Skip to comments.Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7
Posted on 11/01/2011 12:37:58 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims. But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
There’s nothing you could show them that would make the whackos shut up.
It wont shut up the idiots.
Fire doesn’t melt steel, right?
Plus, there is still that whole “missing plane” at the Pentagon.
Yea but remember all those planes have those tanks to produce chemtrails to keep the sheeple stupid and who knows how hot those chemicals burn.
I walked out of a party about a month ago when a guy started up about how 9/11 was an inside job.
It was that or knock his teeth out, and I can’t afford that right now.
The kooks really are out there.
My mechanical engineering curriculum didn't cover the non-fire technology for melting steel. Must be a shortcoming of Texas A&M College of Engineering.
"Sherman's neckties were a phenomenon of the American Civil War. Named after Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army, Sherman's neckties were railway rails 'destroyed by heating them until they were malleable' and twisting them into loops resembling neckties, often around trees".
The troofers will just say the video is fake.
It floors me that these people can claim that no planes hit the WTC. I saw it with my very own eyes. So was it holograms? Mass hypnosis?
I also saw the tail of the plane sticking out of the Pentagon building. Did I dream that?
Those are the questions they can’t answer. Just believe what they say and pay no attention to the idiot behind the curtain.
It was produced in a Hollywood studio, just like the Moon landings. /s
Oh yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s the ticket.
Thank you for enlightening me.
My favorite conspiracy “proof” was the wire mesh cage ( about a cubic foot in size) with the fire lit inside PROVING that the metal did not melt...
Obviously you are a part of the conspiracy spreading disinformation.
The better question sounds even worse: do they really believe the CIA has no better method for destroying files than destroying four planes to destroy four buildings (two of which were in a different region) in hopes that one of them might fall onto the target (fifth) building and maybe manage to destroy the files.
Yet another indication you should stop watching TV: when you conclude Occam’s Razor (to wit “the simplest answer is right”) never applies.
“Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims”
This is one aspect of conspiracy craziness I’ll never understand. The conspirators are genius enough to pull it off, but stupid enough to pass off the implausible as possible. Why bother burning down Building 7 at all? What do you gain that’s worth violating (conspiracy nuts’ version of) science? Aren’t the Twin Towers enough?
Same thing with the nuts’ central claim about “controlled demolition.” If you’re gonna blow up the Twin Towers, why bother with airplanes? Is the image too dear to worry about the nearly infinite complexity they add to a simple bomb plot? And if so, why not just fly the planes into the building without demoliting them? Or must the image be planes flying into buildings which then collapse, and nothing else? Why, especially as it would inevitably raise questions among “scientists” who on’t think fire can weaken metal?
Nevermind all that/ Let’s say it makes perfect sense. Why, oh why, on top of all that, I ask again, must they demolish building 7? You can almost convince me demolition without planes and planes without demolition aren’t enough. Okay, you can’t, but you can convince me to pretend so. However, I’ll never accept that demolishing some rinky-dink little side building that no one paid attention to at the time and no one remembers nowadays was necessary. No way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.