It didn’t.
That’s incorrect. First off, there’s this (which you won’t read or look at): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html …
-
-
And this addresses the actual speed of collapse directly: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm The issue is that you guys have made up your mind, but as I already pointed out, it’s just physics. Plain and simple. The fact is that you *want* to believe this, and that’s why you do.pic.twitter.com/Eg9SnpQ6zI
-
The dumbest part is that the fact that these buildings fell due to regular old damage/fire/physics doesn’t actually prove the negative that there was no conspiracy. It only proves that you haven’t found the evidence if it exists. Yet you stick to this easily falsified crap anyway
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.