29 Comments
User's avatar
Susan Taapken's avatar

You are right, Bob. people should question this BS. Because it wasn't any plane.

Expand full comment
Gerard Roll's avatar

The one thing I question every time is the “collapse” of the north & south towers in NYC… Reason??? I’ve seen a lot of footage from structural engineers who claim that the buildings “collapsed” purely as the result of staged demolitions, as they collapsed straight down instead of toppling over sideways like we do often see with building demolitions 🤔🤔🤔

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

and indeed a controlled demolition gone wrong results in the building toppling over or an incomplete demolition, conditions must be perfect for complete demolition as was observed.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

But you can believe whatever you want. You can’t change what happened. You can trust the Bible. You can know that is real.

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

indeed, trust the SPIRIT to guide you in discerning what is real . . .

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

They were plane crashes on 9/11/2001.

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

what motivates you to think that?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

They didn’t come straight down.

The steel did not have to be melted. Just softened. Steel is, like, heavy and stuff. It’s made with fire, shaped while it’s still hot (or bent if it’s thin enough by insanely powerful machinery), so it can be deformed the same way.

It’s pretty much a requirement for anyone from Pittsburgh to understand this. I’m sure there are people in Cleveland who realize it as well.

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

Steve - what is your opinion of the plane crashes on 9/11/2001?

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

question 4 U

was the steel uniformly heated in such a way as to mimic perfectly the action of a well planned/executed controlled demolition?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

It doesn’t have to be.

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

Asymmetrical input yields symmetrical result? how does that work?

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

can you give a reason why "it doesn't have to be." ?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

The buildings collapsed because the steel was weakened. The buildings didn’t collapse in 1 fell swoop. The top floors that were damaged, fell down onto the floors below them. I’m sure some of the burning oil went down, still burning, accelerating the fire and damage. My gut instincts are telling me that is exactly what happened. They are never wrong, once I put sufficient thought into something.

It would literally take hundreds, possibly thousands of people to set up a controlled demolition.

Expand full comment
Bob, the Free Radical's avatar

Your incredulity over how it may have been done in no way negates the laws of physics & given the laws of physics, it would have been impossible for a plane crash, if indeed there was a plane, to have caused the total "collapse" of the building. There simply isn't enough potential energy in the upper ( that is above the alleged crash site ) part of the building to cause complete destruction of the whole skyscraper.

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Would be great if they released the real 9/11 records.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

Ya, its all a SHOW & we are treated to "records" that are as much as props in a stage production.

Expand full comment