How anyone believes the official myth of 9/11 is a testament to the MK-ULTRA brainwashing that disallows anyone an objective perception of reality.

Letting the tv shape your beliefs in real time is the rule, not the exception, which is why we need to kill our televisions and stop letting other people do our thinking for us.

I'm sure we all remember that time when we first took the red pill, and tried to go around to all our seemingly intelligent friends and family and share our revelations.

Why won't you put the sunglasses on?

...and I'm all out of bubblegum.

Im not so sure MK-ULTRA has anything to do with 9/11.

Maybe not directly but it does show us just how much we turn our brains off when we tune into TV.

The first time I realized this was when I started listening to Howard Stern. I'd hear him rag on some show I had watched and I realized just how lame and shitty it was, and how my brain was basically turned off when I was watching it. They could put almost anything on that box and I'd be satisfied with it.

I think this is why there is always so much pushback to anyone promoting counter-culture. It gets thinking outside of the box and you quickly wake up to the absurdity of things.

I do agree with you. It's sad that we humans are so easily manipulated, every psychopath does it without thinking, first they amuse you, then flatter you then stick the knife in (either figuratively or actually).

There are several little things they do, for instance did you know your unconscious mind doesn't understand negatives? So if I say, Tom Cruise is not gay, he most certainly is not gay, he has never had a gay lover - your unconscious thinks he is gay and has had a gay lover. Little tricks like this can be used to push your mind into a direction that has no benefit for you, whilst the powers that be can remain seeming innocent because they can say 'we did tell you not to do that'. LOL.

Being human can suck sometimes.

Psychopath

I think you mean sociopath.

Maybe not directly but it does show us just how much we turn our brains off when we tune into TV.

So now watch this Youtube video!

youtube - 100 million users uploading a variety videos, little censorship.

Television - 250 channels owned by 6 corporations promoting shallow materialism and distractions, heavy censorship.

I think you should judge it by the content though, and not because it's on youtube.

TV is a push-model, where you turn on your TV and content is "pushed" at you. If you dont like the content, you can switch to another "push" channel, but it will always be pushed content.

Youtube, on the other hand, is a pull-model, where you go to youtube and typically search for something specific, then click to pull that content. When you are done watching one video, you have the opportunity to pull up other relavent content.

The difference may seem trivial, but its absolutely revolutionary.

MK-ULTRA has everything to do with everything.

Thanks for the link to that vid!

Shameless plug... I worked hard on it.

Ahh fuck. I've gone down the rabbit hole, I've seen where we are going.

It's depressing on all angles. The end game is so sad and malicious, and people are willing and able because of consumer greed. We are all so pathetic in the end.

But why? What is the point of a slave race or any of the end game shit? It's all shitty and turbulent for all those involved. Nobody wins really. Then there's the whole, "everyone for everybody" idea. Science, art, math, ecology. Right NOW we could begin our race wide thesis in action on symbiosis with our environment, down falls, shortcomings. I don't understand.

In the end, all we have proven is the ability to forsake everything that makes us unique for that illusive banana at the top of the stairs. The poor, the elite, everyone. Just because your the one video taping the monkeys beat each other for trying to get the banana doesn't mean you aren't intrinsically fucking chained to the event.

Let's say the elite destroy our planet or kill everyone off or let's say there's is no elite like that and we just fuck ourselves, both have the same conclusion!

• no problems were solved

• human population suddenly derived of snakes, liars and backstabbing murderers addicted to vapid power

• set back ages fighting for the leash when so much more could have been done, and everyone live better! Population control would be a joke, you would want more people.

I don't get it, as in the ruling class. Everyone else I get, cia, fbi. Just scubs like me trying to get ahead in the shallow pool of consumers. Ready to kill just to get ahead.

To see it, is to be free. When enough of us see it, we will be free.

For the awakened, our job is to wake the others. Be optimistic. Be open minded. You never know. I'm hopeful.

Well, great work. Really enjoyed it.

Sweet video, my man. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. I'm pondering what to rant and rave about next. God knows this sub keeps me pretty worked up (in a good way).

MK-ULTRA might have something to do with how easily people have accepted the official narrative though.

[deleted]

Surely your just being pedantic here. Would the techniques researched and developed in projects like MK-ULTRA be used almost exclusively for social/behavioural engineering?

What is it exactly I'm discrediting? You're just coming across as shitty right now.

Here's how the debunkers logic works:

D: "You make claims then present evidence of your claims. You don't have evidence then those claims are worthless."

CT: "We asked for the evidence corroborating the NIST's claims and to this day they still haven't provided anything. According to you their claims are worthless."

D: "No, I am talking about you guys, you are the ones that believe in UFOs and Aliens, don't try to change subject."

CT: "I am not, you criticize me for not providing evidence for my claims but you do not request the same thing from the ones you defend and still you consider mine worthless because of this but NIST isn't."

D: "Sure, because one million men rigged the towers with 1000000000tons of explosives and nobody saw a thing, this theory is retarded."

CT: "Why do you keep changing subject?"

D: "Why do you? What, am I a shill now? Is that it? LOL I'm making lots of cash for something that I really enjoy, lololol!"

CT: "It is clear now that you do not have interest in discussing reasonably and for that reason this discussion is over."

D: "Awww look at you, running away when you are proved wrong. Run away then, you just proved me right, again, AHAHAHAH!"

Every single 9/11 thread.

2,996 immediate (attack time) deaths

from all the missing SSDI names, the oddities and structural naming of passenger names.

the actual death count for 9/11 is far lower, prob only 500 incidental casualties. but there were deaths, and the long term health effects for first responders and anybody else that lived or worked nearby, Brooklyn Queens etc. pretty nasty. all that concrete and asbestos dust went somewhere, into peoples lungs and offices and homes.

Nice straw man.

It is. One of your fellow debunkers just used one right now.

He stated that :

The NIST obviously will say the building would have collapsed inevitably from the fires it sustained because the firefighters had no water pressure anymore and the fire had reached a critical point where it was able to spread in a steel-framed building. It's a dumb thought experiment anyways because there would have been no fire if debris hadn't hit the building.

To which I stated:

False. The firefighters had plenty of water from the river boats that were there supplying them even long before WTC7 collapsed.

http://marine1fdny.com/images/911-4.jpg

And his answer to this was:

River boats?

HAHAHAHA

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21ts5o/in_1975_wtc1_had_a_fire_more_intense_than_911s/cggq5mg

Debunkers' logic.

EDIT: And another one! God damn, debunkers are on fire today!

And the cherry on top:

"[–]khamul787 [score hidden] 1 minute ago

Like fucking clockwork, /u/GayUnicorn6969 concedes another argument. Current standings: 5-0"

Pathetic and hilarious, plain and simple.

Look! More straw men, insults, and generalizations! Your posts always add so much to conversations.

You unfortunately failed to mention the part where you ran a way like a coward from a conversation you were losing.

You unfortunately failed to mention the part where you ran a way like a coward from a conversation you were losing.

Bravo.

You're telling me you don't remember how you ran away?

You're telling me you don't remember how you ran away?

You are imagining things again, I clearly said:

Then you are unable to have a reasonable discussion. I will not admit you coming here demanding me for evidence of my claims when you refuse to provide the same for yours when I asked for those first.

This discussion is over.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21ts5o/in_1975_wtc1_had_a_fire_more_intense_than_911s/cggtphg

Cease your false accusations.

I love how you ignored this:

Ho-lee shit. You make a post claiming the fires in 75 were worse than the ones on9/11. To do this, you yourself must take the temps on 9/11, which you don't have, and compare them to the temps and locations from '75, which you also didn't provide. You can't assert the claims in your OP without any evidence. You have no ground to stand on to require me to provide you anything. Yet I'm the one unwilling to discuss?

I'll repeat again, since you missed it. You made the claim. You don't have the proof. You claiming I have no right to ask for proof does not make you correct. You then clammed up. Questions?

Anyone can read the conversation and see how you kept avoiding providing the evidence for your claims which I clearly requested first, now you are trying to make false accusations and imagine won arguments.

You are being very childish and I do not have the time to waste on kids so this conversation is once again over for me.

And again the trademarked /u/GayUnicorn6969 condescension and insults.

You keep forgetting, over and over again, that you never provided proof for your original post in the first place.

[deleted]

There you go again. Who's being childish? The one who runs away from debate, or the one who tries to continue it peacefully? How are you still around here with your blatant trolling of any who disagree with you?

Thank you.

Wow. Five strawmen defeated in one post. Thanks for the entertaining dialog.

A beautifully well constructed little army of straw men.

• Explosions in the lower floors
• Squibs
• Ejecta
• Diagonal cuts
• Thermite residue
• Molten steel
• Molten concrete
• Pulverization
• Victims vaporized
• Free-fall speed
• Symmetric fall

These elements fit exactly with a controlled demolition... not a natural gravity collapse with the help from some jet fuel & office room materials.

Ignoring the alternative explanations (or 'debunkings') of those points - how do they "fit exactly with a controlled demolition" and not a collapse?

How would controlled demolition explain molten concrete (not a claim I'm actually familiar with)? Or molten steel (assuming we're talking about the 'rivers' of it witnessed in the debris pile)?

If free-fall speed were achieved and were only possible with demolition wouldn't there have needed to be much more dramatic and severe explosions that potentially evidenced in the videos?

How is it that explosives (apparently thermite, not a traditional explosives) could explain pulverized material and 'vapourized' victims, but collapse couldn't? Surely if the energy of the collapse of more 1.5 million tons of tower wasn't enough to do it, then the explosions required would be massive and completely undeniable?

Basically I don't feel like arguing all those points - if you want to see alternative explanations for all that I'm sure you're capable of finding those online. My point is that even if we took all that as correct, I don't think those things are evidence of a controlled demolition the way you suggest.

http://i.imgur.com/EUvSU1O.jpg

[deleted]

My opinion is it was cut ahead of time, or the result of shaped explosives.

A guy using a cutting torch during recovery efforts would not make a clean angle cut.. Takes too much time and no reason to do that.

faster than freefall, energy from explosions pushed the towers to the ground faster than they could fall in a real collapse. its reckoned that one minute would be a real collapse time if everything fell, leaving aside the resistance of the mass below slowing a collapse and probable half collapse that should have happened if 9/11 was true to the official story.

AE911truth has the numbers.

faster than freefall, energy from explosions pushed the towers to the ground faster than they could fall in a real collapse. its reckoned that one minute would be a real collapse time if everything fell, leaving aside the resistance of the mass below slowing a collapse and probable half collapse that should have happened if 9/11 was true to the official story.

Faster than freefall? What does that even mean - it's clearly absurd. Nothing was falling faster than gravity.

What on earth could make it take one minute to collapse if we leave aside the resistance of the lower part of the tower? It would take about 9 seconds for any given object to fall 400m (roughly 100 floors up).

AE911truth has the numbers.

Link? I don't feel like wading through their site looking for one specific snippet.

Faster than freefall? What does that even mean - it's clearly absurd. Nothing was falling faster than gravity

Something obviously was..

south tower wtc 2 had debris shot downward faster than gravity

Victims vaporized

everything vaporized, from people to telephones to ceramic toilet bowls to doorknobs.

Black boxes too! But passports are made to last.

I never believed in any conspiracy theories, until I made a discovery about six months ago. I thought those who bought into them were nuts. Still, I never had any urge to debunk or attack those posing the theories.

Now, that I have been forced to notice conspiracies or note coincidences, and events worthy of skepticism, I've come to be attacked as a nut, left and right.

I think it goes against human nature to attack those you view as crazy. It's just something normal people would not do with their time.

The trollery is based on some getting too close to the truth. In other words, it's a sign that the rats are nervous.

What was this discovery that dramatically altered your perception? It seems pretty relevant to your story - surely?

He never speaks of such horrors.

I was arguing with my brother-in-law about the official story. He is a PhD in optics and photonics. His main problem is that NIST corroborated the official report. I didn't really know how to argue against that. Any counter-points?

And yet, this is the source that is trusted by the masses for clear, concise answers, on the largest attack on U.S. soil. :(

There's always the CNN version of events, if you prefer the official story over the truth.

It is pretty telling that their reason for it is in regard for "national security", so future terrorists can't use the NIST data to plan more destruction! /rollseyes

When the government classifies everything it is censorship not security.

Since when should the average American give a shit about "national security" at the expense of their own privacy or security? Its like a wal-mart customer being overly concerned about shoplifting at wal-mart.

The model itself wasn't released but all of the data they used is published. What's more their report was reviewed. They published a draft, which was widely reviewed independently and many independent experts provided feedback before the final report was published.

AE9/11 Truth is all well and good, but don't make the mistake of believing that their "2000+ architects and engineers" are statistically significant. They represent a minuscule fraction of architects and engineers (far less than the proportion of conspiracy believers in the general population), and many (the majority?) of their members have no qualifications or experience that is relevant to the collapses on 9/11.

One person speaking the truth is a majority.

Pleading to authority or popularity are logical fallacies.

Kinda like how the police investigate the police. Remember when NIST kept changing their report to align with the official narrative? When will NIST release their 3D models? When will NIST release the data? The answer is never.

I cannot stand when people use that defense:

Well Popular Mechanics and NIST said this is how it went down.

Firstly, the government lies, plain and simple. It has before and it will again.

Secondly, a magazine is not the end all be all of science.

I never understood how some tech/gadget magazine like Popular Mechanics became the de facto "experts" on 9/11.

Well mainly because they spent the time looking into the details of the claims and researching them, then they published the details.

Anyone could have done it, but Popular Mechanics had the resources to do it well.

Well, you say? It was full of holes.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

Specifically this one:

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

And Sunder is the director of the NIST, investigating the fires and cause of the collapse himself, so you would think he would not make that kind of mistake, this also pairs up nicely with the Silverstein 'pull it' quote, claiming that he was referring to the 'remaining' firefighters in the building.

So... WTC7 didnt have enough power to run pumps for their fire sprinkler system, but they had enough power to pump diesel? Sounds legit.

Also, the "pull it" part of that quote isnt the money-shot. The money shot comes right afterward when he says "and then we watched the building collapse". I have yet to come across a shill who was willing to try to debunk that part of the sentence. They want to redirect your attention away from the obvious, change the subject, and hope you forget about it and move on.

So... WTC7 didnt have enough power to run pumps for their fire sprinkler system, but they had enough power to pump diesel? Sounds legit.

Lol, I know, a plot hole, they need better writers for this shit.

Also, the "pull it" part of that quote isnt the money-shot. The money shot comes right afterward when he says "and then we watched the building collapse". I have yet to come across a shill who was willing to try to debunk that part of the sentence. They want to redirect your attention away from the obvious, change the subject, and hope you forget about it and move on.

Yes very good point, it's basically like "Hey guys, we better just pull it as Mr. Silverstein suggests, you know to save lives... phew, just in time."

Even more perplexing is the fact Hearst Corporation owns Popular Mechanics. Clearly nothing fishy going on there.

Do you mean the same Hearst Corp. that is attributed with the creation of "yellow journalism" and used it's media influence to push America into the Spanish-American war?

And responsible for changing hemp to marijuana and making it illegal....yes that same Hearst corporation.

Fact is stranger than fiction.

Source: Hearst bought them in 1958 for any doubters.

Surely it should have been investigated much as a murder would be (although on a much larger scale). Would NIST investigate a serial murderer?

It seems as if NIST was used as a source of implied authority in order to sell the whole "collapsed symmetrically due to totally asymmetric damage and fire" line.

Any counter-points?

None of NIST's findings have been peer-reviewed by the scientific community, like all scientific documents should.

The problem with the NIST conclusions is that they built the entire study on the prior assumption that fires brought the buildings down. Instead of analyzing the evidence and arriving at a conclusion, they started with a conclusion and only accepted the data that supported the conclusion, ignoring any data that didn't fit the assumed model. Also there is the lack of peer review of the study, the lack of historical precedence and seemingly no way to replicate the study results, something any conclusive scientific study should be able to stand up to.

Are you saying the facts were fixed around the policy? Where have we heard that before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Any counter-points?

If it was me:

"They claim to have corroborated it but they have not allowed anyone else but themselves to validate this assertion or access to the any data pertaining the validity of their claims. Until the public can validate their claims, these are false claims due to this behaviour being often practiced by impostors."

or

"Show me the corroboration of free-fall speeds being possible in the WTC7 collapse and the corroboration of fires being capable of causing the WTC7 collapse".

LOL Piled higher & Deeper. His degree has nothing to do with mechanical engineering. Might as well have a degree in Medieval literature as much as it pertains to 9/11. Science is based observation & reproducible results. The odds of 3 buildings randomly collapsing in the exact same way are astronomical yet collapse by controlled demolition can be repeated easily and almost infinitely. As others have stated the NIST has not made their test models or data public so without review their conclusions are baseless and without merit.

Joseph Nobels, a theology student with no apparent background in engineering or architecture, runs a website that supposedly "debunks" the work put together by actual architects and engineers.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

Right, I just meant he was very scientifically knowledgeable. This has led to him being close-minded in certain things. I know I have argued before with him about the notoriety of certain publications. If it's not a large institution he takes it with a grain of salt, and when it is NIST or Nature or the like he accepts anything they say.

Well hang in there. As you have learned knowledge doesn't always equal intelligence. A bright mind questions everything until it can be put into a logical order and never accepts things at face value. I applaud you for standing your ground. There will always be those who don't want to know the truth because it removes them from their comfort zones and can cause immense fear & anxiety. We know that things will never change until the truth is revealed and that causes us fear & anxiety. Finally you have the elitists who play on the fears of all of us to control and manipulate the world. Sigh!

I used to think people with PhDs were smarter than other people. Now I believe that people with PhDs just use their PhD as an excuse to tell themselves that they are smarter than other people. Anymore, a PhD isnt worth the student loan debt that was used to acquire it.

You have to remember that this is a long-term, large-scale, pervasive, language integrated, mind control/illusion/education. It is very hard to get outside of the box of "I pledge my alligence, to the flag, ...", if you have been saying it every day from a young age for YEARS.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy but 9/11 ain't one of em. Let me go through all your points.

The impact of the plane explains an awful lot. Firstly, the twin towers used asbestos as a fire retardant, this is brilliant when it's in place, but when a plane hits asbestos it shatters into dust leaving zero fire protection for the steel.

Now you have a fire with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel, fed by two currents of oxygen (one front one rear) - having the buildings close to one another causes a rush of air in two directions, great for blowing women's skirts in the air, but not so good if you have a fire and front to back of both buildings allow the air in. This effectively trapped the oxygen in the building and gave a constant supply of oxygen to fuel the fire even further. The plane is made of hundreds of tons of aluminium, which has a melting point of merely 1200f - this fire burned hotter than that. The fire raging, the molten aluminium etc all pouring down the central column, which now has zero fire protection on it will weaken the steel. The steel didn't have to melt, it merely had to weaken.

This central column held up the entire building, all of the building's strength came from this central column, with the steel now weakened it only has to give a little and the whole damned lot comes down. Which it did.

Also, the explosions in the basement. Remember that plane we spoke about, the one that just hit the tower? That smashed into the central column, the shockwave would have been instant, it would have sent plaster, metal and all that yummy asbestos flying throughout the building, but mostly on the lower floors. The people in the basement would see it explode and think it was an explosion (which it was), moments later (because of the time it takes for sound to travel) they'd have heard the roar of the plane hitting the building. So they'd naturally think 'explosion first, then aircraft hit' - because to them that's what happened.

The collapsed buildings would have weakened WTC7 substantially, it too had fires within it. If it had been blown up it would have taken a long time to prep, nobody has come forward to say they prepped this building, so we have to assume it collapsed because it was weakened. Although WTC7 is my big question mark! It is the one thing that makes me question everything else - if they blew that up, it would have taken a lot of prep. Also, if they blew that up then maybe they blew the other two too. It is a nag with me.

The squibs could very well be air pressure - the twin towers fell in a concertina way, so air pressure build up in the building would have been very strong, and have caused the squibs and the windows breaking.

There was no molten steel - the molten metal they saw would have been molten aluminum - remember there are now quite few extra tons of aluminum because of the aircraft itself.

The melting aircraft also explains why there ain't nothing left of the passengers or the aircraft itself.

Symmetric fall - we've already done that - only the central core column had any substantial strength, the rest of the building was pretty piss weak in comparison, so the central core acts as both a support for the collapse - keeping it straight (at free fall - because the floors are heavy) and the cause of the collapse - because you should never rely on just a central core for a building's strength.

Victims vaporized because of things like plastic, asbestos glass, concrete - every single floor that went down would literally explode, you saw the dust for yourself - now go and stand in front of a sandblaster turned up to full power and you'll see how people were vaporized.

What happened afterwards - the obvious planting of passports, cooking up evidence against people in order to have a war, now that probably is a conspiracy, but the actual event itself wasn't. I don't think!

You weren't swayed because you are closed minded, not because there are holes in this guys explanation. You wouldn't change your position if I threw proof of one of your points being untrue in your face.

I really really like conspiracy, but if someone presents counterpoints and you just say "I'm not buying it" you eliminate intelligent discussion and the possibility of discovery. This thread is a waste of time. No knowledge will be gained and no opinion will change.

For example, you can't deny WTC7 fell symmetrically at free-fall speed for a large portion of the fall from office fires and expect me to just trust NIST and the 9/11 commission report as 100% fact when they won't reveal their data, 3D models, and documents to the scientific community for peer-review.

It very briefly reached approximate free fall. About 2-3 seconds of the 14 seconds of structural failure.

There is hundreds of pages of detailed data in their report. The model itself hasn't been released, but the data it's created from is available. What, aside from that model, do you suggest NIST is withholding?

If anything... we should have 1000's of pilots, architects, engineers, and scientists saying... YES the official story is 100% true... but this is just not the case.

It is the case - the vast majority of all those groups have no issue with the official reports, but they don't feel the need to create groups to express that. Not a single one of the "Someone for 9/11 Truth" groups has even close to a significant level of support within the group they claim to represent.

the US government sure took advantage of the situation and went and created more war and innocent killings based on this event that they will not allow any outside scientific investigation to happen proving they know it's a lie.

I agree the US certainly did take advantage - especially with Iraq (while Afghanistan was at least a reasonable response to the event).

But it's hardly true that they won't allow outside scientific investigation - the collapses of the WTC towers (including WTC7) are the most studied building failures ever. Reports and studies have been published by various groups all over the world and all, basically, agree with the conclusions reached by NIST.

I could concede there's a possibility that US agencies knew more than is admitted and potentially even deliberately avoided acting on some information that ultimately allowed 9/11 to take place - although I don't think it's likely or well supported. But beyond that I don't think the bulk of 9/11 conspiracy theory is supported by evidence, or even necessarily logically consistent.

I agree with you. As I said, they certainly used the event to further their own agenda. However, were they merely waiting for a chance to do this? Or did they actually carry it out? The threat level against the US was huge and they knew an attack was imminent (so they say) - so maybe they just waited for some nut to do something and then they planted the evidence. I did say that the events afterwards are most likely a conspiracy. I just don't think the actual event was.

Do you recall the title of the August 6, 2001 PDB?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Bear in mind that this PDB was not run-of-the-mill paperwork, and its preparation was specifically requested by the POTUS

Most of your kerosene-based jet fuel burned up this instant.

A 100+ story steel frame is a fantastic heat sink.

Molten Steel at Ground Zion. More

but when a plane hits asbestos it shatters into dust leaving zero fire protection for the steel.

We're asked to take NIST's word for this and now yours. It's not proof. The testing NIST did involved shooting a shotgun at a coated beam. Speculation and poor testing does not add up to conclusive proof.

The fire raging, the molten aluminium etc all pouring down the central column which now has zero fire protection on it will weaken the steel

Molten aluminum poured down the central column? Any evidence to support your statement?

The fire raging, the molten aluminium etc all pouring down the central column which now has zero fire protection on it will weaken the steel

I can't find anything in the Analysis of Structural Steel in the WTC Investigation. PDF that confirms your central (core?) column assertions. Believing office fires did damage to the core columns is difficult.

The collapsed buildings would have weakened WTC7 substantially,

Some proof would bolster this assertion. The final building seven NIST Report does not back up your claims.

The squibs could very well be air pressure

Were some of the windows stronger than others? Why only a few windows? And more importantly is how does air pressure occur at the same time, 60 floor apart?

There was no molten steel

This appears to be just your opinion. More informed opinions do exist. Which ones should we entertain as the truth?
http://imgur.com/EWtkBAB
http://imgur.com/HjKnmc8
http://imgur.com/4iRtciW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEvHU-FjqbI

remember there are now quite few extra tons of aluminum because of the aircraft itself.

So the aircraft hits on the top of the building and somehow travels to the bottom of the rubble pile?

...the dust for yourself

The dust is key and the signature lends itself to something other than a gravity driven collapse. Office fires melted Molybdenum??

Straight out of Frank Luntz's playbook?

People dont care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

So, the shill is supposed to start out his presentation by pretending to empathize with the target audience, for example by saying something along the line of

I love a good conspiracy, BUT...

Do people even realize how transparent they are? Its like the Emperors New Clothes

This still hasn't been debunked yet.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/4010452/9-11-The-Dancing-Israelis-FBI-report

FBI report on the Israeli men arrested in New York on 9/11. You won't find a rebuttal to this report on the internet but you will find skeptics taking apart the news reports from around the time it happened. This was obtained in 2011 under FOIA request. A lot of the evidence collected proves to me they had foreknowledge of the attacks and they definitely celebrated the burning twin towers. Who celebrated the burning twin towers on September 11th in New York?

Since it's so long, this is a good TL;DR..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11

"Our purpose was to document the event"

This is what was supposedly translated from the video segment. I find those words used to be quite strange and chilling. Is this a direct translation? Is there any other way to interpret the language used here? What else could they mean by "purpose", and did they admit to knowing in advance?

Where are these people now? The whole thing seems too strange to be just a coincidence.

I'm curious - what information in the FBI reports do you think supports the idea that they had advance knowledge?

Certainly their behavior was odd (although they suggest it was because they knew that the USA would now be unable to ignore Islamic terror).

Eyewitness (several of them) testified to the FBI the men were in the car park which was a vantage point over New York before the first plane hit and were recording footage of the twin towers. Then the FBI developed the camera which shown the men celebrating the attacks. I'm pretty sure anyone would find the celebration of an attack which was being recorded before it happened suspicious. Not only that but the men lived in close proximity to the 9/11 hijackers in several places, the company was not registered (a fake), the owner of the company fled before being questioned back to Israel, they had a lot of cash and came from different countries and had tickets to fly out right after 9/11 which is SOP for intelligence, they had maps with places of importance and one of the men confirmed he was a map maker in the IDF, they refused lie detectors and failed and also lied to the FBI, they were in the county illegally, were caught not far from the Pennsylvania crash site in another van, people connected to them were arrested in Miami from another moving company which the actual 9/11 hijackers used and more.

I think everyone should read this to understand for themselves what they are looking at. It's not good me telling you because you need to see it for yourself. The documents are from the source so there is no accusations of it being bias.

And by the way, your argument makes no sense and I've seen the same excuse before. How would they know the US was going to not be able to ignore terrorism when everyone thought the first plane was an accident? Because they were there celebrating the first plane crash, which is corroborated by eyewitnesses and the camera. So what your saying in your argument is that they knew that the first plane crash was terrorists when no one else knew that including the media. The media reported it an accident until the second plane hit then it was thought to be a terror attack.

I've not read all the documents in detail, but from what I have read...

There's no specific confirmation that they were there before the plane hit the towers. The only person who said she saw them photographing and filming saw them after the collision. One other witness apparently saw them in that carpark as early as 8am, but that didn't seem well supported?

The FBI did indeed develop the films, and it did show them to be "happy" but what it didn't show, as far as I can see, is any photographs of the collision, or the towers before the collision or them at that location before the collision (those things surely would have been noteworthy).

I haven't looked into the specifics of the physical proximity to the hijackers. Also unclear on the airline tickets, but I didn't see that in any of the documents I reviewed (link?) although there was an uncompleted visa application for travel to Australia.

From what I could see the moving company in Miami wasn't related to these guys (beyond being a moving company, having Israeli staff and apparently having once done something for one of the hijackers, possibly?)

I think it's possibly likely they were Mossad, and they may have had some foreknowledge if that were the case (although I don't think that's well supported) but there really doesn't seem to be anything to suggest they were directly involved?

I was asking you specifically because I'm curious what you're seeing in there that is most significant to you. It's hundreds of pages of partially redacted investigation notes - it's unclear exactly what you're seeing as being interesting.

There's no specific confirmation that they were there before the plane hit the towers. The only person who said she saw them photographing and filming saw them after the collision. One other witness apparently saw them in that carpark as early as 8am, but that didn't seem well supported?

What exactly would be specific confirmation to you? One person reported seeing them after the first plane hit, one said before. This is an explanation that makes sense between the accounts of the eyewitnesses.

http://www.takeourworldback.com/dancingisraelisfbireport.htm#transcripts

"On 09/11/2001, [blank] woke up at approximately 7:30 AM. She recalls the time because her husband woke her as he got prepared for jury duty in Newark, New Jersey (NJ). As her husband was showering and getting dressed, [blank] prepared the coffee and placed a bagel in the oven."

"Her husband went downstairs to purchase a newspaper at to [sic] the store located on the ground floor of the apartment complex. He returned and they had breakfast together."

"Her husband then left for jury duty at approximately 8:25 AM or 8:30 AM. She then telephonically contacted GENERAL CAB COMPANY for a cab to take her son, [blank] to [blank]. After she contacted the cab company, her son waited in the lobby area for the cab."

"[Blank's] neighbors who reside in apartment [blank] left their daughter, [blank] with [blank] to babysit. As these neighbors left the apartment complex, they saw [blank's son] waiting for the cab so they transported him to college."

"At approximately 9:00 AM, [blank] in apartment [blank] telephonically contacted [blank] to tell her that she saw smoke coming from the WORLD TRADE CENTER (WTC), in New York City. [Blank] then grabbed her Binolux binoculars, (lightweight triple tested, 7 x 35 mm, 341 feet at 1000 yards) in order to see the WTC closely."

"[Blank] recalls that she was listening to 1010 AM news radio station [this would be WINS] and she did not hear any information regarding the WTC. She recalls that the sun had risen, it was a clear day and there was no fog or clouds."

"Joan Fleischer, an account executive on the WINS sales team, was very close to the Towers from her rooftop on North Moore Street. She noticed a plane flying much lower than she had ever seen before in the New York City skies, and knew it was going to crash. She called the WINS newsroom and spoke to Mark Mason, the former executive editor at WINS. As she said, "There's going to be a plane crash," the plane tilted to the left and slammed into the building. It hit just as she said, "crash". Mason called Fleischer back "from a line that could be patched into the studio on the air", and since they had someone from the station on the scene as it unfolded, they were able to go "with such a live report". The audio is available at this page."

"Breaking news now, on 1010 WINS. This just in to our newsroom; a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Let's get this live update from 1010 WINS correspondent Joan Fleischer. Joan, what do you see?"

"Well I'm standing on the top of my roof, and I'm looking at the World Trade Center, and there's a huge hole in it, and there's a fire in the building right now, huge smoke pouring out of it, and things are falling from the building itself. [...] I heard the plane, very close to the top of the buildings. I looked outside, and I saw it hit, and it exploded immediately."

"At nearly eight minutes into the live report, the second plane hadn't hit - which occurred at 9:03. The eyewitness was listening to the station and could not have missed hearing the news. Thus, this fixes an absolute latest time for the eyewitness to have gone to look outside at 8:55; eight-and-a-half minutes after the first impact at approximately 8:46:30. However, that would be ridiculous because it requires that WINS was so incompetent that it took more than eight minutes to call Joan Fleischer back "from a line that could be patched into the studio on the air" to go live with such an important breaking news report. The Israelis' version of events also requires that CNN's website and the Israeli news site YNET were so quick off the mark that they had already posted the news on their web sites for the Israelis to read about it. Then the three Israelis had to have collectively decided that the event was worthy of taking time off work to go away and "document" it for historical purposes, collected cameras, back packs and notebooks, rushed out to their employer's van, driven through rush-hour traffic to an observation point chosen on the spur of the moment that is normally a four or five-minute drive from Urban Moving Systems' office, driven into the Doric Towers apartment complex at 100 Manhattan Avenue in Union City, around to the rear parking lot, parked at an angle to the fence so that the front of the van faced in a south-southeast direction towards the WTC, got out of the van with the cameras, climbed onto the roof, and started their cameras rolling, all before the local AM news station managed to announce the breaking news."

"It's pretty obvious that the Israelis were sighted by this eyewitness at 8:51 or earlier (see Section 3 page 67), making the Israelis' version of events physically and scientifically impossible without a suspension of the laws of causality and General Relativity. And this is corroborated by the fact that the eyewitness' friend was prompted to telephone her "immediately" after hearing the first plane crash, looking out and seeing the smoke; by another eyewitness who saw the Israelis "less than 5 minutes" after the first plane impact; by a third eyewitness who saw a white van with no side windows arrive and park in the same apartment block rear parking lot at 8:15 and found it was gone by 9:20; by a fourth eyewitness who saw a white van parked in the same parking lot and estimated the time to be as early as 8:00am; and by a fifth eyewitness who spotted Sivan Kurzberg at the Doric Towers apartment complex the day before 9/11.]"

The FBI did indeed develop the films, and it did show them to be "happy" but what it didn't show, as far as I can see, is any photographs of the collision, or the towers before the collision or them at that location before the collision (those things surely would have been noteworthy).

http://i.imgur.com/X2TCJpx.jpg

The camera was altered so the time was off and the video camera couldn't be found but was reported by an eyewitness.

I haven't looked into the specifics of the physical proximity to the hijackers. Also unclear on the airline tickets, but I didn't see that in any of the documents I reviewed (link?) although there was an uncompleted visa application for travel to Australia.

Page 34

http://i.imgur.com/uSfk57k.jpg

Immediate travel documents out of New York to worldwide destinations which is a common trait of a MOSSAD operation: you can see that when they murdered one of the HAMAS commanders in Dubai here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8ajRErIOsc

From what I could see the moving company in Miami wasn't related to these guys (beyond being a moving company, having Israeli staff and apparently having once done something for one of the hijackers, possibly?)

http://i.imgur.com/HNBnyCC.jpg

I guess you could call that circumstantial evidence that these guys were also Israeli nationals working for a moving company that was used by one of the terrorists involved in 9/11. But then that links them to the other Israeli nationals working for a moving co play suspected to be involved in 9/11 who were under investigation.

I think it's possibly likely they were Mossad, and they may have had some foreknowledge if that were the case (although I don't think that's well supported) but there really doesn't seem to be anything to suggest they were directly involved?

Whether they were directly involved or not would mean they didn't (at least) alert the US to knowledge of an a attack. At worst, some of the evidence points to them knowing and possibly aiding the terrorists since they had interacted at some points like when one of the terrorists used the moving company in Miami.

I was asking you specifically because I'm curious what you're seeing in there that is most significant to you. It's hundreds of pages of partially redacted investigation notes - it's unclear exactly what you're seeing as being interesting.

Well, the fact that they were celebrating attacks on 9/11 makes me question the motives around the celebrations. Who exactly would celebrate an attack on the US and for what purpose? What did they believe was cause for celebration and what did the execution of the attack imply for them?

The fact that they were Israeli in context with other parts of 9/11, namely the planning in my view of 9/11 before 2001 by people aligned with Israel.

The fact that they were in the US for quite a long time but had booked tickets to leave immediately after 9/11 which has been shown to be the case in other MOSSAD operations. Given the fact that they were under investigation and considering what else was suspicious, this is another suspicion that they picked a date to leave right after a major event in which they were documenting.

The fact that Dominik Suter left the United States before being questioned by the FBI in a hurry.

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/press/storage.htm

"Our purpose was to document the event"

'purpose' = reason for being there or existing as a team

'document the event' = they knew it was not a simple aircraft crash

its quite simple semantics and language.

I don't want to agree with that either way because saying "documenting the event" can be seen in a sinister and innocent light.

"We were there to document the event because we knew about it"

"We were there to document the event after we saw what happened"

Neither of those things were said but you fill in the extra context yourself.

None of that matters because you can read the FBI report and be near certain they were there before the first plane hit and even the day before in the same place. They were celebrating the attacks which is 100% proven and they changed the time on the camera so the timestamps would be off by 14 hours.

The real problem is that, like the assassination of JFK, we are obsessing over HOW it happened and not WHY. We need to focus more on international motivations, and the US' deep relationship with Saudi Arabia, the country where all these terrorists come from.

even thats up for debate, considering 1/3 of the hijackers are alive and well today, stolen passports and identities. according to the BBC and other news outlets.

if there were 19 hijackers, they are persons unknown. even Atta the ringleader, his father claims he spoke to him on the phone on 9/12/01.

theres never been official passenger lists for the four planes, only different lists presented by different MSM outlets, all contradict each other, both in names and numbers.

9/11 was a NY MSM event, they told their story, with fake video, fake witness reports, and fake evidence.

This quote from a user here in this thread says it all:

"I'm not going to read an entire website you linked just to back up one of your McFacts."

Think about this train of thought for a minute. Let it ruminate.

http://i.imgur.com/rgW9rr9.jpg

Really? Here is the acutal pic and the uncropped version.

It's doctored. http://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/choose-weapon-01_24_13-920-121.jpg

The fact that you have to explain that that pic is shopped is kinda sad.

[deleted]

I posted the wrong imgur link, but yes you are correct I did post it! And we've known for years it's a shop on a drone. What was supposed to be posted? This, but I didn't edit the post. Absolutely disgusting, am I right?

Seriously? Do you really think the American government is smart enough to keep something this big a secret for 13 years?

The Manhattan Project was kept a secret for more than half a decade and it had over 120,000 people involved and the only reason it wasn't a secret longer is because we wanted to drop a bomb. Truman was Vice President and never even heard of it until he became President and was briefed on it. I'm not saying that this is evidence of 9/11 being an inside job but I am saying that the government can certainly keep secrets a lot better than people think (especially by employing tactics like compartmentalization).

The Manhattan Project was kept a secret

no it wasn't, it was known at the time, reported in newspapers and by people.

the true scale of the project was prob very secret, of a size few people could comprehend in peacetime, but wartime gets govt spending and hiring like theres no tomorrow.

So you are trying to say that joe public knew that a nuclear bomb was being assembled but the Vice President of the US didn't? Or maybe there was something called "the manhattan project" that some people knew about but didn't know what it was...

Well, except that incredibly few people knew what they were working on.

That's, essentially, what compartmentalization is... Thanks for helping to make my point

"The planes were holograms"

"A cloaked jet fired a missile into the twin towers"

That sort of thing you mean by "lies" ?

Those theories were propagated by the MSM.

Edit: The likely reason for that propaganda was to muddy-the-waters of conspiracy theories in general regarding 9/11.

It's not like they took a vote on the senate floor. Your representative didn't get a memo about it. It would have been a need to know type scenario with as few people as possible. And then, yes they could easily do it. Like they have in the past. Gulf of Tonkin.

Or the Manhattan Project....

Dimitri Khalezov: What is the meaning of "ground zero"? -- part 1 of 26

Why do I never hear the theory of planned nuclear detonation discussed here?

Edit: This is the logical explanation for pulverization of steel and concrete, and melted rock.

Disagreement over 9/11 truther facts

by: /u/75000_Tokkul

Upvotes: 139 | Downvotes: 43 | Timestamp of this thread.

Upvotes: 5 | Downvotes: 1 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.

If this was an error, send me a message

What is the story with the 9/11 truthers and their inability to try to understand that buildings can, and do, collapse.

by: /u/buddhahat

Upvotes: 207 | Downvotes: 69 | Timestamp of this thread.

Upvotes: 1 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.

If this was an error, send me a message

People claiming that the Towers were brought down by planted explosives, why don't you investigate the real conspiracy -- Israel's involvement in 9-11? Forget about the imaginary demolition, and look at the real conspiracy, that Israel may not only have known about the 9-11 attacks in advance (they did) but may have planned them.

We don't need to determine what happened that day. How the buildings fell is a great distraction but that's all it is. Why do you think debunkers focus on how the buildings fell all the time? The fact is a conclusion will never be reached, and all the while people throw evidence back and forth while claiming each other's is incomplete or fabricated. It's irrelevant. They fell. The method of their falling is completely irrelevant when considering motive and who carried out the attack, whicb is what needs to be established before justice can be exacted.

Where is the focus on Silverstein's ownership of the buildings and insurance payouts? The employees of certain firms who were told to stay home? The SEC documents that were destroyed? Investigation into Dov Zakheim's involvement? Israeli-controlled airports? The PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses? The trillions missing from the Pentagon? It goes on and on. For fuck sake - follow the money. It was planned as a pretext for war and lots of people made money from it, but whether the building was rigged is a moot point. So many people wasting their time arguing semantics and the temperature of melting steel. The consequences of 9/11 were huge. This stuff is not what's important.

I spent a few years going over 9/11 details ad nausea, before coming to the conclusion that we have proved over and over, removing any reasonable doubt, that the official story is a big lie. What we were doing was going around in circles, trying to prove Pythagorean theorem in new an interest in ways, when one proof would have sufficed.

The big mistake we made was not pointing the finger at any alternative suspects soon enough.

You dont really want to go pointing the finger at Israel until you are very sure.

I am happy to say that we didnt make that same mistake with the boston marathon bombing. We started naming names quickly and consequently there have been many unexpected resignations

[X] Janet Napolitano

[X] Richard Serino

[X] Robert Mueller

[X] Richard Deslauriers

[X] Jack Pirozzolo

...

'Urban Moving Systems' alone means that Israels involvement should have been investigated more at the time and certainly should be now if possible.

I agree, it's never too late to seek the truth. It's my belief that Israel has been deliberately sowing the Internet with crazy 9-11 theories to turn attention away from Israeli involvement in the terrorist attacks on that date.

Is the purpose of your comment to separate the event concerning 'Urban Moving Systems' and everything else that happened on 9/11 - They're related.

Israel's involvement in 9-11

you are treading into dangerous territory there. I hope you cleared that comment with your supervisor.

so its now OK for US TLAs and shills and PR types to blame Israel for 9/11 !?

The whole theory of planted explosives in the Towers has one purpose -- to shift attention away from Israel, and it's involvement in 9-11.

Why would planted explosives shift attention away from Israel? The only thing explosives did in my mind was shift attention away from 19 muslims.

In what way did Israel benefit? From what I can see Israel hasn't benefited in any way imaginable - Since 9/11 the only big winners have been Muslims as far as I can tell. Saudi now makes more money than ever before, places like Dubai were mostly built after 9/11 - Arab nations are now rolling in money, the Palestinian's are at last given an international stage to complain in. Israel is now a shadow of what it was pre 9/11.

Muslims didn't benefit from 9/11. We invaded 2 Muslim countries and destabilized the entire region as a result of 9/11. Millions of Muslims died as a result. The Saudi government on the other hand was implicitly connected to the events of 9/11 and used the ensuing chaos to establish it's hegemony over the Middle East and spread it's radical form of Islam, Wahhabism. The Muslim world is being manipulated just like everyone else.

OIL

Oil

has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, A Clean Break

Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region

It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state.

...and more.

According to the public opinion poll included in Frank Luntz's Global Language Dictionary, Israel benefitted from 9/11 because American public opinion was swayed away from Palestinians and toward the Israelis. After reading the context around this poll, it should be very obvious that the public opinion shift was part of the plan all along.

http://www.australiansforpalestine.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tip_report.pdf

Jeez. This kind of conspiracy b.s. gives us all a bad name. The kamikaze hijacking attacks of 9/11/01 were precisely what caused the buildings to collapse. I'm not even going to use OPs silly four elements. I'm going to tell you exactly why jet fuel can melt steel.

Has anyone ever used a chimney charcoal starter? You put charcoal in a metal tube on a grate, and under that grate you wad up paper. You simply light the paper and the heat from that tiny fire ignites the charcoal. The same thing happened in those towers! That heat got concentrated in a vent and that produced some very high temperatures. Add in the terrible fire retardant foam insulation that shook or melted off and the all around iffy design of the buildings, you have disaster.

Occam's razor people. All facts, all science point to exactly what happened.

Now, if you want to talk about the U.S. Govt. working with Al-Qeada to facilitate this attack in order to ramp up the domestic control by stripping away liberties, militarizing the police and conducting sweeping surveillance that serves the wealthiest in the new world state-government Conspiracy, well ...

Ah charcoal = molten steel.

Yeah this is why i have to buy a new barbecue after i make hot dogs. That shit just melts the barbecue to the ground.

[deleted]

Tons of flaming debris and steel causing an uncontrollable fire to burn for hours. That building was bombed from the air by the other towers. Again, these false conspiracies you've been conned into are steering you away from the real truth. The one thing you have right is 9/11/01 was a Conspiracy, but it was our government working with the terrorists and allowing this to happen. By all evidence our government knew the plan was in place. Certain key figures and important people were notified beforehand. And the CIA and DEA had a long friendship with Bin Laden. He got what he wanted, the corporate-government masters got what they wanted and our freedom has never been the same since. THAT'S your 9/11/01 Conspiracy.

Tons of flaming debris and steel causing an uncontrollable fire to burn for hours.

"Uncontrollable fire!"

That building was bombed from the air by the other towers.

"A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. "

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Building 7?

This is an interesting perspective. Don't you think they might have made arrangements for controlled demolitions as a backup, because you can simulate everything else accurately in that scenario beforehand except the collapsing part. The "planners" could not have been 100% sure the buildings would collapse from the crash as they were specifically designed to withstand a jumbojet crashing into it.

[deleted]

40 minutes ... about the time the towers took isn't it? Interesting. Yes, heat travels up, thus the melted steel. There's a fantastic PBS Nova special on all of this, which I am sure you all deny as liberal media lies from ( enter nutjob right-wing idiot theory here ). But when engineers that built the building, scientists, more engineers and scientists and even MORE engineers and scientists, state their facts and conclusions without adding theory and conjecture, I'll trust their findings over those of talk radio blowhards. Too bad you folks can't see you've been hoodwinked by the Conspiracy itself into looking for fake conspiracies. As your busy fileting this red herring their sharks are eating your few remaining rights. But hey, I'm not Glenn Beck or Alex Jones or any number of loud abrasive jackasses who have a flock of sheep to fleece. None of you have listened to me yet, none of you will now.

Watched it yesterday! If you're referring to Nova at least. Funded by the Koch brothers, so I personally don't put much stock in the conclusions. They also had a JFK special that reached total opposite conclusions from a BBC documentary I watched.

Add in the terrible fire retardant foam insulation that shook or melted off and the all around iffy design of the buildings, you have disaster. Occam's razor people. All facts, all science point to exactly what happened.

I'll stick with the conspiracy if those are the facts

tower 7 - documented evidence it was a controlled demolition done to preserve rescue and recovery efforts. look it up. Building evacuated and they used equipment from the area to pull out it's main supports.

Aluminum studs in the wall and light gauge steel members, will melt in a fire. If it's also galvanized, it will burn green. Cool as hell.

thermite residue or residue similar in composition to thermite? Two different things. Lots of old crap and materials laying around inside high rise buildings. I know because I work on crews that built a few. Lots of it toxic, like asbestos, will stay around and never be removed due to saturating air intake systems with dangerous particulates.

Melted concrete? WTF is wrong with you, that stuff does not melt. It turns into a powder, you add water, and it's concrete again.

Jump off a skyscraper, or survive one collapse. Or survive a giant airplane smashing into one with you in it. Lets see if you don't vaporize into meaty chunks upon that sudden impact.

When iron workers, and steel framers erect buildings they make all kinds of cuts, modify members, even retrofitting because they get the wrong pieces and it is too expensive to ship back. Along with an airplane cutting a building in half, that is designed to collapse within itself so it does not topple over and smash other buildings, one of the buildings did which is what damaged WTC 7, It is not surprising there are pieces cut at 45 degree angles.

You are too focused on how it happened. Not why it was allowed to happen. Follow the money.

tower 7 - documented evidence it was a controlled demolition done to preserve rescue and recovery efforts. look it up. Building evacuated and they used equipment from the area to pull out it's main supports.

Tell me more.

It is all in here, plus some.....

http://www.debunking911.com/

I'm not going to read an entire website you linked just to back up one of your McFacts.

I'm not going to read an entire website you linked just to back up one of your McFacts.

Yes, good. Never read, never research, never think. Have a hamburger and relax. Someone will think for you.

I've read that entire site before. There's nothing suggesting that had equipment pull down building 7, and I defy you to link specifically to anything that says that.

I'm not going to read an entire website you linked just to back up one of your McFacts.

I've read that entire site before.

Which one is it bub?

I'm not going to read an entire website you linked just to back up one of your McFacts.

I think he was saying, I am not going to read the entire website to find the one example nick eludes to. As in he did not want to sift through that mess. Also, the burden of proof is on nick to back up his claims.

What that might have read on the first one is that I'm not going through that whole website to find the thing he's trying to say is debunked.

I have read that site before. Probably in its entirety. There is nothing that suggests as he said that they pulled the main column supports from building 7.

Typical. A person who only reads what they want to believe.

I'm sorry but your claims are 100% incorrect. The three over-engineered skyscrapers were brought down with conventional explosives. WTC 7 was not pulled down. If you want to offer support to your theory, you are more than welcome to. Please do.

I am incorrect, but you are stuck an internet sleuth on reddit.

applause

Changing the world one upvote at a time, but only if it's the truth, according to the way you believe it to be ture.

Oooohhhhh...burn! Though not really. It's fun when others attack for seeking the truth. Always an honorable endeavor.

Unlike you apparently, I seek truth. Your understanding of the events that fateful day are incredibly lacking, yet you speak the lies with such conviction. This indicates an incredibly foolish person, or one using interested in pushing lies on the public. I hope for the former, but cannot discount the latter.

Typical.

Yes. You are expected to go down a list of talking points and parrot soundbites.

Completely unrelated but I think "McFacts" should totally be a thing at McDonalds.

tower 7 - documented evidence it was a controlled demolition done to preserve rescue and recovery efforts. look it up.

Can you provide info? I'd look it up but since this is one of the most hotly debated topics surrounding 9/11 something tells me it's not going to be the first google result.

Along with an airplane cutting a building in half, that is designed to collapse within itself so it does not topple over and smash other buildings

Do you have any citation for this? I thought I'd heard it explicitly stated by someone involved in building it that it was not engineered to fall into itself.

http://www.debunking911.com/

They all have to be designed that way, specifically in New York due to the lack of space and the potential for a humongous disaster if they were not.

Seems silly to use all of that expensive demo equipment and planning if they were designed from the start to fall that way. Especially if they can design it so that asymmetrical damage wil cause a symmetrical collapse.

The architects who designed those buildings say that they could withstand multiple collisions by the same aircrafts that struck them, without coming down.

They pre-rig all skyscrapers to come down in an emergency? This is highly reckless, and sadly horribly incorrect. You've been misinformed, and are now spreading disinfo. Stop it.

Well. I wouldn't immediately put that point away. Knowing the WTC complex was a choice target for terrorism (according to the FBI anyway) as well as the presence of various high profile agencies in WTC7 itself. Knowing it was built during the Cold War frenzy. Knowing New-York is a coastal city, hence a possible bridge head (?) for an enemy invasion. etc. I feel real fucking confident believing pre-rigging the buildings for demolition (as they were getting built) is a thing the cold warriors have at least considered. Better blow it all up than let them commies get a chance of stuffing their noses in our stuff!! etc

OK! Just saying.

Knowing the WTC complex was a choice target for terrorism (according to the FBI anyway)

considering that the FBI effectively bombed the WTC themselves in 1993, they supplied the bomb maker and materials to the morons that wanted to, those people had no technical ability to build a bomb, so the FBI supplied them with an ex Egyptian army technical expert. an FBI asset.

all got revealed by journalists doing FOIA on the FBI, the telephone conversations ("give me more money or I lose the bomb") between the NY FBI and the bomb builder are on the internet of you can be bothered to google for it.

It's a nice fantasy to believe, but it's not even close to the truth. If this were true, one nutjob building administrator or janitor would have had a bad day with his wife, and chose to commit murder/suicide in the grandest of fashion. Also, killing your fantasy theory, explosives DO NOT last forever, and must be regularly inspected and maintained. You cant pack them away in steel I-beams for 45 years, then hope to God they work when to need them.

It's clear that you can see conventional explosives were used to bring all three towers down. Now what is challenging you is that to have explosives used, they would have to have been pre-planted by someone. Airplanes and simple office fires DO NOT cause over-engineered skyscrapers to collapse.

so says the person named iamagod.

so says the person named iamagod

targeting the messenger not the message

Disinfo 101. These cowards cannot debate FACT, so they shadily attempt every other bullshit distraction possible. Pathetic fools, that can't even appear credible here. Hide the fact that they are state sponsored disinfo. They are losing every battle, and overall, the war on truth.

To see such tactics employed indicates just how badly they are losing. I share the truth with everyone I know. And I can say with certainty, of all the people I know, far more than even before (80-90%) now KNOW the truth of that day. These assholes days are numbered. Those responsible for the staged 9/11 attacks on America WILL be brought to justice, and will pay dearly for their absolutely disgusting crimes against humanity.

And this somehow discredits FACT to you? It doesn't work like that. I am not claiming to be the God, nor does this serve any relevance to the FACTS a are discussing around the staged 9/11 attacks.

The mental gymnastics required to believe the official government conspiracy theory presented in the NIST and Commission reports is incredible.

It's pathetic to see people such as yourself support the machine that is working around the clock to destroy you and your loved ones. The cowardice required to actively disregard the truth that shines brightly directly in front of you.

We are seeing much bullshit disinfo spread here. Pre-rigged to collapse at a moment's notice. To collapse perfectly into its own footprint. Ridiculous.

Nano thermite has no place in a skyscraper. They didn't pull anything to bring WTC7 down. It was brought down by conventional explosives, and nano thermite to sever the key supports.

For towers 1&2:

The theory says that a structural failure due to fires caused the top section to drop one floor, which set off a chain reaction that completely demolished the buildings. The dynamic force simply overwhelms the building structure below. Gage notes that his theory ignores the structural resistance supplied by about 300 massive columns in the building."

Melted concrete? WTF is wrong with you, that stuff does not melt. It turns into a powder, you add water, and it's concrete again.

when concrete sets its a one way process, a chemical process.

you can use clean concrete as aggregate, but chemically its done for as cement.

concrete can 'melt', we saw this happen to two towers on 9/11/01, the cement binding the aggregate turned to dust as the towers were blown apart and down with chemical explosives.

Aluminum studs in the wall and light gauge steel members, will melt in a fire. If it's also galvanized, it will burn green. Cool as hell.

folded steel studs, nobody uses aluminum for studding/structure apart from plane makers.

and aluminum is anodized not galvanized. theres a subtle difference in the process, one a cubicle warrior quoting from TLA talking points would not understand. comprehend before quoting BS.

the gage of steel makes no difference to the melting point.

tower 7 - documented evidence it was a controlled demolition done to preserve rescue and recovery efforts.

thats gotta hurt when you consider all the govt agencies and their files and offices, and SEC criminal archives that got destroyed that day.

a happy day for Worldcom and Enron execs/perps tho.

Thanks. I'm pondering what to rant and rave about next. God knows this sub keeps me pretty worked up (in a good way).

Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11

"Our purpose was to document the event"

This is what was supposedly translated from the video segment. I find those words used to be quite strange and chilling. Is this a direct translation? Is there any other way to interpret the language used here? What else could they mean by "purpose", and did they admit to knowing in advance?

Where are these people now? The whole thing seems too strange to be just a coincidence.

I'm curious - what information in the FBI reports do you think supports the idea that they had advance knowledge?

Certainly their behavior was odd (although they suggest it was because they knew that the USA would now be unable to ignore Islamic terror).

Oooohhhhh...burn! Though not really. It's fun when others attack for seeking the truth. Always an honorable endeavor.

Unlike you apparently, I seek truth. Your understanding of the events that fateful day are incredibly lacking, yet you speak the lies with such conviction. This indicates an incredibly foolish person, or one using interested in pushing lies on the public. I hope for the former, but cannot discount the latter.

Surely your just being pedantic here. Would the techniques researched and developed in projects like MK-ULTRA be used almost exclusively for social/behavioural engineering?

What is it exactly I'm discrediting? You're just coming across as shitty right now.

You're telling me you don't remember how you ran away?

You are imagining things again, I clearly said:

Then you are unable to have a reasonable discussion. I will not admit you coming here demanding me for evidence of my claims when you refuse to provide the same for yours when I asked for those first.

This discussion is over.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21ts5o/in_1975_wtc1_had_a_fire_more_intense_than_911s/cggtphg

Cease your false accusations.

I love how you ignored this:

Ho-lee shit. You make a post claiming the fires in 75 were worse than the ones on9/11. To do this, you yourself must take the temps on 9/11, which you don't have, and compare them to the temps and locations from '75, which you also didn't provide. You can't assert the claims in your OP without any evidence. You have no ground to stand on to require me to provide you anything. Yet I'm the one unwilling to discuss?

I'll repeat again, since you missed it. You made the claim. You don't have the proof. You claiming I have no right to ask for proof does not make you correct. You then clammed up. Questions?

Joseph Nobels, a theology student with no apparent background in engineering or architecture, runs a website that supposedly "debunks" the work put together by actual architects and engineers.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

Right, I just meant he was very scientifically knowledgeable. This has led to him being close-minded in certain things. I know I have argued before with him about the notoriety of certain publications. If it's not a large institution he takes it with a grain of salt, and when it is NIST or Nature or the like he accepts anything they say.