There's a few inconsistencies there. Firstly, the planes weakened the structure, and then the jet fuel weakened it even more (not melting, weakening) combined with the load of the floors overhead, caused it to collapse. Secondly, they found a shit ton of debris from the plane that hit the pentagon, just not a fully intact fuselage (as one would expect they wouldn't find). Not to mention that lower Manhattan has tons of debris from the plane and not just the passport.

Also, you forgot a couple firsts. It was the first time a building has been hit by a plane travelling over 500mph, the first lime latteral load bearing columns were sheared off by a 767, the first time an office fire lasted uncontrolled between 7-9 hours while already having sustained serious structural dammage.

show me a demonstration of Jet fuel and the material found in the WTC and cut tru steel

He never said it did. That doesn't sound possible.

The 'THIRD' building that was suppose to be hit by a plane but 'Failed' and still got destroyed the same day. How you explain that?

Debris caused structural damage and fires furthered the damage.

That is pure lie, Pentagon debris, what hit the pentagon was a missile

Here's a good place to start

No, firemen said the couldn't put our all the fires. That's why the building is still on fire before it falls. How do you not remember this happening?

bombed down

Want to rephrase that?

Ok, show me a demonstration of Jet fuel and the material found in the WTC and cut through steel. Do it. You can't.

I just explained that it doesn't have to cut it, it just has to weaken the already weakened structure. The plane crashed into the towers at over 500mph, and took out a significant chunk of the load bearing structure. That combined with the fire (and office full of flammable materials), and the load of the upper floors all combined to cause the eventual collapse.

And you dont explain WTC7 that fell with no planes. The 'THIRD' building that was suppose to be hit by a plane but 'Failed' and still got destroyed the same day. How you explain that?

You mean the one that was hit with shit tons debris? The one that sustained serious damage to the south side? Not to mention uncontrolled fires raging for 6-9 hours combined with a barely working sprinkler system? Yeah, that one.

Also, my question to you, is why WTC 7? What do you gain from tearing it down? It doesn't have a strategic value like the Pentagon or the main towers, so why set charges in it to do a controlled demolition?

That is pure lie, Pentagon debris, what hit the pentagon was a missile, no video ever released of the video camera showing a plane, any debris or 'parts'? of debris is from another crash obviously.

Another crash? Where did they get the parts from, and how did they strategically place them there? It's pretty much proven that it's debris from a plane, aka the one that hit the Pentagon. Do you want me to link pictures?

also, i'm proud you didn't mention free fall, since that is completely disproven (it was about 40% of free fall)

Even 5% resistence of the building on one side would have caused the buildings to fall to one side instead of straight down into its own footprint. Impossible unless all core supports, including the steel and concrete interior shaft that held the lifts. Pulverized to dust, forcing material up, out, and away. Not possible without explosives. The pancake theory is also fringe, in that even NIST does not support this assumption. It's a pie that has been passed as fact, even though it's nothing of the sort.

Check your material. 9/11 did not happen as we were told. It's a group of lies of incredible magnitude.

The thing I don't understand is this obsession over WTC 7. It was hit by debris, had a raging fire that lasted for 8ish hours, and was built in such a way that much of the load bearing structure was on the outside. Why do people still argue that? Not necessarily referring to you, but people in general. Also, i'll give you pancake thing, as you are right with that one. Finally, if you watch the video, you can however see the upper floors falling at an angle, which what I think you're implying (correct me if im wrong about that).

Well technically the damage from WTC1 falling onto it didnt cause the collapse. It sparked the fires (which burned for almost 7 hours) and it was thermal expansion that caused the structure to collapse.

Yes, but i was referring to the fact that people often don't acknowledge any damage from the debris, and only mention the fire.

It doesn't collapse perfectly even with that being the case.

I like how that because I disagree with your opinion I'm clearly a shill.

How do you explain the explosive found in the debris?

You mean thermite? the compound commonly made of aluminum and iron (III) oxide (aka rust)? Seems pretty simple to me simple to me. In fact, it would be weirder if we didn't find either of those.

Enough energy to pulverize concrete to powder from structural failure? ALL 100 FLOORS ? RIGHTTTTT!!!!! BOTH TOWERS, SORRY ALL THREE?

Explained in previous comment. It's like you don't even read what i write.

2 stones three birds can't be possible.

The debris from the towers and the plane hit quite a few buildings around the towers, how is it so hard to accept that debris hit, and seriously damaged the south face of WTC 7?

There was ALOT of valuable information in WTC7 haha. like Pentagon backup servers? Why you ask me?

Can you provide a source to the backup servers thing? Not to mention that that would imply the Pentagon would literally be shooting itself in the foot by destroying those backups.

But that doesn't have anything to do with WTC 7...

Ok firstly, its shill not chill, nor am I one. Secondly, you gave no sources for any of this on top of there often being evidence to the contrary. for example, the wing of the pentagon that was hit did not contain the investigation, nor do I know what investigation you are referring to. The third plane we know for a fact was going to hit DC, likely the white house or capitol buildings. Not even truthers deny this. Next, I honestly have no clue what you mean about a "ritual" not to mention that WTC 7 collapsed anyways, and that they still put a dent in the pentagon. Again though there is little to no evidence of basically everything you're claiming. Not to mention your only argument at this point is stuff you pulled out of your ass and constant ad homenims.

Well, you did give sources about many of what you said, so thats a significant improvement. But I'm still not sure i get your whole "ritual" thing (maybe it's a figure of speech, i'm not sure). Again though, If it was in fact the government (i.e. CIA, FBI, etc...) why would they intentionally sabotage their own backups, not to mention that there likely exists more than one backup server for the express purpose of if one fails. Also, with a few exceptions (like the fake snow stuff) I've never taken an openly hostile view towards conspiracies, more of an interest in debating them (it's interesting to hear both sides sometimes)

all servers, backup servers

No one has their backup servers in the same location as their production servers.

Persona.management.software