If you don't already know, before the government disinformation campaign, then you're probably an agent looking at how to pollute the truth.

I am not a person who tries to pollute the truth, I'm a 15 year old Half Japanese half American, how can I be an agent!?

Right. Sure you are.

Fine this is my facebook http://www.facebook.com/jojiinchrist

And this is my twitter http://twitter.com/#!/JapJoJI

Yah I look like a faggot but I just wanted to prove to you that Im not a seceret CIA agent

you dont look like a fag... nice mustache for 15.... shit.

haha it's fake btw

I KNEW IT! fake agent-stache!

Anyone can put anything on facebook. And since I will NEVER sign up for it I can't look at your supposed site.

fine... but how am I supposed to prove that I am not an Agent? How do I know that maybe you're really a seceret agent who accuses others to be agents so that you wouldn't be accused of being a seceret agent?

You can't.

Army of fake social media friends to promote propaganda

But if you want to learn about 911, start here.

haha alright so all that argument was a waste, Oh well.

here ya go:

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

Excellent read. Thanks.

Apply equal amounts of skepticism to all, including the official story. Read about the history of false flag events. Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin and more. Follow the money trail. Find out who benefited. Compare conflicting eyewitness testimonies. Go to /r/911Truth and read, read, read. Compare the behaviors of people in the discussions. Who does the name calling? Who is arrogant and condescending? Who inserts logical fallacies? Who distracts and avoids the issue at hand? Who just "feels" like they are being truthful? Note especially submissions that have a lot of upvotes and very few comments.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." - US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. Here's a link to Part 1. Parts 2-4 are linked at the right of that YouTube page.

ae911truth.org rys2sense.com/antineocons

that should be a good start. First link is heavy on the science of the physical evidence, second is about the political motivations for the events.

Thank you

Don't believe the bullshit, kid. Here's how it went down, and sources to back it up. Any questions, feel free to ask.

My Background:

I'm not an engineer, but I am a firefighter and EMT, so I am somewhat versed in building collapses, but I'll do my best.

Background Information

First, a couple of basic things. We can all agree that it takes an extraordinary amount of fire to melt steel; steel doesn't melt until 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the NIST temperature simulations for the World Trade Center, the hottest fires were burning at around 1800 Fahrenheit. This may sound hot, but I can assure you that is actually on par with most house fires, which burn at around 1600 - 1800 degrees (so I don't have to keep repeating it, unless otherwise stated, all temperatures are in Fahrenheit), and can go over 2000 degrees during a flashover. Anybody who has completed their Firefighter 1 certification can tell you that.

However, steel loses half of its strength at 1100 degrees. The NIST report never claimed that the steel melted, but simply that the fires weakened the steel to the point of structural failure.

World Trade Center Construction

Now, to understand the collapse of the World Trade Center, it is important to understand how the World Trade Center was built. Most high-rises have a concrete inner core or concrete-encased outer columns, or both. The World Trade Center had neither.

Instead, the World Trade Center's steel columns and trusses were protected by a layer of foam fireproofing, which was at best damaged and at worst blown off by the impact of the planes. In addition to this, a firefighter will learn during his certification course that even with fireproofing, a large fire can easily burn off the fireproof foam within an hour. This is during a regular combustible fire, not one caused by the impact of a passenger jet.

Impact

According to NIST, 15% of the perimeter columns and 13% of the core columns were completely severed in the North Tower. In the South Tower, 14% of the perimeter columns and 21% of the core columns were completely severed. These numbers do not include the number of columns that were simply damaged.

This means that the additional weight usually supported by these columns was transferred to the non-severed columns. In addition to this, the impact of the plane caused all the debris on the floors of the World Trade Center that were impacted to pile up against the sides of the building, where the perimeter columns are located.

The Buildings Weaken

As the weakened floor trusses sagged, they began to pull on both the core columns and the perimeter columns. This would be a good time to mention that there is a saying in the fire service; "Don't trust the trusses." They always fail. They are one of the worst things in building construction for firefighters, but they are an engineering marvel because they are remarkably lightweight for the amount of weight they can hold. The problem is that once one part of the truss fails, the entire truss fails, and once one truss fails, the entire floor fails. A truss can completely fail in a fire in around 15 minutes. A firefighters worst enemy.

Anyway, because the perimeter columns provided only 40% of the building's support, and were weakened by the fire, the trusses sagging led to the perimeter columns to bow inward. This can clearly be seen in pictures of the World Trade Center in the minutes before collapse.

The bowing continued until the perimeter columns reached their breaking point and snapped. This immediately transferred all the weight of the upper floors to the weakened columns on the middle and far side of the buildings, which continued to hold for a fraction of a second, and then collapsed under the added weight. This is why the top of the South Tower collapsed to the East and the top of the North Tower collapsed to the South. The North Tower had half as many floors of weight on its weakened columns, which is one reason why it stood twice as long as the South Tower, but it's own collapse was inevitable.

As reported in the NIST report, at 10:21am, an NYPD aviation unit officer (helicopter) reported that the North Tower was buckling in the southeast corner and leaning to the south.

At 9:37am, a caller on the 105th floor of the South Tower phoned 911 and reported that the floors beneath him had collapsed "in the 90-something floor."

Conclusion

Ultimately, it was the fires and the sagging floor trusses that bowed the columns and led to the collapse of both towers.

Sources, Other Conspiracies Disproven

In regards to some other conspiracy theories, here is an excellent video showing that the towers did not collapse at free-fall speed.

This is a video showing that a controlled demolition did not bring down the World Trade Center.

Here is a video about the collapse of Building 7.

Here is audio from one of the NIST investigators talking about the events that led to the World Trade Center's collapse.

This video goes more in depth comparing controlled demolitions and the World Trade Center collapse.

This video explains the molten metal that was seen falling from the Towers.

This explains the smoke coming from the base of the World Trade Center before it collapsed.

This is a video that explains why the buildings collapsed pancake-style and did not topple over.

This video explains what firefighters encountered when they reached the fire floor in WTC 2 minutes before it collapsed. Just so you know, when he says, "numerous 10-45's Code 1" a 10-45 is a fire-related injury, a Code 1 is dead.

This argues against the first-time in history claim that a building collapsed from fire.

This explains the explosions in the lobby and basement of the World Trade Center.

This is an excellent video on why the Tower's collapsed that I got much of my information from, mostly because it's use of layman's terms make it much easier to understand.

This is also an excellent website which has more of the technical information about the collapse of the towers.

EDIT: Realized I mentioned it a bunch of times and did not link to it; here is where you can find a copy of the NIST Report, called the "Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster"

1200 engineers would disagree and ask you to explain building 7.

First of all, it's not 1200 engineers. The vast majority of them are architects, with little experience on designing high-rises, much less construction, demolition, and building failure. Likewise, many engineers are not versed in this field as well. I'd be interested to see how many of these 1200 have advanced degrees in high-rise construction, demolition, and failure.

I would also point out that you haven't refuted one of the claims that I've made concerning WTC 1 and 2.

But here's the explanation for WTC 7:

PART ONE

"Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began."

"Heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building. Finally, the entire façade collapsed."

"WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires."

"The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present."

"The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."

In regards to that last sentence, the World Trade Center was not required to be built to current (1960s/1970s) safety standards at the time because it was a government building being used by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

"There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 51 (2001).

The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.

There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.

The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires."

PART 2

In regards to the "Free-Fall" Theory of WTC 7:

"In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available here), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available here) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available here).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* 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

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

All quotes are taken from the NIST Q&A website on World Trade Center 7 found here

You can also find a video here concering World Trade Center 7's collapse. It's information is not entirely accurate, as it worked mostly off of NIST's earlier theories before the research was 100% complete, but still interesting, nonetheless.

Also, I'm curious as to whether people know that World Trade Center 7 was rebuilt back in 2006. Were you aware of that? Not trying to be condescending or mean-spirited in anyway, I'm actually genuinely interested in how well-known that fact is.

my advice to you is don't get all hung up on theory a vs. theory b, or planes or no planes, or controlled demolition or conventional collapse, because at the end of the day, all that matters is that the official "investigation" was nothing more than a dog and pony show and this generation's warren commission. and while it is interesting to speculate as to the who and how, it is important not to lose sight of the simple fact that the official story cannot be true.

a documentary such as the new american century is a good starting point that should get you digging deeper.

Forget about all tinfoil hat sites, about all wacky theories, about lasers and holograms and israeli spies and missiles.

Just think about how one dead enemy (communism) was replaced by a new one ('islamofascists' terrorists). What the reaction was to that attack, the most impacting, visually gut-punching ever. Who benefited from the decisions and actions taken in retaliation. How the wars that followed became cash-cows for many entities providing support, material, services.

And how legislators since then bend over to pass and accept any new law or mandate, no matter how diminishing of citizen rights, as long as the word 'terror' is somewhere in there. Think about how those laws can make dissidence and activism a crime.

Think about who, in the end, benefited the most from that fucking bloody day's attack. You'll have your culprits right there. And also remember, it might not have been just one team out in the field that day. And 'the government' might have been also duped or taken by surprise.

Nice, especially this:

legislators since then bend over to pass and accept any new law or mandate, no matter how diminishing of citizen rights, as long as the word 'terror' is somewhere in there

Amen to that! 9/11 was entirely too theatrical.. It was meant to see with a lot of eyes so that the fear campaign could crack free from its slimy, hideous shell. Then when a perpetrator was fingered (hours later, imagine that!) the citizenry could become angry at 'Islamic Terrorists' and get behind the 'War on Terror'.

It's all one lie on top of another, and for what? Huge profits. Box cutters and jihadis that can outfly the Blue Angels have nothing to do with 9/11, and neither does some evil-looking Saudi that the US is supposedly looking for. No matter what Fox or any other mainstream shit-nipple feed you, this is about power in the wrong hands.

It's easy to set off a crapload of smoke bombs to hide squibs being recognized.

Well whatever the case, the 'official story' is obviously horse shit, not to mention a testament to how stupid they think we are.

wow its so weird that you were like 4-5 when the attacks happened...I wonder how that would affect how you see the government and geopoltics...I was around 11 at the time

I think you're getting a lot of downvotes because of your reference to 911myths.com. Most here consider it a laughingstock.

Google "War by deception" by Ryan Dawson. He ties it all together pretty well, with documented sources.

Another one is Coincidence Theory, which is sourced (and verified, I might add.)

If someone could do that there would have been a new civil war years ago.

well alright, by facts I don't mean like government approved facts. I mean who trusts the government anymore!? By facts I mean like a fact that says it's scientifically impossible that a plane can take down a building without any explosives implemented in the building.

Nothing is really impossible. Honestly though, if the government had a big hand in 911, they would obviously be able to cover their tracks, right? If they are behind it, there is proof out there, but I guarantee if is under lock and key. The US government has been hiding its skeletons for many years, it is very good at it.

When I watch the video of the buildings fall, I can see little puffs of smoke exiting the building below the line of collapse. Explosives, or air being blow out? Can't say for certain. When I visualize the collapse in my head, I do not know why the buildings came straight down, when the damage was most certainly not uniform across the level of impact. In my mind, I would think the portion of the buildings above the point of impact would creep and then slide off and make an unsymmetrical collapse. That is the thing that REALLY bugs me is how the buildings collapse SO uniformly. I have seen controlled demolitions with less order.

I have NO doubts we do not know the whole story. I also know we will never GET the full story. We're not supposed to. It was our generation's Pearl Harbor, and the government used it flawlessly to transition into a massive war against the middle east.

Thank you for the nice speech

Honestly though, if the government had a big hand in 911, they would obviously be able to cover their tracks, right?

Why? They couldn't even keep the identity of their own CIA agents secret. They wouldn't prevent members of their administration from getting found guilty on a felony charge. The powers of the executive branch are not that strong. Why do people make them out to be some kind of all-powerful entity with one big hivemind?

If they are behind it, there is proof out there, but I guarantee if is under lock and key. The US government has been hiding its skeletons for many years, it is very good at it.

Yet we know about a lot of them, and more are coming out all the time. The government is not that great at keeping secrets.

When I watch the video of the buildings fall, I can see little puffs of smoke exiting the building below the line of collapse. Explosives, or air being blow out? Can't say for certain.

Clearly air being blown out; no fire, only debris.

When I visualize the collapse in my head, I do not know why the buildings came straight down, when the damage was most certainly not uniform across the level of impact.

The top of the North Tower collapsed to the South, while the top of the South Tower collapsed to the East, falling the directions of where the planes hit and where the perimeter columns first began to fail. After all the columns failed, gravity pulled it straight down. Skyscrapers are nearly impossible to topple over; especially the way this one was designed.

In my mind, I would think the portion of the buildings above the point of impact would creep and then slide off and make an unsymmetrical collapse.

In addition to what I said above, it wasn't a uniform collapse. The core of both buildings stood for an additional 10-15 seconds after the outer columns fell away.

That is the thing that REALLY bugs me is how the buildings collapse SO uniformly. I have seen controlled demolitions with less order.

The debris field was spread out over 20 acres; the core stood while the rest of the building failed. I hardly call that uniformly or with order.

Pilotsfor911truth.org

Also just released (within the NIST FOIA library):

"'As The Bombs Were Going... I Sat And Watched A Few Of Them Explode'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjWLHVxLJas

well alright, by facts I don't mean like government approved facts. I mean who trusts the government anymore!? By facts I mean like a fact that says it's scientifically impossible that a plane can take down a building without any explosives implemented in the building.