All of those were since 9-11 I will bet.
The same thing was stated about the WTC when it was built.
No, there was one from 1983, or did you forget ?
It was not the builders that lied. They are goiing along with the lie
Now why would they do that, exactly ?
(A)Fire does not effect concrete like it does metal. Americans have been dumbed down and are more likely to accept metal weakened by heat than concrete.
But you said so, yourself. Doesn't that make YOU dumbed down, too ?
(B.)If everyone knew it was a concrete core and it collapsed, they would REALLY wonder why there were no masssive chunks of concrete.
Just like Truthseeker1234, but they'd be wrong. Considering the scale of the collapse, there SHOULDN'T be large chunks of concrete left.
It was a public building. They HAD TO PROVIDE the data. The Port Authority HAD to as well. PBS has granting sources and they can be approached independently.
They HAD TO, but now they don't ? And if they were trying to cover up this fact, you'd think they'd manage to circumvent what they HAD TO do.
The videographers noted that there was some resistance to their requests and I believe they used the F.O.I.A. for some of them. Not sure on that. Maybe they just threatened too but didn't have to.
That's some mighty speculation, there.
Yes. The strangeness of the security around the rebar was noted as well as the unannounced evacuations of floors by workers just before concrete was poured.
Poured or pumped ?
Yes, I got a eerie feeling when considering the special security around the rebar and other security measures and the makers of the documentary also had those feeling which were lightly voiced.
Oh, you remember that now ?
On 9-11 watching WTC fall I KNEW that documentary was long gone from PBS. Not because I rememebred all of the data about the rebar and security issues but I realized that information about the construction of the towers would be something that would be highly regulated.
I thought you said you realised how they fell many months later ? You should keep track of your lies, chris.
The rate of fall is not particuarly important to me.
Then why do you ask for an explanation for it ?
Yes, the fall, not collapse, of materials, not buildings (because they were already pulverized when falling) was too symetrical for the official story.
Really,
this doesn't look symmetrical.
I'm gettin information to the American public so they can create justice.
But they're all hypnotised, right ? How are you going to succeed ?
The linked IMAGE shows the core and that material, of all the materials that might be there, can only be concrete because only concrete would survive the massive loads crashing around it to stand with that rounded shape.
Or dust.
Imagine a mighty tower with a concrete core 1,300 feet tall, 17 foot thick walls at the base and 2 foot thick at the top. Here is a picture of the top of the core inside the outer walls falling onto WTC 3. Poor little #3, it gets badly squished.
Where's the concrete ?
