I personally picked aircraft wreckage out of the rubble at the Pentagon. So I’m pretty sure where that airplane went.
Of course, I could be part of the conspiracy.
I personally picked aircraft wreckage out of the rubble at the Pentagon. So I’m pretty sure where that airplane went.
Of course, I could be part of the conspiracy.
(1) Every video I’ve seen shows all three buildings collapsing symmetrically. One would think that one side or portion would collapse first followed by other sections. Instead everything falls at the same time.
(2) Free fall speed is the speed at which something falls without an opposing force. The lower levels of each building should have at the very least slowed the progression of the collapse.
(3) That doesn’t explain the massive fuel source needed to weaken WTC7’s structure.
(4) See the video. Many sources claim proper testing was not conducted.
(5) There are multiple video interviews claim hearing explosions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI
(6) See video. Lots of interviews stating extreme heat levels.
(7) While the Port Authority was exempt from codes, that doesn’t mean the building were structurally unsound and waiting to collapse. How could they have received insurance otherwise?
(8) But there have major fires in skyscrapers and nothing remotely similar has happened.
Guys, he’s seen a video.
Rebuttal of 1 through 8… either “wrong” or “so?”
Exactly.
(1) & (2) You should stop watching videos long enough to pay attention to debris patterns. A significant portion from 1 hit 7, which subsequently fell in two different directions. Likewise, a significant portion of 2, most likely part of the core, was ejected south and crushed a Greek Orthodox church across the street. There are also videos which show the cores of 2 & 1 still standing for a significant amount of time after the rest had already fallen.
(3) 7 was retrofitted to a site that had been prepped for a building with a much smaller footprint. The entire southern facade, which faced 1 & 2, had no direct contact with the ground but rather tied into other columns.
(4) I can claim that you’re an actual zombie. Doesn’t make me right.
(5) How many of those were actually inside one of the towers as the tower came down above them? There were reports of people hearing trains. Does that mean some subway train jumped out of the station and went straight up?
(6) “Extreme heat levels” != molten metal. There are no reliable claims of people actually seeing molten metal.
(7) Money?
(8) Brazil highrise fire causes building to collapse - YouTube
We’re fucked if he begins stacking heavy metal washers and construction paper.
No, this isn’t how this works.
You don’t get to just nitpick the evidence if you want to rebut the official account. You have to provide your theory of what happened, addressing what appears to have occurred.
So, I’ll try again. If you want to imply or suggest that the buildings weren’t destroyed by airplanes, what happened to those airplanes and the people onboard?
Did you actually watch this video? The entire structure is in a complete conflagration. There are flames from top to bottom. This is nothing like what happened on 911.
What part of video don’t you guys understand? It was on the internet!
What has?
To the conspiracy theory inclined, that the supposed motives are unfathomable is “evidence” of a conspiracy, it just “proves” how insidious and powerful the Forces of Evil TM are that they can obscure their actions to such degree.
It really boils down to the “thought” process of, we don’t know how it was done or why, but that’s the sort of thing THEY would do so it must have been THEM.
I would fully expect a Truther to argue, when pressed, that we don’t know why they did it because “it” was what was covered up by demolishing that building.
This conspiracy theory is old enough to fight in the wars started because of 9/11.
I was flippant when I addressed this earlier. The scrap wasn’t sent to China. Some of it is in Baltimore, right now, today ( Partners | Visit Baltimore ). If the government really did try to destroy the evidence, why leave 22-tons of evidence outside in Baltimore?
How about you repost your list every time someone debunks one of our claims? The we know what to concentrate on, and please never says #4 again. You now know that it is not true, so if you say that it is, you are saying something you know is wrong. Please don’t forget in 364 days.
For 18 years I believed the official government narrative and believed that Truthers were deranged individuals, then I decided to take the time to hear Truther arguments. They have some very disturbing points to make that resonate with me. Some things they say may be wrong or exaggerated or twisted to support their overall beliefs, but I have seen enough to say the official narrative is not correct. I joined this discussion to get a rebuttal to what I have recently learned. It is quite shameful that people feel the need to mock me when I just want a civil discussion.
I do not believe airplane with the amount of fuel they carry could destroy buildings in the manner we witnessed. All three buildings collapsed as if they were in a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers has a massive asbestos issue and the cost of abatement could have ruined the owner Larry Silverstein. Some have suggested Larry Silverstein conspired with government forces. Yeah, it sounds crazy but it would not be the first time a landlord engaged in murder and arson.
I do not know what happened to the people in the planes, but I would suggest that entities that would create a “New Pearl Harbor” that resulted in two wars, hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, and 4.5 trillions in costs are not above anything.
You need look no further for the answer of why people don’t take you seriously.
There is no serious discussion to be had because none of your arguments are grounded on the smallest semblance of fact. You watched 4.5hours of lies. You believed those lies without critical thought.
Where would one even begin trying to reason with your absurd understanding of events?
Is there a list of some/all of the previous threads on this subject?
And would it be possible to sticky the list to the top of the forum(s)?
And we have seen enough of your argument to say that your justification for that conclusion is not well-founded.
Skywatcher has rebutted all your points, and you have responded with more “faulty assumptions based on bad information”, to quote a different poster. And most of us have been around and around these theories enough to know that there is nothing that will sway you from a position you have not reasoned yourself into.
But consider: you have asked several questions. When a rebuttal is provided, do you a) reconsider your position based on new information; b) simply ignore the rebuttal and restate the already-rebutted point; c) move on to a new talking point without acknowledging that the rebuttal of the previous one has already put a serious dent in your theory; or d) b and c, but never a?
If the answer is b, c or d, there is no point in either you asking or us answering your questions.
Neither science nor reality are reliant on your beliefs.
No they didn’t. At all. And that’s not even getting into the whole thing about:
While that is a cool story, bro, it remains purely speculative, and is evidence of nothing.
Again, that is a ludicrous statement. Yes, governments are more than capable of mass murder, but you cannot extrapolate from there to “Therefore it follows that the government killed JFK/vanished hundreds of airplane passengers on 9/11/is grinding babies up into soylent green”. Also, there were literally body parts found scattered around lower Manhattan.
The stupidest thing about these Truther conspiracy theories is this: they would require the cooperation and ongoing silence of literally thousands of people including government, military and private individuals and the international media, plus a level of technology not generally known to exist, to pull off a plan so convoluted that it would be virtually impossible to pull off correctly and without discovery even if it were true, to achieve a vague and undefined goal.
Conversely, even if you want to assume the government was responsible for planning and facilitating 9/11, a plan in which a small group of terrorists hijack some planes and fly them into buildings would require maybe two or three dozen conspirators including the ones on the planes, some cash, some student visas and a couple of boxcutters, which is a far more plausible plan by several orders of magnitude. If William of Ockham were alive, he’d be bitchslapping you right now.
This is really the correct answer.
However, why don’t you post your math? I mean, we have planes going into the towers (which seems a weird thing to do if you were planning to demolish them anyway, but whatever) and airplane fuel undoubtedly burning in there. So lets see your numbers for how the steel support structure could still endure, with the weight of all the floors above it as an ongoing static load.
Also, you are saying “The lower levels of each building should have at the very least slowed the progression of the collapse.” Show us the maths. Once the upper mass is accelerating, do the lower floors provide sufficient resistance to slow them noticeably? I can catch a pound of iron if its dropped at a meters height. Think anyone could catch it after its fallen a mile, and is traveling at 650 km/h?
I think a lot of the problem is, people do not intuitively understand how things scale. They expect stuff to work the same at very large scales as the do at a human-scale. Just one single thing: when you build something that high, you got to provide structural support. But structural support is not weightless. It adds to the weight. So the more support you provide, the more weight you need to provide support for. That means that for something really tall, you end up with the weight resting on it ratcheting up much faster than you’d expect as you go down in levels. Now, to a degree, you can scale it. You add support at a faster rate as your building grows. But some thing do not scale. Certain properties of your materials stay the same regardless of how much material there is. Bulk modulus, ductility, melting point, atomic bond strength, tensile strength, etc, etc.
This is why we don’t have a space elevator.
So at large scales they don’t really act like you’d intuitivly expect from the ways you’ve seen stuff behave at smaller scales.
Just because you don’t “believe” it, or can’t “imagine” it, or “conceive” it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. People are quick to dismiss things just because they can’t comprehend them. Hell, I have no idea of how an iPhone does all the stuff it does and can’t even begin to comprehend how microchips work. But they do and the iPhone certainly does exist.
And it’s amazing how all of these experts came out of the woodwork who know the visual difference between a controlled demolition and one cause by a structural failure on the 95th floor. Their “expertise” seems to be that they saw a youtube video of the Vegas Riveria being demolished and compared it to buildings being destroyed in a Michael Bay movie.