Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.
So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.
The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.
We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.
Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.
We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.
We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..
We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.
By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).
We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.
Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.
Note the word GENUINE.
Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.
Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.
Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.
. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.
Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.
So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.
But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.
This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.
No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.
UNLESS.......
Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.
I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.
The only way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed explosives and shape cutting charges .
The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.
As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.
There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.
On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.
3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building. Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.
I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.
All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.
There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:
1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.
2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.
3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.
4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.
All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.
Poll