[deleted]

Some may reply that no steel-framed skyscraper has ever been struck by a passenger plane. I wouldn't, but how do you counter such an argument?

[deleted]

No, it was hit by one of the largest buildings in the world falling next to it.

[deleted]

He is saying no because he can't accept something he saw on TV was a lie.

I'm saying WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building collapsing. That hasn't happened before either.

I had a bunch of staples put in my head

That explains everything.

Yeah, but officially that didn't cause the collapse of WTC7, officialy - fire caused the free-fall collapse of WTC7.

The other buildings of the WTC which were nearly destroyed by the collapse of the twin towers DID NOT collapse by themselves, so they had to be pulled.

It's pretty far-fetched, on top of other far-fetched official things about that whole day.

It happened to buildings 3,4,5, and 6, but they didn't collapse despite being considerably closer to the twin towers.

Addressed already. Go find it.

Not quite.....don't get ahead of yourself.

Prove the building was damaged by the collapse MORE than any of the other WTC buildings.

Don't just give your OPINION, because that means nothing at all.

What about WTC 3, 4, 5, 6? The towers fell right on top of them. They still needed to be pulled down to clean the place up!

WTC7 was barely touched in comparison and hardly had any fires going in it. You're right though, one of the largest buildings fell NEXT to it.....

You think this building took LESS damage? (Click ZOOM) IN

Did you consider any of the OTHER buildings that were next to it? I don't remember the building but a it had a HUGE gash taken out of it and it didn't fall straight down into itself AT FREE FALL SPEEDS.

Hardly any fires? The entire side of it is filled with smoke! HARDLY?

WTC 3 (22 floors) WTC 4 (8 floors) WTC 5 (8 floors) WTC 6 (9 floors) WTC 7 (47 floors)

Seriously? What was really left of these "buildings"

In my other post I quoted a firefighter whole saw a hole 1/3 the size of WTC7.

Oh wait...sorry....I didn't see YOU quoted a firefighter. What's his name? Where was his location? When did he say this? Where is it documented?

NIST, even if you can trust what BS they say, still said a FIRE caused the collapse. Not a big gash....nothing. Even if you could produce a photo I have not seen yet.....that is still no evidence that the building was compromised in any SERIOUS shape or form. Again...WTC's 3, 4, 5 and 6 all took massive damage and stood where they were.

Notice the complete LACK of solid photo evidence of a fire? Most of the BS photo's I've seen have been photoshopped! Lots of smoke......but smoke means fuck all. Smoke doesn't drop buildings at free falls speeds and NEITHER does fire.

Captain Chris Boyle:

Boyle:"...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."

Firehouse: "When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?"

Boyle: "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it."

Firehouse: "When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?"

Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

WTC 3,4,5,6 photosI don't know what your definition of "stood" is, but these pretty pretty damn destroyed to me. You do realize your comparing a 47 story building to 8,9,22 floor buildings right?

If you are going to say its photoshopped I clearly can't prove anything to you.

Pally.....you're getting a little excited here. Fire STILL CANNOT cause the straight down TOP TO BOTTOM free falls speed collapse of a 47 story building.

That would mean fire was able to destroy everything on a horizontal level at about 5 and a bit stories a second. Tell me how fire can evaporate that many floors in that time? It fell straight down, nothing on each side, no tilting, no nothing. So, the floors were eliminated equally as it fell.

With a nice crimp right in the middle.....the "Penthouse" goes in first.....tell me how fire can take out the core sections in the middle, dropping out a VERY specific part to the building.....leaving it standing....and then finally dropping it a few seconds later.

RIGHT HERE

Can't miss it. That, and please continue to ignore the fact that it housed offices for the CIA and FBI as well as the SEC. They were all in the middle of that big ENRON scandal investigation, you remember! Right?

That all went down the drain, nothing came of it. So you can ignore or misdirect people all you like....but in the end it just makes you look like the ignorant fool.

You clearly don't understand how buildings fall. Let's talk to controlled demolition experts. They agree with NIST

In controlled demolitions, they destroy supports, and the building mainly uses gravity to destroy itself. On 9/11 building were weakened by fire and outside damage. They eventually caused portions to fail and cause a collapse. People who demolish buildings use the path of least resistance. They use gravity to do most of the dirty work.

Firefighters reported pieces of the building coming off well(as much as 5 hours before) before it collapsed.

Even if you look at the collapse of the two towers themselves, you can clearly see the building fail right at the floors with the holes in it. There is a single floor collapse, the whole top falls a floor. Then you see the whole thing come down leaving the top section visible until it is obscured by the dust cloud of the collapse of the initial floor. You can actually see the top of the building lurch, and the girders around the hole budge out.

You're right. I could care less about who is housed where because it is completely irrelevant. Are you accusing Enron of 9/11?

Next to isnt on top of

At one point he said it hit the building in another post he changed it. When your arguments consist of half truths and pseudo science I guess "next" could mean the same as "on top of"

Your right, I didn't claim on top of. There is no evidence that it fell on top of. There is evidence that debris hit the south side. The problem is that there is a very small amount of videos and photos from that side because of the collapse of WTC 1 ad 2 being on that side and obscuring it as well as the raging fire on that side.

Boyle: "on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."

So you're saying that a raging fire caused building 7 to implode...

There has been. The Empire State Building was hit by a b-25 bomber at 300 miles an hour. It didn't collapse.

http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

A much smaller plane unintentionally hit

Right, this was in response to shoutwire.

And didn't the official report indicate it was the fire that brought the buildings down? That strikes me as strange considering the first responders reported 2 contained fires. Oh, and then there is that sky scraper in Spain that literally burned for days. It didn't fall. Not to mention the buildings collapsed in a free fall. But you know, who am I to tell you not to let things like physics and facts stand in the way of your version.

Does this look contained to you?

Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Protec (demolition industry experts) independant report.

Before you accuse me of letting facts and physics stand in the way, better makes sure you have the facts and physics on your side.

Did Protec get the same warnings the 911 commission did?

Does this look contained to you?

Why are asking me? I am not a firefighter nor was I talking about 7. But here, you can see for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czB_CWkqix4

I'll tell you one thing, that clip you linked to doesn't show a raging fire powerful enough to drop a building at free fall rates. . . . .

Better get those staples checked.

Ah yes, the everyone is in on it defense. In fact, I'm in on it too. The Pentagon paid me to cover it up.

I had no idea what the hell you were talking about the staples, you do realize that happened to me 15 years ago right?

I had no idea what the hell you were talking about the staples, you do realize that happened to me 15 years ago right?

Sorry that happens sometimes, what was I saying again?

Oh yeah, you were implying that my superficial scalp wound somehow affected my brain. I remained conscience throughout the whole thing and did not suffer any concussion whatsoever.

So yeah, personal attacks work!

So yeah, personal attacks work!

Yes, about as well as your straw man.

You suggested that Protec was warned without any evidence. You even imply that the White House warning the commission not to go far implies conspiracy.

Listen, there is nobody that hates Bush and Cheney more then I do. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on opening day. I voted against him twice in a swing state. I am deeply saddened at the crap he has done to us since that day.

What I am saying is that the facts, the physics, the rational side of the argument goes against the conspiracy in every conceivable way.

I am not implying anything when it comes to the White House warning the commission. I am flat out telling you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/search?q=commission&sort=relevance&t=all

With all the inconsistencies, coincidences, who benefited, facts, and physics, anything but the official explanation would be considered rational.

Warning of what? What exactly is a warning?

Like if I say, don't fuck up your next post, that is technically warning you right?

So you can factually say, I warned you.

But really that doesn't mean I influenced you in any way.

I'd like to address this, but you are going to have to clarify.

If you've read the articles (contained in the link) and want to argue the definition of warning, then I can see you are in denial. Any evidence contrary to your beliefs is dismissed.

I read the article, but I disagree with the maliciousness of the "don't cross the line" statement. What line? The line in the sand? DOn't fuck up our attempt to invade Iraq? Don't tell people we tortured people?

The line could be anything. Until you get specific, I have no idea what exactly you are referring to.

The 9/11 report was well after the event anyway. Did the White House stop every newspaper/Tom Dick and Harry/law enforcement in America from researching the subject as well? I know we put a lot of stock in government (ha ha), but I'd bet on The Inquirer to get a story before they would.

If you read the articles you wouldn't have missed project Mockingbird.

Sorry, I was to busy watching Men Who Stare at Goats. The existence (hypothetical or literal)of a project doesn't prove anything.

Are you claiming that poorly paid people (news paper people are notoriously underpaid) in a dying industry covered up a missile strike? How much does it cost to a person who has dedicated their lives to the freedom of the press to be bought?

I find it incredible that anyone who agrees that the investigation was compromised for whatever reason, would not support a new independent investigation of the biggest massacre in America since the federal government massacred the Indians?

The Empire State Bldg was hit by a plane. (1942, I think)... it was why those guys designed the towers to withstand multiple planes hitting them.

Wait, I'm pretty sure all of this has been disproven quite a few times. Why do people still say this?

Operation Northwoods shows precedence and similar motivation.

operation northwoods has actually been carried out?

Approved by the joint chiefs of staff and passed on by the Secretary of Defense. Of course Kennedy rejected it. Seems like it worked out well for Kennedy, huh?

Now imagine a retard right wing president. The outcome may have been different the second time around.

Here's how I get a foot in the door with people: focus on the war games that were going on that day.

The 9/11 Commission admits that if NORAD hadn't been running fake hijacking situations, the terrorists would not have been successful. Ask your dad if he is absolutely 100% sure this was just the most unlucky coincidence in world history...or if there's at least some small possibility there was (one singular) inside man.

It's a minor victory, but at least it gets him thinking maybe there is more to the story.

And add Europe's 7/7 incident, which happened exactly the same way.

Can't forget that the US was packing to take supplies to Haiti the day before the earthquake for a hurricane drill [they had to think of something other then a earthquake or else it'd be too obvious.] and as a result got there first and took over the air space.

Can you provide some relevant linkage? I'd like to add it to another thread I'm developing (won't link here until I get a link from you).

Ask him how Building 7 fell to the ground? Ask him if fire can take a building down at free fall speeds?

Ask him why 13 witnesses to the Pentagon saw the plane on the NORTH side of the Citgo gas station.

All the work is done for you You just have to listen.

So how about all the people who saw it hit the pentagon on the highway? Do they suddenly not count anymore?

How about the eyewitnesses said they saw missiles not passenger jets hit the towers? Or the others that said the windows were blacked out. Do they not count either?

A few people claim that the windows were blacked out and a missile hit. Video evidence and half the world seeing it on live TV refute that claim. As well as millions of eyewitness New Yorkers.

When the pentagon was hit, there was bumper to bumper traffic on the highway.

List of witnesses

People reported seeing different things that day. Most people really don't know what the fuck they saw. The media immediately started bombarding everybody with.. "its was a plane".."a passenger plane" "American Airlines". Anyone on the air who reported seeing missiles, painted windows, or, anything that varied from the "official" explanation were quickly cut off. The media had a great deal in shaping the way people 'remembered' the events, Project Mockingbird anyone?

The woman in the hole, 911 commission, finding the passport. Just look around the thread there are too many proven inconsistencies with the official report. And some of the 'coincidences', NORAD? 7/7? Strange anomalies with the 'live' feeds that day? C'mon.

True dat. I've listened to live recordings of all the misinformation going around.

That doesn't change what the evidence shows.

I really don't understand the whole passport thing. When flight 175 hits the south tower, you can clearly see debris flying everywhere. It is pretty clear fire couldn't have destroyed everything. They were finding seats, engines, body parts, etc all over New York. So making claims like a passport should have burnt in the fire is just, uh dumb, as you can clearly see all kinds of debris ejected out.

It is a hugely complex event. I used to research JFK conspiracy, and WTC makes that look like a first graders book report. Just the amount of stuff involved makes it one of the most complex events in history.

I saw all the videos when they came out. I was taken in by them too. As I tear away all the misconceptions and just false information it all leads me back to the biggest question of them all.

In a conspiracy, there has to be secrets, but there is always a trail. First there would be too many people involved. The more people involved, the more chance a secret will be let out. Just the amount of coordination involved just makes it impossible to be a conspiracy. Way to many people would have to completely sellout America.

So the evidence points to a non-conspiracy, as well as the philosophy.

I really don't understand the whole passport thing. When flight 175 hits the south tower, you can clearly see debris flying everywhere.

Ok, Ill give you that. That is a possibility albeit extremely unlikely.

In a conspiracy, there has to be secrets, but there is always a trail.

How much more of a trail do you need?

First there would be too many people involved.

How many people need to be involved? How easy is it to cover something up when you have unlimited influence over mainstream media?

So the evidence points to a non-conspiracy, as well as the philosophy.

You've ignored all the evidence presented in this thread except for the collapse of the towers which you've addressed with some "weak science" examples and dubious sources.

Good question! Let's look at those people.

They all work for a news organization!

Check it out and tell me if #1) They were in a position to see it first of all and #2) would anyone of them have any credibility if they all didn't work for USA Today (or did at the time).

Good question though. Again, all the work was done for you!

You didn't read all the accounts. You're cherry picking those that fit your story.

They ALL clearly don't work for USA today, and even if they did, are claiming USA Today is in on it too?

You didn't read all the accounts. You're cherry picking those that fit your story.

As are you and the sources you point to.

I list all the public ones, you said EVERYONE works for USA today. So either everyone, obviously untrue, or not everyone works for USA Today. That is cherry picking, you pick all the USA Today people while ignore those that don't work for USA Today. Including a minister, lawyer, non-USA journalists, a general, and a computer programmer to name a few.

Okay missile hit the pentagon. Who planted the charred bodies of the passengers? Do I really have to link pictures of them? Who planted the parts of the plane that match the plane that hit? How did this get planted so fast?

Another straw man mixed with a false dichotomy? I always get those two mixed up. Not all of your examples come form USA today.

Okay missile hit the pentagon. Who planted the charred bodies of the passengers? Do I really have to link pictures of them? Who planted the parts of the plane that match the plane that hit? How did this get planted so fast?

I never said a missile hit the Pentagon.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11058

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to address the other inconsistencies presented within the thread.

All the ones who support the plane actually HITTING the building, were yes from USA today....or they supported a physical impossibility.

The plane was no where near the light poles that were supposedly struck by the plane which supposedly lodged one in a Lloyd England's cab.

Also, stop bringing up all that bullshit about a missile or anything else....global hawk.....not one person saw either of those.

When you do, you take "your" witnesses and you call them liars. You say, they saw a plane in one option and a missile in another. Which is it man? You just keep that bullshit alive, and its not even a remote possibility.

Sean Boger was in the Pentagon helipad control tower. He saw a PLANE flying at him. Not a missile, not a global hawk.......how can you possibly throw out any other possibility knowing what people have already seen and given testimony to!?!

Unless you know exactly what you're saying.

One last thing, even Mike Walters' testimony shows that the plane could NOT have been on a straight line to knock down any light poles.

He talks about how the plane banked around and then flew "into the building". See, that's the problem, he describes the bank of the plane as it actually was......but the RADES84 data (supposed radar data) and the black box itself shows the plane flying in a STRAIGHT LINE.

How is this possible? Mike saw the plane in real life! The black box and that radar data (provided by your Gov't) shows a straight line, no bank and on the south side of the gas station. No possibility for a turn of any kind. The light poles had to be knocked down!

That's it.....the plane was on the North side....banking but still managed to knock down light poles it wasn't even close to.

How is this possible my friend?? Can you think critically? Can you be an adult about this info? Look at all of it.

Are those the witnesses who saw the plane approach from north of Columbia Pike or south of Columbia Pike?

I don't know, I read this.

I'd rather hear it directly from a member of the 911 commission.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11058

People misspeak on live TV all the time, that isn't evidence.

Why does he need to believe it? If he is interested in knowing he will do the research. If has questions he'll know who to ask.

[deleted]

1. I'll give you a 110 story hint. It is also a firefighter term meaning evacuate the people from it. Aka pull them out.

2. I'll go with extreme fundamentalist isalmist for 100 dollars Alex.

So how did people know where to plant explosives? How could they predict the exact floor the planes were going to hit to plant explosives here? Where are the extremely loud bangs of a real controlled demolition?

I'll go with High Order Damage evidence for 400 dollars Alex.

Where are the extremely loud bangs of a real controlled demolition?

Something like this you mean?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Clearly fraudulent dubbed in explosion sound. You'll have to do much better then that. The person who made that video should be ashamed.

Yeah I think youre right tbh. However there are plenty of people saying they heard explosions.

I was thinking about that too but I thought _Dimension would just say that part was over dubbed as well.

The problem is "explosion" is such a general term. It can be taken literally, or figuratively.

WEAK!!!! Ok... you gotta be trolling.

There is nothing _D can say regarding any of this. He relies on his opinion for all of this. No real thought out data, nothing corroborates anything. Just a mish mash of stuff that cannot form a solid base for any of this to happen.

Such a bunch of bullshit.

So how did people know where to plant explosives? How could they predict the exact floor the "planes" were going to hit to plant explosives here?

Who's to say they didn't know where the planes would hit? And even if they didn't, the explosives could have been planted on every floor. Then after the "planes" hit, detonated whichever they chose. If you weren't capable of drawing that conclusion, I can understand why you're having a hard time coming to grips with something you saw on TV turning out to be a lie.

Why wait? If you have the explosives planted, why wait to collapse them? why even use planes?

to lap up all that juicy insurance money

Uhh because it doesn't justify his point?

Just mention all the coincidences that happened on that day - according to the official version.

The towers were a health hazard because of asbestos applied to the steel frame - yet, the tower collapsed due to the steel frames catching fire.

The temperature was so high the steel melted and poured out of the building, and everything was pulverized - but luckily they found the hijackers' passports.

The twin towers were struck by airplanes, and caught fire from the jet fuel which melted the steel frames - the WTC7 wasn't struck by an airplane, yet it caught fire and crumbled into its own footprint. The only day ever steel-framed buildings collapsed because of fire - and it happened for all sorts of different reasons.

...the best bit is about the war games which took part on that same day.

...and that's not even mentioning the other flights and the pentagon.

The temperature was so high the steel melted and poured out of the building, and everything was pulverized - but luckily they found the hijackers' passports.

This always makes me break out in a stupid grin (and my tail to wag).

I honestly am convinced that the easiest first step to convince someone is to show them the picture of the crash in Shanksville PA. There is no plane there, and anyone trying to seriously argue that a plane crashed there can be callled insane, because there isn't anything there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUzrHHDu96U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99rcYiG_Syw

That forces people to consider some kind of cover up, and then that's the hook. Once you know there was some amount of a cover up, you then want to know how much more is covered up.

There were parts found for sure, the mystery is why some parts were some miles away, they didn't bounce there.

I'm talking about the direct vicinity. Every other plane crash has material from the plane in the immediate area. They just let off a bomb and called it a plane crash.

I'll just leave this here

You are right. That does show very well how a well built permanent structure can readily survive a plane impact with it's great mass compared to lightweight aircraft components.

No, thats what happens when you hit something designed to absorb nuclear missile, aka the ground. A building is much weaker then the ground don't you agree?

Are you asking if the earth, which is covered in a layer composed of disordered, loose soil and rock, is stronger than a very ordered concrete structure built to withstand nuclear forces?

Yes, that is why NORAD is contained inside a mountain rather then a concrete structure built to withstand nuclear forces.

We had to put it under a mountain becasue when we put it up in a tree, the tree broke. mossad...

Would you rather build yourself a home the size of a mountain, or just move into one? Logistics....

And your point that the ground is "harder" than a building applies how? The plan would have fallen onto tons of debris. Not the ground

Yes, the ground can cause a plane intentionally crashed to atomize. (ground = strong) Flight 93

A wall can cause a plane to partially atomize. (Concrete blast reinforced walls) Pentagon

A wall can be penetrated by a plane. (perimeter steel columns) WTC1/2

A 110 building falling next too a 47 story building can damage and fires enough to cause it to collapse.

The plane in that video is going a lot faster than 33 feet per second.

No, it was hit by one of the largest buildings in the world falling next to it.

or wait is it now.

A 110 building falling next too a 47 story building can damage and fires enough to cause it to collapse.

Did it hit it or not?

There are over 1000 architects who will publicly disagree with the official explanation of 7 collapsing. And many more who will off record.

The plane in that video is going at a comparable speed to all of the 9/11 impacts.

Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it[fire] was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

Only a 1000? How many architects are there? In the world? In the United States?

Boyle: "There was a huge gaping hole and it[fire] was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

That's only one account. Why do you consider his 'testimony' valid and dismiss the (multiple) eyewitness accounts in my other examples?

The plane in that video is going at a comparable speed to all of the 9/11 impacts.

Really, I didn't see any mention of it in the video. The plane appeared to have thrusters going full tilt.

Show us a list of architect and engineers, bigger than 1000, that completely support the official theory.

Please provide that list.

STARVE_THE_BEAST already said it best

"Furthermore, your implication that a majority of career professionals should endorse a strongly anti-establishment belief before we give it any consideration is ludicrous.

The numbers are already well-established, and they tell a simple story:

There now exists overwhelming material evidence in the public domain that when weighed in totality by the open-minded, rational, skeptical, and brave mind, leads to the inexorable conclusion that there is FAR MORE to the story than the official conspiracy-theory whitewash that was the 9/11 Commission Report."

Still waiting for you to address the woman in the hole, 911 commission, the 'coincidences', NORAD? 7/7? strange anomalies with the 'live' feeds etc etc.

I don't see any quotes from your eyewitnesses. That because you haven't posted any. I can give you more from other people if you like.

Battalion Chief John Norman:

"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged."

Battalion Chief Kemly:

"..Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Stolen from a website:

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

Woman in the hole? What exactly would you like me to address? She was in the hole, not in a fire. The hole spread over a few floors. People above the fire were obviously still alive. So why couldn't they be in the hole in an area not on fire? Holes aren't fires. Holes are just holes.

9/11 commission? What about it?

You'll have to be more specific about which coincidences.

NORAD? I can talk a little bit about NORAD. The deal with NORAD is its primary focus was outside of the United States. Look up "the donut hole" they had to deal with. NORAD had to be physically called, as there was no direct communication between airports and NORAD. The fighters on ready were launched, they flew at under their top speeds because at the time they weren't allowed to go supersonic over land. They didn't have enough time to reach them before the planes crashed into buildings/ground. The wargames did not cause any confusion.

7/7? What about it? Muslims blow crap up?

which anomalies are you referring to? The only one I can think of was the BBC reporting WTC7 collapsing before it did. Considering there was 7 buildings, and WTC7 expected to collapse, I'm sure it was pretty easy to get it confused. I've been to WTC myself and I didn't even know there was a 3,4,5,6,7 before 9/11. Reporters say stupid/incorrect things all the time. Conspiracy? No. Clueless foreign reporters? Yes.

Obviously you haven't been reading much of this thread and you continue to ignore the articles I've linked to in my other replies.

That's a terrible example. That's a plane crashing into a wall. Do you even understand what supposedly happened at Shanksville?

Not that you even put any thought into it.

Here, go look at every plane that ever crashed into the ground ever and find one that has absolutely no wreckage of a plane.

Intentionally crashed into the ground? Or unintentionally?

Because there is a big difference between someone intentionally slamming nose first into the ground at top speed (flight 93), and a plane trying to crash land and not kill anyone(pretty much all the rest).

Flight 93 wreckage

Do you have a link to an interview with a surviving family member... from any of the planes?

EDIT: Apparently the stewardess who called 911 on her cellphone lived in the same neighborhood as about 300 redditors, so I don't wanna hear about that one.

Give your dad 5 gallons of Jet A fuel.

Ask him to melt even the tiniest piece of steel with it.

There is limited credible evidence for 7WTC's story. Start there.

The "truther" movement might not gain some immediate credit, but you might want to let him know about the Architects and Engineers that are into it.

Personally, I don't think explosives had much to do with the tower but the fireproofing on the steel could have very much been intentionally weakened in renovations subsequent to the 1994 attack.

PNAC ask your father who benefited from the attacks...

Speaking of Halliburton (now KBR), check out Iraq for Sale: the War Profiteers. Does it make sense to place people who benefit from wars in positions of power in order to protect you? If wars are desired, then so are the events that will get those wars started...

Another good resource on war profiteers is War is a Racket - an excellent look at the process of 'American' war written by by two-time congressional medal of honor recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler.

There are many more resources out there, but ask your dad why he accepts the official account, when the families of the victims of 9-11 do not...9-11 Press for Truth

If you want to see the films themselves, try google videos instead the official sites.

Show him confirmed false flag operations from the US. Once you see what they are capable of 9-11 doesn't seem so far fetched.

Or bring up Israel's Lavon Affair.

In my experience, it's been easier to just focus on the official story being unbelievable when critically examined. If you can get someone to begin seeing through the official 9/11 Commission version of events, they may eventually draw their own conclusions regarding who did it and why.

Go with the facts and circumstances which are obvious, readily verifiable and speak against the official story, and slowly his foundation may crumble of its own accord. It has to be at his own pace though. Just plant the seeds.

Many older people have a massive emotional investment in America always being righteous and just and moral and upstanding - and that's a massive thing to overcome. The documentary "Why We Fight" illustrated this perfectly, while profiling a Vietnam veteran who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks.

Just my $0.02.

Exactly. The official story sounds almost like a conspiracy anyway:

• Government creates Taliban in 80's
• planes down buildings made to withstand that such an event
• 2 of the 15 9/11 attackers come from Afghanistan, but Afghan Taliban are blamed
• countries are invaded that contain oil and gas. Leader of country owns oil refineries.

One of the most under-rated issues for me is the woman in the hole. If it really was so hot to cause a collapse how come she is alive and kicking?

That pic makes me very sad. Because it shows me that the fires being super hot is a lie.

but doesn't that collide with the 'melted steel evidence'?

Not really, but it could suggest the molten steel was produced in the demolition process i.e without drawn out weakening by continous heating.

but aren't those sparklike bright droplets coming out of the windows generally viewed as evidence for molten steel by the truther movement?

I think you have misunderstood my comment.

So, the molten steel pouring out of the tower (see here) could have been produced like this.

If that doesn't explain it better, could expand your point a bit as I'm not following where the objection is.

Ask him why he believes the government conspiracy theory? What evidence is there to support this theory?

check out the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth website and watch the 2 hour presentation by richard gage www.ae911truth.org best evidence and explanations I have seen yet

Lol the haters, these anti- comments are hilarious. There are lots of things you might find compelling, but others will not. Like the 'pull it' video on youtube, no parts of plane at pentagon and shanksville, thermite residue in wtc dust, reports of explosions and diagonal cuts on wtc beams, and fires just effing don't drop buildings like that. Probably with your father simply having the room to have your opinion might be a goal, as opposed to convincing him. I'd say the engineering related groups are the most dry and science based truthers, and their presentations don't have a hip cat with background music and psychedelic effects getting pumped up about it all, so maybe refer him to some of the ae911truth org stuff.

Relevant

Ask him how BBC new WTC7 was going to collapse?

To me there are many reasons why the plane impacts and resulting fires could not have caused the collapses of the twin towers. The clearest reason is the speed of the collapses. Think about the columns from the base of the tower up to just below the impact zone. In one moment they went from resisting the full weight of the mass above to providing close to zero resistance.

Suppose you have access to a large swimming pool. Empty out the pool. Drop a cannonball from the highest diving board and time how long it takes to hit the bottom of the pool. Now fill the pool with water and repeat the experiment. Takes longer to hit the bottom, right? Now remove the water and fill the pool with baseballs. I'm guessing the cannonball will not actually reach the bottom now.

The point is that the density and strength of any matter impeding an object's fall have an effect on the duration of that fall. This alone shows the implausibility of the theory that the planes and fires caused the collapses as they happened.

Show him these two videos:

Kean

Hamilton

PNAC is the motive.

Depends.

If he accepts a claim as proof of the claim itself, lead him to youtube.

If he bases his beliefs on the idea that claims should be backed up by hard, probably facts, then you're SOL.

Like the claim that the nineteen Arabs were on the planes and responsible for the hijackings?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is footage of these guys going through the gates.

Read about the Lavon affair. Look into who benefited from the action/event.

Tell him Nancy Pelosi was behind it.

[deleted]

it was all shipped off to china for smelting.

Your dad sounds sane.

You could grow the fuck up and try listening, for once, to the advice of people who are much wiser and already more accomplished that you may ever be.

Just preserving the original comment.

You could grow the fuck up and try listening, for once, to the advice of people who are much wiser and already more accomplished that you may ever be.

... "that you may ever be" reminded of it.

than you may ever be???

Look, buddy, I was talking about your father, not me. It's just extremely fucking clear that you are a young person. Furthermore, it is super fucking clear that you are the kind of young person who has failed to put a reasonable amount of credence in the ideas that people like your father have.

I totally support your attack on my grammar and syntax. I love to insult people about those. However, I would love it if you, as a person only probably fifteen years younger than me, took heed that their elders, though less intelligent, had specific experiences that could cast significant light upon this world. I'm not one of those elders. But, I have learned, after years of discourse, to find wheat amidst the chaff.

No offense. Also, all the best.

Whooosh

(p.s. I'm not the OP, ass-fountain. I'm the 48 year old who preserved - and apparently, perpetuated - your vomitus for posterity. Do you ever look before you type? All the best, indeed.)

Fuck you then. I didn't direct any of my comment toward you, so please leave me alone. I am addressing highintensitycanada by the above comment. highintensitycanada is clearly a troubled young person who has chosen crazed conspiracies over his parents beliefs. I was offering an avenue for him to work out that issue.

what if a person's father is Hitler?

What's with the cursing? I think there's someone else that needs to

grow the fuck up.

Also, fuck you

troll

Naw, I think he's just a tard.

fucken jerk

troll

fuck you, too

troll

fuck, you're a fucking asshole

troll

Well, I fucking love to curse. I fucking do it most of the time, especially fucking since I started fucking writing on the internetwebs, bitches.

Also, fuck you

troll

Just preserving the original comment.

You could grow the fuck up and try listening, for once, to the advice of people who are much wiser and already more accomplished that you may ever be.

... "that you may ever be" reminded of it.

Whooosh

(p.s. I'm not the OP, ass-fountain. I'm the 48 year old who preserved - and apparently, perpetuated - your vomitus for posterity. Do you ever look before you type? All the best, indeed.)

What's with the cursing? I think there's someone else that needs to

grow the fuck up.

Did Protec get the same warnings the 911 commission did?

Does this look contained to you?

Why are asking me? I am not a firefighter nor was I talking about 7. But here, you can see for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czB_CWkqix4

I'll tell you one thing, that clip you linked to doesn't show a raging fire powerful enough to drop a building at free fall rates. . . . .

Better get those staples checked.

what if a person's father is Hitler?

Approved by the joint chiefs of staff and passed on by the Secretary of Defense. Of course Kennedy rejected it. Seems like it worked out well for Kennedy, huh?

Now imagine a retard right wing president. The outcome may have been different the second time around.