WTC7 contained a CIA field office, so it seems rather likely that it contained an armory and that that armory contained some explosives. This would explain any apparent explosions that occurred after the fires started, in a way that screens off those explosions from being evidence for anything interesting.
Yep, right! The only thing that I would remark is regarding your argument about screening off anything interesting. There is a lot of controversy about the timing of those explosions, like Barry Jennings who experienced them first hand before any tower had collapsed(see my comment linked below).
It’s funny that the above comment is a few minutes old and was already downvoted to −1 just for the fact of acknowledging the possibility of the existence of explosives in the WTC. I’m upvoting you right now so you should be back to 0 or hopefully positive.
The interesting thing here is why acknowledging the existence of explosives is anathema to mainstreamers? Why is it so important for the official theory to deny any explosives? Is this fact in itself evidence for something going on?
WTC7 contained a CIA field office, so it seems rather likely that it contained an armory and that that armory contained some explosives. This would explain any apparent explosions that occurred after the fires started, in a way that screens off those explosions from being evidence for anything interesting.
Yep, right! The only thing that I would remark is regarding your argument about screening off anything interesting. There is a lot of controversy about the timing of those explosions, like Barry Jennings who experienced them first hand before any tower had collapsed(see my comment linked below).
It’s funny that the above comment is a few minutes old and was already downvoted to −1 just for the fact of acknowledging the possibility of the existence of explosives in the WTC. I’m upvoting you right now so you should be back to 0 or hopefully positive.
My comment where I referenced a video of an eye witness acknowledging explosions was downvoted to −12: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1r5v This looks to me like suppressing contrary evidence.
The interesting thing here is why acknowledging the existence of explosives is anathema to mainstreamers? Why is it so important for the official theory to deny any explosives? Is this fact in itself evidence for something going on?
Explosives that weren’t planted are completely irrelevant to “I don’t believe there were explosives planted in the World Trade Center.”