner in jfk comes to mind
Have you seen the image on FB of the steel-framed skyscraper in Madrid that has been burning for 20 hours – and no collapse? Eloquent. Now the other side says that jet fuel burns hotter, but really, demolition is the only rational explanation.
It’s like bowling, they hit the split to pick up the spare.
Three buildings knocked down by two airplanes — one heck of a conspiracy!
conspiracy theorists go to the front of the line – WOW
I love James Corbett, he has produced some very fine material.
I just recently caught a bit of a tele program investigating the physical improbability of this the other night. The point, there is no way the steel frames design construction in the twin towers could fall due to fire alone. Especially not at this speed, and as happened, from the ground up! They were suggesting there had to have been earlier applied a particular chemical that could ignite at such a high temps in order to burn through the structured steel in the towers. Also, yes- there were three buildings and only two airplanes? – how was this never examined and more questioning, quieted so well?
If we discovered on Sept. 11 that a skyscraper could fall down from office fires, I think that would have initiated a global investigation into the design of these buildings. Think of the implication; all someone would need to do would be to use a simple incendiary device to take out a building, rather than say have to fly an airplane into it. It would be a coup for the demolition industry, which could save all kinds of effort by just setting a tower on fire and presto, it falls down on its footprint.
‘that’s some bullet’
kevin costner in jfk comes to mind
Have you seen the image on FB of the steel-framed skyscraper in Madrid that has been burning for 20 hours – and no collapse? Eloquent. Now the other side says that jet fuel burns hotter, but really, demolition is the only rational explanation.
It’s like bowling, they hit the split to pick up the spare.
Three buildings knocked down by two airplanes — one heck of a conspiracy!
conspiracy theorists go to the front of the line – WOW
thank you Eric
vince