Do you have predictions about 2017?

[juan]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 21:56:35 +1000
"James A. Donald" <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:

> On 1/8/2017 12:12 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> > The official excuse for WTC 7's symmetrical collapse is that the
> > side of the building /not/ shown clearly in photos was "scooped
> > out" by falling debris.  (The photos I have seen do indicate
> > substantial damage to the facade from falling debris.)  This is not
> > consistent with a symmetrical collapse as observed - the support
> > columns destroyed by the "scoop" provided no vertical support, so
> > the load was distributed unevenly and the building would have
> > sagged in that direction when it lost global structural integrity.
> 
> 
> I have watched videos of the collapse of WTC 7 frame by frame.  It
> did not collapse symmetrically - it sagged on one side.  Hence no
> need for any official excuse.


	Funnily enough, even the government psychos clearly admit the
	nature of the collapse, whereas James takes the trouble to
	blatanly lie for them.


	"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the façade
	was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and
	implosion." 


	"If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this
	would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited
	debris field " 


	Oops. So the building imploded eh. But hey, whereas the
	government psychos do admit part of the truth so that their
	propaganda is more 'beliaveble', 'libertaraisns' like James lie
	through their teeth. Cute. 


	Oh, here's the source....


	https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf


	But hey, the real explanation is rayzer's "mud theory" and the
	evidence that James provided ("I watched it frame by frame"
	LMAO).


















> 
> The building looked as if it had been chewed on by giant rats, with 
> great big holes all over the place, and was on fire, hence its
> collapse is no great mystery.
>