This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Butterbread ago (edited ago)
I have to admit that building 7 freefall is extremely strange.
However, is there footage from the other side of that building? Apparently, the collapse of the center of the building happened first, sort of leaving a shell that started collapsing about 1-2 seconds after. I believe this scenario is supported by the few images I have seen of the damage before collapse. Put another way, half the building started falling and then the other half began. This seems like a possible reason for the freefall.
[–] belphegorsprime 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yes, but consider that whatever was holding up the proportion of the building we see must have had at least some structural integrity to maintain its full height. The free-fall at any point means that there was zero structural support. So, even if part of the building was falling away out of view, the parts that we see could not have happened without complete and instantaneous removal of all remaining structural support. No matter which way you look at this, building 7 is a smoking gun.
As soon as one begins to dig further (ignoring all the noise and bullshit surrounding this whole topic, which is voluminous to say the least), lots of other questions come up. One that comes to mind is the removal and immediate destruction of all the steel (recycled in China). I would like to see the FEMA footage, or to know the whereabouts of the videographer. Anyway, there is a heap of bullshit claims surrounding these events (including that towers 1 & 2 "fell at free-fall speed", which is demonstrably false), so it is very important to remain skeptical of any claims. Do your own research, and you will discover many more questions than answers. Very important unanswered questions.
[–] Butterbread ago
Well said. There is a lot of bullshit, which makes research annoying. Good points on the freefall of 7. I'll keep looking. Thanks again for the guidance.