If they were legitimately trying to avoid further destruction and damage and that's all it was, why wouldn't they just tell us that from the beginning? Why cover it up for so long to the point so many people thought it was a result of the fires associated with the "attacks"?
That's just too weird and makes one like myself think something else was going on and that makes me suspicious. It's almost like they can't deny it was assisted at this point anymore and now are trying to retroactively come up with an excuse. Bizarre!
I wonder what the debunkers who religiously and fanatically toe the line of the official story have to say about this one...
Interesting info, thanks for sharing krnel!
They still stick to the excuses: "how could they set up explosives in a few hours after the attack", failing to understand a plan has things done ahead of time. The visual evidence speaks for itself...