Alex talks about a washington times article supporting what the 9/11 truth movement has been saying all along about the strange way building 7 came crashing down at near free fall speed when no plane hit it that day. prisonplanet.tv www.infowars.com
Alex Jones Tv: Washington Times Article Supports 9/11 Truth Facts About Building 7
Posted in: Uncategorized
cont.
175 represents the Merovingian dynasty which still maintains its legitimacy & will one day openly assert the divine right of their nobility to rule the world as an angelic race of demi-gods, whose ancestors were the fallen angels.
Barbara Bush & Ann Cappelletti, 1/2 sisters, daughters of Aleister Crowley. John Cappelletti’s demolition co planted the nano-thermite.
u suck alex jones and u to mr.fake reptlian icke….Freaking gurus of dissinformation….
this guy is Cartman from Southpark
WAKE UP AND FOCUS! GOVERNMENT IS EVIL
I think government is evil enough to have mind control chips
i hope we can do this nice and peaceful but i think america needs a revolution
@TheStarstruck883 yes and the alternative media is owned by them.,…
Dude, we KNOW why Building 7 collapsed! The south end of it was totaled by the twin towers coming down. You can find pictures and videos to support this. How can you people claim to be seeking the truth if you don’t even know THAT!?
Oh yeah, the explosions seen when the twin towers came down? Well you see, there’s this funny little part of an aircraft called a fuel tank. Maybe you’ve heard of it?
so how come none of the other buildings fell 2.bc there r buildings around wtc 7 but yet only wtc 7 falls look at the videos n the way it falls come on its SO CLEAR
@samifan18: The surrounding buildings were only lightly damaged, but WTC7 took the brunt of the damage from debris. It was on a more direct path than its neighbors and therefore we can expect it to have more damage.
When you’ve eliminated all the variables, whatever you’re left with, however improbable, must be the truth.
@FormicHiveQueen So the explanation for the two towers coming down is jet fuel weakened the steel causing the collapse. But apparently for Building 7 we don’t even need jet fuel!!! Debris was enough to collapse a building in its footprint!!! You people are blind… most obvious controlled demolition I’ve ever seen… any alternative explanation is preposterous!!
@thezodiac68: I don’t think you understand the full severity of the damage. The Twin Towers fell because of both weakening beams and ones that were totaled by the aircraft. They were too heavy to tip all the way over which is why they took the lower floors with ’em. Building 7, on the other hand, was not only hit by enough debris to set a bonfire in the southern-half, a good portion of the southern half was SHEARED CLEAN OFF.
fantastic!
@FormicHiveQueen I farted
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!!!!!!!
@thezodiac68 that was too funny. So what the temperature of burning fuel and the melting point of steel again? please do break it down Dr.
Alex Jones…the hammer! Keep going Alex…
@RandyBful1 TELL ‘EM RANDY, FUCKIN TELL THOSE SHEEP WHAT’S WHAT!
The big Oil corporations are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating your own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
@FormicHiveQueen First off, WTC 7 was not next to WTC 1 or 2. WTC 6 was directly between WTC 1 and WTC 7. WTC 6 was heavily damaged and burned uncontrolled for hours, yet it stood. WTC 6 had a huge crater and yet stood! WTC 5 also the same thing. Huge damage and fire yet it too stood. I have seen no video evidence of damage to WTC 7. Just content fire to several floors. A content fire is not a hot fire. It should have stood.
@Emsworker68: So just because there were buildings between 1 and 7, 7 shouldn’t have taken damage? Do you have any concept of what the World Trade Center even looked like? WTC 7 was three or four times taller than WTC 5 and 6; there is no way that they could deflect very much of that debris from hitting it, despite what you seem to believe.
As for evidence, watch dprjones’ videos on the subject.
@FormicHiveQueen You commented that the other buildings were only lightly damaged and that is why they stood while 7 took the brunt of it. Have you even looked at the other buildings. Google WTC 5 and 6 and look at that light damage you speak of. Than look at WTC 7 numerious videos, especially of the one when it fell and where is the brunt of the damage you speak of because it shows an intact building with only content fires. You are not even trying to educate yourself but just spew the lies.
@Emsworker68: Quit calling me a liar. Your “light damage” is from pictures of the north, east, and west sides of the building. WTC 7’s southern side was torn to bits, and videos of the southern side reveal there was quite a bonfire going on. Again, watch dprjones’ videos on the subject. WTC was FAR from undamaged.
@FormicHiveQueen quite a bonefire…it was a simple content fire. That is not a hot fire. If content fires were hot enough to collapse steel structures we firefighters would not be able to stand in them and put them out. The fires that day were isolated and only on a few floors.The fiefighters could have stood back and watched the fire go out naturally and that building should have stood.
@Emsworker68 Further moreFormicHiveQueen, since the fires were isolated, if they had caused a collapse it is impossible for the collapse to have happened in the mannor it did. Isolated sections would have gone. It would not have been straightdown as it did. If you say the one side had heavy damage, that side would have gave and the structure would fall that way. Not straight down. I have seen no video or photographic evidence of damage to WTC7. Only fires.