Glad to hear Charlie say at 4 minutes in that Building 7 isn't just the smoking gun, and that there are other ones, and even bigger ones, and I absolutely agree with him in saying that Flight 77 is a bigger smoking gun than Building 7, because if you even look at the Wikipedia picture of the flight path https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flightpath-AA77.gif/520px-Flightpath-AA77.gif
they actually claim that the plane was flying around all that distance in a u-turn path without ever being intercepted after taking off from Dulles and then coming back and allegedly hitting the Pentagon. And people like Michael Rivero attacking those who say Flight 77 didn't hit it, despite former Solicitor-General Ted Olson contradicting himself about hearing from his wife from a cell phone vs. an air phone when the (alleged) records showed no connection, and the claim that it was performing military feats when it was supposedly piloted by a guy who couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna -- yes, that is bigger than Building 7.
Because many valid videos are extant, there are but two options with WTC-7:
1. Proof positive: controlled demolition.
2. You don't see a controlled demolition.
If the obvious is clear, then the proper procedure is to issue indictments, or to convene a grand jury in order to do so. (Investigation into the exact methods of destruction would run concurrently.)
But the rub is that no matter what facts there are, there will be no indictments! The kikejew stranglehold on our legal system insures that – at least for now.
Even so, the clarity of WTC-7, when compared to all other aspects of 9/11, make it the "smoking gun". Everything else leads to numerous scenarios which cannot be proven or disproven.
As Charlie mentions Flight 77, note all the different questions he brings up. Each one of these can lead to arguments, and arguing is the kikejew's strength.
Glad to hear Charlie say at 4 minutes in that Building 7 isn't just the smoking gun, and that there are other ones, and even bigger ones, and I absolutely agree with him in saying that Flight 77 is a bigger smoking gun than Building 7, because if you even look at the Wikipedia picture of the flight path https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flightpath-AA77.gif/520px-Flightpath-AA77.gif
ReplyDeletethey actually claim that the plane was flying around all that distance in a u-turn path without ever being intercepted after taking off from Dulles and then coming back and allegedly hitting the Pentagon. And people like Michael Rivero attacking those who say Flight 77 didn't hit it, despite former Solicitor-General Ted Olson contradicting himself about hearing from his wife from a cell phone vs. an air phone when the (alleged) records showed no connection, and the claim that it was performing military feats when it was supposedly piloted by a guy who couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna -- yes, that is bigger than Building 7.
ReplyDeleteBecause many valid videos are extant,
there are but two options with WTC-7:
1. Proof positive: controlled demolition.
2. You don't see a controlled demolition.
If the obvious is clear, then the proper
procedure is to issue indictments, or to
convene a grand jury in order to do so.
(Investigation into the exact methods of
destruction would run concurrently.)
But the rub is that no matter what facts
there are, there will be no indictments!
The kikejew stranglehold on our legal
system insures that – at least for now.
Even so, the clarity of WTC-7, when
compared to all other aspects of 9/11,
make it the "smoking gun". Everything
else leads to numerous scenarios which
cannot be proven or disproven.
As Charlie mentions Flight 77, note all
the different questions he brings up.
Each one of these can lead to arguments,
and arguing is the kikejew's strength.
Too much TALK is how the kikejew wins!