20-10-2012, 08:17 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Before I get banned, I'm starting to lean towards a controlled demolition for WTC-7. It seems obvious from these witness statements that authorities were openly saying they were going to pull the building. Obviously pulling the building in this context means bringing it down deliberately. I've seen enough government action like the Kennedy Assassination and TWA 800 to know they openly lie in contempt to the American public and this is probably another example where they could compound the effect of 9-11 by bringing a damaged building down at a convenient time. The devil is in the details but it looks like they brought it down intentionally. How they did that is beyond me in a building that was on fire.
Still though, I wish people would be honest and give me a straight answer as to why the clear area in Banfield's video fills in with smoke before the booms they show?
Anyone?
I'm just calling for objectivity here.
Albert,
No one is going to ban you or anyone else for honestly offering reasonable hypotheses of deep political events that are not shared by the majority of DPF owners and correspondents.
Yeah, but what about the un-reasonable ones? :loco:
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)