"What would the government have to gain by doing it?"

9/11 isn't a conspiracy.

"Why would the government kill its own people?"

"Newton's Third Law was violated."

Best. Solution. Ever.

I wouldn't use the term stupid. Some are paid to say what they say. Some just haven't gained the full use of their conscious decision making, and the rest have invested interest in following the status quo.

Ikr. Sheeple and misinformationagents.

Ikr?

I know right.

Funny, it was just the other day.

"The only possible reason the government could have had for wanting September 11th to take place is to take out bin Laden."

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/34isi3/til_that_in_1969_nasa_possessed_the_technology_to/cqwi0fm?context=10000

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Oh dear god, that's like...the guy I'm arguing with now. He also said: Haven't you seen the American media? I lost my hope then.

He also said the government exists to protect the people. There is no hope with this one.

Pity.

Here's what he said to me (and what i told him)

ME: 1: Nano-thermite, thermite, thermate found. 2: Steel melted, only thermite would've caused this. 3: Free fall collapse. 4 Symmetrical collapse. 5 Multi ton steel beams deep into other buildings. 6: Evidence for explosions, like squibs. 7: Buildings were designed to have a plane crash into it, yet they collapsed an hour later. 8: NEVER before in HISTORY has an steel structure collapsed due to fire. 9: Fire burnt for 92 days after 9/11, even when the area was flooded. Thermite can supply it's own oxygen under water. 10: WTC 7, collapsed. 11: WTC 7 only had small office fires yet it collapsed symmetrically and in free fall. 12: 3 frames released of the Pentagon 'crash'. Out of many, many video's. 13: FBI confiscated the takes very quickly and warned the people who saw the 'crash'. 14: Only plane wreckage near the Pentagon could be picked up by hand. 15: One hole, 8ft wide, Penetrated 3 rings of steel reinforced concrete. 16: Where was the NTSB on 9/11 in general? 17: Grass on lawn of Pentagon untouched. 18: No plane to be seen in Pennsylvania. 19: Scientifically impossible that plane vaporized. 20: Removal of Ground Zero rumble started very quickly, breaking the law. 21: No mention of WTC7 in the 9/11 Commission report. 22: Mysterious deaths of 9/11 eyewitnesses and of people who were in the news pointing at the problems with the official story.

HIM:

Thermite was found and youre saying steel did not melt. Everything has a melting temperature. Stress also cause steel the weaken, significantly dropping the melting temperature. Too much stress from the floors above made it free fall. Many printers/computers caused small explosions. The building is meant to withstand a personal plane such as a 4 person plane. Small planes, not Boeing 707. You said only thermite melts steel. Fire can survive under water. WTC7 was scheduled for demolition that day anyway. Do you think 100 people are taping the Pentagon being suicide bombed. Maybe at most 5. The nose of the plane is 8 feet wide. A plane going 500mph will penetrate 3 rings of concrete and steel. Once again, a plane doesnt stop on contact. A knife doesn't stop when it hits butter. "An object in motion tends to stay in motion" Its an investigation. They came September 12 and are still working to this day. The plane hit where the concrete was. It never went to the middle. A plane going 500 mph can be destroyed by burning. I know jet fuel is meant to evaporate in minutes, but aluminum has a melting point far below when jet fuel is ignited. They were searching for survivors, which they found, not removing rubble. It was schedules for demolition. Have you not seen the media in America?

I cried.

Wait...WTC7 was scheduled for demolition that day?

LOL. Well thats an explanation I havn't heard before.

I mean, he's not wrong, but the 'schedule' wasn't and still isn't public knowledge!

My favourite:

" A knife doesn't stop when it hits butter. "An object in motion tends to stay in motion""

Quite stupid isn't he? Btw my response to that was: Not worth my time.

I'll link the youtube video where this is happening. Maybe you can teach those sheeple's a lesson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG6uv9gVruc My name on YouTube is Ewoud Storm, you'll see me in the comment section. 'If 9/11 never happened, we wouldn't have idiots on the internet saying that it was a conspiracy'. Is the starter. It has 100+ answers

Oh dude, I wouldn't even read a youtube comment, let alone try and debate.

A little bit sensitive to stubborn 9 year olds?

Btw, when I said: Not worth my time. He said: You throw me a curve ball and I throw you a curve ball you don't throw it back because you don't have anything left to say?

Classic.

Oh god. HIM ( about what I said to the other guy earlier): Where is your proof of nanothermite, thermite AND thermate, and why on earth would all three be used? And if they ALL were found, why would they be found in such abundance, when ALL OF THEM would already be burned because they are impossible to extinguish, and why were there NO UV related burns and NO massive orange glow seen?

There was no molten steel. There was molten metal, but not actual evidence of molten steel.

The collapse was well below free fall speed, freefall collapse would have been about 9 seconds, as shown by the pieces of facade that fell away from the main part of the WTC, while the main mass of the WTC fell in about 20 seconds. And this is EASILY shown by LOOKING AT THE TAPE.

4 the collapse was not symmetrical, it was messy, particularly the building 7 collapse, which fell towards the main area of damage and ended up with the facade lying on top of the pile.

5 multi ton pieces of tower 1 and 2 were in other buildings. WHERE THE FUCK ELSE WERE THEY GOING TO GO. You can't say that the towers fell into their own footprint and also say that they projected their mass outwards. The fact was, the facade was forced outwards by the collapse. Basic physics right there.

6 The "squibs" are likely to be dust being forced out the broken windows, if most of the windows on a level are not broken, and one is, then all the dust that's being forced out will all go out the broken one.

7 you have no evidence that they were actually plane resistant, beyond the say so of people who did not have the technology to even work that out, and YOU STILL WON'T SHOW ME WHERE THEY SAID IT.

8 False, steel buildings HAVE collapsed solely due to fire, steel floor trusses are prone to heat expansion, and the WTC relied on floor trusses to hold up the floors. With the steel floor trusses weakened by the heat, the damage from THE FREAKING PLANE CRASHES was able to precipitate internal collapse. IT WAS NOT SOLELY A FIRE RELATED COLLAPSE ANYWAY.

9 an interesting thing happens when you heat steel and then spray it with water. It generates hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_hydrogen_producer This made the fires worse, but they had no choice but to spray the pile with water, because they had to keep the levels of toxic dust down.

The water that they sprayed cracked into hydrogen and oxygen, thereby providing both oxygen and fuel for the fires. Plus there were many voids below the pile, including large subway tunnels to the former WTC station that had not collapsed.

10 yep wtc7 collapsed, there were large amounts of debris from building 2 that hit the loadbearing facade and it collapsed due to this damage and the resulting fires. Other buildings also suffered such damage like the Verizon building (which needed a billion dollars worth of repairs) and the Deutsche Bank building (which was carefully demolished because it was so comprehensively damaged. These two buildings did NOT collapse because they had floor columns instead of floor trusses holding up the floors, so internal collapses were localised and could not propogate throughout the structure. They also had brick and concrete fireproofing not drywall.

1. the fires in wtc 7 were NOT small. The news tapes show firestorms on at least two of the levels, with three more levels already having burnt themselves out. And they had massive damage to the loadbearing facade.

2. Security cameras mostly point downwards towards THE PEOPLE THEY ARE WATCHING. The plane that hit the pentagon came in at a higher angle. And security cameras of the era were one second per frame, at low resolution, analogue, recorded onto VHS tape. What do you EXPECT TO SEE?

3. They took footage of all the tapes... WHY WOULD THEY NOT? They were INVESTIGATING THE PLANE CRASHES. That means getting ALL the footage that could actually show the crashes.

4. There was some large wreckage in the Pentagon, such as engines, but it is NORMAL for there to only be small pieces of wreckage after a deliberate controlled flight into terrain. The Pennsylvania and Pentagon crashes look very much like the recent Germanwings crash in that way, that they only show small pieces of debris. The planes fragment on impact at such speeds when hitting solid ground or thick concrete like at the Pentagon.

5. There was more damage than the one hole. That one picture used to demonstrate the "one hole" theory ignores the fact that much of the damage was hidden behind the water coming from the fire hose.

16 The NTSB was part of the investigation, but since it was clearly not an accident, it had to be a coordinated effort.

1. Not quite untouched, there were bits of wreckage everywhere. But the plane did not actually hit the grass anyway, and the fireball went upwards. SO WHY WOULD THERE BE DAMAGE?

18/19. They did not vaporise, a very large proportion of the planes from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were recovered, along with remains of all the passengers. Just like with the Germanwings crash.

1. You expect them to simply leave all the rubble there to be forensically examined when it was still burning and there were not enough forensic examiners ON THE PLANET to examine it all before it all burned or rotted away? If you did that, they would still be removing stuff today, and the place would still be a toxic pile of burning rubble. You simply can't leave a huge pile of toxic rubble in the middle of a large commercial centre like that.

21: WTC7 was not a target. Neither was the Deutsche Bank building. The Report was about the terrorists, the terrorists motivations, the terrorists actions, and the response to those terrorists. There was no need to mention WTC7, it did not even mention the individual towers. In fact, I looked it up, it only mentions the words "world trade center" four times.

22: There were at least twenty thousand direct eyewitnesses at the world trade center. All were exposed to toxic dust, (increasing cancer risks massively) all were exposed to massive psychological trauma (exposing them to suicide risks) and it has been nearly 14 years since the attacks, so you would EXPECT at least 10% of the witnesses to have died, and that is a very conservative estimate, And that is before you factor in that many of them were firefighters and police officers, who normally have shortened life expectancies due to high stress and high levels of mortal danger due to being in emergency situations every day.

By this time I had lost my patience with this guy as you can see.

1: I'm not gonna provide proof for everything. Just like you. 2: Why ignore eyewitness reports? 3: You're suffering from a sever case of denying. ( I had provided a link to builders of the WTC saying that it was airplane proof) 4: WHAHAAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. NOT SYMMETRICAL? WTC 7? hahaahhahahahaahahhaha 5: Okay this is just to stupid for words. 6: And why would they occur 40 stories below the actual collapse? 7: Okay, I won. You're ignoring the evidence. 8:WHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH OH YES? WHICH BUILDING? WELL THEN, WHY DOES NIST SAY: THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 WAS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF FIRE? 9: LOL FIRE+WATER/SOAP=MORE FIRE? XD 10: Large amounts? Little office fires. Wtc 4,5 and 6 suffered way more damage. 11: FIRESTORMS? YOU'RE SEEING THINGS. 12: LAOAALALAALLAAL HIGHER ANGLE LOL. 13: WHY WOULD THEY NOT RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC LOL. 14: LOL NO ENGINES TO BE FOUND. 15: Whahaahahahhaahhhhhhhhhaahahaahahahahahah. 16: pfwhahahahh. 17: LOL IT WAS IN PERFECT CONDITION. 18: That's bullshit. 20: SO THEY CHOOSE TO BE CRIMINALS AND BREAK THE LAW? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 21: LOL. 22: LOL.

"How can you disagree with science?"

Good question for debunkers.

I dont get the fire in water analogy.

What do you mean?

What is your fav worst thing you had to hear from a 911 debunker.

Fire can survive under water. Fire end mainly in smoke, this can reignite it.

I see. Kind of like welding underwater?

That's not really fire.

Phosphorus burns until it is exhausted?

What does that even have to do with 9/11? xD. Claaaaassic debunker logic.

I don't care. Keep your conspiracy shit to yourself.

How can we if the government and it's lies are forced into you. So there is a conspirator in you.

I once had a "truther" tell me what caused the towers to fall was a directed laser weapon mounted on the space station. I've yet to hear anything half as retarded from a debunker.

You have 2 types of "truthers".

1: These are ethical and down to earth. (ME)

2: These think that the Illuminati did it and don't forget the reptilian aliens.

Of course. When someone starts believing everything there is something wrong. There is a middle zone for both sides.

You mean confused teenagers who don't want to get into it?

No. I think you have a problem yourself tbh.

Where are you talking about, egg?

'Water can survive underwater' 'Fire ends in smoke, this can reignite it' Retarded debunker right?

What????

?

You basically spoke gibberish taken out of context and you expect me to understand what you are talking about?

Or you're stupid or you're just joking.

Really? I did read the whole quote and I know what you're talking about NOW but you originally tried to quote the guy out of context and then what now call me stupid because I should be able to read your mind? You have problems.

I know right.