Building 7 and other irrefutable evidence that just wouldn't exist if the narrative was true.

Watch this. Don't go down rabbit holes that will waste your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uaqosUa7tA

http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/

This guys presentation is cringe-tastic.

I like the guy. Very articulate.

Articulation does not an orator make.

[deleted]

?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

You think that Sept. 2001 attacks were IDIOT(Israel Did It, Only Them) theory, while I claim it was MIHOP. Others say LIHOP, and still others are unsure or unaware, or don't want to challenge their world views.

Israel sent warnings of the impending attacks to US along with several other countries. some very specific. why would they do both?

I think if Israel knew about it (like everyone else seems to have. strange trading patterns etc..) then why would they warn about it and still do it? Sounds strange to me.

Michael springman. He has yet to be debunked by anyone.

Who was he?

Here you go

Thanks bud. I didn't know you could type that in for me! I gotta get better cyber security.

15 terrorists received passports into the US from the same place, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-of-9-11-terrorists

Michael Springman was the head of the US consulate office in Saudi Arabia and has stated many times the CIA issued passports to terrorists into the USA from Saudi Arabia since the 1980's. http://www.infowars.com/transcripts/springman2.htm

https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/springtime-for-michael-springman-or-how-a-visa-bureau-chief-in-jeddah-saudi-arabia-learned-to-love-denying-visas-to-terrorists

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq?mobile-redirect=false

I would say all the thermite residue in the dust and paint chips, they used paint with thermite mixed in! Pretty easy way to set up explosives ( I know thermite isnt an explosive) just send in some random workers to repaint the walls with the thermite cocktail.

also the twisted I-beams sure look a lot like the "Hutchinson Effect" of a directed energy weapon.

Didn't the Mythbusters try thermite paint, and it was nowhere near as powerful as you make it out to be.

Also, have you ever seen thermite work?

Mythbusters, yeah, good one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUPXhZIuJo

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0OJDhFu5bI

Yes its basically works like acid, just eating away at steel (when ignited). The proof is in the results. Why was there so little wreckage after the towers fell? how did it all turn to ash so quickly?

Also my friend, if you believe the mythbusters I feel sorry for you. It didn't occur to you that maybe they dont always know what theyre doing? Don't you think that their "experiments" can be flawed?

Thermite is a powder, maybe they didnt use enough in their paint. They also didnt use jet fuel to start their blaze. There, I basically just busted their "experiment".

They arent going to broadcast anything that would support conspiracy theories.

Also I'm pretty sure it has been proven that thermite was present by a number of scientists. Take a look at photos from 911 where you can clearly see that some of the metal was molten at one point. Which is impossible without thermite as jet fuel doesnt burn that hot.

http://investigate911.org/Nano-thermite.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk&sns=em Best thermite video I have seen.

My "smoking guns" aren't the typical ones.

I was troubled by two very nonsensical claims advanced by the narrative. Claim 1) Jet fuel entered the buildings and ran down elevator shafts from the top of the building to the bottom. As someone who's lived in New York (and a number of other major cities), I know that highrises do NOT have continuous elevator shafts from top to bottom. They're staggered. Otherwise, the structure would be weakened. So when you go to big office buildings, you have to take an elevator from the lobby to, say, the 30th Floor, and from there you get out, go to the landing and take the next elevator from the 30th Floor to the 60th and so forth.

I checked the blueprints for the World Trade Center. The elevators (just as I suspected) were staggered. So whenever I hear people say, "The jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts," I shake my head and sigh.

Point 2) Airplanes are fragile as hell. They're built for light weight, not for strength. They're hollow tubes made of flimsy aluminum and fiber glass. A mere bird makes them crumple and implode. Look at this: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1720/737birdpp3.jpg

Making the craft even more structurally unsound is the fact that it's hollow. Hollow objects, at high speeds, explode upon impact. That's why dum-dum bullets explode: They're hollow.

Nature detests a vacuum. The interior of the plane is hollow. Therefore physics states that when it hits an immobile object at high velocity, the path of least resistance is inside the plane.

Meaning: It would first crumple and then accordion.

It would NOT pass through the side of the building intact any more than a dum-dum bullet hitting a sheet of metal would pass through the metal.

The dum-dum bullet would explode--and so would any plane.

Reddit's very own Mythbusters inadvertently prove my point. They sent a rocket sled (made of the same materials as a commercial jetliner: aluminum and fiberglass) slamming up against a concrete wall.

The rocket sled is literally vaporized. The concrete wall?

Not a scratch on it. Not only did it not budge, it didn't collapse at all like cigarette ash (like the buildings did on 9/11).

Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

If I ever had to try this case in a court of law, I'd play this footage and I'd show dozens of airplanes in crashes where their wings come off like wet toilet paper and where birds decimated nosecones.

Airplanes are fragile as hell.

People have to be reminded that what we were told happened on 9/11 isn't possible according to the laws of physics.

If it was, that rocket sled would have remained intact and the concrete wall would have disintegrated. (Sadly, the opposite happened.)

And this ties into Point 1) Jet fuel couldn't have possibly gone down the elevator shafts from the top of the building to the bottom. But even worse: No jet fuel could have ever gotten into the buildings in the first place, since passenger jets carry their fuel in their wings (which would have snapped off OUTSIDE the buildings).

[deleted]

Yeah, I'd love to believe in the airplanes theory. But it's extremely problematic when you take the time to examine it rationally.

There's also a little matter of live footage of the events, with explosions and no planes. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B65M_smGewo

There's also on the spot reporting where people said that there were explosions and didn't mention a plane. These were the earliest reports.

Then, after the media swung into gear, they started "correcting" people. Like one of their reporters on the ground. He said that he'd seen an explosion. The anchor at his desk said, "Oh, you mean the plane?" Whereupon the reporter said, "No, there was no plane." And the achor jumps in to "correct" him. "No, there was a plane. We just saw it on the monitor at the studio." There was palpable confusion from the guy who was actually there.

You could hear him start to doubt himself afterward.

But the thing was: He was there. They weren't.

Footage can be doctored. Reality can't.

He didn't see a plane because there was no plane.

But afterward I'm sure he convinced himself that there was. Psychologists have studied the phenomenon of false memories, and how they can be coached. TV is a great tool. You can use it to brainwash people and have them second-guess their own perceptions. After so many cycles of being told the lie over and over, most people snap and adopt the false memories.

We've all seen Discovery Channel documentaries on how faulty eyewitness testimony is, and how susceptible it is to manipulation. One classic is a guy busting into a room with a banana in his hand. He's only there for a split-second, and then runs off. Afterward, the teacher asks the students what he was carrying. The second a person says "A knife," the room is then asked to describe the knife. They'll go into all this detail. After several cycles, long after the false memory has been established, the teacher will invite the actor back into the room, where he shows the banana he was brandishing.

The students are always slackjawed. They were so sure.

And that's the thing with fake memories. Once you've been led to believe something, your mind will fill in the blanks. You'll convince yourself that you saw something you demonstrably didn't.

So I feel sorry for all those reporters (and video cameras) that didn't see airplanes on 9/11. I'm sure that they scratched their heads afterward, wondering how they could have missed something that the TV networks were showing. (The networks themselves have already admitted to doctoring the footage when critics pointed out how they erased building in the background and matted out the skyline behind the shot. You can go to Youtube and see side-by-side comparisons of network footage from different stations, where in one shot the skyline is there, and in another (at exactly the same angle) the skyline is erased. See what I'm talking about here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Hw8sJE3R0&list=PLE4513D62745D83AD) "Yes, we did that, so that the image would look better," they conceded. Which brings up the question: Why would you be digitally altering shots that you're presenting to the public as "live"?

All those things you list are quite telling in my opinion. Then look at the way certain individuals acted during the investigation by the 9.11 commission. Bush and Cheney refused to be interviewed separately? Also there is that video of Rumsfeld admitting that flight 93 was sot down. If you didn't know the flight 93 movie was mostly propaganda then their is your proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s

Kinda makes you wonder how truthful crap like Zero Dark Thirty is too, doesn't it?

Then theres credible individuals in groups like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This isn't some joe schmoe with a camera and a youtube channel. These are professionals who would understand what it takes to bring down a building.

The fact that they appointed and chose Henry Kissinger to lead and head up the initial investigation into 9/11 says a lot too in my opinion.

Two people resigned from the 9/11 Commission. Henry Kissinger and Max Cleland, both for very different reasons.

Yeah so many top govt officials from involved in the 9/11 commission basically said the report was incomplete and fraudulent.

The 9/11 Consensus Points.

White smoke pouring from towers basements just before they "collapsed" had me wondering, personally.

Along with;

• Clearing and shipping the crime-scene off to China A.S.A.P.

• Refusing or failing to test for explosive residue.

• Refusing an investigation, finally approving an underfunded one, after 1.2years, then raising the funding after objections.

• 911 investigation funding roughly 1:30th of the amount investigating Ms Lewinski's tryst with Big Bill.

• Henry Kissinger appointed first choice to lead the mighty 911 Commission.

Case closed.

911 investigation funding roughly 1:30th of the amount investigating Ms Lewinski's tryst with Big Bill.

^{[citation needed]}

[deleted]

[definition for citation needed]

[deleted]

[Reasonable grasp on reality needed]

By FAR the biggest "smoking gun?"

The five "dancing Israelis" (Mossad agents) with their cameras set up prior to the plane crashes to "document the event."

Proves not only prior knowledge but intense and undoubtable Israeli involvement.

Its so nice to have "allies" like Israel, isn't it? Can't ever be friends with too many middle-eastern apartheid terror states, now can we?

That the air defense system failed to intercept (not shoot down, intercept) any of the wayward flights. And that this failure not only resulted in no punishments to any government officials, but that there was no essentially public finger pointing afterwards. Especially since partisan rancor was very high in the months before 9/11.

Frankly there is too many. -Explosives in the building,way too much evidence from early reporters, firefighters, civilians and video footages. -Building 7 Demolition at near freefall, as well as the other two. - 9/11 named Hijackers most of them are living and were not in the country.

Fire hot enough to melt the steel columns, not hot enough to burn the terrorists passport.

Plus all the other stuff already mentioned by other posters.

URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS

http://i.imgur.com/c13fv6w.png

This is a confusion between cause and effect: Yes, 30 degrees is the angle at which explosives are placed, because this is the optimal angle - Geologically, plates shear at 30 degrees - the reason why explosives are placed at that angle is because it is the most likely to fail there.

Evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 -
buildings came down at freefall (or close to freefall) acceleration

Beams with precise diagonal cuts in them demonstrably made by thermite; staff witnesses telling of explosions BEFORE the planes hit. Precise falls into the footprints, for each building, preventing expensive collateral damage to neighbor buildings; Pentagon aircraft approach impossible for even a highly skilled pilot, much less a novice, and no wing fragments at site; Mineta testimony of Cheney refusing to do anything about approaching planes when asked multiple times by officer. And the ongoing massive massive effort to deflect inquiry into 911, as if that was something necessary to prevent. Who gains by the deflection? And, large effort by the administration to get rid of evidence posthaste. allowing no examination, covering everything with national security. All to get the Patriot Act in place and start the trip to a police state. And the fact that the Patriot Act had been pre-written and was waiting for the event. And the anthrax letters at such a convenient time and to the best targets who could get the Patriot Act passed. And the dancing Israelis there to video the event, and who later admitted they were there to video it.

the simple fact that any of the three trade towers collapsed is all anyone needs to know -- to know the buildings were demolished.

walk into any university and ask for the physics professor. they will tell you the same thing. it's just physics 101 -- which used to be taught in high school, if not earlier.

It's more everything all together than one thing.

Though I think the thermite coming out of the side of the WTC might be a smoking gun for most people. And the clear demolition of WTC7. I know I believed it was a setup before but after I looked at videos of the WTC7 collapse I could tell it was a demolition and if WTC7 was a demolition then the towers probably were too.

WTC7

BBC PROPAGANDA , GUILTY!!! News reports 23 mins in advance of WTC7 collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dAK1fX8JuY

Why in the name of all fuck would they tell a reporter about their plans when it was clearly going to happen in front of everyone anyway? It makes no sense. You know what odes make sense? A reporter fucking up a story, or getting poor information in the middle of a crisis.

Given all the recent incidents of the news misreporting, including letting someone who retold the tale of "Ronnie the Limo Driver" on the air live, how can you really hang a case on a single misreport?

Any recent events have nothing to do with the early reporting of the fall of WTC7.

Why not? Was reporting over a decade ago MORE accurate than it is now?

What does that have to do with anything? Why do you keep trying to show linkage between two unrelated events to disprove my post? Hard to debunk what your own eyes see.

Because you swear that a mis report made by the BBC is proof there was a script or something when it was just a case of misreporting.

The botched reports don't usually have video evidence of the misinformation real time with the report either, like the BBC WTC 7 snafu.

By which you mean the fact that the WTC was seen still standing behind them? Or that NBC was the only one that reported there were 4 handguns?

What's the topic of discussion?