Monday, April 9, 2007

A 9/11 Controlled Demolition Video Worth Watching

Jim Hoffman gives an excellent presentation of the controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2 & 7

by Larry Simons
April 9, 2007

First here is Inside Edition’s recent 9/11 conspiracy hit piece on Rosie O’ Donnell and the rest of the 9/11 truth movements’ assertion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Popular Mechanics’ Editor Jim Meigs says “this building (WTC 7) was brought down by the attacks of 9/11”. Boy, Jim, I bet that took hours…weeks…months to come to that conclusion! No scientific study needed for Popular Mechanics! Just say “the attacks of 9/11 caused it!”. Case closed.



Whereas, here’s Jim Hoffman giving detailed, exhaustive analysis of the controlled demolitions of all 3 buildings……and WE are nuts????



Also, in the Inside Edition hit piece, Meigs says, referring to Rosie, “You don't need to go into fanciful explanations of bombs and all sorts of other mysterious things....” Here is an hour long clip of the MANY who heard these "fanciful" explosions and bombs. I guess they are ALL crazy, huh Jim???



The Inside Edition reporter in the top clip says, "What Rosie failed to mention is the 10 story gash in WTC 7". Well, what YOU and Popular Mechanics FAIL to mention is that if the building really had this huge gash (that photo shown shows NOTHING) then why did the building fall COMPLETELY symmetrically and not tip over like a tree would tip over if a lumberjack chopped a big gash into the bottom of it? You also FAIL to mention the testimony of NY cop Steve Bartmer, who witnessed the collapse and said he heard explosions at it fell, as did many other cops who he claims "are not talking, and he doesn't know why". What you also FAIL to show us is these "raging" fires inside the building. Where? Why do you fail to mention the fact that other buildings after 9/11 have had bigger and hotter fires in them too, and yet they did not collapse. What you also FAIL to mention is if the collapse of WTC 7 is so easily explained, why did even FEMA say the fires as the cause of the collapse produced a "low probability of occurance", and why did the 9/11 Commission COMPLETELY ignore and not investigate WTC 7?? Why? Popular Mechanics have NEVER told us why the building collapsed the WAY IT DID, all they do is attempt to explain why it collapsed PERIOD. The collapse itself it just a small part of the mystery of this building. The manner in which is collapsed is what makes this a smoking gun, and that is what Popular Mechanics will NEVER discuss.

Here is a photo of WTC 5 on 9/11: Now THIS building had raging fires, but no collapse



Another great clip:

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You rant on and on about this on our forum earlier today verbally insult my sister and me and then you stop posting when everyone laid into you for suggesting Bush is behind 9/11 and that all the planes were done with special effects??? Are you kidding me and you have so I came to see your blog, you are a crazy person. I can't believe this site. So who should I believe scientists or you and Rosie O'Donnel?

The top video clearly showed a huge section of Building 7 damaged by the previous events. Not explosives, guess you wish you hadn't posted that clip.

"Here is an hour long clip of the MANY who heard these "fanciful" explosions and bombs" - They were gas lines and other electrical and industrial explosions not bombs. It was crazy on the ground there that day don't you think?

Jim Hoffman is a crazy person, you can see it in his eyes and overall disposition. So is anyone who believes that weak PP presentation he put together. He even edited it b/c he kept screwing up.

As for that last video, if you believe any of that crap your IQ is well below 60. I won't be back and hope you don't return anytime soon to our site either. Your not wanted.

NotMe said...

The Inside Edition reporter in the top clip says, "What Rosie failed to mention is the 10 story gash in WTC 7". Well, what YOU and Popular Mechanics FAIL to mention is that if the building really had this huge gash (that photo shown shows NOTHING) then why did the building fall COMPLETELY symmetrically and not tip over like a tree would tip over if a lumberjack chopped a big gash into the bottom of it? This says it all as well as the cops that heard explosions. Rosie is right about this, not much else, but this is right .

Anonymous said...

you brought the meat to this story larry. thanks, puts everything together. how can anyone challenge this story. the proof is to strong.its the truth no lie. keep up the good work. your a true american.

Real Truth Online said...

to the FIRST anonymous----------WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHO IS YOUR SISTER? WHO ARE YOU???? WHAT FORUM ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I dont know ANYONE who I talk to that has a sister that has a website where I post at-------ARE YOU HIGH ON SOMETHING? WHEN did I ever say the planes were special effects??? Do you have the right person? Do you have the right site????? I have NO IDEA who YOU are or who your sister is??? What site do you have that you CLAIM I posted on??? I didnt post on ANYTHING today! Are you COMPLETELY nuts???

puck said...

Another fine piece Larry. Thank you. Say, do you know who it was that ordered the immediate clean-up before it could be investigated?

Real Truth Online said...

Im guessing Giuliani----he "claims" he wanted NYC back to normal as soon as possible. He used to be a lawyer---so he should have known more than anyone that you dont get rid of evidence at a crime scene before it is analyzed. FEMA was already in NYC...they arrived Monday....hmmmmmmm.