The Biggest LIES of 9/11
by Greg Bacon
Before I explain why the ‘official’ 9/11 story is one, huge LIE, need to give you some background as to why I can make that statement.
For nearly 23 years of my life, worked as a firefighter/EMT, first for a volunteer outfit, then got hired by a medium-size US city fire department as a career firefighter. I fought fire in a variety of structures, from one bedroom homes to apartment complexes, to huge, warehouse like stores, to various industrial concerns and even in high-rises.
I’ve fought the ‘Red Devil’ as a firefighter, a step-up engineer–the one responsible for keeping the fire engine pumping water to the hose lines–as an acting Lieutenant, a Lieutenant and a couple of times, as Incident Commander, managing the emergency scene from the outside by coordinating all units on the scene towards one goal: Extinguishing the fire with minimum structure damage and hopefully, no loss of life.
In addition to that experience, there was also the monthly department mandated training, either at the Training Academy or in-house. Plus, I attended the local university’s Fire School each Spring and Fall, acquiring over 400 hours of college-level firefighting credits from that university, so I’ve got a bit of background when it comes to fires, their behavior and how buildings react to the stresses of fire damage and water load. (Water load is the extra acquired weight a building gains from all the water being used to extinguish the fire.)
I can safely say that the ‘official’ 9/11 story is BS. It is a well-crafted piece of propaganda that was deftly inserted into shocked and horrified American minds on 9/11, but it is still a LIE.
For one thing, when a building collapses, it does so in a random, haphazard way, with sections of the building succumbing to the fire damage and water weight giving way, taking the roof down with it. A collapsing building does not explode at the top, sending a plume of heated gases, smoke and debris nearly 4,000 feet into the air, like what happened on 9/11 to WTC 1, 2 & 7.
The first pic is the top of the South Tower exploding, the second is the nearly mile-high plume of smoke ejected from WTC 7.
Since a building collapse doesn’t generate that kind of energy, then what did?
A simple building collapse does NOT generate enough energy to hurl a multi-ton steel beam–from the South Tower–nearly 400 feet away and have enough energy left over to impale the beam into the Deutsche Bank building, as seen in the picture below:
Further exposure that the official 9/11 story is a LIE is that when a building collapses, the victims will be mangled and maybe crushed, but a collapse doesn’t generate enough energy to explode a human body into hundreds of tiny pieces, as documented below:
The number of people believed to have been killed in the World Trade Center attack hovers around 2,780, three years after the attack. No trace has been identified for about half the victims, despite the use of advanced DNA techniques to identify individuals. Six weeks after the attack only 425 people had been identified. A year after the attack, only half of the victims had been identified. 19,906 remains were recovered from Ground Zero, 4,735 of which were identified. Up to 200 remains were linked to a single person. Of the 1,401 people identified, 673 of the IDs were based on DNA alone. Only 293 intact bodies were found. Only twelve could be identified by sight.
Many of those who have been identified thru DNA testing of body fragments small enough to fit into a test tube, about the size of a fingernail. Again, a collapse doesn’t generate that kind of energy that had enough force to almost atomize a human body, whose bones are rather durable, especially the large ones like the Femur.
So if a building collapse wasn’t responsible for that destruction of over 1,000 human bodies, what was?
I could go on, but this is enough for now.
These questions need to be answered and the real culprits behind the 9/11 attack outed, indicted, tried and punished, or humanity can resign itself to a permanent state of war; an ever-growing police state and further erosion of our liberties, at least what’s left of them.
NOTE: Pics were copied from one of the best 9/11 truth sites on the Net, run by a German physicist who should know a thing or two about Force, Mass and Acceleration when applied to falling buildings.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
If I’m putting this in the wrong place, sorry about that, however, can anybody tell me what I’m doing wrong in that my blog page always has “site title” at the top of the page, and I’ve not figured out how to replace that text, or is it always supposed to be there? any help here?
and its a given, that if sufficient time/energy was present such to have an airliner punch a hole in a skyscraper wall, there would most certainly be sufficient time/energy to destroy the airliner before it had any chance of making that wing shaped gash. Equal & opposite reaction …. can anybody get their heads around that?
‘Since a building collapse doesn’t generate that kind of energy, then what did?’
answer? nukes!
http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/05/911-filling-in-the-map-tracing-the-nukes/
https://www.facebook.com/911nucleardemolition/
@admin: the last time i swear it that i post those links! it was the author who asked what could have generated that kinf of energy. 😉
I can see you have convinced yourself that the arguments for small thermonuclear devices being deployed on 9/11 make sense. But not to me. The method and type of explosives used are now well understood and supported by the samples collected from the site. A nuclear device of any type would create a radioactive signature you could not hide in New York. So why go looking for the improbable when you already have very sound probable cause?
alright, you can read that. i know it’s the same argument, but there are answers to your question about radioactivity.
http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch03_en.html
Why did not all of Manhattan get contaminated? nuclear explosive devices with a strong neutron flux were used
In nature, the invisible neutron radiation is fatal, biological substances become radioactive.
The three WTC towers however were made of steel. When exposed to a strong neutron flux, iron initially forms stable [= non-radioactive] iron isotopes.
Any modern isotopes laboratory can however prove the use of a nuclear weapon by means of ground samples and by analyzing the conserved iron dust.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170320031625/http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf
Heinz Pommer answered a question in the comments from another physicist.
I appreciate that the arguments for a fusion device are not entirely irrational and that a fusion device has e very different chemistry from fissionable or neutron heavy devices, and thus a very different chemical signature post detonation. However the vaporisation and subsequent condensation of that vapour onto other particles, in the case of fissionables like strontium, would persist and scatter across New York and still cause a Geiger counter to have a fit to this day. I have seen no evidence that is the case
dont worry, Heinz Pommer release by spring a new material.
i’ll come back.
Veterans Today is, in my opinion, a silly disinformation site, designed to discredit numerous more rational theories about events-9/11 being paramount.
i agree, it is you opinion, nothing more. facts and only facts matter. Veterans Today has published many papers about 9/11 false flag. the disinfo are the stories about the Little Grey Ones or anything nuts.
the nuclear attack at Nuked York City on september 11, 2001 is proved by hard-evidence. up to you to cross the rubicon or to stay with only thermite and regular explosives.
ae911truth is not able to answer to the following questions, or they ignore them which make them a scam!
http://www.911memorial4kids.org/911_flyer/911_flyer_en.pdf
http://911history.de/aaannxyz_ch08_en.html
at the bottom: questions to ae911
how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the formation of a mushroom cloud over Building 7, towering one mile above the City?
how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the formation of a vortex in the mushroom cloud over Building 7?
how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the non-conservation of angular momentum when the South Towers Top toppled over and stabilized suddenly in freefall at 15° (a nuclear charge would produce a rising fountain of material acting as a stopping bolt)?
how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the eruption of white gases from underground, mixing with the black clouds of the Tower’s dust?
how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the scintillation phenomena of the cameras, which started to register green dots, blue stripes etc, as soon as the fleeing cameramen were engulfed in the [e.g. radioactive] dustcloud?
have you taken into account that the primary uranium fission products (confirmed by the USGS) will nearly all decay within a few days, with the exception of modestly radioactive Zirconium)?
have you taken into account that many iron isotopes are stable an will not be activated by neutron radiation?
have you taken into account that iron will rather scatter and not absorb neutron radiation, thus NO ACTIVATION will occur?
At least 911 has given anyone with a modicum of reason and logic an opportunity to unveil who works for the Globalist New World Order agenda. All proponents of the official lie and supporters of this crime against humanity are candidates for criminal proceedings. Chomsky has been the intellectual pied piper engaged, to mould and miss-lead the aspiring left. He is paid to be a very clever man but is finally exposed as nothing more than a Globalist asset, without the integrity necessary to occupy a child’s high chair, let alone any chair of professorship.
It is a simple enough question to be put to May, Cameron, Clegg, Blair and anyone else who espouses the notion of democracy over the shamocracy that passes for the paedophilic vehicle known as Her Majesties Government.
My biggest disappointment is Robert Fisk. I thought he might be an exception, but no.
At some level Fisk is well aware that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a fairy story, and in fact almost says as much in this article (although he couches his reservations in very conservative terms).
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-28461961.html
The insurmountable obstacle for him, and many others is that they cannot conceive of a conspiracy of this magnitude not being outed by some disgruntled operative within the deep state network – its a fair point, but one that still pales into insignificance when compared to the mountain of technical evidence which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the 3 towers could not have behaved in the way that they did without the use of explosives.
Fisk, like 99% of MSM “journalists”, exposes only safe subjects. To expose – and publish – the real 9/11 story (that most of us now know) would be career suicide. He’d never work again, except sweeping streets in Beirut, without a broom.
Truth, YES, but after port & cigars in the salon.
Even IF Chomsky was a ‘globalist asset’ re. 9/11, he would certainly NOT be ‘nothing more’. I think Chomsky understands that the MOSSAD, Jewish sayanim and elements of the US Deep State did 9/11, and that knowledge, if made known to the proles, would cause an explosion of hatred against, among others, Jews in American, and that would cause a catastrophe. That’s my theory, because, of course, the ‘official’ 9/11 narrative is beyond ludicrous.
that is why one says that truth is antisemitic because since you say anything true about zionist colonialist entity, aka israel, and the leading role of the neoconservatives and of the mossad in 9/11 false flag, you get called antisemitic.
if telling the truth has become antisemitic, the truth becomes antisemitic!
of course it is a joke since antisemitism does not exit, it is a con label. anti-judaism may exist as anti-islamism exists, as anti-christianism would have existed against the power of the roman catholic church which was the law and the political power from Rome to the Renaissance.
It seems the majority of those demanding further investigation actually don’t want the truth to be disclosed. The sheer volume of dis-information peppered with grains of plausibility ensure motives, participants and execution remain hidden. Revealing the actual facts of what occurred that day will not restore the victims of bloodlust unleashed in retaliation, nor will it prevent the ongoing murder of innocent populations. We know the institutions responsible, the systems that profit via complicity and those government actors who continue to lie whilst pressing for further repression and wars in the name of the war on terror. We must stop the monsters of today before holding the monsters of yesterday to account.
‘We must stop the monsters of today before holding the monsters of yesterday to account.’ – this will never happen until the day there is meaningful recognition of the lengths the US military industrial complex will go to get what they want, in other words 9/11 is simply part of a much deeper pathology.
America is more or less unique in the sense that for decades its international policy has not concerned itself with rule of law or with the immense collateral damage that it has inflicted – it can only get away with this because the public, and certainly the MSM have failed to recognise these crimes for what what they (WMD – lol).
Until we reach a day when hoots of derision arise each time the president refers to the US as ‘leaders of the free world’ it is only a matter of time before the next episode of mass murder and exploitation unfolds (Iran? North Korea? Ukraine?).
A dying Harold Pinter delivers an excoriating address on these themes, and I swear, that if he could he would have risen from his wheelchair at the end to tell Noam, George, and Naomi to wake the fuck up – I would go so far as to say it is our public duty to listen to this magnificent address, such is the linguistic skill with which Pinter dissects US crimes against humanity.
Why have ‘left gate keepers’ let us down so badly over 9/11?
Monbiot it seems doesn’t understand basic science (which is an irony given his snidey dismissel of Ray Griffin for not being a technocrat) .
George, if scientists invent wild theories about the behaviour of buidlings then peer review is the usual method to prove or refute claims that have been made. As it stands the NIST report is the structural equivalent of a pharmaceutical manufacturer claiming they can cure all cancers without any other study arriving at similar conclusions.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Deets_Letter_to_DiBlasi.pdf
Chomsky is on record as saying the truth of 9/11 doesn’t matter – a level of stupidity that Dubya seldom scaled.
And then there is Naomi ‘shock doctrine’ Klein – an intellectual on the left who built a substantial part of her reputation on the concept of shady political, corporate or military figures creating unstable conditions in order to pursue their own machiavellian ends.
Her abject failure to amplify the significance of 9/11, the ultimate example of ‘shock doctrine’ is a bit like a hardcore vegan being caught eating a lamb kebab after a night on the booze.
Why, why, oh why have they all failed the most important test set for them?
Yes , this was a mystery to me at first but eventually I remembered a book by Camus “The rebel”. All these critics make a living out of critiquing society.They are rebels not revolutionaries ,I do not blame or judge them.
Another term for them is “left gatekeepers”. They help to round up sheep that have strayed off the reservation by pointing them back towards the flock. All three—Monbiot, Klein and Chomsky—are as smart or smarter than the average Off Guardian reader, and they do what they do—ignoring or underplaying certain topics and belittling those who draw attention to them—quite deliberately as a form of willful deception. What’s not to blame or judge?
They haven’t failed, they have succeeded in doing their task, i.e. gatekeeping. Anesthetic for the intellectual left wing guardian readers to shut off their logic and reason.
The case of Chomsky is worse than you say i.e. he initially dismissed alternative theories about 9/11 and was pretty heavy handed about it. AND THEN he claimed it didn’t matter anyway. He was like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar who kept changing his story.
Why no rebellion? They’re smart enough and scared enough to know that they exist at the pleasure of the establishment. Their best game is to tickle the dragon without annoying it. Kick it the eye and they’re toast. Literally.
Monbiot sold out some time ago, and continues to do so eg concerning the White Helmets jihadist butchers, with enthusiasm. Chomsky is correct, but only partially so. 9/11 signalled the Zionazis’ decision, long-planned, to put their ‘Clash of Civilizations’ plan for total world domination, though their puppet hyper-power, the USA, into action. After obliterating the Arab and other Islamic states of the region, this genocidal ambition quite bluntly also envisages the current upsurge of insane aggression against the ‘Orthodox’ enemy (Russia) and the ‘Confucian/Asiatic’ enemy (China)also, no doubt, utilising their jihadist shock-squads.
Okay.
So how many jet airliners weighing thousands of tons, carrying massive fuel loads have crashed, at high speed, into multi storey buildings before?
Is that normal jet airliners or the kind of jet airliners described by those who subscribe to the official theory that defy the laws of physics?
The official NIST report does not offer any written scientific explanation as to why the buildings fell.
Shyam Sunder blames fire, but fire simply cannot explain the nature of the collapse in credible terms.
An insurmountable obstacle for the plane damage hypothesis is the identical fall of 3 buildings even though there were only 2 were damaged by planes.
Just to add here is Niels Harrit analysing the NIST report (from 20:00).
Footnote 13 on page 82 of the report says, ‘this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence” although it does not actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.’
Incredible isn’t it – a 14,000 word report yet the central question about the cause of collapse remains unanswered.
Needless to say the work of Shyam Sunder has been discredited by Richard Gage amongst others (see Gage’s letter to Sunder)
The two planes that hit the North and South Towers of WTC in New York were Boeing 767s. Their maximum take of weights were less than 200 tonnes. No planes hit WTC7.
I stand corrected.
200,000 kilograms at 350(?) kilometres per hour.
Any precedents for that?
And WTC7? Any precedents for that? 200000kg =200 tonnes as I said.
And no – according to the official report by the National Transportation Safety Board they were flying much faster – over 900kph and nearly 800kph respectively. You know that you could do a few minutes searching on the web and find this out for yourself. But once they hit the building they had come to a stop and lost all of their kinetic energy – converting mainly into heat.
Maybe not, but the towers had been designed to survive, without collapse, the impact of a 707, the largest civilian airliner in use at the time they were built. As others have mentioned no plane flew into building 7 which collapsed in the same manner.
‘The two planes that hit the North and South Towers of WTC in New York were Boeing 767s….’
Shouldn’t that read ‘The two planes that REPORTEDLY hit the North and South Towers of WTC in New York were Boeing 767s….’?
Gosh, Fitzhenrymac, regular ICH poster in support of the official 9/11 theory, what a surprise seeing you doing the same thing here!
Airliners weigh hundreds, not thousands, of tons. “Jet” fuel is kerosene, the stuff old folks use in home heaters. It does not explode. Aircraft are made mostly of aluminum, which you can bend in your bare hands but the structure of the WTC towers was hardened steel.
And your question? During WW2 a B25 bomber hit the Empire State building. Destroyed the aircraft, a little damage to the building, which reopened two days later. Now have another look at the WTC video.
The buildings were designed to survive a collision with a 747, a much large plane.
micro-nukes placed in the sub-basement. Weigh 24 pounds apiece. Items missing from the nuclear Davy Crockett artillery shell. Blow straight up at 4000 degrees with a 200 foot radius. Thyroid cancers spike in NYC within a year or two. Do you need a child to draw you a picture in crayon?
Disinformation, designed to discredit the rational explanation of a controlled demolition.
talking about disinfo: http://aitia.fr/erd/les-associations-pour-la-verite-sur-le-11-septembre-la-cherchent-elles-vraiment/
use google translate if you don’t speak french..
english subtitles available: http://aitia.fr/erd/le-11-septembre-une-mine-pour-les-physiciens/
are geiger counters still banned at ‘ground zero’?
hard to believe i’ve witnessed the death of the human mind in my lifetime. sadly the body follows soon thereafter…vaccines
Isn’t it obvious the official 9/11 myth collapsed long ago (just as spectacularly as the WTC towers) under the sheer weight of logic and forensic analysis typified by compelling articles like this?
Nobody in their right mind can dismiss the quality of evidence supplied by a broad range of sources including pilots, architects, scientists, physicists, and fire fighters as a kind of hysteria, or infantile counter-conspiracy theory.
I’ve been reading previous Off-Guardian threads and I see Chomsky and Monbiot are prominent nay sayers, yet none of their ilk, absolutely none, will enagage with objective evidence which counters the silly OSB/19 hijackers bullshit that Bush sold to us.
I guess if the fire damaged passport was handed to somebody like Chomsky or Monbiot they would nod approvingly insisting that the manner of such a finding was in no way indicative of an orchestrated plant by some sinister intelligence agency.
I’ve long since thought that Chomsky has lost the plot. Monbiot I considered basically sensible but how come he now buys the outrageous official narrative?
Monbiot says “The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.
Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert – an aerospace and mechanical engineer – to test the official findings. He shows that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/feb/06/comment.film
In fact the NIST report (as noted above) is unable to explain the reason for the collapse of WTC 1&2 presumably because they couldn’t without reference controlled demolition techniques while the collapse of WTC7 was announced on telly an hour before the event. How on earth did the presenters know that a unique event was about to take place since no steel structured building of this type has ever behaved in the same way before or after 9/11?
By the way did Monbiot ever find out what happened to the missing bodies at Shanksville?
Cheney at least admits he had the plane shot down but it seems Monbiot did not think it was necessary for him to account for his actions during the official investigation which was first handed to a war criminal, Henry Kissinger, before being written up by a man who wrote books with Condoleeza Rice.
Maybe George was swayed by the hijackers passport found in the wreckage of the damaged buildings that unlike most of the bodies was able to survive an explosion that produced a scientific miracle (if we accept Bush & Cheney’s version of events)
Mr.Monbiot might as well stand naked and say “I am emperor !” “The collapse ‘turns out’ to be inevitable.” ‘Turns out?’ What language is that?!.. someone turned to George and said “It turns out…..”
Backed, of course, by the great Wurlitzer’s screech.
And Auntie BEEB.
The creatioNISTs didn’t investigate the mechanics of collapse. Mr.Monbiot should KNOW that. ln the cases of WTC1&2, they ceased investigation at the moments of critical fail. That is, when the BIG boom boom took place..immediately after which constant acceleration was achieved: disintegrating 110 stories of 287 columned steel framed high-rises into HOT rapidly expanding ppm DUST flows :
at a rate of 11 per second :
110 stories@1 acre concrete per floor in av.10 seconds =11 acres of concrete floor plus molten steel@6% (LEE)into hot ppm dust per SECOND.
Gravity sure is a funny old thing.
George was told, “Do not ask how such things are physically possible ! They are physically possible because they happened the way we say they happened !!” Thats not science.
With WTC7 they [NIST] had to create an algorithm to support their ‘magic bolt’ sudden free fall of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rise (the ‘speed of deceit’ ) An algorithm kept secret all these years. No peer-review.
Thats not science (George) Thats agnotology !
The resulting report, with what data the creatioNISTs made available, has been found out by a two year UAF ‘dual-program’ study; to be false. untenable. In any language, “it turns out to be FRAUD” George. And if the creatioNIST agnotologies have been outed, what then of the History? The narrative? If OBL didn’t wire up those giants, who did ? WHat of the global War of Terror if ‘Islamic terrorism’ was not the real enemy of reason and fact? What then, in the higher circles of thought ? That you have been lied to so comprehensively.
What then of you to be arguing FOR the lie .?
There are a number of serious problems with Monbiots analysis, not least the dismissive nature of his rebuttal (you have to be pretty certain of your facts before adopting such a patronising tone) – secondly Monbiot fails to grasp the significance of the accumulation of failings throughout the entire official narrative.
From start to finish none of it actually stands up – every element of it has been discredited and by people with years and years of experience such as the author of the OP, Greg Bacon.
I get very down when I think about all of the people taken in by the 9/11 lies, especially when generally dependable observers like Monbiot arrive at firm conclusions based on demonstrably false data (such as incorrect assertions that NIST were able to explain the collapse) – I mean this is basic stuff, George, if you can’t understand that then why should we take seriously anything else you say, especially the fact NIST willfully refused to explore the most likely cause, i.e. a controlled demolition.
At least Neils Harrit cheers me up – his schooling of the BBC cub reporter over the miraculous passport is especially satisfying (from 1:30)
Monbiot is ‘generably reliable’ these days ONLY in pushing the Fraudian line, in regard to the jihadist war on Syria and the White Helmet butchers in particular. He has sold out, but the arrogant presumption remains the same. I see him ending up at The Spectator or somewhere similar, after the Fraudian is euthanised.
A man of Chomsky’s intelligence would not have lost the plot. On the contrary, he must have seen right away the problem with the official 9/11 story, and guessed where the truth might lead to: catastrophic blowback for anyone connected one way or another to the real organisers.
Chomsky the famous political dissenter will go down in history as a man who chose to remain silent when the time came to speak the truth. I despise him.
I agree, but it begs the question why should Chomsky fear catastrophic blowback for anyone connected one way or another to the real organisers?
Because Chomsky himself could be connected to them one way or another?
Could well be. So it seems there are personal limits that our noble, liberal professor places on revealing the truth.
Chomsky may be senile, judging by some things he obviously gets wrong, but Monbiot is simply a hack putting food on the table.
Monbiot has sold out on numerous fronts, no doubt a required stance at the Fraudian. His position re. the White Helmets jihadist butchers is DESPICABLE, but he brings his customary arrogance to the task of defending child murderers.
The official 9/11 story is an obvious lie. What’s less obvious is the reason why most people can live with that lie.
Some people simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their own government was probably involved in such criminality .It is simply impossible for them to cross that line as it would completely destroy their simple world view. I know because I live with one of them .
Could anybody trust a man like Cheney?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9g11V4_b8
Cheney, the man with the dead heart, lives on.
But on the other hand, I’m sure we can trust George W. Bush. When he reads from a script about how the terrorist “operatives were instructed to place explosives at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping,” we can take that as an official admission that explosives brought down the Twin Towers.
https://youtu.be/fpcJyn3N5ks
Ignorance is an interesting word . It means ignoring things that you cannot deal with. I presume other languages decompose in a similar way. Once you have come to terms with the obvious 119 lie you have to unpeel the whole of history.
Men and women firefighters are among the most honest, decent category of people found anywhere on Earth. Mr. Greg Bacon does a great service for Americans and humanity on the still unresolved issue of 9/11 by exhibiting total integrity – the vital quality which people most admire in their fellow members of the human family.
outstandingly clear critique of several essential items of evidence- just hope PT 2 doesnt descend into CD
Anyone who’s done any independent research on 9/11 knows the whole thing is one big lie perpetuated on the American people. It takes about 5 minutes to realize this.
The lie ‘works’ the world that it phishes – not just the US Americans.
But it also reveals that ‘world’ is a lie.
As regards Plasco Building collapse, one big difference is obvious even to the layman – Plasco collapse started from the top and in one side of the building probably due to enormous water load on floor construction after hours of firefighting, the “explosions” seen is more likely fire back draft or debris that was falling through the floor construction (apparently excessive amounts of textiles were stored on top floors that were on fire , while WTC collapse started from the bottom of the building?
Was the Plasco building a steel-framed construction or just reinforced concrete? No one seems to be able to clear this question up.
Reblogged this on leruscino.
And by the way:
„Teheran Plasco Building Collapse: was this to be Demonstrated?“: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/teheran-plasco-building-collapse-was-this-to-be-demonstrated-teheraner-hochhauseinsturz-sollte-dies-demonstriert-werden/
See also:
„USA and Israel, the Helpless Giant and his Mad Dog: are there more dirty secrets?“ http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/usa-and-israel-the-helpless-giant-and-his-mad-dog-are-there-more-dirty-secrets/
Regards