He's just lucky that he had recently insured them against terrorist attack by airplane a few months before

He's also lucky that due to them collapsing he didn't have to spend billions getting the obsolete asbestos insulation removed and replaced with legal insulation.

he's also lucky that he had a dr's appointment on 9/11 -- otherwise, he would have been inside one of the buildings (as he normally was).

wow... luck-eeeeeeee!!!

Also, his two children who worked in the WTC did not go to work that day

Can you point me at an authoritative citation regarding his children's absence?

Holy shit ! You have the Throw away account!

I'm jealous...

Looks like you got there a few minutes too late...

Lol

Wow.... almost 9^1/2 years old and that is his highest rated comment.

Karma is only useful when it goes negative and I can't figure out why. In that case, something's going on which I don't understand and I can ask about it. Otherwise, I don't give a fuck about karma and I don't understand why anyone else does either.

I actually agree.

I just figure over the course of more than 9 years you would accidentally get karma.

I'm not shy about negative karma.

[deleted]

I was talking about /u/throwaway

Oh :PPP sorry

lol yeah, 9 year old account and only 4000 karma? Somethin aint right.

no wonder he never threw it out.

Probably not

Don't know if you would call this an authoritative source but it's something

This works

Thanks, so they were running late. Probably they knew Dad wouldn't be there and didn't see much point in holding the meeting in that case.

Does Larry himself count as an authoritative citation regarding his children's absence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScGZCqEyGM

(NOTE: According to Larry his children was on their way to work when shit went down)

That's your only objection to what's been said so far?

I'd like sources on all of those claims to be presented alongside the claims, but oh well.

I'm pretty sure the issues start in the title.

It's not an objection. My mind is open.

Just thinking about things.. There must be so many who know the truth... Eye witness accounts.. possibly even recordings.. Yet they don't have the courage to spit it out.

they ded

Liek so ded

Super ded

Only the brave souls on Youtube and /r/conspiracy fight for the truth. God bless these heroes ;_;7

Maybe you should start listening to all the whistle-blowers that came out.

Pffft! They're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists

Plenty have "spit it out". No one listens. The problem is believability. If a guy who saw or heard something makes a YouTube video to tell the world what he saw or heard, no one believes him because "if it were true, MSM would have reported it".

They never consider MSM works for the government.

I mean someone with concrete undeniable evidence. Sheople lack rationale, it takes hard concrete video evidence 1080P preferably to get through most people's thick skulls. I'm sure multiple people have hard concrete video/audio/financial evidence and are just too greedy or too cowardly to take the risk.

Part of the problem is people want undeniable, concrete, rock solid, no way out, positive exact truth when the simple fact is... we can never know exactly what happened until we get a real investigation by independent investigators.

Why was steel evidence removed from the crime scene?

Why did the investigation into the biggest attack since Pearl Harbor take over a year to even begin?

Why did they drop the "following the money" trail when it led not to al Qaeda but to a lone investor "With no connections to Muslims"? did the trail have to lead back to Muslims before it was a valid trail?

Why were the vaults empty in Bldg 6? They were a depository and should have been full.

These are just some of the questions a real investigation would try to resolve.

Isn't it funny how the same people who demand undeniable, concrete, rock-solid, no-way-out, positive-exact-truth evidence of a false flag never seemed to hold the U.S. government & media to those same standards when it came to the official story?

"Well, you see, George W. Bush got on live television and told me within hours that bin laden and Al Qaeda were responsible, without even a shred of investigation, so it must be true!"

How totally convenient for them.

I'm not surprised the FBI knew who did it, they had probably been following them and listening in on their calls for months.

That's a fair point but the opposite is also true. People who look for conspiracy explanations will spend a lot of time poking holes in the official story, but will almost never critically examine or take into account the holes and problems with their own theories.

For instance, the issue I keep coming back to...let's assume the Towers were taken down with controlled explosions along with Building 7. What was the point? If you are going to stage a terrorist attack, wouldn't you just choose one method? Hijacking multiple planes and flying them into buildings is tricky enough. Counting on being able to trigger explosions at the exact moment the planes hit and then conceal all the evidence that it happened seems unnecessarily complicated when either the planes or the explosions would have gotten the job done. And why not come up with a better cover story for Building 7 if this was all planned out in advance?

Surely if there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, it would have simply involved hiring the hijackers to fly planes into buildings. Looking for "clues" and inconsistencies in the events themselves like it's a game of Where's Waldo is a massive distraction IMHO.

Well obviously anyone with more sense then a small rat could figure out for themselves that this was an obvious false flag. The problem is 95% of the population maintains the rat brain.. They lack the capability to make an informed decision based upon the information at hand.

And his fathers missed their flight that day. Flight 11.

And his mother went in to town for some groceries. Instead of tending her field in Somerset, PA.

And his favorite old Nana decided not to sell oranges on the road outside the Pentagon that day.

Source?

When you get down to it, you know who he is -- he's even Steven.

Not to mention the dual purpose of giving the U.S. Government the excuse to do whatever it wants.

They don't need an excuse

Never forget their excuse.

9/11 Never Forget ^{their excuse}

To say nothing of the "luck" that he made HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in insurance money over what those white elephant buildings were worth!

Larry was about the luckiest Israeli/Jew on 9/11/--next to Israel of course, who was "lucky" enough to get us to fight their enemies for them in the name of a phony "War on Terror^tm" ...basically...forever!

Some firefighters' lungs took care of that damn sneaky asbestos.

Billions? No. A couple hundred million, maybe. There was only asbestos in half of WTC1, and none at all in WTC2.

He's just lucky that he had recently insured them against terrorist attack by airplane a few months before

Larry Silverstein purchased the lease for the twin towers in 2001. The lease was signed July 24, 2001. Silverstein had built WTC7 in 1987, but owning the lease to WTC 1 & 2 was new. The terms of the lease required Silverstein and his WTC Partners to purchase insurance which included terrorist coverage.

From one of the court decisions:

WTCP covenanted by the terms of the leases to insure the buildings against loss from fire and other causes for the lesser of $1.5 billion or “actual replacement cost.” See, e.g., Agreement of Lease: One World Trade Center, § 14.1.1 (requiring insurance “equal to the lesser of (x) an amount sufficient to insure . . . the items of property described in this Subsection, except for the footings and foundations, to the extent of not less than the [actual replacement cost], and (y) One Billion Five Hundred Million and 00/100 Dollars . . . per occurrence”). The leases provide that there is to be no exclusion for terrorist acts, so long as such a policy term is available “at commercially reasonable rates.” Id.

Also, the insurance contracts between World Trade Center Partners and the 24 insurance companies had not been finalized by September 11. The insurance was being provided under temporary binders. One of the differences of the proposed contracts was what constituted an "occurrence" of a terrorist act. Some of the insurance companies were able to get summary judgment that the two planes crashing into the buildings constituted a single occurrence, which halved their liability. Other insurance companies lost on this point. See, for example, this, one of many court decisions about this. Eventually the insurance companies settled for $4.55 billion.

Personally, if I were planning insurance fraud, I would make sure that the contracts which ensured a pay-off were finalized before I torched my buildings.

Some people apparently think that this means that Silverstein and his partners just get to keep all this money. That's not true, of course. Silverstein still had all the obligations from when he bought the lease, including 120 million dollars a year in lease payments, repaying money he borrowed, and, last but not least, the requirement that they pay to rebuild the WTC!

The first insurance payments, for example, were used to pay back a $563 million loan from GMAC and also bought out the retail lease from Westfield America for $124 million.

According to this court transcript (PDF), the actual cash value of the WTC main site (not including WTC7) was appraised at $6.497 billion and the replacement cost at $7.183 billion.

Silverstein renegotiated the terms of the WTC lease in 2006. He owns the lease on three of five (planned) buildings in the new WTC complex. He does not own the lease on the largest building, One World Trade Center.

He got so desperate to recoup his losses that he tried suing the airlines. That's desperate.

Also, if he went into an agreement with black-ops conspiracy planners in which he'd knowingly watch thousands of people die and billions of dollars of investments collapse, wouldn't he at least want to receive a guarantee that he'd receive appropriate compensation for it? How were the conspiracy planners unable to motivate the judges and insurance underwriters to do their bidding and award Larry the settlements he asked for? That seems like something that would be entirely in their wheelhouse.

Because the insurance is pocket change compared to the 700 billion a year spent on the illegal war which was prosecuted against Iran and Afghanistan. Bet money Larry has huge investments in defense companies that get the govt contracts. That's where the real money went, so the insurance thing isn't much of a defense.

Bet money Larry has huge investments in defense companies that get the govt contracts. That's where the real money went, so the insurance thing isn't much of a defense.

You bet he had those investments, or he did have those investments? If he did, please post your citations below.

The best performing defense stocks post-9/11 rose by 80-90%. To recoup a $1B loss, Larry would have needed over $2B invested in defense firms. It would be impossible for someone with those kind of holdings to keep them under the regulatory radar.

If you can demonstrate that he had $2B+ in defense holdings, it would raise an important question: why would the U.S. military and many world governments be falling over themselves to earn Larry Silverstien investment returns?

he tried suing the airlines

I guess that explains the TSA.

This is great stuff, how'd you learn it? (Looking for more of the same.)

It's a repost from last month... which is fine... just pointing out that Agent Smith didn't write it for this thread.

Also, it's nice that someone should remind us that it was Silverstein who was the REAL VICTIM of 9-11.

This is interesting, and a lot more detail than I'm familiar with. Any Idea who owns the largest bldg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center#Owners_and_tenants

One World Trade Center is principally owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Around 5 percent equity of the building was sold to the Durst Organization, a private real estate company, in exchange for an investment of at least $100 million. The Durst Organization assisted in supervising the building's construction, and manages the building for the Port Authority, having responsibility for leasing, property management, and tenant installations.

I wonder if its the same First family as on that HBO show?

It is

Mostly the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the government organization which owns the land and built the original World Trade Center complex, in partnership with the Durst Organization.

[deleted]

[deleted]

None.

It wasn't "missing" nor was it announced on September 10th.

The issue, poorly linked and tracked transactions between DoD systems mainly, was detailed in a report released in early 2000. It was reported on numerous times in many media outlets in the intervening year and a half.

The $2.3 trillion figure was a total of all transactions that weren't automatically reconcilable. Lots was balance transfers and adjustments between systems.

The mention (it was one sentence on a 5,000 word speech) on September 10th was as an example of problems with outdated DoD systems.

Plenty of money does end up unaccounted from the DoD, but this was not that.

Detailed and articulate, thank you!

Get out of here with your facts. Don't you know jet fuel can't melt steel?

The twin towers were the site of a previous major terrorist attack. Insuring them seems like a pretty sensible thing to do, no reptillians required.

Why are you bringing reptilians into this? Please go get mental help.

It is on page 3 of the script. When losing, paint conspiracy theorists as nutters who believe in little green men.

The twin towers were the site of a previous major FBI staged terror attack gone wrong. Insuring them seems like a pretty sensible thing to do, no reptillians required.

FTFY.

totally

it's an open and shut case because of you sherlock!

it is a pretty open and shut case but no thanks to me. the New York Times did a pretty good explaining back in 1993.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html

thanks for all of the downvotes everybody. this sub has gotten REALLY crazy recently...

It's only the beginning.

People love America abroad. Terrorists would never attack us, ever. Every terror attack is staged.

2planes3buildings

He also was able to convince the courts that he should receive his insurance payout twice because each tower was victim of separate terror attacks.

No, they didnt agree. But he tried.

They boosted the payout by about $1Billion more than the max of what the payout for just 1 attack would of been at $3.55Billion. Not twice like Larry was seeking but still a nice bump.

He also tried to go after the airlines for several billion in "lost rental income" a few years back but failed.

Oh shit wow, that sounds like a total scummy thing to do.

It's never enough for some pieces of shit. It's a mental disorder, materialism is their religion. More more more is all they want. They don't see the difference between needs and wants, they just want more more more more, even if it causes incredible suffering of others. Any extra money should go toward the victims, but a greedy piece of human filth wants to take that for himself, because his mental disorder of always wanting more stops him from actually doing the right thing.

They don't call it the "Synagogue of Satan" for nothing, you know?

[deleted]

but it's not...

I have met Larry on multiple occasions and am close with people related to him. He's a pretty down to earth guy, at least in person, compared to what everyone makes him out to be.

also, would you apply that comment to bill gates?

No you haven't. No you're not.

I live in New York. Believe it or not important people actually live here.

I didn't realize I was talking to his grandchildren the first few times I met them though.

K.

you don't have to believe me...

I'll take a pic for you next time he invites me to his yacht though.

K you do that

Bill and Melinda Gates finance massive projects for the betterment of society, and plan to donate the bulk of their fortune to various charities. They are the exception in terms of billionaires, certainly not the rule.

You mean transferring their wealth into their own tax-sheltered foundation? Seems legit.

I think "evil" billionaires are the exception. You'd be hard pressed to find one not involved with serious charity work

Its not materialism because they don't want things. They only want money. They hoard money like its going out of style.

It's the worship of this "deity" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon

Being a shrewd and heavy handed business man and opportunist, does not a conspiracy make.

Yep. He got like 2.15 billion rather than the 7 he was seeking.

4.5, unfortunately.

He's genuinely lucky that even in a conspiracy the insurance company didn't just say "nah, doesn't count, your airplane terrorism policy doesn't cover terrorism using airplanes".

Let's get him!

Luckily, Larry was fully (doubly) insured.

Luckily, Larry's wife made a dermatologist appointment for him that morning.

Luckily, Larry's family members were also absent that day.

And anyway, at least we got the guy that did it!

Mission accomplished!

Also the first day of work in that building he had missed in 3 years. What a coincidence!

Join my petition to have September 11 declared a double National Holiday:

National Coincidence Day, and

National Buildings Fall Down Day

National How'd That Fit day!

this is a great idea:

National Only-Day-Steel-Buildings-Toppled-By-Fire Day!

National Physics Are Irrelevant Day!

National We-Had-To-Pull-It Day!

Larry "Pull it" Silverstein

National Where'd Those Trillions Go day!

My company cant account for a mear 3$ and they are looking to take it out of my pay.

No lets save that one for 9/10

Okay then how about the Who Could Have Predicted day then maybe?

No, no, no, how about Port Authority Solved Its Asbestos Problem day.

National "Physics Don't Apply Only for One Day In September 2001 Where Their Laws Were Broken Multiple Times in A Few Hours Day!"

I'm in! :)

Also the first day of work in that building he had missed in 3 years.

Hardly. He only owned the lease on the twin towers for 7 weeks. He had been there every weekday since then to meet the tenants. So, 7 weeks, not 3 years.

No, he owned bdg 7 and had office there for over a decade

And if he'd been there, he'd have survived just fine.

Also never late before is a very difficult claim to believe. I'm sure there were many days he wasn't in his office by 9am.

Source?

He doesn't have one, because Silverstein had only owned the building for two months.

luck-eeeeeeeeee!

Nice

I love that you're being upvoted. You do realize that he'd owned the WTC for less than two months, right? Where did you get three years?

He worked in building 7 for over a 10 years, then he bought it 2 months before it was destroyed.

Fair enough. Do you have a citation?

Why ask? You know the whole story. I mean, you've responded to almost every post here. Was this just your shift?

... Maybe because I want to know the truth? You don't seem to be bitching about the dozens of people here doing the same thing I am that you happen to agree with.

And what is with you people assuming anyone who disagrees is a shill? It's fucking pathetic and childish.

Really?

The idea that no steel framed buildings had collapsed because of fire damage before 9/11 is completely wrong. Ok, since just posting a link isn't good enough, here we go.

In relation to the collapse of the McCormick Center: The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

In relation to the Sight and Sound Theater: On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area.

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal discoloration and buckling steel.

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.

Come on guys. If you're gonna post stuff, at least make it accurate.

Here's the link anyways: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

EDIT: In response to everyone saying that it was only the roof of the McCormick Center and how does that relate to the Twin Towers. I'd argue that the enormous size of the towers without a doubt helped them fall the way they did in comparison to other structures. But please remember that the point of my comment was to prove that fire can indeed do damage to steel structured buildings, how much damage depends on many variables and I wasn't trying to suggest this is conclusive proof, only that the title of this post is incorrect and that should be addressed.

Cmon now....don't be tricky with the facts... The McCormick Center was a roof collapse only. The walls are all standing. Not the same thing as a total collapse of a skyscraper.

As you can see from the photo at the below link: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html

I wasn't trying to 'Be tricky with the facts'. The point of my comment was to illustrate that fire can do significant damage to steel structures and that the title of the post is misleading. The example of the McCormick Centre shows only the roof collapse perhaps because the building was not large enough to collapse in the way the towers did? Who knows.

The building didn´t collapse. The roof caved in. Not the same thing.

And if that roof had 25 stories Moore building above it, would it have been immune to collapse?

The point is that fire can, and routinely does, cause steel structural members to fail.

No it doesn´t. A total collapse of a building does not occur routinely. Here´s the thing. If the top half of the building had fallen off, I would have been fine with that. If half the building had fallen off and the other half had fallen off hours later, hey, I could understand that. But that is not what happened. It was the total collapse of a complete concrete and steel building in a matter of 1 minute. A building that had fire insulation by the way. You will not find an example of that happening ever.

Not fall into their own footprints at free fall speed.

Explosives routinely cause steel structural members to fail, not fire. Explosives also solve the tricky problem you'd have in explaining how 25 stories above a collapse could crush 75 stories below it with such little resistance.

If WTC 1's height were infinite, do you think the collapse would still be happening?

Yes

Edit: what kind of a question is that?

If a skyscraper of any arbitrary height can be brought down by only causing a series of critical failures up near the top, this would mark a revolution in demolition technology. The cost of explosives could be limited to the number of floors at the top required to cause the wave of collapse downward, instead of every column on every floor.

Actually, if you can get a couple barrels of diesel fuel up there and a lit match, you can forget the explosives altogether. Demolition companies could buy everything they need from your local gas station.

This is a picture of picture of the McCormack Place from a link on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O95ObcpIG0o. Don't think it anywhere near the size of the Twin Towers and it didn't totally collapse the roof collapsed most of the frame stood.

Kinda looks to me like half of the building completely collapsed. And the size of the towers would only help them fall like they did. They weighed 500,000 T each. That's a lot of weight to hold up on weakened supports in a freak situation the building was never designed for.

I should probably add that I do not believe that the steel was 'melted' at all. In fact it's been proven that's not what happened. It was related to the Angle clips that supported the floors. Damage from the fire caused two floors to cave in, putting more weight onto the angle clips than they were ever designed to take, thus causing a domino effect that gets worse with each floor that collapses.

It didn't have under steel beams like the Train Towers. Want built to withstand the damage the towers were. That you can even compare the two structures is ludicrous. From the picture you can see there is no inner beams like the towers, and the building didn't collapse the outer structure stuff and was demolished.

If only they hadn't disposed of the evidence to support your claim...

This is the right answer. The McCormick center didn't collapse like the twin towers because it wasn't as big and tall as the twin towers. As soon as the first floor collapsed it was a domino effect on the weakened structures all the way down.

Sorry, NIST does not support the pancake theory.

No, but neither did either WTC 1 or 2, and WTC7 was only for ~2.25 seconds.

No, but neither did either WTC 1 or 2, and WTC7 was only for ~2.25 seconds.

It does not matter for how long the building fell at the acceleration of gravity. What matters is that it happened at all, because for this to take place there had to be absolutely no resistance from ANY of the supporting structure of the building. There is only one way in which there would be absolutely zero resistance from any of the building below the roof of building 7 which fell, for a time, at the acceleration of gravity.

Yes. The supports entirely collapse. That's not new information.

Yes. The supports entirely collapse. That's not new information.

You believe every support column in building 7 failed simultaneously (within milliseconds) allowing the building to have a wholesale symmetrical collapse at the acceleration of gravity? Then we're fucking doomed as a society.

You believe that thousands of silent, invisible explosions went off simultaneously after being planted magically with no one noticing them? Then we're doomed as a society.

You believe that thousands of silent, invisible explosions went off simultaneously after being planted magically with no one noticing them? Then we're doomed as a society.

I'm making no assertions about what actually happened. I AM saying that the government's official conspiracy theory makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The only thing that can fall at the acceleration of gravity is that which has nothing but air between it and the ground. I don't know what happened that day, but I'm convinced it sure isn't what we're being told. If building 7's support columns were removed, I do not know how. That's not my job to prove. The facts speak for themselves. Somehow they were all removed as supporting columns simultaneously.

The facts speak for themselves. Somehow they were all removed as supporting columns simultaneously.

Yes, you're correct, as I've stated. As the main supports failed, the supporting structure would have entirely failed evenly as the weight was transferred onto it. Hence 8 floors of free fall.

Yes, you're correct, as I've stated. As the main supports failed, the supporting structure would have entirely failed evenly as the weight was transferred onto it. Hence 8 floors of free fall.

Impossible. Don't take my word for it. Ask an architect or a physicist with no agenda. Can't happen.

Most architects or engineers disagree with you.

Most architects or engineers disagree with you

Ask the Nist analyst who wrote a dissenting opinion about the collapses how that turned out for him. Challenge the status quo, lose your livelihood and your subsequent career. It takes a lot of guts to challenge the official story. Believe what you must. To me, the science is the science and nothing can fall at the acceleration of gravity if there is the least bit of structural resistance from below. There is no way that building offered zero resistance to the collapsing roofline. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense. How can all the columns collapse simultaneously? That's the only way you can have an asymmetrical collapse. It seems like you and I will never agree, though. That's cool. Everyone's entitled to what they think.

they had many floors closed down at times for "renovations" .. they could of easily installed shape charges

No they couldn't. It would have to be every support on energy floor. The columns around the supports and most of the walls would have to be demolished. Cables would have to be run between each and every one of them.

Oh so youre a demolition expert? Thats not true at all. Do a little research or maybe watch one, its not even close to every floor, they take out a few key columns and gravity does the rest. Get a clue

If you are in denial because you're afraid to find out that we're doomed as a society then you'll never look at it critically.

I've spent countless hours researching both sides. To say I'm in denial is laughable. Don't project or make assumptions.

So, not going to answer the question then? You change the subject and assert that he believes in "magic?"

I sure as hell hope you're being paid for this. It's hard to believe someone could be that much of an ass naturally.

ONLY for 2.25 seconds which means it free fell for about 100 feet.

Or approximately 8 stories, which happens to be the number of floors severely damaged.

Sure, maybe they didn't, I don't know. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

There can be multiple possible explanations for lots of things. That's the point of their investigation. To consider possibilities and to eliminate and evaluate. That's exactly what they did.

I will say this, if that's a demolition job, paint me impressed.

Just trying to offer another side guys. Also, I was just trying to say that if they managed to pull of setting up charges around the columns of the building without witnesses, which would be months of work and would then be able to set them off perfectly in-time with each other (without delay that you see in normal demolitions) then that's an incredible feat. That certainly doesn't make it ok.

There can be multiple possible explanations for lots of things. That's the point of their investigation. To consider possibilities and to eliminate and evaluate. That's exactly what they did.

Really? They didn't even check for residue from explosives, even though this is strict protocol in criminal investigations into building collapses.

there was a lady and a few other people that found nano-thermite in the rubble and were mysteriously silenced/ disappeared.

There was three of these huge buildings., 2 hit, one not and on fire in different ways, then they all collapsed identically. Cmon.... They didn't just collapse into their own footprint, it looked like they all fell into huge holes underneath.

I guess we need to open our minds. Buildings collapse even without fire damage.

It's "steel framed skyscraper", not steel framed building. The only people I've ever heard say the latter are debunkers. OP Is either mistaken or just posted this to make a point to fellow debunkers.

I knew there had to be a reason there is a whole industries for fireproofing steel deck and members.

How tall was the McCormick Place? Was it a steel frame skyscraper?? Was its design comparable to the Twin Towers?

Was its design comparable to the Twin Towers?

No, but neither were any of the other towers people love to use to claim that fires can't collapse steel-framed buildings.

Steel beams? Fine. Steel memes? Good luck disproving that one buddy.

NOT SURE IF JOKING

OR JUST INCREDIBLY DANK

LE DANKEST

I have no idea why you are being upvoted.

The same amount of odds as if he had insurance policies on all three which paid heavily and covered airplane kamikazes

Well after the empire state building had an airplane crash into it almost all skyscrapers in NY have insurance that covers that sort of damage

all skyscrapers in NY have insurance that covers that sort of damage

so why weren't they covered for that sort of damage prior to larry purchasing the buildings 6 months earlier ?

They were. Insurers paid out over $500 million after the 1993 terrorist attacks.

For airplanes?

Please link documentation which shows in some way that deliberate airplane crashes were excluded from the old insurance, and included as part of the new policy. Because at the time, "insurance coverage for terrorist attacks and the losses sustained from them were available through general coverage without specific costs to policyholders."

I'm not your research assistant. I just asked a question. I don't know.

They were and this building had a terrorist attack before in 1993. Of course you would get all sorts of terrorist related insurance. Now I don't know what happened in building 7, I dont know why we werent more prepared.

I'm more suspicious of building seven then I am of anything else. But if you accept the party line that something smashed into it and knocked it down... it's kind of hard to plan for or defend against that. I suppose you could start making all buildings with iron cages all around them. That's really the whole point of insurance you can only take disaster preparation so far and at some point you just have to accept the fact that something might happen so you just want to cover your financial losses.

I honestly just think they saw this or another attack coming. I think they just new something was gonna happen and let it happen so we can go to war. I dont know about the thermite and all the other stuff ppl talk about. I think that detracts, but it is safe to saw that we used this attack to go to war with anyone we wanted and erode our constitution.. that makes me so upset.

Even if it all happened just as they say it's still sickening how they used it.

I thought it was for "terrorist attacks"

Like the one in '93?

you mean the one "uncovered" by the FBI ?

And perpetrated by them.

Source?

Not my axe to grind but I googled it I think this might say something https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/fbi-terrorists-among-us-the-1993-wtc-bombing/

search for yourself

Which means no real source.

I thought jokingly saying kamikaze airplanes was a sufficient euphemism for terroristic attack. My apologies.

All skyscrapers are required to have this.

Since when?

∞ to 1

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

Pull it--as in pull the firefighters out. That context makes perfect sense if you read his statement. It doesn't make any sense if you change the context to mean 'tear down the building'.

Yes because you usually refer to people as 'it' and not 'them', unless you're Silverstein, he just refers to people as 'it' I guess.

Show me one previous example of any one in the property industry using "pull it" to mean explosive demolition of a building.

It's like when you say 'shut it down' or something similar.

Like Ramsey?

Never heard the expression pull the plug? That is obviously what he is talking about.

[deleted]

Maybe Silverstein is a Gollum(sp?) Or he was watching silence of the lambs? It pulls the firefighters from the building or else it gets the hose again.

Replace "it" with "the operation" and that's what makes sense.

It's also entirely possible the it refers to something he explained in part of the interview we've not heard. It's clear the interview was edited, the editor may have shortened the quote not realising he was creating ambiguity in the subject of the sentence.

Anyone outside of his tribe is just an object, after all.

Wow.

Twas just a joke man. We both know that shit was bombed.

[deleted]

Nope. From the testimony of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

Note: 1) The use of "pull" to mean evacuate personnel. 2) The awareness that the building's condition meant it was going to collapse, some time before it happened.

Where does he say "it"?

Haha you believers always find ways around suspicious claims. "Pull it" meaning get the firefighters out? Come on, be realistic. At least he would have said "pull out" if anything.

I also doubt Larry has any say once the fire department is involved or given the authority to direct the operation, seeing that he was not on-site nor is he an experienced fireman. I would be surprised if the department sat around and waited for some finance banker to tell them what to do or when to "pull out." Larry us just one lucky, lucky fellow.

You're forgetting the History's Business episode where he said, in plain English, that the buildings were CDed. Sorry.

This episode has been found, it's proven, he said what he did.

So he SAID that the buildings were CDd and were wired for such but lied about it??

Wow, this bullshit runs deep.....

My question is, since when does a building owner get brought in to the loop to make a decision as to whether the fire department continues fighting the blaze or withdraws? How the hell is a private citizen giving the go-ahead to pull back first responders on any level? That would be like a bank manager telling police officers to go home and let a robber go in the event of a hostage situation. Sorry, it just doesn't jive unless he's a reserve captain or something. If it is a true account, the person contacting him is guilty of gross negligence and should be stripped of his command.

He didn't make the decision. He specifically said "they made that decision to pull".

Yup. Larry said pull it. Here's a video of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I&t=34s

How were they able to demolish it on command?

only one way, the buildings were prepped for controlled demolition in advance

Alright. Now show how

1) The buildings could have been wired without anyone seeing

2) The MASSIVE amounts of explosives, as well as all of the det cables, etc. remained entirely unnoticed (this is what a det primed building looks like).

3) Why the damage from debris and fire didn't damage that setup.

4)Why none of the hundreds of firefighters noticed that demo setup that would have been uncovered/destroyed by the fires.

5) Why there was no series of explosions, and no visual flashes from either traditional explosives or the EXTREMELY bright flashes of thermitic explosions.

The best theories I've heard for each of those points:

1) They had "elevator maintenance" crews (actually demolition crews) coming in for a week or two prior to the demolition, who walled off increasingly large interior portions of the building around the elevators (and support columns).

2) They used thermite, not regular explosives. It's smaller and faster to set up, but more expensive. Expense not being an issue in this particular case.

3) Maybe they were on different floors? Or maybe if the explosives need to be on all floors the fires were relatively controlled to be toward the windows. Those are just guesses. And debris from the twin towers would hit the outer edges of the building, which wouldn't go penetrate deep enough in to the building to get where the explosives would be.

4) They did, they're just not allowed to talk about it. This firefighter will though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

5) There were series of explosions, you can see it in the WTC7 GIF. It looks like the columns blew. You can see a vertical column of windows explode right before collapse! Especially in the second video clip.

Also remember the "elevator maintenance crew" could've been hundreds of highly-trained military or intelligence people, so it could've gone up extremely quickly, especially if they were working on it 24 hours a day.

These are good questions you ask, and they should be evaluated.

Watch "A New Pearl Harbor", it should answer all your questions. If you really don't care and just want to feel like you are right then don't bother.

I have. It answers none of them.

You are clearly lying here. Don't lie.

Let's think logically about this: how would a crew of workers be able to rig a working building to blow? They'd be drilling holes in major beams and carting in hundreds of pounds of explosives. That's the one thing that keeps me from believing that it was a controlled demolition. I'd love an explanation if anyone can give me one.

[deleted]

Do you have a source for the eyewitness accounts? It's also one of the points that conspiracy theorists like to gloss over or ignore without providing any evidence. And the part about removing bomb-sniffing dogs isn't true. A K9 officer and explosive-sniffing dog named Sirius died in the basement of Tower Two that morning. Their job was to check vehicles coming in, which would make it hard for trucks carrying hundreds of pounds of explosives over several days, wouldn't it?

The sheer number of people this would take and the amount of effort, just to go completely undetected is beyond the realm of credulity and into insanity. Renovating the elevator shafts is leagues away from rigging the two tallest buildings in New York City to collapse with explosives.

beyond the realm of credulity and into insanity

That's how these things work. It's so insane you just can't get your head around it.

[deleted]

I can totally buy that the government knew about the attack beforehand and allowed it to happen. I can 100% believe that that's what happened. I can also believe that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania. But to think that the government wired the buildings to blow or that it wasn't Mohammed Atta & Co. that actually carried it out is faced against a mountain of opposing evidence.

Are you serious? The evidence is extremely flimsy and IMO it's quite an extreme conspiracy theory in itself.

On the other hand, we're talking about people who were already conspiring to create a war with Iraq. The idea that they would think a major plane hijacking would be a good excuse is hardly far-fetched. I doubt they had any idea what the actual plot was, though.

[deleted]

What about the recordings of their voices and the security camera footage from the airports? Pretty sure phone calls from the plane describe the hijackers as being Arabs.

[deleted]

There names weren't listed on the flight manifests

Their names weren't listed on victims registers.

Their names are on any and all "official" passenger manifests.

none of their bodies were ever recovered.

They flew hundred-thousand-pound aircraft laden with fuel into a building.

Some stuff survives, some stuff doesn't.

However, many body parts were recovered and about a dozen positively identified.

[deleted]

Passports survive. Black boxes don't. Got it.

Ah yes, that old tired line. It's your astounding inability to believe, your pure incredulity that something happened that's lead to this.

Yes. Passports, piles and piles paper, articles of clothing, id cards, silk scarves all survived.

[deleted]

Passports, paper, clothing, id cards, silk scarves all survive

Yes, those sort of objects tend to survive such events, that's correct.

[deleted]

Yes and black boxes don't

Yes, black boxes aren't really designed to survive such catastrophic events, that's correct.

[deleted]

I'm not sure that hyperbole is really needed in a discussion

The "terrorists" are patsies, a small piece of a much bigger picture.

L.Oswald served a similar purpose.

It seems like you actually care about this subject so I would recommend you watch "A New Pearl Harbor". It's on youtube.

They answer your questions. I swear it's not crazy shit and it's perfectly rational.

Let's think logically about this: how would a crew of workers be able to rig a working building to blow? They'd be drilling holes in major beams and carting in hundreds of pounds of explosives. That's the one thing that keeps me from believing that it was a controlled demolition. I'd love an explanation if anyone can give me one.

Thermite is much more effective with less quantity than conventional explosives.

It's just expensive. Which wouldn't be an issue in this case.

Here you go

5 seconds on Google got me this. It brings up some good points. There is no corroborating evidence that a power-down of that size took place. It would have disrupted business operations affecting hundreds of people and there aren't any e-mail correspondences preparing for the outage? Why wasn't there an outage for the other tower?

And even if it was true and the power was only out on the top few floors, then that lends credence to the idea that the top collapsing would bring the rest down with it.

Also, I'm glad to see I'm getting downvoted for asking a question without attacking anyone. Really changes my opinion of this sub.

Are you kidding?? 36 hours? The average building demo take months to setup properly. The largest building ever imploded was 26 stories. To think that men can prep a skyscraper for demo in less than two days without anyone noticing the incredible amount of to-and-fro is just laughable.

I don't know how people who believe it was can brush this topic off so lightly.

The people who believe the buildings were demolished clearly do not have a clue as to the setup process. Miles upon miles of det cable, interiors entirely cleaned out, months of planning... And WTC7 is twice as tall as the tallest ever demolished. Imagine doing this for BOTH WTC1 and 2. And not a single person ever noticed?

It takes time to meet demolition regulations. Whoever upvoted you isn't thinking clearly.

Please, then. Enlighten me as to how to prep an entire building for demolition in 36 hours without anyone noticing before, during, or after, when it's twice as tall as any ever demolished? Then you can tell me how the detonations still went off without a hitch, invisibly and silently, even after large portions of the building burned for hours.

Please watch "A New Pearl Harbor". I also don't care enough to argue on reddit. The dudes at /r/911truth will be glad to debate with you though. FYI, it was not 36 hours.

The work was claimed to be part of an upgrade to the Internet service in the building. No one has explained why this work required a complete cutting of electricity.

“There were guys in work clothes with huge tool boxes and reels of cable walking around the building that weekend,” he said.

Detonating cord or Cat6?

Edit: Formatting

Now we learn that the fire department was in on it!

Yup! watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

Out of curiosity, did you thinks things were usually demoed without a command? Like on a whim, maybe?

No, it's just proof it's a demolition, not "it just fell down" as the official reports generally claim. That's my point. I understand demolitions are a controlled action, obviously.

Gotcha, thanks.

wow no fucking shit.

I have no idea, I'm just speculating, but couldn't he be noting the coincidence that shortly after making the decision, but before going into action, the building fell on its own?

It doesn't make much sense that, if they were planning to covertly demolish it and pretend it fell on its own, he would publicly announce that they demolished it.

What's your source that states no steel framed building had collapsed before or since?

Edit: from fire

This guy has never seen another example despite studying the subject for almost half a century:

https://vine.co/v/OdE1WWl2ZAq

Maybe that's because there are close to zero other cases of high rise fires with that much weight above the fire and being left to burn unfought. I guarantee not a single person in this sub can link one case with those two giant factors present.

Edit: downvotes for logic. Wonderful community here in /r/conspiracy

Maybe that's because there are close to zero other cases of high rise fires with that much weight above the fire and being left to burn unfought. I guarantee not a single person in this sub can link one case with those two giant factors present.

Edit: downvotes for logic. Wonderful community here in /r/conspiracy

It's because you're asking people to prove a negative. Of course no one can 'link one case', because it's never happened.

it's never happened.

That's my point. Using a "buildings never collapsed this way due to fire" as evidence it can't is moot if obviously this is a unique occurrence with extremely unique factors.

Yeah right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM (ignore the UFO crap)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3dhvp_madrid-skyscraper-burning-set-to-mu_news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/grozny-skyscraper-fire_n_3009315.html?

The WTC was a very light building in terms of dead weight vs structural support weight, theres no way jet fuel fires would weaken the beams enough for their to be such a catastrophic failure. At most it would have turned the buildings in giant flaming pyres.

Don't forget the impact of a full sized rocket powered passenger jet.

[deleted]

For your sake I hope you're shilling, but I dont care enough about you to try to teach you anything, so carry on.

That's what I thought no counter argument. Thought you truther idiots had more fire in you. No pun intended.

Why because I don't bother dealing with children who cant defend their ridiculous ideas without throwing a tantrum and using adhominem in every second line. How about you set up an experiment where you try to weaken metal or melt it lol with an open office fire, hell Ill let you throw jet fuel on it every few minutes, but youre only allowed so much combustible fuel at certain points of the metal. Try that mate, then when you come back without the result you were looking for you know what I'll tell you? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams! LOL

Get outta here, ya dog.

Waiting on that counter argument.

Non-mobile:

• beinging fire
• windsor

^{That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. WUT?}

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bizr86N-4nc

Yah there's no way fire can cause catastrophic failure. Now picture that with over 100 times the weight above it on a more symmetric fire.

Yeah that looks like a very similar structure to a steel skyscraper/s. And theres a reason it didnt burn uniformly and pancake onto its own footprint at free fall speed, you'd need a constant replenishment of fuel for fire uniformly across all the beams on at least one floor to even have hopes of getting the required temps.

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

WTC did not have enough fuel mass to do that.

WTC did not have enough fuel mass to do that.

Proof please.

Well NIST report said it was jet fuel that was magically pooled on the floor burning, when most of it flew out the other side of the building in the huge fireballs.

You're asking people to look for ways the towers could've actually fallen due to the effect of fire. People won't find them, because it's physically impossible.

No. I'm asking for one example of a highrise fire with a similar weight above it and no firefighters fighting the flames leaving them to burn on their own. It's pretty clear what I asked for not sure how you mixed that up.

No. I'm asking for one example of a highrise fire with a similar weight above it and no firefighters fighting the flames leaving them to burn on their own. It's pretty clear what I asked for not sure how you mixed that up.

The fact it has never happened before is more evidence against what you are saying than for. Look at the examples of steel framed buildings that have burned for many hours and the steel structure is still standing. That is proving a positive. Since what you are asking is for evidence of something that has never happened is actually more proof that what you are purporting is less likely than likely.

Since what you are asking is for evidence of something that has never happened is actually more proof that what you are purporting is less likely than likely.

Isn't that the point? The conspiracy is that it's never happened before so it must mean it could never happen. /u/i_alsodislikethat is asking if the 2 points he mentioned have ever been at play before, cause those 2 points are major factors in what happened vs other building fires.

If conspiracy wants to say a steel building has never collapsed cause of a fire before, so it can never happen. They also need to show that another steel building with as much weigh above the the fire and unfought has also happened before. Right now the argument that conspiracy is making is saying a steel building 50 miles high will not collapase under its own weight when the steel that is 49 miles below is structurally damaged.

Okay, read through a lot of this discussion, and the narrative is mind numbing. Why would the amount of steel above the damaged areas matter? Look at the structures fully engulfed. The ENTIRE structure is on fire and did not fall. Your arguments do not hold merrit. And then you will say "they gotz hitted by planes dough?!". And wtc 7 did not, and still collapsed. If one building was demo'd they all were. I can't wait until we start lynching people over this issue

It doesn't matter. Newton's Third Law is Newton's Third Law no matter how hard they beg you to believe otherwise. ~10 floors wont crush through ~90 floors without being crushed up themselves first.

Do you even understand what you're saying? Because holy shot is that a jumble of shit logic. The only thing what I'm saying is proving is that comparing it to other fires is pointless if they were vastly different. It's like saying burritos are gross when you've only had a bean burrito.

Do you even understand what you're saying? Because holy shot is that a jumble of shit logic. The only thing what I'm saying is proving is that comparing it to other fires is pointless if they were vastly different. It's like saying burritos are gross when you've only had a bean burrito.

You're talking about comparing to a burrito that has never existed.

What? You do realize all of those factors existed on 9/11 right?

Empirical evidence is not necessary: the laws of physics can do the math for you and the answer is "the building will not fall into a billion microscopic pieces at free-fall speed because there's a big fire."

Yah if you're not gunna give me an example to the one request in my comment don't reply and go back to your conspiracy YT videos.

Show me a video of gravity, then. Not of thing falling due to gravity, but a video of just gravity. Oh, you can't? I guess gravity doesn't exist then. Cheers, ty for clearing that up.

I'm replying to a comment using it never happened before as evidence it can't happen. I pointed out the two defining factors that were present specifically on 9/11 making his point irrelevant. If you have a hard time following that train of thought there's nothijg I could say to make you realize how redundant your comments are.

Even if they collapsed, they wouldn't have fallen into their own footprint, and would have left structural beams high in the air, also there wouldn't be pools of molten metal and traces of thermite in the wreckage.

I'm sorry, but thinking the official story is legit, is just pure ignorant bullshit.

The ingredients to make thermite were present in the building construction. It wasn't so much thermite as steel, rust, and aluminum.

All of these things are common in buildings.

[deleted]

you wouldn't find useful thermite if it had been used to melt steel beams in any readable amount if it had been used properly. Also, please find a better source than a 9/11 truther site.

[deleted]

It could be anything, I'm saying the source clearly has an agenda just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

[deleted]

I'm asking for better sources, not just graphs on the internet hosted by a clearly biased source.

[deleted]

Everything needed to make thermite would have been present in the construction of that building. Thermite isn't rare nor is hard to make. Mix that everything else in that building and there is a high chance of something being created by chance.

Funny when they ask for sources, but any source you provide will be deemed a "truther" source and thus, ignored. Great little system they set up for themselves, huh?

...and if this were /r/911truth, any source provided that doesnt go along with the truther narrative is labeled off topic and deleted.

Great little system they set up for themselves, huh?

Seeing as though that isn't the case where you're currently posting, your statement seems pretty irrelevant, huh?

Thermite fits the evidence. The "official story" combustion literally does not:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4#

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

Really? And where'd you get your vast knowledge of tower collapses?

The internet. Same place as you, no doubt.

Did you even think before you replied? Look at the two points in making. 1) Fires weren't fought. 2) Tons of weight above the fires. Exactly why would I need the Internet when those are just observations.

Look, I'm just saying that you both have the same pool of information. No need to get defensive.

I wasn't even refuting your points, even though there actually are examples of longer burning fires in steel buildings that didn't collapse.

Even according to NIST ( the official government story ) /u/I_AlsoDislikeThat is wrong.

His #1 is irrelevant. According to NIST anyway.

"What are the major differences between "typical" major high-rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on Sept. 11, 2001?"

There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1991), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).

NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.5, provides details about these building fires.

The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings:

• The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
• There was no use of accelerants.
• The spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics.
• Fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth.
• There were simultaneous fires on multiple floors.
• The fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor.
• The fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures.
• The sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.

There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7:

• Fires in high-rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors.
• Fires in other high-rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1.
• Water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired.
• While the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by firefighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires because of the lack of a water supply.

The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces), and points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and firefighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

"Nist is bullshit"

"But let me now quote nist to prove you wrong".

Flawless logic, buddy.

By the time WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces), and points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and firefighting activities (except for WTC 5).

Proof please.

You're the one pushing the official story. I'm just proving that you don't understand it. Either that, or even you know the official story is bullshit.

Source - NIST. What's wrong? Don't believe them?

"NIST is correct."

"But let me make statements that NIST disagrees with to support their theory"

Flawless logic, bud

;)

Point out where I supported their theory. Nist being inaccurate=\= inside job.

So the official story is inaccurate? And you are accurate? Interesting. Proof?

I've made two claims. The fires weren't fought and there was a ton of weight above the fires unlike just about all highrise fires. What part of this do I need to prove. These are blatant observations and common knowledge about 9/11. Seems to me you're trying to pull the same argument that every conspiracy idiot pulls without realizing it doesn't even apply here. You're like a robot repeating what it's programmed to.

What do you need to prove? The part where you called NIST (the official story) "inaccurate." Meaning your version is "accurate." Don't pretend to be confused. I was very clear. I'll wait.

What's my version? Lmao. Where have I ever stated a version. I've literally made two points. Which I've listed. Please do copy and paste what exactly I said that needs to be proved.

Stop stalling. You literally said NIST was inaccurate.... Proof?

proof

And what are you hoping to accomplish by posting this onion article?

What are you hoping to accomplish by asking me to prove nist inaccurate? It's beside the point. Just trying to get the upper hand in an argument to pat yourself on the back?

Oh I'm sorry. Do you make it a habit of making claims you can't support?

You mean like your claim I had a version? You are a spitting image of that onion satire. You should read and reflect on it.

Like when you said NIST was "inaccurate." So.... Show us. Prove it.

Actually never said it was innacurate. I was pointing out a train of reasoning. Example. Nist being innacurate doesn't mean an inside job happened. Nist being correct means it wasnt an inside job. Am I saying its both correct and not correct? Am I contradicting myself? No. I'm pointing out a concept. Guess where done here. You really should read that onion article.

Actually, that's exactly what you said.

Nist being inaccurate=\= inside job.

Trying to back out of your own (printed) statements only makes you look worse.

Additionally, I never said NIST being inaccurate means inside job. I said their theory directly disagrees with yours.

Then you called them inaccurate. I never made this statement. You did. Own it.

So either NIST is wrong / inaccurate (your second claim) - which, yes, I require you to prove.

Or your first claim is wrong about the unfought fires being significant.

You literally can't have it both ways.

So the only question remaining is...

Which one are you wrong about?

Actually never said it was innacurate. I was pointing out a train of reasoning. Example. Nist being innacurate doesn't mean an inside job happened. Nist being correct means it wasnt an inside job. Am I saying its both correct and not correct? Am I contradicting myself? No. I'm pointing out a concept. Guess where done here.

Read this slowly.

Actually, that's exactly what you said.

Nist being inaccurate=\= inside job.

Trying to back out of your own (printed) statements only makes you look worse.

Additionally, I never said NIST being inaccurate means inside job. I said their theory directly disagrees with yours.

Therefore, your "train of reasoning" line is nothing more than a failed excuse.

Then you called them inaccurate. I never made this statement. You did. Own it.

So either NIST is wrong / inaccurate (your second claim) - which, yes, I require you to prove.

Or your first claim is wrong about the unfought fires being significant.

You literally can't have it both ways.

So the only question remaining is...

Which one are you wrong about?

Read this slowly.

Took your advice and read it again. Noticed that you wrote "where done here" as opposed to "we're done here." Good thing I read it again....

even though there actually are examples of longer burning fires in steel buildings that didn't collapse.

Site one like I asked.

I'm not going to do your research for you when a simple google search would provide the answers, you lazy ass

He's making claims he can't back up. Not worth the time.

A Google search results in fires that were fought and/or had less weight being held up at the damage point. But good job making a claim without providing proof and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

here's another source -- though there are many:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

google is your friend.

This site has been debunked a LONG time ago.

This guy is just too scared to want to believe the truth is all. It can be scary, but is necessary if we want to survive against all the crazy lies they are giving us...

Well, this is the first steel framed building that had paper in it. Paper burns so hot it melts steel.

The entire fire thing is often viewed in a very simple way by conspiracy theorists, you'll find very many more engineers saying it was fully possible and explaining why than you'll find people saying it wasn't possible.

the entire thing is up in the air tbh, but some of the popular theories such as "fire couldn't melt the beams" or free fall have been pretty firmly debunked.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

It's interesting to think about, and I think some shady things took place probably but the fire thing is bullshit and I'm not sure why people keep pushing the "fire couldn't melt" angle.

Actually it seems like all debunkers have been debunked. I've been looking for legit explanations but there are seriously none left. When you read stuff like the link you posted, do you go like "oh, science stuff, seems legit?".

Are you on crack? the debunkers gave up years ago because there was literally nothing left to debunk.

Literally read the major debunking websites, they're all on hiatus until the truthers come up with something new.

If your research leaves you empty handed you're really bad at research, the holy grail of truther "evidence" is a paper published in a 0 impact factor journal which is mainly about a field not related to whats in the paper.

You're either math-illiterate or REALLY bad at doing research.

The best part of this is you people have no idea how much money the entire conspiracy industry has made from you, don't you find it interesting all of these major conspiracy theorists are pulling in millions of dollars spewing bullshit? yet the debunkers are just random guys running blogs? isn't it weird to you that for every 1 engineer the truthers manage to delude over to their side the debunkers have hundreds? isn't it a little weird that to this day their has never been a single pro truther paper published in a real journal? why do you think this is.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want mate, even if there is overwhelming evidence that tells you you're wrong.

Huh, you seem to be quite invested in this topic and quite biased. The truth is that all debunkers have been debunked. I literally do the research around once a month.

isn't it a little weird that to this day their has never been a single pro truther paper published in a real journal? why do you think this is.

People want to KEEP THEIR JOBS? Do you ever use common sense? Would you rather be right, or unemployed and losing your wife and kids and everything you've worked for starting from kindergarten to your current age?

Look up Dr. Judy Wood... No debunkers have addressed any of the things she points out about what happened on 911. Do a YouTube search of "where did the towers go" with Dr. Judy Wood.. It blew my mind

I'm gonna be honest here mate, and I mean no offense but on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the government is stealing my mail and 10 being lizard people are running the government "Dr" Judy wood is like a 26 on the wacko scale.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html

It's easy to call people that believe this "space based energy" weapon bullshit crazy or even the missile nutters crazy but that'd be 100% false.

Sane people believe insane things if the info is given to them in the right way.

Most of the debunkers didn't even bother dealing with judy wood because she was so nuts nobody thought she'd have a following.

But there are a lot of debunkings about her theory and the entire thing falls apart when it's actually looked at.

The large majority of truthers won't even accept the no plane theory, even they think it's nuts.

I actually really liked her because she just points out what was seen on 911 and other technologies that exist where we see similar outcomes. Take it or leave it I really liked her presentation and haven't seen any explanation of what happened on 911 that makes sense. There truly should have been more wreckage and it doesn't make sense how majority of the buildings became dust. Where are the desks and toilets and sinks and filing cabinets or even parts of the planes.. Especially the engines. It's just crazy.. Not to mention the buildings falling at free fall speed. I dunno.. I just thought her presentation was interesting and made me think. You can think she's a wacko crazy nutjob but I found it interesting. It's pretty late so I'm going to read the link you provided tomorrow, is there anything in there addressing anything Judy wood talks about?

The entire debunking I just linked you shreds any viable way for no planes to have hit the tower.

Trust me she's seen as pretty nuts, where is it you've looked for evidence debunking her claims? because it's pretty easy to find.

The whole free fall speed thing has been debunked a lot too, I see this with a lot of people that are otherwise rational.

They say they can't find any debunking of a theory they believe but one google search brings up hundreds of results, even peer reviewed studies from experts saying it's nuts.

Her entire theory hinges on no planes hitting the towers, it's been proven many times that planes hit.

If you're not interested in reading the entire debunking, she actually got destroyed in an interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8 (the interview starts at 2 mins 20 seconds, but the video up to that point maybe helpful for you)

Even most of the mainstream truther websites said she was nuts and said her "batshit theories" were not welcome.

Her directed energy weapon theory is pretty wacko in basically every way.

This woman got a lot of wind under her wings from her original video, but after the interview I linked you everyone started questioning her mental health.

I'm not so sure about the no planes theory but I've read some stuff on how difficult it would be to fly the plane that hit the pentagon, especially the route it took as well as how far it was off the ground as it flew into the side of the building as opposed to flying it into the top of the building. And also stuff on how the types of planes that were used couldnt go up to the speeds the planes were going that day without the plane falling apart. I also think the fact that there's no footage released of the plane going into the pentagon is suspect especially with all the cameras around. The pictures out there just show the beginning of something on the right side and the next frame is a ball of flames. Plus the size of the hole in the damage compared to the size of the plane. Shit just doesn't add up.

Here's the thing though, it does add up. Seriously watch the interview with Judy wood, she makes herself look like a warped crack head. the guy thats interviewing her is cringing the entire time.

Here's some interesting things about the pentagon crash.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

So let's talk about how nobody saw the plane, this is false and the no plane hit the pentagon truthers like to leave out the overwhelming number of eyewitness accounts that saw a plane fly into the building.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

I just want to know why we can't see any videos or pictures of it. (Pentagon attack) If they had pictures or videos then why wouldn't they release one just to appease the public. And the fact that the people who filmed personal footage of the planes hitting the towers like major news corporations bought the rights to them and the people couldn't talk about their experiences like where they filmed it and such. I think that's kinda suspect. I honestly have to watch the video with Judy wood again because I watched it at 5am as I fell asleep so I'll watch it again but my impression on the beginning of the video I felt like the interviewer kept asking her what kind of energy weapon was used but how is she to know? There can very well be technologies that we don't know about that could have been used it doesn't mean she's a quack for not knowing. But again I haven't seen the entire interview I'm going to give it a watch now.

And thank you for giving me your opinions on 911.. I know I have strong opinions on what happened and usually people get all bent out of shape having people tell them a different opinion but I like to do as much research as possible and am open to changing my opinion as I come across new evidence that contradicts what I've learned. So thank you for being cool and reasonable without being all crazy and defensive, much appreciated.

Have you seen these videos? There's three parts to the video, each is like an hour and a half long. it's the most in-depth thing I've ever seen talking about all the discrepancies from 9/11 ... I think these videos moreso than others have truly convinced me that the official story is bogus.

I think one of my biggest issues on 911 was the fact they said it was okay to breathe in the air after the towers collapsed. I think it's awful that majority of the rescue workers are dying or dead due to complications from breathing in the air that day. They should've known to tell them it was toxic especially with all the asbestos in both buildings.

I've seen every video, every single one. they're all the same they just ask a bunch of questions and get a bunch of things mathematically wrong but nobody watching the video bothers to look into any of it.

For every single truther point ever made, there are 10+debunkings of it.

This is simply not true man. I think you are referring to Loose Change which was just shit. I am telling you, all debunkers have been debunked for years now. The sites that you posted are all outdated and were debunked a long time ago. A lot of the stuff that's on there is just factually wrong as well.

I'm not sure what bizzaro land you're living in where any of it was debunked.

You're entitled to your own opinions, I form my opinions based on scientific evidence and as of now the overwhelming majority of it confirms I'm right.

Seriously? Popular Mechanics? Come on dude. I don't know if you're trolling or what but the sources you've posted have all been debunked a LONG time ago. If you really really care about this subject please ask the guys at /r/911truth. You can even ask them to prove something and they will gladly do it as long as you aren't trolling.

Do you have any information on why the buildings fell at near free fall speed? It doesn't make sense how if you were to drop a bowling ball off the top of the tower it would fall at the same speed the towers fell down at. The towers got hit right, so at the point of impact if the building were to weaken it doesn't make sense that the top part of the building falling would have enough energy to demolish all the intact floors below it. As the top part of the building collapsed it would push down into the intact floors and those floors would push back up. But we don't see that happen. It's as if all of a sudden the entire building turns to dust and just falls or that the floors below are blown out so that the building can fall with no resistance. I would love to see something explaining this because it doesn't make any sense.

Plus I don't get how the planes disappear into a building reinforced with steel. The planes hitting the towers should have shown the plane getting smashed as well as the building getting equally smashed, not the plane slicing through the buildings or disappearing into the buildings. I saw a picture of a plane that hit a high rise building and you can see the tail of the plane sticking out of the building where part of the plane broke through the building and part of the plane was left sticking out.

Sure actually, here's a paper that discredits any claim of free fall really published in a credible journal.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf

If this doesn't work for you you'll have to go to the actual website

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

This site actually has a bunch of reading and papers, the thing about most of the truther claims is they never actually prove anything, they just make claims.

There were more than a few papers that refuted the free-fall thing the truthers just never actually attempted to read them.

As for the plane vanishing, what do you think happens when a plane runs into a building at 500+ mph? the plane was no more.

You'd have to provide a link to this picture of the plane and expand on it more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Here's a simulation from a credible source of the planes hitting, this maybe easier for you.

This doesn't address the free fall speed. Or the thousands of architects and engineers around the world who disagree with it.

There was no free fall speed, I don't get where you're getting the free fall speed thing.. the penthouse debunks the free fall speed bullshit.

Time and time again I see this free fall myth spammed, yet it's been debunked over and over and over.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

It's literally right here, the math and video does not show anything close to "free fall" speed.

I don't get how this is still a theory at all.

You can check this math on your own, that's the best part of math. it does not lie.

This is what I don't get, most of these theories can be debunked by googling. the people that buy into these have to be putting literally 0 effort into it at all.

Yeah I actually came across that after posting. Fascinating read, but will double check the math tomorrow. I still question if the building would have fallen straight down, but maybe the massive weight would've made that happen.

Even NIST admits to free fall acceleration occurring in WTC 7. There literally was free fall.

Given their other reports, I wouldn't consider them a reliable source to be fair.

NIST originally did try to lie and say free fall didn't take place. They were literally proven wrong by a high school physics teacher and had to change their report.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

It is a measurable fact. Free fall took place.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

This doesn't even touch on Building 7.

k.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPa2PXJS8yA

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3544/4278927/

NIST admits free fall actually. Are you some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist?

NO IT DOES NOT, I see truthers say this every single time and it is not true at all.

The timings from NIST are counting from the start of the fall to when the first exterior panels hit the fucking ground.

it wasn't a timing of the actual falling.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/free-fall/

My god man this is what I'm talking about, just half truths and things taking out of context.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/free-fall/

Read the actual report next time rather than reading the cherry picked parts with no context on some retard truther website.

I'm actually convinced not a single truther has read NIST period. There is no way they'd keep pushing this if they had.

Or be trying to use it as evidence of free fall, considering the report literally says it wasn't free fall.

Nah, the fire wasn't hot enough.

Bombs were rigged throughout the building.

The question is: who are the terrorists who planted the bombs?

You're not providing any math and the fact you don't understand why it's possible just means you don't understand combustion science.

I linked an article from an engineering journal explaining what probably happened.

The steel didn't even need to melt for the towers to fall, nearly every engineer you ask will tell you that.

This is how conspiracy theorists work, they'll see thousands of professionals in one field rationally explain something and then they'll find a few people confirming what they believe and assume that means they're correct.

So let me ask you this, if thousands of engineers all agree it was possible, and a very small minority say it wasn't who is right? it's like this with climate change too.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

You'll find the very large majority of theories people believe about 911 stem from uneducated people forming opinions about things they just don't understand.

So let me ask you this, if thousands of engineers all agree it was possible, and a very small minority say it wasn't who is right? it's like this with climate change too.

So, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a network of respected architects, physicists and engineers that, recognizing how professionally fatal it can be to vocally support alternative theories to the collapse of the World Trace Center tower 1, 2 and building 7, have openly joined this group to say they don't believe the engineering science pushed by NIST and the 9/11 Commission.

How is this group of scientists - whose numbers are in the thousands - retain less credibility that the other "professional/official" scientists? We have two versions of physics coming head to head. I'm not a professional but as a student of Physics and Astronomy I don't believe the official story because I don't believe it makes sense with regards to the physics.

You'll find the very large majority of theories people believe about 911 stem from uneducated people forming opinions about things they just don't understand.

As far as this accusation is concerned I'm just going to assert that it is simply an opinion of yours. Uneducated people forming opinions about things they don't understand can be applied to anywhere people get information from - the internet, televised news media, news entertainment, politics, finance. There are a lot of morons out there spreading ignorance that very easily spreads as common sense and truth, when it's clearly not.

I knew you'd link this website, let's talk about Gage.

Richard rage is an interesting guy and has some theories about building 7, Which I'll fully agree is weird some what but the guy is not really credible at all. first of all he's an architect, he isn't an engineer and he isn't an explosive expert at all.

This guy likes to brag about the fact he's a member of the AIA even though the AIA wants nothing to do with his website.

He even tried to act like they endorsed him even though that's 0% true, basically just lied to make himself seem more credible.

He's actually seen as kind of crazy by them, I wonder why.

Here's another cool fact about Gage, 31% of the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth go to paying his fucking salary.

That's right, this guy is paying himself nearly 100 thousand dollars a year for this non profit.

The evidence this guy has is also highly questionable, he's been caught lying multiple times.

Remember his thermite claims? remember when he got caught lying about the evidence of thermite?

Here's a video of him lying about the thermite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDiAlMIJ8A4 and he still has this on his website claiming thermite was found when it never was.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm here's the debunking of the thermite claim backed with math that's very easy to check on your own.

He also claims the buildings fell at free fall speed right, that's also on his website and that's also been debunked.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Seriously, don't believe me check the fucking math it's right there you can easily check it yourself.

Look, these people are entitled to their opinions and they do have around 2200 members but compared to the over whelming majority that's still a minority.

Literally every piece of evidence on this guys website has been debunked by people far more credible than him and that are actually experts in their field.

Be it explosives or be it engineers.

Either way we can't know for sure what happened, all we can do is look at the science the math and evidence and form an opinion.

And the over whelming majority of engineers agree that most of what richard gage has said has already been debunked.

That combined with the fact he's just shady as fuck and is using some 30% of the funds to pay his own salary makes it very questionable.

Dude, give it up already. Debunkers have been debunked for years now. Every few months I do some research to see if debunkers have any new info, but it seems like there's nothing left.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

Yet thermite was never found and if thermite was used it would have also been found.

So where is the thermite then, do you have any idea how much thermite would have been needed to bring down the towers? and we have zero direct evidence of thermite being used.

now lets pretend for a second this is the smoking gun (it's not at all, not sure why you'd think that) so what? it says like thermite, it didn't actually prove thermite was used or find evidence of it.

Every single time I have this discussion this is what I think of.

http://i.imgur.com/uZC5fF9.gif

You're entitled to believe whatever you want, your beliefs will not change no matter how much evidence tells you you're wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

I'm not claiming I know everything that happened, I'm not claiming the government didn't do it.

But I'm not going to take this 1 paper which doesn't actually confirm anything and then weigh it against the mountains of evidence that says truthers are wrong and say "this 1 paper means the truthers are right".

If you can debunk the peer reviewed, published paper, please go ahead. If you can't you needn't respond.

The peer reviewed published paper that doesn't actually confirm anything?

I'm guessing you didn't actually read the paper or what?

Or are you just not very good at understanding things you've read?

The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic "nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC. Thermite, discussed briefly above, is such a pyrotechnic mixture that cannot be easily extinguished and is a common component of energetic nanocomposites. Unusually high detections of sulfur, silicon, aluminum, copper, nickel, iron, barium, and vanadium might all be explained by physical release of materials from such energetic nanocomposites"

Do tell me where in this paper is confirms the use of thermite, because it doesn't at all.

It says it's possible, this does not = proof as to what happened at all.

Understanding what you're reading is important friend.

The peer reviewed, published paper that confirms that the official story combustion cannot account for the VOCs. Again, if you can't debunk, that's fine. But you needn't respond. You definitely aren't a peer.

Alright, if you want to go down this road let's do it.

Let's talk about Jones for a second mate, considering I'm guessing you don't actually know anything about the guy.

He's submitted many papers, mostly to non-credible bullshit journals.

This is what happened after his first paper.

Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

Judging by the fact you held this up high and said it was peer reviewed so it must be correct, do you not understand what a good peer reviewed paper is? it needs to be in a respected journal, for example I can go find 100+ journals that claim peer reviewing but it isn't relevant if the journal isn't respected.

For example his first few papers got spat on because he published them not in a civil engineering journal, and in a less than respected journal.

His entire department disagreed with his paper and they all tried to get distance.

That being said lets get into this paper.

wow it took me all of 5 god damn seconds to find something discrediting the paper you linked.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

I knew you'd link this paper because it's the paper conspiracy theorists like to think can't be debunked.

Lucky for me conspiracy theorists tend to forget the second paper which jones published to confirm this paper and prove thermite was used.

That paper was debunked and it was proven thermite wasn't used and jones didn't actually find any.

Next?

I didn't ask you to ad hom attack the third author of the peer reviewed, published paper with information pertaining to a different paper. (Which isn't even peer reviewed/published) What I did say was:

The peer reviewed, published paper that confirms that the official story combustion cannot account for the VOCs. Again, if you can't debunk, that's fine. But you needn't respond. You definitely aren't a peer.

And if you are going to respond again, make sure you leave the logical fallacies out of it. Oh, and make sure you actually produce a source which debunks the paper in question. You might want to look up 1st author v. 3rd author meanings as well.

Thanks.

His first paper implied thermite was used, the second paper claims thermite was found but it wasn't.

It was such a god damn fiasco the editor of the journal resigned.

The article I linked is a paper about how thermite was found in the dust, which it turns out it wasn't.

"Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology, resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article composed of nonsense"

If thermite was in fact used, and that's what was found in the first paper the second paper would have confirmed it.

It was proven to be false in every way.

The fact you don't seem to grasp what peer reviewed means is a red flag for me, and I'm not interested in debating a wacko on /r/conspiracy that is borderline illiterate because it'd be the 3rd time in 2 days.

So let's make this really simple.

The second paper was meant to confirm the use of thermite, jones claimed thermite was found and the second paper confirmed thermite was not found in the dust, no thermite means his paper is now void.

After the editor of the journal realized it was nonsense bullshit and in no way true, she fucking resigned from the journal.

Thanks.

Stop trying to use (non peer reviewed, unpublished) information about a different paper to debunk this different peer reviewed, published paper. That's literally not how it works. Still waiting on those VOCs.... What's taking so long?

are you full blow disabled or what dude? the second journal he published in WAS ALSO PEER REVIEWED, and more credible than the first journal.

That's why is was a fiasco you fucking mongoloid. the editor literally resigned.

His entire paper was then debunked, want even more evidence the paper was bullshit?

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm amazing. yet another source showing it was bullshit.

This guy published MULTIPLE PAPERS in sketchy journals and then published 1 in a peer reviewed journal that was less than credible and you're acting like that means it's a good paper.

If you lack the mental ability to see why this paper is dumb, I literally can not talk to you.

I could go provide these to an 11 year old and they'd be capable of grasping it and seeing why the second paper debunks the first paper.

The publisher was bullshit which makes his peer reviewed article also bullshit.

This is why I can't stand people on this sub anymore, the average IQ of a conspiracy poster has to be lower than white rights posters even.

1 paper in a for profit peer reviewed journal that nobody finds credible and it's "proof" but the 100+ papers published in actual credible journals don't matter.

I'm actually done here, I have no idea why I keep telling myself it's possible to reason with quacks on this sub. It's actually not and I know it's not because there is mountains of psychological evidence saying it isn't possible but I just keep trying.

Good luck man, never breed.

are you full blow disabled or what dude? the second journal he published in WAS ALSO PEER REVIEWED, and more credible than the first journal.

I'm saying the link you provided is neither peer reviewed, nor published. Work on your reading comprehension.

That's why is was a fiasco you fucking mongoloid. the editor literally resigned.

Wrong paper. Wrong journal.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm amazing. yet another source showing it was bullshit.

Wrong author. Not a peer reviewed, published source. 0 mention of the VOCs / the peer reviewed, published paper I actually linked you to.

This guy published MULTIPLE PAPERS in sketchy journals

Wrong author. Wrong paper. Ad hom logical fallacy. 0 mention of the VOCs

If you lack the mental ability to see why this paper is dumb, I literally can not talk to you.

Good. Because you aren't providing anything of substance.

The publisher was bullshit which makes his peer reviewed article also bullshit.

Again, wrong paper. Wrong journal. Wow!

1 paper in a for profit peer reviewed journal that nobody finds credible and it's "proof" but the 100+ papers published in actual credible journals don't matter.

Wrong paper. Wrong journal. Wow!!!

I'm actually done here,

You were done before you even started.

It's actually not and I know it's not because there is mountains of psychological evidence saying it isn't possible but I just keep trying.

You're actually fleeing the convo because you can't find anything to debunk or even refute the actual peer reviewed, published paper I gave you.

I'll keep waiting for an answer on those VOCs!

I'm not fleeing the convo, the only reason I post here is because I need to be able to deal with crazy people and not get angry for something I'm doing.

That is literally the only reason I post here, I just leave when I get angry because that's me failing.

The level of dumb is just too much for me to handle at this point, you're not grasping why the second paper debunks the first paper.

You literally can not link the 2 because you do not have the mental ability to do so.

I explain to you the first paper implies thermite was used, the second paper was to confirm thermite was used and it was then debunked.

AND YES IT WAS a fucking peer reviewed journal, which is why the editor resigned after the second paper because it was nonsense.

The bottom fucking line is he claimed thermite was used, and it was then proven that it wasn't used after he made the claim it was used.

If the second paper shows thermite WAS NOT USED, that means the first paper is now void.

That means it's no longer relevant because the entire thing it was trying to prove has been debunked.

Let me word this yet another way so you can fully grasp it.

THE CLAIM, was that THERMITE was used in the bringing down of the buildings.

They claimed to have FOUND THERMITE and then published a paper on it in another journal, this paper was proven to be FALSE which debunks the first paper for obvious reasons.

Look man, this is actually my last reply to you because as I've already said, even if we assumed this paper was accurate it still does not prove anything.

You're trying to stack 1 paper against 100+ papers that are also peer reviewed in more credible journals.

Anyway, I'll leave you with this.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ Good luck friend, even the debunking websites don't even update anymore because they realize how nuts truthers are and how dead the movement is.

I'll argue with moon landing deniers, I'll argue with people that believe lizard people exist.

I won't argue with truthers, they're the most rabid and delusional of all conspiracy theorists.

I'm not fleeing the convo

You tried. You said you were done. But my response embarrassed you too much so you had to respond. So you proved yourself a liar and came back for more. Fine by me.

I just leave when I get angry because that's me failing.

Then you should do two things:

1. Get an actual grasp on the subject beforehand

2. Produce something of substance / relevance

That might help.

you're not grasping why the second paper debunks the first paper.

It doesn't.

I explain to you the first paper implies thermite was used

And I showed you that the first (and only paper I gave you) confirms that the official story combustion cannot account for the VOCs. Something you're still having trouble with refuting. Don't worry. I won't forget. And I'll never stop bringing it up.

the second paper was to confirm thermite was used and it was then debunked.

A peer reviewed, published refutation is required to debunk either of the papers. You have 0. So your argument fails....twice.

AND YES IT WAS a fucking peer reviewed journal, which is why the editor resigned after the second paper because it was nonsense.

I really can't believe how dumb you are. Well, seeing as though you are a conspiratard poster....I get it. THIS is the link you gave me that I said was not peer reviewed:

wow it took me all of 5 god damn seconds to find something discrediting the paper you linked.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

That was what I was referencing. Understand? Again, this:

wow it took me all of 5 god damn seconds to find something discrediting the paper you linked.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

Hope that was nice and easy enough for you!

Look man, this is actually my last reply to you

You said that last time. Let's see if you lie again.

You're trying to stack 1 paper against 100+ papers that are also peer reviewed in more credible journals.

You have produced literally 0 peer reviewed papers that refute either the paper I gave you, or the paper with which you are trying to topic shift.

Anyway, I'll leave you with this.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/[1]

Why? It doesn't provide a peer reviewed, published rebuttal of the paper I gave you. In fact, I don't seem to be able to find even a mention of the peer reviewed, published paper I gave you....odd.

I won't argue with truthers,

Liar.

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

I await the peer reviewed, published refutation of this paper. "Good luck" in your search.

Next time, educate yourself on the topic before speaking. It will save you the embarrassment.

Pretty solid logic friend.

"I can't refute the 100+ peer reviewed papers that say i'm wrong, but here's this 1 paper that doesn't even make any real sense or confirm anything so that means I'm right"

Who cares if the 4 papers he published before this one are complete bullshit and nobody finds them credible, this 1 paper is the smoking gun.

Except in that it doesn't actually confirm anything.

I also like how you don't realize this was published in a bullshit journal too, but you don't understand what peer review is so in your conspiratard head you think you're right.

http://www.springer.com/impact+factor+journals?SGWID=0-1766314-12-1028462-0

http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0251-1088_The_Environmentalist

So nevermind the fact it was posted in a not credible journal with an impact factor of fucking 0, that's right the journal in which your article is in has an impact FACTOR OF GOD DAMN 0.

To put that into view for you

https://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/publications/highimpactjournals.cfm

Impact factor is how to see if a journal is credible, a 0 impact journal is in no way credible and the peer review isn't relevant.

The publisher for the article you linked even says this, seriously read the first page I linked the PUBLISHER FOR THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED says impact factor is what makes a journal credible.

So if the only thing you have is a paper published in a 0 impact rating journal then so be it.

You just lost the argument, you might not see it that way but anyone with a brain does.

Anyone with even a small amount of understanding of how peer reviewing works or how journals work knows you're beyond delusional.

I'm going to say this 1 more time and maybe something will snap into place in your brain.

A 0 IMPACT JOURNAL does not a credible paper make.

There is a reason why he had to publish in this journal and not a popular journal or one with any relevance and you know the answer to that.

Even if you don't want to admit you're wrong here and think a 0 impact journal matters.

He published it in a journal which has nothing to do with the topic, that's right he published it in a 0 impact off field journal.

And you think that means peer reviewed? really? are you lying to yourself or trolling.

Oh hey, liar. Didn't expect to hear from you. Just kidding. I knew you were a liar. I see you scrambling for many (false) reasons not to debunk the peer reviewed, published paper. But the thing I don't see, is you actually debunking. It should be easy, no? Here it is again:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

You'll never get away with "debunking" the paper without actually debunking the information in the paper. Still waiting

I like how you calmly dodged the impact factor of the journal showing it isn't credible.

But I expected nothing less from someone that doesn't understand what peer reviewing is or why this has been a big issue recently.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/

Here's something else that made it into a 0 impact factor peer reviewed journal.

You can keep spamming this paper all you want, deep down inside you know I'm right about the impact factor thing and one day when your mental health is in a better place you'll snap out of the delusion.

I actually encounter a lot of people that just don't understand the peer review process period, I did my best to educate you on it but sometimes you can't help people.

Have a great day friend.

Your deliberate misrepresentation of the word impact is irrelevant. Credible =\= impact. Your reading comprehension remains atrocious. Again this should be easy information to refute, no?:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

You'll never get away with "debunking" the paper without actually debunking the information in the paper. Still waiting

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

"The impact factor (IF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information. Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for those journals that are indexed in the Journal Citation Reports"

http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0251-1088_The_Environmentalist

Current impact factor: 0.00

IMPACT FACTOR RANKINGS

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

5-year impact 0.00 Cited half-life 0.00 Immediacy index 0.00 Eigenfactor 0.00 Article influence 0.00

off field 0 impact factor journal, not actually peer reviewed. playing dodgeball with retards sure is fun.

I guess that article about how a leaf cured cancer in that other 0 impact factor journal is credible too.

So delusional my god, this is making my month.

It really is a shame the lizard people came down here and removed all traces of the thermite used :/

So let's talk credibility!

From your own source:

"Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable."

OUCH! Not very "credible."

OK...so let's see where the journal is abstracted / indexed:

SCOPUS, Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, ProQuest, CAB International, Academic OneFile, ASFA, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CSA Environmental Sciences, Elsevier Biobase, EMBiology, Environment Index, Expanded Academic, Geobase, GeoRef, Global Health, INIS Atomindex, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest, Zoological Record

Great!

OK...so let's see if the peer reviewed, published paper itself has been cited. Seems more appropriate and specific.

Well what do you know? It's been cited in:

Handbook of Research on Diverse Applications of Nanotechnology in Biomedicine, Chemistry, and Engineering

Arun G. Ingale

Year: 2015, Page 612

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6363-3.ch028

as well as:

The Rules of Variation Expanded, Implications for the Research on Compatible Genomics

Fernando Castro-Chavez

Journal: Biosemiotics, 2012, Volume 5, Number 1, Page 121

DOI: 10.1007/s12304-011-9118-0

The paper itself is in the 74th percentile of citation ranking.

Interesting!

Waiting:

I see you scrambling for many (false) reasons not to debunk the peer reviewed, published paper. But the thing I don't see, is you actually debunking. It should be easy, no? Here it is again:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

You'll never get away with "debunking" the paper without actually debunking the information in the paper. Still waiting

My question to you, is if a bit of jet fuel can bring enormous skyscrapers down into their own footprint, within a few hours...why do other controlled demolitions require so much math and days/weeks of planning?

Maybe the real conspiracy is demolitions companies scamming people? Paying them to place charges at calculated points when all they really need to do is spread some fuel around a few floors. I mean, if it worked for TWO skyscrapers with minimal collateral damage, outside of that pesky third building that was clearly built on toothpicks, I think we're onto a breakthrough in demolitions science.

Because it's a controlled demolition, which means it needs to be safe right? which means more time needs to be put in to make sure the damage to buildings around the target isn't major.

You literally just debunked your own point in this comment.

The world trade centers coming down did over a billion dollars in damage to surrounding buildings which means it couldn't have been some controlled demo by professionals.

If these companies were just hired to destroy buildings and not care about damage they could probably do it pretty quickly.

You're entitled to your own opinion, I'm going to use math and science to form my opinion rather than paranoia.

This is how skeptics work, in order to be a skeptic you need to question your own beliefs which is something conspiracy theorists just don't do anymore.

I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job and then I started getting into the math and the truther claims and it's really easy to see why the entire movement is bullshit.

The math does not add up to their claims, steel can in fact become weak when exposed to heat.

And I'm guessing you believe it was thermite that did the melting? why the fuck would they use thermite and then swap to explosives?

The point of this is that every single claim put out by truthers has a counter claim that's even more likely and has better math.

You're free to believe whatever you want m8, it's good to question things but you literally debunked what you said in your own comment.

I haven't come to any firm conclusions actually, and believe it's all mostly disinfo at this point. I suppose 90k L of jet fuel is probably more expensive for mainstream demolitions as well, in case anyone was seriously considering a new startup.

The more believable angle is that some higher ups knew the attack was coming and simply allowed it. A country that spends as much as we do on military knows how to protect airspace around its major cities.

Then again, the most believable theory I have heard was incompetence on the part of our military and intelligence. A fuck up of that magnitude is worth spreading disinfo to cover it up.

I'd agree the fact it happened is the conspiracy not so much the bringing down of the buildings.

There are just too many debunkings for it to be thermite or anything else.

I'd also agree another major part of the conspiracy was using it to get into the Iraq war.

And with how incompetent our government is that's very believable.

Because it's a controlled demolition, which means it needs to be safe right?

Is this a joke? Silverstein wanted the most cost-effective method of dismantling his asbestos-riddled towers. A disguised demolition that could be blamed on terrorists was chosen, and it returned a massive profit in bogus insurance payouts. It is blatantly obvious that "safety" was not a consideration at all.

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

The guy lost money on this, I seriously can not talk to people on this sub in a serious way anymore.

Literally every theory thrown out by them is debunked in under 5 seconds of google use.

I seriously feel like every single person on here just watched the retarded videos didn't apply any critical thinking or research and just went with it.

It would have actually been cheaper to just have it all removed, the guy lost a retarded amount of money.

The guy lost money on this, I seriously can not talk to people on this sub in a serious way anymore.

We don't like people peddling establishment lies on this sub. Please take your lies somewhere else.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

Uh.. did you not read what you just linked or what man? this is talking about building 7 alone and isn't taking into account the years of court battles with the insurance company while he was still paying rent.

This guy won around 4 billion dollars in the settlement, the total cost to rebuild is billions more than that.

He also only got like 60% of the bonds meaning he's lost a retarded amount of money.

You literally just beat yourself in this argument, not only did you fail to read what you linked you also didn't link the correct thing.

So who is lying here? because it isn't me, it's you and honestly I'm not sure if you're illiterate or just not very good with numbers.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323993804578614292502152144 the guy lost his claim for 8 billion dollars and got destroyed.

Judging by the fact you linked the cost for... 1 tower and judging by the fact it uh...didn't update post 2004 with him losing the double claim and not collecting twice on the insurance policy.. which means he lost billions of dollars I'm going to assume you're not the brightest bulb. Thanks though it was pretty cute how you gave away the obvious fact you didn't research anything about the insurance settlement post 2004.

This is too easy, kind of like playing dodgeball with retards.

this is talking about building 7 alone

Nope. I told you to stop lying!! You just can't help yourself, can you!?

uh.. ok "backs away slowly" I wasn't aware I was dealing with an illiterate schizophrenic.

"In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim" the math they're doing is assuming a double pay out counting it as multiple attacks.

and it is literally talking about 1 building, you can read what you linked yourself and see it's talking about 1 building.

He lost the claim http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/26/cx_da_0926wtc2.html

Which means he got around 4.1 billion dollars total for the insurance claim..the rebuilding cost was 6+ billion dollars.

It took him 6 years to win this claim, he was paying 120 million dollars a year rent during the entire time.

This is literally like me putting water in front of you, telling you it's wet and you saying LIAR NO IT ISN'T.

Won't be replying to you anymore, you're like the second most batshit insane person I've ever encountered on this sub and that's saying a lot.

Silverstein won the WTC centre bid, for $3.2 billion for a 99 year lease. That works out a mere $33 million per year over the period. Small change.

But the Silverstein consortium only actually put up $125 million collateral, and they got this money back from the Port Authority!

From the article. "In December 2003, the Port Authority agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that the consortium headed by Silverstein originally invested to buy the lease on the World Trade Center."

The cost of rebuilding the WTC has been high, but it was almost entirely covered by the insurance payouts, and Silverstein still has 85 years of the (absurdly cheap) lease remaining on which to maximise his profits.

There's probably only one person that I know who lies as much as you have, and that leads me to ask: are you Larry Silverstein?

How the FUCK is a 4.1 billion insurance payout going to cover the cost of a 7 billion dollar rebuild.

Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...

The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...

It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?

Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.

Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.

Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.

But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.

With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.

I'll just copy paste this here, but you have literally no understanding of how any of this works period.

Nothing I say to you will change your mind, I'm trying to reason with someone that spends most of his time posting anti-jewish conspiracy theories.

Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

another interesting part, mad profit was made friend. mad profit.

I admire your tenacity. 8,000+ words over 24 hours. That is a full day! You have a real appetite for the 9/11 argument it seems.

Because it's a controlled demolition, which means it needs to be safe right? which means more time needs to be put in to make sure the damage to buildings around the target isn't major.

I'm pretty sure that if the towers had not fallen largely in their own footprints there would have been a LOT more damage to the surrounding buildings.

The math does not add up to their claims, steel can in fact become weak when exposed to heat.

No one is debating this, the question is how much heat was available and how weak the core columns would have had to be to fail (since the plane could only have taken out a few of them through kinetic force).

And I'm guessing you believe it was thermite that did the melting? why the fuck would they use thermite and then swap to explosives?

I would love to see a real report/investigation that could look at some of these issues, unfortunately the government stonewalled any investigation whatsoever for almost a year and it was a little too late for good forensics to be done. I wonder why they did that...

The point of this is that every single claim put out by truthers has a counter claim that's even more likely and has better math.

It's interesting then that both FEMA and NIST still insist that the lower sections of the towers offered zero resistance to the collapsing floors, which is physically impossible. They have not put forward any evidence for why this would be so, presumably because no explanation is better than whatever absurdity they would have to concoct to defy basic physics.

There are plenty of other facts that have not been explained, like how the hijackers managed to not show up on any airport security cameras while boarding. The only explanation I can think of for that is that they weren't there or the tapes were destroyed to benefit a cover-up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Here's a video of a simulation of the plane hitting, you can pretty much see how much damage the plane did.

I'll tell you right now I believe the government let it happen because the hijackers seem to have lucked out way too many times.

I however do not believe any explosives or thermite was used though.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

This actually talks about the resistance thing too.

Here's a video of a simulation of the plane hitting, you can pretty much see how much damage the plane did.

Yes, it's a very pretty animation. There's no actual way of knowing how much damage the plane did though, all we know is that the beams would have destroyed the plane much more efficiently than the plane could destroy the beams considering the strength of the materials in question.

I'm not sure what passage you are referring to so far as the freefall article is concerned, but I haven't found any information to debunk Chandler's work on the topic or the study that showed there was no way the weakened core columns could have generated sufficient momentum to negate the entirety of the building below. This is because weakened metal sags and crumples slowly in different areas; it does not suddenly fail simultaneously among sever floors at once, which is the only way to generate the kind of momentum that would produce a near-freefall collapse (although I do think that even in that scenario it would have taken longer). There is actauly a good paper showing this point mathematically. It's also a bit silly that they claim that even explosives couldn't have brought the towers down, while trying to defend the theory that an airplane did. Pretty much very easy stuff to debunk if you think about it for a second.

Or maybe it's done to keep debris or shrapnel to a minimum?

Seems like a pretty poor idea to not do the math that might save somebody from a flying piece of window.

Try telling the people on the ground during 9/11 there was "minimum" collateral damage

And to everyone in this thread bringing up the "only buildings with steel beams that collapsed due to fire" point, can you name me three examples of other buildings that had fully fueled 737's fly into them?

The fuel wasn't the main cause since 7 also fell. The main cause was fires left to burn on their own and how much weight was above the fires. These two factors are have only happened a handleful of times. If that.

A 'bit' of jet fuel is an understatement. 90,000 L was the total amount. Weighing in at 1/3 of the aircraft. However, the fuel was not capable of 'melting steel'. It is actually believed that what gave way is the Angle clips which held up the floor between the outer perimeter box column and the inner core.

The towers actually survived the loss of several exterior columns which were damaged due to the aircraft impact.

Each floor was designed to hold 1,300 T above it's own weight. The floor joists started to give way on the most heavily burnt floors, which caused the outer box columns to bow outwards. This allowed the floors above them to fall. The intact angle clips had to withstand approx. 45,000 T. Way above the specified 1,300 T. This in turn creates the collapsing domino effect you can see when watching the towers collapse.

You've also got to remember the building is around 95% air, it isn't solid. The debris was basically in an unrestricted free fall. The reason for an almost vertical fall was 1) in part due to the weight of the buildings and 2) the limited time it took them to fall.

Generally skyscrapers are designed to last 3 hours when engulfed in flames. The WTC's didn't last that long due to the special circumstances.

You also need to remember when these were designed. They were designed to withstand a 707, the largest aircraft at the time of construction. And it was designed without taking the fuel load into consideration. It was hit by a 767 with 90,000 L of fuel. Big difference. What happened that day surpassed what it had been designed to withstand. And it's amazing they lasted as long as they did.

I didn't answer your question but I thought informing you on this might be a good thing, since you're still under the impression the fuel melting the columns was to blame.

Have you seen pictures of those angle clips? They look flimsy as hell.

A study of the angle clips in the debris found that 96 percent of the clips located below the collapse initiation point were bent downward or severed off completely.

Exactly. Proof that they were simply unable to take the load of the debris on top of them. Thus causing the domino effect of each floor.

Domino theory IS NOT supported by NIST! Stop with the alternative conspiracy theories. I understand you guys want to believe the government because it makes you feel better about things but please at least look up what they've said themselves.

This is the picture I was thinking of:

http://www.debunking911.com/construction.jpg

The trusses themselves don't look like much either, but those little clips wouldn't stand a chance against a freight train of debris dropping on them. They probably have a millimetre or two of movement in them before they fail completely.

WTC 1 was made to withstand airplane crashes. Are you saying the architect sucked at his job?

It did withstand an airplane crash. Both buildings did, and stood for an hour each.

They were never designed to withstand a crash paired with the massive fire and dislodged fireproofing that followed.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram).

Maybe you should read the FEMA report or at least the FAQ.

Each floor was designed to hold 1,300 T above it's own weight. The floor joists started to give way on the most heavily burnt floors, which caused the outer box columns to bow outwards. This allowed the floors above them to fall. The intact angle clips had to withstand approx. 45,000 T. Way above the specified 1,300 T. This in turn creates the collapsing domino effect you can see when watching the towers collapse.

And yet the engineers who designed the building stated that: "A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns (perimeter columns) tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." Since only 23 out of 213 perimeter columns of the affected floors in the South tower were taken out there was obviously plenty of load-bearing strength left over (33 in the North tower were destroyed). This leaves us to the unavoidable conclusion that the core columns were somehow compromised if the planes did indeed cause the collapse. Yet FEMA's own results, while inconclusive, show that it was most likely the plane that was destroyed by the massive steel core columns rather than the other way around.

A 'bit' of jet fuel is an understatement. 90,000 L was the total amount

Again, FEMA's own report contradicts your statement.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved.

The remaining fuel burned off in about three minutes or so, according to FEMA, so we are basically supposed to believe that a paper and carpet fire weakened thousands of tons of steel to collapsing point. I wouldn't say the story is impossible, but it is quite improbable.

You've also got to remember the building is around 95% air, it isn't solid. The debris was basically in an unrestricted free fall. The reason for an almost vertical fall was 1) in part due to the weight of the buildings and 2) the limited time it took them to fall.

This is just bad physics. The building had a lot of spaces for debris to fall through (although that debris would be slowed down by the force of crashing through concrete and metal floors), but that doesn't negate the fact that the core columns were not air and should have offered a great deal of resistance. Chandler goes through the physics in this video.

90,000 L was the total amount of fuel the jet could store onboard, it was not the amount of fuel that burned inside the building, or even onboard the aircraft at the time. A lot of it was burned in the initial impact.

Edit: Apparently the aircraft, did a mid air refueling so that it could be completely full of fuel so that it's tanks would be able to deliver the total fuel payload and bring down the tower. This happened for both aircraft. I mean it's not like you need to burn some fuel to take off and travel to your destination. Oh I know the terrorists brought extra fuel onboard!

Even educated people don't understand things sometimes. Actually a lot, people a lot smarter than us are often wrong, gravely wrong, but because they have 'standing' their point of view, even if entirely wrong, is accepted as truth.

The actual truth is we don't really know much despite what we believe.

actually quite the contrary.

The buildings were indeed rigged with explosives which is why they came down.

The "hijacked" planes were just cover for the controlled demolitions.

It is documented that Donald Rumsfeld changed the protocol for intercepting hijacked planes just before 9/11 so that the only way they would intercept was to contact him personally but he was unreachable. He changed that back after 9/11. Similarly, Mineta was in the war room with Dick Cheney who would not let them shoot down the planes. An officer told Cheney, "Mr. Vice President, the plane is ten miles out, do the orders still stand?"

These show involvement from our dear leaders.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Jet fuel didn't need to melt them, just weaken them substantially, but that doesn't make as good a meme.

Can't weaken steal beams without Cheney and Rumsfeld playing along.

Actually you can. It's called fire. Tends to make things a tad more malleable

Still need Cheney and Rumsfeld or it can't be done brah.

...to create fire?

to prevent obstruction of the planes from their intended targets.

Either I fell for a troll or you have zero sense of scale on how big the sky is.

Unless you're suggesting that they changed the flight paths of all NY flights to clear airspace for the attack. Which is even dumber because everyone even slightly associated with the flight plans would have stepped forward saying they changed it on 9/11.

ad hominem, either/ or fallacy, and slippery slope fallacy.

Also, I'm addressing the actions of Cheney and Rumsfeld--

nice attempt at deflection.

Wow, Mr Winston Smith is the biggest moron I've ever seen on the Internet. Everything that's said is made up with no sources, then it pulls out fallacies that don't even pertain. Please tell me it's still an adolescent.

Thank you!

Very few people are claiming that it wasn't possible, mostly they say that a steel-frame collapse from fire is unlikely and if it was to happen it wouldn't happen at essentially free-fall speed. The oddity of the speed of the collapse has never been debunked, indeed the government reports on the collapses do not address anything beyond the initiation-point of the collapse. How a building that large could fall straight through itself with practically nil resistance from the lower (more robust) sections while generating enough heat to create molten steel for weeks is something physics is not capable of explaining.

So let me ask you this, if thousands of engineers all agree it was possible, and a very small minority say it wasn't who is right?

Well, thousands of engineers and terror experts thought it was impossible before it happened. This is why the NYFD sent hundreds of men into the buildings while the 911 operators told everyone not to evacuate. Either way, you cannot deny that the experts can easily get it wrong.

I don't understand where you're getting this free fall thing from, considering that's the most debunked one of them all.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm check the math for yourself.

I think the government knew it was going to happen and let it happen, but these theories have all been firmly and soundly debunked.

I guess they debunked NIST since you can read straight from the NIST report:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

No reason is given for why a giant steel and concrete edifice would offer "little resistance."

OK, that doesn't prove anything. He's not aware. Do we know what examples he studied?

Nist.gov

He owned 3 skyscrapers

Technically 4 buildings -- most people totally forget Building 6.

And only two planes were used, not three! Amazing!

[deleted]

about the same odds that if I was accused of mass murder law enforcement would collect all my family members and fly them on the first plane out of the country to safety. Uninterviewed.

What are the odds of all the steel being chopped up put in shipping containers and sent to china before anyone can investigate.

What are the odds?

I'd say they were about 95%.

The question, of course, is who knew that before the event.

These dancing fools knew,

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

And that investigation ended.

Because if it had continued, we might have found something.

Law enforcement, at the top, didn't want to find anything.

"Our purpose was to document the event."

Top Lucky Larry comments are spot on

How could the average human miss these key points?

[deleted]

Larry isn't even that lucky. The family guy creator was in on it too. Got pulled off the plane just in time.

How many had narrow bodied jets fly into them? How many were in the vicinity of buildings like the WTC collapsing?

Just curious

So... "narrow bodies" made all the difference, eh?

You ever play "Jenga"?

You ever have the stack of blocks pancake on itself and fall into it's own footprint?

Of course you haven't.

Narrow bodied, wide bodied, it doesn't matter. But how many building have had one crash into them? You can not compare a building fire, to a building fire created by God damned passenger jet being crashed into it.

I believe I've read where there has been at least one example previously, and the building did not fall down.

Or a child has fallen into water and drowned, yet not all children that fall into water, drown.

You have one previous case... I have two that prove otherwise.

I find this rhetoric in regards to the WTC to be disrespectful of those that lost their lives. Y'all argue that finding the truth is paramount and that that will ultimately respect the dead... But the truth is, a bunch of horrible men, hijacked several planes, crashed them, this was the result.

When the owner of the building called for WTC7 to be pulled, the day of the "attack" after the other two buildings fell, there is no other explanation than the building had been wired previous to that day for demolition.

Here's the deal, if one part of the story doesn't work, it all doesn't work.

Picture if you will a middle eastern man flying an aircraft he's never flown before. Now picture this man making a perfect landing, ground level, into one of the five most heavily guarded buildings on the planet. Further picture that this man, who has never flown or landed a jet liner before, perfectly hits the building where during the previous week an investigation into a couple missing billion dollars was just getting under way.

Please. You cling to your story like a rat to a sinking ship... I'll continue to believe that what I was told was complete and utter horse shit.

Just as Christians say "God must be real" because they don't understand how any of that science could be real, are conspiracy theorists in regards to this stuff.

Flying a plane, even a jet once it's off the ground is very easy, even easier for men that had previously had flying lessons, even easier again if you have a home computer and a flying simulatior.

Killing 3000 people just to demolish a building... Yeah, nah.

Nothing you've just said is pertinent... thank you for your contribution.

[deleted]

15 years experience as "head of ground operations" for a major airline. No not a pilot, yes I do know what I'm talking about.

Edit: And yes plenty of simulator time. Shit a 30 buck "game" for the PC is pretty realistic.

Well... except for the insurance payout he was the unluckiest man ever...

oh, and being able to sell that "white elephant" once the buildings had been demoed (for free)... except for that.

Where did the towers go- by Dr. Judy Wood

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWjktDuIhR8

Haven't seen anything by anyone trying to prove her theories wrong

The "three buildings" line is one of the mainstay falsehoods of the entire conspiracy, there were in fact seven major structures at the WTC all of which were totally destroyed on 911, another twenty or so buildings had damage described as ranging from slight to severe.

exactly. Larry also owned Building 6, which was also very obviously another controlled demolition, if some kind -- there was simply nothing left except a very large hole right in the middle of the building:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/September_17_2001.jpg

It was just gutted! very very odd.

Did you consider the fact that WTC6 was directly underneath WTC1? And what kind of CD has ever looked like that? Doesn't it make far more sense that thousands of tons of debris likely did that?

Did you consider the fact that WTC6 was directly underneath WTC1? And what kind of CD has ever looked like that? Doesn't it make far more sense that thousands of tons of debris likely did that?

Look at the photos of building 6 directly after the 'collapse' and before there was any removal of debris (all exterior walls are still standing - they would have had to have removed the debris with a large crane instead of just tearing down the walls if in fact that's where the debris went - this would have been ludicrous). There is no debris inside or on top of building 6. Nada. There is no logical explanation for it in the realm of the official conspiracy (government) story.

edit - words

There is a massive amount of debris. What are you talking about?

There is a massive amount of debris. What are you talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FkO5ry1uo

http://www.whale.to/b/bollynwtc609.html

Where's the building?

Under all the debris that you can clearly see. Are you just messing with me now?

Under all the debris that you can clearly see. Are you just messing with me now?

I see a completely open inner building. I see the garage below with a car that is not even crushed. I do not see what I think would be the debris from the collapse of that building. I guess you and I have a different idea of how much debris there would be from this collapse. I don't know what happened to building 6, but in my mind there is no way near enough debris in the middle of that structure.

Nukes at the WTC on 911

As well as conventional explosives that had been built in during construction, thermonuclear demolition charges were positioned in both Towers, those same micro nukes embedded in the collapse material..

Still had enough potency to wipe out the top nineteen floors of WTC 3 the Marriot Hotel, all but the North Wing of WTC 4, and to leave the gaping holes in WTC's 5 & 6 when it came into contact with them!

Do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence?

Do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence?

Do you think he did the investigation? He didn't destroy evidence. The government did.

You still can't make claims without evidence. Nukes are an absolute impossibility.

You still can't make claims without evidence. Nukes are an absolute impossibility.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were omniscient.

I never made such a claim.

I never made such a claim.

Then how do you know nukes are an absolute impossibility? Can you open your mind to the possibility that there are nuclear devices developed that we are not in the loop about?

The problem with "anything is possible" mentality is it leads to ideas like this. The whole idea about scientific uncertainty is nothing can be proven absolutely and whatnot. However, it's also important to use logic when making assumptions. There is no kind of logic anywhere which would support assumptions about "mini nukes" and attempting to overrule the dismissal of that assumption is just as poor logically. I could state the whole building was taken down because of genetically modified super termites implanted into the steel by soviet spies 30 years ago and then attempt to defend that stance by invoking the same thing you did

I could state the whole building was taken down because of genetically modified super termites implanted into the steel by soviet spies 30 years ago and then attempt to defend that stance by invoking the same thing you did

Specious. You are assuming the only nuclear technology we have was developed over 60 years ago with no technological advance since. I'm not stating anything definitive. I'm merely opening my mind to the possibility. I find it logically unsound for three buildings to be pulverized into mostly dust from a collapse. But hey, that's just me.

Because a Nuclear weapon creates many things not seen at the site. Massive radiation. A massive shock-wave. An EMP. A light so bright it would have been visible from the ISS. Not a single one of these occurred at the site. If it was a nuke, it wouldn't have been WTC 1 & 2 that fell, it would have been downtown Manhattan.

Because a Nuclear weapon creates many things not seen at the site. Massive radiation. A massive shock-wave. An EMP. A light so bright it would have been visible from the ISS. Not a single one of these occurred at the site. If it was a nuke, it wouldn't have been WTC 1 & 2 that fell, it would have been downtown Manhattan.

You're thinking inside the box, my friend. If you think the only nuclear fission devices we now have on this planet are of the same technology developed in the 1950's, you need to do some research.

edit - you're

Think logically. The process of creating such a weapon would require testing. One model of weapon would not include an ability to ignore all of these. You might find one that was developed that doesn't emit radiation, but it would emit an emp, or vice-verca. One new model wouldn't include the ability to be the perfect weapon, it isn't possible. There is literally no evidence of a Nuclear weapon being used on 9/11 besides people not understanding the mechanics of bringing down a large building, and therefore assuming it was the most powerful thing we have. It's a fallacy used in religion too. I don't know, therefore god. Except in this case, it's I don't know, therefore Nukes.

It's a fallacy used in religion too. I don't know, therefore god. Except in this case, it's I don't know, therefore Nukes.

Again, I make NO definitive statements. I only speak of open-minded possibility. The reason I question WTC 1/2 is because of the implausibility of Building 7. Physics dictates that the only way that roof line could have fallen at the acceleration of gravity is if there was absolutely zero resistance from ANY of the building beneath it. NIST issued a post report statement, once pressured, that the building did indeed experience a period of fall at the rate of the acceleration of gravity. I ask you, does it make any logical sense that every single support column failed simultaneously creating absolutely no physical resistance allowing for that fall speed? THAT is why I open my mind to other possibilities with 1 and 2. I draw no conclusions. I make no definite statements. I WOULD, however, like to see an actual investigation that actually wanted to find out what happened to the buildings. Too bad the evidence was quickly destroyed, which is against all criminal investigative protocols into building collapses. Did you know they didn't test for explosives residue, which is mandatory under criminal investigative protocol into building collapses? These protocols are LAWS. The ensuing clean up of the sites and destruction of evidence were actually criminal acts.

edit - I think you have it backwards. I believe in science. It's religion that makes people believe what they're told, even if there is no actual evidence to support it. Don't question the word - trust and believe in authority.

Can you open your mind to the possibility that there are nuclear devices developed that we are not in the loop about?

Doesn't change the fact that there was no explosion or radiation.

Doesn't change the fact that there was no explosion or radiation.

I don't remember any local tests for radiation. Hell, they declared the area safe and free from carcinogens including asbestos. We all know how that turned out. I'd ask the 1st responders but the many of them are either dead or sick. Also, you're assuming conventional nukes with 1950'S technology. Don't you think things just might have progressed somewhat since then?

Nukes at the WTC on 911

glad you posted this.

though the notion that "America was nuked on 9/11" is a REALLY tough nut to swallow.... the use of mini-nukes (along with thermite) seems to be the most realistic scenario. (yikes)

"unluckiest" lol. more like luckiest because of the insurance he got for them before the attacks

"Lucky Larry" is even luckier than that!!

Thanks to his Israeli connections (none other than "Bibi" and an entire network of Sayanim) he not only knew the buildings were coming down months ahead of time--he bought these asbestos-filled white elephants for pennies on the dollar, insured them specifically against "acts of terrorism" (I think that was a first), made a fortune on the put options on the airlines (basically betting that the stock will go down), made ANOTHER fortune on the insurance that paid out hundreds of millions of times what the buildings were worth, didn't have to spend penny one on asbestos abatement (instead letting the first responders breathe that shit and DIE)--and then had the chutzpah to sue the airlines!!!

Say what you will about this fucking CRIMINAL...he has balls that are made of brass!

he not only knew the buildings were coming down months ahead of time

Nope.

he bought these asbestos-filled white elephants for pennies on the dollar,

Nope.

insured them specifically against "acts of terrorism"

Nope.

(I think that was a first),

Nope.

made a fortune on the put options on the airlines (basically betting that the stock will go down),

Nope.

made ANOTHER fortune on the insurance that paid out hundreds of millions of times what the buildings were worth,

LOLOLOLOL.

If anyone wonders why it's hard for most people to take the 9/11 conspiracy theorists seriously, the above should be Exhibit A. Unsubstantiated claims, wild exaggerations and flat-out lies.

Gods chosen ones, fear no man.

The Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing was completely engulfed in flames for hours but didn't collapse.

American construction is straight up shoddy. Everyone knows that :)
The damn architect said he built WTC 1 to withstand plane crashes and it obviously didn't. What a scam artist.

It's because there's no need for China to invade other countries by faking terrorist attacks.

billion dollar insurance policy just updated weeks prior to the attacks. easy money.

It seems that it is also true that no steel framed building had ever been left to burn - without sprinklers or fire hoses - as WTC 7 was, and none have been left to burn since (around 7hrs without water).

Also, WTC 1 & 2 were hit by a Boeing 767-223ER and a Boeing 757-223 carrying close to 40,000 liters of fuel each and this had also never happened before. The majority of those fires were also left to burn due to destroyed sprinkler systems and terrible access issues for the firemen.

Edit:

Larry Silverstein has to be the unluckiest man in history! He owned 3 skyscrapers..

Lucky? He built WTC 7........

"By 1978, Silverstein owned five buildings on Fifth Avenue, as well as 44 Wall Street, and a shopping center in Stamford, Connecticut. In 1980, he renovated the building at 11 West 42nd Street, and acquired the lease for the Equitable Building at 120 Broadway.In 1983, Silverstein sold the building at 711 Fifth Avenue to Coca-Cola for $57.6 million (equals $136.4 million in 2014), having bought the building in 1977 for $11.5 million ($44.8 million in 2014). Also in 1980, Silverstein bought the building at 120 Wall Street, which was constructed in 1930. In 1991, Silverstein set aside 20 floors of 120 Wall Street to be leased by non-profit organizations, as an Association Center, with tax incentives for the tenants and bonds for Silverstein to undertake building renovations. By 1994, Silverstein had signed up 14 nonprofit tenants for 120 Wall Street, and the building was nearly at capacity by 1997, with 38 nonprofit tenants including the National Urban League and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. In 1980, Larry Silverstein won a bid to lease and develop the last undeveloped parcel from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to build the 47-story building 7 World Trade Center."

Also, he owned WTC 4 which is always glossed over. This was also destroyed beyond repair, along with 3, 5 and 6.

"George Pataki became Governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs, including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding. In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management. The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."

That is one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong game.

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

It seems that it is also true that no steel framed building had ever been left to burn - without sprinklers or fire hoses - as WTC 7 was, and none have been left to burn since (around 7hrs without water).

This is not true at all. Many steel framed buildings have been left to burn out. Look at the CCTV building in China for one. All that was left was a steel frame. The WTC 7 fire itself, according to NIST, was a small office fire.

The building in China did not have burning jet fuel and also it was not hit by anything. That would help the structure to hold. Add a hard hit and a few extra degrees from jet fuel and you got a collapse.

You just can't compare a regular fire to a jetliner full of fuel.

Come on dude. WTC 7. There was no jet fuel, and it was not hit by a plane.

It was next to two biggest skyscrapers in United States that were hit by a plane full of jetfuel, if it was located in New Jersey maybe you would have a point.

Get ready to be called a shill for having a brain.

Copy pasta but always a good one.

WTC 7

WTC 7 went into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building (without the use of explosives)

This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request

What and why are they hiding this? Likely because it is not based on any known science and engineering principles, if we have to go on what they have released so far, a collapse model that bores no resemblance to the observed collapse

Page 3 and the architect's appeal over the remaining 3370 files

The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds. Free-fall time in a vacuum, from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds

For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?)

There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs, this is basic Newtonian physical principles.

You either agree with this very basic concept, or you need to start making a case for a new realm of science that has never been witnessed before.

Remember also that the BBC even reported that the building had collapsed 20minutes before it had, remarkable.

But after 9/11, we've had security tightened. No more terrorists attacking steel buildings. /s

If the buildings hadn't collapsed, they wouldn't have been repairable - indeed, demolishing them would have cost him more money...

• Towering infernos don't collapse, ever, except on September 11th, 2001..

• Demolition Squibs

• North Tower Exploding

Many Reddits peeps are totally brainwashed by the psyop, not to see it and understand what really happened.

Well, we all know jet fuel cant melt steel beams...

Well, we all know jet fuel cant melt steel beams...

Well it to be fair the jet fuel had "magical fairy dust" mixed in with sparklers & wood matches so I could see how that turns the laws of physics upside down !

Almost as lucky as the guys who flew the planes, but were latter found to be living in the mid east and then they disappeared…. now that’s luck!

Invalid. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

It can't melt but it can weaken it and thus the structural integrity.

I think anyone who owned 3 skyscrapers is disqualified from the "unluckiest man in history" title.

I'm not certain, but didn't this guy spend 11 billion to repair the damages? I honestly don't know, I'm not implying anything, I just want clarification.

He should really go back and demand retribution from the architect. ;)

Poor Japanese architect, said that he designed it to withstand plane strikes.

So what I've never quite understood is, if they were going to demolish the buildings with explosives, why bother with the planes? Why not just blow them up and pin it on terrorists? Or why not just just fly planes into them? What's the benefit of both?

I'm so friggin dissapointed.

I thought you had actually calculated the odds... I would like to know those odds.

EDIT: After having thought about it I'm convinced that the odds are incalculatable (is that a word?).

The odds plainly say, Israel Did 9/11.

The skyscrapers all fell because of Jet Fuel!!! The Jet Fuel burns like Thermite! Don't you see?

Oh wait building 7 didn't have a Jet fly into it, never mind....

Here is a picture of Building 7 with 10 floors fully engulfed in flames.

It was hit by burning debris from WTC which was hit by two jetliners full of jetfuel. Can easily cause fire.

10 floors were fully engulfed in flames.

http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7fireseastface.jpg

In case you're not a troll: It wouldn't matter if 100 floors were engulfed in jetfuel flames, it doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

well according to the official story, the fire weakened the structure enough that it failed, maybe it was not built to withstand fires like that, we will never know. Maybe some drunk mexican construction worker forgot to add a few rivets.

NIST has proven themselves incompetent in the matter; The official story creates more cognitive dissonance than logical explanation, which is why you've got an army of Architects & Engineers working against it.

Yeah oh yeah that's getting ready to come DOWN!!! lol

Here's a better picture of WTC 7

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/3073.jpg

If you're dumb enough to believe that tiny little fire can bring down that entire building you're an idiot.

Not to mention that the owner oddly enough insured all those buildings just days before.

The evidence speaks for itself.

How'd the Jet Fuel get inside there? Hmmmm? lol

Unlucky Larry. Poor guy. The antisemites destroyed his buildings.

antisemites destroyed his buildings.

right. 9/11 wasn't an attack on America. It was an attack on Jews.

/s

Wasn't there some talk a few onths ago about someone in Australia having found a copy of him saying they were controlled?

Wasn't there some talk a few onths ago about someone in Australia having found a copy of him saying they were controlled?

This. There is a formal request out for anyone who has a copy of this footage to come forward. No one seems to be able to find it, though many viewed it.

yes.

Sure would like to see that.

If I was him I would have bought far out-of-the-money put options on his insurer as well. Why not? Nobody'd ever call you on it.

I would have bought far out-of-the-money put options

what makes you so sure that he didn't ?

Joe Rogan: Soooo lucky

And again Larry is a _______?

This is what happens Larry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PztgWdMEJdg

Globalist?

Jew. The word you're looking for is Jew.

I didn't realize another building had been hit by a fully fuels 757. Which building was that? Saying they collapsed due to just fire is disingenuous

Prepare for down votes and no answer from "experts"

incredible

Someone should tell the FBI that this seems fishy.

Oh, wait.......

I'm curious, if you think Larry Silverstein was involved in 9/11 in some deliberate way, when do you think this will be generally accepted by most Americans? How likely is it to be accepted in 5 years? In 10 years?

'm curious, if you think Larry Silverstein was involved in 9/11 in some deliberate way, when do you think this will be generally accepted by most Americans? How likely is it to be accepted in 5 years? In 10 years?

Why is anything generally accepted by most Americans? Or citizens of whatever country. There's a good research project for you. Google 'propaganda works'.

I think at least 30% of Americans don't believe the official 9/11 government narrative. From what I've read, far less (percentage wise) of Europeans do.

Varies from country to country and how you ask the questions. The 30% sort of thing is on the very upper end of the American belief here. See here for a summary of polls from both the US and other countries.

no you silly man, he was extremely lucky. 2 cashed out insurance policies which were purchased one month prior? talk about winning the jackpot...twice!!

He bought the whole complex 2 months earlier, so of course the insurance was purchased then as well.

Insured months before the "accident"? Suspicious...

Those steel beams can't handle jet fuel...

Sounds like a question for reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/

For the people saying there were no bombs, fact: you can see the detonations...

Can you post a video? I believe but never see it

Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? Hundreds of evenly placed explosions at key points up and down the building. Please show me that on a single one of the WTCs.

Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? Hundreds of evenly placed explosions at key points up and down the building. Please show me that on a single one of the WTCs.

You haven't seen the squibs that NIST described as air flow from the pancake collapse?

Yes, all two of them. Did you read the comment you quoted? It requires thousands of explosives.

Yes, all two of them. Did you read the comment you quoted? It requires thousands of explosives.

Not when it's thermite.

Erm, yes. It still would. It would require an incredible amount of thermite. Enough to sever every major support.

So the steel just melted and everything fell straight down through the path of greatest resistance?

That is really what you believe?

Where did I say that?

Some call him lucky Larry... but when you put it that way, well, poor Larry :(

Some guys just can't catch a break.

[deleted]

Wrong. McCormick Place in Chicago was steel framed. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html

Apples and oranges. And no wholesale collapse anyway.

Every comparison to 9/11 is apples and oranges. That's the problem. It shouldn't be a surprise that exceptional things happened in an exceptional situation.

yea looks like a legit site. lol.

I love your sarcasm.

about $7 billion to 1 i'd say.

There also haven't been any buildings before or since with 767's flown into them. Weird huh?

Except building 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

No. It simply had two huge structures fall dumping thôusands of tons of debri on and around it. Can't believe it collapsed.

what /u/someoldbullshit said. Guys, if you want to defend the government narrative because it makes you feel good about yourself, please please study what their claims are. When you don't you look like a lazy ignorant person.

I'm sorry but the 9/11 "conspiracy" bullshit has been the lamest theory I've ever seen. It's pure speculation from people who do not know a thing about how buildings deal with huge amounts of physical stress. It's funny and sad to read the bullshit spewed by the ignorant and desperate for a story here.

[deleted]

Dude you are just chasing farts in the wind.

[deleted]

Soon as you join us in reality.

[deleted]

So you think one government agency is better than another? Because that is all NIST is. I give then no weight in my decision.

[deleted]

Ooooh. Ya got me. Scury. I'm subbed here because I rarely just believe what I get from "official" sources but I have never seen on thread of evidence that points to anything other than two jet liners taking out the WTC.

[deleted]

Oh I have. Truth is the truthers are just wrong.

[deleted]

I simply cannot fathom someone having an issue understanding that 2 fully loaded and fueled jetliners can take down two huge towers which would also destroy surrounding buildings. It's amazing for people to not understand this simple truth. You can argue about if the US knew the attacks were coming and did not stop them. You can debate if the planes were flown remotely. All kinds of things to argue. But those buildings were brought down by the damage inflicted on them from those air craft. That's the dull truth of it.

[deleted]

Eyewitness accounts are horribly unreliable. And "molten steel" isn't exactly a smoking gun. The average layman can't tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum. But doesn't matter. And yes, paint chips. And the simplest answer is that two big fucking planes hit this building. You are looking for a conspiracy. And who gives a fuck about Barry Jennings. He's nobody but an attention whore, well was.

You are looking at a conclusion you want and trying to work your way back. It doesn't work that way.

Actually to me it seems like the official conspiracy theory isn't even plausible at all. It seems lazy. After reading your comments it seems like you have a kneejerk reaction to supporting the official conspiracy theory, despite you not even knowing the details of it. You saw the planes and the explosion, and that convinced you. You seem like a simple person. That's fine, you should keep being yourself.

Sigh. Sure. If you feel this way that's fine. Just a simpleton here. Garsh, don't mind me.

Then why did it stand just fine for 8 hours? Why did everything all suddenly collapse at once? It was obviously a demolition.

Obviously.

Why do people live fine for 70, 80 even 90 years, and then suddenly die? Quite the statistical anomaly, don't you think?

Usually they die somewhat slowly, it isn't sudden.

[deleted]

There was no evidence of the buckling or partial collapses he said led to the building falling. The video just doesn't show that. All the simulations he shows show the building buckling and bending, but this fell straight down at freefall.

They didn't find thermite or aluminum because they didn't look. There was no investigation.

This video is interesting, but misleading.

I'd really like to see some citations for the claims being made in this thread that aren't infowars.

1 in 1 apparently. Lol

Not unlucky: rich (from blood money)

The odds are about the same as the New England Patriots winning a superbowl without the aide of "questionable" calls or overlooked anomalies in equipment. Oh yes, about the same odds as the power going out at a superbowl where millions were spent beforehand too make sure that exact thing would not happen.

Oh shit. Bring the Pats in to the mix.

Honest question - is it really just "fire"? Wouldn't being hit with a plane and with so much fuel be considered another cause to the collapse aside from fire?

According to the NIST, no, the sole cause was fire (albeit connected to the plane impacts) around the impact areas leading to a hypothetical point of collapse initiation after which what happened was "inevitable".

The buildings were actually designed to withstand multiple plane impacts and should not have done anything but burn until the firefighters put out the fires, which they were in the process of doing when the buildings were brought down on their heads.

So what is the point of flying the jets in if it was designed to withstand it? According to your logic planes did 0 damage and were there just for show? Lol that is one elaborate plan considering the government can't even make postal service work right.

The plane impacts were not the cause of the complete destruction of the buildings as observed, and fire does not cause steel structured highrise buildings to collapse.

• Towering infernos don't collapse, ever, except on September 11th, 2001..

• Demolition Squibs

• North Tower Exploding

Maybe he built them with sub-standard steel and they've been this close to falling down for decades? Maybe that is the real conspiracy.

[deleted]

No, fuck you. Don't tell me how to play my game.

:)

Construction fraud is common. This has always been my #1 question since I saw those buildings collapse. Imagine the lawsuits and criminal trials that would happen if this were true. They just never expected anyone to actually fly airplanes into them.

This should be in /r/badly k. Not /r/conspiracy

Thousands of people dead and many thousands of lives ruined to make one jew a lot of money...

Did any other steel frame building got hit with a jetliner full of fuel since or before?

Like WTC 7? Oh wait, WTC 7 wasn't hit and it still fell.

Wtc 7 was clearly hit and was on fire. You would have a point if there was 0 damage but there was a confirmed fire because there were actual firefighters in the building fighting it.

If it was not hit why were there firefighters? Another coverup?

It may have been hit by falling debris but it wasn't hit with a jetliner full of fuel.

Isn't that what we were talking about?

Did any other steel frame building got hit with a jetliner full of fuel since or before?

It seems to me you are doing your best to confuse the matter rather than try and figure out what happened. Why is that?

I think you are the one confusing here, at first you say "it was not hit" now you say that it was hit, so what is it? If it was not hit with a jetliner what hit it? If its just harmless falling debris, why was the building on fire? Buildings don't just catch on fire from falling debris do they? So what else was there that could have caused a massive fire you ask? Two jetliners FULL of fuel...

Here is the picture of building 7 on fire just so you can see how massive it was http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7fireseastface.jpg

ITT: I'm gonna make a claim with no proof because conspiracy!

Plenty of proof from people here that know what they are talking about. Also thousands of professionals are sceptic, hence: http://www.ae911truth.org/ The only ones that chime in with meaningless one-liners, no evidence whatsoever and childish insults are the deniers.

There's a reason "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" is a punch line on Reddit.

Out of the hundreds of 100+ floor skyscraper that were hit with a jumbo jet going at full speed and full of gas, only 2 collapsed... that's pretty INSANE odds when you think about it. Sounds like a conspiracy!

3 "collapsed" from fire. 2 planes, 3 buildings. (see WTC7).

also pretty crazy that a jew managed to convince all these terrorists to help him make more money (and give up their life at the same time). Not to mention the other ones that hit non-Silverstein buildings, just as a way to detract the attention from Larry.

He must have been a pretty convincing dude I guess. I would have loved to see that meeting when he met with the terrorists and talked them through the plan.

He must have been a pretty convincing dude I guess. I would have loved to see that meeting when he met with the terrorists and talked them through the plan.

Hah. Like he had anything to do with the planning. He's just the Rube to collect on behalf of ...

on behalf of? who? Can you care to elaborate who you think it might be?

on behalf of? who? Can you care to elaborate who you think it might be?

Speculation is a mug's game. I like to stick to known facts. If there ever was a real and true investigation, we might find out. That's why there wasn't one and never will be one.

It's illuminateeereeeee

Operation Gladio

Im sure it had nothing to do with the 2 passenger airplanes flying into tgem

The plane(s)

You play both sides very well. FP post -- you push the official narrative, for /r/conspiracy you post a selfie siding against the official narrative. Interesting.

No, not at all and especially not to you.

But, I did forget to mention, you were one of the main drivers for the Flytape witch-hunt as well.

What is your point?

edit: note his edit. above is original response.

No, not at all

i.e., "Never mind, I got nothin'"

But, I did forget to mention

red herring! quick, look over there! SHINEY SPARKLES!!!

Maybe you should read the comments in the top post currently.

Maybe you should make your point, without answering in riddles.

overtorqued_nut

1 link karma

9 comment karma

redditor for 3 months

lol

Really, my posting karma actually means something to you? Sorry I don't have enough internet points to form a valid opinion, I'm obviously ignorant, uneducated, and misinformed about any possible subject. How about you try adding something meaningful to the conversation instead of resorting to the weakest ad hominem attack I have EVER seen.

You really need to get new lines. You say the same thing over and over and over.

Source please.

antisemites destroyed his buildings.

right. 9/11 wasn't an attack on America. It was an attack on Jews.

/s

And perpetrated by them.

I knew you'd link this website, let's talk about Gage.

Richard rage is an interesting guy and has some theories about building 7, Which I'll fully agree is weird some what but the guy is not really credible at all. first of all he's an architect, he isn't an engineer and he isn't an explosive expert at all.

This guy likes to brag about the fact he's a member of the AIA even though the AIA wants nothing to do with his website.

He even tried to act like they endorsed him even though that's 0% true, basically just lied to make himself seem more credible.

He's actually seen as kind of crazy by them, I wonder why.

Here's another cool fact about Gage, 31% of the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth go to paying his fucking salary.

That's right, this guy is paying himself nearly 100 thousand dollars a year for this non profit.

The evidence this guy has is also highly questionable, he's been caught lying multiple times.

Remember his thermite claims? remember when he got caught lying about the evidence of thermite?

Here's a video of him lying about the thermite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDiAlMIJ8A4 and he still has this on his website claiming thermite was found when it never was.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm here's the debunking of the thermite claim backed with math that's very easy to check on your own.

He also claims the buildings fell at free fall speed right, that's also on his website and that's also been debunked.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Seriously, don't believe me check the fucking math it's right there you can easily check it yourself.

Look, these people are entitled to their opinions and they do have around 2200 members but compared to the over whelming majority that's still a minority.

Literally every piece of evidence on this guys website has been debunked by people far more credible than him and that are actually experts in their field.

Be it explosives or be it engineers.

Either way we can't know for sure what happened, all we can do is look at the science the math and evidence and form an opinion.

And the over whelming majority of engineers agree that most of what richard gage has said has already been debunked.

That combined with the fact he's just shady as fuck and is using some 30% of the funds to pay his own salary makes it very questionable.

wow no fucking shit.

They boosted the payout by about $1Billion more than the max of what the payout for just 1 attack would of been at $3.55Billion. Not twice like Larry was seeking but still a nice bump.

He also tried to go after the airlines for several billion in "lost rental income" a few years back but failed.

Yep. He got like 2.15 billion rather than the 7 he was seeking.

Yup. Larry said pull it. Here's a video of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I&t=34s

How were they able to demolish it on command?

Pull it--as in pull the firefighters out. That context makes perfect sense if you read his statement. It doesn't make any sense if you change the context to mean 'tear down the building'.

search for yourself

Not my axe to grind but I googled it I think this might say something https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/fbi-terrorists-among-us-the-1993-wtc-bombing/

Twas just a joke man. We both know that shit was bombed.

WTC 1 was made to withstand airplane crashes. Are you saying the architect sucked at his job?

And his favorite old Nana decided not to sell oranges on the road outside the Pentagon that day.

So the steel just melted and everything fell straight down through the path of greatest resistance?

That is really what you believe?

It may have been hit by falling debris but it wasn't hit with a jetliner full of fuel.

Isn't that what we were talking about?

Did any other steel frame building got hit with a jetliner full of fuel since or before?

It seems to me you are doing your best to confuse the matter rather than try and figure out what happened. Why is that?

Where did I say that?

... Maybe because I want to know the truth? You don't seem to be bitching about the dozens of people here doing the same thing I am that you happen to agree with.

And what is with you people assuming anyone who disagrees is a shill? It's fucking pathetic and childish.

I have no idea, I'm just speculating, but couldn't he be noting the coincidence that shortly after making the decision, but before going into action, the building fell on its own?

It doesn't make much sense that, if they were planning to covertly demolish it and pretend it fell on its own, he would publicly announce that they demolished it.

I was talking about /u/throwaway

Yeah right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM (ignore the UFO crap)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3dhvp_madrid-skyscraper-burning-set-to-mu_news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/grozny-skyscraper-fire_n_3009315.html?

The WTC was a very light building in terms of dead weight vs structural support weight, theres no way jet fuel fires would weaken the beams enough for their to be such a catastrophic failure. At most it would have turned the buildings in giant flaming pyres.

Okay, read through a lot of this discussion, and the narrative is mind numbing. Why would the amount of steel above the damaged areas matter? Look at the structures fully engulfed. The ENTIRE structure is on fire and did not fall. Your arguments do not hold merrit. And then you will say "they gotz hitted by planes dough?!". And wtc 7 did not, and still collapsed. If one building was demo'd they all were. I can't wait until we start lynching people over this issue

Waiting on that counter argument.

I'm not going to do your research for you when a simple google search would provide the answers, you lazy ass

It's a fallacy used in religion too. I don't know, therefore god. Except in this case, it's I don't know, therefore Nukes.

Again, I make NO definitive statements. I only speak of open-minded possibility. The reason I question WTC 1/2 is because of the implausibility of Building 7. Physics dictates that the only way that roof line could have fallen at the acceleration of gravity is if there was absolutely zero resistance from ANY of the building beneath it. NIST issued a post report statement, once pressured, that the building did indeed experience a period of fall at the rate of the acceleration of gravity. I ask you, does it make any logical sense that every single support column failed simultaneously creating absolutely no physical resistance allowing for that fall speed? THAT is why I open my mind to other possibilities with 1 and 2. I draw no conclusions. I make no definite statements. I WOULD, however, like to see an actual investigation that actually wanted to find out what happened to the buildings. Too bad the evidence was quickly destroyed, which is against all criminal investigative protocols into building collapses. Did you know they didn't test for explosives residue, which is mandatory under criminal investigative protocol into building collapses? These protocols are LAWS. The ensuing clean up of the sites and destruction of evidence were actually criminal acts.

edit - I think you have it backwards. I believe in science. It's religion that makes people believe what they're told, even if there is no actual evidence to support it. Don't question the word - trust and believe in authority.

I simply cannot fathom someone having an issue understanding that 2 fully loaded and fueled jetliners can take down two huge towers which would also destroy surrounding buildings. It's amazing for people to not understand this simple truth. You can argue about if the US knew the attacks were coming and did not stop them. You can debate if the planes were flown remotely. All kinds of things to argue. But those buildings were brought down by the damage inflicted on them from those air craft. That's the dull truth of it.

I believe I've read where there has been at least one example previously, and the building did not fall down.