Thank you

Sending some good vibes your way and have an upvote ;)
Stay strong.

OMG, “first responders” and “families of the victims” are coming on r/conspiracy you guys, they are parsing through every post, clicking on those regarding 911, reading through comments, finding your comment, reading it in full, and, and, and ... becoming offended!

How dare you write something that made these holy beings offended? Didn’t you know their feelings superseded the truth? What are you going to say, when they catch leperacy because of what you wrote?

That reminds me of these horrible people who ask questions about WW2! How dare they offend the ever-growing quantity of “holocaust survivors”?

On a serious note my friend, if you were really a “first responder”: your bosses/overlords blatantly lied to you (about how the buildings were destroyed and the radioactivity you were going to be exposed to). They knowingly and cynically sacrificed your health in order to have their little ritual.

there isn’t a thing we can do about and if “they” wanted to do it again and Again and again there isn’t no thing we could ever do

That’s what we’re supposed to believe, but it isn’t so. Of course the idea of having a “shock and awe” mega-ritual is also meant to intimidate adversaries, to show off their “power”, and their ability to manipulate the masses with such in-your-face theatrics that you despair at humanity’s gullibility (I mean - come on - aluminum planes cutting through steel beams like a hot knife through butter and then proceeding to entirely pulverize a larger number of skyscrapers; people would laugh at the idea if they didn’t think they saw it happen).

But theirs is a game in diminishing returns. They paid a high price for 911, in the form of people waking up. Even though they try to channel that awakening (think Michael Moore or his right-wing equivalent Alex Jones, etc.), it is inevitable in the long term - and they know it.

If, every time you lie, you need to wrap that lie in a package of truth, well the more you lie, the quicker your interlocutor will understand the whole truth.

what kind of shit did you see that day, give us some scoops

Yes, details please.

This will help us confirm that your anonymous post is authentic.

Cheers.

I know these mf’s and gonna say proof or it didn’t happen,

so you calling me a mf?

I think that's fair. Thank you for trusting us enough to share your thoughts.

>as a 9/11 first responder to the Pentagon

​

So... you basically can confirm there was no plane at the crash site, right?

​

I mean... everyone knows there was no plane, I just want to make sure you are who you claim to be (i.e., "a 9/11 first responder to the Pentagon") and not not shilly pro-war on terror bot.

​

Please confirm: No plane at the Pentagon.

​

Thank you.

What is the arrow pointing to in that photo?

dunno. not a plane? :D

Well, how much of the the plane should have survived a 530 mph impact into a reenforced concrete wall intact?

how much of the the plane should have survived

all of it. didn't you see the "holes" ?

intact

what? the plane would obviously have been crushed a bit, but hardly "vaporized" as you seem to be implying.

never you mind mate... i getting a clear picture of who and what you are.

take care of yourself.

cheers.

So, all the small pieces of wreckage don't count as crushed and fragmented?

By this logic, I can conclude no plane hit the World Trade center because I see no evidence of a plane, except for the plane shaped hole.

all the small pieces of wreckage don't count as crushed and fragmented?

no. crashed and fragmented != three small pieces pubslihed on #fakeNEWS #NYT

it was a fucking 727. do you know how big a 727 is? we should have seen piles of debris and entire skeletons of fuselage!!

Here is the original CNN report -- "no plane"

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BNqgNvUhRQ

anyway. i've heard enough.

done with you.

So, is the news always accurate? Just because the first news report said there was no plane, that means there no plane? CNN is more reliable than NYT?

Most of the debris would also be inside the building as well.

It was also a 757 and the damage to the front of the building is consistent with something the shape and size of a 757.

is the news always accurate?

Obviously not ;)

Just because the first news report said there was no plane, that means there no plane?

Usually first reports are the most accurate. Usually. Not always.

CNN is more reliable than NYT?

It was. Not anymore.

Most of the debris would also be inside the building as well.

No it wasn't. The building didn't even collapse until at least an hour after the (alleged) collision.

It was also a 757

No it wasn't. There was no plane.

and the damage to the front of the building is consistent with something the shape and size of a 757.

No it wasn't. Not in the slightest.

The first news report, especially after a major event, is never accurate. I guess a helicopter crashed into the Pentagon, because that was also reported in the minutes after the impact.

So, I don't know what the building collapsing has to do with aircraft debris inside the building.

What your theory for what his the curb and power generator? The impacts are consistent with where the engines on a 757 would have been.

Look up the Pentagon Performance Report. It's a really in depth look at the damage to the Pentagon.

I don't know what the building collapsing has to do with aircraft debris inside the building

The impacts are consistent with where the engines on a 757 would have been.

you just answered your own question.

i like the photo of the building pre-collepse.

there are no holes:

• where the wings should be;

• where the engines would be;

• there are no skid marks on the ground from where a 757 slide into home, so to speak, which means the 757 would have literally had to fly mere feet off the ground at 500 miles an hour... bwaahhhaa... you are clearly not in the air force ;)

mate, i am sorry... you claim to be a first responder. you were not. you showed up days later.

you claim to be neutral. you are not, you are here with an agenda.

keep pulling those hearts string -- i am sure some people will fall for your bullshit.

take care.

There are marks where the wings hit.

There are marks where the engines hit.

It did not skid.

I'm not a first responder, never claimed to be.

There are marks where the wings hit.

• https://archive.li/vEAiZ

There are marks where the engines hit.

• https://archive.li/vEAiZ

It did not skid.

Obviously - there was no "it"

I'm not a first responder, never claimed to be.

The title of your post literally says "As a 9/11 first responder"

Sorry, I didn't mean to spend any more time on this, but I had been looking for that photo - which clearly shows the the Pentagon's pre-collapse. Clearly no way a 757 traveling 500+ MPH would have done so little damage.

Best of luck with your quest to convince the world of something that never happened.

Cheers.

You realize you can't see the ground floor in that image, right? Like I said, look at the Pentagon Performance Report. It goes into great detail about the damage to the building.

This is not my post.

What evidence do you have to say it should have made more damage? Do we have another example of a large airliner hitting a reenforced concrete wall at high speed?

You realize you can't see the ground floor in that image, right?

yes, you see the ground floor. that is the ground floor -- here's another photo of the same scene -- ground floor clearly visible.

• http://i.imgur.com/2FNHJxJ.jpg

anyway, i'll leave you with this one too -- just for fun:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/youricarma/NineOneOne/010914-F-8006R-001.jpg

9/11 was an inside job -- just ask Larry Silverstein. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel. Never forget Building 7. There was no plane at the Pentagon.

You still haven't shown the full impact damage to the ground floor. Again, what about the generator and curb, as well as the light poles that were hit, giving us a pretty good idea of the shape and size of this thing?

Steel doesn't need to melt to fail.

You still haven't shown the full impact damage to the ground floor.

where as you haven't shown anything at all.

Steel doesn't need to melt to fail.

Steel does need to completely melt if the building fails at 98% free-fall -- which all 3 buildings did (fail at +98% freefall).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/PentagonBuildingPerformanceReport.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjRy8mvhffdAhVDn-AKHY-6DSkQFjAJegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2pV5IS6g1SsRAEIzZWk4OF

Pentagon Performance Report.

Steel can start to fail at 1100°F.

Only the external wall of WTC7 feel at freefall, and that was for only a small portion of the the collapse. WTC 1 and 2 fell significantly slower, as evidenced by the pieces of the building that were detached (and thus in true freefall) falling much faster than the collapse.

Only the external wall of WTC7 feel at freefall

all three buildings collapsed at greater than 95% freefall. Only WTC7 collapsed at 100% freefall.

start to fail at 1100°F.

would NOT have resulted in TOTAL collapse -- not even if the entire building was submerged in jet fuel, and then set on fire.

regardless, the jet fuel only touched 5% (at most) of the steel in WTC 1 & 2. (and no jet fuel at all in WTC7 -- the ONLY building that achieved 100% freefall for a period of time -- according to NIST)

Have you done the math to show that the towers should have fallen slower? If so, I'd love to see it. If not, "I looks to fast for me" isn't an argument.

The jet fuel didn't bring down the building. It was the ignition source, but it was all the flamible material in the tower that brought it down. The steel in the towers would have also been far more susceptible to heat because the fireproofing would have been knocked off in the impact.

"Pull it" is not a common term in the industry and is more likely to be about pulling firefighting efforts from the area.

Honestly, I'm not sure what that video is saying. He never specifically mentions WTC7, but does seem to be talking about the new one since the details are right. I haven't been able to find the full video to see what the context of those statements are.

So, are you just going to ignore the hole that's the shape an size of a 757?

Have you done the math to show that the towers should have fallen slower?

how old are you? i mean... have you graduated fro highschool yet? honest question. because you don't strike me as the kind of person who has taken a basic physics course.

The jet fuel didn't bring down the building. It was the ignition source, but it was all the flamible material in the tower that brought it down. The steel in the towers would have also been far more susceptible to heat because the fireproofing would have been knocked off in the impact.

bwaaahahaha... you believe that crap that you just typed?

"Pull it" is not a common term in the industry

whatever helps you sleep at night buddy ;)

So, are you just going to ignore the hole that's the shape an size of a 757?

what hole?

Out of college actually. Though, please don't resort to ad hominems here. Please answer my question. Have to done the math to prove the towers fell faster than they should have?

Yes, I do believe that. What is wrong with it? Please be specific so I don't make the same mistake again.

Once again. If I'm wrong on that, please tell me how.

You didn't even look at the Pentagon Perforomance review, did you? I encourage you to read the whole thing, but I would point you to read page 35 and 36 if you're in a hurry.

You presented no arguments here.

Out of college actually.

surprising, actually.

Please answer my question.

How about you answer my question... what hole?

I keep presenting evidence, while you present nothing.

I posted the link to the Pentagon Performance Report a few comments back. Please read it.

What hole?

Will you not even look at the evidence I presented?

If you are so stubborn so as to not even answer such a simple question, then why should I spend time reading through your official billshit?

You mentioned "the hole".

I ask: What hole?

Seems like such an easy question. Why is it so hard?

No hole, perhaps? Hmmmm....

No 757. No 757-size hole.

Well, the 120 ft worth of exterior columns and numerous internal columns on the first floor that were just gone would be evidence a plane hit it. Once again, why do refuse to actually look at the evidence I did give you?

If it wasn't a plane and there's no hole, what happened?

120 ft worth of exterior columns and numerous internal columns on the first floor that were just gone would be evidence a plane hit it.

link to photo, please.

your words are meaningless. i actual need evidence that i can critique.

Once again, why do refuse to actually look at the evidence I did give you?

i already answered that question.

if all you can do is present officially approved dogma, then i am not interested.

post a link to a photo of 120 ft worth of exterior columns and numerous internal columns on the first floor that were just gone -- before the building collapsed, please. but after the 757 hit the building -- flying ... what? 12 inches off the ground at 500 miles an hour?? Is that really your proposition?? :D

So, even if the "officially approved dogma" have a ton of photos and analysis of the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, you'll just ignore it offhand? You won't even acknowledge it?

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg

There's no on photo of the impact that shows the extent of the damage, but here's a composite. Will you at least look at the Pentagon Performance Report now?

Love that the best pic you provide is from a site that outright does not believe the official story that you continue to try and push here in a conspiracy forum

Oh, the site doesn't believe, but they give an excellent view of the impact damage.

He wanted a picture of the hole, and that site had it.

Ya that's a good pic

I wouldn't bother with this one..the account looks to have been sold or activated by another individual around a month ago after a period of almost a year of inactivity.

oh and before the inactivity they only posted in 2 star wars subs and never used this sub before or mentioned the official story until right around the anniversary of the event this year.

Again, I am not the original poster and I never claimed to be a first responder.

Holy shit a Gish Gallop of misinformation!

And the original post wasn't?

If I'm wrong on any of these points, please show me where.

I recognized this user name from a previous 911 thread and looked at their history. They exclusively stick to 911 threads and back the official reports. Look at their most used words: https://atomiks.github.io/reddit-user-analyser/#cgtl Also, look how adament they are with explaining their reasoning: https://i.imgur.com/S7Djoic.jpg (two screenshots of their comments)

Please avoid ad hominems, if you have an issue with my arguments, go after them.

I have an issue with your intentions

And that's the definition of an ad hominem! Your attacks are aimed at a person rather than an argument.

At the end of the day, someone's intentions don't matter if their argument is correct.

Are you admitting my arguments are valid? You don't have a problem with them.

I'm aware of what an ad hominem is. I will continue to point you out as long as you make your sole intentions obvious.

No issues with your arguments here. Clear enough for you?

So my points are valid and you have no valid points to refute them.

Did I give the opposite impression? I have nothing to say about your "valid points". You keep pushing for validation which tells me you're either really insecure or your getting paid per user that validates your "points"

I guess I'm wondering why you think it was an inside job if you don't see anything that points to it.

You keep insisting I'm getting paid to do this. Once again, ad hominem.

You keep insisting I'm getting paid to do this. Once again, ad hominem.

Nah, I think you're just super insecure. Again, nothing to do with the "evidence" or "valid points" you push. My views on what makes me think there was foreknowledge of 911 doesn't matter.

You only know how to do ad hominems, don't you? That's been your only strategy this whole time. Do you not realize it makes you look like you have no argument?

Catch your tail yet?

You'll continue to chase your tail as long as you stay in this sub

So, your plan is to just be a pest rather than actually defend your position?

We've both defended our positions enough in previous threads. It continues to go nowhere

You haven't really defended your position. You can't really defend your position or attack mine because you've already made it pretty clear you don't count evidence.

Oh, but I have. An you continue to forget the basic definition of "conspiracy theory"

You don't have a theory. You have conjecture.

You need evidence to form a theory.

As I said previously. Evidence can be interpreted different ways. Catch your tail yet?

Well, it doesn't really matter because you don't care about evidence anyway.

What would "catching my tail" be?

You continue to show your cognitive disabilities

I honestly don't see where you're seeing that. Is it a bad thing to ask you for evidence to back up your claims?

With that "evidence is relative" excuse, you can just ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with you. That's a bad way to look for the truth.

Is it a bad thing to ask you for evidence to back up your claims?

When you ignore said evidence when it is presented to you, then yes.

I have yet to see you address any of the information I gave you in previous discussions. Your arguments honestly remind me of those made by Creationists: cyclical in nature, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit the established viewpoint.

While /u/DogFurAndSawdust could have said it better, I think he is right.

You do realize that almost every 9/11 conspiracy theory comes from a priori and incredulity arguments?

What is your most damning piece of evidence the official story is false?

And here we go. You are following the exact same pattern: "9/11 was <insert strawman>" , then you requesting the information I have already given you.

I'll humour you though. The most damning evidence is the money trail behind 9/11 and the repeated lies under oath by key individuals, such as General Ralph Eberhart's testimonies.

Once again, the documentaries and presentations I linked before detail all of this in excruciating detail.

I think that members of NORAD were not totally truthful. I don't think they let on just how badly we screwed up that day because they didn't want to pinned for the worst terrorist attack on US soil.

Who profited from the attack? Military contractors definitely took advantage of the situation, but that doesn't prove foreknowledge.

Silverstein overall has lost money due to rebuilding the WTC.

Some of those "inside traders" lost money because they put put options on one airline but bought stock in the other.

None of these are enough to count the rest of the evidence for the official story invalid.

Don't forget the computer systems take over of deutche bank with millions of dollars of transactions happening just before and during the event

I haven't come across that, no. Could you point me to your source on that one?

Once again proving that you only research the official story. I'm working. I'll get back to you. You could just search it if you want to inform yourself

None of that seems to be proof of anything.

"Illegal transfers MIGHT have been made"

"COULD this be a criminal interprise?"

"SUSPICIONS that some of the 911 transfers were illegal"

The report of something taking over the computer system also comes from one anonymous employee. I can't find anything to corroborate that story.

You should research it more.

Is there an something that corroborates that story? Where did you find that information?

I have a feeling nothing will satisfy your insatiable appetite for EVIDENCE!

Shouldn't you want to have an insatiable appetite for evidence? I still fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Great. You're still following the pattern.

Now that I've humored your question, you then list off (incorrect) talking points without actually addressing any of the info I gave you before.

I'm not even trying to argue at this point. It's just useful to let others know not to waste their time.

What did I get wrong? Please be specific. If I'm wrong on these points, I want to know why so I don't use them again.

Ya, you're better than me at the words thing

It actually isn't an ad hominem in this case because I have absolutely no argument against your argument. I'm only pointing out your obvious intentions which have nothing to do with this post or arguments. I'm simply just pointing out the basic and underlying purpose of your arguments

No, the definition of an ad hominem is going after the person who made an argument, not the arguments themselves.

These are textbook ad hominems.

Oh damn get wrecked /u/cgti. Multipe accounts, copy paste, spamming. Sheesh.

I have multiple accounts?

I only did that copy paste because someone copy-pasted the same comment on a bunch of my comments. I now realize that probably wasn't a smart move.

Ya...bad move. Do better next time. Think about these things. It's important to your validation

Are my arguments wrong?

What arguments? I don't even think I've read any arguments you've had in the thread

Why avoid? You don't like being called out? I don't care about your arguments. I'm here because I'm calling you out

When you resort to ad hominems as your only strategy, that typically means you lost.

Why I'm here doesn't change how true/false my arguments are.

I'm not resorting to anything. I'm just going to continue to call you out. Again, I could argue with you all day and keep chasing our tails. It will go nowhere, which is why everyone wonders why you're here. As you say you are "here for fun" hahahah ok bud

Well, do something other than an ad hominem. I want to debate this stuff. Prove me wrong.

This is fun! I love talking to people who have different viewpoints than I do.

I love talking to people who have different viewpoints than I do.

But only if we stick exclusively to 911 conspiracy....again...try harder please

Well, I really like 9/11 conspiracy theories. I also like moon landing and other space theories, but those don't get posted as often here sadly.

I just don't know anyone who doesn't believe the official story, so this is the only place to get some different viewpoints.

Lol "I also like moon landing". "Because I commented on a single moon landing post yesterday"

There just aren't very many of those posted.

What do you want to debate?

What's your most damning piece of evidence the official story is wrong?

Lol! There's that bait question you bring to every thread you show up in. Do you not remember going in circles with me over this question in other threads?? You seem to have a good memory when it comes to the 911 commission report, but other than that...meh

What's wrong with the question?

It's the same bait question you use in every thread before you go into an hours long argument over "evidence"

How is it a bait question? I'm letting you pick the topic to debate. Also, why do you hate evidence so much?

Is it because you know the evidence points to the official story?

It is not an ad hominem because I am not addressing any argument at all. I haven't regarded any argument at all. The only thing I did was saw you commenting on yet another 911 post and decided to call you out. I haven't seen nor looked at any arguments

Ad hominems don't address arguments. That's why it's call an ad hominem "to the person"

ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg

Are you not avoiding my arguments and just attacking my character?

https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/9mddrc/as_a_911_first_responder_may_i_ask_a_favor_of/e7eja90/?st=jn0lwnif&amp;sh=2e25df77

I saw no arguments. Only saw you posting in another 911 thread and called you out.

Well, in this thread I did talk about the evidence that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. I've also given some arguments in the other threads I've commented on, but you refuse to attack those, you just attack me, which is the definition of an ad hominem attack and typically means you have nothing.

When I call you a dumbass for not understanding why me calling you out in this situation is not an ad hominem, that is an ad hominem

When you ignore my arguments and attack me, that's the literal definition of ad hominem.

Noperz

Say your having a conversation with someone. I walk up and say, hey youre that guy that shows up in conversations just to argue. Never heard the conversation youre having, never heard any argument you're having with the person, I'm simply just making an observation which you call an "attack" for some reason. The observation has nothing to do with the conversation you're presently having.

Well, that would still be an ad hominem because you aren't addressing the credibility of my arguments, you're just going after me.

If my arguments aren't credible, tell me and show me why.

Lol wtf

Was I wrong?

Ya

How?

You're trying to discredit me not because my arguments are wrong, but because you don't like me (I don't see why else you're so adamant about this).

That what an ad hominem attack is. Going after the credibility of the speaker without addressing the content of my arguments.

So close to catching that tail

So, you admit you're just using ad hominems?

Most definitely not

Why not? Are you just trolling?

this perfectly personifies our relationship

Well, then it wouldn't really be a relationship then would it? Considering there's only one dog

I am hooman. U r dog. I wind tail, you chase

So you are just a troll? Why don't you want me commenting here?

You can do anything you want. I don't care. All I've been saying to you every time we start a conversation is the fact that you are useless here. You aren't going to change any minds. Your excuse for being here is literally that you have fun arguing with people

If you don't care, then why are you hounding me? I thought the point of this sub was to discuss conspiracies. I'm just bringing a point of view that doesn't show up as much.

These points definitely get brought up. By legitimate users who aren't solely here to disprove. They actually have the attitude you claim to have "an open mind". You lied and said you are open to different ideas. You do the opposite. You see an idea and you feel the need to actively disprove it.

To be honest my thoughts of what happened that day are different than when I started browsing this sub. Not much different, but I have been exploded to new evidence I hadn't come across before.

Uh oh...dude you better get your tin foil on...it will be a bumpy ride from here. To be honest, I'd figured you were a tougher nut to crack than this

Oh, no, I still think the official story is far and away the most accurate version of events out there and got almost everything right. I just don't think they got everything right and they never said they got everything right.

Ya, they manufactured the whole report

Do you have evidence for that?

LOLOLOLOL

Love u babe

I'm just bringing a point of view that doesn't show up as much. You can't possibly be this dense...gee I fucking wonder why the official cover up stories of all the events discussed on a conspiracy forum don't show up as much as the conspiracy theories do....quit making excuses as to why you're here. As I said before, a lot of people here have read into the official stories and are still not satisfied. Events happen and there is a lot (to say the least) of questions about evidence and investigation. Mix that with a rightful distrust of the players involved and you have a CONSPIRACY THEORY

Not many people actively argue my side of the argument though.

Ya... there's a reason for that

I fail to see how that gif is related.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/chase+your+tail

Well, I honestly don't care if I change anyone's mind. I like talking about it. I like being able to put my opinion in the mix.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Quit apologizing.

Sorry.

Cognitive disabilities

I have struggled with 17 years of this

with what? what's the struggle? lemme guess:

• tell the truth;

• tow the bullshit line;

?

why does it matter if there was, what will you do about it?

hahahahha... seriously?

that was the entire reason you were there is a "first responder".

you know... because of the "terrorist attack" :D i.e., THE PLANE!!!

"why does it matter"... hahaha... you are hilarious.

You're asking us to STFU about 9/11 because you don't like thinking about it? Or what?

You realize Israel was behind it, right? If I was you, I'd be shouting that from the rooftops.

> You're asking us to STFU about 9/11 because you don't like thinking about it?... I'd be shouting that from the rooftops.

Well said. Make me question the authenticity of this post, frankly.

ok so... i'll assume from the complete avoidance of the question that there was no plane.

enough said.

thank you.

I'm truly sorry you are angry, lost and permanently effected, however I believe your anger is displaced by blaming people who want to know the truth. Furthermore, 911 is like the JFK shooting so you need to get used to the idea that it will be a burning question for decades.

but idk give it a break.

simply, "NO" is your answer

You realize Israel was behind it, right?

Well if Israel teamed up with George Bush Sr, PNAC & Cheney.

They produced a lot of the security/military software so Yeh Mossad def did at least DS elements in it. Just as in the USG, military - DS actors from all

But keep the other conspiracies a comin dont want to miss out on YET ANOTHER JFK post...Just never 9/11 again to difficult.

Maybe this is what the Kennedys are thinking whilst OP gets his fix?

You realize Israel was behind it, right

And you have 100% proof of that. Link please.

go google it yourself or maybe look at the sidebar on this sub and read the proof already

the proof

It proves nothing just like every other theory. Because they care just theory.

I can give you a whole book. Even explains how they did it. But you don't care about all that.

Exhaustively researched and cited.

If you say so.

If 9/11 is not exposed these people will do it again next time they want to start another BS war in the middle east that leads to the death of over half a million people.

Shut the fuck up take your ass off the internet if you are too sensitive to read what people have to say. The world doesn't bow to your emotional needs.

Look, you are coming into a community and asking hundreds of thousands of people to change their behavior to cater to you. Its not just some random thing either, you are asking the community to give up on what is probably the biggest topic in its existence.

Do you see how incredibly selfish and straight asshe that move is? You can guise it under your hurt feelings but its still a shitty thing to do. If your head is that fucked up go talk yo a professional.

Stop triggering yourself until you find your strength to defend.

Plenty of time for silence when we're dead.

My recommendation is take a break. Conspiracies can grind you down sometimes and you just got to realize the world isn't entirely about them or this community.

Guy, guys, please. No truth about 9/11 on 9/11.
Just let the mass-murdering perpetrators have that day to perpetuate their bin-Laden fairytale, brainwashing a new generation entirely uninterrupted.
Please guys. First responder here guys.
Also disregard all those other first responders and family members of the victims who want justice; who want truth to be spoken loud & clear on 9/11. Fuck those guys.

You know what I find disrespectful? Your attitude.

Telling us to "stop talking about it" is an affront to all of the families who demanded a proper investigation and were instead given the middle finger. For God's sake, Henry Kissinger was the first pick to head the Commission. It ended up being headed by Philip Zelicow, a neocon stooge with very close ties to the Bushes.

Instead of avoiding your issues, man the fuck up and confront them.

.

https://i.imgflip.com/2jnbwd.jpg

It's even more disrespectful for the country to go silent over the victims of 9/11 during these two months. If this is such an issue to you, especially around this time of year. Maybe you can make the changes necessary, instead of calling on others to change. Perhaps don't browse social media during September, avoid r/conspiracy in October, etc.

Unless you have some shocking revelation to share, let others discuss and you can choose to ignore it.

"Here I am, in the hookah shop, but guys--please!--stop smoking! I don't like it! I want to hang out with you in the hookah shop, but the smoking makes me feel bad! Everyone has to stop doing what this place is for to suit my sensitivities, please! Otherwise, you're all terrible people!"

We could put all this to rest if only there was something there that day to photograph a plane flying into the Pentagon.

dude go get some PTSD therapy so you can remain in bliss about the truth of what the pentagon. Ain't no jetliner as the videos and photos show. If you are not willing to discuss this issue then you do a greater disservice to the victims and their survivors.

How were the towers turned to dust?

Until official sources posit an actual mechanism or release how it was done, 9/11 will always be up for discussion.

Maybe you just need someone to talk to instead of posting here to work on your traumatic experience....

So you know you struggle with something then actively expose yourself to it. Brilliant! Sounds like you want a pity party my dude.

Ok be honest. You mistakenly set a reminder to post your bullshit little story here on 10/8 instead of 9/8 and then figured “eh it could still work”.

> You're asking us to STFU about 9/11 because you don't like thinking about it?... I'd be shouting that from the rooftops.

Well said. Make me question the authenticity of this post, frankly.

You realize Israel was behind it, right?

Well if Israel teamed up with George Bush Sr, PNAC & Cheney.

But keep the other conspiracies a comin dont want to miss out on YET ANOTHER JFK post...Just never 9/11 again to difficult.

Maybe this is what the Kennedys are thinking whilst OP gets his fix?

You realize Israel was behind it, right

And you have 100% proof of that. Link please.

go google it yourself or maybe look at the sidebar on this sub and read the proof already

I can give you a whole book. Even explains how they did it. But you don't care about all that.

Well, you didn't point out what I got wrong.

Also, how did the Pentagon lose trillions when it's annual budget was only $600 billion?

And yes, the war games probably hampered our response that day, but there were a ton of other contributing factors, namely the piss poor communication between NEADS and FAA.

If you don't care, then why are you hounding me? I thought the point of this sub was to discuss conspiracies. I'm just bringing a point of view that doesn't show up as much.

Do you have evidence for that?

Ya... there's a reason for that