Txdigest.com

A brand new motion picture on 9/11 featuring what happened to building 7. So, pop you some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2Wiyv4Bms

cliff notes?

JiP is going to love this. Lots of thermite action.

PlanoSooner wrote:cliff notes?

A fairy tale

Too late for this one.

If the purpose of the Attacks was to motivate the US to invade Afghanistan & Iraq wouldn't the Bushes have told the Mossad to hire a few Pashtuns & Iraqis as fake High Jackers ?

Red Oak wrote:If the purpose of the Attacks was to motivate the US to invade Afghanistan & Iraq wouldn't the Bushes have told the Mossad to hire a few Pashtuns & Iraqis as fake High Jackers ?

You might recall that before we invaded Iraq, Bush didn't know a Shiite from a Shinola.

I agree that it was odd that Bush stayed at that school after learning the second building was hit.
It sounds like he had foreknowledge that he wasn't a target.

If the conspiracy folks would stop there and work on that angle, they might hit pay dirt.

They keep going and get too nutty to hold my interest.

BillB wrote:I agree that it was odd that Bush stayed at that school after learning the second building was hit.
It sounds like he had foreknowledge that he wasn't a target.

If the conspiracy folks would stop there and work on that angle, they might hit pay dirt.

They keep going and get too nutty to hold my interest.

Most of the time is spent analyzing bldg. 7. I'm not sure what is nutty about claiming it was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming. And if so, the whole official version of what happened to the WTC on 9/11 unravels.

planosteve wrote:

BillB wrote:I agree that it was odd that Bush stayed at that school after learning the second building was hit.
It sounds like he had foreknowledge that he wasn't a target.

If the conspiracy folks would stop there and work on that angle, they might hit pay dirt.

They keep going and get too nutty to hold my interest.

Most of the time is spent analyzing bldg. 7. I'm not sure what is nutty about claiming it was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming. And if so, the whole official version of what happened to the WTC on 9/11 unravels.

Demolishing those buildings does not make any sense.
Why was it necessary? It wasn't.
The planes hit the buildings. We know that. That would have been sufficient to cause national outrage. Nothing else was required.

I'll listen to this theory:

The US government (Bush) had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and let them happen.
There are several things pointing in that direction.
I am not certain of this and certainly will not go any farther than this. There is no need to.

Demolishing those buildings does not make any sense.
Why was it necessary? It wasn't.
The planes hit the buildings. We know that. That would have been sufficient to cause national outrage. Nothing else was required.

Destroying the towers was necessary to totally destroy all of the evidence. No steel skyscraper has even been more than just damaged when hit by a plane and none has ever collapsed because of fire. To believe that occurred 3 times at the same time in the same place is too much to swallow. The excuse that the burning jet fuel melted all 90 some steel columns in both towers is nuts. Jet fuel doesn't burn nearly hot enough to melt steel and even if it did, bldg. 7 wasn't hit by a plane. That's why it's important and why NIST totally ignored it originally. They had to concoct a separate rube Goldberg explanation for it that makes no sense at all.