ActuallyNot comments on New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity - Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. [The Atlantic]

New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity - Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. [The Atlantic](archive.is)

16 points15 points17 points18 points submitted 13 days ago by neolib

ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 12 days ago

The sudden free-fall collapse of 3 WTC towers into their own footprint. Which is evidence for a controlled demolition.

Or of the collapse of the top floors onto each of the floors below, causing them to collapse.

So fine-controlled demolition, that there was no damage to other buildings.

Except the destroyed St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC), and the damaged World Financial Center buildings and 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street.

The WTC-dust also contained oxidizers that indicate demolition.

Although there's no evidence that that dust came from the WTC site.

The Pentagon's administration was damaged. And that destroyed the possibility to track down 21 trillion dollars.

Did it though?

zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 12 days ago

The pancake theory is just bunk. It reduces the fall speed. Does not work with steel buildings, and does not match the excessive energy.
Excessive energy (expelled structure) = demolition. Free fall = demolition. Explosives heard by firefighters = demolition.

The damage was not by the building falling onto it. The damage was from the excessive energy that expelled the structures outward. They used 2x the amount of demolition explosives than was necessary.

The dust is clearly from the site. And it was corrosive to cars and buildings. The dust contained iron spheres, that are remains of vaporized steel.

The Pentagon will never release any information about the lost trillions. That is like asking criminals to expose themselves.
But the budget shows 100% a $21 trillion loss. This gets more if we look deeper into loans and other stuff, then it grows to $65T

ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun 11 days ago

The pancake theory is just bunk. It reduces the fall speed. Does not work with steel buildings, and does not match the excessive energy.

Link please.

The damage was not by the building falling onto it.

You noticed the plane? Aviation fuel burns pretty hot.

The damage was from the excessive energy that expelled the structures outward.

You just said that they building collapsed on their own footprint, not damaging the buildings around.

Pick a lane.

They used 2x the amount of demolition explosives than was necessary.

Okaaay ... How much demolition explosives were necessary?

The dust is clearly from the site.

Nope. There's no chain of custody.

And it was corrosive to cars and buildings.

The buildings that weren't damaged?

The dust contained iron spheres, that are remains of vaporized steel.

Why not steel spheres then?

The Pentagon will never release any information about the lost trillions.

How do you know about it then?

But the budget shows 100% a $21 trillion loss. This gets more if we look deeper into loans and other stuff, then it grows to $65T

What were the loans, and how do they contribute to the loss? If borrowed money has gone missions, who is financing the $44T loan. Wouldn't that be a couple of trillion in interest per year at least?

Who's servicing that debt?

Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun 10 days ago

conspiracy

"""(((SCIENCE!!!)))"""