The CIA/NSA are too incompetent.
-
How many structural collapses of large, steel framed buildings have you ever witnessed? If it looked like a controlled demolition to you, it may be because a) you don’t know much about controlled demolitions; b) it’s the only thing that you could call on to mentally process an experience you had never witnessed before.
-
Find a video clip of the towers’ collapses and run it, frame by frame if you want. In both cases, where does the collapse begin? I am absolutely certain you will find that it occurred at or near the floors where the planes impacted. Would you think that’s just coincidence? Do you think that controlled demolitions include options as to on which floor the charges go off first?
Now consider that buildings are designed to support mostly static loads. What if we take the top 30 or 40 floors of a tall building, a mass of thousands of tons, and convert that to a dynamic load by dropping it ten feet onto the structure below it, like a hammer head striking a nail. What do you think might happen?
If you are still insistent on the controlled demo theory after that, we could then maybe go on to the ever-popular “why did they feel it necessary to implode the buildings after flying planes into them at 400 MPH”, and my personal favorites, “Who agreed to knowingly plant explosive charges all up and down the towers, and how was it no one at all noticed all this construction work going on?”
Let’s also remember that demolition charges are FUCKING LOUD. Had such demolition been used on 9/11 everyone in Lower Manhattan would be deafened. As it stands we don’t even hear anything on the multiple video shots.
And don’t even think of suggesting thermite, or nanothermite, or supernanothermite.
Yeah I saw that too.
“Did you know a third tower fell?”
yes. yes we did. So?
Abnormal? So you’re saying that in all of the hundreds of other times when giant skyscrapers have been knocked over by alleged terrorists, all the debris was left in place while it was studied, and so on this one oddball occasion, the fact that it was removed is somehow suspicious? Please point me to documentation of all of these other attacks so I can see how sites like this are “normally” handled. I somehow missed out on them when they happened.
Further proof of their plans for the North American Union.
No.
Pretty much everything.
One, although somebody stripped the audio from it so Richard Gage could get a favorable side-by-side comparison with WTC 7. 
Loose Change: So full of holes that we had to keep making more to fill those holes - without bothering to mention why they needed filing.
I used to have the domain LooseChangeGuide.com, and I guess the guy who was hosting the web files for me stopped doing that. I still own the domain name, it just apparently doesn’t point to a valid server anymore.
I thought Loose Change believers had gone the way of the dodo, but in case anyone wants to provide a server for the files, I’ll send them to you and point the DNS there.
Not sure if it’s worth it - there are probably only about two people in the world who are still taken in by LC.
As others have stated, just about everything, to the point where you asking this is like asking, “what evidence is there that Noah’s Flood didn’t happen”. It’s hard to pick out any individual lie as important, because almost all of it is unmitigated bullshit. It’s better that you point out what you find particularly convincing, and we address that individual.
Yes, because it’s been done, multiple times, and going over and debunking the entire movie again is just redundant.
You know what I find hilarious about this claim? That it neatly coincides with another common conspiracy target: the collapse of WTC Tower 7. You know, how you’d never seen a building like that just fall down on its own? Well, it turns out that it burned for literally hours. What set it on fire? Debris from the other two towers that collapsed. It’s a shame you didn’t bring up Tower 7 on your own, because that would have been too funny. It’s not neat like a controlled demolition, it caused substantial damage to the surrounding area.
Of course - but this says nothing. It’s true that pharmaceutical companies have a motivation to discredit the idea that you can cure cancer with everyday household objects, but that does nothing to support the idea that they’re actually suppressing this information, and even less to support the idea that the information is actually true.
Saying that something is a tried and true tactic is nice, but unless you can actually show that it is said tactic, and not something else (as previously mentioned, terror attacks are also tried and tested and a hell of a lot more common with better supporting evidence and considerably less confounding evidence), you have nothing to go on. It’s not enough to point to a motivation, or a method. We have a motivation and a method: Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s motivation was that they wanted to terrorize the citizens of the united states, and the method was hijacked airplanes in a terror attack.
I don’t think anyone is interested. The subject has been done to death and *conclusively *settled- it’s the reason we call people like you and the guys behind Loose Change derogatory names like “conspiracy nutter” and consider it not in poor taste to mock and ridicule, rather than debate. It’s like you coming in here and being confused when people ridicule you for your support of the flat earth society. The issue is done. Terrorists hijacked four planes on September 11 and flew three into buildings and one into the ground.
Has anyone proved that the World Trade Center did NOT contain a highly experimental new Plane Magnet that just happened to draw innocent airliners directly towards it? NO I DON’T THINK THEY HAVE!
And what about this picture, taken at the scene?
Wow, 9/11 was an inside job? I’m going to have to research this myself! Anyone know of some good websites?
But the ultrananothermite enhanced with unobtanium is still good, right?
Inasmuch as only a few people knew about it, yes.
That’s my favorite. On the one hand, they demand to know how 7 could have fallen down, and on the other hand, they turn a blind eye to the fact that two huge fucking buildings basically fell on it.
And inasmuch as “inside job” has nothing to do with how many people are involved, no.
I have no idea why this thread survived past about two replies. Sigh.
Not to give a single positive credit to the truthers, but the whole notion that (1) if the bad guys wanted to bring down the buildings with explosives then (2) they would have done it with a setup that would have taken CDI a year to plan to (3) bring the building down without collateral damage is just hilarious. If I’m going to blow up a building to foment chaos or jackbootery, it’s going to be messy and uncontrolled.
That’s so 35 minutes ago.
Or give truck bombs another shot, this time parked directly against a support. Theoretically, that would have worked and parking too far from the supports was what went wrong in '93.