What is the physical change you mention in #15 ?

Exactly the question i was going to ask.

I've not read his book but I've seen a few DRG presentations and I dont remember this cropping up.

Thanks.

There are many unanswered questions. I agree, but aren't you just repeating the same exact questions that have been said in your verbiage since 2001. And I don't think we've been told the whole story. But I've watched many documentaries from both points of views. Do you put any legitimacy in the documentary that Popular Mechanics answer doubters questions ?

You obvious have studied this thoroughly. You have laid out a very well thought out situation.

You should read Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin. He takes on the Popular Mechanics book/documentary in very specific detail.

I want to further expand on what /u/Pube_of_Dionysus said about debunking the NIST explanation of WTC7. NIST originally came out with a report in 2008 stating that WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed and they had a computer generated model to support their claim. A few years later NIST was forced to admit that WTC7 did in fact achieve free fall speed but they claimed that their original data & computer model from the 2008 report was still accurate. NIST then refused to release the data they used to support their original claim that WTC7 was brought down by simple office fires for fear that it might "jeopardize public safety".

There are very powerful people who are keeping this info away from the public. I know that has to be true. I would like to see actually how it was all pulled off. My only problem in my mind is thesize of the project would require too many people to be involved for it to stay quite. I don't understand how someone hasn't come forward. There had to be thousands involved.

> There had to be thousands involved.

Not by a long shot. You can pull this off with a few dozen people. You simply compartmentalize and work on a need to know basis. It's easy to string people along with a good lie so they have no idea what they are working on.

Basically the only people who would be able to spill the beans are those planning it and those planting the bombs. Everything else is simply smoke and mirrors.

Maybe, I'm just an Insurance Executive. I don't have any idea about government cover ups. The main theory which I've seen compelling information about the planes being switched in flight with remote control planes. Here's where I think you have a lot of folks involved. No one reported any of the pilots of the 4 planes weren't the usual pilots. I'm not gonna fly to an off the map hanger just to be killed. There are so many unexplained questions but I think you are under estimating the number of people in the government and media would have to be involved. That's my only question. A conspiracy works when there are only a few people involved. I heard it would take several hundred guys to rig 3 buildings that size. That came from demo companies. Again, you might be right about the small number of people needed. I can just think of so many people you would need. So far no one has went to the media so maybe it was a few people

Diesel jet fuel in building seven?

That's cool. No diss meant to you personally, but it is just that these things are pretty important to get right in the first instance. As it stands, your list is deeply flawed, with clumsy wordings, misrepresentations and strange assumptions. In an environment with rational, critical thinkers it would get picked apart, and it doesn't seem like you would be able to maintain many of the points really, i.e. you would be shooting yourself in the foot, and work against any serious 9/11 truth.

However, it turns out that neither element the documentary provides to support their case was affirmed by the NIST report. The final report states:

1. "Other than initiating the fires, the damage of the debris had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7."

It should also be noted that NIST even admits that they have "no evidence" that this is even true:

Since fires were observed on the ground surrounding WTC 7, it is possible that potential ignition sources might have entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west face of the building during the collapses of the towers. NIST found no evidence to confirm this possibility, but the available data suggest that this was highly likely.” NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 194

They just claim it was "highly likely" with "no evidence." Later on, they actually admit that ignition of the fires is unknown.

"For WTC 7, however, the ignition and early course of the fires were unknown because they were presumed to have occurred in the damaged and heavily smoke-shrouded southern portion of the building" NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 377

Makes you wonder where "the evidence" stops and "the data" begins, sounds like a bit of cognitive dissonance to me.

Have to agree with you there. It also seems like this "available data" can't be considered as "evidence." NIST says they don't have any.

Do you put any legitimacy in the documentary that Popular Mechanics

Literally everything Popular Mechanics has claimed in their "debunking" has been proven as complete unscientific nonsense.

I've watch several 911 documentaries. I just wanted to see what others thought about the popular mechanics documentary. I have absolutely no idea how all of 911 things happened. I know people can disprove the official story but I'd love to see someone find someone who was involved and explain exactly what happened. I understand debunking the official story but I really want to see how all of the things that happened was pulled off. I think everyone want to know that.

I just wanted to see what others thought about the popular mechanics documentary

It's propaganda. I am not saying don't watch or read what they have produced, in fact if you find the full 2 hour version of 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction that Popular Mechanics made, please link me to it.

I could do with a laugh, it was so so bad

Will do. My only problem with 911 is the huge number of people who had to be involved. I'm one who believes you can't get away with anything done secretly that involved thousands of people. For example, I think Bin Laden being killed a couple of years ago along with being given an Islamic funeral on a US Ship and dumped into the sea. Total bullshit. But, that can be pulled off because only a few people were involved.

My only problem with 911 is the huge number of people who had to be involved.

It's not pertinent when you learn that it is an empirically verifiable scientific fact that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

I'm not doubting all the tower may have been controlled demo. If missiles (that looked like planes) hit the towers. Why would 4 airline pilots fly to a site and then someone kiiled all the passengers. What happened to the Air Traffic Controllers? Did they cooperate? How far down in the Bush Administration did this go? How were buildings rigged for demo without anyone seeing it? How many people did it take to rig all 3 buildings? Why have NO journalists find anyone of the thousands who were involved to privately talk ? Was Osama Bin Laden and his group part of the conspiracy? Did Mayor Guiliani know ? Some Democrats had to have known. They could have practically ended the Republican Party. How far down our Military, FBI & CIA did it go ? Where any foreign governments involved? When the planes or missiles that looked like planes hit the buildings, how did we know EXACTLY were to start the controlled demo in World Trade Centers 1 & 2. Planes or missiles that looked like planes could have hit several floors off of the plan. AGAIN, I believe this whole thing stink to high heaven. But I've never heard anyone answer my questions. And they are legit. And I am gonna what the video link you sent. Thanks for that. If you know of any documents or videos that answer my questions let me know.

September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor will answer most of these

Thanks , I've been frustrated that no one ever answered the tough questions.

Also have a read of this

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers

There are four parts to it

Great

I watch the entire 911 Pearl Harbor videos. It answered questions and gave me some more. I guess that's how this big of a horrible thing works.

What about the highjackers jet fuel soaked passport that survived the plane hitting the tower and the tower falling, and was some how found unburnt atop the rubble.

That’s the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this post.

United 93

Jesus, was this the flight that crashed in the field?

No bodies or luggage to be found - they really found a passport though?

What a fucking joke.

And yet it's one of the few times in history that a black box could not be found in a land crash

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 164308}

Yep. There were no black boxes in the military planes that struck both wtc 1, and 2.

Or there were no planes at all.

People still pushing that hologram shit.

Not hologram but cgi on our tvs, eye witnesses saw large missiles hit the buildings. Thats the theory, not saying I believe it but if you watch the 'evidence' put forward its a lot more convincing than it sounds, specially the video of the planes nose going straight through the tower before the screen glitches out for a few frames.

So the footage from every single camera that caught a plane hitting the towers was altered with cgi?

Its addressed in the video I watched, cant remember how he explained it.

just like there was tons of disinfo after JFK...there was even more after 9/11. Planes hit the buildings, don't waste your time getting distracted with hologram bs

If you havent looked at all the info then you are in no position to tell people what is 'info' and what is 'dis-info'.

k

what about all the amateur video? All CGI? Would nobody seriously have been filming it and have video that doesn't show a plane hitting it and go "hey what the fuck?"....They would literally have to track down every person who might have video and silence them.....and why would they risk such an obvious possibility instead of just using real hijackers, or remotely controlling actual planes, etc? Since when does the government give a shit about loss of human lives? and why would they care about the loss of life on a plane but not the thousands that were in the building?

What part of 'not saying I believe it' do you not understand?

I dont know the answers to all those questions.

What part of rhetorical questions don't you understand? Just because there are questions made in response to you doesn't mean they're directed to you, one of the many nuances of the English language.

ah my bad haha

Anyway if youve got time watch this documentary about the no planes stuff, it does sound less crazy than it first seems when you see their reasoning behind it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM

Ill give it a watch, I've only ever heard people on here mention it. I feel like those questions really don't have any logical answers so I'm not sure I'll be swayed, but I'll check it out

what didn't you understand the first time? He doesn't know the answers, so don't suggest to him anything that he already "knows"

You realize hypothetical questions are a...thing, right? I was posing these questions to the idea that the theory might have validity, what don't you understand about that?

I didn't buy it for a long time and found it disinfo, but the "September Clues" video should at least get you thinking. There's no way that plane should've come out the other side of the WTC building. And I was unaware that EVERY network's feed cut out at precisely the moment the nose of the plane poked out.

I'm not saying there were no planes for sure, but I do think it's something people should dig into more. Lots of questions that aren't answered.

How are people saying it was CGI or holograms still? It's not that there weren't planes, it's that there weren't commercial planes that hit the towers! The reason you see ejection on the opposite side of the towers post impact is because a projectile was fired prior to impact. As for the weak as fuck explanations of "wings disappearing" etc you're clearly young, old video footage required rolling recordings on physical media, that and OLD digital video that had terrible FPS and constant artifacting! Stick with physical evidence!

As someone who witnessed it with his own eyes, that’s the most ridiculous thing ever.

I just can't see a purpose to the hologram theory. Why wouldn't whomever carried out the attack use real planes + controlled explosives?

It’s not even possible. That was the clearest sunniest day ever too. Holograms don’t work well in bright places. Never mind the fact it was 100 percent real.

I also heard the first plane hit while getting dressed to leave for work. 100 percent happened. Did the government allow it to happen is the conspiracy, not did it happen at all.

This is how they get people to think conspiracy theorists are crazy. I'm almost positive the holograms/no plans movement is disinfo

I always thought this too, but have you watched "September Clues"? They make a ton of valid points. The nose of the plane emerging on the other side of the building is highly suspect.

Watch "September Clues" and get back to us.

I've watched September Clues multiple times, probably over 10. I've been obsessed with trying to find the truth of 9/11 for years. It's an absolutely fascinating video. The letsroll forums were also an interesting place.

This is just my own conclusion, based on how it would have been much more complicated to do the holograms, much more things could have went wrong

For starters, it wasn't holograms. However, 9/11 footage was definitely tampered with as the September Clues documentary shows. It shows multiple different video tapes with clear cut cgi edits.

I just can't see a purpose to the hologram theory.

I always wonder: can you find someone of value proposing that the planes were "holograms". Sounds like some dishonest shill lying to try to save their story.

Yeah. "Conspiracies" worth entertaining all have one thing in common: an actual motive. Following the money and the cascading causes and effects will usually lead you in the right direction.

Holograms, like flat earth, are only trying to obfuscate. There is no financial or tangible gains. In fact, it's the opposite. These theories would only risk exposure for TPTB.

You managed to ignore the question:

Can you find someone of value proposing that the planes were "holograms"?

Can you?

Agreed.

The planes could have been modified passenger planes or swapped out for military ones. No planes seems like a wild leap and just gives ammo to the people trying to de-legitimise the conspiracy.

The planes could have been modified passenger planes or swapped out for military ones

This is the most logical theory, there is even historical evidence they tried to do this before 9/11

September Clues is about a lot more fakery than just a few people pretending that they saw the planes... which were all the wrong colour (black, instead of white) - which, of course, you were looking up at the sky at the time and "witnessed", right hombre?

The TV channels just couldn't get their story straight.

You must be legally retarded to believe that.

You must be legally retarded to believe that.

No, moron, unlike you - a bozo - I watched the footage. The explosions aren't even synchronized properly. You - a bozo - will NEVER watch the footage. Why? Because you are a bozo.

The tv stations were panicking like the rest of NYC was. Some of them had been broadcasting from there too.

So? Some bozo actually thinks that because "the tv stations were panicking" that their cameras did some sort of fucking time travelling? Well fuck me, the American education system is shit.

Fuck this is so stupid why am I even responding.

you are writing shit because you are an idiot.

I was literally there.

What. We're talking about the September Clues website, you bumbling moron. Why are the propaganda worshippers always MIL-SPEC retarded? Why?

Damn bro? Your parents were brother and sister huh?

What the fuck shit website are you talking about son?

I specifically called out the stupid ass comment about holographic planes because I literally was there.

Now go put your yellow helmet on and go back outside to play

Removed, Rule 10.

Removed. Rule 10.

Rule 10

It looked convincing, but that is because people have forgotten v-hold and h-hold of old, analogue equipment. It is entirely possible that the video is a distortion made by a single VCR. To prove or disprove would require multiple copies of that station from different people and even the original news film (can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be archived.)

You've not watched "September Clues," then. It has feeds from ALL the different networks, but it turn out they're ALL relying on a single feed, which in and of itself is odd.

There is no way a conventional public aircraft would've been able to smash its way through the building. Simply impossible. So it either wasn't a conventional aircraft or it wasn't an aircraft at all.

I am guessing that the feed itself had an error. I agree there is no way it would go through. But one single video is more likely to prove that the video is bad, not some unknown hologram tech.

If there were no planes, I don't think there were holograms on the sites of the attacks. I think they were added to videos and people locally are misremembering and no one actually saw planes.

That video could not have "had an error" that would make it look like the plane went through the building. I mean, c'mon.

It exactly could have. How old are you? Did you grow up in the era of vhs and analogue video? It was extremely common for a video tape from television or from one vhs tape to another to have “ghost images” sometimes like a double exposure shifted an inch to the left or right. Sometimes on broadcast sports it would only be moving things like people who shifted while the background was static.

Obviously I am not saying that is definitely what is going on but it is absolutely possible

Ive worked in television and film and remember days before VCR.

If you've watched "September Clues," we can continue this conversation. Have you done so?

Yes.

I wonder if it might be a mix of the two? I have definitely seen videos where the planes look darker and not like public craft so maybe they tried to paint over the jets in widely viewed clips or had a cgi video ready to go alongside candid video released later, I can't remember if it was September Clues exactly but have seen a frame by frame showing a wing disappearing completely for a second and the hole left by the jet is just to perfect even with a stretch of the imagination the fuselage survived the wings should have been torn off..

Like Augmented Reality you have on Snapchat?

I thought it was just CGI for the 2nd tower?

I thought it was just CGI for the 2nd tower?

Well why just one tower? This whole cgi thing is unnecessary.

I was looking into it a bit more and it's rather hard to even see an object at all in the video of the North Tower, let alone a plane. And in reality they just needed to fool the mass public that there were planes so everybody didn't think it was bombs, they didn't really need to worry about eyewitnesses. And although I agree with you that the CGI is unnecessary, that doesn't mean that people such as myself won't think it's the actual truth. Here's the video I watched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3shmfKOZ9g at about 01:08 you should be able to see the plane coming from the general direction of the camera, but I personally can only make out something for a couple frames before the "impact", and not really a plane at that

Watch September Clues, that CGI is undeniable. Have you looked at the smoke and mirrors section or the moving bridges one? Blatant video manipulation.

Not OP, however, Who said anything about Holograms? They have CNN! This is their most powerful tool used to fool the masses.

I am in agreement that the hologram theory is most likely dis-info, however please consider they very much had the ability to invent the planes via mass media brainwashing. If they rigged the building with explosives, why need any planes at all? No planes, no hijackers, no civilian casualties, 1000x times easier to pull off.

• Look into the "eye-witnesses" of the planes and alleged passengers.
• Where is the real evidence there were physical planes? Engines in NYC with wrong parts? Zero evidence of a crashed plane for flight 97 or at the Pentagon.
• Aluminum planes cannot melt into the side of buildings, regardless of jet full or speed.

k

spot on....

... but not the allowed alternative theory, so you will get downvoted.

If you posted that on /r/911 - i.e. the obvious truth - you would be banned.

Well said.

Remotely flown crude lookalikes packed with cadavers and/or fuel. Those responsible wanted those buildings (and the rest of the world with them) to go down with a spectacular show. The people responsible for orchestrating this disgusting act of treason and genocide need to be exposed as the murderous traitors they are and brought to justice. No one is untouchable, and trying to find justice in our courts which we have sadly let rot into unjust frauds purposefully tilted in the favor of those responsible for such horrible acts as 9/11 may ultimately be futile.

Lol I see what you did there.

What I do

Military planes... which is most likely the case. 😋

Well the commercial planes can’t fly that low that fast but the military ones can. So that and all the eye Witness video of people saying that the planes were black or grey and had no markings on them. No passenger windows on the sides.

No doubt at all. Still pisses me off when I watch documentaries and Iisten to the 911 calls from inside the wtc.

Am I going insane because I remember clearly in 2002 that they had indeed recovered a black box, then it was hushed forever. If I recall correctly it was a fireman (who not long after died of cancer "totally unrelated") that found the device?

Never once was it claimed to have been found above the rubble. You do a disservice making shit up to be more ridiculous than they already are.

My bad. On top of/within the rubble, still found the passport of the highjacker near the collapsing of a steel building due to fire from jet fuel, even with it soaked in jet fuel and aboard the plane which supplied the jet fuel hat burned down the WTCs. But let’s focus on my wording about its location top of or within and derail from the main point.

and the bandanna!!

They really tried to sell us this kamikaze garbage.

Hijacker make no sense when all three skyscrapers were controlled demolitions.

Not atop the rubble, it was found before either tower collapsed, and soaked in jet fuel. It was handed to a police officer by someone who then walked away.

It's really interesting to see all the videos of them boarding the planes that morning... oh wait. Nevermind

I’m only at number 1 but wouldn’t an airplane be considered an explosive in this case. And jet fuel an incendiary?

No?

I'd assume there would be an explosive shockwave as the liquid fuel vapourized and expanded. But I don't think something like that would have the force necessary to act as a demolition charge. Any explosives used to move large amounts of material out of the way, as in construction or demolition, are solids, and specifically formulated to produce shockwaves of incredible force.

Thats called deflagration, NOT explosive detonation.

TIL. 😁

Easy to invalidate this thinking though, no aircraft hit WTC7.

No, because explosives detonate. The plane impact would be kinetic.

The towers were designed to be impervious to plane strikes of that size.

In some videos you can literally see white hot molten metal coming out of the towers before collapse, indicating thermite.

I could be wrong, but I thought the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which actually weighs less and carries less fuel than a 767.

https://youtu.be/w_E4Ckuyc6k

That explains the reason it didnt matter. Both are about the same size.

The video was interesting until the last interview and the mosquito/screening netting/pencil analogy.

Thats fine because the first guy was the important one.

No?

Dang it!

A fine list of the true miracles that happened on September 11, 2001.

• B7 fell at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds.

• USGS found melted Molybdenum and attempted to cover it up. Without Steven Jones persistence we would have never found it out.

Cue the" it was half a second slower than free fall so you're wrong" dude.

Don't let anyone tell you that, it was in complete free fall. What NIST try to argue was that it was 40% slower than free fall by moving the start of the collapse back a few seconds to a point when they saw a pixel move on the video.

It was a joke, I know.

In their original report they pretended 40% slower than free fall. Then a guy (of the made-up "Physics Teachers for 9/11 Truth") at their Q&A pointed out their silliness, so in the final report they admitted it.

If you watch these videos and take notes you could produce a high quality list of 100+ miracles:

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money

September 11: The New Pearl Harbor

Agreed. These two might be the best in total of all that happened behind the scenes. Recommend both.

Can you explain item 14 a bit further?

Why? Because of the g-force? So what flew it? A computer? Drone flying?

If you watch pentagon documentaries its pretty clear that a plane came in from a completely different angle and likely flew over the pentagon, and it wasnt a plane that did the damage. It would have had to have been a missile capable of penetrating the multiple rings or explosives pre planted or both.

I love how all they would have to do is release one of the ultra-high def cameras that are obviously around the perimeter of the most secure government building in the world that actually shows an airplane, but yet all we got was a 3 FPS video shot with a Lite Brite.

Weren't they all taken offline that day for maintenance or something?

Were they? Christ that's just as big of a red flag as NORAD conducting drills that morning

"How about just this one day, we just leave America's airspace completely undefended to the point where even unarmed civilian aircraft can be used as weapons. What could possibly go wrong?"

The litebrites? Mine still works

I'm going to call my mom and have her find me litebrite today

From what I have read, when a plane is going that fast so close to the ground, it creates extreme wind turbulence since the wind underneath the wings has no place to go because of the ground.

Thats interesting! I never knew that account of the planes descent being so unlikely done by the attackers due to the rate of skill needed

The guy couldn't properly land a cessna on his own but somehow pulled off one of the most difficult maneuvers possible, in a plane he had never flown, with the precision of a career test pilot. What he's done has been attempted in a simulator by many airline pilots and quite a few failed their first several attempts.

I was under the assumption that they all failed. Every time.

Then you were wrong. Amateur pilots (some never having flown a real plane) have repeatedly done it. No offence but I don't get why youd make this comment without checking this?

Because I like to drink.

Fair's fair!

Upvote. Still drinking.

Source?

Miracles of 9/11

i.e. constructed miracles ^{cf.仕組まれた奇跡}

13 still unbelievable to this day that there is no clarity because it was this phone call and this phone call ALONE that is responsible for the information about hijackers using boxcutters.

I've forgotten to switch my phone to airplane mode a few times in my years of travel, and I have never, ever picked up a signal in mid-air, sans the 20 seconds after takeoff or before landing.

I have, is that supposed to not be possible?

It all depends on locations. some cell towers are located on top of buildings and mountains (for rural places) and can give you phone signal at higher ranges, for a bit. Cellphone signal can reach up about 10,000 feet. even if you were at half that height, the speed of the plane can make it difficult to hold on to the signal.

I have spoken on the phone with people while cruising. I didnt know that wasnt normal

Only other explanation I can think of is maybe you were on wifi. And some phone companies allow calls over WiFi.

Idk.

I've made calls using WiFi on a flight before so it's possible.

I’m very sure that’s possible now but remember, 20 years ago a lot of WiFi was dial up. I don’t think that would work as well on a plane.

Of course, 20 years ago forget about, totally different story, no way you’re making calls from a plane back then.

Wifi 100% absolutely did not exist in any capacity on commercial airplanes in 2001.

No wifi on planes back in that time lads, was not available at that time. They had phones on the back of the head rest in those days you'd swipe your CC to make a call.

This is also almost 17 years ago. Not everyone had one yet, either. We're talking bricks and flip-phones. Some people were still chirping on Nextel!! <--(for the old heads)

My dad had a Nextel in 01. Shit didn’t work at all that day. He worked in the Sears Tower and all the talking heads on the news kept saying Chicago was next, at the time. Horrible not being able to get through at all.

All this to say chirps were the business.

I had a nextel then. Lol. Only shit that would work in the woods

I'm a firm believer that 9/11 was orchestrated and allowed to happen on the context of War, stripping liberties and every excuse for them to do what they want,

However, with regards the phone call, I flew a lot back around that time, South Africa from Europe, Phones on the plane where you swipe your CC, Same in 2002 when I first migrated to the States, same phones on American Airlines, so it's possible that a call was made, possible as we'll never know.

Those are known as AirFones though (I believe satellite based?) and reports kept referring to cellular calls. That's the part I don't understand.

Got you and yes, I agree with the reference to cellular calls, but yes, satellite based phones on board planes back then.

Before I arrived in the US back in 2003, I was living in Ireland at the time and around 2002 a documentary aired on ITV British TV station about the 9/11 attacks, I don't recall the name, but in that documentary they stated and showed reenactments of the passengers calling loved ones from the air. Probably all bullshit like the rest of the narrative.

It should be easy enough to produce records of a call using those seat back phones if that was the case. Or, a credit card transaction showing that service was used, or a collect call record if that was the case. The time stamps of the call and seatback phone location would be interesting at the very least. Why this hasn't been clarified is incomprehensible.

Agree 100%, my gut feeling is that the documentary played the bleeding heart card where as showing the emotional dialogue between husband and wife to garnish sympathy, simple as that.

You should check out rebekah ross’s books or her interviews. She has some great information as a former flight attendant.

Sorry rebekah roth

Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits behind 9/11. Who benefits from the crime? The attacks against the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge. Even in Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF, jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?

The whole world already knows this. This is a simple restatement of what everybody already knows.

Everywhere except in America, where Jewish dominated media envelops everyone in a poisoned darkness, everybody knows that Jewish kingpins pulled off 9/11 as an excuse for making war on every obstacle to their world financial hegemony, and killing as many non-Jews as possible in the process to further consolidate their domination of the whole world.

This widening war on the Islamic world, already responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, is a direct result of the 9/11 hoax, everything based on false spin concocted by Jewish strategists not for U.S. best interests, but for the demonic master plan of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which rules the Jewish moneymen who buy the presidents and the generals, to kill or enslave the rest of the world. They control you, whether you want to admit or not. They control your bank account. And they make you support their insane war program by all this wall-to-wall patriotic spin.

The totally Jewish-controlled U.S. media have long ago suspended their journalistic capabilities in favor of blatant cheerleading about their favorite subject - Muslim terrorists. Every day they urge you to kill them. If there ever was a systemic hate crime, this is it.

Yet, as the infamous list of the 19 hijackers was released by the FBI two days after the infamous event, and except for two feeble-minded patsies, no other perpetrator has ever been arrested for the greatest crime in American history, what kind of conclusions are we to draw from the fact that all of the people who were in charge of America when this dark day happened, instead of being fired for incompetence, were promoted and allowed to continue their criminal activity?

What does all this say about the American mind?

It is not functioning, thanks to the poisoned blanket of U.S. media, and a deliberately twisted educational system that has produced killer Jewish robots instead of fully invested philosophically clean humans.

Every cop in the world should be brought up on charges of willful obstruction of justice for not blowing the whistle on President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and all their Jewish handlers - in the White House, in the Congress, in the media, and most especially in the banks) for their stunningly criminal behavior in both lying about the events and implementing a totally illegal coverup of the crime scenes.

But the Jewish judges atop the U.S. legal system said it was all OK, and the media, led by the New York Times and CNN, never mentioned all those Jewish fingerprints visible in the pyroclastic dust covering the disintegrated corpses in the rubble of the Twin Towers.

In an interview only a mere weeks after 9/11, Hamid Gul - former head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) from 1987-1989 - told Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press International, of who he thinks was behind the attacks. Here are a few exceprts from the transcript:

De Borchgrave: So who did Black Sept. 11?

Gul: Mossad and its accomplices. The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That's $400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was taken by surprise. I don't believe it. Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.

https://www.upi.com/UPI-interview-with-Hamid-Gul/60031280349846/

Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden was interviewed by Pakistani newspaper Ummat. When asked if he was involved in the attacks he stated:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

He went on to say:

"In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks."

He further goes on to state:

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word."

You know all this is true. You know you are living a lie every day, by accepting what the TV robots tell you is true.

Yet you wring your hands and kvetch that you don't know what to do, when in fact you do. You just don't have the courage to do it, because you're a robotized American dreckdroid, who goes out and kills other people for reasons simply because you have been ordered to by those who control you. Despicable. You are despicable, because you don't have the courage to say what you clearly know, even though you about to lose everything you ever loved because of your failure to say what you know and confront the beast. And now it's too big to stop.

You're blaming the Jews? Really? I didn't now Dick Cheney was Jewish.

Look up the Dancing Israelis, E Team lighting up the exact place the plane would strike and Gelatin B Thing art book which shows the towers collapsing and people jumping made while the Israeli "art students" had unrestricted construction access to the WTC.

"We were there to document the event"

everybody knows

What little credibility your post might have contained vanished with that ludicrous claim.

your post history shows you keep posting this same text everyday

The US Media ... their favorite subject - Muslim terrorists. Every day they urge you to kill them.

Complete frogshit.

Their favourite subject is Donald Trump. Most of the Muslim terror incidents that occur worldwide don't even appear in the US media, who have never even once urged me to kill Muslim terrorists, let alone every day.

You are ranting lies.

Their favorite subject just a few short years ago was absolutely Muslim Terrorists.

... just a few short years ago ...

Do you mean after 11 September 2001?

You might not notice that it's calmed down a hell of a lot since those few short years ago, because now many Muslim terror attacks just don't appear in Western corporate mainstream news media.

You might not have noticed that he was talking about a timeframe longer than the last year.

911 was almost 17 years ago. Bush was 2 Presidents ago. Obama era lasted 8 years and for that whole time Western Mainstream media were downplaying or flat-out not even reporting many global terrorist incidents except the most egregious or glaringly obvious.

Typically based around the middle east and "Muslim Terrorists."

Stop being disingenuous by acting like this rhetoric only existed immediately after 9/11.

Typically based around the middle east and "Muslim Terrorists."

Muslim terrorism has NOT ever been typically based around the middle east, nor have "Muslim Terrorists" generally been the favourite subject of US media except under the Bush Presidencies as far as I can remember, (and yet the closeness of the Bush and Saud families has been well attested to).

Stop being disingenuous by acting like this rhetoric only existed immediately after 9/11.

Well I didn't see much of it, (anti "Muslim terrorists" newspaper reports), before 911 except during terror incidents or wars, or in 1998 when Bin Laden declared war on the USA. Admittedly the US was involved in the middle east for quite a few years, and I certainly didn't see an undue abundance of what you claim, which was - "Muslim terrorists". Every day they urge you to go out and kill them -, even though if they are terrorists then killing them would not be an inappropriate response.

Don't forget that fear of Muslim terrorists has existed all over the medieval world, from the middle east to North Africa, from India to Spain, from Austria to France, and all around the Mediterranean since about ten years before Mohammeds death, or since about 1396 years ago.

Certainly, over the last ten years there has been a concerted hush campaign in Western Media to avoid arousing the irascible Muslim sensitivities for fear of further reprisals on innocent civilians, so the "Muslim terrorists" seem to be winning that particular ideological battle.

Mel Gibson is that you?

Aaaaaand here's the guy trying to discredit us by painting us as antisemetic. You can tell because he says "the Jews" and not "Israel and Mossad".

Is Israel corrupt? Yes. Is Mossad on par with the CIA as far as clandestine operations go? Totally. Do I think they are involved? Yes.

But blaming "The Jews" just makes you seem like an uninformed bigot and I believe that's intentional.

I believe 100% in the no planes theory, These “hijackers” could not of pulled off what they did no matter what the security was back then,

No plane evidence in the field in Pennsylvania No plan evidence at the pentagon, they refuse to release footage And the videos of the planes hitting the towers are CGI, do your research! There was one video on YouTube that showed an angle of the plane which the wing disappeared behind a building in the background before hitting the tower and it was the original video from fox!

What about all the people that saw it with their own eyes?

or any of the people that would have been filming it lol and could go back later and confirm it wasnt planes.

No one has a clear description, everyone has a different story of what they saw

..... Thats still discounting a lot of evidence. CGI back in 2000 was nothing compared to what is today. What's your evidence for there being hundreds of thousands of eyewitness accounts and dozens of camera angles.

Something is definitely fishy in the big picture but that to me just seems like grasping at straws. Of all the unknowns surrounding this event why do you chose this?

The planes were controlled remotely.

Isn't there a video of the smoke from the towers being a looping pattern?

Praise Jeebus! 'Murica!

/ totally joking this time.

Great post. I'm saving this

Not to mention the WTC became DUST, not broken walls. Nope. DUST.

Definitely there were explosives there.

Who, How, Why....I don't know.

so basically you have no idea what you are talking about?

..and when you consider there were acres and acres of steel reinforced concrete. What was all that dust? It was supposed to be a "collapse'

Metal looses quite a bit of strength, and expands a lot when heated. This all happens way before it melts. It's like there's no difference is strength properties from ambient temperature up until a couple degrees of melting; that's a very incorrect assumption.

Somehow fires on one side of a building caused steel beams all around the building to simultaneously fail? In seconds? Obviously heating metal compromises it but that still doesn't make sense

It's funny how people are still using this defense even though it doesn't really apply to any of the points that OP mentioned.

"How come Dick Cheney called off the interception of the plane heading towards the Pentagon multiple times?"

"Because Steel loses strength before melting!!! The buildings all just became really bendy and soft, that's why they collapsed at freefall speed!!"

steel column ONLY retains its strength if its perfectly straight. Even a small bend due to metal getting softer causes it to lose almost all of its strength, which then gives way to easy collapse

You're the one who is assuming that the steel saw any temperature that would allow it to melt. Because according to the empirical evidence, only 3 steel columns had reached 250°C.

Great list, it still baffles me the amount of people who just push everything off and continue to buy into the official narrative.

1. Find other examples of a tall, steel framed building being his with a planes and then not collapsing.

2. The WTC were brought down by damage from the planes, which changed the loading scenario, and the fires caused sagging in the long span trusses, which caused collapse.

3. WTC7 also had severe damage from the WTC collapse. There is a reason why a lot of firefighters says that it was going to collapse, long before it actually did.

4. They did not fall at free fall speeds. The material coming off the side of building did, because of gravity, but the building itself definitely did not.

5. Have you seen two 110 story buildings collapse before?

6. Cascading failure across the structure. What you saw fall down was mostly the out framed of the building, as the internal structure had already commenced collapse.

7. Angular momentum?

8. That's what it looks like when a building collapses.

9. Extraordinary force during collapse will cause projectiles.

10. Yes, there was a huge fire and plenty of material to keep it going.

11. Melting steel did not cause the collapse. Weakened steel caused collapse.

12. I'd like to see photos.

13. Does that suggest that she wasn't actually on a plane and that the phone call was staged?

14. Pure speculation.

15. Nonsense.

Wtc7 was text book control demolition. The building also fell at free fall speeds.

The buildings internal grid collapsed in a cascade, then the shell fell. That is what happened when the penthouse collapsed and then the entire building fell about 5 seconds later.

Even professionals that work in controlled demolition, think that it was controlled demolition -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

He does not address the penthouse, as does almost every other WTC7 conspiracy video online. You can clearly see the penthouse collapse, and the movement of the windows suggests a cascade across the building. Then, the shell, which has almost nothing left inside, collapses with little resistance.

In a controlled demo you blow the central columns first so it falls in on itself. That's exactly what you see with wtc7. The building was constructed with 47 steel columns, it would be impossible for all of them to collapse whilst somehow the outer, shell was still standing??

In a controlled demolition, there is noise, visible charges, and usually some outward expulsion, none of which exist at WTC7. 47 columns didn't collapse all at once. Completely uncontrolled fire cause steel fire very quickly, and the WTC7 experience massive, uncontrolled fires for 7 hours. When steel heats up, it expands, which puts incredible stress on joints and connections. When the connections fail, everything above the support gives way.

This is clearly seen when the penthouse collapses, and through the windows you can see some actual sunlight, which suggests that that area was hollowed out and the frame was still standing. The collapse progressed across the building, removing all of the internal support for the shell. This is demonstrated during collapse when the "shell" bows inward on at least 2 sides of the building, which shows that there was no internal structure present.

Witnesses said the building was going to blow up -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A

So, in this instance, you interpret people saying "it's about to blow up" as a statement that there are explosives or some kind of demolition material inside and they are aware that it is going to be coming down intentionally? Wouldn't it make more sense for these civilians to say "blowing up" as in it is going to come down, just like the Twin Towers had, earlier that day?

Were the people videotaping here "in" on the conspiracy?

Building fell symmetrically at free fall speeds, in a manner that perfectly matched controlled demolition. People at the scene said it was going to blow up. The logical conclusion is, it was rigged to blow.

It fell symmetrically because there is was nothing inside to dictate it going anywhere else. The firefighters were removed from the area because it was proving to be too dangerous to stay in the area and many said it was going to collapse. The logical conclusion is not that was rigged to blow.

My issue in general with the 9/11 bomb or whatever conspiracies is the lack of evidence of anything that would actually clearly show that it was a demolition. All there is to support these claims are observable things like "well, the building fell like a controlled demolition" and "there were important CIA papers in there"...rather than "here is evidence of blasts at the base of the tower despite no sounds" or "we have archived security footage of people bringing bombing materials into WTC7".

I think those that follow these conspiracies under-estimate what it actually takes to bring down a building in a controlled demolition.

You realise the WTC buildings were not hollow? The supporting columns were right the way through the structure -> https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2008/nistwtc7inve.jpg

Uncombusted traces of nano thermate were found everywhere in the wtc7 dust samples. Nano thermate is an extremely high end compound probably only made by a few companies in the world. It's extremely exothermic. There's whole papers on it. https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

I know they were not hollow..?

Thermite is aluminum and iron oxide. These elements can be found in the construction of a building. It is not indicative of thermite being using to take down these tall skyscrapers. I'm far more interested in the explanation of how thermite was able to commence the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC (coincidentally, right where the planes hit) and of WTC7.

Uncombusted nano thermate. Not thermite. This is not a compound you just find lying around.

I have not seen a research report that says uncombusted nanothermate was found at Ground Zero. Care to share?

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

That article suggests that this material could easily be "painted on". Can I assume your assessment to be that the walls inside the WTC were painted with this material and then, once a fire was present, it triggered the material...which caused the building to collapse?

Well I don't think anyone will ever know exactly what happened, since the buildings once destroyed were quickly shipped off to China before any investigation was done into their failure. But it was assumed the material was used to basically cut the core columns in the building. Not fire ignited, but set off by charges. An unusual demolition choice, but also one that is highly effective. It's the reason also assumed why such impossibly high temperatures were found at the WTC buildings, and why molten metal steel was found. Pictires -> http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/7.jpg Fire fighters describing motel steel -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM This should have been impossible with any kind of normal combustibles in the tower.

If I'm not mistaken, aluminum melts around 650C, and temperatures were far hotter than that in the building and the rubble. Is it at all possible that the "molten steel" is melted aluminum?

Also, I am struggling to understand just how any of this was supposed to be done? Let's say there was thermite intended to cut columns...how does it start? Are humans required? Why does the building happen to collapsed exactly from where the planes crashed? Why did the outer structures of WTC1 and 2 both pull inward a second before collapse? None of these things are conducive to an inside job, but are, however, to the notion that fire weakens steel trusses, and causes catastrophic collapse once failure occurs.

Molten aluminum looks silver in color unless you get it to a much higher temperature. Have a watch of this, it goes into more detail than I could in a comment -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB1IYi51Kdc

So again, assuming there was thermite or thermate (don't know the difference), why do the buildings collapse right at where the plane was impacted and nowhere else?

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/ST1.jpg

That image shows the buckling moments before collapse. The weight distribution of the tower was completely out of balance due to the plane and sagging trusses. The trusses cause bowing (pulling in the outer frame) and then the weight of the top portion buckled the "pulled in" frame. This does not look like something caused by thermite.

If you had planned to blow the towers up, it would look ridiculous if it collapsed from the bottom (like wtc7) which was completely undamaged. After the planes crashed the temperature inside the towers couldn't have been that high because there was a woman actually standing in the hole at the impact site -> https://i.imgur.com/dIBwTiT.jpg In fact the WTC buildings were designed to withstand the impact of 707s flying into them, which was the largest commercial jet the time the buildings were built. One of the lead designers said he believe the towers could withstand multiple impacts, and that they would really do nothing to the structural integrity of the buildings -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

So, they had thermite react to right where the planes happened to hit?

A woman was standing in the impact hole, but there was no visible fire in the impact hole, so it's silly to assume that just because this one woman wasn't surrounded in raging fires that there weren't any elsewhere in the tower.

The WTC was design to withstand the impact of a 707, with low fuel, at a slower speed, not a 747, loaded with fuel, going 500mph. Even then, the WTC DID withstand the impact. They did not collapse because a plane crashed into it. They collapsed because when steel trusses are exposed to flames, they sag. These long span trusses were connected to the outer frame of the building, which carried something like 30-40% of the building load. So when the beam sags, it starts pulling the outer frame in ward (in some places, up to 55 inches). Steel is incredibly strong when holding loads STRAIGHT, but if they are turned or pulled inward even a bit, their integrity is almost entirely removed. This bowing effect is highly documented with the WTC.

Offices fires don't weaken steel to the point they turn into noodles. And even if hypothetically this happened, the building wouldn't then collapse into the path of most resistance at practically free fall speeds. The millions or so tonnes of buildings below would provide resistance to the weight above and slow or stop the collapse completely. Those buildings have massive redundancy, they are designed so the weight will shift when they move in the wind. Either way, the official explanation doesn't explain molten steel, or the uncombusted thermate everywhere.

The steel didn't have to be "noodles". Long span trusses, like those at WTC, absolutely sag when exposed to fire. Just think of the insane mass of the tower placed upon those weakened trusses. It is going to collapse, no question.

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif

Each individual floor of the WTC was not designed to sustain the dynamic loading when the top quarter or third of the building comes down all at once. The incredible load of mass will push through each individual floor quite easily.

My overall point is that, from a conspiracy perspective (assuming the conspiracy believed says the collapse was triggered on purpose), there are so many things required for it to occur which has zero evidence supporting it. Do you know how many people would have to be in the know about an operation like this for there to not be a single whistleblower providing substantial evidence? Yet the current President cannot even keep his extra-marital affairs secret?

It sounds like you've read a decent amount of the conspiracy material, which is good, but I think you should also look into some of the "debunking" material because there is valuable information in there. Not that it will change your mind, but it will certainly make your future arguments stronger.

Well the paper on nano thermate is pretty smoking gun. I don't think there are any attempted debunkings of it, except to pretend it doesn't exist. The NIST papers went into great detail to explain collapse initiation, using fancy models. But then completely failed to explain the rest of the collapse of the building. Even with immense loads, the building should have provided some resistance to the collapse, but it provided absolutely nothing. This without some kind of explosive just violates the most basic laws of physics. Maybe you should read https://www.ae911truth.org which is written by actual experts in their fields. Not random internet people paid to defend the governments viewpoint.

There was resistance though. I have found that on videos that try demonstrate free fall speed with WTC1 and 2, they stop the timer once that rubble coming off the building hits the ground, but the building is still collapsing underneath the cloud of smoke.

I want to see what you think of this photo: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hudson_clouds.jpg

That is the concrete core of the North Tower after collapse. Compared to the Financial Centre buildings, that core standing is nearly 700 feet tall. The fact that the core survived the collapse, to me, shows that the pancake theory is true and that using explosives or something else to take down the building to NOT be true. Trying to explode a 110 story building would certainly require the core to be taken out...

I have read that site up and down. I used to be a bit of a truther, ever since watching the original Loose Change back in like 2008 or so. However, what I found is that in order for the 1 of the theories presented to be true, there would have to be 100 other things required which have zero evidence. That is my issue with it.

I am not some American government apologist. They have done a lot of horrible things in the name of war over the years...however, this is not one of them. I should also mention that a 9/11 conspiracy theory acts on a scale. On one end, some believe the US intentionally did not try stop the planes or the terrorists because it would allow them to go to war, while those on the further end believe that no planes hit the WTC and that the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down.

That photo was taken during the collapse, the core didn't survive. Actually if you look at the photos of the aftermath the only thing which was left standing was the outer shell at the base of the building, which would make no sense if a million or whatever tonnes of building came crashing down. In fact the whole things was blown to pieces. In stark contrast to wtc7 which collapsed into a neat pile.

The core didn't survive, but it did remain after the collapse for about 5 seconds, which means that blowing out the core was not used in the demolition of the buildings.

I'm confused about what that piece standing shows regarding your theory? Because that piece is standing, that means it couldn't have fallen without explosives? WTC7 fell in a (sorta) neat pile because of the cascade collapse I described earlier. The internal structure came down, then the shell fell straight down, as gravity would dictate with some that has zero support.

How can you conclude that part of the core standing for 5 seconds means no explosives were used? That makes no sense. Read the paper on thermate if you can get your hubby around it.

The core standing suggests that the pancake theory is true, and that theory basically says the weight of the floors above crushed each floor in rapid succession, stripping the trusses from the core, leaving the core behind.

As of right now, you haven't provided any explanation as to why the frame of the building was bowing inward and happened to collapse exactly from where the planes hit, or address the cascading collapse of the internal WTC7 structure, or demonstrate how the WTC was supposed to not collapse despite taking on the enormous dynamic loading of the upper collapse. Now that is what I want to get my head around. Saying "this paper says there was evidence of chemical compounds consistent with thermite use" provides essentially nothing in terms of explaining HOW it was done.

If you blow the central support columns what do you expect to happen to the outer walls of the building? They are going to bow some direction. The thermate evidence says how it was done. It also gives a credible explanation as to why molten steel was found and why such impossibly high temperatures persisted for weeks. How they were placed we'll never know exactly, but if you read the news archives there was a lot of unusual work done on the towers in the weeks preceding 911 including one weekend where all the power including to the security cameras was cut.

One weekend to rig two of the tallest buildings in the world with explosive material that will be used to totally demolish them? That is simply not possible.

nonsense

Thank you for your contribution. Now tell us how you are an engineer and your family is all engineers.

I am studying engineering, and I do have a few engineers in the family, but not in structural.

okay, but how can you seriously expect reasonable comparison to be made between ‘ordinary building fires’ and a fucking huge airplane full of fuel crashing into a building? Like, if it’s true, I really struggle to see how it’s surprising that the fires were a higher temperature than ‘ordinary building fires’

Simple.

Two planes crashed into two steel towers at different angles at different heights. Both fell basically into their own footprint.

Then. Hours later. Another steel framed building NOT hit by a plane fell for no good reason at freefall speeds "due to fires".

is there any video of that third building falling? I’ve only ever heard it in unsourced terms, unfortunately (might be my fault for lack of research)

still though, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t clearly be a hotter fire than ‘ordinary building fires’ like the OP draws comparison to multiple times

https://youtu.be/972ETepp4GI

There is plenty of footage. I found this in about one minute.

Hotter fires? Maybe. But no plane hit this building. Debris from the towers hit it? Sure. But these fires were asymmetrical and yet the building collapsed into it's footprint and experienced a period of freefall all the same. Hotter fires don't mean shit. Every support in this building would have to fail simultaneously.

This is a basic scientific question which you're trying to answer with hyperbole, ignorance and assumption. The size of an airplane doesn't have any impact on the temperature of a fire. The jet fuel would produce a hydrocarbon fire with a diffuse flame, and these types of fires have a maximum temperature that is just the same as an office fire.

What you could argue is that the added fuel would create more *heat*, which is different from temperature. But most of the jet fuel burned up on impact, and what's left was gone in the first few minutes. After that point, we have nothing but regular office fires.

You might also want to look into the evidence that is recovered in the form of the steel, which was analysed to see what kind of temperatures were reached. This evidence has only been around for +10 years, perhaps it's time to let go of your gut feeling and have a look?

People have to be delusional to think that a plane made of a hollow steel shell would melt into a building made of concrete and solid steel, most of the plane would be falling to the ground.

The planes just disappear, it’s embarrassing that they’d even try to make people believe that was actually possible

I believe it was a ABC NY reporter who questioned if the plane fell to the ground and the caller said it went straight through and the reporter was speechless. It was moments after the first plane struck.

What I love is the ability people have to choose one point that is questionable and in doing so completely disregard every other point you've made like they weren't even mentioned.

How about adding the Pentagon strike that incinerated the titanium plane engines yet left all the passenger's teeth intact.

And the fact that "no black boxes were found"

That’s why it wasn’t good CGI, planes had no airline markings, eye witness all had different stories and it’s the same 2 videos, just research the no plane theory, it’s worth it I promise

It really is. Even if you don't buy the no planes theory the video September Clues showed how tricky media was that day. Almost every "eyewitness" was employed, or family members, of the network that was doing the interviews, especially the local NY media.

9/11 Psy-Opera by Ace Baker is very good as well.

When I first heard of the theory you are talking about I thought it was utterly ridiculous.

Some years later I went back to it and really paid attention and it's very obvious that the footage beamed around on 9/11 is not genuine.

I dont know if no planes were used because I wasn't there. But I am sure there are no real planes shown in any of the available video.

Has anyone put a list together of the other incidents that was said happened but was never mentioned again? Bombing at the state dept. Car bomb at the Washington mall, etc...

You can watch the CBS 2 NY broadcast and they mention all these things and a few others, I can't remember it all now.

JFK to 911 - Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick -- The who, how & why of the JFK assassination. Taken from an historical perspective starting around world war 1 leading to present day. After watching this video you will know more about what happened in the past and how the world is run today. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

Excellent mention.

Highly recommended

Excellent documentary, he rushed the 9/11 part at the end though.

Can you/someone elaborate on 4? What do you mean virtual freefall? What does this suggest?

You can’t really use any of the steel arguments because there’s no way to know the composition of other metals they used, and around when it was being built America had just started buying grades d and f steel which is in a word trash

The world kinda accepts 9/11 smells like a lie. Problem is the same people who used 9/11 to justify iraq invasion (a war crime), arennow trumping the horns of war with russia. They arent even hiding it, 24/7 coverage.

OP, in your additional miracles you list Ziad Jarrah to have his passport recovered but you forget to mention Saeed al Ghamdi also had his passport recovered from the crash site of Fight 93.

I'm always amazed and terrified at the world these miracles provide as evidence that we inhabit

Lucky Larry deserves a mention on the miracle list.

And Lucky Larry's whole family!

The 16 miracle: Even though all of this, and so much more, evidence exists, the psy-ops machine has been so successful that so many people refuse to question the events of that day.

Tick tock. Yet another 911 post just in time makes the top of r/conspiracy.

Like clockwork kids

Just in time for what?

They don't know.

I have a friend who s an architect

He says collapse is possible when the steel is weakened from fire

Did he design that new wing on the Guggenheim?

I have a friend who's an asshole. He says it's possible people make claims on the internet for ulterior motives.

i have no ulterior motive

u guys just want to believe otherwise

Literally impossible

Anything is possible if the facts don't matter.

Regarding the passports, were any of the other passengers passports also found?

It seems like a rather low probability that it just so happened to be the terrorists passport that survived and not one of the other passengers.. However, in the case of WTC, if al-Sugami was in the cockpit then he might have been ejected as one of the first and shredded in the process but his passport and other things on his body ejected out of the plane and out of WTC as one of the first items before the fireball...

Regarding the passports, were any of the other passengers passports also found?

[Page 21, states that]

Suqami’s passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed

Page 40, point 109 states that

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

But I am 95% sure the 9/11 Commission counsel claimed that two passports were found at the WTC site

It's really amazing how jet fuel burned for months. Like impossibly amazing.

I like to think of them more as anomalies than miracles, and people should keep in mind this list is just small number of the many. For example, there is also the ‘put’ option stock purchases regarding the effected airlines which seem to indicate someone(s) foreknowledge of the disaster. And Jebus, don’t forget that retired CIA employee Robert Baer going on camera and stating that he had talked to someone prior to the attack who claimed he had foreknowledge of it! We could really go on and on here.

I like to think of them more as anomalies than miracles

They are only miraculous if you believe them as told by the government.

We know all three skyscrapers were controlled demolitions which explains perfectly all the points in the op

Wow. Almost like it was taken down.

Don’t disagree that the passport thing of flight 93 was strange, but the claim that no other evidence existed is bullshit. Body parts were everywhere. I lived 15mn away and my father was a 1st responder (local FD).

So the footage from every single camera that caught a plane hitting the towers was altered with cgi?

what about all the amateur video? All CGI? Would nobody seriously have been filming it and have video that doesn't show a plane hitting it and go "hey what the fuck?"....They would literally have to track down every person who might have video and silence them.....and why would they risk such an obvious possibility instead of just using real hijackers, or remotely controlling actual planes, etc? Since when does the government give a shit about loss of human lives? and why would they care about the loss of life on a plane but not the thousands that were in the building?

What part of 'not saying I believe it' do you not understand?

I dont know the answers to all those questions.

what didn't you understand the first time? He doesn't know the answers, so don't suggest to him anything that he already "knows"

What part of rhetorical questions don't you understand? Just because there are questions made in response to you doesn't mean they're directed to you, one of the many nuances of the English language.

I just can't see a purpose to the hologram theory. Why wouldn't whomever carried out the attack use real planes + controlled explosives?

Agreed.

The planes could have been modified passenger planes or swapped out for military ones. No planes seems like a wild leap and just gives ammo to the people trying to de-legitimise the conspiracy.

I've made calls using WiFi on a flight before so it's possible.

I’m very sure that’s possible now but remember, 20 years ago a lot of WiFi was dial up. I don’t think that would work as well on a plane.

No wifi on planes back in that time lads, was not available at that time. They had phones on the back of the head rest in those days you'd swipe your CC to make a call.

Wifi 100% absolutely did not exist in any capacity on commercial airplanes in 2001.

September Clues is about a lot more fakery than just a few people pretending that they saw the planes... which were all the wrong colour (black, instead of white) - which, of course, you were looking up at the sky at the time and "witnessed", right hombre?

The TV channels just couldn't get their story straight.

In a controlled demolition, there is noise, visible charges, and usually some outward expulsion, none of which exist at WTC7. 47 columns didn't collapse all at once. Completely uncontrolled fire cause steel fire very quickly, and the WTC7 experience massive, uncontrolled fires for 7 hours. When steel heats up, it expands, which puts incredible stress on joints and connections. When the connections fail, everything above the support gives way.

This is clearly seen when the penthouse collapses, and through the windows you can see some actual sunlight, which suggests that that area was hollowed out and the frame was still standing. The collapse progressed across the building, removing all of the internal support for the shell. This is demonstrated during collapse when the "shell" bows inward on at least 2 sides of the building, which shows that there was no internal structure present.

The steel didn't have to be "noodles". Long span trusses, like those at WTC, absolutely sag when exposed to fire. Just think of the insane mass of the tower placed upon those weakened trusses. It is going to collapse, no question.

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/15d987530fb19f490198129171c8d200.gif

Each individual floor of the WTC was not designed to sustain the dynamic loading when the top quarter or third of the building comes down all at once. The incredible load of mass will push through each individual floor quite easily.

My overall point is that, from a conspiracy perspective (assuming the conspiracy believed says the collapse was triggered on purpose), there are so many things required for it to occur which has zero evidence supporting it. Do you know how many people would have to be in the know about an operation like this for there to not be a single whistleblower providing substantial evidence? Yet the current President cannot even keep his extra-marital affairs secret?

It sounds like you've read a decent amount of the conspiracy material, which is good, but I think you should also look into some of the "debunking" material because there is valuable information in there. Not that it will change your mind, but it will certainly make your future arguments stronger.