9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Peter Lemkin]

BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Weren't the "booms" noted before the collapse of 7 began?

So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

I slept in a bit only to be dismayed at the confusion around the timing of the Ashley Banfield sequential charges with the collapse of individual floors. Where did that come from? Which is the exact question Charles raised. Right on.

The answer of course is that it was introduced Orling in #'s 88 and 90. Nice try, Orling. That was pathetic. You know full well that the analysis of the Ashley Banfield segment is devastating to your argument about WTC7. 'Time to do the rope-a-dope. Change the subject. They'll wear down. They always do.'

The sequential charges were intended to take away the support structure of a building, as you pointed out, that did not have much support because of its being built over the substation.

In the following video by AE911T, from about 2:00 on there are a number of witnesses who give evidence in favor of controlled demolition. One of them talks about the bottom floor caving in followed by the rest of the building.

Thank you Peter, Lauren and CD. But I don't think you are going to change his mind with the facts.
Just my opinion of course.

Dawn

No, he is not reacting to facts, evidence, logic, physics or thermodynamics. He has an agenda and he is here to promote it...one of doubt, and non-movement of others trying to analyze and understand the events of 911. Reminds me a lot of an entity known as Colby somewhere else.