I have looked at this subject and studied it in great depth.
I became very interested from day one when I first watched events unfolding on the T.V.
I remember remarking to my wife that the first tower looked like it had just been demolished. The speed of fall and the vertical drop was too extraordinary to be a structural collapse. It just looked wrong.
As I sat there on that horrible day I saw a virtual replica of the first collapse when the second tower dis the same thing. It collapsed at almost free fall speed and also with a vertical fall footprint.
Does it not seem strange to any of the doubters out there that both building which, incidentally, had design inclusions to withstand impact from aircraft both collapsed after such a short time and under temperature conditions which were loo low to weaken steel.
Do you not think the floors which were under the collision zones would have offered more resistance to a collapse?
You can call me a tin hat conspiracy nut job as much as you like because I have studied and drawn my own conclusions. What I would suggest though is that if you want to go down the rabbit hole and look at the vast amount of information available then you can draw your own conclusions too.
I am happy to discuss any point with anyone who asks intelligent questions on this matter however @Orson suggesting someone is high on weed for looking at this is ridiculous, @RipVanWinkle01 a person needs "help" for discussing this is showing a closed mind, @street talk that is a facetious and pointless comment, @Lomu bring along your best rebuttals and explain to me why I am wrong, @ziyou because Clinton got busted then there is no way this may have been a set up is a poor argument.
Do some study, spend some time, get some ammo and try and shoot me down. But please, please, please don't be ridiculous or insulting because I would love an educated discussion on this.
Try Youtube 911 Conspiracy as a starting point.
Keep an open mind and you might just get a different point of view.
