The primary reason why I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job is because I just don't see any evidence that we possess a government capable of such a massive and coordinated conspiracy.

What is more likely is that a group of determined belligerent resolved themselves to attack us and set about to exploit systemic weaknesses in our infrastructure.

Actually, the best evidence to suggest why a "false flag" operation wasn't necessary for the expansion of the "War on Terror" is that the pitch for the Iraq war was all about WMDs and not 9/11. If anything, the connection between the existential threat posed by Saddam Hussain and 9/11 was played down and Osama bin Laden entirely marginalized.

Finally, I've never seen anything to support the INCREDIBLE claim that three gigantic skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan were covertly wired for explosives for months with no one noticing. I've lived in NYC my whole life. Spent a great deal of time downtown. I just can't figure out the logistics. How did the get all the necessary explosives on site and installed in buildings that are staffed 24/7 by thousands of ordinary citizens? They didn't.

I'll admit, I sympathize with people who look at the buildings collapse and say it looks like any other controlled demolition That said, years ago, an engineer once told me that it looks like a controlled demolition because that's how skyscrapers are designed to collapse. WTC7 was on fire for hours then collapsed.

I believe there are people in our government who are guilty of criminal negligence related to the attacks. I don't believe there's a group of 100 or so super-smart members of a real-life SPECTRE orchestrating diabolical plots to bring about the New World Order.

I just don't see any evidence that we possess a government capable of such a massive and coordinated conspiracy.

So, they're coordinated enough to invade multiple countries, but not blow up 4 buildings? They lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to get us into Vietnam...

What is more likely is that a group of determined belligerent resolved themselves to attack us and set about to exploit systemic weaknesses in our infrastructure.

Our government isn't coordinated enough to do this, but a group of belligerents living in caves from halfway around the world are?

Actually, the best evidence to suggest why a "false flag" operation wasn't necessary for the expansion of the "War on Terror" is that the pitch for the Iraq war was all about WMDs and not 9/11. If anything, the connection between the existential threat posed by Saddam Hussain and 9/11 was played down and Osama bin Laden entirely marginalized.

They were saying Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 the day of the attack and that he had bases in Tora Bora, the excuse for invasion of Afghanistan.

Finally, I've never seen anything to support the INCREDIBLE claim that three gigantic skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan were covertly wired for explosives for months with no one noticing. I've lived in NYC my whole life. Spent a great deal of time downtown. I just can't figure out the logistics. How did the get all the necessary explosives on site and installed in buildings that are staffed 24/7 by thousands of ordinary citizens? They didn't.

Many floors were owned by the very people involved in massive money laundering scandals, such as Enron and government agencies. ACE elevator had done large scale work in all the elevator shafts, which were inside the core columns as well. Bomb sniffing dogs were called out in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

I'll admit, I sympathize with people who look at the buildings collapse and say it looks like any other controlled demolition That said, years ago, an engineer once told me that it looks like a controlled demolition because that's how skyscrapers are designed to collapse. WTC7 was on fire for hours then collapsed.

Buddy, skyscrapers are not designed to collapse, in fact the WTC complex was built to sustain MULTIPLE airplane crashes. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, it burns hundreds of degrees cooler than what is required.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel

But it does burn hot enough to weaken it. Nobody ever claimed that the support beams melted.

jet fuel only burns as a gas, meaning that almost all of it vaporized on impact in that big fireball. As a liquid it isn't flammable, you can even drop a match into a bucket of jet fuel and all that will happen is the match will go out. There are numerous videos on youtube that prove this...

This weekend, using ONLY wood and a cast iron dutch oven, I melted a few dozen aluminum horse shoes into a liquid mass.

Now that was JUST wood. What happens when you take jet fuel soaked foam cushions or carpet, and let that burn. That potential energy from the fuel just doesn't go away. True, you can drop a match into a bucket of jet fuel and it goes out. But try putting a wick in it and see if it burns. Or heat the bucket until the fuel starts to evaporate and become an aerosol. Or just the furniture itself. It will get hot. Also, all the chemtrail chemicals stored on every plane. You know how hot those burn?

I see what you did there in that last part.

You do?

Yup.

I fail to see a point here.

the point is that if the jet fuel burned off within the first minute (that's generous, the fireball only lasts for seconds) then what was burning hot enough to melt steel?

nothing, because it didn't melt

Google nano thermite at the wtc. They found molten steel for days after the collapse.

No, they found molten metal. I don't think anyone ever proved that it was steel.

2 questions. Did the official report discuss this finding at all (seems important), and how is this consistent with the argument that jet fuel burns just hot enough to "weaken" steel?

I melted aluminum horseshoes this weekend in my fire pit using only wood. It was a silver puddle in a dutch oven until the fire burned down, when it solidified.

I have also seen them use thermite to fuse railroad tracks together. It was hot for awhile, but not days. You seriously need to think about it, and ask how much potential energy is in this thermite you speak of to allow steel to stay molten for days, and why we instead use massive electric furnaces to melt steel for manufacture, rather than a few pounds of that stuff?

Nobody ever claimed that the support beams melted.

Some do.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.

Leslie Robertson Engineer of the WTC "Like a little river of steel"

Molybdenum melts at 4753 F PDF

You ever see taffy pulled? It's not melted, but softened by heat, and when pulled, it's thickness decreases as it's length increases.

As for your spherical metallic particles, have you ever soldered a pipe and some of the excess solder dripped down to the floor? You know what happens when it hits the floor? It doesn't hit as a solid slug, it usually hits like a water drop, and like a water drop, forms little spheres

And if you don't things like alloyed iron and lead can't melt in a common fire, you really don't know much about metal. Even I don't know much about metal, yet I manage to melt forged aluminum horseshoes into a liquid using ONLY wood in a backyard fire pit. And that's WITHOUT the addition of forced air, which you would find in a high rise.

Think.

Melted steel

"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." (pdf Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction)

As for your spherical metallic particles...

Sphere formation and size
Not only is it necessary for the material to have achieved extremely high temperatures to melt and so be able to form small spheres, it is also necessary that some violent physical disturbance occur in order to shatter the molten material into the sizes observed, 1.5mm down to about one micron diameter.

Presence of large numbers of iron-rich spherules in the dust published in USGS report

Edit: Added pdf title

Eroded steel != melted steel. You are aware that fire + oxygen corrodes steel?

You are trying to obtuse on purpose. Jet fuel wasn't the only thing being burnt that day, my friend. Last weekend, using WOOD alone and no forced air source, I got aluminum to melt in an open top cast iron dutch oven. That means wood out in the open air on a cool night burns at at least 1,200F +. So that makes the idea that a fire in a metal/drywall building, which would help contain the heat, fed by multiple fuel sources, like plastic, wood, jet fuel, etc... and being fed air by updrafts, could only get to 1,000 the point of someone who can not think for themselves.

As for your "violent physical disturbance", does falling and hitting a surface count? Because if so, it's exactly the thing I described to you. As to your link, no "spherules" were listed. Iron was, but so were a lot of other metals/elements.

Our government isn't coordinated enough to do this, but a group of belligerents living in caves from halfway around the world are?

He meant the government couldn't do it and keep it secret. It seems like it would be ridiculously easier for some terrorist to fly planes into the towers rather than the government to gather an assembly of people to wire the towers with bombs without anyone noticing and keep the hundreds of people likely involved quiet. More importantly it seems completely unnecessary to set up bombs if you're just gonna have planes crash into them anyways...

They were saying Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 the day of the attack and that he had bases in Tora Bora, the excuse for invasion of Afghanistan.

If we wanted to use this as an excuse to invade Afghanistan or any country we would have made the hijackers the same nationality of the country we wanted to invade. But that wasn't the case. They were all Saudis.

The way intelligence works is that we have clues and pieces to a puzzle but we can really interpret it. Once something like 9/11 happens suddenly the signs make sense. Its not like we had no active intelligence prior to the attack and had to start doing research and investigation to determine who was the likely culprit.

Seems Iran needs to pay you more.

without anyone noticing and keep the hundreds of people likely involved quiet.

Well, we know some Israelis are good with bombs. Also, dancing.

If the best evidence for an inside job which would have taken months of planning and involved hundreds of people is the testimony from a person saying they saw 5 Israelis "dancing" then that is pretty weak.

You assume this 'hundreds of people' thing. You underestimate the power of a small number of highly motivated individuals.

Why?

That's because no matter how highly motivated individuals are they can't do everything themselves. You have people who plan it, you have those that would have to get the bombs, figure out out much explosives are necessary, those that need to plant them, you need to be hired for the job, trained, etc. If you think of all the small details its ends up being a lot of people.

I have no doubt that the US or any government could easily orchestrate such an attack but the logistics involved would mean many people would know and it would be almost impossible for it to be kept secret for long. Just the difficulty of keeping such a scandal secret would be enough of a deterrent. Seems way more plausible that terrorist did it as blowing stuff up is usually there thing.

That's because no matter how highly motivated individuals are they can't do everything themselves.

Meaning they need unmotivated individuals?

You have people who plan it, you have those that would have to get the bombs, figure out out much explosives are necessary, those that need to plant them, you need to be hired for the job, trained, etc. If you think of all the small details its ends up being a lot of people.

Yes, but lets break it down here. You've already brought in the downvotes, so why not?

The persons or people at the top make the plan. They reach out, possible through a mediating party to a group where people are already trained. Some allege connections between CIA and various terrorist groups. If that were the case, wouldn't it be easy to have them covertly support those that want to attack American targets(for any number of reasons), allowing them to use false flag, self initiated attacks and wipe their hands of it?

This follows the traditional problem, reaction, solution paradigm of orchestrating the events you need to do what you want.

Seems way more plausible that terrorist did it as blowing stuff up is usually there thing.

The theories of Terror Ties, and Inside Job are not mutually exclusive.

And you obviously know nothing about buildings. I've worked in the facilities department of a small rise and semi high rise office building. Our people are daily in areas of the building the average person who worked there for years had never seen in their lives. Places like the UPS battery storage rooms, the generator rooms, the electrical rooms, the telco rooms, above the drop ceilings, etc...

Yet there are also rooms WE didn't have access to, like the electrical and telco vaults or client spaces for things like data storage, which were harder to get into than places like The White House, using things like man-trap doors, unless you worked for THAT client. Places where you couldn't replace a lightbulb without having an escort from the client. We also daily escorted multiple people from places that supported clients, like electricians and carpenters and plumbers and etc...

So, you can have your small number of highly motivated individuals. BUT, there's no way they could prep and wire a building that size with none of those hundreds of facilities/utilities workers noticing something out of place for the weeks/months it would take. All that would need to happen is some Union electrician working on his floor seeing some wiring that he doesn't know and either tracing it or cutting it to spite the scab worker who put it in to destroy all of that work.

Don't try to tell me what I do or do not know. That shows me your agenda is with making me think a certain way, and not with presenting your OPINION on this issue.

I will tell you that I know what these spaces are like. And that in spaces where people seldom go, as you say, such devices that might be needed could be planted quickly and with little trouble.

There are many other factors that could play into exactly what went down that day, but pretending your experience makes something outside your experience impossible is ignorant and insulting.

If you know facilities departments, you know what I'm talking about.

Oh, I know facilities departments. From fusible links on HVAC systems to removing ceiling panels to track clogged condensate pans to simplex-grinnel life safety systems to Alerton systems for climate control to universal waste collection for bulbs/ballasts to replacing sloan sensors on urinals to grease inspections on hood systems to Cheetah/FM-200 systems in server rooms to SPCC plans that required PIG kits for the UST's that supplied our generators, etc...

I've also watched a fair share of controlled demolition documentaries in my time. The amount of prep that is required for one is not something done quickly. One doesn't simply walk up, slap a device on a beam/support, and walk away. There is prep and planning that needs to be done and that takes time, especially if one is to believe all the videos that show how many floors were supposedly wired.

But perhaps all I've written is just NLP to force you to change what you believe/know.

I can't do a point by point on my phone but I really appreciate you giving a detailed response.

As a general response, I absolutely find it plausible that a relatively well funded group of men could train to fly a commercial jet, take an unsuspecting crew by force in a fashion very similar to any number of hijackings and crash into skyscrapers.

I also don't believe a country's ability to stumble into a sovereign country will little a basically non-existent military force and hapharzardly occupy it means it is also capable of highly complex false flag operations like the one you suggest happened on 9/11.

I don't know anything about the elevator work in the buildings. Are you suggesting that they were rigging explosives in all the buildings in the elevator shafts? Lastly, I'm not suggesting that skyscrapers are designed to collapse. I'm saying they're designed with a specific structure that bears loads in a specific way. If you weaken those supports, the other beams will collapse like dominos. How should a building that had flaming debris falling on it for hours react? Should it fall over like a Jenga game or should it be subject to its interconnected form and collapse in on itself? The latter seems more plausible. And, I guess that's my point. I'm not here to tell you that I know you're wrong and I'm right. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job because that is not the most plausible explaination given my experience of the event and my experience with reality.

in fact the WTC complex was built to sustain MULTIPLE airplane crashes.

Smaller planes. Going at a fraction of the speed. Without fuel.

707s, not that much smaller.. and you're full of shit that they were "without fuel" obviously airplanes can't fly without fuel, and you're making that up.

Provide a source please, or STFU.

[deleted]

So do you think you could give the command to shoot down a plane full of possibly innocent people based solely on one plane crashing?

If so, you need professional help.

[deleted]

I would make sure that the plane wasn't actually taken over, but suffering some kind of communications failure. But it's easy to look back and with all the knowledge of what happened and say we could have shot down all the planes and not hit an innocent one by accident.

You also forgot to mention that weeks leading up to 9/11 groups of white vans, never before seen entering the world trade center garage, came every night at 3am as the cleaning staff was leaving and where then seen again leaving at 5am as people arrived to open the building, This and more can be seen here in CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGI4jfwOmOk

And they did what? Work that no one ever discovered? Work in the facilities department of a major building or a sub contractor of the same, and you would see how there's no way you could set up that much equipment/wiring and having no one discover it.

You realize they can set up demolitions remotely? like without wire. You simply have to attach bombs via sticky tack type solution with a radio receiver on it.

Well, we'll ignore exactly how different and out of the ordinary load bearing elements look after a being set up and prepped for demolition look like, because again, anyone who sees it would notice something was up, and we are expected to believe people saw that, said nothing to anyone, and continue to say nothing about it. Also, if they did prep them, some minimal cutting would have to be done before hand. Again, if you have ever worked in a building, you would know what it would take to impair a life/safety system(which is needed even if you do something like dry-walling becuase of the dust it generates, and also that there would be a paper trail because you not only have to alert the alarm company, you have to alert the local FD as well as a fire marshal as per NFPA guidelines for any impairment.

So they put (battery powered?)radio receivers on all of these bombs/devices in one of the most densely packed cities, and had no qualms any kind of interference could accidentally set them off? And also it was 2001, so they maybe had some Li-Ion batteries, but they could last for weeks? Not even a current cell phone will last that long on stand by, and we use digital which uses less power than a analog phone.

People did say things about people going in and out of the buildings at night, they were ignored as were most other questions brought up about the "official story". Im not sure how they would have disguised them but i assume they found a way. How else could core columns of steel be sliced like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBXZOGc-DOg

Also if you dont believe that technology that is greater than the current technology used in everyday society exist then im sorry. The government / uber rich are a solid 10 years ahead of what is acutally "modern day" just do some research.

Wait, you asked how "core columns can be sliced like this", then link to a video which explain it was done by clean up crews. Consider me convinced on that point!

And OK, the government is 10 years ahead of what is actually modern day. So they would have access to today's technology, since 9/11/01 was over 11 years ago. So back then they still didn't have access to batteries that could last for weeks in a analog cell phone or even a digital cell phone.

yeah man do your own research, here watch this youtube video for research its real reliable i promise. heaps of peers have reviewed it i swear

im sorry i linked u the first video i found on google of "core columns being spliced" and "10 years ahead" is jsut a guestimation and not an approximate science

really though do your own reaserch http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD5fLY4_Np0DSCd3dQLyrSveJ061ne8D2&feature=mh_lolz watch this shit and more.

There's a lot of stuff I didn't mention, i get kind of tired explaining the same points over and over again, but good of you to mention that.. there's a whole bunch more proving it was obviously an inside job, you'd either have to be a shill or in complete denial not to realize it by now (not you, the guy arguing it wasn't).

a massive and coordinated conspiracy.

I don't get this argument. What is so massive? All you need are key government figures. Most key institutions that would've been involved were playing out scheduled (go figure!) wargames the day of. Two dozen figureheads? Between bush, cheney, silverstein and Giuliani. How many underlings do you think had to know about it? Ok, there is the demo crew and the psychological agents too, but we obviously have the CIA in on it at this point. Not all of them, but I'm sure you are aware they aren't a monolithic entity.

Wanna touch on the seismic readings?

You can completely ignore the controlled demolition theory and its still an obvious inside job. I have come to give the controlled demolition theory credence but it does raise the bar for belief IMHOP. I think prior knowledge, financial hijinks, obstructed investigations, drills, Cheney's stand down of NORAD, prestaging for the Afghanistan invasion and a White House already on Cipro make an inside job pretty credible and its really just the tip of the iceberg. Every one that acted in the best interest of the country trying to raise the alarm on the attack has been drummed out and marginalized while incompetence has been rewarded and promoted. The CIA and friends were allready taking down foreign governments with terrorism and dirty tricks, the 93WTC attack was planned and materialy assisted by the FBI, I don't believe organisations charged with the type of subterfuge that the CIA, Naval Intelligence, FBI and NSA are upto can be sand boxed eventually those chickens come home to roost.

This is more compelling. But at worse I see gross negligence bordering on a quasi-conscious, self-destructive posturing stemming from a Dr. Strangelove-type paranoia about the Middle East that created the very threats the incompetent g-men were promising they could thwart.

I don't see the motive. What is the purpose of planning and executing such an attack? Couldn't be oil. Or the billions taken off the back of a truck in Iraq? That's a rounding error for people with this sort of power. What's the point? To show that we could push the country into bankruptcy losing two wars? Or was the point to gain the CIA unprecedented power to wage a drone war in Pakistan? Because without 10 years of fruitless engagement overseas, we would have never covertly developed drone warplanes.

I just don't see why they would go through the trouble of 9/11 when it seems utterly disconnected from any real substantive gain in power by our clandestine services.

[deleted]

The Greatwork?

[deleted]

So the answer is "study it out, bro!"?

Don't forget the missing 2.7 trillion. Where's the outrage?

Couldn't be oil.

Why's that? Why couldn't it be just about everything you've mentioned and more? That sounds like a really fucking great plan to me

I don't see the motive.

NYT chart on how the US responded to 911 by spending 3.3 trillion.

I am not sure where the you got WMD with the "War on Terror," so if you could explain that would be nice.

As for the bombs, in WTC 7 it would be really easy, since everyone housed in there was a part of some sort of government agency. One big piece of evidence is that the fires in WTC 7 were tiny and were very few. The sprinklers should have easily distinguished them, but they never turned on. Also, the only steel buildings ever to be destroyed by fire (as of 9/11) were the World Trade Centers. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center (not sure if he still is) had blatantly admitted that they had demolished it. He said, on live news, "Just pull it, and so they pulled it, and we watched the building collapse." Pull, meaning in construction terms is to destroy it. Also, WTC 7 was the home of many government agencies so (I am not 100% of this one but it makes a lot of sense) they decided to destroy it because it could have held important information on the plot. As for the Twin Towers, I can't really say anything about explosives because I haven't really looked into it.

So you heard from an engineer that they should have fallen that way? Strange because I also heard form an engineer, but he said that they definitely should not have. The way the Twin Towers were designed was that they had 3 sections, each being separated by a lot of concrete and steel, so the buildings should have just had the top fall over and the rest be unscathed.

Now just WTC 7 alone could be enough proof to unravel the theory. If it had bombs in it, and it went down with the help of the government, the whole thing was an inside job. Yet there is a plethora of other such evidence with the other buildings, planes, etc...

The fires in WTC7 were not "tiny" or "very few." There was a GE substation with gas powered generators in the first floors of the building. The huge gash from the Twin Tower debris severed the fuel lines, literally throwing gas on the fire. Along with severing the fuel lines, the hole in the side of WTC7 from a next door collapsing building also damaged the water lines used by the sprinkler system. The reason why Silverstein said to "pull it" (more on that in a second) was due to the lack of water pressure inhibiting the fire fighters to actually fight the fire inside Building 7.

Larry Silverstein... had blatantly admitted that they had demolished it. He said, on live news, "Just pull it, and so they pulled it, and we watched the building collapse." Pull, meaning in construction terms is to destroy it.

Please, stop mindlessly repeating "Loose Change". I don't know how many times that statement has been debunked as not meaning what Truthers think it means.

Watch the actual video of Silverstein's quote. He was talking to the fire department commander. "Pull it" is not an industry term for explosive demolition, it is, however, used by fire fighters to mean being "pulled" out of a building. Here are interviews of fire fighters who were in Building 7 using the term.

http://imgur.com/a/1fESP

I can imagine the truthers putting their hands over their eyes and going "no no no no photoshop, shill photoshop. evil lies. no no no no no"

Last time I posted these that happened. The person said that the pictures had to have been taken from the WTC towers themselves.

This person is now a moderator of /r/conspiracy

My eyes are open. http://imgur.com/6qy0H

So? Who gives a shit? who gives a fuck?

It was also the first building that had half of the fire dept under rubble at the base of it.

It was also the first building next to two 110 story buildings collapse next to it.

There were hundreds of "firsts" that day.

You can't pretend a conventional fire is the same as 9/11 kind of scenario. That is not an analogous comparison.

"The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building
primarily due to fires."

Page 37 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven

First of all, the fires in the building were not very big, and there really weren't many compared to the Twin Towers. This picture is of the Windsor tower in Madrid, Spain. The tower is made of steel and is 32 stories tall. The fire burned inside for 18 hours, yet no collapse or even core failure.

I wasn't quoting "Loose Change" I have never even seen the movie. Plus, that video you showed me (the same one I watched...) and the interview with the firefighter do not help your case at all.

True, but the Windsor Tower didn't have a massive skyscraper knocking a hole into the side of the building, taking out a lot of the structural support.

The video and firefighter interview do help, not sure how you aren't seeing it.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

-Richard Banaciski, firefighter with Ladder 22

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire [the fire suppression was out], and I said [to the FD commander], you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it [the firefighting operation in WTC7].' And they [Fire Department] made that decision to pull [the firefighters] and then we watched the building collapse.

True, but the Windsor Tower didn't have a massive skyscraper knocking a hole into the side of the building, taking out a lot of the structural support.

Neither did WTC 7. Most of the fires were claimed to be caused by falling debris. Look at the Bankers Trust building. It was hit way worse than WTC 7 according to this picture. So why didn't that fall? In fact, the Bankers Trust building wasn't even on fire. There are accounts of building 7 being on fire as early as 9:15 AM, barely a half hour after the impact. Large debris didn't start falling until around 9:50 AM. I would also like to point out (even though I am not sure about this one, it seems a bit fishy to me) that BBC reported WTC 7 (or the Saloman Brothers building) collapsed 20 minutes before it even happened. Starts around 2:00.

So why didn't that fall? In fact, the Bankers Trust building wasn't even on fire.

You said it. It wasn't on fire. WTC7 had the one-two-punch of being on fire and receiving massive amounts of structural damage. Also, like I said before, WTC7 featured unusual construction since it was built right on top of a ConEd substation. The Windsor Tower and Bankers Trust were built differently. Although, obviously, the Bankers Trust Building didn't collapse, it did receive enough damage that it was deconstructed.

There are accounts of building 7 being on fire as early as 9:15 AM, barely a half hour after the impact.

Do you have a source on that? I've never heard of it being on fire before the planes even hit.

BBC report

Firefighters were pulled out of Building 7 over concern that it was going to collapse. Two hours later it finally did. Here is an interview with the chief of the fire department in which he mentions just that. When it did eventually fall it wasn't very unexpected.

It isn't outside the realm of possibility that on a day as confusing and chaotic as 9/11 that someone with the BBC heard something about WTC7 collapsing and thought it was "did collapse" rather than "going to collapse."

Did you not look at the diagram? The Bankers Trust building was affected way more than WTC 7, and the picture of the actual building looks like the damage looks a lot worse than the damage seen at WTC 7.

I've never heard of it being on fire before the planes even hit.

The North tower was hit at 8:46 AM, the South was hit at 9:03 AM. It was in a show on History channel, so I give it a decent amount of credit (and this is before History was shit). Here is the video.

I am not sure how they could screw that up, especially with a live feed of the city in the background, but it does seems very reasonable that it was a screw up.

I'll say it again, the Bankers Trust building was not on fire. The construction of the two buildings was different as well. I prepared this neat little picture to illustrate it. See the cantilever transfer girders? Those are what the collapse of the North Tower damaged when it fell. The Bankers Trust Building had nothing like it.

The North tower was hit at 8:46 AM, the South was hit at 9:03 AM.

OK, disregard what I said, by "impact" I thought you mean the plane impact.

The video says the fire was started by the flaming debris from the plane impact with the North Tower, right next to WTC7. Nothing really abnormal about that.

one-two-punch of being on fire and receiving massive amounts of structural damage

Fire induced collapse was the only reason. NIST didn't claim any damage from falling debris contributed to the collapse. NIST Final Report

Bonus quote:

"The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

primarily

Not "exclusively".

Well, I'll be. Disregard my previous structural damage statement. The collapse was due to the thermal expansion and buckling of a key support column, leading to fire-induced progressive collapse.

I would also like to point out (even though I am not sure about this one, it seems a bit fishy to me) that BBC reported WTC 7 (or the Saloman Brothers building) collapsed 20 minutes before it even happened. [3] Starts around 2:00

That's because, when it was clear that WTC7 was going to collapse, the various news networks were informed and the BBC got the information wrong.

CNN reported it as "has collapsed or is collapsing" at the same time too.

That's because it was on the verge of collapsing.

I agree. just supporting what you said ;)

Fair enough, carry on!

No one has ever answered this for me, but has anyone gone through the coverage of 9/11 and made a comprehensive list of every mis-report/conflicting report that was made, or are we to believe that the ONLY mistake made on 9/11 was by the BBC, but it wasn't really a mistake, it was because the "inside job script" was leaked to the BBC as a outside party? Were any other buildings reported to have fallen that didn't actually?

I remember that day well, and there were MULTIPLE mis-reports for HOURS after the initial impact, from the amount of planes to bombs going off on the US Capitol steps, etc...

That is why I am sick of hearing about the BBC thing, because it's people obviously cherry picking and anomaly hunting to prove something. I would have more respect if someone would say that there were multiple mistakes in reporting being made due to all the confusion, and that is why they reported it before it happened.

people actually believe that an "inside job script" was distributed to news organizations, and they just went along with it?

How else would the BBC know to announce that building 7 collapsed? If they didn't have a script, it's like they would have to rely on video to announce it happens, and that's just crazy talk. But I guess the script was done in US time, and the BBC reporters didn't know how to read it correctly, so they announced it before the planned implosion.

It's totally believable.

what i've always wondered...if London is 5 hours ahead of NYC, why didn't British people warn us that planes were going to fly into the WTC?

Because of the script!

This diagram is wrong.

The North Tower was hit higher. It's debris went further out because the origin of the collapse was higher up.

I imagine the generators would be diesel powered... And diesel isn't flammable.

You're right, my mistake. Diesel isn't flammable, but it is combustible and will still burn when ignited.

I think it's widely accepted that the Second Iraq War was an extension on the "War on Terror" which was, I assume, the point of the false flag attack. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The reason I brought up WMDs is because they were used to scare up support for the second invasion of Iraq which was planned for and pushed by the neocons since the first Gulf War. It seems highly inefficient to plann and execute a false flag attack to justify an invasion of Afgahinstan only to push WMDs as the reason to invade the real prize - Iraq. Now, if the Middle East has nothing to do with 9/11 t"rutherism" then please correct me.

7WTC was mostly filled with financial companies but did in fact have a number of govt agencies/offices. I don't see how that makes it easier to bring in the people and equipment necessary to rig the building to explode. Further, I don't buy the rationale you put forward for why they would want to blow up the building anyway. To destroy evidence of their plot? Why would they even keep records of a criminal conspiracy? I don't see how you can simulatously believe the government would be so dumb as to create and file incriminating evidence in a building they secretly brilliantly rigged to explode in order to cover their tracks. It doesn't add up.

There is also the whole Enron case. I don't understand it 100%, but from what I get out of it, WTC 7 held the documents for Enron and was trying to cover up corporate fraud by destroying the building. Again, I don't really understand that whole case, but from what I get it seems to make a bit of sense.

I'm sorry to sound flip, but a shredder is a HELL of a lot cheaper than pulling off 9/11 and getting away with it

It was also the only other place (outside of the Pentagon - conveniently where the plane hit) that held the information about the missing 2.7 trillion.

the pitch for the Iraq war was all about WMDs and not 9/11.

New York Times / CBS News have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question:

"Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"

April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.

Says something about Americans' grasp of news and current events.

I just laugh at people like you... Sigh... it's all you can do.

[deleted]

Being skeptical, to me, means being open-minded and critical enough to question any and all information regardless of its source or view.

If you want to be skeptical about something you have a theory, you test the theory and you provide data/evidences to support your conclusions.

Just having the patience to listen to the other side is not enough... sitting back and 'questioning everything' by taking it with a 'grain of salt' is not skepticism - it's somewhere in the middle of apathy and denial.

You can usually pick these redditors out by their over-use of terms like pseudo-science and quackery.

I 100% agree. Back a few years ago (maybe 3?) I was 100% against the beliefs of truthers. My good friend tried and tried to convince me, and one night I said fuck it and looked it up. I was surprised by all of the evidence I had been missing whilst I was ignoring it. I like to listen to the reasoning of non-truthers and disprove them. If they come up with something that befuddles me, I like to research it and see what I could gather out of it.

So did any of the evidence you know beforehand disprove any of the new evidence/

Because there is a means, motive, and ability available with no assumptions needed. Which the offical story gives.

To be a conspiracy it requires you to assume the US government is capable of hiding anything (look at all the wikileaks, the trillion dollars misplaced pre-9/11, billion dollars misplaced in Iraq, every. scandal. ever.)

Secondly, and by far the biggest reason... Why did we need a false flag attack to go into Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq because ONE guy said there were WMD's. One. And we didn't even like him that much. Why not make some shit up about the Taliban and Al-Quaida manufacturing nuclear arms? Or chemical weapons? There are DOZENS of excuses that would cost less in lives/materiel, have less possibility for failure, and MUCH less of a chance of a leak occurring.

tl;dr The government is inept, and the conspiracy you've painted from their ineptitude is even MORE inept.

There were military operations just because the the controlling warlords were dicks.

Bin Laden had attacked the US a few times before 9/11, the US knew he was in Afghanistan, Clinton sent the CIA and cruise missiles after him. Orchestrating something as complicated as the Trade Center attacks just to invade Afghanistan would have been really heavy handed.

Because there is a means, motive, and ability available with no assumptions needed. Which the offical story gives.

--Really? DO you know anything of economics? The means? First off, the military industrial complex regardless of what you say is A BUSINESS. The military industrial complex is a multi-billion a year business that has one thing in mind....profit. So the motive? You ever noticed that our country has always been in a constant state of war? Look at america since the early 1900's. There was not a period of time that our country was not in war. Why do i bring this up? Because, as a business being designed about war...it would be smart to always have a state of war so that you don't get funding cut.

Secondly, and by far the biggest reason... Why did we need a false flag attack to go into Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq because ONE guy said there were WMD's. One. And we didn't even like him that much. Why not make some shit up about the Taliban and Al-Quaida manufacturing nuclear arms? Or chemical weapons? There are DOZENS of excuses that would cost less in lives/materiel, have less possibility for failure, and MUCH less of a chance of a leak occurring.

--Do you really think the government cares about our lives? Do you think for a second that President Obama would come to your funeral if you died? If they cared about our lives then why do we always have to be fighting wars?

You didn't counter either of my points at all. You just pulled a fucking heartstrings argument.

OK so question for you...If you are a owner of a Multi-billion dollar a year weapons company that has a government contract. Wouldn't it be smart to always be in war? What i am getting at is this...IN order for this part of our economic system (think of the thousands of people employed within our countries to defense contractors) to survive and sustain its huge profits (we can both agree that profit is what drives this country i hope) by always being in a constant state of war? Now, wouldn't it be easier to always have a constant state of war if we are "defending" ourselves? Look at WW2..American citizens wanted nothing to do with it and the American government also wanted nothing to do with it. Yet, thanks to a "misplaced" warning of pearl harbor we ended up going to war. It is also known that (this is fact you can look it up if you like) bankers were funding both sides of the war. The best way to go to war is give people the illusion of something when in fact could be something else.

You don't seem like a stupid person to me. You have to think about it logically and rationally. It is highly PLAUSIBLE that a group of people knew about the attacks and allowed it to happen. So that they can gain control of the oil and poppy. Think about it man...DO you think these high end C.E.O.s give any fucks about me or you? DO you think they actually could care what you have to say? I met a couple "rich" people and truth be told. THey had no disregard for "normal" people. Me and you WILL NEVER KNOW the truth because, we are not part of that society.

Yes.

It would also be simpler to pay one person to lie about WMD's rather than pay thousands to keep silent about a massive terror attack. Because the chance of that going wrong is minuscule compared to orchestrating a full scale terror attack.

First off, where do you get thousands? I never once said that the people on the planes, the people involved in the flight of the planes, or the way the towers fell were in question. When it comes to the towers falling we have to look at it logically. The towers fell from the planes plane and simple. Even if there was "explosions" (i don't personally believe that) placed in the building. The initial impact of the planes set everything in motion.

What i am saying is that through the "Knowledge of few" (the small percentage of C.E.O.'s and other heads of corparations) allowed or set up for the "terrorist" attacks of 9/11.

I just want to know where you got thousands from? Also, got a couple questions for you...

Why didn't the planes be intercepted by f-22 jets as per order of regulation of the F.A.A.? (Mind you the planes were off course for at least 45 minutes and had a very interesting flight pattern)

Why did our country then invade an ENTIRE COUNTRY, only looking for a few men? (mind you the actions of 9/11 was by the supposed "AL-Qeda" and not the Iraqi government)

Why did our country then changed it to "finding weapons of mass destruction"?(Mind you, there was no evidence that pointed to this collected by the C.I.A. or the F.B.I.)

What i am saying is that through the "Knowledge of few" (the small percentage of C.E.O.'s and other heads of corparations) allowed or set up for the "terrorist" attacks of 9/11.

All the military personnel, security personnel, everybody in the FAA, the list goes on and on. (you do know that CEO's aren't magicians right? They have peons to do things...)

Why didn't the planes be intercepted by f-22 jets as per order of regulation of the F.A.A.? (Mind you the planes were off course for at least 45 minutes and had a very interesting flight pattern)

They did, somebody fucked up the orders and they were late in notifying NORAD.

Why did our country then invade an ENTIRE COUNTRY, only looking for a few men? (mind you the actions of 9/11 was by the supposed "AL-Qeda" and not the Iraqi government)

Because Afghanistan gave us a big fuck you when we asked them about Bin Laden.

Why did our country then changed it to "finding weapons of mass destruction"?(Mind you, there was no evidence that pointed to this collected by the C.I.A. or the F.B.I.)

That was Iraq numbnuts. Unrelated to 9/11 and Afghanistan.

You have no evidence. Only circumstance. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

All the military personnel, security personnel, everybody in the FAA, the list goes on and on. (you do know that CEO's aren't magicians right? They have peons to do things...)

Military personnel who are not high enough in ranking know nothing of the inter-workings of the military. You think private knows the real reasons behind anything? So a FEW military personal would have to know. Bet these guys love their country enough to risk a couple thousand lives...They do it all the time in the military.

They did, somebody fucked up the orders and they were late in notifying NORAD.

Somebody fucked up the orders....you have to be joking, right? Someone who is part of the "most powerful military in the world" would fuck up when "American Citizens" lives are on the line? Wow, really shows you the regard of "normal" peoples lives in the eyes of our government. That alone should lead you to believe that they could fudge up a lot more then that.

Because Afghanistan gave us a big fuck you when we asked them about Bin Laden.

So that gave us the right to kill thousands of innocent people? Man...you should really think about what you say. From the way you making it seem our government has NO REGARD for human life.

That was Iraq numbnuts. Unrelated to 9/11 and Afghanistan. You have no evidence. Only circumstance. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Iraq was a by-product of 9/11 man. Arghanistan was the strong hold militarily to allow us to occupy the countries that our government occupies now.

Guess you never heard of Circumstantial evidence? Being an intelligent human beings and connecting the dots in a logical and rational stance?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Seems to me sir, that you need to start to "PUT UP OR SHUT UP"

I like how you use the fact that military personnel care about American citizens to argue for the fact that military personnel don't care about American citizens.

Because from what I've seen the truth movement is mostly based on anomaly-hunting, innuendo, and arguing against the mainstream account rather than putting forward a coherent alternative explanation. I've watched a lot of youtube videos and read a lot of forum posts and 99% of the time truthers will shy away from providing an actual explanation or timeline of what they think really happened - instead it's contextless tidbits of information like "office fires can't melt steel" or "the BBC reported WTC7 collapsing 20 minutes before it actually happened."

It seems like coming up with a coherent alternative to the mainstream narrative is usually left as an exercise to the reader, and I can't come up with an alternative account that makes sense. It's one thing to raise problems with the official story and another thing entirely to come up with one that actually does a better job of explaining the facts. Every attempt I've seen at that ends up looking really silly and has the otherwise amazingly competent conspirators doing dumb things for no discernible reason.

[deleted]

See this is exactly what I mean. I'm not talking about pieces of the puzzle like motivations or individual acts. The biggest problem with the truth movement to me is the lack of a coherent alternative story about what happened when and why.

Another example is this thread here: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/145nv9/confirmed_with_acars_aircraft_communications/

Putting aside the question of whether the conclusions are legitimate, there's a lot of discussion about how this discredits the official story, but what's an alternative explanation that does fit with it? Most truthers I know think the planes really did hit the towers, possibly via remote control and the buildings were then brought down by a controlled demolition. Does this discredit those theories and point instead to no-plane theories a la Judy Wood or the "missile pod" claims that were taken out of the later versions of Loose Change for being obvious bullshit? Most truthers I know think the no-plane theories are bullshit and yet there's hardly any dissent in the comments on that thread.

So if a plane did hit the tower and it wasn't UA 175, what was it? Why would the conspirators hijack a plane and presumably land it somewhere then crash a completely different plane into the tower? There's no introspection or consideration of what the evidence actually amounts to. It's just taken at face value and there's no attempt to fit it into a coherent and reasonably comprehensive explanation that could be tested against further evidence.

Logic? GTFO

But seriously, I couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a ridiculous burden to put in place for someone to explain something that cannot be explained.

If it could be explained, then the 9/11 commission would've gotten to the bottom of it. But they didn't and they said just that.

I don't understand why people expect conspiracy theorists to figure out all the minor details - as if they know exactly what Dick Cheney did that day. I mean sheesh - talk about skepticism and rationality

The official story reeks of bullshit - that doesn't mean you have to agree with anything any other doubter says. However, it does mean that you are completely full of shit if you are arguing on behalf of the 'official narrative'.

From what I've seen the 9/11 commission report is generally regarded in the truth movement as a part of the coverup. But in fact it's a good example of what the truth movement lacks - an attempt at a unifying, coherent explanation. I'm not asking for every detail to be explained, just some attempt to construct something like an alternative 9/11 commission report, and I haven't seen anything that approaches that degree of coherence, even with the problems the report has.

It's a double standard. If the official story can't explain something then it's evidence of a conspiracy, but if something about the conspiracy theories doesn't make sense then it's unreasonable to expect an explanation. The thing is, explanations don't exist in a vacuum, and can only really be evaluated relative to one another (see explanatory coherence theory). If it's not possible to construct a coherent conspiracy theory that approaches the plausibility of the official story, shouldn't that tell you something?

It's a double standard. If the official story can't explain something then it's evidence of a conspiracy, but if something about the conspiracy theories doesn't make sense then it's unreasonable to expect an explanation.

I never proposed the first standard and to suggest so is misleading.

If it's not possible to construct a coherent conspiracy theory that approaches the plausibility of the official story, shouldn't that tell you something?

What is coherent about comparing a non plausible act with a hodge-poge of theories by a completely discordant group? You are coming off incredibly silly - for this subreddit, no less.

I'm not sure why you'd expect the 9/11 truth movement to put forward such a document, seeing as it doesn't have access to the evidence (of which the 9/11 commission was denied as well, on some occasions) necessary to perform a thorough investigation. It's an incredibly naive idea. Certainly not worth the thought processes necessary to formulate from a person obviously intelligent enough to ponder explanatory coherence theory.

Yes, as a guitarist I could use a frequency analyzer to decode how Jimmy Page plays a song, but seeing as how I don't have one - it would be rather difficult if not impossible. However if you listen and try it yourself, you'll eventually figure it out.

If you are waiting for CNN to break the news that 9/11 was a coverup you are a damned fool.

I never proposed the first standard and to suggest so is misleading.

My point is that this pretty much summarizes the arguments of the truth movement as a whole, as much as anything can summarize such a heterogeneous movement. The vast majority of what's out there isn't purported to be positive evidence in favour of an alternative theory but instead negative evidence against the "terrorists did it" theory.

I don't expect a unifying theory because obviously not everyone will agree on it. That much is clear. But for the sake of intellectual honesty I want people in the truth movement to consider how each piece of evidence impacts on the case for their own theory or theories as well as the case against the official story. For example, the plane transmission thread, if accurate, seems to invalidate a lot of the mainstream controlled demolition theories, but there's almost no discussion of that- the vast majority of commenters in that thread didn't take it any further than "this goes against the official account so I'll assume it's true." There's plenty of evidence, even as discussed by people within the truth movement, that UA175 did in fact hit one of the twin towers. Both can't be true, so one must be wrong - and yet this kind of discussion is anathema. Look at how anyone who questioned the truther "consensus" in that thread was downvoted into oblivion. This isn't critical thinking, it's cheerleading.

With your guitar analogy, maybe you can go look up tabs online for a song you want to play - they're not perfect, sure, and there are probably a few different versions, but you can at least find one that sounds plausible enough. There's nothing like that in the truth movement, just bits and pieces that wouldn't quite fit together even if anyone were inclined to try.

Good job staying on topic. (Not sarcasm)

With your guitar analogy, maybe you can go look up tabs online for a song you want to play - they're not perfect, sure, and there are probably a few different versions, but you can at least find one that sounds plausible enough. There's nothing like that in the truth movement, just bits and pieces that wouldn't quite fit together even if anyone were inclined to try.

Umm, that's exactly like the truth movement. If you go on youtube there are thousands of videos trying to piece together various parts of the puzzles. Those are exactly like tabs - they don't always get it perfect but they just might give you the right idea.

The vast majority of what's out there isn't purported to be positive evidence in favour of an alternative theory but instead negative evidence against the "terrorists did it" theory.

What would you consider positive evidence in this case? Given the lack of power 9/11 investigators have, it still seems like a bizarre standard to apply. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it would in most other situations. But the skepticism you are applying in this situation is so backwards it is bizarre. It's like saying the big bang doesn't make sense so you are going to stick with Jesus until they can figure it all out. Maybe the big bang is stupid and it doesn't make sense - that is still no reason to stick with Jesus .

Umm, that's exactly like the truth movement. If you go on youtube there are thousands of videos trying to piece together various parts of the puzzles. Those are exactly like tabs - they don't always get it perfect but they just might give you the right idea.

Well no, in the truth movement, people argue about individual chords ("the chorus starts with Gmin" "no, fucking disinfo agents, look at his fingers in this bootleg concert video, it's obviously G7!") but nobody's really put together a tab for the whole song. You can try to mash together all the different chords people are talking about but it comes out sounding discordant and nonsensical because nothing really fits together.

What would you consider positive evidence in this case? Given the lack of power 9/11 investigators have, it still seems like a bizarre standard to apply. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it would in most other situations. But the skepticism you are applying in this situation is so backwards it is bizarre. It's like saying the big bang doesn't make sense so you are going to stick with Jesus until they can figure it all out. Maybe the big bang is stupid and it doesn't make sense - that is still no reason to stick with Jesus .

Positive evidence would be something like the purported thermite traces in the WTC dust. There is some out there, but very little. Most is just anomaly hunting and picking up anything that doesn't fit with the official story as evidence for some nebulous alternative theory.

It's interesting that you bring up Jesus versus the big bang because the truth movement uses almost exactly the same tactic as young-earth creationists do when they attack evolutionary theory. In both cases you have a vocal minority of nominal outsiders putting forward an unorthodox view in opposition to a more widely accepted (and extensively specific) one. The majority of the arguments are negative rather than positive (in that they amount to "your explanation has flaws, so ours is better"), but there's very little in the way of building testable alternative theories that can be evaluated on their own merits. Both accuse their more vocal opponents of being part of a sinister conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Ultimately, for me it boils down to the fact that the truth movement calls itself the truth movement, and yet what's conspicuously lacking is any real attempt to put together a possible model of what the truth actually is.

Well no, in the truth movement, people argue about individual chords ("the chorus starts with Gmin" "no, fucking disinfo agents, look at his fingers in this bootleg concert video, it's obviously G7!") but nobody's really put together a tab for the whole song. You can try to mash together all the different chords people are talking about but it comes out sounding discordant and nonsensical because nothing really fits together.

Have you ever seen a tab? This is a pretty regular argument in tablature - heck half the time they aren't in the same keys. Gosh - try and get a tab for a standard and it's even worse!

sounding discordant and nonsensical because nothing really fits together.

Sounds like tablature to me.

Positive evidence would be something like the purported thermite traces in the WTC dust. There is some out there, but very little. Most is just anomaly hunting and picking up anything that doesn't fit with the official story as evidence for some nebulous alternative theory.

Given the lack of general investigative powers - I'm not sure why you'd expect any of this to ever happen. It seems incredibly naive to me.

In both cases you have a vocal minority of nominal outsiders putting forward an unorthodox view in opposition to a more widely accepted (and extensively specific).

This is a complete misnomer. I think you mistake the fact that CNN doesn't critique the 9/11 commission report with factual credibility. The idea that the report was extensively specific is one of the silliest things I've ever read in this subforum. Though I can see why some might call you a disinfo agent given the lengths you go to not apply a similar rationality to your own arguments.

Ultimately, for me it boils down to the fact that the truth movement calls itself the truth movement, and yet what's conspicuously lacking is any real attempt to put together a possible model of what the truth actually is.

Ok, that's nice, but incredibly foolish. Like I said - waiting for CNN to come out on 9/11 is a demonstration of the fact that you don't understand what people are talking about.

I think you've missed the point of the tab argument. Basically nobody in the truth movement that I've seen does what almost everyone making tabs does at some point - assemble an entire song. Of course you can quibble over individual chords or whatever, but that's not everything that the tablature community does. They put the chords together to make songs, that even if incorrect are at least mostly internally consistent. The truth movement doesn't do that. The chords are as far as it goes.

And this is really the whole point. Never mind about the feasibility of getting more evidence - there's a lot of evidence truthers call on already, legitimate or otherwise, like the thermite thing, the plane transmission thread I linked to earlier, eyewitness reports, whatever. Any future alternative account, even with more data, would still have to take into account at least the stuff that's out there (in science this is known as the connectivity principle). So why not at least construct a potential explanation that goes that far? Not having every possible piece of data is no excuse for not even having a theory.

The general approach of the truth movement seems to be that everyone should be satisfied with a disparate collection of contextless bits of evidence with nothing in common other than that they appear to contradict the official story, on the assumption that some nebulous future conspiracy theory can unify them into a cohesive whole. I don't think that's true, though. I don't think that's an intellectually honest approach. That's why the focus of truther arguments is overwhelmingly on the official story and its supposed inability to deal with these facts rather than on a specific conspiracy theory that can do a better job of it - because there is no such theory.

Anyway, I don't know why you keep talking about CNN. I don't particularly care what CNN says and I don't take the word of the mainstream media at face value. My problem isn't with what other people say about the truth movement, it's about what the truth movement says about the truth movement. They demand that the official story be able to account for every apparent anomaly, but you seem to be saying that it's too much to ask for a preliminary specific alternative theory to even exist. And I think that's unreasonable.

I've seen does what almost everyone making tabs does at some point - assemble an entire song.

Have you seen many tabs? I'm getting the feeling you haven't. Most tabs miss vital parts of the song, intros, outros, bridges, pre chorus etc. It's also clear you haven't watched any videos on youtube because there are many theories put forward.

Not having every possible piece of data is no excuse for not even having a theory.

This is simply moronic. So you could then discount the theories based off of a lack of evidence? That's not how this works.

I'm still not sure why you think the 9/11 truth movement is a monolithic identity.

They demand that the official story be able to account for every apparent anomaly, but you seem to be saying that it's too much to ask for a preliminary specific alternative theory to even exist. And I think that's unreasonable.

First off, the first assertion is another strawman on your part. It's a standard no one has suggested except you. There are numerous preliminary alternative theories, what I don't understand is why you think there should be just ONE. That's the part that isn't rational. Thats the part that is childishly naive.

You are completely mischaracterizing my argument. I don't think the 9/11 truth movement is a "monolithic identity," and I don't "think there should be just one" theory. In fact I said exactly that in a previous post:

My point is that this pretty much summarizes the arguments of the truth movement as a whole, as much as anything can summarize such a heterogeneous movement. The vast majority of what's out there isn't purported to be positive evidence in favour of an alternative theory but instead negative evidence against the "terrorists did it" theory. I don't expect a unifying theory because obviously not everyone will agree on it.

There are some youtube videos that purport to explain the whole thing, yes. But they are overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule, and often represent extreme minority viewpoints even within the truth movement (e.g. Judy Wood and the no-planers). They're not at all representative of the majority of the discourse in the truth movement, and are usually one-offs rather than persistent theories that change over time as evidence accumulates. Moreover, they usually ignore without comment contradictory evidence that other people in the truth movement cite as definitive. The overwhelming tendency is not to ask "can our theories deal with this?" but to say "the mainstream narrative can't deal with this, so we're right."

This is simply moronic. So you could then discount the theories based off of a lack of evidence? That's not how this works.

No, building a theory before all imaginable facts are in isn't "moronic," it's how science works, how courts of law work, and how history works. A scientific theory can't proceed without a coherent framework, a criminal case will go nowhere without a plausible explanation for how the evidence came to be, and a historical explanation will be laughed off by serious scholars if it can't even decide what it's proposing. You can never have all the facts about anything - waiting for them is a fool's game. But it's vital to theorize in the meantime, because otherwise there's no framework for future data to be placed into, no predictions, nothing but observation without context.

Maybe you shouldn't constantly contradict yourself?

but you seem to be saying that it's too much to ask for a preliminary specific alternative theory to even exist

But they are overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule, and often represent extreme minority viewpoints even within the truth movement (e.g. Judy Wood and the no-planers).

Oh, I get it. You are an anthropologist and you've studied the community and all the videos to determine that there are in fact few. And the whole time I thought I was just chatting with an asshole. But nope, you are an expert!

The overwhelming tendency is not to ask "can our theories deal with this?" but to say "the mainstream narrative can't deal with this, so we're right."

I've found that isn't true throughout the whole movement, nor is it actually representative of a majority or any significant portion of the community. I guess we will just have to disagree.

No, building a theory before all imaginable facts are in isn't "moronic," it's how science works, how courts of law work, and how history works.

No, I'm not referring to the scientific method but your poor rhetorical points. The 9/11 truth movement is working this way, albeit with a very limited ability to investigate combined with the fact that it's a completely non-monolithic movement with no funding. There are theories out there, it seems you don't like them, but the gist of your assertion is just so factually incorrect that it's a shame you've argued it for this long.

I've read and seen a lot about the truth movement, not every youtube video ever, but enough to recognize the same pattern that persists across several different conspiracy theories. Contradictions between different conspiracy theories aren't really a matter of concern, and the focus is overwhelmingly on attacking the official story rather than on providing a coherent alternative. There's psychological research demonstrating that this is a pattern of reasoning that's in a way inherent to conspiracy theories - http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/18/1948550611434786.abstract

As an aside I really don't understand your hostility toward me. I've engaged in this discussion in a polite and civil way, and you've called me a childishly naive asshole with moronic beliefs and implied that I'm a disinformation agent. All this in a thread where the OP wonders why people are turned off by the truth movement. I guess he has his answer?

I never implied you were a disinfo agent, I merely suggested why it seems obvious to me that others might call you that in this subforum.

My hostility comes as a response to the obvious belligerence of your thought. You came into /r/conspiracy to tell people 9/11 wasn't an inside job because most conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent arguments - that's kinda silly, no? It's not like you wanted to make your point that some theories suffer from many of the patterns that fault conspiracy theories in general - but that's not what you've said. It's taken a dozen posts for you to moderate your ridiculous assertion down to something that can be reasonably agreed with. Yes, many theories suffer from the points you make. Is this enough evidence for me to discount the 9/11 commission narrative? No, but that's because I wouldn't require outside evidence to come to that conclusion at this point. The 9/11 commission report discounts itself. I'm not sure why it would ever be accepted as a valid explanation after the commission heads themselves admitted it was a joke investigation. I'm not sure why a tertiary theory on 9/11 would effect the way you look at the 9/11 commission report in such a circumstance.

Just because conspiracy theorists can't put the pieces together (and it's naive for you to expect them to) does not itself suggest that the mainstream narrative of 9/11 is true. That's what you've been suggesting up until this last post.

His thread didn't ask why you are turned off by the truth movement - he asked why you believe the mainstream 9/11 narrative - to which your response was ridiculous. You do believe the 9/11 mainstream narrative because no others make sense. You don't have to accept that narrative just because the others don't make sense, yet you are trying to convince everyone here that it's the most logical conclusion.

My hostility comes as a response to the obvious belligerence of your thought. You came into /r/conspiracy to tell people 9/11 wasn't an inside job because most conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent arguments - that's kinda silly, no?

I'm really not sure what you expected in a thread asking why some people don't buy that 9/11 was an inside job, if not that they don't find the truth movement to make convincing or coherent arguments. Did you come just to get your rage on?

It's not like you wanted to make your point that some theories suffer from many of the patterns that fault conspiracy theories in general - but that's not what you've said. It's taken a dozen posts for you to moderate your ridiculous assertion down to something that can be reasonably agreed with. Yes, many theories suffer from the points you make. Is this enough evidence for me to discount the 9/11 commission narrative? No, but that's because I wouldn't require outside evidence to come to that conclusion at this point.

My "ridiculous assertions" were what exactly? That the truth movement seems to be mostly based on arguing against the official account rather than arguing for some alternative? That 99% of the youtube videos and forum posts I've seen follow this pattern by refusing to provide any sort of explanation of their own? That "putting the pieces together" is usually left as an exercise to the reader? I'm still saying all of those things, and you don't even seem to think that the last one is a problem:

Just because conspiracy theorists can't put the pieces together (and it's naive for you to expect them to) does not suggest that the mainstream narrative of 9/11 is true. That's what you've been suggesting up until this last post.

The idea that conspiracy theorists can't be reasonably expected to come up with a coherent alternative theory based on what's already known is either deeply insulting to the members of the truth movement or a tacit admission that much of the current evidence it relies upon is internally inconsistent. Either way this does not reflect well on the validity of the truth movement's claims.

Your excuse for this seems to be that more evidence is needed, but more evidence would only further constrain the number of possible solutions (see my earlier reference to the connectivity principle). Getting rid of some of the bogus evidence would be a step in the right direction but as demonstrated in the plane transmission thread comments, there doesn't seem to be much interest in this. Which, again, is part of the problem.

You do believe the 9/11 mainstream narrative because no others make sense. You don't have to accept that narrative just because the others don't make sense, yet you are trying to convince everyone here that it's the most logical conclusion.

This comes back to my earlier point about explanatory coherence. I don't think it's possible to discount an explanation without a more plausible one, and I haven't seen one from the truth movement yet. The energy of the movement is overwhelmingly directed toward producing piecemeal arguments absent any theoretical framework other than the one they're trying to debunk. What attempts I have seen fall far short, much farther short than the official story does, and so I haven't changed my position. If the inside job theory were woven into a broader explanation that did a better job of accounting for the evidence I would probably buy into that instead. But it hasn't happened yet.

I'm really not sure what you expected in a thread asking why some people don't buy that 9/11 was an inside job, if not that they don't find the truth movement to make convincing or coherent arguments. Did you come just to get your rage on?

You see, that's not what I've suggested. I don't think it's ridiculous at all to find the truther arguments not plausible. I think it's ridiculous to find that to be evidence of the narrative as provided by the 9/11 commission report - which is what you suggested.

The idea that conspiracy theorists can't be reasonably expected to come up with a coherent alternative theory based on what's already known is either deeply insulting to the members of the truth movement or a tacit admission that much of the current evidence it relies upon is internally inconsistent. Either way this does not reflect well on the validity of the truth movement's claims.

Yeah, or maybe it's related to the fact that much of the evidence has literally been purposefully destroyed. Stop acting like such a disingenuous baby.

Getting rid of some of the bogus evidence would be a step in the right direction but as demonstrated in the plane transmission thread comments, there doesn't seem to be much interest in this. Which, again, is part of the problem.

This is a generalization suggested by you. I don't agree with it and short of the anthropological study of the truther movement that you obviously haven't partaken in, it does not stand as evidence for the fact that it is not possible for an alternative explanation to exist - which is once again what you've suggested.

I don't think it's possible to discount an explanation without a more plausible one, and I haven't seen one from the truth movement yet.

That's a pretty silly theory to stick to that is completely irrational in the face of actual evidence. If the 9/11 commission is a self-admitted poor investigation that provided a false narrative - and the only choice is between a false narrative and narratives that will literally never be able to access the evidence required to flesh themselves out - then there wont ever be an accurate narrative. For some reason this seems to be a reality you aren't willing to accept. That's why I'm hostile. It's a completely moronic suggestion. And if there is no narrative that is no reason why we must accept the official narrative. If you want to fine, just stop trying to convince everyone else here when it makes the most sense when it obviously doesn't.

Your inability to listen to dissenting opinions without getting so riled up is far more childish than anything I've written here, and you should probably reflect on that a bit. After you calm down a bit you should reread what I wrote about the connectivity principle and special pleading. In the meantime I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so I'll bow out by noting that I'm not trying to force you to believe anything, I've just been responding to people's questions about what I believe, including yours. Of course I think I'm probably right in what I believe, but who doesn't?

Your inability to listen to dissenting opinions without getting so riled up is far more childish than anything I've written here, and you should probably reflect on that a bit.

Nah, you see, I consider dissenting opinions all the time. I'm interested in good arguments - you don't provide any. You offer illogical assertions and then ignore any of the actual critiques while you ask what I thought your point was - as if I haven't spent the past few posts detailing that.

After you calm down a bit you should reread what I wrote about the connectivity principle and special pleading.

I'm fully clear on your argument. Yes, there are problems with the truther movement, however none of that leads to the logical conclusion of trusting the 9/11 report instead. That's the problem I have with your argument. I've repeated that several times and you don't seem to get it.

You act as if it is mutually exclusive or binary. As if the 9/11 commission is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. Life is much more complex than that, though I'm sure you are aware.

So you think that a typical fire can melt steel?

I don't know how you did it, but you've managed to completely miss my point and yet somehow illustrate it perfectly at the same time.

Steel doesnt have to melt to become weaker.

Because all of the documents and diplomatic memoirs I have read puts 9/11 in the context of a tremendously failed policy with Afghanistan, the ISI, the CIA, arms dealing by the American government. I believe that a lot of truthers and Americans were shocked from the horrors of the attack and some resorted to creating a narrative that underneath all the chaos there was some sort of order, some sort of control over the world, that there was some one behind the wheel. I am under the believe that no one is in control of the wheel.

and some resorted to creating a narrative that underneath all the chaos there was some sort of order, some sort of control over the world,

Good example.

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

Edit: Added link.

The propaganda campaign was no doubt absurd for the Iraq War.

There are a variety of reasons why I am not a truther, and it essentially goes back all the way to 2004. I remember the first time I saw the loose change documentary and sort of thought that was a smoking gun. It seemed like insurmountable evidence to show that it was indeed an inside job. Shortly thereafter I saw the popular mechanics article that sort of put to bed a lot of the objections that the documentary read, and was forced to reexamine my view. I generally consider myself a skeptic, and this anecdote I hope helps shed some light on that fact, but obviously with an event that has as much gravity of 9/11, it pays to look at all angles as best as I can.

Obviously a lot of time has passed, and the truther theory has evolved throughout time, and the 9/11 commission report has come in, and I still remain a skeptic on the topic of inside job. The evidence I've seen in its favor is not sufficient, in my opinion, to usurp the information I already have. Further, this opinion extends also to my skepticism of most government-based theories. In my experience, and based on the evidence I've seen, our federal government simply isn't competent enough to execute something of this scale and cover it up effectively. Further, the ends which they allegedly were pursuing seem illogical, especially when considering where we stand after 11 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obviously this issue is very close to home for a lot of people, as it should be. And I love that the people on this subreddit are so adamant about questioning authority and not just taking things at face value. But for me, where I'm standing, it just doesn't seem likely, or logical, when looking at the facts that 9/11 was an inside job.

The only question you really need to ask yourself is this: Did TPTB further their agenda?

Iraq and Afghanistan are under our (puppet) control, we're on the brink with Iran (which has been stated as being in line), we created an Arab spring which gave us a bit more control over many middle-eastern countries and - to top it all off, the war machine is well-oiled and those companies who help in the war efforts are being well paid.

I think things are going along just swimmingly.

Oh, and let's not forget the "Patriot Act" - the most unpatriotic thing that has ever been invented. All thanks to 9/11.

2.7 trillion missing and unaccounted for? Oh, look, there goes a plane. Investigation over.

Can't invade Iraq? Oh, look there are some middle-eastern terrorists who weren't really from Iraq, but hey, most Americans can't even tell the difference between a Muslim and a Hindu, so why not?

Larry was going to have to pay HUGE sums of money to remove all the asbestos from the WTC. Don't want to pay? Hey, let's take out a terrorist insurance policy a few months before 9/11.

So, you're going to sit there and tell me that you don't question ANY of that?

The op's question.

Why you don't think 9/11 was an inside job?

the ends which they allegedly were pursuing seem illogical, especially when considering where we stand after 11 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You think the elites in the US government would carry out a false flag attack in order to lessen US debt or improve the economic situation of the common man or even improve US standing in the world. Sorry that comes across as very naive to me.

Because there's nothing more than circumstantial evidence and "evidence" to support the opposite claim...

Whilst I agree that pretty much everything collected by citizen investigation is circumstantial I think we can all agree that whatever evidence did exist was disposed of rapidly.

Historically terrorist crime scenes have been documented and where air craft are involved the NTSB usually gets a poke at the scene also. The curious fact of 9/11 is that none of this was allowed, even the official investigation was done behind closed doors and all that stuff is sealed.

How can there be any real 'evidence' either way when all of it was compromised on that day, and the duration thereafter.

If you ask me, whatever truth there was has long since been sabotaged and unfortunately we'll probably never know why.

So to say it was terrorists is just as much as a leap of faith as to say it was government. We have little to no real evidence either way, it was all disposed of without formal investigation.

Could you provide an example?

Unless the lack of evidence is part of the problem.

Bottom line is if you want to believe it was an inside job, you will believe it no matter what the evidence is. There was a recent study that shows even when people are presented with facts they will generally still not believe them. It's a major problem with the GOP right now. The bush administration couldn't coordinate a volleyball tournament, let alone something of that magnitude. You mean to tell me the same people who bungled Katrina organized the biggest false flag operation in US history? The worst presidency of the last 80 years was capable of a cover up never before seen? As much as I hate Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. I am confident that they were not competent enough to pull something like this off. They sucked really really bad, so bad they let that a bunch of Saudi assholes beat them.

Define "facts"

As a non-truther, I'm not sure if it was an inside job or not, but I disbelieve a lot of the claims from truthers. I don't think the towers were rigged. I don't think WTC 7 was demolished. I'm pretty sure the four crashes are real. Because for me it matches the evidence.

Now who did it and why, I have no certainty on that.

And that is a perfectly reasonable position.

That's funny because WTC 7 is one of the most blatant oddities

I would easily concede that it is odd. However I don't think there's evidence to conclude that it was demolished, as this theory raises its own oddities.

That's often a problem with some conspiracy theories: they point out oddities in the official theory but don't provide a more credible alternative.

I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracies because what they have is flimsy evidence pushed by people with an agenda, who are willing to misrepresent their own findings. A perfect example of this is Niels Harrit: His thermite nonsense. He was lauded for having his findings published in a "peer reviewed" journal, the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, and this was pushed as scientific evidence of 911 being a conspiracy.

Then we found out that the journal was based on people paying to have their work published, about how his findings were bogus, all that good stuff, and yet it persists as a meme, which leads me to my conclusion:

It's a religion. A religion where the NWO/Reptilians/Jewish bankers/rothschilds are trying to kill 80% of us with fluoride/action against global warming. It's a potpurri of crazy, crazy people, uninformed people, conned people, and anyone who argues against them are shills; government-paid, possibly-reptillian shills. I invoke Alex Jones and David Icke as perfect examples. And don't get me started on the anti-Semitism thing.

Because I don't listen to fearmongerers like Alex Jones.

I don't think there was any controlled demolition. If you notice in any video that shows the building windows blowing out they don't include the sound 9/10 times, because anyone can hear the lack of explosions from coming from the towers and imagine that theory is in correct. I know there's a video of some fire fighter saying he heard explosions but first hand accounts are not always accurate.

No, but do you think you would hear that with the sound of a 110 story building falling in on itself? Just my general thoughts.

"Explosions" with very little sound can be produced using thermite.

Because every truther argument has been debunked.

Really? Provide me a link with a 100% factual debunk.

Which one?

Thermite was debunked which is the main thing that gets brought up.

Again.. Link would be appreciated. Or at least some sort of credible, factual, post.

http://mylespower.co.uk/2012/09/17/debunking-911-conspiracy-theorists-claims-with-simple-google-searches/

MP has a 3 part series of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_73885&feature=iv&src_vid=ymFYBijuqJw&v=wbjYoINw5oI

As for the first link, I have never even heard of the first two. The 3rd one, however, it full of bullshit.

The Dogwood Elementary School was poorly built, first of all. It also had no sprinklers, no firewalls, and was never asked to put them in.

As for Windsor, it didn't collapse. Some of the sides gave out, but it did not collapse as depicted here. It underwent a lot of damage, but the steel frame with held the fire for 18 hours. 18 HOURS!! The fire at Windsor was far worse than the one at WTC 7, and also burned much longer, but it didn't collapse.

Now for WTC 5. Only 3 floors in WTC 5 collapsed. People claim the whole building buckled under itself and fell due to heat damage, but some structural engineers claim that it was the connections between the floors. Only floors 8, 7, 6, and 5 collapsed. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 did not collapse. The situation in WTC 7 was not nearly as bad as this, yet it still managed to implode?

As for the video, I have not watched it yet. Will soon though.

Watched the video. I personally don't believe thermite was used (in fact I don't even have an opinion on HOW they were brought down...). But I would like to point something out. Everyone keeps claiming that WTC 7 had undergone lots of fires etc etc... Look at that video (or just click here) and look around 3:30. WTC 7 looks perfectly intact to me. I don't see a single fire. Also, look at 6:10. On the left you will see WTC 7 as the north tower comes down. It looks perfectly fine to me. Also, it really doesn't seem like much debris even touched it, let alone engulfed it into flames.

Well its pretty clear how they were brought down Plane flew into them, jet fuel intensified the fires weakened the building structurally and it collapsed.

WTC7 had debris from the towers fall on it. I don't there is enough evidence to support towers were brought down due to demolition.

Actually, it's not that clear.

1. Planes fly into buildings/no fires - building stands
   
2. Planes fly into building/fires - building stands
   
3. Planes fly into buildings/remove insulation/fires - Global collapse
   Nobody knows how much was removed. NIST did some tests and said enough was.
   

WTC7 had debris from the towers fall on it.

NIST answers the question Did wtc falling debris have anything to do with the collapse of wtc seven? as "perhaps". The official reason given is column 47 walked 5.5 inches causing global collapse. Any given area in building seven had twenty minutes of fuel to burn.

It's all in the handy dandy NIST Final Report.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

"It looks OK, so there's probably nothing wrong with it."

That is a horrible line of reasoning. We had someone have a miscarriage at my job, and one of the bosses who found her said on the radio when asked where to send the ambulance, "She looks OK, I don't think we need one". Everyone who heard that almost smacked their heads or looked at someone else in the office when he said that. You can have lots of internal damage and not appear that way on the outside.

Well, look at it. There were claims of fires as early as 9:30 AM, this was somewhere maybe a half hour to an hour later. I don't see any fires, unless they are on the north side. But then again, people are claiming these fires had enough power to damage the entire structure of a steel building.

So this video is from around 10-10:30, and the building collapsed around 7 hours later, so you don't think that fires could have gone on inside for those 7 hours enough to damage the load bearing portions of the structure(the entire structure doesn't need to be damaged for a building to collapse).

so you don't think that fires could have gone on inside for those 7 hours enough to damage the load bearing portions of the structure

No. NIST claims column 47 walked 5.5 inches leading to global collapse. The available fuel for any given area was 20 minutes.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Because im not a fucking spastic

I also want to say this. Unless "America" is a special place where no evil people can exist there is a high chance that a bunch of "evil" people got together and formulated a plan. Doesn't anyone find it strange that the guy who owned the twin towers happened to take a insurance claim 2-4 days before they came down? No one finds it strange that these supposed passports (which happened to have a combustable temp. of 451F) survived a huge fiery explosion that was said to "damn near melt steel" (which happens to have a combustable temp of 2700 degrees or so)...so out of all this mayhem...tiny passports survived a huge fireball and land a 1,000 feet away...-_- Even the FBI admits that the trail was left there on purpose...

I also find it crazy that within hours they knew exactly who "did it". Yet, there truly was no hard evidence that pointed to "osama". Even in the video that claims he said he did it has been disproved many times by experts in their field. http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Noevidence.pdf

My main problem is this...I don't know who did it. I don't know if the government is telling the truth or it is not. It is possible that 9.11 was an inside job? Yes. DO we know for sure? NO. WE will never know until someone comes out and says it. That is the main problem with conspiracy theorist and people who are anti-conspiracy theorist. You can find credible information for both sides of an argument. It is up to you to decide.

Also, people should be more outraged that our government allowed the murdering of 1.8 million Iraqi civilians since 2001. These people had nothing to do with 9/11 (if the government story is true). If 9/11 was an inside job that means that 12 or 13 extremist outsmarted and outplayed a multi-billion dollar year defense budget. Not only that but going to war with Iraq and killing those people is the same as this...

Say you walk into a classroom looking for 2 students who blew up your car and killed your son. You walk into the classroom there is a 100 students and you just start blowing everyone fucking head off. Makes no sense. People should see that 9/11 if the government story is not true. 9/11 was a way to get the american people to behind the war that can perpetuate the military industrial complex. Seeing as it is a huge revenue of income for the American government (net worth in the hundreds of billions a year).

Agree with the first part completely.

I never though about it that way, but you are correct. Each side has it's own credible evidence and no one will know the actual truth until it is admitted 100%. I guess we should just stop arguing over it because whether or not it was an inside job we will most likely never know.

Yea, that what i say. I use to be all into it when it happen. Slowly i realized that i will never know the truth and that i should just carry on with my life. The thing that gets me is that most conspiracy theories fall into two categories....Logical,rational, and scientific reasoning to connect the dots...and the tin foil i believe in reptile people type. Sadly, most people see them all the same and it sucks for people like me who actually just believe that it could have happened another way then the mandated response from our government.

Glad we were able to have a logical discussion and be intelligent human beings striving for knowledge.

I'm agnostic. However, it would be impossible to pull off something that huge, and not have any witnesses.

I agree the wtc7 thing is weird, and there are holes all over the story, but there's no way to prove anything beyond a doubt.

It really would not be hard to pull it off... Especially in WTC 7. It was the house for many government agencies.

However, it would be impossible to pull off something that huge, and not have any witnesses.

Many witnesses existed for Operation Gladio created in 1948. We're still in the dark as to what exactly went on.

If Gladio was effectively "the best-kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II",[9] it must be underlined, however, that on several occasions, arms caches were discovered and stay-behind paramilitary organizations officially dissolved – only to be created again. But it was not until the 1990s that the full international scope of the program was disclosed to public knowledge.

Operation Gladio @ YT

Crickets......

Yes, cave dwellers from across the world were able to elude our airport security, take over planes with box cutters, set up the course to fly into New York City some 90 miles away without any NORAD intervention (which was ordered by the highest levels of our government not to intervene since Bush was in a classroom, it would be Dick Cheney), and be able to hit the targets with our government saying fuck it, instead of putting down a couple hundred lives right now why don't we put 10 million of them in potential danger. They knew the planes were headed into New York well ahead of time. Fact is, NORAD would normally shoot these planes down, knowing they were hijacked and on a collision course towards our most heavily populated city. Think about it. Don't automatically label me as a "truther". Questions have to be asked, and when they are not answered, further investigation is required. I would believe it wasn't an inside job if we were all shown undeniable evidence that could link the collapse of the towers, to the airliners crashing, to the hijackers, to Al-Qaeda, and to Osama Bin Laden. But we have not been given this proof just a story of Al Qaeda sent 19 hijackers to fly into the world trade centers. Where are the manuscripts? Where are the black box's so we can hear what happened in the cockpit? Where is a video clearly showing an American Airlines plane? And why was a passport of one of the "hijackers" found neatly placed on the rubble of the two towers? You can cry where is the evidence? all day long. Message me and I'll provide you evidence of every factual claim I made. But can you do the same for your position?

I think you got the wrong message. I am a "truther," or skeptic, or whatever. I am 100% on your side. I was asking the people WHO DON'T believe in the inside job conspiracy why they don't.

I was trying to reply to someone else, my mistake.

Fact is, NORAD would normally shoot these planes down

How many hijacked planes have been shot down by NORAD in its history? [hint: zero]

cave dwellers from across the world

What the actual fuck is that supposed to mean? Arabs were building the world's highest civilization when Europeans still thought sticking horns in their helmets was badass.

How many were on a collision course towards D.C. and New York? Zero.

WERE<< keyword. not anymore :(. We've taken that role over.

hint: follow the money

NORMALLY<<keyword. This implies it happens as a matter of course, ie. it has happened more than once in the past.

It hasn't, even though there were dozens of hijackings in the 60s and 70s. Your statement is pure bullshit.

Hint: follow reality.

Yeah but not with the intent to invade and crash land in our most highly protected areas. These planes were obviously on a COLLISION course towards Washington, PA, and New York. 20 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, Dick Cheney was asked by NORAD for authority to take action. He repeatedly denied this and just said don't worry about it. Your attempt to blur by far the greatest national security threat in the nation with other isolated incidents is simply because you're uninformed and looking for answers. There are many pieces to the puzzle that will never be answered. But with what is, the end picture remains visible.. You are never informed unless you know both sides of an issue. So lets take this a step further and say it is the first time NORAD has not intervened with any aerial direct terrorist threat in our protected airspace zones. Open your mind. I don't claim to know all the answers but I'm not so ignorant as to shut out other's opinions even when they don't deal with facts.

I repeat: if the normal action is to shoot down hijacked planes, then why has NORAD never shot down a hijacked plane?

Why can't you just admit that you made a statement that was pure bullshit (ie. you have no idea what NORAD's protocols are, were or will be)?

I do know what NORAD's protocols are as they are clear and easily google-able. The reason why is that almost all hijacked planes are leaving the country and not in protected airspace for the entirety of the flight. 9/11 was a false flag operation=why NORAD didn't take action as Dickface Cheney told them not to worry about anything... As for the other hijackings, I have no idea

So NORAD's protocols as of 9/11/01 did not include shooting down hijacked planes. Then why did you say that was their normal procedure?

To what I know, most anti-truthers will always say, where's the evidence. Oh you got it on the internet. The internet is such a reliable source, not. But what is the internet? A place that gives you information. But that's what the news is too! So for me to be credible, I guess I have to take said person in a time machine and to New York at the exact moment the towers collapsed! It's ridiculous. It couldn't possibly be critical thinking that led me to my conclusion. But heres the deal. Information alone isn't enough to formulate my opinion, like oh the news said so so it must be true. I take info from many different sources and when things don't add up I do even more research and think critically to eventually come to a conclusion. But everything is subjective anymore. Truth is subjective. Rationality is subjective. It's a case of he said she said. Nobody wants to think anymore. Break out of your bubbles. There's a whole world out there that's laughing at you.

There were other attacks years before 9 11. Correct me if I'm wrong and I believe terrorist attacked other country s

I would like anyone who believes the official 9/11 story to answer

1. Why did the CIA give the hijackers American visas?

2. Why has no one been court marshalled for 9/11 (keeping in mind that military personnel are court marshalled for something as simple as crashing a jeep)?

1. The CIA does not give visa's, a bureaucrat in some country does. There are hundreds of thousands of people applying for visas. CIA cannot control all of them.

2.because it was an intelligence failure not a military failure. no public court martial in the intelligence community

1. Yes, normally that is the case. And in this case it was Michael Springman who was the "bureaucrat in some country". And he denied the visas. So the CIA stepped in and provided visas for the hijackers.

2. Actually there is a military protocol for scrambling jets in these circumstances and the military was involved during the whole of 9/11. So why was no one in the airforce court marshalled?

For #2, I always think of this:

Why was a parent who accidentally ran over their child while backing out of the garage not charged with a crime(keeping in mind that hitting just a sign pole and keeping on driving can get you arrested)?

Sometimes it's bad enough just knowing that your action/inaction caused the death of another/others, and charging you for a mistake you will NEVER make again serves no purpose.

The logic doesn't follow because the analogy doesn't follow. How can you say you will not make the mistake again when no court marshall process was done to say what the mistakes were?

WTC 7 is the pool of issues no one can seem to explain away.

I always wondered: how do "non-truthers" explain how this plane appears out of nowhere"

starts at 15 seconds

Well it didn't appear out of nowhere. There were planes, the planes did "crash" into the Twin Towers. They came from Boston.

It was just off the extreme right hand side of the view. Every time it would have become visible, they zoom in closer to the towers, until they couldn't zoom in any further. It's really just that simple.

What's you answer? Holograms? Please prove that hologram generators exist!

Shitty YouTube video? Consider me awake!

Seems Iran needs to pay you more.

without anyone noticing and keep the hundreds of people likely involved quiet.

Well, we know some Israelis are good with bombs. Also, dancing.

There is also the whole Enron case. I don't understand it 100%, but from what I get out of it, WTC 7 held the documents for Enron and was trying to cover up corporate fraud by destroying the building. Again, I don't really understand that whole case, but from what I get it seems to make a bit of sense.

So you think that a typical fire can melt steel?

True, but the Windsor Tower didn't have a massive skyscraper knocking a hole into the side of the building, taking out a lot of the structural support.

The video and firefighter interview do help, not sure how you aren't seeing it.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

-Richard Banaciski, firefighter with Ladder 22

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire [the fire suppression was out], and I said [to the FD commander], you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it [the firefighting operation in WTC7].' And they [Fire Department] made that decision to pull [the firefighters] and then we watched the building collapse.

That's because no matter how highly motivated individuals are they can't do everything themselves.

Meaning they need unmotivated individuals?

You have people who plan it, you have those that would have to get the bombs, figure out out much explosives are necessary, those that need to plant them, you need to be hired for the job, trained, etc. If you think of all the small details its ends up being a lot of people.

Yes, but lets break it down here. You've already brought in the downvotes, so why not?

The persons or people at the top make the plan. They reach out, possible through a mediating party to a group where people are already trained. Some allege connections between CIA and various terrorist groups. If that were the case, wouldn't it be easy to have them covertly support those that want to attack American targets(for any number of reasons), allowing them to use false flag, self initiated attacks and wipe their hands of it?

This follows the traditional problem, reaction, solution paradigm of orchestrating the events you need to do what you want.

Seems way more plausible that terrorist did it as blowing stuff up is usually there thing.

The theories of Terror Ties, and Inside Job are not mutually exclusive.

nothing, because it didn't melt

So do you think you could give the command to shoot down a plane full of possibly innocent people based solely on one plane crashing?

If so, you need professional help.

It was also the only other place (outside of the Pentagon - conveniently where the plane hit) that held the information about the missing 2.7 trillion.

You realize they can set up demolitions remotely? like without wire. You simply have to attach bombs via sticky tack type solution with a radio receiver on it.

So the answer is "study it out, bro!"?

I see what you did there in that last part.

You do?

My eyes are open. http://imgur.com/6qy0H

Last time I posted these that happened. The person said that the pictures had to have been taken from the WTC towers themselves.

This person is now a moderator of /r/conspiracy

Maybe you shouldn't constantly contradict yourself?

but you seem to be saying that it's too much to ask for a preliminary specific alternative theory to even exist

But they are overwhelmingly the exception rather than the rule, and often represent extreme minority viewpoints even within the truth movement (e.g. Judy Wood and the no-planers).

Oh, I get it. You are an anthropologist and you've studied the community and all the videos to determine that there are in fact few. And the whole time I thought I was just chatting with an asshole. But nope, you are an expert!

The overwhelming tendency is not to ask "can our theories deal with this?" but to say "the mainstream narrative can't deal with this, so we're right."

I've found that isn't true throughout the whole movement, nor is it actually representative of a majority or any significant portion of the community. I guess we will just have to disagree.

No, building a theory before all imaginable facts are in isn't "moronic," it's how science works, how courts of law work, and how history works.

No, I'm not referring to the scientific method but your poor rhetorical points. The 9/11 truth movement is working this way, albeit with a very limited ability to investigate combined with the fact that it's a completely non-monolithic movement with no funding. There are theories out there, it seems you don't like them, but the gist of your assertion is just so factually incorrect that it's a shame you've argued it for this long.

I was trying to reply to someone else, my mistake.