apathetic with apathy

WTC Building 7 Pulled

While arguing to a friend that 911 was a demolition job, I brought up the Building 7 scenario. The building that was NOT hit by a plane. I guessed that most likely building 7 was ‘pulled’ to hide evidence, after learning that CIA operated from the 25th Floor. I was surprised that she did not know anything about Building 7 nor Larry Silversteins $500 Million insurance scam. Not forgeting that Flight 77 was a missile and that Flight 93 was just a hole in the ground.

Filed under: 911, Conspiracy, Environment, Media, Politics, Video

9 Responses

  1. Libor, my man... says:

    In the fairness of debate…

    The other side of WTC 7 and 9/11

  2. playtoh says:

    Thanks for the Link, you got me all excited, however had a quick look and my guess is that the same people who own Time and Newsweek must have bought or own Popular Mechanics. WTC 7 collapsed because it was ‘PULLED’, Larry told us that ! To be honest, I think most illiterate geeks on the internet come up with better arguments than the so called experts who PM consulted. There must be better arguments for the supposed ‘real’ story than what PM posted: keep looking !

  3. playtoh says:

    Did a bit more research and looks like the people that Popular Mechanics tried to de-bunk have retorted with this: Check it out, they give good argument to what I thought was immediately obvious. Apparently Scientific American had similar intentions if you care to look:

  4. Libor, my man... says:

    Lol, he got pretty fired up. Very Funny. Lot’s of ‘strawman’ action too.

    A fair bit of ‘us and them’ in the article which, when he read that into the PM article he took great offence; and it is a mechanics magazine, which would presumably explain their interest in only physical evidence.

    Above all, the logic is fluid. i.e turned around when it suits,

    For instance, are all the USA today articles cited in defense of this position also a mouth-piece of the man, or just not for that particular article, or is that free speech accidentally being let through…?

    You know, we should probably do this over coffee.

  5. Libor, my man... says:

    And this one,

    “PM cites other experts to counter valid claims without it being clear that they are addressing the issue at hand. For example PM cites airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes as asserting that aircraft parts can bounce over 300 yards in high-speed crashes, without clarifying whether he is addressing the crash of Flight 93: a vertical plunge into soft ground. “…

    I’m guessing Jim has never dropped a glass before…

  6. Libor, my man... says:

    Another one.

    “At about seven seconds after the South Tower’s top stated to plunge, the event has become quite explosive. The red arrow points to puffs of dust emerging from the mechanical floor, about ten floors below the zone of total”

    Two words: Air pressure.

  7. Libor, my man... says:

    I should clarify the above ^^^

    From the compression of the above floors.

  8. playtoh says:

    In between all the bails and stumps, and no matter the mechanical arguments etc etc etc, why did building 7 get pulled ? It makes sense to be a skeptic if a building in New York can be ‘pulled’ at the request of the owner? Likewise, why can’t the public see any real footage of the pentagon crash. Also, what’s with the secrecy behind flight 93 crash site. AND; I cannot comprehend the whole 911 commission fiasco either. National security or not, act like your guilty by hiding, lying and withholding evidence, then in my book – YOU ARE !
    Oh, and you can’t seriously tell me that PM did a good job to put the conspiracy claims to rest. In my opinion, they made matters worse for those that believe what the mainstream media tell them, since they may have encouraged their readers to check out the conspiracies…………….are you convinced now?

  9. Ralph says:

    Popular Mechanics (PM) is just another gatekeeper organization of the official 9/11 story, a story that is totally unprovable. It appears that the ultimate goal of PM is to generalise all skeptics of the offical story and place them ‘in one basket’ so they can all be collectively discredited and mocked. Looking at the PM website in relation to 9/11, they offer no counter-evidence to ANY evidence produced by 9/11 researchers. Please bypass Popular Mechanics and other bogus organizations and reserach the facts for yourself. Come to your own conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


















%d bloggers like this: