[–] Redpills_Beyond 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Also - there was a documentary I was watching recently, and it said that skyscrapers built in NYC around the time that WTC towers were built (1968-1972 overall timeframe), were all built with 'self destruct' mechanisms. There was two prevailing thoughts on this - one that it a internal self destruct much like an implosion, with charges strategically placed to keep the footprint of the collapse down - the other, saying there was some type of nuclear bomb under the buildings that would also force the building to collapse in its own foot print. Have you guys seen or heard this? I can't even remember which documentary i was watching when I saw this

[–] Redpills_Beyond 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I have seen some claims that there were security firms hired to install these bombs. ... I think that info may have been on the Loose Change documentary - anyone have any ideas?

[–] Redpills_Beyond 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Where were the parts of the plane that literally could not have penetrated the steel exo-skeleton of the WTC towers?

Why is it clear that you can see explosions blowing dust out of the floors below the collapsing building, as it collapses? And add to that, why can we physically SEE the light of those explosions in certain videos?

This is all I want to know. For now.

[–] setTRUTHfree 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I agree, President Trump.

Planes are made from aluminum which is much softer than steel. Sure some parts are made of steel, but planes are made to be lightweight. If the WTCs were made with exterior steel columns, the plane would have done minimal damage without more "explosive" power.

Next point is that regardless of the damage that could presumably have been done by these planes, there is absolutely no possible way that the standing integrity of that building below that point would have been compromised without the top tipping over. In other words, the free fall that those buildings experienced is only possible with controlled placed explosives.

I encourage you to look up if the building was closed for a day in the weeks/months preceding the attack.

spoiler alert: it was.

[–] onewalleee 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

He does indeed mention "bombs that exploded almost simultaneously". But if you listen really closely:

I just think it was a plane with more than just fuel. I think obviously they were very big planes and they were moving very rapidly... it just seemed to me that to do that kind of destruction is even more than a big plane, because you're talking about taking out steel

We can interpret that as, "I think in addition to the planes, there were also completely separate bombs in the building, which were detonated within milliseconds of the plane hitting, or by the plane hitting."

But IMO the most natural reading of "planes with more than just fuel" is that the planes themselves had bombs aboard.

Remember, this was on 9/11. We knew next to nothing about the events leading up to the hijacking. It wouldn't be crazy to speculate that the hijackers might have somehow snuck a bomb onto the plane itself.

This kind of nuanced syntax-parsing ought not to instill confidence either way, but I think it would be a mistake to interpret his statement as categorically theorizing that there were bombs planted within the building.

[–] Lordbananafist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This doesn’t rehabilitate his inaction really