CONTINUATION

Despite public belief, the building did in fact collapse with sudden onset of free-fall (18 visible stories in 3.9s), there were no stages. A better explanation is provided below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=4536

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=207&MMN_position=616:616

There was also a loud explosion that occured right before the penthouse collapse. That explosion cannot possibly be from any structure "snapping" or "failing" because you would hear in that same video the rest of the building collapse as well, which you do not. If you cannot hear the entire building collapse then that explosion couldn't possibly be from a column failing.

In contrast with the WTC7 building, here you can see the other buildings that were hit with exponentially bigger forces (hit directly by the towers' debris), some which under larger fires and did not globally collapse:

WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, Deutsche bank building

And here are buildings that suffered extreme office fires and did not turn into a pile of ruble:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

To end this list I would like to make a question which isn't meant to seek an answer but purely to make you ponder:

If you weren't aware of which buildings collapsed that day; Which one of these two buildings would you say turned into a pile of rubble: WTC5 or WTC7?

^{PS: For any debunker that tries to answer/debunk the question even though I clearly stated that I am not looking for an answer but to make people ponder:}

^{Remember that NIST has already stated that the structural damage was irrelevant and that the building would still have collapsed without any damage:http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21ubl5/people_trying_to_debunk_911/cggtw3u.}

^{The argument of pointing out how much smoke there was on the other side is also irrelevant for 1 reason: smoke is not fire. For both pictures I only show the actual fires in both buildings and not the smoke coming out from either one.}

Felt like I had to repost this once more with all the recent traction around 9/11 again, so I appologize if it bothers those that had already read it.

I appologize if it bothers those that had already read it.

You could post this monthly and it would be fine with me. We get about 300 new subscribers here every day.

I agree!

Yeah, please post this monthly, I enjoy refreshing my mind with these great facts and analysis of 9/11.

I can't help but thinking what we're missing that they are doing right now while we further analyze this, but yes, it is important to keep these facts prominently displayed.

When 911 happened, I was willing to give a lot of 'benefit of the doubts' to the united states but that is all gone. Every single point where I was suspicious turned out the suspicion was completely warranted.

'debunkers' or those who believe the story can only continue at this point by holding their ears, covering their eyes and screaming as loud as they can.

Let's just not let the people who perpetrate crimes like this use the '911 movement' or whatever it, to play right into their hands again. When people have so many resources and such an information advantage, it's very difficult to keep from being manipulated into being used in yet another ploy.

So keep heads on shoulders, one of my favorite posters:

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/20/do-not-discard-brain.html

When 911 happened, I was willing to give a lot of 'benefit of the doubts' to the united states but that is all gone. Every single point where I was suspicious turned out the suspicion was completely warranted.

I'm curious as to what those doubts were, if you don't mind sharing. I won't challenge you on any of it and I'm not asking for you to provide evidence for your conclusions. Bullet points are fine.

why both buildings fell straight down why they knew so quickly who the 19 hijackers were why george h.w. bush was in the white house that night why george w bush didn't react immediately, the expression on his face why u.s. air defense was nowhere to be seen

then a few weeks later what government agencies were in those sections that were hit the head of security at the world trade center had had suspicions how presidential memos had warned of the attack a month before yet nothing had been done the saudi plane the stock trading the fbi and the u.s. army knew those guys were in the country how israeli agents were living down the street in florida from the hijackers how it possibly could have been planned from 'a cave' building 7

At first it wasn't a lot of things, but when I saw the towers actually fall, something in my gut said that was too perfect.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Evidence you won't ask for evidence?

spot the 'tard ^

[deleted]

he is a conspiratard, hence the comment, you tard

[deleted]

y

Damn! It's like the only possible example of sustainable growth!

We get about 300 new subscribers here every day.

Really? If so, it would be a COINTELPRO dream come true, sorry for off topic, but if that # is a fact, thats going to be one poisoned well!

but if that # is a fact

That was the average while I was modding here. Mods have access to traffic stats and that's one of the stats included. Make a note of the number of subscribers right now then check it again in a few days.

Do you happen to know if shadowbanned and/or mod banned users still show up in the subscriber count?

No, I don't know.

Glad you said this as I'm new here and to Reddit!

Despite the fact that the top section tilted and was only ~30%(33floors) of the building it was still capable of destroying the remaining ~69%(76 floors) completely, directly violating Newton's third law.

Despite the top being only ~16% of the building (weaker and lighter), the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining ~93% 83% perfectly intact structure (stronger as well) defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.

How in any way shape or form is this a violation of physics? A entire building basically dropped onto the rest of the building causing it collapse. This is how physics works. There is tons of footage of it happening too how can you say it didn't happen?

It was weakened by the impact, damage, and heat that weakened steel; then fell causing a chain reaction of supports breaking all the way down to the ground as thousands of tons fell, you really think a plane has enough kinetic energy to knock a building of that size sideways? Thats like something out of a cartoon.

However. the real problem I have with this is:

Your version of Newton's 3rd Law:

"In which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body."

Newton's version of the 3rd Law:

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

How can you just make up laws of nature and try to pass them as fact in a list like this where your trying to invoke thought? Its just blatantly false and makes it appear that you just copy pasted this whole thing from somewhere without reading it.

Either cross that off your list and get rid of it or fix it because if you can't get basic things like that right how are you gonna convince anyone to question anything especially when they are questioning your competence and intentions.

Also thanks for the ban for trying to get someone who stickies a post to at least get the laws of physic right, real mature and thought inducing r/conspiracy. Seems like this is not really a good place to criticize and help to improve theories.

In response to Youngy:

This model your trying to express to me does not account for a building that is in a gravitation field like in reality, furthermore it does not account for the structural integrity which was most clearly compromised in this case consider a plane hit the building and the building's massive support column fell on another building (WTC7 if your wondering).

To make my point the structural integrity is what is counter acting the force (F=(mass of the entire building)(-9.8m/s²⁾⁾ from bring the whole building down. Its not rocket science to understand that if something counter acting that kind of force fails or is compromised the whole house of cards will come down.

The video you posted:

First;

Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong.

This guy's mind was made up while and before he did the experiment and him saying something like that is dead give away this guy has no respect for the scientific method and did those experiments in a way to cherry pick the answer he wanted.

Second you can't compare the structural integrity of concrete blocks that support each other with no load such as an entire building bearing down on them. They are basically completely solid objects in that context and in no way can they take the place of an entire structure of a building in an experiment and are many orders of a magnitude off in describing the reality of an entire building.

A better experiment would be to try the same thing with sticks, cards, legos (a lot to be accurate to reality). Basically the differences in scale render that experiment's results meaningless in the context of the complicated support structure involved in a real building, especially one that large.

Therefore, for example, a 12 story piece falling onto a 24 story building should leave 12 stories standing whilst destroying 12 stories of the building and the block which crushed them.

Thats not how that works. Every floor feels the force/strain and if one of them fails and breaks then the rest surely will too. You can't reduce something like that to simple subtraction.

If what your saying is true then this would not exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle

It also invalidates Newton's equation of forces equaling mass times acceleration, which is just simply not the case. Thats a common misconception, glad I could clear that up for you.

Basically, if the top section is pushing down with a force, the intact building will push back with the same force. The top section of the building will destroy itself at the same rate as the amount if is destroying below. Therefore, for example, a 12 story piece falling onto a 24 story building should leave 12 stories standing whilst destroying 12 stories of the building and the block which crushed them. If I drop a large brick onto a stack of bricks the brick doesn't magically break all of them, it will break the top one and lose energy. We would expect it to slow down because it is loosing energy from destroying the building below, but in the twin towers we see an acceleration.

EDIT: This experiment shows this well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s#t=385

Not only an acceleration, but the demolition front is objectively measurable to proceed at the rate of gravity. If I am to believe that is inevitable, then you can have my degree, it's worthless. All that education for nothing.. wow.

OK, prove it is faster than 9.8m/s²²

Edit: number

faster? why?

You are certainly losing energy as the building falls, but at the same time you are gaining energy as the gravitational potential energy of the building is transfered into kinetic energy. The is a point that many people forget. You have an energy input as well as an output. The real question is, which is larger? The output or the input?

Source?

This is high school physics.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

You want me to provide a source for what? That gravitational potential energy is real? That it gets transfered Ino kinetic energy when something falls? If you need a source for anything I said, than I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion. This is very basic stuff.

gravitational potential energy of the building is transfered into kinetic energy

look at the total energy balance here.

• the upper block appears to be disintegrating
• energy is transformed flinging massive girders at high velocity sideways
  
• energy is transformed pulverizing the building to little pieces
• hot clouds of dust knock people over, burn cars, and chase people down the street
• a lot of noise
  
• molten steel, hotspots and 2400F fires that lasted for months, like you were in a foundry.
  

yet still the 'collapse' front proceeds at nearly the rate of gravity, and doesn't topple, but proceeds through the path of resistance, the steel core, just destroyed. completely. how you could not test for explosives is beyond me. what kind of insurance company is that? there were multiple reports of explosions from first responders to consider. very basic stuff.

lets put physics into this lets say your 1/3 of a building fell, it accelerated at 9.8m/s and the building weighs say 30 tons (to make math simple) so the force(F=MV) of that fall is equal to F= 10 x 9.8 F= 98 tons of force falling on 20 tons of building surely the floor below it wouldn't be able to withstand 98 tons of force when it was only built to withstand the floor above it. The WTC weighed an estimated 450,000 tons (Source) so the force of 1/3 of the building was equivalent to 1.47 million tons of force coming down.

to continue on the physics each floor was roughly 10 ft, that means the building would fall 10 ft, hit a floor, continue falling (with the weight of the floor above it added) until it hit the next floor and continue until it hit the ground

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp7XQCYBLbo

The WTC was not made of bricks this video is irrelevant

This is grossly oversimplified. Every floor of the building will feel the strain of an impact from above, from the first floor to the top. If the force is strong enough to buckle a floor then it's quite possible for every floor to buckle in response. You can't simplify building collapse to addition and subtraction, that's just silly.

You can't simplify building collapse to addition and subtraction, that's just silly.

We can. That's literally what the Vérinage is all about, a demolition technique that uses the same principle that we have been discussing in this thread: 50% of the building falling on 50% of the building to result in 0% standing.

Or more, as long as the top and the bottom are accordingly weakened.

Here's a compilation of this technique using the "grossly oversimplified" addition and subtraction on multiple different buildings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

It's basic physics applied to the most simple and complex scenarios.

No that is like saying two card hitting each other head on is the same as their combined speed aka 50 + 50 = 100 but here in reality 100 per car is 100+100=200. Gravity is pretty strong when it is throwing entire buildings, that aren't designed to fail structurally, and throws them down.

Source?

Thank you for saying what I was going to say. It is difficult to take a person seriously when they go about with obvious misunderstandings of physics that look like they were copy-pasted from some shitty blog with not sources.

Source?

There is tons of footage of it happening too how can you say it didn't happen?

Just because something happened doesn't mean it happened the way you were told. If you search for any tall building destruction that results in a pile of rubble all of the examples you will find will be demolitions, all of them. The 3 towers on 9/11 were also demolished, otherwise they would still be AT LEAST partially standing.

But I don't expect that you will ever grasp the obvious since you think like this:

A entire building basically dropped onto the rest of the building causing it collapse. This is how physics works.

It's like reading something written by Bill O'Reilly.

Thought ending cliches aside, how exactly does any of what happened violate the laws of phsyics?

I'm not trying to disprove anything you are saying, what I'm trying to get at is why do you think a building falling from having it supports destroyed would fall over sideways? If you destroy something's supports it will fall straight down imparting forces, very large ones in this case, on the things below it causing those to fall as well.

A plane hitting a building and destroying the supports would cause the same effects as a demolition, how can you reasonably prove one or the other happened? I just don't think this is very good proof, though provoking maybe, but proof that it was for certain not the impact and heat that caused the towers to fall in the way they did its not.

Before you go calling me Bill O' Reilly so you can dismiss the thoughts that you yourself said you wanted to provoke in your post, at least consider stating what your getting at with some clarification as to how something is violating a law of physics not just saying that it is. Show us some evidence because otherwise we are just gonna sit here and be confused.

Other than "If you search for any tall building destruction that results in a pile of rubble all of the examples you will find will be demolitions, all of them" this at least, you drop anything from height with other things tumbling around and it will be a pile of rubble.

In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to even find other buildings as big as the twin towers that have ever fell, considering that I don't think any example you can provide of buildings falling is even relevant, at least not convincingly so because of the mass discrepancies.

A entire building basically dropped onto the rest of the building causing it collapse. This is how physics works.

This is pure and simple idiocy. 30% of a building does not an entire building make. Also, it was not "dropped." it supposedly collapsed from a position where it had rested safely for the last 26 years and remained safely resting even after a massive airliner had collided with it (as it was designed to.)

You can't even argue with people this stupid.

[deleted]

This insightful analysis brought to you by:

Micheal Bay movies, Fox News and No child left behind.

TIL a jetliner crashing into the building doesn't have any effect on it's integrity, and even remains safely standing because it was designed that way.

You can't argue with people this stupid.

Why you call us stupid after you imply a statement made by us that is actually correct is beyond me:

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

You realize if you break something not made to work when broken, it stops working right? Especially when it is a giant steel structure almost buckling under its own weight on its own.

let's take an imaginary structure. Here are the two main supports. II.

Now cut them in the middle. Do they still hold? Nope. You are removing material and shifting the entire structure, putting more strain on it. If I cut an inch out of the main supports at the base of the building the whole thing would collapse.

Even if you were magically able to remove an entire floor from one of the towers, the top section would still not free fall through the rest.

WTC7 is easier to focus on.

You realize that for free-fall to be upheld, every single core structure, every single support beam would have to have been cut within a few hundred milliseconds of each other?

It's like you somehow are imagining the structure of the building to be made of glass, and that the frame somehow shattered when it collapsed. This is not how the world works. That building could have probably been held up with 1/4 of all core columns removed.

It's absurd that you could rationalize a symmetric pulverization through office fires. Absurd.

Actually it would. These are completely static structures, not built to move or change. If it was built to be modular, then it might work but even then the amount of force gravity has on it, and it had the connections to lock into place, it would just smash them. Look up mythbusters "knock your socks off part 2" where they use the tow truck to hit buster. There is a big difference between a tow truck hitting you at 40mph and a battering ram at 40mph. Mass matters.

These are completely static structures, not built to move or change. If it was built to be modular, then it might work but even then the amount of force gravity has on it, and it had the connections to lock into place, it would just smash them.

Peer reviewed source?

Yeah...no...

Structures are designed and engineered to just barely stand under their own weight, with almost no wiggle room. Ever see a suspension bridge? If a relatively small number of cables break, say 2 or 3, the entire thing fails.

It's like the old saying, "Anyone can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to just barely build a bridge."

Umm... no. Ever heard of Margin of Safety?

"Anyone can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to just barely build a bridge."

Source?

Source for an arbitrary saying? That's like trying to source for saying, "if it smells like a duck..."

You're misinterpreting it. What it means is that anybody can build a bridge that stands, all they have to do is put material on it until it's structurally sound really. But it takes an engineer to just barely build a bridge that stands, meaning that an engineers job is to design devices in the way that just barely meet the requirements in the cheapest way possible. That's what engineering is really about.

So you made it up? What else have you made up in this thread?

Yes the top would free fall through the rest. Do you know how much mass there is? Look up the myth busters knock your socks off part 1 and 2. Mass means everything. If I got the top half to move even at the slowest speed downwards, everything would start moving and the rest of the structure wouldn't be able to handle it. Why do you think it is hard for a train to stop? Mass.

Yes the top would free fall through the rest.

Source?

Physics. The general consensus among everyone in America is that it was caused by an airplane, by a terrorist organisation. You are claiming otherwise, you have to provide evidence disproving that it was physics.

general consensus

aka the majority? the majority are fools as you well know

You realize if you break something not made to work when broken, it stops working right?

Source?

There are 2 approaches for the discussion that you are opening now:

1) How would it behave if it was possible

2) How would it behave if it wasn't possible

For the number 1 you have the possible collapse driven by gravity, which is possible when done on purpose, in a demolition. It's a technique called Vérinage, in which (most of the times) the building is weakened to the point of just standing (buildings are built to withstand x times their own weight) on its own weight and the experts force a collapse at the mid section which initiates a pile driving of 50% of the top of the building against the remaining 50% of the bottom of the building.

Here is a compilation showing this technique being used multiple times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

This technique follows the laws of physics: 50% to destroy 50% using gravity alone and the impact of the top against the bottom is clearly detected when measured, as physics tells us it should. Here is David Chandler explaining the jolt that is present in any gravity driven demolition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

If the towers were, somehow, so weak that they would collapse when the top section fell then they had to display that jolt, which they did not. All 3 towers, not one presents that jolt. And, let's not forget, that there is a reason why this technique is done at the mid section of the buildings, because any higher or lower would result in an incomplete demolition since one of the tops would have more floors than the other to be destroyed.

For the number 2 you have the impossible collapse driven by gravity, which if the collapse at the impact section was to occur, it wouldn't have progressed all the way down. Even if the tower was as weak as not to be able to support the weight of the top section falling on the bottom section, each tower should have remained standing with a considerable number of floors intact.

Tall buildings are made to stand, especially the WTC towers. When compared with buildings that have been weakened on purpose to be demolished and were still strong enough to withstand huge falls under their own weight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

It becomes obvious that the only reason the WTC towers could behave like they did was because they were demolished.

Had the towers presented the jolt that must exist in a gravity impact between two bodies and collapsed only partially then the possibility of it being a demolition would be almost null.

Since they haven't and people insist that those were normal collapses then by definition it violates the laws of physics: no impact jolt and complete destruction from 3 different asymmetrical collapses = not possible without demolition.

I don't see why its not possible without demolition, even if that is true for it not be able to collapse that way isn't a large jet aircraft full of fuel enough to demolish a building in that way? Its never happened before either there are not tests where somebody flies that large of a fully loaded plane into a building thats literally the only example that has ever happened and to compare it to the behavior of other collapses just seems incomplete.

Its basically the same thing, the plane takes out the supports then the heat from fires and jet fuel fires weakens the steel in the middle causing it to collapse in much the same fashion.

It would be really hard to prove that it was in fact a demolition with explosives when it makes much more sense to accept that it fell because of an unintended demolition by jet air craft. Why would the building even have to be demolished for there to be a conspiracy? Isn't the act of terror in and of itself enough to get the same effect? Wouldn't the towers have to be demolished anyways since they would be terribly unsafe after such acts?

1) How would it behave if it was possible 2) How would it behave if it wasn't possible

There are more than two possibilities, the physics of such a collapse are more complicated than that. You not allowing any other options thinking so close minded like that. Thats how you pigeon hole yourself and blind yourself of possible truths.

I don't see why its not possible without demolition

Right there you replaced your lack of knowledge with blind belief after I clearly explained to you scientifically why it couldn't be a collapse.

As I said before, it's like I'm reading something written by Bill O'Reilly: "Tides goes in, tides goes out, you can't explain that".

It is clear that it doesn't matter what I say or show to you, you will continue insisting that it is possible by compensating your lack of knowledge with biased personal incredulity arguments while ignoring the factual data and evidental examples disproving the collapse theory.

Why would the building even have to be demolished for there to be a conspiracy? Isn't the act of terror in and of itself enough to get the same effect? Wouldn't the towers have to be demolished anyways since they would be terribly unsafe after such acts?

I can give you plenty of answers, you would still reject them and prove that those questionaires are yet again another waste of time just like your first reply.

If you truly believe in the official version of events then that's all great for you, but don't come here and say that buildings completely collapsing on their own is physics when you clearly don't even know physics. Especially when you refer to 30% and 15% of the twin towers as "a entire building".

[deleted]

The science isn't on your side, that is why you have to post to r/conspiracy. If anything you said was based on actual science, you could post to the science subreddits.

Another one with logic fallacies. It has been posted plenty of times, problem is people like you, the debunkers army downvote the threads to hell and it is attacked by the worst kind of people that do not even tackle the points being made but instead they simply drown it in their own biased denial. Like the MSM does everytime they talk about this, instead of actually addressing the points they mock and label the collective of truthers as conspiracy theorists in degrading tones.

Go ahead and try, you'll just be laughed out of the subreddit.

I am absolutely sure of that, that's what they do, they mock and scorn and downvote instead of actually looking at it with a resonable mind and argumenting accordingly. Pretty much the reasons why these things aren't posted on other subs is because of people like you and even when we don't post outside this sub you guys actually stalk us here and try to brigade and ruin our threads in our own sub, just like you are doing right now.

So you are just Bill O'Reilly in the creationist subreddit posting your biblical theories based on your lack of scientific understanding. None of your "science" actual holds up as science.

Incorrect. The logic fallacies are on your side. You are the ones that use conjecture as absolute evidence and you are also the ones that believe in the NIST report on faith alone since that report provides absolutely no corroboration for any of their claims; i.e. exactly the same as a bible and it's followers, the creationists.

The fact that you have only used logic fallacies in your comment shows the mentallity of a Bill O'Reilly as well.

You need the safety of your echochamber because you can't admit you're just wrong.

I am sure that you have a very vivid imagination that doesn't let you see reality by what it is and forces you to live in denial.

In the mean time, do you know what you haven't done like many other debunkers? You haven't actually addressed any of the points of this thread and instead proceeded directly to mocking and using logic fallacies to prove your completely irrelevant points.

How about a very simple point for you, one that doesn't require any expertise at all:

If the official version is true, why do the debris path of Flight 93 and the witness report completely contradict the flight path that is officially defended?

If your next reply is not a reply to the question I made then you will prove that you have absolutely no interest in a reasonable discussion about the topic of the thread and that you are solely comitted to derailing it by focusing on biased incredulity logic fallacies.

[deleted]

No, they look at your basic understanding of the situation and realize you don't know as much as you think you know and dismiss you.

blah blah blah

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

And just like I warned you before:

"If your next reply is not a reply to the question I made then you will prove that you have absolutely no interest in a reasonable discussion about the topic of the thread and that you are solely comitted to derailing it by focusing on biased incredulity logic fallacies."

Thank you for proving all of the points I made before with such a mature reply, this discussion is now over.

[deleted]

I'm not going to be drawn into petty arguments over your "evidence".

I just wanted to explain why you are Bill O'Reilly and much like creationists.

Your belief is more important than the evidence.

You need the echo chamber or you are dismissed. You can't handle the fact that you are wrong.

Your science isn't science, people aren't dismissing you because they haven't looked, they are dismissing you because you are wrong.

And for the 3rd time you resort to your biased incredulities instead of actually answering the question.

The fact that you refuse to answer a simple question by calling by labeling it "petty arguments" just shows exactly why you, and many like you, are like Bill O'Reilly. Keep changing the subject and avoiding the crucial points being made.

Stop spamming me with your blind beliefs on a report that has plenty of claims and 0 corroboration. This discussion was already over.

[deleted]

And for the 3rd time you resort to your biased incredulities instead of actually answering the question.

The fact that you refuse to answer a simple question by calling by labeling it "petty arguments" just shows exactly why you, and many like you, are like Bill O'Reilly. Keep changing the subject and avoiding the crucial points being made.

Stop spamming me with your blind beliefs on a report that has plenty of claims and 0 corroboration. This discussion was already over.

[deleted]

My topic was you calling people Bill O'Reilly and creationists. That was something you claimed, not I. So I wanted to discuss that topic.

If you really want to discuss that topic then go to r/conspiratard, you will feel right at home there.

Here, in this thread, the subject is about the listed problems and contradictions with the 9/11 official version of events. If you continue insisting on a different subject you will be reported for spamming and thread derailment.

[deleted]

Keep adding more text to your comments after I reply and, most of all, keep using ad-hominem like you did just now. I asked you a question, you didn't reply and you still insisted on your logic fallacies. Stop bothering me with your biased incredulities, this discussion is already over.

[deleted]

I asked you a question, you didn't reply and you still insisted on your logic fallacies. Stop bothering me with your biased incredulities, this discussion is already over.

[deleted]

My topic was you calling people Bill O'Reilly and creationists. That was something you claimed, not I. So I wanted to discuss that topic.

If you really want to discuss that topic then go to r/conspiratard, you will feel right at home there.

Here, in this thread, the subject is about the listed problems and contradictions with the 9/11 official version of events. If you continue insisting on a different subject you will be reported for spamming and thread derailment.

I rip out your heart.

You die.

"But it was only 5% of his body!"

Basically It boils down to why. Why demolish buildings in a fake attack when the effects of the fake attack and demolition are one and the same. Why waste the time and risk being caught with explosive rigging or having more people involved?

Saying a jolt did or didn't happen isn't really enough to say with certainty what did or did not happen, I just don't think its good evidence because there is no way to prove that demolition does or does not have the effect on a building of that size as jet airlines.

Bias is not part of this argument I simply stating there is nothing else to compare the event to thus you cannot compare it to demolitions (especially just videos of events, there is no solid data here, your eyes can deceive you and so can cameras and people with editing software and intelligent cropping.) and say with any degree of certainty that they are or are not related.

15% of the towers are an entire building in the context of weight, its like hammering a nail into wood like in your example and expecting the forces to cause the nail fall sideways. This is initially why I question this, this phrase right here: "Despite the top being only ~16% of the building (weaker and lighter), the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining ~93% 83% perfectly intact structure (stronger as well) defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body." This is blatantly false you can't model an entire building composed of thousands of materials and pieces as a single solid block. With the forces involved a tower of mud and sand is more accurate to reality. Of course something smaller can destroy something bigger.

The whole idea of it being demolished just seems pretty cobbled together with random 'scientific terms' thrown in. I keep asking people for good arguments or any sort of solid evidence besides just running footage and saying random terms. I see no math, nothing solid, no structural integrity data, no impact data, nothing, no simulation, nothing solid at all.

Just ideas being thrown around and people believing in them because they sound like it makes sense. I saw this idea and asked if there was any solid data and the reason why a group of conspirators would even need to fake a demolition when the act of terror and effects thereof already happened. I wanted someone to sway me and make this seem like a legitimate possibility but so far I see nothing but random insults and lack of thought being thrown at me.

Also don't misquote Newton and in the same breadth call someone else Bill O' Reily, while bending and misrepresenting scientific laws to suite your argument

Your version of Newton's 3rd Law:

"In which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body."

Newton's version of the 3rd Law:

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

The top of the towers fell on the lower parts, they were both destroyed there is NO violation of any laws here.

You have to understand the weight of the arguments your making, youtube videos are not evidence, "the official story" is backed up by many PEER-REVIEWED journals meaning they are backed up by thousands of scientists and engineers with stacks and mounds of data and information not youtube videos and random people. If you are to claim such huge statements that physics were violated therefore it must have been demolished intentionally then your going to have to some damn good evidence and not insults to anyone who questions your hypothesis.

It just doesn't make sense to argue against so much evidence if your trying to prove there was a conspiracy especially when the conspiracy does not require you to do so to be true.

The evidence your going against to give you an idea of the enormity of the stuff your trying to disprove for no apparent reason other than because you think this, this is a summary of the information I speak of and link to the source at the bottom of the page:

"Accumulation of copious photographic and video material. With the assistance of the media, public agencies and individual photographers, NIST acquired and organized nearly 7,000 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 150 hours and nearly 7,000 photographs representing at least 185 photographers. This guided the Investigation Team's efforts to determine the condition of the buildings following the aircraft impact, the evolution of the fires, and the subsequent deterioration of the structure. Establishment of the baseline performance of the WTC towers, i.e., estimating the expected performance of the towers under normal design loads and conditions. The baseline performance analysis also helped to estimate the ability of the towers to withstand the unexpected events of September 11, 2001. Establishing the baseline performance of the towers began with the compilation and analysis of the procedures and practices used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the structural, fire protection, and egress systems of the WTC towers. The additional components of the performance analysis were the standard fire resistance of the WTC truss-framed floor system, the quality and properties of the structural steels used in the towers, and the response of the WTC towers to the design gravity and wind loads. Simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11, 2001, in four steps: The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting distribution of aviation fuel, and the damage to the structure, partitions, thermal insulation materials, and building contents. The evolution of multi-floor fires. The heating and consequent weakening of the structural elements by the fires. The response of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progression of structural component failures leading to the initiation of the collapse of the towers."

"The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse. In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors. In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel."

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view."

Source that has gone through extensive peer review, the summary of the relevant information above:

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017

If you really truly believe the laws of physics were violated and this report is incorrect or there is some problem or something was missed accidentally or intentionally via a conspiracy, please point it out, that is my initial question's objective, along with pointing out your made up version of the 3rd law of motion which is troubling.

The NIST report was not peer-reviewed.

Neither are anyone's claims on here about this being an inside job...

Uh, ok, you got me there. I guess all I can really believe is that Atta's passport survived the plane crashing, multiple fires, and the buildings collapsing to be found on top of the rubble with minimal damage. It truly was a magic day, never anything like it to be seen again in my lifetime.

OK. Let's say this passport inexplicably survived. Let's say we 100% know it is fake. So what? How does this prove anything other than a passport inexplicably survived? Also it isn't that unbelievable. If its in a bag that gets thrown out then rubble falls on it I don't think that is super crazy, especially when people on the upper floors are literally killing themselves, a bag going unnoticed isn't much.

How much highly improbable bullshit can happen in one tragedy in three different locations. At what point do you stop listening to your cognitive dissonance and actually ask yourself why freefall, why thermate, why magic passports, why a boeing jet violated aerodynamics (pentagon), why so much physical and recorded evidence contradicts the official story. And then WTC 7. The third building collapsing into its footprint like any well planned demolition, the same collapse reported 20 minutes before its occurrence on the BBC, while the presenter read the report and the BBC's camera was on WTC 7. Yes, a magic day where the inexplicable happened and the news knew the future. Keep on believin' man. Keep on believin'.

OK, so let's say aton of improbable things happened. How do you get to "it was planned"? Also, I have never seen anyone demonstrate that and laws of physics were violated anywhere. Please be the first.

Source?

Me: browsing here and everyone arguing without showing evidence of explosives being placed there by the government.

Basically It boils down to why. Why demolish buildings in a fake attack when the effects of the fake attack and demolition are one and the same. Why waste the time and risk being caught with explosive rigging or having more people involved?

The buildings were leisurely rigged for demolition during elevator maintenance from July-Sept.

The planes were a diversionary tactic to give plausible deniability (heh, barely) to the now painfully obvious truth of controlled/planned demolition.

Study your history. At least try to have the courage to peek behind the walls of your own indoctrination.

Can you demonstrate explosives were placed there on purpose by the government?

5c) Demand Impossible Proof.

Can you demonstrate they weren't? with a source, thanks. I'll wait.

That's a shifting of the burden of proof.

Can you demonstrate the moon is not made entirely of cheese?

Yes, we sent men there and they brought back rocks, even installed a retroreflector we can shine lasers on to show they were there. Also we know we went there because the Russians tracked NASA as they went to the moon.

You've not effectively demonstrated that those "rocks" were not actually quite delicious.

You are right, I didn't, nasa did. Here's a basalt rock. So are you going to show your evidence?

You realize that rock could be domestic or edible right?

Oh I almost forgot

Tower not there = us government did it

good job

You're working under the assumption that I'm obligated to explain myself to you when this is clearly not the case. Am I responsible for making sure that you're comfortable with the physics and logistics required to make 3 buildings disappear in the manner demonstrated on live TV and that it fits with official narrative and doctrine?

I'm not a journalist and you're not my editor. You want the truth? Go find it yourself or go ask your government... your call.

That is literally what feminists say, let me copy paste what they say.

"Go educate yourself!" and they never show the facts. If you want me to quote suey park when asked to explain herself "I just said I'm not going to enact the labor of doing that"

Dude you still haven't proven that your rock isn't cheese and you're accusing me of being a hairypit? Wow.

Basically It boils down to why.

3000 people dead creates a bigger terror impact. It also helped Larry getting his top of the line new towers with the insurance money without even needing to pay for demolishing the old ones that were condemned for asbestos. It also helped with destroying any evidence that could show that the airplanes were actually empty and instead being remotely controlled.

Maybe you didn't notice, but the US government has been jamming the "Terror" and "Terrorists" accross everyone's faces to justify everything they want for the past 13 years.

They have also tried to stage a confirmed false flag called Operation Northwoods that is very similar to 9/11, but JFK rejected it. That's a documented false flag operation signed by the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff stopped by the same man that ended up being killed.

So far you have only argued with fallacy about one problem from the multiples that I listed, and you still insist on trying to disprove all this based on your biased imagination which can be quickly disproved with a simple google search.

This is the last time I will reply to you and I regret that I have wasted my time. I should have known better than to talk to another Bill O'Reilly.

Excellent. An understanding of Operation Northwoods puts it in perspective for folks.

So does understanding the Hegalian dialectic.

It also helped with destroying any evidence that could show that the airplanes were actually empty and instead being remotely controlled.

OK... That really proves me that you're cherry picking elements. How the hell do you explain countless remains of passengers found and in some cases DNA identified on the crime scene?

Are you being fucking serious right now? Do you honestly believe they were able to identify passengers of the flights that collided with the towers by DNA? You watch too much television.

LOL

Some bodies from the hijacked planes were definitely identified very quickly via DNA.

This article was written just a year after the event, and it says:

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

The wikipedia page about the flight 11 also mentions it clearly. As a matter of fact they are still trying to identify victims today. This is on ongoing task as a lot of new technologies today which were not available 13 years ago have opened a few possibilities to examine more altered remains.

I'm going to assume that you understand you're quoting the NY Daily News.

Ok, so now that i provided a source supporting factually my point, you're now arguing the legitimacy of my source... quite an irony considering that most of the conspirationist are using obscure blogs to support their claims.

supporting factually my point.

While it may offer support. Whether or not it is a fact is unproven.

ಠ_ಠ

How many different sources do you need to accept a fact? Seems to me that it is none when it does not fit your views.

It is a scientific fact that DNA test are possible, and they are still being made today.

I just disagree that it's possible to make accurate DNA identifications from a pool of over 20,000 pieces of human remains. What are they comparing this DNA evidence to for accuracy? Hair from a brush? Did they collect a DNA reference point for every known missing person from 9/11? Seriously, Get out of here.

Did they collect a DNA reference point for every known missing person from 9/11?

This is how DNA is being matched, and this is what many families also want to get closure. Here is a recent article actually covering this.

Some more sources on the DNA of the victims. and below a quote from this article.

Of the 2,753 people reported missing at the World Trade Center, 1,115 victims, or 41 percent, have not been identified through a DNA match to items provided by families — toothbrushes, combs, clothing or swabs from relatives. With ever-advancing technology yielding results that were impossible a dozen years ago, the unique genetic code gleaned from the bits of bone is the only hope for families waiting for anything tangible to officially confirm what they already know: Their loved one is dead.

There are multiples articles mentioning the identification of victims from DNA since the events: here, here, and more recently here.

Based on all those sources, I would be interested to know which elements you feel are not to be trusted. Ultimately, I would greatly appreciate if you could send me your sources for believing that DNA matching practices made to identify 9/11 victimes should not be trusted or considered fake.

Seriously, Get out of here.

This subreddit is a place for debate, not for cheap insults. Please be respectful.

if i told you i had bubblegum on my shoe would you believe me?

Really think about what you just said, next time you take for granted what you just read on an obscure blog.

it would depend on if the info on that 'obscure blog' key'd in and rang true with the rest of my ten years of research i suppose.

ten years of research

you're a joke man

I too believe all of the planes were flown by remote.

Flight 93 landed in Cincinnati. I believe they did the ole switcharoo with all four planes.

what???

Were they with the passengers inside or emptied of them?

The passengers were emptied. Flight 93 landed in Cincinnati. For all four planes, they did the ole switcharoo. I've researched 9/11 galore. I have come to the conclusion that the three planes were unmanned. A missile is what hit the pentagon.

[deleted]

Yeah I'm pretty sure after questioning him about his version of the 3rd law of motion that he has no idea what he is talking about and actually just copy pasted the whole thing from somewhere without checking it for inconsistencies.

Probably just a troll, or has a slight or major mental illness involving delusions.

I answered your quesitons with immense detail resulted by my own research and approached them from various positions to which you completely changed the subject of "how it can't be demolition" to "why do it". I even took the time and patience to still play along after tou completely changed subject to one that could only be met with assumptions and which I clearly explained that it would be a pointless excercise. Now you accuse me of being a troll or having mental problems?

You are a despicable and disgusting person.

He insisted on questions that can only be answered with asssumptions, I gave him one. I especially stated that it would be a pointless exercise, he still insisted on it. Now I am criticized because of this. No wonder you are a r/conspiratard member, now you try to insist on more questions that even if answered you will reject and ask even more questions, over and over again, which even if answered won't make you a difference.

I didn't see any remains of passengers, I didn't even see one finger nail from any passsenger and, much like the Bin Laden fraud, it is pretty easy to have someone lying, saying that the DNA checks out. Not that you care because like I said before, this is a pointless exercise.

So far the thread I made here never even implied anything related to motives and methods, only you two have been forcibly trying to change subject to make everything seem ridiculous over somethings that are purely assumptions at this point.

So far you have only argued with fallacy about one problem from the multiples that I listed

If there are such blatant misrepresentations with one of these things it brings into question the rest of it. IF your willing to just throw manipulation laws of physics to fit your argument what else are you willing to misrepresent or bend to make your list seem solid? You can't just throw all this together and get mad when people read it and call them names to shield yourself because your afraid to put more thought into something because parts of it might be wrong.

I'd cross the violation of physics off your list cause it brings down the rest of your list, pun not intended.

You wanted to provoke intelligent thought and you got it, now you reject it and call the people thinking names.

According to NIST, each floor -composed by concrete and steel- was being destroyed as fast as the impact between a stick and a cue ball.

This is also blatantly wrong. Did you even read the reports? This is not claimed at all. Its fully acknowledged in the report and can be proven through simple physics calculations that is not possible.

You added more text in your previous reply -like a wall of text filed with copy-pastes-, I will just point out the last part that you state this:

If you really truly believe the laws of physics were violated and this report is incorrect or there is some problem or something was missed accidentally or intentionally via a conspiracy, please point it out, that is my initial question's objective.

Gladly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuGI82tOhEI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Dainin-1048299-why-the-nist-wtc-7-report-false/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

http://www.911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/761-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html

Further I add, all the claims NIST makes in their report are absolutely uncorroborated, they have literally 0 evidence supporting any of their claims and to make things worse, they refuse to release the input data they used in their simulations:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

This means that not only their claims have no evidence but the simulations that they based their claims on cannot be verified at all. Adding this to all the previously listed problems and anyone with a common sense will conclude that they falsified their simulations (dry lab) in order to achieve a look-alike result to pin their theory on.

I'd cross the violation of physics off your list cause it brings down the rest of your list, pun not intended.

I am sure that physics violations brings down the erroneous path of debris disproving the official path of flight 93. That's some sound logic once again.

You wanted to provoke intelligent thought and you got it, now you reject it and call the people thinking names.

I did, I wanted to provoke intelligent thought but I got just the opposite once again, sadly.

Hopefully you will stop adding more walls of copy-paste text after I reply because I am beyond tired of this waste of time.

EDIT: Yet again you keep adding things after I reply.

This is also blatantly wrong. Did you even read the reports? This is not claimed at all. Its fully acknowledged in the report and can be proven through simple physics calculations that is not possible.

I used their values and did the math, if you claim that it is wrong then prove it, otherwise cease with your empty false accusations.

I am sure that physics violations brings down the erroneous path of debris disproving the official path of flight 93. That's some sound logic once again.

It most certainly does since your willing to make up scientific laws, what other disinformation are you capable of?

Also the data your referring to is the data on WTC7 that they wouldn't release and that was in 2009, the other data is freely available.

Here it is:

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

Here is the information on WTC7 which corroborates NIST quite nicely.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

It most certainly does since your willing to make up scientific laws, what other disinformation are you capable of?

2 false accusations in one sentence.

1 - I did not make up scientific laws, I mentioned the ones that existed.

2 - The debris path of flight 93 has been reported by the official entities, the only thing I pointed was that it contradicts the official version of the flight 93 flight path and it is correct with the witness and acars radar data reports.

I see that after all this you are now resorting to false accusations to make your points. This discussion is over.

I did not make up scientific laws, I mentioned the ones that existed.

You did, you said this; "Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body."

You wrote it, it is made up, therefore you made up a scientific law. Thats why I initially questioned why you were trying to make an argument with a blatantly made up law. Making things up in so blatantly really bugs me which is why I'm calling you out for it.

2 - The debris path of flight 93 has been reported by the official entities, the only thing I pointed was that it contradicts the official version of the flight 93 flight path and it is correct with the witness and acars radar data reports.

I never even mentioned this.

I see that after all this you are now resorting to false accusations to make your points. This discussion is over.

[deleted]

i comment your efforts - but learn to spot a troll faster bro

I knew it beforehand, that's why I had to reply to stop his disinformation before the people from that other sub could start manipulating his comment to the top. And as I suspected it attracted at least 2 r/conspiratard members. This wouldn't be necessary if the mods would reinforce the no trolling rule.

How is quoting something you directly stated the same as making a false accusation? You're not doing yourself any favors here, especially since you've been unable to refute or answer a single one of Womec's arguements. :\

I guess this is what happens when all your sources are youtubes and conspiracy sites.

[deleted]

[deleted]

seeing a conspiracy theorist accuse someone else of confirmation bias is legit fucking hilarious.

Even more "legit fucking hilarious" when that conspiracy theorist is absolutely right.

Basically It boils down to why.

No it doesn't. It boils down to "how." Science over speculation. The official story is provably false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

http://uwaterloo911.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/david-proe-and-ianthomas-wtc7-comments.pdf

[deleted]

Because when you break support beams gravity takes over and buildings fall down?

[deleted]

Long term large scale office fired burning for hours slowly softened the steel supports and over time catastrophically failed because gravity?

[deleted]

Things don't need to burn at 1500c, the flames only need to get to 1500c. Butane from a lighter can burn that hot, lots of polymers can, short circuits can make plasma which burns pretty damn hot and can start more fires.

[deleted]

Along with several megawatts of electricity and plastics.

[deleted]

I don't think you know how much power electricity actually is. A single 9v battery stores about 4.5 watts, every single socket in a building (at least by american standards) can put out 1500w. The total wattage in that video was maybe 360 watts. (500MaH per battery times about 80 batteries times 9v)

[deleted]

300w? Since when did the standard of american wiring known as "120VAC on 10A wires minnimum and most houses having 15A wiring, 10A breakers but (I think) 30A for 240VAC sockets on all houses since the 90s" go?

[deleted]

I'm getting tired and probably going to bed soon.

[deleted]

A small fire can burn plastic on a wire casing, then they can touch?

goto bed dude, you have proved absolutely fuck all here.

I don't see why its not possible without demolition

no, of course you don't.

Yeah you used a lot of fallacies there, first one being along the lines of "buildings fall down, JUST LIKE IN DEMOLITIONS OMG, it must've been a demolition".

Stop assuming physics can't physics if you don't know how to physics or logic.

Stop assuming physics can't physics if you don't know how to physics or logic.

Translation please.

You can see in the video the building falling sideways and then correcting it's course downwards. If the mass of the building beneath the part that was tipped 30 degrees was providing resistance then the path of least resistance is obviously to continue tilting out into open air and fall sideways. The other explanation is that the mass of the building was not providing resistance, either because it was being pulverized by explosives/scalar waves or whatever; or because of some vague "really big building" physics that no one seems to understand, but which also can't be completely ruled out because the buildings were unique.

I can show you something that demonstrates you wrong:

the twin towers.

But you are too incredulous to accept that...

That's the logic of a creationist. The legitimacy of the twin towers being a collapse or not is what is in question, you cannot use them to prove themselves.

That's the same thing as saying that God makes humans and use humans as proof of that.

In one sentence you managed to both ridicule yourself and mock debunkers even more. I don't know about you but I will stop here and you should too.

Says the person who thinks that ahem "building falling on building because gravity" is something from the mind of bill o Reilly. Yup, totally reasonable.

Now you are twisting my words. I said you should have stopped, you didn't.

I clearly expressed how the biased conjecture logic that I quoted was like reading something written by Bill O'Reilly, not that it was because the OP said that buildings fall because of gravity.

You have already started with creationist logic, now you are resorting to twisting my own words. I gave you this one last chance so this is my second and last advice, you should stop now before you ridicule yourself even more.

>username is gay unicorn.

OK, you do that buddy...

Nicely done. I haven't seen this before, but I agree that it should become something akin to a "sticky".

Our world and our existence has become more unpleasant and certainly more dangerous because of these events. And the fact that none of us know the truth behind the people responsible for them, nor the details involved in their execution (which is important in understanding the scope of who is responsible) creates a very real scourge which affects us all. The painful event of 9/11 and it's aftermath—the effects of which grow to this day—will never fade until the truth is made known.

Cool story. Looks to me like a lot of interpretation. Let me ask you. How many victims have you spoke to personally?

What is your investigative background?

rispec tha victims!

(by not doing an investigation until they publicly beg and shame you into it after >400days)

Good point. That is a grey area for sure.

You are aware that a great many victims families are active members in the pursuit of a new investigation? Or were you just playing the sympathy card?

This list is utter shit. I'll make a full debunking in a day or two.

3 days later we are still waiting...

editing video takes time

longer than "a day or two" ?

so why did you claim a day or 2?

are you used to making false claims?

OP pls

3logic5me

Nice try idiot, you can't debunk shit, while it has already been debunked, we are waiting for something other than (george H W BUSH) : "we have reason to believe, they have weaponz of mss d3structiun, and that al-quCIAda was most deffintly the perpetrator"

If you were a jihadi, what would you rather blow up given unfettered access to DC airspace? The White House, or some section of the Pentagon undergoing renovation?

...and investigating a stray $2.3trillion.

Whoa dude. Don't let rationality get in the way of a good TALE OF TERROR!!!

They were assigned targets. Flight 93 was theorized to be headed to the White House.

Source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-was-flight-93-target/

Source? how did they know where it was heading?

A high-ranking al Qaeda detainee told investigators the intended target of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, was the White House.

Did you even read that?

after how many water-boards?

Why believe it? He was probably tortured and gave a false ccnfession.

Bullshit. How do they know that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-was-flight-93-target/

imagine the look on their faces when they are sitting in a cave on the other side of the planet, watching the planes crash into the buildings- then realizing that 3 buildings ended up collapsing into themselves.

Ancient Arab mathematicians invented algebra, those devilish geniuses must have known all along this would happen!

To play devils advocate, the 4th plane may have been going for the white house.

Source?

building7 is far more likely

If you have the preconceived notion that it is a conspiracy then maybe. If you look at it from the point of view as a terrorist attack then it makes no sense.

when something makes no sense it is often due to a lack of knowledge.

Peer review?

Dude, what are you even talking about?

If you were a terrorist flying a commercial airliner for the first time, would you:

a) kamikaze nose dive into the top of the pentagon for the most damage and casualties possible

or

b) skim along the ground at speeds that normally would tear your aircraft to pieces before hitting the side wall (newly renovated!) with your jet to minimize casualties and damage to the building?

...and investigating a stray $2.3trillion.

cha-ching!

Post this twice a month, amend it if needed. If the majority of people start questioning this and demand answers, hopefully eventually we will have the impetus needed for real change.

[deleted]

Ever read 1984? The idea of the memory hole is quite trippy in this sense.

Note that the 9/11 memorial is two big square holes.

That 'New Pearl Harbour' documentary is perhaps the most convincing and comprehensive video on the subject I've seen.

If you enjoyed that one I would like to plug in another amazing one done by the pilots for 911 truth, a recent documentary entitled Skygate 911.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3NyFX9ZJsQ

And one of the firsts I saw back when youtube was still a white box, shared mostly through forums, the 2006 lecture from a UnderwriterLaboratories employee fired after asking questions during the NIST fire tests: A New Standard for Deception: The NIST WTC Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuGI82tOhEI

And the recent lecture of David Chandler, a man that has been sacrificing a lot for quite some time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c

Thanks.

Yeah, that was by far the most comprehensive and analytic review of 9/11, great documentary.

It better be considering it's 5 hours. But there's a lot to it and it presents it in a very accessible way. I could show it to someone who has never heard anything other than the official story and they can get on board.

As someone who enjoys you guys a lot, I have to agree, keep posting.

flightpaths and stewart airport

400+ days before any investigation

kissinger selected to chair investigation

Kissinger gave Obama his very first job.

...You're just saying buzzwords. What about any of these things and what do they show, or ideally, prove?

they prove the so called investigation was an underfunded joke of a whitewash "designed to fail" in the very words of one of the members of the commission.

at this point a true shill rolls out the "they were only trying to coverup incompetence and mis-management" meme.

if that was the case; why did most of the people identifiable as being in positions which aided or facilitated the attack on that day receive promotions and or rewards?

p.s./tldr they sound like 'buzzwords' to you because you are clueless.

This covers a lot of the mechanics / physics of the day, but I've always liked this list for operational / programmatic scope. Added together they make good companion pieces: A Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 There were some updates collected on the 11th anniversary but the site that they appeared on is down today.

Great post - I wish everyone sat down and took an hour or two to go through it.

I just read it through in under 10 minutes. It shouldn't take that long to absorb. :)

I wish people would take 2 minutes to watch a fucking video where you can see rubble falling faster than the tower did, making it plainly obvious that the tower did not experience free fall.

Source?

Once again great work!

Edit: My only problem is with the "bright flashes" before the planes hit. That's some old disinfo right there. It should probably be removed, as it doesn't help to prove anything once you've made the argument for controlled demolition. It's a distraction.

the flashes exist in the only video of the first hit and all videos of the 2nd hit that are from an angle which it is visible. where exactly is the "disinfo" in that fact?

No, we should never get rid of evidence that doesn't fit within the narrative within which we are working. If we can't do anything with it, leave it aside. Speculation can be useful, but I can see the fear that evidence without good explanation can be seen as discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. Discarding evidence is not the proper way to investigate unexplained phenomena. We may require or be able to use that piece of evidence later. It is highly unusual that a flash just before impact was captured for both planes from all camera angles. It's real. We just don't know what caused it. We have to deal with uncertainty to investigate properly. We are not playing for those that choose not to examine the available evidence. It won't help us to truncate our evidence attempting to please the deniers. Let them demand their certainty and eat it out of the hands of authority until they are ready to stop being mislead. They'll stop when they want to stop.

Agreed. That was like some loose change first edition stuff.

This is defiantly nice work! Need to keep posting this info again and again so people can continue to see the truth of that event.

An illiterate conspiracy theorist.

Good luck in life, dude.

Stop blabbing please!

He's right, you need to be clear and concise in order for people to take you seriously.

clear and concise

Really? Will that be the official game changer!

This is an interesting collection of ideas. As a broadcast engineer with a British military background I can help clear up some of the flaws there in and help you provide better evidence to use in comparison:

The Airports:

United States CCTV in 2001 ranged in frame rate from 1-30fps (29.9 to be exact). Unless you were there in 2001 at both airports and working in those CCTV Control rooms, it is impossible to know what cameras were actively recording.

In any large commercial building up to 50% will be dummy cameras. Of those left about 50% of the active cameras will be recording.

Also to positively identify any given individual from CCTV normally requires at least two different camera shots to verify movement from entrance to boarding. Back in 2001 before facial recognition software was readily available it would have been easier to mask one's profile with sunglasses and headwear or even just a hoodie.

So the lack of recorded video is very easily believable.

Also, comparing the footage to an event on a post 9/11 military compound that occurred 12 years later is redundant at best. You'll need to show evidence of another large event from the same time period.

The Hijacks:

When attacked from behind by surprise with a knife it can be difficult to get any kind of message released. Anyone with a military background with active experience will tell you that one's first reaction to combat is almost always going to be personal safety or the safety of their colleague, not using their radio.

This explanation alone is enough to warrant calling this lack of action into question specious.

Pennsylvania:

To say that the engine hit the same ground as the other can be rejected easily. The plane was not completely horizontal when it hit and the level of the ground it struck was not completely level either. This small difference can cause a huge difference in impact results. I am sure that you will be able to find many examples of aircraft losing engines on contact with the ground from World War 2.

For engine impact compression you will definitely be able to find evidence of this in crashed fighters over France. (Time Team in Britain did a whole show dedicated to such an incident)

Tower Collapses:

Your physics is severely flawed, even your expression of Newton's Third Law is completely inaccurate.

In both instances of WT1 and 2 it is not X stories falling on top of Y stories. It is X stories falling on 1 story then that story added to the rest falling on the next.

I only comment on these areas as I either have direct experience in the field (broadcast engineering vis a vis CCTV and Hijacking/ radios as an experienced radioman who saw active service in three different theatres of operational combat) or a good understanding and higher knowledge of engineering and physics.

I am also in no way saying that it was or was not a hoax. I'm just doing my bit to help you present your theories in a way that will not be so easily dismissed.

Compare the facts and present comparable evidence without bias. A good example of this is most of what you presented with the cell phone calls. If you can categorically prove that a call cannot continue after a plane has crashed then you're onto an absolute winner. Is there any evidence of this in other situations?

United States CCTV in 2001 ranged in frame rate from 1-30fps

The fact that not even the pentagon had such cameras and that the video footage of the high fps camera lacked any timestamp has been ignored in this observation. I also haven't seen any document or evidence suggesting that the airport had installed such system.

So the lack of recorded video is very easily believable.

You are assuming that the airports had 50% dummy cameras and the alleged terrorists could have been in disguise in order to pass unknown on the cameras without any evidence of this beside personal opinion. It is as believable as the other possibility.

Also, comparing the footage to an event on a post 9/11 military compound that occurred 12 years later is redundant at best.

Partially true. It was merely used as an example of how the videos of such a shocking event were quickly and completely broadcasted from all the possible angles. Hence the "In contrast".

When attacked from behind by surprise

4 pilots and 4 co-pilots, not one of them was capable of sending a hijack warning when the terrorists entered the cockpits by forcing the doors open. I say "forcing the doors open" because at least one of the black boxes indicates that the cockpit door was closed for the entire flight duration.

To say that the engine hit the same ground

The FDR data indicates that the engines were both in the same impact conditions, angles, speeds and roll, directed at the same ground. Regardless of what you assume, this can't be rejected easily.

For engine impact compression

I don't doubt about impact compression at all, I never even questioned that. What I pointed out clearly was the absolute lack of the massive parts that encased the engine in the picture.

You also ignored the fact that the path of debris and witness report completely contradicts the official version.

In both instances of WT1 and 2 it is not X stories falling on top of Y stories. It is X stories falling on 1 story then that story added to the rest falling on the next.

Incorrect. It is on both occasions 1 floor with X and gravity above impacting on 1 floor with Y below. You also ignored the fact that the top sections that allegedly collapsed were composed of the lightest and weakest part of the buildings.

I am also in no way saying that it was or was not a hoax. I'm just doing my bit to help you present your theories in a way that will not be so easily dismissed.

Nor was I, this list merely shows that the official version of events has serious problems and a new, proper and especially more transparent investigation must be conducted.

If you can categorically prove that a call cannot continue after a plane has crashed then you're onto an absolute winner. Is there any evidence of this in other situations?

We have already proved that the cellphone calls couldn't have been made on 9/11 at the reported altitudes and it made no difference, I don't see why you think this would be different. Also, it is not I (us) who have to prove that something cannot be done, that's a logic fallacy. It is they (whoever defends the official version) that have to prove that it is possible.

Even besides this, it cannot in any shape or form explain why Todd Beamer described the hijack happening 20 minutes before it actually did.

Regarding CCTV: Yes I assume. The onus is not on me to prove anything one way or the other, it's not my report. Have you contacted the airport to verify what system they had in place or how many dummy cameras they had?

Regarding Hijacking: The link provided contains a csv file with your evidence. Unfortunately that csv file is not downloadable. Can you provide another? As you have read and analysed the csv file, can you determine beyond any measure of doubt that the sensor was not faulty?

Regarding Pennsylvania: the first two links support my supposition. the plane's flight path was -35 degrees and the pitch looks to be -5 degrees to port onto uneven ground as supported by your second link.

The third link is inconclusive as I can't even see the engine you're describing, just the back of the wing, a disintegrated aileron / landing flap and a hell of a lot of foam. Do you have a full web page describing the contents of this photo or a clearer image?

Regarding WTC 1&2: You just enhanced my supposition further proving your supposition incorrect. This, in combination with the proper definition of Newton's third law should clear this up for you.

Regarding cell phones: I have no idea what you mean about altitudes as I made no reference to altitude and cellphones and has nothing to do with what I suggested. But having proof is simply excellent! Do you have data of the experiments taken place by the airline companies or independent parties to prove this, or better yet videos of the explosions? That would be simply awesome footage!

Lastly - logic fallacies. Partially true, but to make such claims without full knowledge, back up experimentation or data can leave you in a hole. How far are you willing to go?

Lastly Lastly - The passengers of the aircraft. If the Pennsylvania flight was a complete hoax with a fictitious crash scene, are the passengers and crew fictitious as well and if not, what happened to them or the people on board the other three aircraft?

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

Cheers

Have you contacted the airport to verify what system they had in place or how many dummy cameras they had?

No and this is a deflection. The fact is that until that video was released, 3 years after the fact, there were only 1-5fps CCTV recordings and all of them had timestamps.

The link provided contains a csv file with your evidence.

This only took me 5s in google to find: Http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/FinalFlightComplete.zip

can you determine beyond any measure of doubt that the sensor was not faulty?

The airplane's maintenance reports did not accuse any malfunction. If you can prove that it was faulty then go ahead.

the first two links support my supposition.

I have absolutely no doubt that you truly believe in that, as much as you believe that a leveled ground is uneven enough to send one jet engine to a pond 300 yards away and the other completely compressed under 3 and half feet of dirt.

The third link is inconclusive

It shows what should be present in the flight 93's crash site. Those are debris from a boeing 737 that nose dived at almost 90º http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-plane-crash-caught-on-surveillance-video/

You just enhanced my supposition further proving your supposition incorrect.

Incorrect, you were trying to make the collapse look like it was a big block crashing one floor at each time when in fact it's 2 floors being crushed between two big blocks at the same time. The problem is, as I have very exaustingly explained before, once the top block runs out of floors to crush the remaining bottom floors then the collapse should have stopped, which it didn't. It's basic physics that is applicable to any collision scenario.

I have no idea what you mean about altitudes

I provided a clear example of how proving that calls couldn't continue after the crash would be a pointless exercise since a similar test was done and made no difference.

Partially true, but to make such claims without full knowledge, back up experimentation or data can leave you in a hole. How far are you willing to go?

Both the 911 commission report and the NIST report are filled with humongous holes and even contradictions, and yet the debunker collective is perfectly fine with it. I'd say in matters of holes from individual independend unfunded researches, I'm perfectly fine with going as far as I am able to.

If the Pennsylvania flight was a complete hoax with a fictitious crash scene, are the passengers and crew fictitious as well and if not, what happened to them or the people on board the other three aircraft?

Irrelevant question, it can only be answered with speculation or once a new investigation is conducted. If you truly want to engage in speculative discussions then all of your questions (including this one) can be answered after a quick google search.

And for the second time you are ignoring the fact that the top blocks of the WTC towers were lighter and weaker than the bottom sections, that both the path of debris and the witness report contradicts the official version of the flight 93, and the Todd Beamer call describing the hijack 20 minutes before it actually happened.

Since you have avoided these crucial aspects for two times in a row and instead pursuit points that are being tackled with a personally biased interpretations of reality, willful ignorance of physics and attempts at engaging in speculative discussion, I will end my part in this discussion here. You are free to continue this discussion but you will do so without me.

If it's worth anything for you, I would really appreciate if you could take the time to watch these 4 videos, these will explain the reasons why people like me do not believe in the official version of events. Warning, the last 3 are very long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuGI82tOhEI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3NyFX9ZJsQ

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

Just to clarify: At no point did I say I believe or disbelieve anyone else.

Also you gave me a photo evidence of a missing cowling, which turned out to be a completely different event. Please don't mislead people like that.

I did not ignore any 'facts' at all. I even mentioned those like the lighter weight of the towers, my friend. The base truth is that no buildings that high have ever come down in an uncontrolled manner before and you just cannot claim it can't happen because of your physics.

Lastly. I only offered insight into aspect of your conclusions that have similar gaping holes so you can close them. I have my own theories on 9/11 and will be keeping it squarely to myself. Pooh poohing my observations of your piece blindly and so quickly suggests you have a clear vision of what happened and squarely dismiss any ideas to the contrary. This does not help your case from the stand points of common sense or scientific inquiry.

I do, however hope that the unflawed parts of your claims are investigated in full, and though it is just supposition with no sources or experiments to back them up I do believe they should be investigated.

they've been "investigated" before.

Lack of cameras, I'm with you there.

The rest, not so much. you're missing WT 3 which magically self imploded.

There were a lot of people on that plane, box cutters don't win with being that outnumbered.

Hi Huge, great name.

I have no comment to make on WT3 because I have no experience that can offer to help shed any light on the evidence at hand. I'm not an architectural expert.

The rest I could help with.

Regarding box cutters I can guarantee that I could incapacitate four or five untrained people with a box cutter in a confined space in a matter of seconds, taking the the first two or three before anyone could really digest what was happening. I wasn't special forces or specially trained to assault aircraft either, just trained how to use weapons.

As stated before I have no opinion one way or the other on 9/11, but I can believe aspects of both sides, be it pro or anti government. Just trying to help this guy clean up his message so it doesn't get ridiculed for basic fallacies in physics and the technology of the day.

Hi deadbeatbert, great name.

Regarding box cutters I can guarantee that I could incapacitate four or five untrained people with a box cutter in a confined space in a matter of seconds

extremely unlikely when going from threatening with a box-cutter to using it, aka with the intended victims expecting an attack. as the pilots should have been - and they were ex-military.

I have seen worse things happen with less capable tools.

Other options include using a woman hostage under the threat of slicing her throat. There are so many options here that enable getting access to the cockpit.

Flight 11 phone reports indicate use of mace (possibly something similar) along with the knives and at least one stabbing. No mention of box cutters.

Flight 175 also uses mace (I'm still not willing to say it was 100% mace, but there are plenty of options) and at least two stabbings.

Flight 77 phone records indicate use of knives and box cutters (not just box cutters). No mention of mace.

Flight 93 is the most interesting because there in was a definite 3-4 minute struggle and, as you say this flight was expecting an attack. If you're fighting for your life you are not sending a 3 second hijack code. If mace and/or knives / box cutters are being used against you and you have nothing to use in return,, who has the advantage.

I have seen worse things happen with less capable tools.

1 vs 5 who are expecting an attack? was it versus blind school children? gtfo

Other options include using a woman hostage under the threat of slicing her throat. There are so many options here that enable getting access to the cockpit.

many of which allow the possibility of time to turn 4 dials to a number, try it on a brief case, it takes 5-10s max.

Apologies - no source for information cited.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8754395/911-Voices-from-the-doomed-planes.html

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Flight_93_Cockpit_Transcript - Just double checked this one and it appears the pilot is alive and taken hostage and use of an axe is mentioned as well, possibly an emergency axe already on board the aircraft.

wikisource? lol

As a broadcast engineer with a British military background I can help clear up some of the flaws

appeal to authority.

So the lack of recorded video is very easily believable.

opinion.

This explanation alone is enough to warrant calling this lack of action into question specious.

opinion.

followed by some goalpost moving and more appeal to authority.

aka vaporware.

The only part of the whole OP that isn't opinion is the csv file.

you actually believe that?

Thanks for this. Interesting read

Almost as good as playing Magic the Gathering right?

...how...how'd you know I like mtg

Why else would you be in this subreddit?

Another great post. Could you also add the magic cell phone calls that somehow stayed connected at high altitudes and high speeds?

THis should definitely be added: http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

You can't use high school level physics to model the collapse of the towers.

defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I do know that's not what Newton's third law says.

The youtube video you linked to is even worse. This is how you properly model the collapse of of the towers. Trying to model the progressive collapse of a skyscraper with high school level physics is wildly inaccurate.

See also: Application of computer simulation technology for structure analysis in disaster, Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures, Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I

The bazant theory is an even bigger absurdity than the one you accuse me of, it has been already refuted the moment the top sections did not act as a rigid object (ignore orange and red text) pile driving the remaining structure.

It has also been found that he ignored and exagerated structural strength values that are unrealistic and his model does not account for the destruction of the twin towers' cores.

There is a range of public analyses exposing all the problems with Bazant's work(s) and why his theory is completely flawed.

If you are interested I will link related content regarding this subject:

David Chandler's recent lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c

The missing Jolt that Bazant cannot explain: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Example of the missing jolt that should have been present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

An in depth analysis of the problems with the official version, aka Bazant's theory: http://www.911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

Another analysis exposing the problems of the paper you linked: http://911blogger.com/node/9154/print

Regarding the "See also" that you linked, one asks for $40 regarding a theory surrounding a fire simulation analysis of temperatures that were never proved to have existed on the twin towers in the first place.

The other does the same, they estimate that a core collapse could be possible if the temperatures reached 700ºC.

Why did you think that those uncorroborated 2 simulation speculations would be relevant is beyond me.

Here is how you do a relevant see also:

NIST base their theory on fire that was already extinct: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/761-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html

NIST disregards fire-trusses test results, base their report on unreasonably exagerated computer simulations and on the premise that all fireproofing was completely removed during the impacts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuGI82tOhEI

Pwn3d

He doesn't listen and won't answer any questions you have, plus there are blatant misquotes of scientific laws, don't bother.

Now, after wasting my time, smearing me and calling me names you are going after other people attacking me by making false accusations?

Let's see the kind of person you are just from that comment:

He doesn't listen

I do, and also listened to you far more than anyone would.

and won't answer any questions you have

I actually did, and he didn't even make a question. I also answered your questions as far as patience allowed me to.

plus there are blatant misquotes of scientific laws,

I actually just pointed out the fact that the paper the OP was using to refute my points was in fact completely flawed. You, on the other hand, state your physics with "A entire building basically dropped onto the rest of the building causing it collapse. This is how physics works." without ever having any past or recent example or any computer simulation which is not dry labbed proving it to be true.

don't bother.

I'd appreciate if you would cease your agenda of smearing me behind my back to anyone that is having a conversation with me, especially if you resort to absolute lies and deceit for your accusations.

and won't answer any questions you have

with answers you want to hear.

Yeah, but at least the Port Authority solved its asbestos problem.

With the loss of the USSR as the prime enemy, there was the possibility that the Defense budget could be cut and more money spend on education, roads, bridges, and healthcare. The defense industry couldn't have that! They had become too used to the delicious slop of pig trough! Gotta scare the population into submission!

LOL. Ok so tell me who is at the round table having this discussion.

Firefighter Thomas Donato: "We were standing, waiting for seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.”

Assistant Commissioner James Drury: "I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down.”

Chief Thomas McCarthy: “So when I get to the command post, they just had a flood of guys standing there. They were just waiting for 7 to come down.”

I come here for the fact, but stay to watch the pro-Govt. shills work overtime to explain away the evidence that proves certain elements within the US Govt. were not only complicit but also assisted with the attacks and subsequent cover. The shills that expose themselves in this thread should be labeled so you can ignore them layer. Let them burn many shill accounts in this thread, losing all present and future credibility.

Ain't nothing more obvious than a 911 denier.

It's too bad it's not common knowledge at this point. 9/11 was 100% a setup.

The thing that I keep seeing in deniers is a willful ignorance that appears to arise from the desire to maintain a pleasant state of mind. They ignore evidence and look for things to attack. They want to prove the truthers wrong, but they don't want to honestly examine whether there is actual substance to their arguments. This is why they appear to keep missing so much of what is said. They just wait for something to attack. This behavior helps them internally justify their denial of reality. Deep inside many of them fear that the inside job theory better fits the available evidence and they don't want the mental discomfort that arises from believing such truth.

It is uncomfortable, because it compels action. It's a healthy unease, and if more people had it, we may have insisted on a truly open and independent investigation into 9/11. It seems that conspiracy theorists make a different personal choice. They decide that they will belive what appears to be true even if it makes them feel horrible compared to how they would feel denying it, not that I would regard every one of them as having well sharpened discernment. It seems to me that people that are sloppy with their beliefs are on both sides of this issue, the deniers and the truthers. Both sides tend to excuse their own sloppy minded people as long as they agree with the group. The difference is a personal choice of priority. What does one value more, peace of mind or the truth? Often they conflict and prompt us to remedy things we don't prefer. In denial, we yield our power to those who would deceive us into complacency, into a state of tacit consent to their self-serving behavior.

you are literally christ, carrying the burdens of the world on your shoulders

yup, in the future great psychologists are going to make their name analyzing 911 truth denial and blinkered repeaterism, i am sure. those of us who have been thro it know how uncomfortable that transition is from the dream to the reality. i far prefer being awake, i just wish it was easier to help others.

Well said.

The explanation of how the fall violates Newton's first law is wrong. The tilt isn't big enough for it to continue rolling and fall off the edge --- the intact part of the building underneath would have stopped it.... which leads to how it violates Newton's 3rd law and the 1st law in a more obvious direct way.

The 1st law is more straighforwardly referred to as "conservation of momentum" -- the part of the building which is falling transfers momentum to the lower intact part of the building which it collides with (and some of that momentum is transferred to the Earth if that lower part of the building has any structural integrity at all). This stationary mass which the top is transferring momentum to for them to move together will slow the top part down. Because of this, it is impossible for the fall to have been anywhere near freefall speed without the bottom/interior being already falling beforehand.

This is pretty puzzling too.

His version of Newton's 3rd Law:

"In which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body."

Newton's version of the 3rd Law:

When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

It means that the smaller body can only destroy the same volume and mass from the bigger body. The rest cannot be destroyed since the smaller body does not have the necessary energy for this.

If you'd stop twisting my words and being so biased you would see right away what I was clearly explaining; The tops are too small to have been able to destroy the entire bottom structure.

Like you clearly quoted: When the top exerts a force on the bottom, the bottom simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite direction of the top.

If both are being destroyed and both are exerting the same forces against each other, then the destruction should have stopped once the top blocks had no more floors to continue exerting force. Basic physics, to which you keep ignoring and instead of learning them you choose to insult me and change subjects to irrelevant ones.

The smaller body can only destroy the same volume and mass

This is flat-out false. If you had a large object and a smaller one colliding in space, then the smaller one would have limited effect. However, buildings exist in a gravitational field giving them an enormous amount of potential energy, and having the top fifth of a building start translating that into kinetic energy could easily start a chain reaction.

I don't know all that much about building physics, but it wouldn't violate any of the primary laws.

I don't know all that much about building physics, but it wouldn't violate any of the primary laws.

If you knew you wouldn't have said what you just said before because what you said is just a complete logic fallacy.

You keep forgetting the fundamental principle that for the same number of floors on the top section, there has to be the same number of floors destroyed on the bottom section, i.e. same bodies can destroy each other, not more and not less, and we are ignoring that the top section was lighter and weaker than the bottom one. Once the top runs out of floors to destroy the remaining below the only thing left you have is debris and you cannot by any means at all destroy the rest of the structurally intact bottom with just debris, especially when most were already projected outwards during the fall.

I'd advise you in the future to learn about the things you talk before you claim others of making false statements.

That is not a fundamental principle. I happen to know a decent amount about physics, and I can tell you that a destructive chain reaction in a field of potential is absolutely possible. So if nothing else, I know that your presentation of this as a simple case if Newton's third law is wrong.

If you can provide a credible source (read: a scientific paper or textbook, not a blog or YouTube video) for this as an emergent property in the case of buildings built to modern construction standards, I will believe you. Until such a time as you do that, which I am pretty sure you will not, I will continue to assume that you are simply misunderstanding the basic laws of physics.

Here's the thing that you have to understand: The fact that NIST has never simulated 15% of the weakest and lightest part of a building obliterating the remaining stronger 80% in order to show that it was possible should already ring some bells for you. In fact they have never even explained why all 3 buildings turned into piles of rubble other than a uncorroborated statement of "global collapse was inevitable" without having a single example proving that such thing could have ever happened and thus support their statement.

I don't need to prove that it is not possible, that is a logic fallacy. It's you, and they, that have to prove it to be possible. My claim and my statements is that physics don't allow the top sections to obliterate the bottom sections because they are just too small to manage that, unless the building was being demolished. It's you (debunkers) who have to prove that it is possible, with science and math, prove that it is possible for what happened on that day 3 times in a row and only on that day for the first and only time in the entire history of mankind.

Until you prove that the top sections could could crush all of the bottom ones then my statements stand, unless you doubt that demolition could destroy the buildings.

Here's how the scientific world works: You guys make a claim "The global collapse was inevitable" and don't provide evidence. People challenge that claim and accuse it of being false. Now you guys need to provide evidence that corroborates the claim that you made. Failing to do so will prove the accusation to be valid.

Here's another example, You guys make a claim "WTC7 collapsed because of fires" and don't provide evidence BUT you provide computer simulations. People challenge that claim and accuse it of being false. Now you guys need to provide the simulation in its entirity to corroborate your claim. You provide everything, pretty colorful animations, close-up details, lenghty descriptions but you fail to share the crucial input data, the one that would prove that you used realistic values and not frauduelent values. Failing to do so would prove the accusation to be valid once again.

Unless, by some reason, you think it is perfectly resonable to dismiss all of this under the banner of it coming from a "legitimate" entity, to which in this case we will be comparing the problem of "legitimacy over uncorroborated claims" with the inquisition.

Does this sound reasonable to you? Shouldn't the claims be corroborated or should we just believe in them because legitimacy is somehow more valuable than evidence?

Fair point, it does not lie on you to prove that it is possible; it does lie on you to not blatantly misuse physics terms, which was the original cause of my annoyance.

Anyway, a quick search turned up a 2010 article, "Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a multistory building" by Leslaw Kwasniewski from a Polish university (would this chap still be part of the 'conspiracy'?). This article is from a relatively high-impact journal (Engineering Structures) and has been cited over 50 times in other peer-reviewed publications. It attempts to model with finite analysis the many instances of progressive collapse.
I rest my case that it is possible, unless you can find peer-reviewed article refuting it. If you cannot get access the full text I can try to send it to you, but I don't know the best way to send pdfs.

Here is an excerpt:

After several disastrous building collapses, concepts such as progressive collapse and robustness of structures have been reflected in many research papers and resulted in new codes and guidelines available in Europe [1] and in the United States: [2,3]. The collapse of an entire structure or an essential part of it that is disproportionately large compared to the initiating local damage is considered a progressive collapse. In addition to the design guidelines, the mentioned standards provide provisions for the progressive collapse analysis of newly designed and existing structures. The main objective of such analysis is the assessment of the potential for progressive collapse. The behavior of the structure is analyzed in terms of the alternate load paths, tie forces, connection redundancy and resilience, and catenary or compressive arching actions of the structural members [3]. The studies require consideration of many structural features not included in the original design, such as inelastic material properties and limit values, damage criteria for structural members, and large deformations. Numerous potential causes can be considered for initial structural damage such as gas explosions, terrorist attacks, faulty construction, foundation failure, or accidental vehicle impacts. There are also possible numerous configurations for abnormal loading resulting from such disastrous accidents.

You left out this part here:

The subject of the numerical study is an existing 8-story steel framed structure built for fire tests in the Cardington Large Building Test Facility

But even disregarding that tiny bit of information you left out, you completely deflected the subject. I never said that progressive collapses aren't possible. Hell, the Verinage demolition technique pretty much is based on that being possible.

What I am saying is that progressive collapse is not possible in the case of the twin towers, I am saying that a top block that is 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining 80% structurally intact bottom of the WTC. 15% could only destroy 15%, 16% at best with some of the debris damaging a bit more, but never 80%.

And once more, NIST made their claims and they have been challenged, for all these years they haven't provided corroboration and even denied providing the corroboration for their claims. To this day no one has ever proved with science and math that what happened on that day was possible without demolition, yet you debunkers strongly hold on the words of NIST, on their report that is the equivalent of a bible in which it contains a lot of hay, outstanding claims and absolutely no corroboration.

The truth movement isn't about saying that it was an inside job or aliens did it or nukes went off, the truth movement is about finding the truth, investigating the situation with scientific methods to reach a solid conclusion, run tests and consider them - not reject them -, run realistic simulations - not unrealistic, be impartial towards the goal and not biased.

The truth movement wants a new investigation to find out why the buildings turned into piles of rubble when they shouldn't have since there hasn't ever occurred once in the entire history of manking and suddently it happened 3 times on the same day. They want to understand why it happened and what caused it to happen and they have been showing to the world that the NIST report was dry-labbed, did not follow the scientific method, is fraudulent and set-up to fail.

NIST built their report committed to explain how fire caused everything and the problems with it show this clearly. The truth movement wants an unbiased investigation that is set to find out the real explanation.

My "blantant misuse" of physics is due to the fact that NIST has not proved us wrong. My "misuse" of physics is based on the fact that had it actually been a normal collapse, there should at best be standing 40% of one tower and 60% of the other and WTC7 would at best have fallen to the side, never straight down as it did. It's based on the fact that something like this has never happened before and it has never happened ever since.

These have been thoroughly checked plenty of times and the characteristics of a gravity collapse just simply aren't there, on any of the 3 towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=2030

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

I asked it before but you didn't answer it, so I will repeat it again:

Does this sound reasonable to you? Shouldn't the claims be corroborated or should we just believe in them because legitimacy is somehow more valuable than evidence?

You said:

You keep forgetting the fundamental principle that for the same number of floors on the top section, there has to be the same number of floors destroyed on the bottom section, i.e. same bodies can destroy each other, not more and not less

Which is directly in contradiction with the idea of progressive collapse, which is also known as disproportionate collapse because "the resulting damage is disproportionate to the original cause".

Therefore, I addressed this because you were wrong. I am not a civil engineer, and neither are you, but the experts clearly are in unanimous agreement that it is possible.

Now you seem to back down and change your position, saying that it is only with the Trade Centre that this is impossible. I am not well equiped to argue this; as I said I am not a civil engineer. I can tell you that the articles cited in that video are from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which is not a real journal. From what I gather from Wikipedia, the 9/11 Truther movement has published a total of one paper in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (they did publish several essays, but those are much less strongly regulated), and the editor subsequently resigned and claimed it was published without his knowledge. If over 900 scholars manage to publish a single paper which is unilaterally rejected, I feel entitled to dismiss their ideas.

I could try to argue directly with your points; for example claiming that forces will be present that are sufficient to drive a million ton falling building to the side seems ridiculous; but ultimately I differ to the experts, and among them the disagreement seems pretty minimal.

And for the second time in a row you avoid answering my simple question. If you cannot answer something as simple as that then any further discussion will be a useless exercise seeing that you can't even concede that either the official version has no evidence supporting the collapse theory or that you simply believe in it on pure faith.

It was important to establish that because if you'd choose the first then you couldn't defend the official version anymore since it faces staggering evidences supporting demolition vs no evidence supporting collapse. If you'd choose the later then discussing anything with you would be the same as discussing science with a creationist.

Not answering was also an option, which was the one you choose, and reveals that you aren't even sure about the official version because you knew that if you'd choose to answer the question you wouldn't be able to stand by that version any longer, either by lack of any evidence or by questionable judgement.

Had NIST provided corroboration for their claims and literally proving us wrong, conspiracy theorists and truthers, then all of this would have never happened... and if history has taught us anything is that those that don't provide corroboration for their claims are scammers (no matter how elaborated they publicize their claims) and that tall buildings have never globally collapsed due to fires or even without fires.

For me this discussion is over and we may continue the day that you (debunkers) provide corroboration (unverifiable computer simulations are not corroboration) proving that the 3 WTC collapses were possible without demolition. Until then I would appreciate if you don't insist on this anymore seeing that, as I explained before, it will be a pointless exercise.

Does this sound reasonable to you? Shouldn't the claims be corroborated or should we just believe in them because legitimacy is somehow more valuable than evidence?

Sorry that I didn't answer, I honestly though it was a rhetorical question. Of course evidence is needed; of course things should not just be taken on faith in authority. However, the dynamics of a building collapse are complex and nonintuitive, so I do put a level of trust in experts who have training to understand these systems, based on evidence that these people know what they are talking about and are somewhat impartial.

The vast majority of those who question the 9/11 'official story' are lay people, whose opinions have no value in determining the truth, and the vast majority of experts either agree with the official story or are silent. Those who disagree are not recognized by scientific journals. Therefore, as a layperson, I agree with the experts, and by extension, the official story. I could try to debunk the claims made in the videos you linked, something I expect an expert would have no trouble doing, but my responses would basically be conjecture.

I do agree, ultimately, that this discussion isn't going anywhere, but I thought I would clarify what I previously implied as my answer to your question.

of course things should not just be taken on faith in authority

so I do put a level of trust in experts

The experts' claims have been challenged by other experts (ae911truth), putting their legitimacy in question and they have failed to provide corroboration for their own claims.

Since you only trust in the experts due to the complexity nature of the subject then the only reason why you still continue trusting them after their claims have been challenged by other experts and failed to be corroborated has to be because you are not really trusting them for being experts but because you simply refuse to consider that the official version is untrue giving room for the possibility of what the demolition theory entails.

i.e. you only trust in the experts (whose claims failed to be proved after being challenged by other experts) because you want to believe that they are not lying. Basically, you choose to believe in them simply because of their legitimacy.

Like I have said plenty of times to others before: Whoever believes in the collapse theory does so only on faith alone and the NIST report (filled with hay, claims and no corroborations) is their holy bible.

At least you were sincere, even if quite shy while doing so, and for that I thank you. Hopefully our discussion will be usefull for other readers that think like you or me and give them a different perspective between the two versions of events.

I do think that I have gained some insight into what you believe and why, making this worthwhile - while I ultimately do tend to agree, in most cases, with the 'official story' of things (not just 9/11), I try to at least understand what the other major points of view are and, if possible, why those positions are held.

lol jeez

Next time you want to invest in building a 1700 ft tall tower to get accurate replication you let me know...

You seem to think that a couple solid concrete blocks a few feet high is enough to represent an over quarter mile tall, mostly hollow structure weighing thousands of tons.

You seem to think that a couple solid concrete blocks a few feet high is enough to represent an over quarter mile tall, mostly hollow structure weighing thousands of tons.

False statement, I have never said such thing. Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. I know that this is a common practice for r/conspiratard members but avoid doing that outside of your sub.

Welcome to r/conspiracy, where Newton's 3rd Law is made up and kinetic energy doesn't matter!

Then you should have stayed in your own sub; r/conspiratard where everyone in there believes in NIST's extraordinary claims without any corroboration at all!

Btw, your attempt at discrediting this sub by making those accusations without proving them true is not a good practice, you sound like Fox or CNN when they try grabbing straws during breaking news.

Here's a thought, how about proving that the alleged collapses on that day were possible through math and science? I am not talking about copy-pasting the paper of a theory that has been already proven multiple times to be flawed and incompatible, I am not talking about any theory at all because theories can be all true and all false until evidence is presented.

I am talking about simulations of fires using realistic values, I am talking about model simulations which are not denied public access to verify wether the values used weren't fraudulent, I am talking about actual evidence proving the extraordinary claims of 3 global collapses by fire true.

Until then you should stop acting like Bill O'Reilly.

Really? Ever see what happens when you fire a bullet at something?

same volume and mass

wat is density?

Apparently force = energy and momentum now too. A fly and a train colliding exert the same force on eachother, does the train stop?

Methinks it is you who needs to learn basic physics instead of ignoring them.

You are the only one here comparing two pieces of the same building with a bullet hitting something or a fly colliding with a train and completely disregarding the fact that both the bullet and the train are not moving because of gravity.

Nevertheless, both examples will still follow physics exactly the same way, the bullet will only destroy as much as it's stored energy allows that volume and mass to destroy and the train obviously will not be stopped by a fly, but if it was a rock it would damage as much as the rock's volume and mass allowed, and if it was an even bigger rock the same principle applies equally resulting in a even bigger damage.

"Methinks" you should stop trying to sensationalize and playdown the issue by using extreme examples as means to disprove the other. Your incredulity is not evidence for rebutal, it is at best only evidence of a biased individual.

What's sad is that 13 years later we are still spending energy demonstrating our case. The divide and conquer techniques were successful. You don't need to hide the truth forever, just long enough to get away with it.

There is no justice. There will be no justice because we can't mobilize. We can't mobilize because of discord. Too many egos.

That is the difference between us and the masters of society.

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

9/11 World Trade Center Attack - YouTube Banned this Video World Wide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZcvBS25vAU

YouTube Banned this Video World Wide

If YouTube banned the video why is it still on YouTube?

Simple. The producer edited out content that got it banned.

What was the content?

(None, it's for attention)

No idea. The video OP only stated that he had to edit the video so YouTube would allow it again.

[deleted]

Well, to be fair, if OP had included every bit of evidence for a false flag, then the post would have been as long as a 1,000 page book... or longer.

OP has simply focused on the flights for this particular post. Even so, there's a lot more that could have been included.

This really is our Gulf of Tonkin Just like the Oklahoma Bombing And many others Im too dumbed down to remember

We gotta remember the Official story is so full of worm holes and they sold it to us and we eat that crab apple right and steady

but a lot of us were still in grade school back in the day

So if anything can be sold as easily as the Warren Report as long as its simple

Then perhaps we need an even simpler narrative that'll blow the lid off this 9/11 commission report

Because Once we all know the War on Terror is a Fraud

They'll have trouble selling us anything ever again and well run those fuckers right out

I can understand people's disbelief in the whole "9/11 conspiracy" Many american citizens died that day, and even more died in later years due to the smoke and debree. But To push aside any thing other than what has been "proven" to be fact, is quite dangerous. Take the Riechstag building burning in Nazi Germany. A bunch of Jewish extremists, who hated the great leader, burnt down their building and any one who questioned it was a traitor, and shunned in society. Of course it was proven to be an inside job by the Nazi regime, but it just goes to show, even though in a major disaster there will be lots of grieving and suffering, but to blindly follow and believe every thing which we are told to be "true" is danger in itself. It is extremely easy to take the suffering of people, and use it to your own advantage to spur propaganda, and get the majority of supporters. Now i don't believe the plane was a hologram, that is pretty stupid, but i do believe it was perpetrated by Islamic extremist who were trained by CIA/american forces for this very reason of sturring terrorism, send a couple of troops over to the "enemy country" topple a couple of leaders, gain full control of the country, reek the rewards and gold. And once We are finished, its time to take care of the people who actually know what we did, create a new "threat" our own people, demonize them "Conspiracy theorists/Terrorists".... Time to militarize the police force. Its what happens when Corporate power over takes state power. And if i am not mistaken, a true definition of "Fascism" is state and corporate power combined... which is what AMERICA has become.... It is very hard to swallow a pill that big, and i can really understand people disbelief, "How can our friendly faced politicians do this to us" its easy.. Elite money and power. If you actually think our politicians are trying to take care of us, I feel really bad for you.... Don't let the death of innocent men and women, cause the death of even more In other countries.

EDIT: one word

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/circlebroke2] Is everyone ready for the monthly show? Bring your popcorn!

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

Another r/conspiratard member trying to stir up drama.

I read and checked the .csv file and did a little homework on that. The door sensor on a Boeing 757-223 was an optional piece of equipment. On later,post 9/11 models (757-3 series onwards) this was no optional.

If this is the case and it wasn't installed it would make sense that a csv file would list the door as permanently closed or just as likely permanently open.

This gives you a 50-50 shot at this evidence being 100% accurate for the sensor working as the sensor was either installed or not in operation. To check this you will need the csv file from a previous flight of that aircraft to cross reference.

Of course, if the door was forced violently it could have broken the sensor or the lock, both of which could result in a faulty reading.

So there are options for this to not be concrete evidence without further examination. It is still the most promising lead in the piece, however.

This gives you a 50-50 shot at this evidence being 100% accurate

If it's true that it was optional (you didn't provide a source), then the chances of the sensor info being accurate would depend on what percentage of that model were delivered with that option. It would be necessary for Boeing or American Airlines to release the documentation relating to the build to be sure.

Even so, there's a good chance the data in the csv file isn't even from Flight 77, as shown here: Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

That's an awesome link, fella, thanks. The source for my info was from a truther site knocking someone they don't like. I used the info as it is the first time I have seen such an admission on one of those sites.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/flight-77-cockpit-door-never-opened/

I have sent an email to a good friend who is a commercial pilot who may have access to Boeing material. I also have good friends at aviation contractors who are looking for me in their spare time, though I told them it should be extremely low on the list and only something to look at if they are really curious.

Thank you for this. Very rational and we'll put together.

If you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth

I always get my 9/11 conspiracy theory facts from GayUnicorn6969

Breakdown of this post's upvotes vs downvot.es

Any ideas what happened to the passengers and the crew ??

Well, when you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal $600,000,000 they will find you... unless they think you're already dead.

Crushed into a mist which was then exploded into ash.

[deleted]

and why do we seriously need help?

First and only warning for attacking the users of the sub.

OP delivers the SMOKING GUN!

Never Forget: GayUnicorn6969

Both Flight11 and Flight175 produced a bright flash before they crashed into the towers. To this day they have never explained what caused this.

I'll put my bet on an early morning sun reflecting off of a polished chrome cylinder.

A light reflection wouldn't show from the same spot to multiple angles at the same moment.

You lost your bet.

Reflections can be cast off an airplane from a large viewing angle

You seem to be conveniently ignoring part of what I clearly just explained to you:

A light reflection wouldn't show from the same spot to multiple angles at the same moment.

It's not impossible for reflections to be seen from the same spot from multiple angles, what is impossible is for it to happen at the same time.

A flash (from an explosion, for example), on the other hand, can be seen from any angle at the same time as long as there isn't anything blocking the view.

You have now lost your bet twice in a row.

It's not impossible for reflections to be seen from the same spot from multiple angles

It is when the surface it's being reflected off is round...like the fuselage or nose of an airplane.

It is when the surface it's being reflected off is round...like the fuselage or nose of an airplane.

You left out the most important part when you quoted me: "what is impossible is for it to happen at the same time."

A round object reflects light in many directions.

If you had followed the rest of the discussion you would have seen that the source of the flash, where the nose of the airplane is, is covered by the building's shadow and that the exact same flash was seen on the first airplane with a completely opposite light direction and viewing angle.

Do not make me repeat myself just because you are too lazy to read the rest of the conversation that you joined.

A wide viewing angle means that, yes, a reflection can be seen simultaneously from multiple directions. Your example is a 45 degree angle. Move the light source closer to the plane of the mirror and it will be visible for a greater area.

The flash captured on the flight 175 impact can be seen from angles that vary greatly and up to 45º, the first one being captured from behind the airplane and the second perpendicular to it. That side of the building was also in its own shadow at that time meaning that the sun couldn't be projecting itself on the nose of the airplane at that moment and at that point.

The same flash was also observed on the first airplane impact, exact same point at the exact same time (from the area near the airplane's nose and the moment of impact) from a completely different angle, quite literally the opposite angle.

You have now lost your bet three times in a row and I have grown tired of teaching basic knowledge to a person that prefers to live in biased denial.

There is a very clear reflection on the body of the plane in your picture just behind the wing, where the gray and blue paint sections meet.

give it up bro

Of course there is, that part of the airplane isn't under the building's shadow yet. That's what happens when the sun shines on a reflective surface that isn't being blocked by an object's shadow.

Do you want to point out that the sky in the pictures is blue? Or that the airplane is flying? Visit r/explainlikeimfive or r/mildlyinteresting and have fun there.

Yes, but then other parts of the plane would have reflected sun at the same time.

Just a couple milliseconds before impact? At both towers? From 2 different directions? From a matt black nosecone? At 2 different times? From multiple observation points?

Please try harder Mr Letters&Numbers.

The first flight impacted the North face of the tower, putting a morning sun on his left side.
The second flight impacted the South face of the other tower, putting the same sun 15 minutes later on it's right side.

Do you even believe your own rationalizations? Assuming they are your own...

laughably desperate denial.

This is scientific fact. Or are you suggesting the illuminati control the Sun's comings and goings?

you've exposed yourself i'm not going to waste any more time on you. in your world, the sun can generate a flash of that magnitude microseconds before BOTH impacts, on BOTH towers, seen from every angle all over new york and videod dozens of times in the 2nd case, from different heights, angles and distances.

your world sounds like denial heaven, and i'm being kind here...

hmm, just curious. What if it turned out to be true that it was an inside job? Do you think the american people would revolt or what?

Do you think the american people would revolt or what?

Absolutely.

According to NIST, each floor -composed by concrete and steel- was being destroyed as fast as the impact between a stick and a cue ball.

The World Trade Center was not built like any other skyscrapers. The exterior walls of the building and the central elevator shafts made up the entire vertical support structure for the building. The floors were all trusses, or metal sheets and a layer of concrete laid down over vertical steel bars to support the weight of the objects on top of them. Example

Hey I'm a bit out of the loop. Have there been a lot of recent 9/11 revelations that have caused a renewed interested in 9/11 (say in the past month)?

Lol

have an upvote because skepticism goes both ways.

I think the big conspiracy lies in how the gvt used 9/11 to gain more controls. Also, they fucked up the investigation. If it was a complete setup why not say the hijackers were Iraqi or Afghanis? They were all Saudi nationals financed by Pakistani military connections. Which meant the gvt had to make insane leaps to go to war with both Iraq (Sadam has lots of secret weapons! He didn't), and Afghanistan which had no connection whatsoever to 9/11. To claim that Osama masterminded the plot is lunacy. Go and read a book by Gaz Hunter called 'the shooting gallery', which was written of his experience of trying to give Bin Laden around two million dollars in gold from the British gvt. This was when they were fighting the Russians. He was an impossible person to meet, to think that he'd grant an audience to a few coke snorting Saudis is beyond belief.

Go and read up on Bin Laden, he was well educated and the only people he'd give any time of day to were poor peasants or Royalty. Literally nobody else could get within ten miles of him. The gvt fitting him up was a conspiracy.

I think the US gov do use real events to further their own ambitions. However, if you said "would the US Gov kill ten thousand of its own people to secure a hundred billion dollars"? The answer would be, yes, without hesitation nor afterthought. The reason why they wouldn't stage something like 9/11 has already been pointed out - the gvt couldn't organize a toffee shop display without fucking it up. If you want something to go very wrong get the gvt to organize it.

You cannot use the argument of a clumsy government to rule out the possibility of it staging 9/11. That's the same logic fallacy as stating that a person being accused of murder couldn't have done it because he's not that smart.

If we are to use assumptions to disprove or prove points then you will be met with the argument that you think the government is clumsy because they want you to think they are so that when they are being considered as culprit people like you will dismiss the possibility over the illusion of it being an incompetent government.

Leave personal incredulity arguments out when you are trying to disprove facts and evidence or you will be wasting your time in back-and-forth exchange of what people think that is and isn't possible.

Your points are valid. However, it won't change my opinion in this case. I just feel if they were going to stage it they'd have used Iraqi and Afghani nationals flying the planes, and among the wreckage would be a handwritten note and a video from Bin Laden saying 'Kill them all and Godspeed to you, my boys, lots of love. OBJ xx........PS Sadam made you a packed lunch". Staged events are literally this obvious - this is like having the Lusitania sank by the Irish so you can go to war with Germany.

Staged events are literally this obvious

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tVelO21F9w&t=213

Some are, others aren't.

This validates both our points though. Yes the. CIA would stage terrorist events, and with Op Northwood they'd say these attacks were committed by Cubans in the USA so they could invade Cuba. It didn't say it'd blame the attacks on Papua New Guinea and the gvt would then make some tenuous links to Cuba to start a war.

9/11 does stink. It stinks to high heaven, but when you really go into it even the conspiracy theories go out of the window. Maybe the plan was to provoke the Muslims worldwide into a jihad so they could get the show on the road big time. Problem with that is Iran/Pakistan/Saudi etc. took one look at the US seventh fleet and said "you lot can have a jihad, but we ain't playing". The US military is beyond massive, anyone who'd even think about going up against the US would have to be clinically insane.

Just in the last few months the US have tried to start a war in Syria and they are still trying to push for a war against Russia (while starting to provoke China). Absolutely nobody wants to play their game. They're like a 30 year old roided up monster turning up to a primary school pushing all the 8 year olds around saying "wanna scrap? Fink ur ard do ya, I will Fukkin fuk u up!" And expecting one of them to fight back.

This validates both our points though.

Absolutely. I was just correcting yours which sounded as if all staged events are obvious, when in fact there are some that are obvious and others that are not, and those are very well elaborated.

If you ever take the time to read about operation northwoods you will find that it has multiple parallels with 9/11, including the aftermath objectives (close to immediate justification for war, military support, public acceptance in fear of terror, etc.).

Or, like Israel trying to frame Saudi Arabia?

If it was a complete setup why not say the hijackers were Iraqi or Afghanis?

too obvious, but close enough. the war was on islamic terrorists, not specific countries. Afgan was a stepping stone.

War on Usury Haters

It was actually snoop blazing it in the towers, he was with the illominarty.

Lot of this is just disinformation.

Such as? Please explain what is disinfo and why you think so

Well I stopped after the mushroom cloud thing. There are occasional submissions claiming 911 involved small nukes. That makes us look stupid for even considering. Nuclear weapons produce easily detectable radiation. Which would produce readily apparent biological damage to anyone near it. And a lot of nonnuclear explosions produce small mushroom clouds.

A mushroom cloud is a distinctive pyrocumulus mushroom-shaped cloud of condensed water vapor or debris resulting from a very large explosion. They are most commonly associated with nuclear explosions, but any sufficiently large blast will produce the same sort of effect. They can be caused by powerful conventional weapons, like vacuum bombs, including the ATBIP and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb. Volcanic eruptions and impact events can produce natural mushroom clouds.

Well I stopped after the mushroom cloud thing. There are occasional submissions claiming 911 involved small nukes. That makes us look stupid for even considering.

In absolutely no place did I ever suggested anything related to nukes. The mushroom cloud comparison reveals that the smoke coming from the alleged flight 93 crash is not like any other commercial jet crash, in which there is an initial mushroom cloud (resulting from the quick ignition of the spread fuel) followed by a thick column of black smoke from the subsequent burning of the remaining jet fuel and contents.

Examples can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and my favorite example here. In contrast, here is a crash smoke that is far more similar to the alleged Flight 93's; Akureyri crash of a TF-MYX.

At best, my comparison implies that the crash site of Flight 93 was staged and the smoke cloud we see is just the smoke that came from the ordinance they used to create the crater OR the aircraft that crashed wasn't a commercial jet class, but something much smaller.

You accuse my thread of being a lot of disinfo yet you were the one that twisted my words.

Could the distance between the engine and crash be something about the wings ripping off (plane going faster than designed in an straight down crash)? Also the plane doing a straight noise dive into the dirt produce the mushroom cloud?

Could the distance between the engine and crash be something about the wings ripping off (plane going faster than designed in an straight down crash)?

If that was the case then the wing to which the engine that was found in the pond was attached to wouldn't be able to create it's impact print on the ground.

Also the plane doing a straight noise dive into the dirt produce the mushroom cloud?

The fuel did not get buried by the dirt because there was found absolutely no fuel in the soil http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a100201nojetfuel&scale=0#a100201nojetfuel

The airplane had an estimated 7000 gallons of fuel on impact, most didn't burn and there was no sign of fuel in the soil. I wonder where did all that fuel go.

hmm pretty crazy, wonder if they where testing wells, not the ground around it or something to play devils advocate. Wish there was examples of planes crashing the way '93 did. Im still curious about the mushroom cloud thing and if they are produced by a plane crashing straight down.

p.s. I laugh out loud everytime I see a picture of the 'crash' site of '93. Looks so rediculous, I know the response is always 'well the plane was going straight down' but still just looking at it, it looks fucked. Like most of 9/11. first impressions are always 'Yea thats not right'.

Wish there was examples of planes crashing the way '93 did.

There have been plenty of airplane crashes similar to 93's BUT they were not big airplanes like 93. There was also one very recent that was almost a 90º straight down nose dive of a boeing 737 and it resulted in a debris field that is nothing like the "buried" 93: http://rt.com/news/kazan-plane-crash-video-882/

http://en.ria.ru/images/18484/91/184849178.jpg

"soft earth" was the official story

Flight 93 wasn't staged. It was just blown up in the air, probably at Cheney's orders, probably because the passenger were about to try to take the plane back and Cheney wanted to make sure there were no hijacker witnesses who might be interrogated. Flight 93 was supposed to hit Congress in session, taking out most of them, leaving Bush and Cheney in charge of the entire government. But it was delayed, sat on the tarmac for over an hour, so couldn't perform its original mission. Thank God or whoever.

The U.S. Capitol Building, not the White House, was the fourth target of the Sept. 11 attackers, a German magazine reported Sunday citing results of interrogations of suspected al Qaeda leaders.

There is error after error in your submission. Till I suspect you are posting easily disproved disinformation to make us look like fools.

Flight 93 wasn't staged.

So you make that claim based on a report while ignoring the 2 calls that remained connected for almost and over an hour after the airplane was already obliterated, and the path of debris clearly showing a completely different flight path which is supported by the witness as well as the acars radar data.

First you twist my words and don't apologize, then you show that you rely more on reports and you ignore factual evidence.

It is a hypocritical irony that you claimed my thread had a lot of disinformation. For me this ends here seeing that your accusations held no ground after only one reply, hope that in the future you provide better corroboration when you make accusations again.

I've read that about the calls but I haven't seen a credible source. If it's true it was probably just the FBI keeping the calls connected since it's known they were listening in on some of the calls from flight 93. I believe that is why Cheney knew what was happening and had it shot down just when some of the passengers got up to try to take the plane back.

I'm not going through all the nonsense you posted, going through each point, pulling out my sources and refuting it. It would take me all day you posted so much disinformation. But anyone who has kept up with this through the years will notice the nonsense.

Then by all means, post a new thread in r/conspiracy with your own not-nonsense and sources. Yelling "wolf" over and over again like you have been doing is never a good argument.

"Lot's of disinformation but I won't go through all of them. I stopped at this one, but just because I am twisting op's words. Too much nonsense for me to refute so I won't even bother." Classy.

You need to go to a credible source, like 911Truth or Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and read for about hundred hours.

I already have. In case you didn't notice (which I assume that you really didn't because you didn't read the rest of the post) I actually link to AE911truth analysis.

all lie

You have no credibility. I do.

you sure about that? checked how many of your comments are in -ve lately?

That's just attack of the shills. Y'all are working hard to destroy /r/conspiracy and control Reddit.

keep telling yourself that.

Good to see the shills getting downvoted for once.

Their shit is laughably transparent nowadays. May as well be a copypasta.

Why is all this evidence so flimsy and based upon such questionable assumptions? Do you not have anything better to work with? You would think with all the time that has passed and all the "top level expertise" available you might have something a little more conclusive. Unless you guys have just been making it up as you go along and you aren't particularly bright or perceptive...

[deleted]

I would have to say that somebody had better widen their circle of acquaintances and expand their reading horizons, perhaps collecting a little more of this "conclusive evidence." Maybe talking to some of the many thousands of eye witnesses. I know where I was that day and what I saw and you might be better served looking for the gunman on the grassy knoll or trying to find out who really killed Cap'n Crunch.

[deleted]

That would be a start.

[deleted]

the passport is possible, just not very likely. if i remember right it was found within an hour and immediately used to promote and support the 'alkayduh did it' meme. no proof it "fell" from the plane by the way.

So our government that can't get a healthcare website working is capable of a conspiracy that would include hundreds if not thousands of participants with no leaks for over 10 years? I have a high disdain for the federal government, but I do not believe they are efficient enough to pull something like this off. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

There's no money in free healthcare. There is trillions of dollars in war.

They are not comparable.

Also, read more about American history. We've used the same tactic a few dozen times... if not more. American Indians got it the worst. We'd make truce treaties... then line up armies on their border and wait for them to attack us in fear that we would attack them. If they didn't, we'd fake attack ourselves then go slaughter them all.

Pearl Harbor, same deal.

The exact same thing happened on 9/11.

The hardest part about war is making your country want it.

So you think Pearl Harbor was committed by US planes? This is fucking hilarious.

no fool. but we LET it happen.

the strategy is the same. provoking a war for money.

He's sort of right. US policy was basically boxing the Japanese into having to go to war with the US. Weeks before Pearl Harbor the newspapers were full of speculation as to where and when Japan would attack. They knew an attack was going to happen. The US kept WW2 going by supplying arms to the UK and France on the provision that they carried on fighting Germany. Germany had allied with their true enemy Russia because they thought it would deter anyone else from joining in. Germany was after a peaceful conclusion once it had got back pre ww1 German lands that were stolen during the treaty of Versailles. You have to wonder, if the US hadn't pushed for ww2 to continue would the Nazis have even implemented the final solution? The more I read about the history if ww2 the sicker I feel about how everyone has been lied to for all this time and that the US is more than partly responsible for the deaths of so many Jews.

Actually, not just Jews but people all over the world. They pushed and pushed to keep that war running, because they were making an absolute mint out of it. Pretty disgusting really.

I completely understand you. The lies, oh the lies are aplenty.

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

You are completely free to not believe that the government is capable of false flag attacks as much as millions of people are free to believe that God made everything in 3 days and the world is just 4000 years old.

I didn't say they aren't capable of false flag attacks. The document you just posted validated the actual point I was making.

Operation northwoods was in complete secret for decades, no one blew the whistle. It was only made public by a simple mistake, otherwise we would still not have known that the government was already comitted to stage a false flag very similar to 9/11 before.

You are perfectly free to believe that this validates your point, like I said before, everyone is free to believe in anything they want, including that their government is capable of false flags but not the one you choose due to your personally biased incredulity.

"According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals."

Why would anyone blow the whistle on a false flag that never happened? You are reaching for straws.

You are the one who is actually grabbing at straws that are unrelated to the discussion.

The operation was signed by the joint chiefs of staff and the department of defense, and JFK was the one that stopped it. Until it was released, no one blew the whistle or even suggested anything like it ever happened and it would remain that way if the documents hadn't been released by a processing mistake.

If you will continue forcing me to repeat what is already clearly explained in the link I provided before then this discussion will end here since I have no interest in wasting more time, especially after seeing that you judge your decisions under personally biased incredulity conditions and tries to change goalposts when it is convenient.

You literally did not even answer my question. You obviously are set in your mindset, unwilling to address any questions that poke holes in your theory.

You literally did not even answer my question.

I did, I literally said that no one blew the whistle, the document was discovered by a processsing mistake. Here, I will quote it in bold so you can see better:

Until it was released, no one blew the whistle or even suggested anything like it ever happened and it would remain that way if the documents hadn't been released by a processing mistake.

If you still can't read it then there is nothing else I can do.

You obviously are set in your mindset, unwilling to address any questions that poke holes in your theory.

That coming from the same person that has changed his goalposts, tried to grab straws and has now created a strawman argument based on his inability to pay attention to what is reading.

I warned you before that if you'd continue forcing me to repeat the discussion would end here and since you just did that then this discussion is over.

My question was WHY would someone blow the whistle on an operation that NEVER happened? This is a follow up to your using the fact that no one blew the whistle on it to attack my position that it is highly unlikely that a operation of the magnitude it would take to pull off 9/11 would have no leaks for over 10 years. You are using a false basis to attack the assumption that the government is not efficient enough to not only pull this off, but to keep it secret for this long.

I warned you before that if you'd continue forcing me to repeat the discussion would end here and since you just did that then this discussion is over.

I accept your apology.

ah the "Bumbling Bush" meme, not seen that one for a while, thanks for the stroll down memory lane

I said nothing about Bush or any particular individual.

Appreciate your dedicated research /u/GayUnicorn6969 !! ... But I have a question, why did you choose that username? It puts a negative shadow across your work for the trolls and sheep.

Only if you're homocryptozoophobic.

does the thought of a 69 with a gay unicorn scare you?

Mickey Mouse post.

Goofy comment.

The airplane victims were also never captured by the airport CCTVs.

You have no evidence fo this. I bet your evidence is "well why havent i seen any?"

avoid hundreds of airport CCTVs, except 3.

exactly where does 100s come from? only a certain number would have existed along whatever route the terrorists took. And those wont cover every last inch of that route.

And dont forget that terrorists were not goign to stand and wave i n front of those cameras. You just made all that up didnt you?

Despite having 4 pilots and 4 co-pilots, not one of them sent out the 3s squawk as they were instructed to.

this is interesting i dont know anything about this and you might have a point.

My concern though is that you're not able to prove that the planes had these, or that pilots/crew etc were actually trained to use these codes. I especially doubt that you cna prove these piltos were instructed to use them on 9/11. Possibly the planes dont have them: for internal domestic flights they might not be required to have them fitted, or be trained to use them.

If domestic internal flights do have them, and the pilots were instructed to use them maybe they couldnt: it might have been tool late: the terrorist could have taken control of the cockpit before anyone knew what was happening. In those days pilots often flew with the cockpit door open

This is jsut speculation, again i think you're making stuff up..but this is definitely interesting.

Todd Beamer, one of Flight93's passenger, described the hijack occuring as he was speaking when in fact this event had already happened ~20 minutes earlier

Im not sure what this is supposed to mean: he couldnt describe a hijacking in progress if it wasnt already happening!?

I suspect you think he should have described it before it happened or while it started. when he wouldnt have really understood what to do.. so no: That would not be possible. sorry.

Both Flight11 [11] and Flight175 [12] produced a bright flash before they crashed into the towers.

no flash here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDKhw5rWuE or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

It would have to occur on the entire length of the airplane that hits the facade: the wings would have to produce those as well

the wings would have produced collision sparks, when in the very pic you used the wings havent themselves hit anything yet? Please proof read stuff before you post it.

Engine damage from lamp-posts impact: Not possible, airplane engine smoke produces a thin and dark smoke

that would depend on the engine , and the type/casue of damage. A dea bird on fire in the engine is not comparable to 911.

cliaming airports have hundreds of cctvs when in fact what matters is how many wwere in a position to capture the terrorists.

fuel leaking from tank damage or engine damage: Not possible, it didn't catch fire when the airplane exploded, the lawn has no jetfuel burn marks

what didnt catch fire? what fuel? the planes wingtanks werent punctured prior to impact. even if they were there no reason to expect they would necessarily be ignited by the impact. Reality is NOT like the ending of Die hard2 . sorry.

In this case you appear to have just invented scenario in your head, and then queried why it didnt happen. weird.

these 2 cameras have all frames perfectly synchronized Rocket/missile-like smoke: Strongly resembles the smoke produced by missiles/rockets

so the government hit wtc 1 & 2 with planes, but faked the plane hitting the pentagon? with a missile? And i have no idea what relevance discrepancy in video camera footage would have. Its like nit picking trivial details.

But its worth pointing out that the cameras in your video are not perfrectly in synch and a very fast moving airplane could appear slightly differently.

mushroom cloud that is consistent with an explosion and not with a jet crash

unless the crash involved an explosion, right?

an airplane crash of a Boeing 737-200 of 17,November 2013 that

how does this compare to flight93...this is a plane of a different type, crashing itno different terrain and no rpoof it was the same speed, or same type of engines or anything.

These calls could not have remained connected by a system mistake because airphones charge per time,

Normally the person on the phone hangs up and the phone signals end of call. For some reason the person on flight93 didnt actually hang up. Its almost as if they dies suddenly during the call......

violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

well no: if it happened in this universe it did not violate any laws of physics. You might disagree with the explanations that cause it to happen: but the fact it happened proves it obeys physics perfectly. Everything that happens in this universe does that, by the way.

the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining

um..did you actually watch the collapse video you JUST posted? Gravity yes, perfect? nooooo.

there was never discovered any floor completely engulfed by fire,

yeah there was...IIRC there were several.

and they were only partial small fires.

claims you...evidence?

By the time that the collapse initiated there were no more fires near the vicinity of the section that was apointed as the collapse failure initiation[52]

according ot a truther website? nice. Next time a creationist wants to prove god i'll tell them to look in the bible. Oh wait...

the building did in fact collapse with sudden onset of free-fall (18 visible stories in 3.9s),

Nope.it took 5.4 seconds within which there was a 2.25 sec period of freefall (for part of the building). you can watch you tube videos and time it yourslef. you still get a time of ~5seconds.

Look: you cant just make up stuff, claim to be an expert an outright lie in order to promote a theory. You need evidence. Appealing to strawman arguments and copying creationists strategy (especially invoking the 'breaks laws of physics' argument) is ludicrous.

Remember that NIST has already stated that the structural damage was irrelevant and that the building would still have collapsed without any damage:

you're drawing false comparisons

Lol dude you are like the king of nitpicking and semantics. Kudos.

[deleted]

"Well known shill." Lol.

ahh, explains it

Can we see your evidence backing up your counterclaims please.

I think he's "making it up" as he accused OP of doing so many times.

911truth101 is Hammerpantstime..... a known disinformation artist. He doesn't debate - he simply can't.

When questioned about the lies he posts - he just moves on. No reply from him because there is no debate to be had.

His old account was banned for spam posting links that were bullshit. He was warned and then he did it again within minutes.

He asks anyone who questions the "official story" to provide incontrovertible evidence... this is a bar he doesn't hold himself or the government/NIST to.

It's pathetic and telling of how little he has to work with.

The best part is watching the youtube video that is supposed to show no flash.. and there being a bright flash...

HAHA....someone created the perfectly stupid username with the notion it would help to debunk. Winner on effort and loser on debunking!

Always entertaining!

classic letters&numbers username

Now this is a skilled debunker, right here. "No, that didn't happen like that." [end of argument]

Beautiful stuff.

Did you even watch the videos you linked to you fucking idiot?

no flash here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDKhw5rWuE or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

Look again asshole. There are flashes prior to impact.

Your stupidity is epic.

this has been debunked hundreds of times.

Despite having 4 pilots and 4 co-pilots, not one of them sent out the 3s squawk as they were instructed to.

this is interesting i dont know anything about this and you might have a point.

My concern though is that you're not able to prove that the planes had these

All planes have transponders.

, or that pilots/crew etc were actually trained to use these codes.

All pilots are "trained to use these codes"

I especially doubt that you cna [sic] prove these piltos [sic] were instructed to use them on 9/11.

Instructed? I don't know. If you're being hijacked, you squawk 7500. How did they take over the plane though? It's entirely possible that the pilots didn't have time to mess with the xpdr.

Possibly the planes dont have them: for internal domestic flights they might not be required to have them fitted, or be trained to use them.

All airplanes flying over 10,000 feet, flying in class A (18,000ft +), B , C airspace are required to have transponders. I have never flown a plane without a transponder, but they exist. Odds are, you'll never touch one.

Normally the person on the phone hangs up and the phone signals end of call. For some reason the person on flight93 didnt actually hang up. Its almost as if they dies suddenly during the call......

I barely get signal if I'm above 4,000 ft, especially not in the middle of nowhere. You're not getting signal on an airliner. Period.

You really listed not squawking hijack as a problem? Like if some guy busts in the cockpit and shanks you from behind your first thought is going to be oh shit let me squawk hijack. You would be dead before you knew what happened

I also like how "they" were smart enough to pull this off but used the "wrong" plane parts at the "crash". Such a big oversight huh?

Your post has a tone of "I disagree with one the above points therefore they all must be wrong". Not to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be where you're going.

Well no it was just a disagreement with that particular point. I think I disagreed with 3 or 4 points on that entire list. It was just an argument I thought I would mention because that point is VERY VERY weak and makes the whole argument look slightly weaker just because it was added. Better off not mentioning it

We are led to believe that it happened four times that day though, by persons where no evidence exists that they ever got on the planes, it is hardly a weak point, if anything it highlights the absurdity of the official narrative.

What other points do you disagree with?

Um..just what evidence would you like of them "getting on the planes"?

Airport security footage of them setting off metal detectors wasn't enough?

Um..just what evidence would you like of them "getting on the planes"?

The hundreds of video evidence that should exist, that video the USG released is obviously not from 9/11

Like if some guy busts in the cockpit and shanks you from behind your first thought is going to be oh shit let me squawk hijack.

Actually yeah that's exactly what it's designed for. A way to immediately signal somethign is wrong if it happens.

This is the real world, not a movie. You don't just bust down a door and "shank" two pilots and kill them before they can move their hand a few inches and hit a button. You don't just die instantly from being stabbed with a small box cutter. Plus, the story is that they were herded to the back of the planes, not shanked in their seats.

The odds that this happened without anyone squawking on any of the planes is pretty slim.

Actually yeah that's exactly what it's designed for. A way to immediately signal somethign is wrong if it happens.

You still have to turn 4 dials to a specific code while someone is stabbing you to death.

Not all transponders are the same, but entering a transponder code doesn't happen in an instant.

Actually no, in the past the pilots were always the ones flying hijacked aircraft so they had plenty of time to squawk. What do you do when the door bust open? You turn around and say WTF not just jump on the transponder (WHICH GOT TURNED OFF ANYWAY) and squawk hijack. I suggest you guys actually talk to commercial airline pilots.

How did they turn off the transponders before they got into the cockpit? Isn't there a copilot? They were able to go through the small door and completely incapacitate the pilot and copilot on each of the planes without a single alert going out?

It's possible but not likely.

How did they turn off the transponders before they got into the cockpit?

No one said they did.

Isn't there a copilot?

His first reaction to an attacker would be to squawk 7500? I don't think you get it. There's an attacker. Do you know what it means to be attacked?

They were able to go through the small door and completely incapacitate the pilot and copilot on each of the planes without a single alert going out?

What would I do in a situation where a person is about to or is trying to kill me? Would I:

a). fight back

b). freak out

or

c). contact ATC, mess with the transponder, and not react in any way to people who are actively trying to kill me

I can tell you that my first reaction wouldn't be to talk to ATC. Maybe that makes me a shitty pilot, but they can't do anything to help me immediately. The only person who can help me is me and the other good guy in the cockpit.

No alert did go out. ATC heard a struggle and someone saying "hey what are you doing in here" or something along those lines. Again, in the past when a plane was hijacked squawking hijack was done because guess what? The pilot was flying the plane anyway and it is so subtle its hard to notice. When someone rushes the cockpit and starts stabbing you even if you don't die right away... you just got stabbed a few times, you are in panic mode. Against I suggest you go read one of the AMA from the many airline pilots and actually hear it from the horses mouth.

When someone rushes the cockpit and starts stabbing you even if you don't die right away... you just got stabbed a few times, you are in panic mode. Against I suggest you go read one of the AMA from the many airline pilots and actually hear it from the horses mouth

I totally get this part and I completely agree that what you're saying is plausible. I have a hard time imagining though that the copilot wasn't able to do it in any of the planes. It takes time to bust the door, stab a guy and incapacitate him. I know you go into panic mode but that's why they make it an easy to access system, so you can hit it when you panic.

I'm not sure we will agree on this and there isn't much more to say about it. I just don't see how the pilot or copilot didn't get off a single warning in any of the 4 planes.

Bust what door? How old are you? They didn't even close those doors a vast majority of the time. I remember the glory days of flying. You used to be able to walk up to the cockpit and even look inside the door was wide open. The system is not a big red button. Its either a knob or a keypad you have to dial in and input. Regardless this was so unexpected. Hijackings happened but not really too often on US carriers

funny that the flight logs showed the door never opened for the duration then, huh?

Flight logs? What are you talking about? Do you even have a source? Of fucking course you don't.

FDR data for flight 93 showing that the cockpit door never opened: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/FinalFlightComplete.zip

Use a less agressive language.

Wow. That's quite something. So what does this mean?

It means that the official version of events has some serious problems that warrant a new investigation to be conducted.

After all, the Flight 93 was allegedly hijacked by terrorists that killed the pilots, but the FDR data shows that the cockpit door was never opened.

Can you site that claim

The data released through FOIA from the FDR of Flight 77 shows the flight deck door was never opened after take-off. There's a discussion and link to the data here.

Edit: Of course, there's a high probability that the data released is not really from Flight 77 based on other parameters. Either way, the only possible conclusion is that it's a massive cover-up.

letters and numbers

huh?

wut?

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] Drama over the inclusion of the pilots not sending a hijack message in a 9/11 truther post.

• [/r/Drama] Drama over the inclusion of the pilots not sending a hijack message in a 9/11 truther post.

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

I currently subscribe to the "no-planes" theory. A guy on youtube made a great video about how the planes created digitally during the live TV broadcast. Also, I've only seen one eyewitness video from that day that claimed to see the plane and he is clearly a plant (poor acting).

The planes were drones. Operation north woods.

I shared that video, oddly enough no one on my friends list watched it.

Your post has a tone of "I disagree with one the above points therefore they all must be wrong". Not to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be where you're going.

Like if some guy busts in the cockpit and shanks you from behind your first thought is going to be oh shit let me squawk hijack.

Actually yeah that's exactly what it's designed for. A way to immediately signal somethign is wrong if it happens.

This is the real world, not a movie. You don't just bust down a door and "shank" two pilots and kill them before they can move their hand a few inches and hit a button. You don't just die instantly from being stabbed with a small box cutter. Plus, the story is that they were herded to the back of the planes, not shanked in their seats.

The odds that this happened without anyone squawking on any of the planes is pretty slim.

letters and numbers

Kissinger gave Obama his very first job.

Good point. That is a grey area for sure.

...You're just saying buzzwords. What about any of these things and what do they show, or ideally, prove?

There is tons of footage of it happening too how can you say it didn't happen?

Just because something happened doesn't mean it happened the way you were told. If you search for any tall building destruction that results in a pile of rubble all of the examples you will find will be demolitions, all of them. The 3 towers on 9/11 were also demolished, otherwise they would still be AT LEAST partially standing.

But I don't expect that you will ever grasp the obvious since you think like this:

A entire building basically dropped onto the rest of the building causing it collapse. This is how physics works.

It's like reading something written by Bill O'Reilly.

The data released through FOIA from the FDR of Flight 77 shows the flight deck door was never opened after take-off. There's a discussion and link to the data here.

Edit: Of course, there's a high probability that the data released is not really from Flight 77 based on other parameters. Either way, the only possible conclusion is that it's a massive cover-up.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] Drama over the inclusion of the pilots not sending a hijack message in a 9/11 truther post.

• [/r/Drama] Drama over the inclusion of the pilots not sending a hijack message in a 9/11 truther post.

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

Basically, if the top section is pushing down with a force, the intact building will push back with the same force. The top section of the building will destroy itself at the same rate as the amount if is destroying below. Therefore, for example, a 12 story piece falling onto a 24 story building should leave 12 stories standing whilst destroying 12 stories of the building and the block which crushed them. If I drop a large brick onto a stack of bricks the brick doesn't magically break all of them, it will break the top one and lose energy. We would expect it to slow down because it is loosing energy from destroying the building below, but in the twin towers we see an acceleration.

EDIT: This experiment shows this well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s#t=385

Thank you for saying what I was going to say. It is difficult to take a person seriously when they go about with obvious misunderstandings of physics that look like they were copy-pasted from some shitty blog with not sources.

You left out this part here:

The subject of the numerical study is an existing 8-story steel framed structure built for fire tests in the Cardington Large Building Test Facility

But even disregarding that tiny bit of information you left out, you completely deflected the subject. I never said that progressive collapses aren't possible. Hell, the Verinage demolition technique pretty much is based on that being possible.

What I am saying is that progressive collapse is not possible in the case of the twin towers, I am saying that a top block that is 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining 80% structurally intact bottom of the WTC. 15% could only destroy 15%, 16% at best with some of the debris damaging a bit more, but never 80%.

And once more, NIST made their claims and they have been challenged, for all these years they haven't provided corroboration and even denied providing the corroboration for their claims. To this day no one has ever proved with science and math that what happened on that day was possible without demolition, yet you debunkers strongly hold on the words of NIST, on their report that is the equivalent of a bible in which it contains a lot of hay, outstanding claims and absolutely no corroboration.

The truth movement isn't about saying that it was an inside job or aliens did it or nukes went off, the truth movement is about finding the truth, investigating the situation with scientific methods to reach a solid conclusion, run tests and consider them - not reject them -, run realistic simulations - not unrealistic, be impartial towards the goal and not biased.

The truth movement wants a new investigation to find out why the buildings turned into piles of rubble when they shouldn't have since there hasn't ever occurred once in the entire history of manking and suddently it happened 3 times on the same day. They want to understand why it happened and what caused it to happen and they have been showing to the world that the NIST report was dry-labbed, did not follow the scientific method, is fraudulent and set-up to fail.

NIST built their report committed to explain how fire caused everything and the problems with it show this clearly. The truth movement wants an unbiased investigation that is set to find out the real explanation.

My "blantant misuse" of physics is due to the fact that NIST has not proved us wrong. My "misuse" of physics is based on the fact that had it actually been a normal collapse, there should at best be standing 40% of one tower and 60% of the other and WTC7 would at best have fallen to the side, never straight down as it did. It's based on the fact that something like this has never happened before and it has never happened ever since.

These have been thoroughly checked plenty of times and the characteristics of a gravity collapse just simply aren't there, on any of the 3 towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=2030

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

I asked it before but you didn't answer it, so I will repeat it again:

Does this sound reasonable to you? Shouldn't the claims be corroborated or should we just believe in them because legitimacy is somehow more valuable than evidence?

Can you demonstrate the moon is not made entirely of cheese?

5c) Demand Impossible Proof.

I don't think you know how much power electricity actually is. A single 9v battery stores about 4.5 watts, every single socket in a building (at least by american standards) can put out 1500w. The total wattage in that video was maybe 360 watts. (500MaH per battery times about 80 batteries times 9v)

Yes the top would free fall through the rest.

Source?

Can you demonstrate they weren't? with a source, thanks. I'll wait.

The only part of the whole OP that isn't opinion is the csv file.

An illiterate conspiracy theorist.

Good luck in life, dude.

gravitational potential energy of the building is transfered into kinetic energy

look at the total energy balance here.

• the upper block appears to be disintegrating
• energy is transformed flinging massive girders at high velocity sideways
  
• energy is transformed pulverizing the building to little pieces
• hot clouds of dust knock people over, burn cars, and chase people down the street
• a lot of noise
  
• molten steel, hotspots and 2400F fires that lasted for months, like you were in a foundry.
  

yet still the 'collapse' front proceeds at nearly the rate of gravity, and doesn't topple, but proceeds through the path of resistance, the steel core, just destroyed. completely. how you could not test for explosives is beyond me. what kind of insurance company is that? there were multiple reports of explosions from first responders to consider. very basic stuff.

Keep adding more text to your comments after I reply and, most of all, keep using ad-hominem like you did just now. I asked you a question, you didn't reply and you still insisted on your logic fallacies. Stop bothering me with your biased incredulities, this discussion is already over.

If you had followed the rest of the discussion you would have seen that the source of the flash, where the nose of the airplane is, is covered by the building's shadow and that the exact same flash was seen on the first airplane with a completely opposite light direction and viewing angle.

Do not make me repeat myself just because you are too lazy to read the rest of the conversation that you joined.