See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Methodical Illusion: The 9/11 Con Begins to Crumble — Rebekah Roth (Flight Attendant)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://sgtreport.com/2015/03/method ... egins-to-crumble-rebekah-roth/
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Rebekah Roth
Post Date: 2015-03-23 10:33:47 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 19314
Comments: 557
Rebekah Roth has, in my opinion, blown the lid off of the lies surrounding the events on 9/11. Facts which are outlined in her recently released book, Methodical Illusion; a book, as of this writing, that is #1 on the Amazon Best Seller List for its category.--NorthWestLibertyNews Poster Comment: Roth’s research reveals ALL of the 911 cell phone calls from the passengers to their families and friends were actually made on the ground after the 4 planes landed at a remote military airfield and listen to what her research reveals about passenger 9B. This is a must listen. I agree with NorthWestLibertyNews's opinion that Rebekah has blown the lid off the 9/11 lies.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-131) not displayed.
.
.
.
#132. To: FormerLurker (#130)
What proffer can you make that the videos capture the onset of the collapse? In fact, one of them is part of the video that I posted with the initial collapse edited out...
--Are you a *Jew*?
That video is useless...
--Are you a *Jew*?
No it did not as its fall damaged buildings on other blocks such as the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building. I'm done with this nonsense. I'm going back to supporting Ted Cruz.
You're speculating...and not very well. In fact, if you were to fish the net for images of "debris" on the Pentagon lawn, you'd see these same suited individuals "finding" said debris. Are you saying that I should be surprised and thus suspicious because US military personnel were both at and dispatched to the Pentagon? --Are you a *Jew*?
And the US post office...
--Are you a *Jew*?
You may as well be supporting Hillary Clinton or John McCaine. No wonder our nation is doomed. What it comes down to war is that it doesn't matter how many facts you ignore, and how much you distort reality, the facts and the truth WILL remain the same. And it does not matter to me one bit if you continue to live in a fantasy world where science doesn't exist and a handful of bad men with beards can overwhelm our multi-trillion dollar defense and intelligence networks with box cutters. Those who committed the deeds, and those such as you who continue to aid and abet them, will continue to do so no matter what you or I think. The ONLY way that can happen is through controlled demolition, no matter HOW you spin it. Apparently controlled demolition isn't the only way a building with structural damage, and then further weakened by fire can come down. When metal is heated, it loses strength. (I used to love to watch the horseshoer work when I was a kid)
I think you mean farrier...
"Footage of the site showed a remote and craggy landscape dominated by imposing mountains. The French newspaper Le Monde noted that the impact of the crash was so severe that the plane had been reduced to 'confetti,' creating a serious challenge for search teams and investigators." What it comes down to war is that it doesn't matter how many facts you ignore, and how much you distort reality, the facts and the truth WILL remain the same. A fact is something that cannot be falsified. What you have presented most certainly can be and has been falsified, Thus, referring to them as *facts* is quite incongruous. I'll also note that you made no proffer that the videos showed the ENITRE collapse. --Are you a *Jew*?
Unfortunately, those multi-trillion dollars aren't spent on the men actually in the field...airport screeners prior to 9/11 made minimum wage and I carried my Swiss Army knife on just about every flight that I took prior to 9/11...including 5 days before from West Palm to NYC... And then there are the numerous, documented cases of people just not paying attention...including DumbDumb and The Big Dick... --Are you a *Jew*?
Why is that so hard to believe? Hijacking planes is nothing new. Here's a list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hija ckings The idea of crashing a hijacked plane into a building isn't even new: June 20, 1979: Nikola Kavaja, a Serbian nationalist and anti-communist hijacked American Airlines Flight 293. During the hijacking, Kavaja demanded and received another airplane with the intent of crashing it into the headquarters of the Yugoslav Communist Party. His lawyer convinced him to surrender after landing at Shannon Airport, Ireland.
Damn Fred, you're right. Its been a long time since I was a kid.
A couple of months before 9/11, a G-* meeting was ringed with anti-aircraft batteries out of fear of *Kamikaze* style attacks... --Are you a *Jew*?
Well...there was that one time with the ghost... (;^D --Are you a *Jew*?
They proved it doesn't matter how much information you have, if you don't pay attention, or know how to use it.
I forgot about the ghost. Any more encounters?
The Murrah Building was constructed differently, IIRC, it was modular. But the more important reason is that most of the building did collapse...not just one side of it... --Are you a *Jew*?
No...I couldn't stay there the last time that I was in...I stayed at the Queen Anne which is on the other end of the block on Sutter but it also thoroughly sucked...I should be through there late next month and will issue my Paranormal report when we have lunch...
--Are you a *Jew*?
I didn't hear any voices either...just the sound of stuff continually falling off of the vanity in the WC...including a plugged in cell phone that somehow became unplugged and fell to the floor...
--Are you a *Jew*?
Here's a picture of the Murrah Building falling under controlled demolition. upload.wikimedia.org/wiki...ngDemolitionMay1995.jpg/1 024px-MurrahBuildingDemolitionMay1995.jpg How come its not falling straight down?
If you didn't hear voices, you're ok then.
Kewelio...
--Are you a *Jew*?
The "Pod People" And The Plane The media cannot ask, let alone answer, those questions, so the propagandists gin up this "No plane" theory and plant it online to give the corporate media an easy handle with which to ridicule and dismiss the whole idea of doubting the official story of 9-11. This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. And the intensity with which the propagandists are pushing this no-plane nonsense is easily explained by the fact that they have nothing else at all with which to defend the official story. The sheer fury with which this story has been met both here at WRH andover at the radio show betrays a sense of panic within the government that the American people know 9-11 was a war-starting hoax. "No plane" is the last card they have to play. The "no-plane" propaganda is a trap set to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. Once the propagandists are able ot trick the majority of the 9-11 truth movement into going along with this nonsense (or failing that, create the public illusion that the majority of the 9-11 truth movement are going along with this nonsense), one of the confiscated videos that clearly shows the 757 slamming into the Pentagon will be made public, to discredit the entire 9-11 truth movement in one fell swoop, silencing those questions the government cannot answer. To play this trick, the "no-planers" are promote an incredibly complex conspiracy to hide a missile, while denying the possibility of an equally complex conspiracy to plant the illusion of one. Let's take an example from history which nobody here is emotionally invested in. After the John F. Kennedy Assassination, New Orleans Prosecutor Jim Garrison placed Clay Shaw (later admitted by Richard Secord to have been a CIA asset) on trial for the conspiracy. The case was going very well until a witness showed up who claimed to be able to link Oswald directly to Shaw. Once on the stand, however, the witness started blabbing about how he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent "them" from replacing her with a duplicate. Although not shown in the Oliver Stone film, "JFK", it was this one planted witness that "poisoned the well" of Garrison's case, resulting in Clay Shaw's acquittal. During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, a bogus story was planted that the open umbrella seen along the Kennedy motorcade route just prior to the assassination was a dart gun, used to paralyze the President to hold him steady for the head shot. The actual umbrella was produced and shown to be just a normal umbrella while the committee members rolled their eyes and chuckled indulgently at how silly people who doubted the Warren Report were. (Later, acoustical data proved there had indeed been at least two shooters ion Dealey Plaza and the HSCA was forced to conclude there had been a conspiracy.) In the 1990s, around the time of Ruby Ridge and WACO, the Congress was forced to hold public hearings on the abuses of the BATF, hearings which were notable for one witness showing up wearing full camo, and demanding the government declassify its secret tornado making machine. That provided the sound byte the media used to make anyone who stood up to the BATF look like a nutcase. The "witness" was later outed as an FBI informant. Another example of "poisoning the well" is in the Killian documents, which documented George Bush's machinations to avoid the Vietnam draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard. Five of the documents were authentic, but the sixth was an obvious forgery planted on CBS in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the others. Ever since this "no-plane" theory has been planted on the 9-11 truth movement, the corporate media inevitably seizes on it as a means to ridicule those who do not accept the official story of 9-11. One obvious example is the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which used the "no-plane" theory to summarily dismiss any and all doubters of the official story as a munch of nuts that all correct-thinking loyal Americans should ever listen to. Which is what the no-plane hoax is intended to do. I will sign off this discussion by reminding you all once more that while the US Government will not hesitate to lie, cheat, steal, and hoax you, they never do it without a good reason. As I stated before, there is no reason for the government to substitute a missile for the crashing plane at the Pentagon. But there is plenty of reason for the US Government to trick you into thinking that they did! Lately, in their efforts to plant more bogus information on the web for the media to use to ridicule doubters of the official story, the shills have used over-processed and blurry photos of the 9-11 planes to claim that they carried "pods" on the outside (which the ground crews at all the airports somehow never noticed). For that reason, the government shills have come to be known as the 9-11 "Pod People". So where is the rest of the wreckage from the passenger plane? Right in plain view, for those who actually look. In similar crashes, the resulting debris was in small pieces, 6 feet long at most. You don't SEE huge pieces of airplane sitting at crash sites in head on collisions such as slamming into the wall of the Pentagon. Despite their impressive size, aircraft and relatively fragile objects due to weight considerations. THE WRECKAGE OF THE 757 PHOTOGRAPHED AT THE PENTAGON The claim by the "no-planers" that there is no identifiable wreckage of a 757 at the Pentagon is contradicted by the photographic evidence. THE POD PEOPLE'S CARTOON WORLD Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace that the "pod people" need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide with. The Pentagon, built mostly of wood and concrete, and in that one section having been recently reinforced, is a heavy and solid object. Jet aircraft, designed to be able to fly, are very thin and lightweight. They are, if you think about it, mostly filled with air, like an aluminum balloon. They are not designed to penetrate other objects or to remain intact while doing so. Take a glass Christmas ornament and hurl it against a brick wall. Do you get a round opening in the brick wall the size of the ornament? No, of course not. Neither will an aluminum plane leave a clean outline of itself crashing into concrete. In the case of the plane, there are subassemblies which are heavy and solid, such as the engines, the frames supporting the landing gear, cockpit avionics, the potable water tanks, APU, etc. On impact, these would break loose from the aircraft and continuing forward, produce smaller holes. But the fuselage would crumple like aluminum foil. As the "Pod People" use the same tactics, they reveal who they really are. A demonstration of a passenger jet flying low and fast: "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. [mdw.army.mil] ----------------- Stills from CCTV video released on May 16, 2006 Click image for full size. "The plane atomized with the impact, it just disappeared into dust - only the tips of the wings escaped total destruction. But the wall, designed to move and absorb energy, did its job well." The wall in this test was considerably stronger than the Pentagon wall and suffered little damage. However, that damage was found to be primarily from the engines of the F-4, whereas the rest of the airframe shattered on impact without damaging the wall at all. This test proves that the Pentagon damage would come not from the aircraft as a whole, but from the heavy and dense components such as the engines, landing gear blocks, avionics, potable water bottles, etc. PICTURES OF THE PENTAGON IMPACT AREA BEFORE THE COLLAPSE. Eyewitness Account of Flight 77's Pentagon Impact Extract from Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself: If you want to read all the individual quotes you can start here.
Mike Rivero added this article to his twitter feed 20-mins ago. I have no idea how old it is or why he chose to post it today.
Without touching upon the myriad number of fallacies in the post, and concentrating on simply this one claim, the plane is CERTAINLY low, but it is also CERTAINLY NOT going "fast". It's at landing speed, not cruising speed, and nowhere close to the speed alleged for the aircraft which struck the Pentagon. Because obviously they didn't wire the explosives to do so. Do you think that somehow "proves" something? Hijacking certainly does occur, but not the way it occured on 9/11. For instance, hijackers typically (in fact ALWAYS) force the pilot(s) to fly the aircraft to the desired destination. Heavy multi-engine aircraft can not be easily flown by individuals who could barely fly a single engine propeller driven plane, if at all. Isn't that why they went to flight school?
Why not? I'm curious - why do you want to believe the government did it?
Why did they *wire* WTC to fall straight down (even though they did not, in fact, fall straight down)? --Are you a *Jew*?
Extract from Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself: The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.*** at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. at least 25 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening. at least 22 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways. at least 19 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds. at least 12 There were so many people that saw the aircraft, the government stopped using their accounts because they all corroborated each other. They saw what they saw.
It's not a matter of what I want or don't want, it's a matter of looking over the available evidence and seeing the facts with a clear set of eyes. If I had more time, which I don't have at the moment, I could provide an essay as to the set of facts which prove the perps included highly placed US government officials, along with domestic and foreign intelligence assets, and certainly US military involvement. Perhaps if you truly cared about the matter you'd find all the relevent facts and evidence yourself. It's been almost 14 years since the event occured, certainly if you wanted to find the truth you would have done so by now. Uh, yes they DID fall straight down. In other words, the damaged top portions of the WTC towers did not simply slide off the building as it WOULD have if it were truly a collapse due to weakened sections of the towers failing to support the weight of the upper structure. All three buildings dropped straight into their own footprints, a physical impossibility without the help of controlled demolitions. To deny that fact indicates you have no notion of what direction down or sideways truly are. As far as to WHY they were wired that way, it was to prevent catastrophic destruction to adjacent buildings, and to ensure ALL of the important physical evidence was thoroughly destroyed. Which they flunked. The Pentagon "pilot", Hani Hanjour, could NOT even rent a Cessna due to failing the flight evalulation test. The flight instructor who went along with him on the evalulation flight before he rented the plane said he "could not fly at all". As far as the flight similuator school, he was told he was wasting his money, and he would not have passed if he had continued to attend. hi lucys mom. aerodynamiclly speaking , do you know what wake vortex is?
______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
When metal is heated, it loses strength. (I used to love to watch the horseshoer work when I was a kid) Other than what happened on 9/11, show where in history any other skyscraper has come crashing down due to fire. And BTW, the jet fuel burnt out after the first 10 minutes. The remaining fires were simple office fires consisting of furniture, paper, and other low temperature fuel items. They saw what they saw. Michael Rivero agrees.
Uh...no...the top of the South tower tilted and landed squarely on the north face of the Banker's Trust Building and took a huge assed scoop put of it. The North Tower fell west and north and damaged 1 WFC, Verizon and, of course, WTC7. What you *believe* here is 100% false. --Are you a *Jew*?
So then, you're saying the remainder of the buildings did not collapse and are still there? Of course they're not there, and they did NOT lean to any side and topple over, contrary to your spin doctor tactics and comments.
Comments (172 - 557) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#133. To: FormerLurker (#131)
#134. To: FormerLurker (#125)
WTC 7 did in fact fall STRAIGHT DOWNWARDS
#135. To: FormerLurker (#129)
If they were a medical team they would have been acting with a bit more urgency
#136. To: Abraham (#134)
#137. To: Abraham (#134)
I'm done with this nonsense. I'm going back to supporting Ted Cruz.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#138. To: war (#132)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#139. To: FormerLurker (#117)
Why would ANY structure fall straight down at free fall speed as if there's nothing under it?
#140. To: lucysmom (#139)
#141. To: FormerLurker (#138)
(Edited)
#142. To: FormerLurker (#138)
And it does not matter to me one bit if you continue to live in a fantasy world where science doesn't exist and a handful of bad men with beards can overwhelm our multi-trillion dollar defense and intelligence networks with box cutters.
#143. To: FormerLurker (#138)
And it does not matter to me one bit if you continue to live in a fantasy world where science doesn't exist and a handful of bad men with beards can overwhelm our multi-trillion dollar defense and intelligence networks with box cutters.
#144. To: Fred Mertz (#140)
I think you mean farrier...
#145. To: lucysmom (#143)
The idea of crashing a hijacked plane into a building isn't even new:
#146. To: lucysmom (#83)
No, not that either
#147. To: war (#142)
And then there are the numerous, documented cases of people just not paying attention...including DumbDumb and The Big Dick...
#148. To: war (#146)
#149. To: FormerLurker (#114)
(Edited)
Uh huh. Have you ever heard of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? The entire side of the building was destroyed by explosives, yet the building didn't budge.
#150. To: lucysmom (#148)
(Edited)
#151. To: lucysmom (#148)
#152. To: FormerLurker (#114)
#153. To: war (#151)
I didn't hear any voices either...just the sound of stuff continually falling off of the vanity in the WC...including a plugged in cell phone that somehow became unplugged and fell to the floor...
#154. To: lucysmom (#153)
#155. To: 4um (#153)
HERE
That Crashed Into the PentagonAs we run up to yet another anniversary of the 9-11 false-flag attacks, the government's controlled assets on the web are once again pushing the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax as hard as they can, to give the corporate media an easy means to discredit those who question the official story while avoiding the really tough questions like, "Why did the BBC announce the collapse of World Trade Center 7 twenty six minutes before it actually happened?" Or, "How did President Bush's Secret Service know he was not a target sitting in that school on Florida?" In response to the question of "where is the wreckage of the plane", the answer is that much of the wreckage slid into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space, starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors later collapsed down onto the remains of the aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section in the photo. 
In the above copy of the wide area view, a red rectangle marks an area to be examined. This area appears below. 
The Pentagon is a building mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris, and clearly seen mixed in with it are pieces of luggage. Since the Pentagon itself does not travel, we can conclude that the luggage (and the aluminum shards mixed with them) are part of the remains of the passenger jet which hit the Pentagon. 
"Then I picked [the plane] up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." [Mike Walter - eyewitness] The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800 to the 9-11 false flag. 
MP3 recording of witness Daryl Donley MP3 recording of witness Alan Wallace 
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." [Father Stephen McGraw] estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car."<< Photo showing light pole debris. Note the cab behind. Photo of damaged cab >>
A concrete wall hit by an F-4 fighter jet at 500 MPH: The above was a test where an F-4 fighter jet (fighters are built more sturdy than passenger jets in order to survive despite combat damage) was slammed into a test wall to evaluate the damage that might be caused if a jet plane was crashed into a reactor containment vessel.
In the second picture the impact area of the aircraft has been roughly outlined.
Firefighter Alan Wallace was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground," he said. [detnews 9/11/2001] 
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757.The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.*** at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. at least 25 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening. at least 22 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways. at least 19 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds. at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it's flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite. at least 4 The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on) at least 4 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole) at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant! 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash. 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash. 0
#156. To: All (#155)
#157. To: Jethro Tull (#155)
A demonstration of a passenger jet flying low and fast:
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#158. To: lucysmom (#152)
How come its not falling straight down?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#159. To: lucysmom (#143)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#160. To: FormerLurker (#159)
#161. To: FormerLurker (#158)
#162. To: FormerLurker (#158)
Because obviously they didn't wire the explosives to do so. Do you think that somehow "proves" something?
#163. To: Jethro Tull (#155)
ash
#164. To: lucysmom (#161)
I'm curious - why do you want to believe the government did it?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#165. To: war (#162)
Why did they *wire* WTC to fall straight down (even though they did not, in fact, fall straight down)?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#166. To: lucysmom (#160)
(Edited)
Isn't that why they went to flight school?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#167. To: lucysmom (#143)
#168. To: lucysmom (#139)
(Edited)
Apparently controlled demolition isn't the only way a building with structural damage, and then further weakened by fire can come down.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#169. To: Cynicom (#163)
There were so many people that saw the aircraft, the government stopped using their accounts because they all corroborated each other.
#170. To: FormerLurker (#165)
Uh, yes they DID fall straight down.
#171. To: war (#170)
Uh...no...the top of the South tower tilted and landed squarely on the north face of the Banker's Trust Building and took a huge assed scoop put of it. The North Tower fell west and north and damaged 1 WFC, Verizon and, of course, WTC7.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
.
.
.
