nobody gives a shit about your opinion. we're not gonna go out of our way to show you obvious problems with the official story of 9/11. it may sound weird but you actually have to do your own research to get the answers you want. who woulda known?

Why don't you just watch the video?

ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH

He's just here as a disinformation agent to get us to waste our time.

yea i sniffed that out immediately. The acct has been deleted it seems.

what a loser

It was a SargonOfAkkad (Zionist Bigot Troll) puppet account.

[deleted]

you wanted an objective argument, and that's what it is. With that logic any medium presenting evidence would be considered biased. You low life fucking Slave.

[deleted]

No, don't generalize assumptions about all users on this thread.

I specifically have a problem with "YOU". you mindless fuck.

Well, the NIST report did not test for explosives before declaring there was no evidence of them, namely thermite.

I'd love to know how you figured out what the bias is before even watching the film. These are experts in the field of architecture and engineering. I think their opinions might serve you better than some stranger's on Reddit.

This video just talks about the physics of it all. Not engineering I guess but physics. It also doesn't pretend to know who did it or why or any of that, it just simply stakes a claim that is supported by the laws of physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhglLYbii9I

There is no such thing as an unbiased source by the way.

Here you go, here is a whole bunch of people which will give you unbiased claims and legitimate evidence for their argument and stance: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Argue with them.

[deleted]

You can't read and watch videos? You clearly aren't interested in the truth.

[deleted]

Unfortunately not all three buildings had kinks. How many buildings fell on 9-11 do you know? How many steel buildings have fell straight down into their own footprint due to fire? Offer proof and evidence of your answers thanks. I don't want to have to read or watch a video though.

Here's an open letter to NIST from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Letter_to_Shyam_Sunder_-_7-20-09a.pdf

And one to the AIA

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Letter_to_AIA_-_Melacha-_7-19-09a.pdf

Also, here is some info on the alleged Mossad spy ring operating in the US around that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeW-CRYr2u0

The officer who arrested the "dancing Israelis"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-B2J7tp8eg

And the BBC reporting building 7 collapsing 20 minutes before it does. You can see the corner of the building just to the right of her head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

The 2010 Statistical Yearbook of the United States Census Bureau reports that there are 233,000 architects in the United States for the year 2008. 1,700 architects signed onto a silly position, which means over 99% of architects didn't give a shit.

signed onto a silly position...

what?

99% of architects thought that petition was horeshit.

In order for that statement to be true, then all 233,000 architects had to have reviewed the literature, which is impossible to prove. Looks like you made up that statistic.

No, they just had to know that 9/11 happened and that there was nothing suspicious about it.

[deleted]

The only rational explanation is controlled demo.

Why are the other explanations irrational?

Why were the walls in the basement literally exploding in peoples faces?

Because the building above was on fire and collapsing?

[deleted]

No steel structure in history has suffered a complete collapse due to fires, EVER.

That doesn't make it irrational. Everything that's ever happened had to happen for the first time at some point.

[deleted]

No, it only happened for first time once that day. After the first building fell the other buildings would not have been the first buildings to collapse from massive fire damage. They would have been the second and third respectively.

[deleted]

Yes, we had three unprecedented collapses in ONE DAY.

Unprecedented causes can produce unprecedented effects.

Can you imagine what the odds were?

The odds could have been quite high if the buildings contained design features that significantly raised the likelihood of collapse from fire.

Not only did they use explosives, they used too much.

So why didn't they just claim it was explosives and blame the explosives on the terrorists? Why make things needlessly complicated with some convoluted plot involving planes if the planes wouldn't actually bring down the buildings?

[deleted]

How could explosives in a plane level a building?

Who said anything about "explosives in a plane?" If you're going to debunk a theory, at least get the theory right.

Have you even watched the video?

I started to and then I realized it was just telling me to unquestioningly accept a set of presumptions, then relying on those presumptions to make its point. Tell me again why I should listen to eight minutes of some guy droning on about what he claims a "natural collapse" should look like when you can't even provide a coherent theory about why the conspirators used planes in the first place.

I mean really, could you find a more dumbed down explanation? I don't think so. "Durrr, just think about how it looks when you see fireworks..." [nods head in stupified agreement].

[deleted]

Are you literally saying there was explosives in the building?

No, lots of things explode besides "explosives." An explosion simply requires the presence of some flammable material, an ignition, and a, confined space capable of sustaining sufficient pressure. For example battery backup systems are a common explosive risk in office environments because the batteries can produce hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas + enclosed area + fire = explosion.

It's full of hard facts,

LOL @ your "hard facts." It's full of some guy CLAIMING he's stating hard facts but giving the viewer no way of verifying a single thing he says. Furthermore his "fireworks" example relies on shitty logic - just because one thing can cause an observed effect does not mean it is the only thing that can cause that effect. There is no reason to think that only explosives planted by government conspirators could cause debris to be launched upward, and in fact there is a much simpler, more straightforward explanation for that phenomenon that the video completely ignores.

How else could they have pretended to level the entire complex? Provide me with just one other possibility.

Why would they have to pretend that? According to you they DID level the entire complex with bombs. So why not just plant bombs and say "welp, I guess the terrorist muslims planted the bombs?" Why invent this convoluted plot with airplanes if the airplanes aren't even going to bring down the buildings?

Subtle ad hominem?

No, that's an accurate characterization of how the video establishes one of its crucial "hard facts": it tells you to imagine what fireworks look like, then tells you that only an "explosion" could make debris fall like that. Not only does that insult my intelligence (since it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions), it is directly contradicted by the engineering studies that have stated that a collapsing building would have created tremendous downward pressure that would have pushed columns of air upward and outward, causing the debris to fall in the pattern seen in the video.

So yes, your video is extremely stupid. It assumes the viewer is an imbecile who can't distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions, and it assumes the viewer is ignorant of alternative explanations that are simpler, involve fewer assumptions and require fewer leaps of logic.

[deleted]

Leaps of logic? LEAPS OF LOGIC?

Yes. Your theory stupidly fails to explain why they didn't just use bombs to bring down the buildings and blame terrorists for planting the bombs.

Plans to invade Iraq were drawn up months in advance.

So why the hell didn't they put some Iraqis on those planes? I mean using airplanes was retarded enough (and you STILL haven't explained why they would have done that), but using Saudis to frame Saddam? The conspirators were able to orchestrate a complex plan involving presumably hundreds if not thousands of people (not one of whom has spoken up in the decade since the event occurred) to plant bombs, train hijackers, install remote control devices in places, shoot missles at the pentagon, and bury all the evidence, but they couldn't find even ONE IRAQI to help them out? WTF? Surely Achmed Chalabi could have put them in touch with a few.

proven by Pilots for 9/11 Truth

LOL let me guess: your "proof" consists of some guy talking out his ass and telling you to just take at him at his word.

Close to two thousand architects and engineers are screaming bloody murder.

Hmm, I guess I'll just have to side with the 99.5% of the 2+ million architects and engineers in the USA who ignored your shitty theory and your fraudulent video.

[deleted]

Such an endeavor would takes weeks just to setup

So what? They supposedly trained for MONTHS at various flight schools.

and such people would` need demolition experience,

So just claim they were trained by saddam. BAM! Problem solved.

They tried that in 1993, and did no serious damage at all.

Well according to you bombs actually did bring down the building. Are you telling me now that it's not actually believable that bombs would bring down a building?

That was my mistake. Plans to invade Afghanistan were drawn up months in advance.

So why didn't they put some AFGHANS on those planes? Didn't we supposedly train a few hundred thousand of them to fight the Soviets?

This is the most laughably flimsy disinformation tactic I have ever read. Congrats.

You think something can happen for the first time three times?

Lol. I have nothing to say to this line of rhetoric, except bravo, and maybe that Billy Madison quote.

Here's an unrelated pic.

I have nothing to say to this line of rhetoric,

Of course not. Of all the arguments you could possibly make about 9/11, "it never happened before" seems like one of the dumbest.

But by all means, do post more animated gifs in support of your campaign for 9/11 truth.

[deleted]

Before the collapse..

Circular reasoning. That might have been part of the collapse. It's only "before the collapse" if you define "the collapse" to exclude other ancillary events related to the destruction of the buildings.

[deleted]

And what could those other "ancillary events" have been?

Explosions and fires caused by commercial aircraft slamming into the buildings.

[deleted]

Fire?

[deleted]

Fire alone does not cause explosions

Sure it does. Lots of things explode when they catch on fire.

Just. Watch. Them. Collapse.

Also wtc 7

Also also the Pentagon. Most highly secure military headquarters in the world. Hit by a jet. No wreckage. No scars on the lawn. No video. Books on podiums inside the gaping hole.

Just. Watch. Them. Collapse.

Yes, they collapsed planes hit them.

it hit two of them. How do you exlain buildin seven?

Falling debris caused a raging out of control fire that burned for several hours.

Yea but debris and fire isn't enough to make it fall that way. In 1975 there where fires in a wtc that burned out of control for several hours, no weakened steel, no structural damage. Only superficial stuff. The original explosion of jet fuel on 9/11 would be hot but just for a bit, and as you can see from the video, most of the fuel was on fire outside of the building. so the remaining fire is just your standard office fire, and in number sevens case it didn't even get the assistance of a plane hitting it. I feel the need to say this in every post here: I am not crazy and I like good debate, I'm not going to call you a sheep or get mad. I just feel that the official story has holes in it. There are things that don't make sense, however, I do not pretend to know who did it or why, as there isn't enough evidence of anything to prove that. I hope that we can have an intelligent conversation.

Edit: I got to rambling on and forgot to provide the wiki link for the first fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_13.2C_1975_fire

Yea but debris and fire isn't enough to make it fall that way

Why not?

it's built to withstand moe than that and has in the past. Did you read the rest of what I wrote? edit: I can not type well on my phone so excuse that butchered spelling

When did WTC 7 withstand more than that in the past?

that specific one did not. Can you show me an instance other than this where a similar structure build to strict codes to withstand natural disaster was brought down by debris and fire alone?

that specific one did not.

Ok, so when you said "it's built to withstand more than that and has in the past" you weren't talking about WTC 7?

Can you show me an instance other than this where a similar structure build to strict codes to withstand natural disaster was brought down by debris and fire alone?

I don't know of any other buildings that had burning fires raging in them with that intensity for that long, let alone ones that were constructed exactly the same as WTC 7. Do you?

any building any time. From a fire. Yes sorry getting two points mixed up. So yes: any skyscraper that was caused a colapse by fire. Office fires are all burning from pretty similar sources. Come on there's got to be one!

any building any time.

Every building is different. If the other buildings weren't built like WTC 7, or the fires weren't as intense, or the fires weren't allowed to burn out of control for so long, then there's no basis for comparison.

just give me any building. I understand the need for a fair comparison. But give me something! Or do scyscrapers not just fall due to fires? And would it not at least leave behind it's skeletal structure?

phone dying. I'll continue in the morning if you're still interested

just give me any building.

Why? I'm the one who thinks WTC was unique. If you disagree then YOU find another building.

Or do scyscrapers not just fall due to fires?

Maybe they do if they're constructed a certain way and the fires are big enough and burn long enough. 9/11 would be an example of this.

So now your asking me to dig for evidence supporting your claim instead of you doing your own reserch? ok I think we're done here.

So now your asking me to dig for evidence supporting your claim

Not at all. You (usually) can't prove a negative, so I would never expect you prove that no other building having the same design WTC 7 has experienced comparable levels of damage. I would simply point out that no one has ever identified such a building.

Yes, and due to the lack of exact replica, I am giving you one here. Instead of being super stringent, I am saying find me anything even close. It could be from older times, when codes weren't as strict, as long as it has a steel frame and support system.

Seperate side note. The fire I did reference (albeit in the wrong building) that DID happen in the larger building, happened with no structural issues, on a much lower floor (the 11th) with a loooooot more weight to bear than where the plane fire happened (the 99th ish). Yet 9/11 is the one that caused collapse?

Here is a video, from a physicist explaining the things that dont add up. Just about the way it falls. He, Like me, doesn't pretend to know who did it or why, just that shit doesn't add up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOWkseSmfBQ

Instead of being super stringent, I am saying find me anything even close.

I'm the one being "stringent." If the other building was constructed differently, or the fire was not as intense, it's useless for comparison. There is absolutely no scientific value in comparing two buildings with fundamentally different characteristics, especially when it is officially r those characteristics (building design, intensity of fires) that are alleged to account for the different outcomes.

Ok so this is a waste of time. Because the fact that even lesser buildings built to lower standards not falling from fire is thrown out to to the lack of comparability. I understand your want to find something exact, but I know that that is not realistic. There isn't enough buildings of exact same make that have been on fire the exact same way. Simply put: my point is that even buildings with a weaker design that have been in worse fires don't structurally collapse in all the way down on their own footprint. That's all i'm saying.

Anything else for my other points?

I understand your want to find something exact

It doesn't have to be exact. Just reasonably comparable on the three variables that matter: building design/construction, intensity of fire, length of uncontrolled fire.

There isn't enough buildings of exact same make that have been on fire the exact same way.

Then you'll need to come up with a better justification for ruling out the conventional explanation.

Yes however, there are instances of weaker buildings burning for longer, and only partial collapse. For example, the Windsor Tower in Madrid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)

Building on fire for 24 hours and you get your collapse. But only partially, and not just falling all at once. Not quite apples to apples but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as American Buildings generally are built to a stricter code and the wtc fires didn't last nearly as long.

Yes however, there are instances of weaker buildings burning for longer,

It's not an issue of "weak" vs "strong." The issue is HOW the building was designed, and whether a building with the same basic design would respond to a similar fire of similar intensity for a similar duration.

Furthermore you have no way of judging whether a particular building was "weaker" if you did not subject it to the same conditions. And if you did subject it to those conditions, and it did not collapse, that might mean that it was not in fact "weaker." That's why it's pointless to compare buildings with different designs: because you can't draw any conclusions based on that comparison. For all you know that other building was not actually "weaker," because it did not actually collapse.

If your definition of weaker is merely based on the outcome and not the way it is built than that is to say that no two buildings are anything alike at all and we are to learn nothing from even the closest comparisons we have. If you are ok with that than good for you.

than that is to say that no two buildings are anything alike at all and we are to learn nothing from even the closest comparisons we have.

I agree that it's pretty stupid to try and draw conclusions from comparisons, since you will probably never find any truly compatable events. It makes much more sense to look at what actually happened and explain why it's impossible for fire to bring down a building like that.

Well here. (this website)[http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html] says that the steel didnt reach over 700 degrees C. (this website)[http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html] says that steels melting point is around 1370 C or almost twice as hot as reserch says the fires IN THE MAIN BUILDINGS got. Now are you implying that the building that didn't have to deal with the jet fuel fires burned hotter than the main buildings? Edit : I guess format isn't working for me

says that the steel didnt reach over 700 degrees C.

Yes, based on the utterly ridiculous assumption that we have x-ray vision that would allow us see glowing steel through the walls of a building.

There was steel on the outer walls of that building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_(structure)

That doesn't preclude the possibility that steel inside the building melted.

It is feeling the same heat.

If it's on the outside it would seem much easier for that heat dissipate. At least that's how radiators work.

to some extent yes, but the heat in the steel would have to radiate through it, therefore it would carry the heat therefore making it glow. its being heated from the inside and has to radiate out. And I think this is all besides the point,

This is more scientific than I understand if we are being honest, but the people in this report are scientists. and say

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

to some extent yes, but the heat in the steel would have to radiate through it, therefore it would carry the heat therefore making it glow.

Nah, if heat were being dissipated rapidly enough the outside would never get that hot.

It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present

Classic straw man. No expert has ever claimed jet fuel burned up WTC 7.

Ok so take jet fuel out of it, it doesn't change the properties of steel and the max temperatures present with the given ingredients. Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that there where materials present made by temperatures far to hot given the circumstances.

it doesn't change the properties of steel and the max temperatures present with the given ingredients.

It does give me a reason to dismiss the source, since it's attacking claims no one has actually made.

that there where materials present made by temperatures far to hot given the circumstances.

Circular reasoning. You're assuming (without evidence) that circumstances preclude high enough temperatures to severely weaken steel.

A fire is a reaction of things. A fire can only burn as hot as the fuel its given will make it burn. Based on the ingredients of a fire you can know its temperature. We are left with one conclusion: If the fire burned hot enough to melt steel, there are more things being burned than we are being told about, as the given ingredients do not burn at a temperature high enough to melt steel. also, just because you didn't claim it doesn't mean no one ever did.

We are left with one conclusion: If the fire burned hot enough to melt steel,

It didn't have to "melt" steel to make the buildings collapse. It only had to weaken it enough that it couldn't do its job.

just because you didn't claim it doesn't mean no one ever did.

That's cool man. Just cherry pick which claims you want to respond to and ignore the others.

Wait are you going to say that I am doing that?? I have brought up several point that you have yet to respond to. If you would have looked at my sources you would see that with the way physics work, even if the top section did collapse, it wouldn't be enough to bring the whole thing down. It would stop pretty soon after it started, and the top section would fall off the side. Frankly, you don't source one single thing, you claim that I cherry pick when actually you have been doing it this whole time, so I am over it. I was hoping to have an intelligent conversation but you do not want to have one. have a good day.

even if the top section did collapse,it wouldn't be enough to bring the whole thing down.

Sure it would if the lower levels were severely compromised.

Frankly,you don't source one single thing

I'm not the one discarding conventional theories. In order to prove it was an inside job you have to first show that the conventional explanation is clearly untenable, which you fail to do every time you post some amateurish spiel that mischaracterizes the conventional explanation.

k

Run along now.

I believe that is up to you. I didn't post in r/politics, it was you guys who came in here. I tried to have an intelligent convo, but that's just me. You are the one who needs to return home.

I tried to have an intelligent convo,

Keep trying. You're bound to get it right at some point.

Not with the likes of you. It take two intelligent people. Unfortunately, when people want to just insult it is no longer intelligent. You sir, are just like the crazy people on this thread who immediately scream ZIONIST BANKS AHHHH YOUR A SHEEP, only you are the other end. When one has to resort to insulting, they are fully aware they are losing an argument, they are just upset. I see you have been studying the ways of Bill O'reilly. Have fun with that.

It's my fault you trotted out an endless parade of straw men?

because obama bro. his signing of ndaa caused the nwo to kick into full effect man. So now im unemployed and have nothing better to do than troll other subs!

Do you think the conventional explanation involves melting steel?

No bro it was bush! thats why obama is king now!

Why didn't they put some iraqis on those planes? Seems stupid to put Saudis up there if you're trying to pin the blame on Saddam.

Bro thats kuz you dont know the nwo. Clearly you need to brush up on your physics

collision physics. plane wings do not slice through steel beams. the aluminum plane can not penetrate steel without deforming or slowing down, but we observe this on the videos. It could not be a commercial airplane - again the laws of physics don't apply on sept. 11 2001.

the demolition of WTC7 is quite obvious to me. there is no mechanism for uneven fires and damage to result in free fall acceleration during collapse. explosives were never tested for. don't bother asking me for evidence unless you can grant me special prosecutor and subpoena powers (might need guantanamo and some waterboarding to boot.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wocb8PamQyI

observe. think.

this guy is fishy.

Puts quotation marks on, 911 "truth". Plus says is an engineering student, fails to comprehend the buildings fell straight down identical to a controlled demolition. What we have here is a corporate slave. obey. obey. obey.

The only people who claim they have "the truth" are religious fundamentalist and conspiracy theorist.

[deleted]

Welcome to R/cons, if you don't subscribe to the hivethink then you are automatically a government agent sent here to....well we don't really know but it isn't good!!!!!

yup, just deleted this post as obviously no rational discussion was going to be had here. Quite sad really.

Don't come here expecting intelligent debate. You get more than 2 layers deep and these guys are lost. They are into conspiracies because real life events and the context surrounding them are too hard. It is far easier to blame the Jews and then call anyone still asking questions a Mossad or government agent. Ask to boys here, they have already "confirmed" (they have no idea what that word means) that I am a paid shill for Israel.

Since you are butthurt about it, let me explain. We are not here to dance for your entertainment. You can't come in, clap your hands and ask us to start an argument. You might want to come up with an argument of your own. I don't think you're a slave but you certainly present yourself as lazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[deleted]

dude I'm sorry I posted a video about the physics aspect of this in a respectfull manner without name calling and no one responded. There are fanatics who flip out but that is not all of us. To blanket statement is to show a laziness of the mind.

stupid to downvote that. It is lazy. For all the evidence I am asked of, no one has given me any in return to disprove me.

I am trying to have good convo. I'm being sane and rational and not just yelling sheep. No one is responding to me. Not everyone in r/conspiracy is a crazy tin foil wearing nut job. I like the truth, and I don't pretent to have it, but I feel like the truth should hold up to questions and from what I see the official story doesnt . I am not pretending to know what happened or why, all I an see is that there are errors in the official story which leads my to having questions. That is all. I hope I am wrong to not trust I really do. But I do not see evidence enough to convince me I am.

Ah, very good. You understand satire. well done. Most sheep do not have such capabilities.

Fascinating how post-literate r/conspiracy is. Any demand for proof is met with "Why don't you just watch the video?" (Which often is compilation of yet other videos.)

99% of architects thought that petition was horeshit.

You can't read and watch videos? You clearly aren't interested in the truth.

Before the collapse..

Circular reasoning. That might have been part of the collapse. It's only "before the collapse" if you define "the collapse" to exclude other ancillary events related to the destruction of the buildings.

any building any time. From a fire. Yes sorry getting two points mixed up. So yes: any skyscraper that was caused a colapse by fire. Office fires are all burning from pretty similar sources. Come on there's got to be one!

Yes however, there are instances of weaker buildings burning for longer,

It's not an issue of "weak" vs "strong." The issue is HOW the building was designed, and whether a building with the same basic design would respond to a similar fire of similar intensity for a similar duration.

Furthermore you have no way of judging whether a particular building was "weaker" if you did not subject it to the same conditions. And if you did subject it to those conditions, and it did not collapse, that might mean that it was not in fact "weaker." That's why it's pointless to compare buildings with different designs: because you can't draw any conclusions based on that comparison. For all you know that other building was not actually "weaker," because it did not actually collapse.

It is feeling the same heat.