Comment: Thank you, now we are getting somewhere.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And (see in situ)

Thank you, now we are getting somewhere.

“you're incapable of seeing the larger picture.“

You raise many great questions that I will not argue with. There are lots of questions about what happened on 9/11. That’s why it is so frustrating to see people vehemently and mindlessly defending something which is clearly not true. It’s a disgrace to a “truth” movement. I share your opinion. This is a gigantic waste of time that is diverting attention from the very real issues you present into something that if critical mass is ever reached on building 7 can easily be crushed by careful analysis.

“Focus on the physics, not the video.”

This is my point. If you only focus on the cropped video and AE presentations they tell you that “the whole building collapsed instantly at freefall speed because all the supports failed simultaneously. There is no way to do this without explosives.”

This is obviously not true if you look at it in context.

“who gives a $#!7 if the video is cropped?”

People who care about the truth.

Looking at the larger video in context clearly shows that all supports did not fail simultaneously. This being the case the likely collapse scenario all of a sudden looks a lot less like controlled demolition and a lot more like the progressive collapse scenario described by NIST.

Building 7 is the focal point of the truth movement, that’s why this is important. This is the so called “smoking gun”. So if people just blow off these issues they will absolutely not be taken seriously by people outside of limited truther circles and it will be the end of the truth movement. That is the “larger picture.”