the prize
in the mountain
Two towers fell. Third tower has portions of other towers fall on it. Fires start in third tower. This leads to uncontrolled fires. Key structural support gave way. Penthouse imploded first. You can see the building BUCKLING, anon. Re-watch the video and ask yourself humbly, "What if fires DID cause WTC7 to collapse? Let me see here…"
Expand your mind, anon. God bless you for your digs.
No, anon, the explosives/controlled demolition conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked.
You offer no direct evidence, you bring up conspiracy theories that are not in any way related to the controlled demolition debunked theory, and you're using self-referential nonsense. Please stop wasting bread.
Yes, damnit anon, because proving you wrong is critical to the coverup. Fucking self important asshat.
I'll suspend disbelief for a minute that (You) aren't the shill, and assume you're actually a patriot / Q / Q+ supporter.
Let's step back for a minute. Without researching it correctly, you don't know whether WTC7 (taking the obvious example) fell from uncontrolled fires, or controlled demolition. You start the investigation from a neutral perspective, using logic and actual direct evidence.
Any conspiracy theory about who was behind the attack, any inside job stuff, etc, are totally irrelevant to the assessment about how Building 7 fell. If there's some connecting evidence, that might be different, but there's NO evidence connecting any controlled demolition theory to any bad inside actors, Mossad, Jews, or anyone for that matter.
Now, as for how the building fell: The initial look that is quite reasonable is - Wow, how could that have happened just from fires? It MUST be from controlled demolition. The problem here is that (You) have already argued your position from a point of a conclusion instead of a neutral investigation. This causes the brain to look for signs that the assumption must be right. You'll see a building that fell, you'll hear some (since disproven) theories about thermite, pull it nonsense, or chaos on the news. None of this is direct evidence. (Thermite was disproven).
What you can do, however, is look at the work of credible engineers and scientists who did look at this from a neutral perspective. They've determined how the building fell. The fires led to key structural supports to collapse. The penthouse caved in. The shell then gave way.
Popular Mechanics did a write-up on this, specifically to debunk the remaining citizens who are still convinced that it must have been controlled demo. I encourage you, anon, to read this from a neutral perspective, and ask yourself, "Self, what if WTC7 DID fall from the uncontrolled fires?" Then ask yourself, "Self, is it possible that concluding that WTC7 fell from uncontrolled fires completely unrelated to muh Jew conspiracy?"
RIP DM and EJS
Anon on the internet says an FBI bomb tech blames the CIA. You hear that Q? Anon cracked the case.
Anon, you're a fucking asshat, and I'm sorry to stoop to the ad hominem. But if that were true you'd go straight to the White House, to the Secret Service and give them info on your friend so they can investigate. So seriously, fuck off with your WTC7 shill garbage. Or I'm sorry if your FBI friend actually did say that. In which case, tell the White House. Seriously.
Posting it here isn't credible.
>Larry Silverstein admitted he told them to "pull it". What did he mean?
Thinking caps. If he DID mean to fire off this supposed controlled demo that made no noise, would he, you know, say "Pull it" ?
>University of Fairbanks Alaska
Except a long line of much smarter scientists debunked the professor from this fine institution.
I'm Episcopal, and so is Q+. Maybe that's why I'm here. To help anons with critical thinking skills.
Roger that, anon. Mainstream scientists and engineers don't argue at all about it - they are in consensus. As I hold Q and Q+ dearly to my heart for reasons that Q knows well, I feel compelled to share my love for logic and rational thought.
Nah, nobody credible has debunked it. And it was revisited last year.
>Hearst
Cracked the case. A+ Anon. See that, Q? Critical Thinking. Hearst is in on it..
>Anon vs mainstream genius scientists laughs.
>Anon doesn't realize he's a moran
>List of no actual evidence
>List of circumstances
>List of failed application of statistics as it apples to direct analysis of the problem
Episcopal
Sorry for the doxxy stuff but I'm still really embarrassed to be part of this movement. If even one of you WTC7 demolition-fags opens your minds, I'll be happy.
I'm pretty sure you're trying to threaten me in some way.
>demo
There weren't loud demo noises. The loud noises were from the collapse.
>scientists
>not an argument
You mentioned that University of Fairbanks Alaska said so and so, as an argument.
I can't respond to every post, anon.
Ok, whatever, it's not proof of controlled demolition theory.
>us?
No, just you and the bottom 10% of anons that flood the place with low quality trash.