Honestly as far as conspiracies go, many of them I've been extremely skeptical of. Especially if they include supernatural elements or a over-the-top sinister elite. 9/11 being an inside job to some degree seemed the most reasonable. Maybe the government knew about the whole thing and decided to do nothing, or simply knew there was going to be an attack to some extent and let it happen.

Bush and the MIC definitely seemed to benefit out of it. His approval ratings shot through the roof and the call to go to war hasn't been higher since Pearl Harbor. It also gave birth to the Patriot Act, something I don't believe would have been able to get through unnoticed if people weren't as scared from 9/11.

I've heard so many convincing theories for the last eight years that I figured that it must have been obvious that something wasn't right. It wasn't until the last few weeks that I've decided on a whim to try to find people who actually opposed the theories directly. Videos on YouTube dedicated to challenging the conspiracy theories are generally in the minority and often heavily disliked. However many of them did bring up some interesting points that I admit have changed my mind on a few things.

So where I'm at right now, I've begun to doubt that any explosives were involved; or anything besides the two 767's. Whether the intelligence agencies knew about it is harder to prove or disprove.

Nah, I've heard some other sources talking about the alleged use of "nano thermite." Most of the arguments that challenge that theory have a few points. Those include:

• The study that claimed that nano thermite was used collected the samples years after 9/11

• The people who conducted the study refused to share the samples with any reputable institution.

• Dr. James Millete sondicated four samples of dust from 9/11. To Jones's credit, Dr. Millete's spectral analysis did match the ones in Jones paper. The main difference however was that Millete actually did more analysis on the spherules and found out that they didn't contain any Aluminium.

• The Open Chemical Physics Journal that published and claimed to have peer reviewed the study is an unaccredited journal that was caught approving science papers that were randomly generated.

-Thermite is made up of mostly Aluminum and Iron Oxide, commonly found in electronics and in rust.

Odd construction workers at odd times would be a odd thing to report. Construction workers in NYC always come at odd times. So if the WTC security staff were able to authorize construction workers to work indiscriminately in the building, why would they need to shut down security and video alarms? Were the conspirators working with the building security or not?

Bomb sniffing dogs was removed from building the week before the event happened

Note that it is extra security in response to the phone threats that was removed. The standard level of bomb-sniffing dogs was still present, even one of the dogs was killed when the first tower collapsed. Even if all bomb dogs had still been present, their presence would have been ineffective (i.e. they would have been unable to detect explosives being planted in the pillar), or they wouldn't have been able to stop a rushed-job where sufficient explosives were somehow added overnight without being detected.

However I hope you can understand that having repair crews doesn't necessarily prove there were any explosives. I've heard the narrative was supposed to be that they were tiny thermite explosives rooted deep inside the steel pillars. Otherwise how could have nobody heard the explosions strong enough to bring down a building.

Repair crews work in my building about every couple of months, especially on the elevators. The elevators in WTC had 8-foot-by-5-foot motors and could carry 3x more people than the average elevator, they were the first in North America and the biggest in the world. The only place they had ever been used before was in South African diamond mines and they were installed in 1969.

At the moment, we were in B Tower. Not all personnel were there, naturally, because this was within a 15- 20-minute period after A Tower was impacted. We had at least maybe two-thirds of the total personnel that were there – close to 70 to 80 people that work for Ace at that time. We had repair, maintenance and monitorization people there. So there was a big crew of personnel.

There are literally thousands of pages worth of studies by physicist and engineers that explain in detail how the untamed fire to the South weakened caused a thermal expansion of key structural members that weakened the main supports for the whole building.

There is no explanation for Building 7 collapsing at the rate of acceleration of gravity (freefall speed) other than there was no resistance from anything below the falling roof line

Thats where you are wrong. There was no explanation for the Building 7 collapse in the 9/11 commission report because Building 7 was a not a target. The report on building 7 was handled by NIST. They were the ones who did a full 88 page report on WTC 7 as well. Along with multiple other reputable science and engineering institutions. WTC 7 fell over 7 hours after WTC 1 & 2. The building was slammed by burning debris from both towers and on fire for most of the same time. The damage from the fires and other two WTC's damaged the main source of water for the fire suppression systems. It was too risky and too much was going on for firefighters to risk putting it out.

Otherwise, even in a catastrophic failure, there would be resistance sufficient to appreciably slow the collapse.

False pseudo science, the interior design of WTC 7 is not a secret (also check out figure 1-5 in NIST report). You are comparing it to other buildings around it's size. The untamed heat from the fires expanded the long support beams which caused the connections and floors to fail. The interior columns already were collapsing when the outshell of the building collapsed with it. Nothing about what caused the collapse of WTC 7 changed in the NIST report.

The physics has been calculated, if you want to look it up. Nist was forced to admit, after being challenged on this, that Building 7 did indeed collapse at freefall speed for the first number of seconds.

False again, read section 1A section 3.6 of the final NIST report that defines the calculations determining the rate and speed which WTC 7 fell, including in the video. The first 1.75 seconds were too slow to be a free fall. The NIST report already stated that it did accelerate and go into a free fall speed between 1.75 and 4 seconds of the collapse, it was at the last second and a half it slowed it's acceleration again. Buildings that are demolitioned generally either speed up or fall consistently from the point the explosives are detonated. (They also have loud ground shifting explosions)

By the way, go fuck yourself. I can't stand your attitude and have zero desire to continue any further discussion with you.

Typical coward. You never had any intention to debate anyway. You saw that your argument wouldn't withstand facts so now you run away because you are all out of bs to spew. Stick to the Flat Earth forums m8.

Did I say there is no explanation in the 9/11 commission report? No, I did not. I said there is no explanation for it - to be had - anywhere - period.

There is literally an 88 page explanation of the collapse. Plus multiple other studies that support it. Simply not wanting something to exist doesn't magically make it dissapear. However I understand that the cognitive dissonance to ignore it is a defensive mechanism to avoid having your beliefs debunked.

A building cannot fall at freefall speed for even one second

False, that is not how gravity works. Watch the penthouse at the top of WTC 7 during the initial collapse. The WTC buildings are tube framed steel-columned buildings. As you can see here, most of the supports are within the center frame while the perimeter is much more open for office space. It serves more as an exoskeleton of the central structure. The central structure was already collapsing due to the fire, the outer shell simply fell with it because they were supported by the central structure.

...collapse are those of NIST, Arup, and Weidlinger.

The expert in structural fire design working for ARUP, Dr. Barbara Lane actually agreed that the fire caused the collapse. She only argued that the loss of fireproofing from the impact of the lane would not have stopped the fire from destroying both WTC 1&2.

The Weidlinger were a private firm that conducted the study in 2015 revolved primarily around a claim of negligence, with Aegis and others seeking to recover losses against 7 WTC Co. and others for what they alleged was negligent design and maintenance of WTC 7 that contributed to the collapse of that tower. The NIST report is consistently referenced in defense that they were not liable.

examined no physical evidence Do you have proof of that? The simulations and calculations matched the result of the collapse.

omitted numerous key structural components of the first failed connection

Read Section 8.3.2, 3.9, and 4.6 of the final NIST report. Can you explain the significance of how those effected the collapse in your own words?

initially underestimated the width the bearing seat

Proof? So you are admitting that the inward bowing caused the top floors to collapse and not explosives?

released only the first two seconds of their collapse animations

God forbid authors start making books without pictures. The report describes in detail how and what happened. It was a safety report and the simulations were just a visual aid that was initially made to test theories. Plenty of people have recreated their own simulations with the data given.

explained that the reason they didn't check for explosives...

They didn't check for bullet holes in the walls either. They would have been equally as apart of taking the building down if there were after the planes hit. So which narrative are you going with, that NIST is incompetent for not doing more thorough testing for bullets, or they are trying to cover it up? Otherwise, why didn't they just say they found no evidence of explosives?

and explained that they didn't test for thermite because they couldn't imagine how 100lbs of thermite...

A thousand pounds of thermite couldn't burn all the way through a car. So for literal tons of thermite to be snuck in but have no function is quite odd.

The NIST study is plainly fraudulent...no serious organization

So the NIST is not a serious organization, however the Open Chemical Physics Journal is?

Good thing about physics, and most fields in science and mathematics, you already have the solution once you have solved the variables. The Laws of Physics don't change because of your personal beliefs or anyone elses. Consensus among every reputable science journal and institution is that the NIST report is that the inward bowing caused by the hyper fueled fire brought down the towers.

NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened?

The same way NASA scientist figured how to get machines on other planets and people on the Moon. It's called science m8, they apply what they know about the observable universe to calculate accurate depictions of what happened. They had all the information they needed about the tube framed steel column infrastructure of WTC 7. They knew the exact makeup of the support structure and the aircraft, along with it's exact velocity. Focusing on debris wouldn't give them information they didn't already know.

WTC7, any suspect residues in the dust would have warranted a more thorough investigation into how explosive or incendiaries might have been used.

Used for what? The issue with the explosives theory is that there were no explosives that contributed to the collapse of the building in the first place. If there were literally multiple tons of thermite in the building it would have came down a lot sooner.

Sure. You won't like it though.

Copying from Szamboti and Hulsey I see. Anyway, it was the axial expansion that generated large force for the bolts to fail. The assumption that columns 44 and 79 can't move in relation to each other is ridiculous. A2001 beams were not the only ones that heated. It wasn't the first thing that actually failed either. There was actually a number of collapses happening at the same time. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you've only been tricked by more pointless psuedo scientific fodder. Even Szamboti in his own argument with Mick West got exposed for misreading the A2001 to C79 connection in the NIST model.

Their entire hypothesis is based on computer models

The computer models were merely simulations meant to visually analyse the data and communicate the results. The program didn't create the data itself.

Stupid argument. Bullets don't bring down buildings

Neither do simultaneously quiet yet powerful explosives.

Look at what one engineer accomplished with thermate in his own back yard.

Thermate and Thermite are not the same thing. Secondly, the same YouTube that cited the "peer reviewed" study about the red chips, the one that already debunked after independent researchers discovered it was just primer paint

Not as awesome when you learn that the Barium Nitrate in thermate is too toxic. Hundreds more people would have died from breathing in barium nitrate and it would be extremely easy to find and identify in dust samples.

So what have we learned today.

That you might be way over your head for debates like these m8. You rely too much on the reverse scientific method. You listen to half baked theories, ignore any data that doesn't fit your conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion. You've never even explained how they would have snuck nearly a ton of thermite without being detected into one of the most secure buildings in NYC. Even if they somehow did, the real question is why not just settle with planes?

• NIST model was flawed

Nope, you tried to disprove the laws of physics but kept on failing

• NIST could have examined physical evidence...

They examined what they needed to, plotted everything else. Video and photo evidence, along with records from the plane and building manufactures were all that was needed to recreate the incident. Simulation programs only confirmed it, hence why the explosion theory only relies on your gut feeling.

NIST's model of the initiating failed connection.

You're trying to hard to paraphrase people with a modicum understanding of structural engineering. A2001 to column 79, were not the first columns that actually failed. There was actually a number of simultaneous collapses.

• NIST was forced to redo their thermal expansion estimate.

Nope the final report never changed in that regard.

• Thermate could cleverly used...

Again, nice try, but 100's of pounds of thermate (which is 30% barium nitrate) would spread shrouds of highly toxic gas over a block. Thermite wouldn't though, but it would be less effective and you would need tons more.

It seems you're afraid to answer questions that truthers generally deflect. The movement isn't so much about giving answers as it is about asking questions. The questions aren't meant to be solved, they are meant to sell books and gain ad revenue from the gullible.

• Why put explosives in WTC7 but not the twin towers since the inward bowing disproves the thermite/thermate theory?

• Why blow up such important buildings anyway? If it was a false flag to go to war, why not crash into a football stadium?

• If it was to go to war in Afghanistan, why blame Saudis?

Now you're just making shit up.

Lol, okay sure.

I showed you the *error data...

You couldn't even due that, you've only made an assumption, you've never pointed out which particular section of the report got revised. Even if it did, they doesn't really likely change

According to NIST it was

"then you should at least learn what it say"

Obviously if the entire building can fully collapse from the failure of one connection

No, most of the connections and girders were already significantly weakened at that point because of the fires. Had only 79, 80, and 81 failed, the building would have been fine, just like WTC 1&2 were after they initially got hit by the planes. They all used a similiar tube framed steel column design.

clever application of thermite, thermate...

Again, you're using the reverse scientific method and trying to throw away the evidence there was even a fire. You would have needed hundreds of pounds of thermite to cut through all of the necessary sheer connections and girders. It's not a Jenga tower, the core structure isn't supported by one column. It's extremely unlikely for thermate to have gone unnoticed, multiples hydraulic jacks wouldn't have survived for 7 hours on fire. So a bunch of guys with cutting torches just waited in a burning building that was about to collapse to make it collapse?

Ok then. Answer this one for me...

Avoiding the questions to ask more questions I've already answered (question 11.). Nice attempt at gish gallop m8. Like I said, you got to do better than that. I haven't even got to NCSTAR 1-9 yet.

Lol, so no real arguments anymore?

Nice try tho m8, but you really need to put more effort than that if you are going to try to argue the laws of physics.

Better luck next time ;)

Did you forget m8? You were supposed to explain how this went against basic physics. Burden of proof is on you m8, but you you've continued to consistently disappoint.

WTC 7 is AGAIN a Tube framed steel column building. The core structure fell (hence the penthouse that most truther videos edit out) then the exterior frame fell with it.

You're argument is making even less sense now. You're just paraphrasing the definition of a freefall, you're not even arguing what it proves or disproves. The ole truther argument was that the explosives brought down WTC 7, which would have led to a fall with no resistance. The freefall was debunked, Stage 1&3 help proved it was progressive collapse and not cd.

You fell back into claiming Thermite caused the columns to fail, you never even explained how the burning debris from the WTC 1. Did it magically disappear?

Come on m8, I know you are doing your best, but you got to come up with a more consistent argument than that.

I personally love providing edification, but sometimes, especially in cases like yours, stupidity can't be cured. Facts only make you angry and exhausted. I suggest you stick to coloring books and farting in bathtubs until you're ready to argue with the grownups. ;)

If you have really done research, you just don’t want to know the truth at this point.

Thing is that argument works both ways. There are numerous academic publications that have called out the alleged evidence as well. NASA research scientist Ryan Mackey is one example.

Challenging the evidence is less popular. You would be hard pressed to find a YouTube video that challenges the conspiracy theories that doesn't have at least 30% dislikes.

Because its obvious disinformation.

Labeling science as disinformation has not worked well for the Church and isn't going to work that well on any rational person. I'm sure if we labeled round-earthers as being apart of a disinformation campaign with sinister agenda's, the effect would be the same.

Come on m8, so now everyone who disagrees with you is apart of the conspiracy? This is why it's so hard to talk with you people.

It's physically impossible for a paper document that was on a plane...

Actually, scientist and photo evidence say otherwise. A lot of passengers personal effects (and bodyparts) were found scattered around the area surrounding 9/11. That includes other passports, pagers, and even boarding passes. Explosions are not like what we see on TV. They are unpredictable and sometimes objects can be ejected by concussive force faster than they can be blown apart.

Thats a picture of random rubble.

According to the photographer, it was a United Airlines seat cushion. 1 in several billion is not that much when there are millions of people looking.

Do you know how many files and papers were in those 3 office buildings?

It wasn't like it was the only personal effect found around WTC. They found passengers credit cards, mail, and even boarding passes. You like act 9/11 happened in the middle of nowhere instead of in the middle of a heavily populated city.

I never said that it would take months. You don't actually think people were actively seeking the terrorist passport, were you? Again, it's Vesey St., the place is pretty busy. Anything interesting lying on the street would be found. Most of the people in the area could pick up whatever fell less than an hour after each plane hit. The passport was picked up before the towers even collapsed.

The Black boxes are fixed to the main body of the aircraft. Typically to the tail so they are not easily lost or break apart.

So apparently all of the other personal effects recovered, such as Lisa Ann Frost's credit card, are magical too?

Nice try.

Of course finding a passport of a suspect is like finding a needle in a haystack. However when you have half a million people in that haystack looking, the expression sort of loses its meaning.

The obvious controlled demolition.

People used to think that it was obvious that flies came from raw meat. Fortunately we live in an age where science tells us different. There are literally thousands of pages from hundreds of independent researchers and physicist from accredited institutions, including NASA, with studies and experiments that explain in detail
what happened.

Most fell into pieces, they did not magically turn to dust.

That's always been one of the main issues with the truther community. There is hardly any real narrative other than "try to create as much suspicion as possible". As if the narrative is to try to bombard the disaster with doubt instead of evidence.

I'm sure your list can go on for days, which Is kind of a problem. There have been hundreds of confirmed conspiracies, none of them are this over complicated and all had a central focus that led to one conclusion. A clue that led to other clues that would verify each other, not conflict or inflate.

In fact the narrative seems artificial not by a government or sinister shadow organizations. It seems more likely that a French author got rich perpetuating misinformation shortly after the disaster. A handful of others saw the effect it was having and decided to cash in on it was well without the burden of reputation or an agreement with peers.

I'm not sure if you remember, but people around the world were scared and anxious at the time. They wanted answers faster than anyone could logically give them. So they turned to whoever would provide them, this led to a get-rich-quick scheme that has been in fact getting a lot of people rich.

I wholeheartedly believe that the vast majority of the people that believe it, probably even most helping propagate it, are not aware they are being played.

So out of the tens of thousands of people and organizations negatively effected, there would have undoubtedly been some who may have potentially benefited in some way. However again, this only stokes paranoia, not any real grounds for suspicion. If a coworker of mine dies from a heart attack, the fact that I would be more likely to get a promotion doesn't make me responsible.

If my supervisor died, then that means I would be more likely to get the next promotion. If the CEO of my company's main competitor died, it would raise our stock price and likely improve business. If my wife died, I would get a ton of money from the insurance company.

Thing is, my supervisor is actually a pretty cool guy with a family, the rival CEO is a philanthropist, and I love my wife. Being able to gain some benefit from a tragedy doesn't mean make you apart of it. The contractors who had to rebuild the WTC probably had a big pay check, are they apart of the conspiracy too?

Why would they be

Well if they went through the trouble of miraculously hijacking four planes and planting multiple tons of extremely expensive nano-thermite without being detected, why wouldn't they go through the trouble of making sure they got the contract. I could gish gallop this all day, however I'm not here to argue using already overused logical fallacies.

area is cordoned off and forensics investigate.

Rescuing survivors and putting out fires was the priority at the time. The area was closed off later. You think they didn't investigate who did 9/11?

In case you haven't heard, when skeptics say "why couldn't we hear thundering explosions from the towers" the narrative is to say that they embedded tiny amounts of nano-thermite in enough concrete to fill two football fields, or it was an alien laser, either one works. Why? Who knows anymore, it's more about trying to convince people it happened then trying to convince people its true.

The area was sectioned off and they merely tested what they had available. Keep in mind they didn't even finish after 4 years despite having hundreds of investigators, along with hundreds more private organizations, working on it.

They already had on record the design plan for the building and video evidence of exactly where and when the planes hit. All they had to do was reconstruct the event and break it down scientifically. They had the resources to recreate whatever they need to.

For what, the NIST and commission report? Came out 13 years ago m8. Unless you're talking about WTC 7, which was only 10 years ago.

What are you talking about, the area was cordoned off for years and burned for weeks, I thought that was common knowledge by now. They were searching for survivors for over a month.

What you thought tourist were roaming around taking pictures on Vesey St the week after?

Fully analyze the area for what? What do you think they would be looking for? Videos and photos are forensic evidence.

They weren't looking for evidence that a plane rammed the building, I think they already established that.

Sorry m8, but you're being quite vague. What exactly are you trying to infer? The disaster site was labeled a crime scene by the FBI.

these are the rules

What rules exactly are you talking about? What makes them supersede rescuing possible survivors?

I agree with your first point. However it's not as equal as you make it seem. The researchers that argue with their evidence generally are not accredited or peer reviewed by any reputable journal. NASA and NIST scientist have debunked it. The self proclaimed scientist and researchers that argue their points generally have a habit of getting rich off a career of trutherism.

I've been on both sides. I've heard so many theories that I've figured that it must have been true. When you actually begin to listen to those theories you begin to notice how many of them conflict with each other.

I've been open minded as well to both sides, however to a certain extent you have to be wise enough to understand that one side is significantly more flawed then the other.

that flying a “plane” into the Pentagon meant an invasion of one of the (if the THE most) heavily guarded air spaces on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0MrbARB7go

I was in NY at the time. The building was on fire for hours, the area was evacuated and the news reports were constantly talking about it's probable collapse.

That's always been one of the main issues with the truther community. There is hardly any real narrative other than "try to create as much suspicion as possible". As if the narrative is to try to bombard the disaster with doubt instead of evidence.

I'm sure your list can go on for days, which Is kind of a problem. There have been hundreds of confirmed conspiracies, none of them are this over complicated and all had a central focus that led to one conclusion. A clue that led to other clues that would verify each other, not conflict or inflate.

There were allusions to the twin towers collapse in my living room. My curtains kind of look like the twin towers, and my kid used to like pulling them down. I guess he might have been in on it too, despite not being born yet.

I've only researched it the last two weeks. I've occasionally saw presentations and read a couple of books the last 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ml6r7cuKe8

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3544/4278927/ (I actually read Dr. Griffin's book first)

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf (NASA scientist response to Dr. Griffins book)

NIST has collaborated and exchanged research with many of the worlds top physicist and engineers for 15 years.

Can you provide proof of how NIST were single handedly able to change the laws of physics?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. The general consensus among all of the worlds top reputable physicist and civil engineers, including NASA, agree with the report and often reference it for consultation.

I think you might misunderstand what the point of the report is. It's main purpose is to identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. In Layman's terms, explain what happened so people can learn how to improve buildings to prevent the same catastrophe from happening again to the same extent.

All those lies from NASA are an illusion. Learn some truth about the actual geography and the absurdity that NASA was dreaming up.pdf)

Lol, great thing is that science, and by extension the laws of physics, don't necessary change because you don't like them.

No major scientific journal or institution has refuted the detailed calculations or NIST report. The main consensus among all award winning reputable physicist and civil engineers is that the NIST report is accurate. Let me guess, all these scientist are all apart of the grand conspiracy as well.

You can keep trying to argue that you know more about engineering than the guys who got a SUV sized robot on a planet 33 million miles away moving 66,000 mph.

I think the first thing you have to do is try to remove the bias and approach the issue more objectively. That's something I did and started to see things more clearly. The first thing to do is abandon the "official story" rhetoric. The "official story" was a result of almost a half a decade investigation by the NIST in collaboration with hundreds of other research, physics, and engineering institutions from around the world.

I've already been accused of just glossing over truther arguments and simply not getting convinced. That couldn't be further from the truth, in fact it was the opposite. Many of these presentations and research from truthers often do have some grain of truth. Such as Stephen Jones research into dust samples that he claims contained traces of red chips that looked similar to thermite. His spectral readings were correct, which shows that he probably did do some actual experiments on them. However, he made the conclusion that it was nano-thermite by visual distinction alone. Other researchers examined dust particles as well and find similar traces of iron spherules that looked similar, but further study shown the dust samples did not contain enough Aluminium to match thermite.

Somebody will always search for answers when you know what you’re being told isn’t true.

So how is somebody that is not a professional suppose to know what isn't true? That is practically just an admission that they may simply not want it to be true no matter what they hear.

I am not a structural engineer but do find it highly unlikely that 3 buildings would collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint as a result of fire wearing those internal structures (the official narrative).

I think that is one of the vital things that make this so debatable. I'm not a structural engineer either, I have to rely on simplified explanations from professionals to have some understanding of what happened. I couldn't begin to understand how the hell NASA was able to get a satellite close enough to pass by and photograph Pluto. A dwarf planet 4.6 billion miles away while it's moving 10,500 mph from a surface moving 67,000 mph. However what I do know is that it's possible, but requires a lot of explanation in matters that don't pertain to our everyday lives, so common sense typically gets thrown out the window since it's not that common.

9/11 is extremely similar in one way. What caused the main source of damage wasn't as simple or common as any standard explosion or fire. Majority of physicist and engineers agree that if it was simply just a plane ramming into the twin towers, the damage would would be severe, but mostly isolated to a few floors. Had it been only just a fire, first respondents and the buildings fire suppression systems could have handled it easily.

However it's not that simple, and all of the factors of the 767's ramming into the Twin Towers all complimented each other. The heat from the Jet fuel made the fire too hot to control. The impact from the plane severely damaged the fire suppression and damaged support columns. The rubble from the building engulfed the plane insulating the fire and creating a powerful furnace. This basically melted down parts of the aluminum in the plane spreading liquid molten metal down multiple floors.

This all built up to the real mindfuck. Something that people were not inherently used to seeing. A discovery so overlooked that even the structural engineers who did in fact design the WTC to survive an impact with a 707 didn't even think of.

this

The inward bowing of the floor trusses had the tensile members lengthen due to creep under load and ceiling temperatures, causing the floors to sag (become bowl shaped), snap their fixings, and drop away. This basically turned almost the entire building above the fire to topple down and bring the rest of the building with it. You can see it happening here

Imo, I would see the destruction of the WTC in particular being probably one of the least profitable for companies. I've heard hundreds of conspiracies as to why, yet those can't be pinpointed as scientifically so I don't tend to focus on them. One of my personal underlying theories as to why these theories regarding what brought down WTC are so prevalent is because NIST didn't finish their investigation until 4 years after 9/11. In the meantime, people took advantage of the global fear and got rich selling theories to validate peoples fears and anger. Some just found it as a perfect attack to use against Bush (who was a scumbag for what he did in Iraq)

That's because an infants level of understanding of physics and thermodynamics in collaboration with civil engineering is something that can't be fully understood so superficially.

People used to think that Earth being round and maggots not spawning out of thin air was laughable.

That's rich. You get some good insults in there

Feel free to believe it or not, but that wasn't meant to be an insult. I meant the level of understanding an infant has of the world is equal to the level the average person has of advanced physics and thermodynamics.

You can learn more here if you like. https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Ryan Mackey was a NASA scientist who worked on that paper independently on his free time debunking most of the mainstream truther arguments.

The government also states that the Earth is not round and that they landed on the moon. I could understand the skepticism if blind faith was involved, but not 797 pages of published Fire Safety research detailing the calculations and analytics.

It has nothing to do with trusting the government, it's more about trusting real science.

...AE states proves the NIST fantasy to be wrong did not exist on 9/11/01

So what you're saying is that the scientific proof that Flat Earth scientist used that proved NASA are wrong about round Earth is made up?

That and your argument are basically the same. You're asking to prove a negative. NASA scientist supported the NIST report which was an objective science based analysis of what happened. It wasn't a rebuttal to any other theories and it wasn't desperately trying to discredit other investigations with arbitrary accusations. It stuck plainly to facts and conducted research from scratch. They had access to most of the same tools as everyone else did, which made disproving the theories extremely harder than making them up. You rarely see 3d visualizations of how thermite would have destroyed the WTC towers because there is no logical basis to accurately depict it.

NIST's theories are ignoring basic laws of physics

"Ikr, and Round Earthers are ignoring basic laws of physics as well. Obviously when I look straight, I can see the world is flat, therefore the entire earth is flat."

That is the absurd logic you are using. NIST is using advanced physics to breakdown the collapse, as corroborated by expert physicist.

NIST is somehow the only qualifed entity

No, I said they are one of the most qualified. More qualified then Rosie O' Donnel and some Bishop that took a few engineering classes.

Because thermite can do this. Nice try, but it destroys your entire argument. I suggest sticking to the Flat Earthers, I'm 100% sure they will have your back.

So the government just bribed thousands of scientist all around the world and changed the laws of physics?

Nope, instead they used math to calculate the overall fall of the building in every video.

Here you go:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

And the 3d model showed off the pancake effect.

Nope, the pancake model was one of the old conspiracies based off visual observation. It's been widely debunked by NIST multiple times, it was the combined weight of the building that crushed the lower floors and caused it to collapse. Why didn't they show what in seconds, videos of the collapse?

Okay sure.

When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, it actually created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide. Unlike the WTC 1&2, the Pentagon exterior wall was significantly made up of much more reinforced concrete and would leave an outline. The wings never made it through the first ring.

compared to other plane crashes

No other plane crashed into a building designed to be as fortified as possible. The plane barely got past the second ring and many of the windows were even still intact.

"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why. I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box. I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?

--Allyn Kilsheimer

The worlds most secure building probably is reluctant

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Read my first comment. Anything hitting a 3 foop thick concrete wall reinforced with multiple layers of Limestone and rebar, especially something filled with sensitive moving parts, at 550 miles an hour is not going to be recognizable.

Imagine Jackie Robinson hitting an egg thrown by Aroldis Chapman. Whatever's left on that bat is not going to resemble much of an egg.

that flying a “plane” into the Pentagon meant an invasion of one of the (if the THE most) heavily guarded air spaces on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0MrbARB7go

That's rich. You get some good insults in there

Feel free to believe it or not, but that wasn't meant to be an insult. I meant the level of understanding an infant has of the world is equal to the level the average person has of advanced physics and thermodynamics.

You can learn more here if you like. https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf