penthouse going first is like a hallmark of controlled demo, isn't it? pretty sure I picked that up somewhere. also, there is a pretty large number of engineers and architects who have gone on record saying that the fall would have been more asymmetrical if it had started due to weakened columns.

and then, of course, there's the incredibly well documented instances of much less structurally sound skyscrapers burning for way longer and not collapsing. if this is the first office fire to take down a skyscraper, why would NIST hold back all the technical details of their fancy-pants computer simulation? the whole thing is fishy if you ask me, which you did

penthouse going first is like a hallmark of controlled demo, isn't it? pretty sure I picked that up somewhere.

Is it? We're all laymen here. You gotta provide sources.

there is a pretty large number of engineers and architects who have gone on record saying that the fall would have been more asymmetrical if it had started due to weakened columns.

Thousands of scientists dispute evolution.

there's the incredibly well documented instances of much less structurally sound skyscrapers burning for way longer and not collapsing

Source?

I know what a dick move it is to make an argument on reddit without providing a source, but I honestly can't copy/paste on this phone. I thought the History channel documentary had a lot of good, unbiased information in it if you feel like finding it on youtube.

really though the first thing is the only one that needs a source. I am a laymen, and am wrong quite often, but I'm pretty sure not this time. for the second one you can just google "skyscraper fires" the information you're looking for will be like the first three pages of returns. and then when you consider Silverstein had Tower 7 reinforced beyond what city code required, it's even weirder that this building fell and none of the others.

also, I bet there's a bit of money involved in evolution denial. not so sure the same thing can be said for truther engineers

To be fair, some "truther engineers" have blogs (ad revenue, guest writing revenue for other publications), make public appearances (appearance / travel fees), make YouTube videos (ad revenue), and have books to sell (more revenue). I'm sure some are making money from it.

As much as people don't want to admit, you're right. But that doesn't make the conspiracy any less real IMO

True.

(I deleted my original reply here because I thought I was replying to someone else about something else.)

I do it all the time. No worried

[deleted]

Probably for the same reason that person he's asking (who can type a novel on a mobile phone but can't cut and paste...?) is being upvoted. We just accept that we're usually right about everything around here and discourage those who ask questions about it.

Welcome to confirmation biasville.

[deleted]

I saw one with a blonde lady reporter doing an interview with a lady holding a baby where you can make out the boom. the whole crowd reacts in unison too, whipping their heads around like something startled them. you can see the tower in the video, an appreciable amount of time goes by before it begins to collapse. there are also multiple eye witness (ear witness?) accounts reporting explosions, a couple of them first responders. but even then, a demo company probably isn't going to spend effort to deaden the noise. black flag operatives with high-tech US resources at their disposal? no man, the whole 120 decibel thing seems like bullshit to me. "the noise wasn't loud enough" seems like a pretty weak argument to me when the NIST supposedly has the technical data to dispel all these theories and choose not to share it. and then there's the Silverstein "pull it" gaff. hard to forget that one

there's just too many holes in the official narrative presented by a government that has lost all benefit of the doubt. I don't know who dropped the towers, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a rag-tag group of Saudis who learned to laser-line a Boeing airbus in a couple of weeks. and what the fuck was with that passport? did that shit fall out of the guy's pocket as he was barreling a couple hundred tons of steel straight into the hellmouth inferno? and then we had that same good fortune after the Hebdo shooting. seems pretty unlikely for lightening to strike twice like that. or is it standard operating procedure for these evil masterminds to carry photo ID every time they go out for a Jihad?

Edit: changed "hands" to "heads"

[deleted]

this is the part where you come to hate me, because I'm on a shitty mobile that doesn't copy/paste. as I pointed out to OP earlier though, the History Channel actually did a pretty decent documentary on it, they hardly mention ancient aliens or bible code at all. anyway, that's where I saw the interview. you can watch it for free on youtube. sorry I'm not more helpful

I just realized you're OP, I thought the guy that replied to me earlier was. fuck it, I'm tired. g'night, Reddit!

There is really almost nothing about something as gargantuan as the 911 false flag terrorist operation that is "coincidental". Everything that took place that day was not only planned out to a tee, but planned out years before it ever took place. Things like the penthouse of building 7 collapsing first do not to any extent whatsoever show or indicate that there were some events that took place that day that were "unforeseen and unplanned" by those powers responsible for an attack this absolutely global in its ramifications.

That we are just becoming aware of this is not any indication of anything other than the fact that there are many factors still that we simply don't know about.

With other words considering all circumstances the coindicende and failure theory has such a low probability of occurance that you must be brain dead to believe it. One or two occurances still sound reasonable, but if you add them up then their probability factors multiply to non-existence.

They manage to keep the main population in denial by hidding most of the facts, by presenting only a few of them at a time and duhbunk them so they feel informed and can go back to sleep.

Exactly this, unfortunately. Exactly this. It's good to be aware of what you just said here, however.

[deleted]

Oh Jesus Christ. Are you seriously going to actually think that 911 was not a false flag attack? Wow. I honestly didn't think there were any of you fools left. Yes. Of course, I've heard that there are still people that actually think 911 was caused by who TPTB tell the sheep it was caused by, but I honestly didn't think that any real, intelligent being with even half a brain cell in their skull - let alone someone in this particular sub - would actually think it wasn't a false flag.

Wow. I gotta tell ya. I'm impressed, if nothing else, that somebody like you actually exists.

Take a look through this right here, then get back to me, okay?

FEMA did this analysis on a piece of steel from building seven.

The first photo you are looking at is a steel wide flange beam. The authors of the report say the cause of the melted steel was an unknown phenomenon.

Look at the way the beam has been corroded, the sharp edges, the swiss cheese appearance. Office fires can't do this.

Now look at and listen to this guys's experimen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQu18DHuutU#t=10m34s

The beams cut by this guy with thermite look exactly like the FEMA sample from Building 7.

Listen to this next video. Can you hear an explosion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I84-_hcbtyU

There is no reason that the partial collapse of an outer portion of building 7 would cause the central cores to collapse simultaneously. That's the point, all the central columns collapsed, which supported the penthouse, at the same time and then the rest of the building followed.

The photos shown in your video show very minor damage to the corner of the building. no way that would cause the central columns to collapse simultaneously.

Your video shows very minor fires. Even at the height of the fires they were minor. I am sure you have heard that no large steel frame building have ever collapsed due to fire, Except the three that fell on 911.

Here's a few fires where there were no collapse:

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

[deleted]

I am saying that the damage to the side looking north, the side with the damage is minor. From the looks of the image at 4:43 the only columns damaged are the two at the corner, 41 & 42 Now look at the floor plan at 6:12. There is no evidence that 44 was damaged. Understand that the numbers designating the columns skip. There are columns at every intersection of all the lines of the floor plan @ 6:12. There are little "H" looking symbols showing the columns. This means that beams at column 79 were for sure supported by columns at 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 76, and 80. And most likely also supported by 43, 44, 45, 46.

Go back to the floor plan at 4:43. Notice that the lower part of the building seems like there is no damage. Now look at the image at 7:22. First off notice that they show that all the far right columns have collapsed. There are 15 columns there, only 2 were damaged. How the hell did they all collapse completely. There is no evidence that this happened. It is misleading.

Now look at the animation at 7:31. They show the collapse beginning at floor 17, but the photo at 4:43 shows no damage at floor 17.

Now look at the murrah building:

http://i.imgur.com/zfX4ACD.png

There is a bunch more wrong with your video, but if you think about what I just pointed out, you should have some doubt about the validity of the video.

Whether WTC7 was a controlled demolition, or actually indeed the first skyscraper in history to collapse due to fire, neither scenario excludes the high likelihood that 9/11 was more of an inside job than just 'allowing it to happen'.

If Bin Laden did it, you can be damn sure he would be proud of it, and would have posted a multitude of CLEAR videos (not fake fatty Bin Laden) talking about how great Al Qaeda and Allah is for allowing this to happen.

Do we have that? No. The only 'evidence' implicating Bin Laden is the same old stuff that intelligence agencies easily set up to implicate patsies in every attack they have organised over the decades.

I really think we need to move on from focusing on how the buildings fell, because its clear that the 'other side' doesnt believe the evidence we have available.

I'm no engineer, so I have no idea really. I enjoy researching conspiracies and I can watch one video and think "wow, it was an inside job." Then I watch another video and think "wow, it wasn't an inside job." I guess, like most people, I'm easily manipulated into thinking a certain way. However, unlike most people, I can go back and forth between sides. Some people are all inside job, and others are all official government story. I enjoy bouncing back and forth.

However, after 14 years of this, I still can't decide what I believe the truth to be. There's some hard to swallow statements in the official story, and some pretty absurd theories in the "truthers" contentions. If it is an inside job, they are never going to release any damning evidence - and if it isn't, people are never going to stop trying to prove that it is.

I think this is the most honest and real thing I've read around here in a long time. Thank you for posting. Seriously.

There's some hard to swallow statements in the official story, and some pretty absurd theories in the "truthers" contentions.

Did you hear the one about the steel-eating termites, bred in CIA laboratories? Harrit's iron-rich microspheres? Termite poop.

If it is an inside job, they are never going to release any damning evidence - and if it isn't, people are never going to stop trying to prove that it is.

I stopped the switching you describe and I know so well in the tenth year of it (I'm still grey on /r/thebutton, though), so your sentence accidentally became "It is an inside job, they are never going to release any damning evidence - and peope are never going to stop trying to prove that it is" in my brain.

[deleted]

Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulcans

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

There was a guy in the building when detonations inside the building went off. Here is his testimony.

It doesn't take an architect or an engineer or a doctor of anything. If a person honestly thinks a 47-story steel-frame building can fall straight down into its own footprint in under 7 seconds without some sort of cutter charge, that person is a full-blown below-70-IQ idiot. There is no way in the world---the real world, the world we live in---that a building can fall in this manner without some sort of precision-timed charges cutting the steel.

I still believe that Rumsfeld and Co. used the happenings on 9/11 as an opportunity to further their agenda in the Middle East, but I now believe that this was more of a coincidental 'plus' to them rather than a planned false flag from the get-go.

Nailed it. At the very worst, it's possible they knew an attack was coming and did nothing.

Let's just say there's a reason the "controlled demolition" theory isn't discussed in scientific circles seriously anymore.

The "penthouse" collapsing first shows the chronology of the collapse began with the internal portion. This should clear up the confusion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wDNmTzA9WWY

I think you're probably mostly going to get downvoted into oblivion, called a shill, and/or ignored by most here.

Some might offer you some unfounded, baseless speculation as to what might have happened that aligns with their own preconceptions on the matter. Others might twist your post into making it look like you're saying or asking something you're not saying or asking to use the tried and true strawman tactics. Some others might present you with a wall of text laced with links to videos and websites that may be tangentially related to what you're asking but are, for the most part, irrelevant to your query.

If you're extremely lucky, a few people might actually offer something constructive to what you're looking for. Unfortunately, this is a very rare occurrence, and I don't have much to offer you on this topic.

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

[deleted]

It was at 0 when I saw it, so yeah, pointless downvotes happen, unfortunately.

And I made the post I made because I'm hoping it might keep some of those types away and invite some serious discussion just to spite me. Sorry if it seemed rude.

There is nothing to discuss about, because there was no new content. That video is laughable.

[deleted]

But it's laughable, so we'll just downvote it and not address anything. You'll notice pretty much all the posts with + scores are blathering in circles without really addressing your question. That's what we generally get around here.

Hate to say I called it, but I kinda called it. :/

Ah, my little shill pill. I just lost some time writing some words of explanation right here. If I knew you asked for it I would not have written anything, because I like to encourage your ignorance and your propaganda methods.

Lol.

My ignorance and propaganda methods, eh?

Seriously, stop. My sides hurt.

You do not know who you are really helping and to what extend you are working against your own interests. How would you call that kind of short term mentality?

Lol. OK. My first post. So relevant.

Have any more insight into my insidious propaganda methods?

You are applying propaganda techniques knowingly or unknowingly. Everytime you are bandwagoning, labeling, spreading half-truths, generalizing, repeating, scapegoating, using oversimplifications, red herrings, straw mans and transfers you are using them. Nothing bad, but you could use your time to do something more productive for mankind.

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

I don't think I do most of those things nearly as often as you think. But OK. I'm sure you could find a few examples if pressed; however, I generally try to avoid such things. Nobody's perfect though.

However, if that's going to be your definition and you're going to use that label to describe me, then I suppose it's only fair that you admit that you're also a propagandist and label yourself as such as well, as you are guilty of using the same techniques.

Nobody is able to avoid those techniques. The difference between you and me is that I am inside a group of like minded people and I have no intention to change their opinion and conditioning them to accept my opposing views as valuable alternative. So I can not be accused of sneaking in some techniques to propagandise and change views.

I am inside a group of like minded people and I have no intention to change their opinion and conditioning them to accept my opposing views as valuable alternative.

You just described an echo chamber.

So now you're changing your definition of propaganda because you do the same stuff but don't want to label yourself a propagandist. Got it.

At least you didn't have "moving the goalposts" in your list. So you've got that going for you.

Either way, you're here, in a thread, where someone is saying "hey, I'd like information on this which disagrees with your views" and one of your posts (other than to me) actually contains useful information specific to what OP was asking about. While you're technically "in a group of like minded people," that pretty much ended at the beginning of this thread, as the dude identified himself as an outsider.

In this thread, replying to someone who admittedly does not share your views, how quickly did you start with, by your definition, propaganda? Your first post? Yup.

Furthermore, I would also argue that I'm not conditioning anyone to accept my views. Especially considering that, for the most part, I haven't expressed what my own views actually are on many issues here at all. I'm anti-anti vax, I've made that one clear, I suppose. Anti-fracking. Anti-censorship (and, by extension, anti-downvoting, though that's been called a lie). Pro-rationality (by extension, anti-irrationality). That's all I can think of at the moment.

You are just somebody with a novelty account and a pre-decided, mildly funny opinion what conspiracy theorists are about and how everybody is called a shill. You not only do not learn from what you experience here and the examples to the contrary, but you still spread that ill-informed opinion. As if your wishful-thinking wants it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now you're just making stuff up.

^ as you can tell he is absolutely the top mind of the top minds. /s

The next big red flag is that there was molten steel beneath the rubble and they detected high temperatures, exceeding normal burning temperatures, even weeks after the incident. This can not be explained physically by office fires alone.

If the penthouse was new to you then you did not see much 9/11 truth documentaries. In every big documentary it is shown and even often mentioned. It is misleading of the video producer to claim otherwise. He also misleads the viewer by not mentioning that NIST did not mention WTC7 in their first release. And it took them years after heavy requesting of 9/11 truthers for them finally provide an insufficient and highly criticized explanation (thermal expansion) to add to the NIST report accounts of WT7 that were initially missing.

Then the video producer shows a short exerpt of the model NIST did of the collapse of the WTC7 building. It cuts off whitout showing it all. Later on the building in the NIST model will twist although that is not what we saw on the real footage. You also do not know that 9/11 truthers and specifically architects and engineers requested the model data to verify the data, because they could not manage to have similar results within the boundaries of physics. NIST answered that they will not provide the data and that we have to take their word for it. That is not how science works. Scientist who are confident with their results and evidence would happily provide their data for being peer reviewed.

http://rememberbuilding7.org/nist-collapse-model/

So yes, the video is laughable, because it relies on the lack of knowledge about the real accounts of 9/11 and the truth movement. And this is called misleading at least. But it is done by such an amateur that it does not deserve being mentioned.

[deleted]

The video was from 2012 and some people in the 9/11 truth movement explained every detail behind NIST and WTC7 around 2010 and since then nothing was added of significance. That is the reason I find it strange to see this posted as a new debunking claim. Keep in mind that it is easy to investigate nearly every aspect of 9/11 nowadays and find online all the different opinion of both sides discussed to any length you want.

The video does not mention that Giulliani's Office of Emergency Management hat foreknowledge that the building was going to collapse several hours in advance. Nobody died in this building because every person was evacuated. A collapse zone was then established five or six hours before the building collapsed.

But that undermines the reasoning for the rapid removal of the steel saying that there might be still people in the rubble. "This fact supports the notion that the real reason for the unprecedented destruction of evidence was to cover up an unprecedented crime." (David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, p.202).

Probably the most accurate answer I've ever seen.

On a side note.. I see the word "shill" getting thrown around a lot. I think it's funny that you chose it as a name.

I didn't have much choice in the matter. My mom married my dad and took his last name. When they gave birth to me, they gave me a name that starts with "a". When I found this subreddit, I figured why not just go with it.

Why does nobody ever talk about that building that had the center blown out like it was a satellite directed energy weapon?

Satellite energy beam weapons? You mean the ones that don't exist?

It was at 0 when I saw it, so yeah, pointless downvotes happen, unfortunately.

And I made the post I made because I'm hoping it might keep some of those types away and invite some serious discussion just to spite me. Sorry if it seemed rude.

There is nothing to discuss about, because there was no new content. That video is laughable.

To be fair, some "truther engineers" have blogs (ad revenue, guest writing revenue for other publications), make public appearances (appearance / travel fees), make YouTube videos (ad revenue), and have books to sell (more revenue). I'm sure some are making money from it.