What do you think it would take an ordinary media sheep to believe your version versus their own?
Its interesting, I think there is a hell of a lot about the day we are not being told about. There is a hell of a lot more that we find out around the incident but nothing concrete that says: We planned this and this is what we did.
If we ever find the Operation XX file fair enough. But until then, I think anyone not keeping an open mind about serious circumstantial evidence is very naïve indeed.
I'm quite ambivalent and switch between a combination of the "narrative" and the "that doesn't sound right".
I read somewhere that only three very high rise skyscraper type structures collapsed due to fire damage and all were on 9/11. How true that is I don't know, but I'm sure a google search of either persuasion would be incorrect.
All I know and even to this day I remember very well my thoughts........
We where working in the passport office when the 1st plane hit, it went a little crazy and then the second plane hit.
Security went nuts and we were sent home.
I got home and was back living with my mum at the time, but had a 32inch CRT at the bottom of the bed.
I watched how the buildings burnt and thought bloody hell hope not too many people have died.
Then when the buildings fell at free fall speed, NO LIE!, in my head I thought wtf how is that even possible. No my thought the top of the building should have toppled down leaving the lower part intact.
It hit the top not the bottom how is this possible if the bottom is heavier than the top?
It should have bent over at the top were the most intense fire was to buckle the steel.
How did it go straight down, its
****ing impossible and we all know it but hey ho.
I will never for get that day ever.