Originally Posted by Alex Linder
Joe Snuffy, here's how I see it. There's no one outstanding piece; rather, each piece by itself is enough; together they move the question far beyond reasonable doubt.
In no particular order, these are the things that strike me.
1) horse sense: an airplane doesnt knock down a building of that size, and the building was specifically built to withstand such a strike. What happened was the airplane sheared through the corner, a big fireball, that was basically it. Then 1.5 hours later (or so) the building falls. That doesn't pass the bullshit detector, my first tool.
3) The complete pulverization of the concrete, and the almost absolute absence of any material remains. That would not be the case if the building were struck and fell down. No simple fire with a bit of jet fuel could account for the Mt. St. Helens levels of ash, coating things for blocks. Something blew the holy hell out of that building, and probably a whole lot of somethings. There are no remains of the 3,000 people, let alone any office equipment. Computers and chairs and office stuff and human bodies and steel - these dont make for great fires. Again, the official story sets off the BULLSHIT detector.
I guess the kikes that you allow to run wild here are refraining from telling you to "fuck off, conspiracy kook".
Anyway, just to clarify point 1: ZOG doesn't claim that the impacts of the planes brought the building down, only that it may have knocked off the insulation of some of the support beams and damaged some others which allowed the fire to melt and weaken said beams causing the collapse which, of course, is also bullshit.
And point 3, the pulverization of the concrete and just about everything else has not been completely explained as not being possibly the result of the force and power of millions of tons of material crashing into itself at near free fall speed. If anybody has some info on this I'd appreciate seeing it or the link. I haven't seen anything on it.