It's easy to get upset at people for not thinking like you.

I know a couple people who cannot see this information. What I mean is I'll place this in front of them and spell out the implications and they'll go right back to standard dogmatic thinking in which Democrats and Republicans are different and the church is totally legit.

I used to get really upset. Now I find that I'm having to retrain myself for infinite patience.

Take heart - people are catching on slowly, but surely.

Stay positive, help people and remember to enjoy yourself once in a while.

[deleted]

I'm guilty of the same thing. Everyone in this sub should be willing to admit to being a prick in the early stages. I like to think of it as a rite of pasage. Now you know what it feels like to make an ass of yourself. Welcome to the club!

Unfortunately this sub doesn't allow you to hang out in real life. That said, there are others where you live. You just don't know it yet. You'll be able to sniff out your own in no time. And after an even longer period of time you'll even find that you don't mind the bullshit as much. It still sucks, mind you. It's just that when you get familiar with it the bullshit loses its power over you. And then it becomes almost a joke.

I was a late-bloomer. I caught on in my late twenties / early thirties. You seem like you're catching on at a very strange point. 23 was one of the worst years of my life. I think when you're that young and catching on to all of this the experience can be a bit overwhelming. I'm glad I caught on as late as I did. I'd have been burning a cross in the desert or something. I'm sure you'll be fine, though.

You're going to learn more. Some will be upsetting and some will be cathartic. Some of the information you'll learn will actually be useful and enriching. I'm not joking. Be aware that you'll end up, ironically, with a new set of prejudices. You're going to be exposed to information that you'll find threatening or distasteful. In some cases you should push through because there is something on the other side of that information. I'm only telling you this because even within this sub there are unofficially "off-limits" informationsets. Anyone who listens to Alex Jones can tell you what not to listen to. That's a clue, by the by.

Here's a lecture by my favorite woo-woo guy:

http://youtu.be/BqmwxHyhuzc

You may not know it yet, but you'll end up in much higher realms of thoughts. And remember not to think yourself a guru or some bullshit. If anyone says you're smart tell them to fuck off and blow smoke up some other poor sucker's ass. But no, really; you're going to enter higher realms of thought. I did. To stay sane.

Oh yeah, and try not to judge people too much. I fuck this one up daily.

I'm just saying. It's a good habit to get into.

Cheers.

[deleted]

"Never teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and annoy the pig."

Most people mean well. But this information can be very distressing. That in combination with the human mind's natural tendency to hold on to stable patterns means that the new and threatening information will reflexively be rejected in favor of the familar, on-threatening and stable beliefset that's already accepted. We all go through this.

I agree, though. I've been telling a couple people for years that there's no difference between the Reps and Dems and once in a while they actually see this in the actions of a given politician. These people see it for a flash and look at me with an astonished expression. I try to hold myself back. Because I know that in a week and a hald they'll tell me all about a given Dem or Rep in the standard dogmatic style of thought. If I allowed myself to get upset I'd be a raving maniac.

I focus on those who are open minded.

I try to mentally invest in things that will yield.

Yep, I too was a giant prick about when I first woke up. Glad it's a common thing ._. Now it's like... whatever. All I can do is hope others do too.

Probably the best post that I have read on r/c. Listen people!!!

I have but one upvote to give but you, dear sir, earned it. Cheers.

Maybe I'm just not to that point yet...but the best way I can explain it is that not feeling extreme prejudice and hatred for everyone(not "awake") makes me feel like I'm condoning the immense stupidity and willful ignorance, and adversely makes me berate myself.

I'm not saying at all that any given second of the day I'm about to have an aneurism but I simply, and absolutely refuse to condone the waking choices of the sleeping, destructive populace.

Hope that made sense.

I understand what you mean.

You wouldn't believe the yelling matches I'd get into. I actually lost friends because of this. Mind you they weren't the greatest friends anyway, but the point still stands. I had a zero tolerance policy as well. I tried to "wake people up" all day every day.

Over time I found that I wasn't really helping anyone. They thought of me as hostile. And how else could they have seen me? I was, in some cases, literally yelling about this stuff. Maybe not at them, but they couldn't see the difference. I was still approaching them as though I knew better than they did. You know - "it's everyone else who's crazy. Not me. I know very well what's really real." Not that I didn't know a thing or two. At the same time I know now things I didn't know then. I didn't really know that I'd know more things in the future. I thought I'd hit the motherload and, in true Victorian fashion, decided that the rest of my life would be spent on measurement to a further decimal point. Oh the follies of youth.

I would be lying if I didn't say that I still get upset about this. In public. And even to poor hapless people that I deem ignorant. Earlier today, in fact, I was pantomiming my hands, in public, maniacally / farcifully / derisively while chanting the phrase "plane go in - building come down" in an effort to illustrate how ridiculous the official 9/11 line sounds when stated. Thank God no one saw me other than my intended victim (a choir member fortunately). Yes, I have relapses. Most of the people with whom I hang are very forgiving.

Consider this:

If you see a thirsty man give him half a glass of water.

If he drinks it you give him the other half glass.

If he does not drink it you've only wasted half a glass.

Iknowthatfeelbrah.jpg

I've learned that discussion is the worst way to convince people of the truth. The best way to persuade people to change attitudes is to teach them to think for themselves.This is done by SHOWING people your ideas, rather than telling them your ideas. People want to see the truth, not just hear it. Just plant that tiny seed of doubt and curiosity in their mind. Peel the wool back just a little bit, and they will do the rest on their own.

I hear you and the OP. People have been conditioned to be against each-other and to trust the government, the 'heroes'. The protect and serve bunch. We don't trust each-other. Everyone is very apprehensive and always thinking you might have an ulterior motive.

Government is there to protect and help you. They make sure it's advertised on the news EVERY DAY with all kinds of stories about their research, new programs and concerns in order to show their care AND about who murdered who, who raped who, and who ate whos face, just to make sure you are scared of your neighbor coz he MIGHT BE AFTER YOU TOMORROW!!! Uncle Sam ready to protect you with a big grin and and a big collection bag just like in the old days, when Kings sent his cavalry to collect money from farmers. [Just now they have tollbooths set up.]

So that's why no one trusts you and can't see it. Your a slave just like them. The all mighty Uncle Sam knows whats up and whats good for them. And Uncle Sam is coming with a 18inch by 5inch wide strapon for their ass!

Now I find that I'm having to retrain myself for infinite patience.

This is commendable, but I guess you just have to make sure that you don't end up in an American-style concentration camp because that infinite patience didn't cause us to act before it was too late.

[deleted]

Patience is not apathy.

There are many things going on right now and it hard to know what the self-appointed rulers wish to do. The depopulation program does seem to be an actual thing. I don't know if it'll go from passive to active. Let's say they go active: what would they do? If I spent a lot of time talking about one plan and they used another plan I'd be organizing myself for the wrong eventuality. Which would void all of my effort. And that's assuming they go active. Which I'm not entirely sure will happen.

For right now people need to know that these things even exist.

To some extent even the detractors in this sub (in this very thread) are a part of the information dissemination process. They're sending out disinfo, but they're still talking about it. They're unwitting tools of knowledge and understanding. They'll force those of us who know to be more thorough in our understanding. They'll also tell others about this information. The disinfo people will tell this information in a negative tone, however, the people hearing this information cannot unhear it. When these things are validated by real-world experience the person who heard these things - even in a negative tone - will recall this information. They'll have little choice but to either bury their heads further or open up and start looking around.

When I say patience I mean patience.

If it comes to it I'd defend my friends, family and home. I'm hopeful that I'll never have to be at that point. In order to keep myelf safe and happy I think the first thing to do is start talking about this stuff. That's key.

Number one: you must discuss these things in public if the public is going to know about them. That doesn't mean hostility and it certainly doesn't mean yelling matches. Know who you're with, know the time, know the place. Feel it out. If you're coming off as a bore then change the subject. If the other person is receptive tell them as much as you think they can handle. When they start to feel tired or overwhelmed stop talking about this type of stuff and move on to movies or something.

I just realized that 'patience' sounds like inaction.

I'm pretty active.

Absolutely. Well-said indeed. Could not agree more. It must be a patience borne out of empathy and compassion, not one resulting from giving up and simply doing nothing as the world goes to hell around you.

This is much easier said than done, of course. I'll be the first one to admit this. The things that need to be done in order to combat the corruption that exists in this world can be truly, truly overwhelming. The forces of corruption on this planet seem all-reaching, all-pervasive, and all-powerful. They are wont to cause anyone to simply, patiently, and obstinately do absolutely nothing. I myself can veer toward this manner of being very easily. Therefore, while I personally feel that it is always advisable to start from place of personal perspective independent of anyone and everyone else around you - i.e. it seems the best resolve to combat TPTB involves and has to do with YOU deciding to do so autonomously and of your own independent accord and not because everyone else is doing it and you're simply blindly following and copying them - I also think that one should always work toward using their personal resolve to help others in whatever way one can whenever the chance or opportunity arises. Indeed, perhaps, some of those opportunities to help others should be created and not just waited for.

That thought crosses my mind now and again.

I'm not really sure what to do about it.

Let's say that there is something I can do about it. And I do it. Scroll down and look at username: hand_on_penis. Also look at username: _Dimension. I will not only be grappling with state powers - I'll be grappling with people lie that too. The Nazis were mostly dupes and rubes with a very few who really were bad. I'll bet that outside of this discussion hand_on_penis and _Dimension are probably people with whom I'd have a beer. That's a hell of a thought.

The only thing I can think of to 'combat' the situation is the disinfectant light of knowledge. I will talk and discuss these types of information sets for the rest of my life. The memory-hole stops here. You can't deal with a problem if you don't know it exists. But once you know it exists, you still need a thorough understanding of the problem lest you unintentionally make it worse by attempting to solve it using the wrong fix. Sort of like trying to fix a truck with a band-saw. Right tool for right job. This is the power of knowledge.

Most people do not even know there's a problem. My role in life is satori.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

I actually do think this can be turned around.

That thought crosses my mind now and again.

I'm not really sure what to do about it.

Here's what I said to OP regarding this very thing.

It's certainly not easy, and I won't pretend to have any easier a time than the next person. I can be extremely jaded. I think it's still certainly important to at least try not to be so jaded that you almost become part of that problem you combat, however, you know? (not saying you are doing this, btw)

I will not only be grappling with state powers - I'll be grappling with people lie that too.

OMG I so know what you mean. Often it's not really TPTB that are really the real counter forces against our going out of our way to fight the power, but the literal idiocy of many of those around you. I find this on Reddit quite regularly, as a matter of fact. It is for this reason that I'll simply take your word for it regarding the redditors you referenced and not look toward what they said. It would be liable to piss me off and make me majorly rage.

I'll bet that outside of this discussion hand_on_penis and _Dimension are probably people with whom I'd have a beer. That's a hell of a thought.

Well then think about it and realize the dichotomy involved here where the people you disagree with on here are also people you would likely otherwise get along well enough with under other circumstances. I try to remind myself of this often enough, and at least try not to take much of what happens here too negatively. I guess I try to address all of life with this particular dynamic and dictum as well, however. I try to realize that we humans - and, indeed, living beings in general - are really all family. We all have likes and dislikes, loves and individual problems that we have to deal with. Ultimately, and as I responded to OP in his initial response to me here, a lot of it has to do with making a continual effort toward exercising EMPATHY. Easier said than done of course, as we've already noted here, but finding the way toward it is certainly advisable.

The only thing I can think of to 'combat' the situation is the disinfectant light of knowledge.

This seems a correct enough choice, but 1) we ourselves are often the very ones that need the disinfecting - even when we think we are the ones that are in the right - and 2) even when we are right, there are others that are so infected, that the light does not have an easy time reaching them. Therefore, if one wants to help others, it is not enough to only possess the light. One has to be able to effectively disseminate that to others - not necessarily the same thing in the least.

Granted, sometimes if you have the light, all you have to do is be that light, and those that are receptive to it will naturally be attracted to it. Sometimes you don't have to do much other than BE. To take a popular phrase, only BE the change you want to see in the world, knowing that others may not understand or agree with it, but also being more than willing to talk to those that are interested.

You can't deal with a problem if you don't know it exists. But once you know it exists, you still need a thorough understanding of the problem lest you unintentionally make it worse by attempting to solve it using the wrong fix

Absolutely. We are saying almost the same thing.

My role in life is satori.

My goal in life is such, understanding that the human mind and vehicle might not have the easiest time on the way toward its attainment.

I actually do think this can be turned around.

What can? The state of unending, monumental human ignorance? I certainly think it can be significantly improved upon. That's for sure.

It's been 11 years. The "truther" movement is dying.

Which is why I never really counted myself as a 'truther.'

Not that I give a shit.

Statute of limitations on murder is until the murderer dies.

There has been no criminal investigation into 9/11.

No matter what you believe; we all know that those who did 9/11 are still "on the loose."

I think you think this is a wrist-band or a fashion accessory. You misunderstand.

No matter what you believe; we all know that those who did 9/11 are still "on the loose."

This makes you a truther

And no, I don't think it's a fad of some sort.

Take heart - people are catching on slowly, but surely.

The truther movement isn't gaining any sort of strength or additional following. It's shrinking. No one is "getting the word out" (certainly not by posting something on the internet) and people aren't "catching on", they are caring less and less

I used to get really upset. Now I find that I'm having to retrain myself for infinite patience.

They get upset because, after 11 years, they are tired of you and people like you saying 9/11 was an inside story and/or hasn't been investigated. It isn't because they vote [D] or [R] or love Jesus or whatever, but it's nice you think you are much smarter than those around you. How's the view up there on that pedestal of yours?

1.) If you wish to identify me as a "Truther" that's fine.

It's beyond my control what you think of me.

2.) I belong to no groups, hold no cards, have no paid or unpaid subscriptions, attend no meetings and distrubute no pamphlets. What a given person thinks about 9/11 is their business. Those who wish to know more are of interest. For example; you do not seem to wish to know more. Ergo you would not be of interest.

No offense. I'm only telling you my thought process.

Yes. People are catching on that things regarding 9/11 are "fishy." Sibel Edmonds will back me up on this; and many who served on the 9/11 Commission. Which was blocked by the W. Bush administration. not that you care.

The only reason I think 9/11 is of interest is because foreign and domestic policies are still based on 9/11. Since there was no criminal investigation [acknowledged by those on The 9/11 Commission] we can assume that those who committed 9/11 are still "on the loose." That is to say - we don't really know who did it or why. Not officially. Not publicly. This doesn't seem to bother you as much as it does me.

When I think of other people discussing 9/11 my main thought is: people discussing this at high enough levels means there's the possibility that those who committed 9/11 might - might - stand trial. I would love to hear who did 9/11. Mujahadeen or not. I don't really care who did it. I just want to know who did it.

Perhaps I think this is more significant than you. Perhaps not.

3.) I've been lied to so many times by my own government that I don't take what it has to say as undeniable truth. If you think the government is telling the truth that's fine. Many whistle-blowers who used to work within the government would disagree with you. But you may think as you wish.

My view. It's okay. Sometimes I can see the mountains. They're pretty cool.

Not sure why you formatted your post that way but whatever. Here it goes:

If you wish to identify me as a "Truther" that's fine. It's beyond my control what you think of me. I'm not a Truther and don't specifically care what [the public] thinks about 9/11.

"Truthers" are people who don't believe "the official story" of 9/11. You don't think the government is telling the truth, thus you are a truther.

Yes. People are catching on that things were off. The only reason I think this is of interest is because since there was no criminal investigation [acknowledged by those on The 9/11 Commission] we can assume that those who committed 9/11 are still on the loose." People discussing this means there's the possibility that those who committed 9/11 might - might - stand trial. Perhaps I think this is more significant than you. Perhaps not.

Jump to conclusion. When a mass murder kills himself after his killing spree, they don't have a criminal trial because the murderer is dead. That doesn't magically mean "the real killer is still on the loose" or some similar bullshit. Similarly, the 19 hijackers were (obviously) killed on impact when the four planes crashed, thus no trial for them. Others involved in September 11th attacks are in Guantanamo and other places, and I do not agree (necessarily) with their treatment. However, that does not automatically mean "the real perpetrators" are still on the loose.

I've been lied to so many times by my own government that I don't take what it has to say as undeniable truth. If you think the government is telling the truth that's fine. Many whistle-blowers who used to work within the government would disagree with you. But you may think as you wish. My view. It's okay. Sometimes I can see the mountains. They're pretty cool.

You do realize that the government is not only not one person, but also the members of the government are ever changing, with each administration and elections and whatnot? Right?

1.) I do not know how to use "quotation tags." I keep meaning to look into it but have not. My understanding is that I can download a "reddit suite" thing and make mine look very fancy. I have not done this because it seems unnecessary. And so I use good old Aristotelian classification. Thank you Greece.

2.) If you wish to think of me as a 'Truther' then that's how you think of me.

I'm sorry that my view of myself does not agree with your view of myself.

While I have it in mind:

What you're doing is called 'nominalization.'

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/zombie-nouns/

Using it in the political sphere typically means that you're grouping people together based on the criteria of the observer rather than the criteria of the observed. The most common usage of this technique is as a way of dehumanizing, deriding, ridiculing people you don't like. E.g. "Truther", "Birther", "Teabagger", "Abolitionist", "Global-Warming-Denier", "Occupier", "Voter" (think about that last one). These are linguistic tricks employed by marketers and propagandists (two out of the last three words were technically nominalizations).

I do not like nominalization when used as a pejorative because it takes away from a given person's humanity. I have no such nominalization for you because I don't wish to dehumanize you. If your name were Bert I'd just call you Bert. There's no need to place a language film between us so that we frame our discourse in hostile terms.

Hence my aversion to that sort of terminology.

Dignity, bro.

3.) A.) No. Who the hijackers were and how many were killed is, in fact, still in question. Between one and seven (depending on who you ask) were found to be alive after 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:9-11_hijackers

There's also the question of how they got their passports. This guy dealt with visas:

http://youtu.be/inuo5rfYAHs

Wait. A CIA connection? With the hijackers?

Extracurricular - If you're into lectures (I love lectures) this one has a few nice details:

http://youtu.be/G43zl4fzDQg

If we're going to simply take everything the 9/11 Commission says as rote then why bother with an examination of anything? But that's ridiculous. We need not examine anything official. Neither the Vatican nor any government has ever lied.

B.) The criminal justice system isn't 'magic.' Certainly not to me.

C.) The alleged hijackers [who may or may not be alive] are all fine and well, but I'd like to kow more about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed

The entry :Removal from ISI.

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh

Do you see that there are two different names here for the same action? One article says it was one guy. Another article says it was a different guy posing as the first. The Socratic Method employed here would be simple: an internally contradictory argument is necessarily invalid. Or, to put it another way: You can't claim that two different people did the same action if there was only one action being performed. (Three stooges - one door)

The above is one single example of shenanigans. Officially uninvestigated on a public level.

Here's another:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/us/tape-of-air-traffic-controllers-made-on-9-11-was-destroyed.html

D.) The alleged terrorists in Guantanamo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

Many within the CIA have publicly stated that torture doesn't yield "actionable intelligence." Translation: they'll confess to anything because you're hurting them. These people may as well have confessed to killing Laura Palmer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2

Another fun one that seems highly relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Torture

"The assertion that "confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum" (literally: (a person's) confession is truth, not made by way of torture.) sometimes follows a description of how, after torture had ended, the subject freely confessed to the offenses. Thus, all confession acquired by means of torture were considered completely valid as they were supposedly made of the confessor's own free will."

E.) Yeah. The people who funded 9/11 are still on the loose. How do we know this?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

Page thirteen of the PDF - 143 of the stated text at the bottom.

Paragraph four. Sentences one and two.

"We estimate that the total cost of the 9/11 attacks was somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000. The hijackers spent more than $270,000 in the United States, and the costs associated with Moussaoui were at least $50,000."

We already know that there was a $100,000 transfer from Pakistan. Where did the other 300k / 400k come from? And the last 50k? They didn't have jobs (this is in the PDF link, by the way). If they didn't have jobs where did that money come from? I think a lot of people would like to know where they can get their own free mystery money. The very next page says that Osama bin Laden wasn't funding this incidentally.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

"A MONEY TRAIL?"

"The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al Qaeda financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11."

Several paragraphs later:

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

. . . so yeah. They're still "on the loose."

4.) Yes politicians change. They also seek the advice of people who have been around a long time. I think you think it's a revolving door. To a limited extent I agree. I would tell you about Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Haass, N. G. Mankiw, Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissenger - as a couple examples that spring to mind - but I don't think you'd be as interested in the discussion as I would.

Like I say; think what you will.

I can back up my opinions a.) with official sources and b.) without resorting to piquant bold italics.

Yeah, that last sentence was a bit much. But it rolled off the tongue so nicely.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. I mean no ill-will. I have a lot of free time to read up on things and the results, in my case, have shown that a lot of what I used to think was "real" wasn't exactly "real." My focus has been on economics, foreign / domestic policies, overlaps between public & private (less clear these days) and other random things [non-Aristotelian cosmology is becoming a lot more interesting these days]. Think of it this way: I could've spent the same amount of obsessive energy on the Spice Girls. This is far more amusing / enlightening, yes?

If it makes you feel any better I feel like this most days:

http://youtu.be/_nTpsv9PNqo

[deleted]

They didn't release "a few frames". They released the whole video.

The problem is that the video is 320x200 and is shot at a staggering 1fps.

video 1

video 2

My personal highlight is the police car going by at 1 fps.

I'm infinitely skeptical that this was the only video the pentagon has of the incident (save for that shitty video from the convenience store). It's the damned pentagon. There have to be so many different cameras watching so many different angles...

Why does there "have to be"?

Every check if there was? The problem is the assumption. Pentagon = lots of cameras. The reality is what is important.

1 fps ... that shit is brutal.

Erm. Look up in the sky when a plane is flying overhead, and quite often there's a white trail behind it.

thats not smoke bro, its water vapor

a plane cause this little dmg but then cause the towers to collapse?

The planes only caused a similar amount of damage to the towers at initial impact.

It was the weight of collapsed floors, plane fuselage, and weakening of supports through fire that caused interior support/floors to collapse. Each one compounding the problem for the floor below it. When enough floors collapsed the tug inward caused the walls to begin collapsing.

Funny that the damaged section was so effortlessly able to move through the rest of the undamaged building....

What? Specify what you're talking about there.

The section of the towers above the damage line moves through the path of MOST resistance (the rest of the undamaged building) quite quickly when it starts to fall. This does not compute.

Then you're watching different videos than I am.

I see the rest of the building start to fall, collapsing in on itself, with the top part tipping towards the hole (as expected).

well why would the rest of the (undamaged) building fall if the top bit is admittedly listing towards the damage?

Because the floors inside have given away.

As the floors collapsed on themselves under the load of plane fuselage, other debris, and weakened by fire, they fell on the floor bellow them. That floor would hold for a bit, before collapsing again, and again, each time resting for less and less time.

The floors do more than give you something to stand on, they also add structural support to the walls of the building. As the floors begin failing rapidly on their decent, they 'pull' the walls inward, causing the building to collapse inwards/straight down, and not to one side (or at least not much to one side, there probably was some minute tilt, but not enough in time to actually cause a timber like effect).

The top of the building, however, didn't get an equal pull. As it began to feel the pull from the collapse, it was met with less resistance where the hole from the plane was. It does tip in that direction if you watch, but it doesn't fall sideways faster than gravity, since there wasn't enough force to create more sideways momentum than downwards momentum.

So if, for example, the plane had hit at the bottom of the building, you probably would have gotten the tipping motion we all expected.

Make sense?

"As the floors collapsed on themselves under the load of plane fuselage..."

OMFG, do you realize how ridiculous this sounds??

A plane weighs nothing compared to the dynamic loading the building was designed to withstand (a 150-year storm with winds over 100mph sustained)--let alone the static loading of people, steel, concrete, furniture, computers, etc.

Also please note that "jet fuel" (kerosene aka JetA) will struggle to burn at 1500F in a pure oxygen environment. The steel in WTCI and II was ASTM-E119 steel which (according to UL) would not even lose strength at 1500F. ASTM-E119 is certified for exposure to direct 2000F heat for three hours (unfireproofed) without weakening. And we can both agree that it was nowhere near a "pure oxygen" environment!

Indeed, IR images and first-hand witnesses/experts (firemen) suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F, which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

So save us the "weakened by fire" argument. It didn't happen. Sorry 'bout that.

OMFG, do you realize how ridiculous this sounds??

Less ridiculous than anything you're putting forward?

A plane weighs nothing compared to the dynamic loading the building was designed to withstand (a 150-year storm with winds over 100mph sustained)--let alone the static loading of people, steel, concrete, furniture, computers, etc.

The load is presumed to be attached to walls and have proper structural support. An airplane sized hole in one side changes that.

ASTM-E119 is certified for exposure to direct 2000F heat for three hours (unfireproofed) without weakening.

Without the added stress applied to it. You need to add that asterisk there. Even so, there is the 'and that's when they completely collapse on their own, and a 'they aren't as strong as they used to be' point which is far, far lower.

So it did happen. Sorry 'bout that.

Well, its obvious that you and I can beat each other over the head with "facts" all day long.

I am not going to argue this because I just do metallurgy--I am not a structural engineer.

Read the design parameters of these buildings and see if you can wrap your mind around how insanely overbuilt these buildings were. The guy who designed them said that they were designed to be hit by airplanes with possibly no loss of life except for fire.

I don't know more about the towers than the designers. I guess that you do though. So I give up.

Cheers.

You mean they made a mistake in calculations between the drawing board and real world aplication and wear and tear over time?

You're claiming you know more about the towers than all the engineers and researchers that disagree with you. What's a few more?

I'd like to know of a document that could point me in the right direction. Do you have one?

I also agree with the 3000 members of A&E Truth, and their website and evidence is open for your review. Can you give me a website where

all the engineers and researchers that disagree with you

are?

Thanks.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

With sources such as MIT, National Fire Protection and the University of Sydney... among others.

Start there.

As for your A&E truth site... seen it before, not impressed. They seem more interested in saying where they are, and what they're doing, then presenting evidence, and I"m not searching through there on the promise that I'll find it somewhere in there someday.

That looks somewhat credible. I'll read it with an open mind.

The pancake theory? Really? Come on now, I thought you were better than this

If you have the time Here is a 10 minute breakdown

The buildings didn't fall in 'just 10 seconds'. They were hit, and it took many floors starting to give way before they reached a tipping point bringing down the buildings.

ok buddy, total straw man argument there....why don't you actually watch and absorb all of the info the videos I linked to have to offer, then if you disagree go through all of the reasons why the points made are incorrect.

You are just taking one small thing, and changing the context of the phrase "took ten seconds to collapse"

Not really a straw man, but what ever.

If you're willing to admit, right now, that the clock on floors collapsing started when the plane hit, and not when we first see the walls fall, I'll happily go through and refute them point by point.

So, did the buildings collapse in 10 seconds?

dude what?

We are talking about the physical collapse, from when the antenna budged, to when it hits the ground.

Collapse began the moment the plane hit the building. Floods Floors and structures within the building began falling. That's when we start the clock. If you can't agree with that, we won't really have anywhere to work from.

The official story is that the Pentagon is designed to withstand impacts of such magnitudes: hence the 'layering' of its structure.

What I don't understand:

Was the difference in structural integrity between the Pentagon and WTC Towers that vast? One would suspect that the damage would be similar, dispute the integrity of the structure.

Also, it would behoove oneself to recall the only footage of the 'plane' hitting the Pentagon doesn't actually show an aircraft of any kind.

[deleted]

yep, which raises the question as to why they cleaned up the wreckage so quickly

wouldn't engineers be curious as to how their design failed?

They also sold most of the broken, twisted, burned, melted beams as scrap for a huge proffit before they could be collected and analyzed as evidence.

And, remember, sold at a loss at the time as the scrap market was in the toilet.

The ZioNazis would have paid to have that steel removed so quickly--but conveniently didn't have to as an Israeli company stepped right up and got that metal to China in record time.

Correct usage of "begs the question", can be found here.

thanks!

No problem. I used to use it incorrectly for years myself, as there's a common misconception as to what it actually means.

Same. And as I recall, there was a similar accident with the Empire State Building, which still stands.

not as big of a plane but still a valid point

They were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 (the largest plane at the time--1964) travelling at 600mph easily.

In fact, Leslie Robertson, the lead engineer, said that no type of impact could bring either tower down. He knew the fires would kill a lot of people but asserted "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

Frank Demartini, on-site construction engineer during the building of the towers, said in early 2001--"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

So...who to trust? Reddit trolls and "debunkers" or the men who designed and built the buildings in the first place?

tl;dr: Building's designers say planes wouldn't cause significant damage let alone complete structural failure

They also said the Titanic was unsinkable...

maybe you should ask all the people on the freeway who saw the plane passing overhead.

I worked there last year as a computer tech. When the earthquake happened I noticed that people seemed a little more on edge than I was but I thought nothing of it. Then as we were waiting to get back inside, I heard a woman talking to another coworker about her thinking it was an attack.

It didnt even occour to me that this could have been a possibility. Apparently back in 2001 she was on the DoD shuttle coming back from Crystal City when she saw the plane fly in and hit. She said that the explosion rocked the shuttle, which was some distance away.

Ok here we go. I would like to point out a few things. First of all, why use a missile when you could use a plane. Also, look at the first picture, its not showing you the bottom floor, making it look like there are no wing marks. They did the same thing in the loose change video, which makes me think this is disinformation. The second photo is a shot from the top, again ignoring the wing marks on the bottom of the building. Also, keep in mind this did not have to be a 757/767, it could have been a slightly smaller plane (total speculation). A reason why they didn't release video of the crash might have been the plane type, or more likely secondary explosions (again total speculation). If you aren't a disinfo agent, I would urge you not to jump to conclusions so quickly. You want to know why you cant convince people 9/11 was an inside job? It's because you don't have your facts in line, you can't say a missile hit the pentagon for certain, there isn't enough evidence for it. I know its a shitty feeling when you realize you have been preaching disinfo and have a lot of emotion invested in it, but it is what it is.

Edit : for the record, Mosad and CIA most likely carried out the attacks. Nano thermite and explosives were used to bring down the towers, building 7 was just more controlled demo without as many explosives. A plane was probably headed there and never made it.

You use a missile because you CAN'T use a plane.

It is all about logistics and risk, people would need to be trained to fly a plane because no pilot would do that if his life is forfeit anyway.

And flying a plane is damn hard while missiles are guided.

The planes were remote hijacked and remote controlled / gps controlled to their targets. Its almost impossible to hit the world trade center with a plane, pilots with 40+ years of experience say so. Yet amateur pilots who were only trained on very small aircraft were able to do it.

If all my years of flying flight sims on computer have taught me anything, hitting buildings is not a problem, avoiding them is WAY more difficult.

Which is the point since you have to hit SPECIFIC buildings.

1st) you know my point was meant as a joke. But since you said something it made me think:

2nd) Is it really harder to hit a runway than a building? If you can come close to landing one of these things, hitting something vertical can't really be that much harder.

You could in WTC(but I have my doubts on that) but Pentagon is low altitude so you have to dodge allot of shit to get there.

Also in the "official" story you don't really have anyone with anywhere near the training of real pilot.

I'm pretty sure while they don't have real pilot training, somewhere they learned how to aim it at a thin patch of concrete on the ground.

Also, and this has always bothered me about that claim, here is google maps around the pentagon. There really isn't that much to dodge. I'm not sure which side they came in on in the map, but it's a pretty straight shot from most directions.

All of the instructors who trained the alleged hijackers on record say the dudes couldn't fly for shit. just saiyan

You don't need to be an awesome driver to park your car in a garage. Just good enough.

These guys weren't dogfighting. Just pointing at a rather LARGE building and going straight.

A good analogy but not well used in my opinion. Parking a car and piloting a rather large jet aircraft aren't comparable. Any asshole can get into a car and park it. It takes an asshole with skills to pilot an airliner.

edit: And no they weren't just "pointing at a rather LARGE building and going straight"

Really? The hard parts are done for them. Take off is already handled when they take it over, after that they just have to know enough to point it in a direction. And that's why they took classes before getting in the pilot seat. To know enough about flying to aim the plane. They didn't have to be crack pilots to pull of a kamikaze mission.

Watch the Mythbusters episode where they were talked down without training by someone on the outside. If you can do that, then 40 hours of familiarity with the systems will probably be good enough to get you to point it in a direction.

I saw that episode actually, makes me feel better knowing if I had to I would potentially be able to land a plane haha. But still at those speeds, in that type of aircraft, hitting a specified building is no easy feat. Especially when real pilots say that hitting the twin towers with their experience would be very difficult

Those jets were flying full throttle. The air speeds were close to 500 MPH. There is video footage of the approach of the 2nd plane that shows it in a dive bombing maneuver to correct altitude then level off HARD and a split second later it smashes into the south tower.

The boys at Pilots for 9/11 truth went apeshit over that footage. It was practically unaminous that the plane was under remote control.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'level off' as the plane was still in descent as it hit. (you can even see the flames spread downward across the floors after contact).

That 'pilots for 9/11' are unanimous in something, doesn't make 'pilots' unanimous in something.

I stand by my claim that if someone can aim generally at a runway, and bring it in, then they can aim at a wider target that doesn't require as much up and down flutzing.

More over, from the little I've done with planes, slower speeds can make them harder to fly as you have to worry more about stalling out. As long as you're not flying so fast you won't overtake your target, you can pretty much point the nose at it, and gun it.

I don't believe foe a second that flying a 767 is as easy as you are leading on. A lot more people would be getting their pilots license if that were the case.

Take a look at the approach of the 2nd plane in the footage I was talking about at 4:45. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrcX4FeuxM

The problem with getting a pilots liscense is cost of training. Not necessarily the ability to hold the plane level.

So please explain this - why is it easier to remote control a plane (presumably watching though a monitor of a camera view only), than to pilot one that someone is actually flying, that you can actually look out of the cockpit windows, and judge distances and trajectories through?

Fill in the blanks here, because this doesn't really add up for me.

It depends largely on how they were guided. Computerized satellite guidance using GPS is practically flawless. It's doubtful that the old joystick method was used.

Watch the 2nd plane approach at 4:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrcX4FeuxM

2ndly remote removes the possibility of human error, indecision or any other human nature that could jeopardize the obscene intentions of the mission.

ok bro

There was NO WAY those idiot "terrorists" were flying those planes. Remote control made sure the planes hit their intended target and it was insurance in case "the terrorists"" changed their minds. But...I dont think those "terrorists" ever even got on the planes.

that's what I said.... reply to him not to me

Could it not have been a UAV/Drone? They have been in the air, unmanned since way before 9/11, and a plane would still have to make it past Norad (which, apparently, was no difficult task, this is another overlooked connection that is HUGE.)

You have to remember that it was 2001,they were probably still researched back then,I'm not sure on the timeline.

But there is another reason why you don't want a plane and that is if the plane for some reason fails or something happens you are really screwed with the evidence.

I was in Crystal City VA on 9/11 in a very tall condo building overlooking the entire Pentagon complex and there simply was no airplane. Granted I did not see the (missile?) hit but I saw the aftermath less than 10 minutes later. Unless the body, wings, tail, and engines mysteriously liquefied or something I'm pretty sure of what I did not see.

I did some work with an on screen ruler, and came to the conclusion that the blast hole is about 62.8 feet wide.

You're pretty close, assuming we talk about the width of the collapsed part on picture 1. But the damage extends beyond the part that collapsed. It's visible in picture 1, on both sides of the collapsed part on the lower floors. On the left we can see the ground floor is damaged at least up to the lamp post, and on the right up to the American flag. Here are clearer pictures of the damage on the left side and on the right side.

So the official story is that a plane, that would roughly 2/3 eclipse the lawn area we see in photo 2 hit the pentagon, the wings disappeared into thin air, and the windows are all still there?

I don't understand what you mean by "2/3 eclipse the lawn area" but you may be overestimating the size of the plane. The Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 125ft, only twice as wide as the collapsed part. The whole fuselage and both engines would fit in the collapsed part alone, with only part of the wings protruding on each side.

As for "the windows are still there", they aren't (see my previous point).

All in all, a 757 hitting the Pentagon is not as obviously incompatible with the evidence as you claim.

"... and the windows are still there?"

That side of the Pentagon had been recently retrofitted with blast-resistant windows and other reinforcement.

All you say in your post is that you "think" there would be more damage than you can see in a couple of photographs, neither of which actually show the full extent of the damage.

This despite dozens of witnesses seeing the plane, despite the fact that the black boxes, engine blades, landing gear, etc. were found in the Pentagon. Not to mention that remains of more than 50 passengers from the plane were found in the Pentagon.

Can you come up with something besides "I think"?

Obviously the missile carried inflatable corpses.

*and AA plane parts

"despite the fact that the black boxes, engine blades, landing gear, etc. were found in the Pentagon"

Wondering if you have evidence of this? Never seen any, just wondering.

• http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
• http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
• Forensic feat IDs nearly all Pentagon victims
• Searchers find Pentagon black boxes
• NTSB analysis of flight data recorder

Remember that the "black box" found in the Pentagon shows the cockpit door closed from the time the engines were spooled up on the tarmac until impact.

Please explain why.

[deleted]

Considering that your entire argument is based on speculation that is totally unsupported by any facts you should be careful making posts like this. It displays a very high level of hypocrisy on your part.

I like how reason is downvoted here. There is overwhelming evidence to support the fact it was a plane. This is all tinfoil conspiracy. Now, did the US leadership allow it to happen? That is much more likely.

I have you labeled as jewish cunt...oh you are a /r/conspiratard. Makes sense.

Wow. The level of ignorance you displayed there is simply astounding.

i think he meant to say hasbara

Well, there goes your argument. And then you ask why no one believes your stupid theories. You just make a fool out of yourself when presented with real questions and arguments.

[deleted]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Very solid argument. I am now convinced.

I'm sure this had been answered before, but could someone explain what happened to the plane then if it did not hit the pentagon? This is out of sheer curiosity, not trying to start a fight or deny...

If the country had better education we'd have less conspiracy theorists.

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

TLDR:

Physics is hard

I'd like to mention that F4 Phantom II weighs 30k lbs empty, and a 737 Jet weighs, at it's smallest model, twice that, also empty. Just saying, this is not the same, except to say that reinforced concrete IS hard, but riddled with window holes, it obviously did NOT withstand the impact that hit the pentagon.

Point taken, but I don't think the plane was going 500 mph...

400? 300? Why split hairs? The government was inept and possibly LET this atrocity take place and we have people trying to claim there was no plane at the pentagon? These types of conspiracy theorists are JUSt as bad as the govt that let this happen.

I'm just using science to dispute this science. E = 0.5mv^2, so getting the velocity right is a very big deal.

And I'm just using logic to dispute insanity. Occam's razor vs tin foil hats.

I'm not even sure what your point is. You post the video, then dispute its content's applicability to the subject matter at hand?

My point was the OP is silly to think there was not a plane that hit the pentagon. I posted that video to highlight that sometimes reality does not align with what our brains envision.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/znl8p/happy_anniversary_september_10_2001_defense/c66724f

I wouldn't even want to get into that bullshit discussion.

If you call them out they'll go to the default Reddit bullshit of "You're not into what Science says happened! Homeopathy believer!"

It's not worth it man, fuck the people who obey and never dare question what really happened.

I think the ones who can knowledgeably discuss this have questioned what really happened, but then once they discovered the answers actually accepted them.

Just because you got all pooped out after watching loose change doesn't mean you've looked at everything.

Attitudes like this is the reason no one wants to believe your crazy theories.

Oh i'm sorry, guess I can't have doubts about Science.

I'll go back to believing science is infallible right around when you shut the fuck up about other peoples beliefs.

You said it: "beliefs". Sure, you can have faith without evidence, if that makes you happy.

So it's okay to believe a theory of science that has no evidence, but once you venture out of the confines of "science" you look down upon people?

Whatever guy, have fun worshiping science.

So the plan was to fly real planes into the WTC, fake a plane into the Pentagon, crash a real plane into a PA field, hit the pentagon with a missle and use explosives on WTC7. Then they hid the real flight 77, killed the passengers and faked phone calls from 2 passengers to their families?

You're so right, how could anyone believe anything else!?

Oh and include the team they had on standby to scatter pieces of plane wreckage near the pentagon. The team that wired wtc to collapse, the missile team that operated the pentagon missile, the team that made the fake phone calls, the team that kidnapped the flight 77 passengers and hid a plane, the team that faked flight 77 on radar so well that ATC thought it actually existed.

Again, this is so easy to see I wonder why more people believe the stuff they see on the news.

Cell phones could of not made the calls from the planes in 01.

So the government faked something that was not possible in order to make things look normal?

Tell me more, I'm fascinated by your logic.

there was a post on abovetopsecret that clearly proved a plane hit the pentagon...

[deleted]

It was rescue workers who collapsed the roof, for "safety" of the "rescue" workers.

The best evidence that it wasn't a plane is the fact that hundreds of cameras surround the place and not one photo has been released showing anything hitting the Pentagon. It they had any pics of a plane, they would have been on the front page of every newspaper.

[deleted]

[deleted]

There will always be questions as long as people like you continue to ignore the facts of what happened in favor of your fantasies. The facts are that hundreds, if not thousands, of people saw the attack happened and saw the plane fly into the building. Tons of debris from the aircraft were removed from the Pentagon during the clean-up. I know that you'll ignore these facts because they don't fit in to the scenario that you've built for yourself but they are still facts.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

Again, you hypocrites downvote FACTS. If you ignore the facts you generally look like a crazy person.

I've not found one picture of aircraft wreckage and the Pentagon in the same frame. Amazingly there are plenty of shots of aircraft wreckage, and plenty of shots of the pentagon with a hole, but I can't find one with a nice wide field of view or aerial shot that shows me a burning pentagon and a wrecked plane at the same time. Odd.

And NOTHING out of the ordinary has presented itself to you when looking at the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE (something you claim to be a big fan of) regarding complete cover up of WTC7 and the sale of the nearly ALL of the scrap metal from all 3 sites before being analyzed? Imagine for a minute that you are completely correct and a plane crashed into the Pentagon, vaporizing itself on impact and still continuing through the building hard enough to punch a hole through the inner ring. Imagine that's all true, and then you turn your debunking attention towards the WTC buildings. Are you going to say that it's still all legit? I really would like to know a simple yes or no on this one.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Clearly you are not well informed on anything to do with what happened on 9/11. You should really try reading anything that hasn't been filtered through Alex Jones.

can you just show us the jumbo jet in the pentagon?

ill save you the trouble of fetching rense pics.

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

a few scraps of debris does not a jumbo jet make.

and you can spare us the story about

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/757-americanlogo.jpg

being a jumbo jet too.

how many ways can they crop the same piece of "wreckage"?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

http://history.defense.gov/images/impact911_11.jpg

http://images.lineofdeparture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/010911-10-Pentagon-300x225.jpg

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=11161&format=homepage_fullwidth

Yeah, ask the guys over at /r/rsmithing how difficult it is to heat even a soft metal up to near liquid properties. Within a forge that was specifically designed for that purpose. Not saying that parts of a plane wouldn't do that, but definitely not the entirety. The resulting fire would have been raging, along the path the liquid plane took, for hours, if not days afterwards.

the phrase "behaving like a liquid" doesn't mean that the metal was literally liquified and molten but that a lot of the plane was reduced to small particles which continued to carry enough momentum to wreak havok and which behaved like a liquid/gas (the flow equations are essentially the same afaik).

I've had this argument before. So I know where it is heading.

First off here is a good photo illustration of the size and placement of the hole on the Pentagon.

Here are the most important holes in more detail without the color shape blocking them:

http://i.imgur.com/JP92X.jpg

Now in this picture, do we agree that there is no building above the white car? Can we agree that is a hole?

http://i.imgur.com/Odhd3.jpg

In this photo can we agree that the hole starts to the left of the right most firefighter?

In this photo can we agree that there is a hole near the firefighter on the left (holding the hose and just left of the spool)?

If the answer is yes, to all these questions, then the dimensions in the first illustration are correct. A plane could easily fit in the hole with one exception, the very ends of the wings have the least amount of mass and would do the least amount of damage.

There's a hole. We can agree on that.

There's no plane in any of the photographs to which you've linked.

So, you're showing a hole with no plane. Which is the point of this thread.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

[EDIT]

Nevermind. I just looked at your comment history.

I'm pretty sure your next post will be that there was a plane and it totally did evaporate.

The OP was talking about the hole. So I gave evidence of a hole.

There is plenty of physical evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

First off, you need to realize a plane moving at 500mph does disintegrate.

Secondly a lot of the plane ended up inside of the Pentagon. For example, here is the landing gear.

More debirs

Here as a bonus:

45+ witnesses that saw a plane, 23 that specifically said an American Airlines jet

[EDIT Reply] Well that is funny because I did post a video of a plane evaporating. Unless the people who crashed the F4 were involved in the conspiracy too right?

The reason you see large pieces of planes in conventional aircraft accidents is because the pilot is trying very hard not to hit the ground hard. In other words, he slows WAY DOWN. So when the plane crashes, hopefully he won't be turned into very little pieces. I hope you agree with me that pilots are trying to live when they crash right? Terrorists on the other hand, fly maximum speed into a bomb reinforced wall. Which in turn is the exact opposite of someone not trying to die in a plane crash. So thus, flying very fast = lots of little pieces... trying to crash in a conventional accident the pilot slows way the fuck down and tries to land without a runway = big pieces

Is that so hard to understand?

[deleted]

Yeah, that's not at all true. Air density isn't going to negate simple inertia.

That's utter rubbish.

"In the aftermath of 9/11, I have heard many claims that a 757 could not possible have hit the Pentagon because the plane cannot fly so low to the ground at speeds of 500 mph or more. The primary reason given is that ground effect prevents this from happening. Is there any truth to this claim?"

Funny that you are good at finding facts that support your theories and bad at finding facts that discredit your theories.

Top speed: 609 mph Cruising speed: 500 mph

Finally, some reason. People can't get past their own stupidity sometimes.

So I was right.

You really are of the opinion that there was a plane and that it did disappear.

http://youtu.be/EZbkq9vSDMU

So uh, what happened to the F4?

Reading your posts is a little like this:

http://youtu.be/MtQHFfzWuLo

I'm uninterested in any discourse with you beyond this. You have the floor.

archonemis, you are tearing me apart!

no not really.

I think A&E for truth should search for real proof. Like where the fuck is Tommy Wiseau from?

If this is the case, why the dissonance between crash sites?

I have seen a few wreckage photos where planes have crashed into mountains going full-speed. They leave lots and lots of huge pieces of wreckage.

Am I to believe that an aluminum tube hit the pentagon, left a neat 16-foot hole through THREE rings of steel and kevlar-reinforced concrete, then magically disappeared before the outside of the building collapsed later?

If this is the case you believe in one hell of a "conspiracy theory!"

What about the two engines--6 tons each of very high grade steel and titanium? Where are the holes for those?

I already pointed out the hole are large enough for them. Read it again.

Derr I'm gonna downvote cause these facts don't fit in to my paraniod narrative!

You're a fucking moron...

Undeniable truth OP, stay strong http://imgur.com/WzhqW

damn you.... DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!

Probably the best post that I have read on r/c. Listen people!!!

I have but one upvote to give but you, dear sir, earned it. Cheers.

thats not smoke bro, its water vapor

Wow. The level of ignorance you displayed there is simply astounding.

yep, which raises the question as to why they cleaned up the wreckage so quickly

wouldn't engineers be curious as to how their design failed?

Same. And as I recall, there was a similar accident with the Empire State Building, which still stands.

I'd like to mention that F4 Phantom II weighs 30k lbs empty, and a 737 Jet weighs, at it's smallest model, twice that, also empty. Just saying, this is not the same, except to say that reinforced concrete IS hard, but riddled with window holes, it obviously did NOT withstand the impact that hit the pentagon.

They were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 (the largest plane at the time--1964) travelling at 600mph easily.

In fact, Leslie Robertson, the lead engineer, said that no type of impact could bring either tower down. He knew the fires would kill a lot of people but asserted "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

Frank Demartini, on-site construction engineer during the building of the towers, said in early 2001--"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

So...who to trust? Reddit trolls and "debunkers" or the men who designed and built the buildings in the first place?

tl;dr: Building's designers say planes wouldn't cause significant damage let alone complete structural failure

i think he meant to say hasbara

Point taken, but I don't think the plane was going 500 mph...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

With sources such as MIT, National Fire Protection and the University of Sydney... among others.

Start there.

As for your A&E truth site... seen it before, not impressed. They seem more interested in saying where they are, and what they're doing, then presenting evidence, and I"m not searching through there on the promise that I'll find it somewhere in there someday.

That looks somewhat credible. I'll read it with an open mind.

Maybe I'm just not to that point yet...but the best way I can explain it is that not feeling extreme prejudice and hatred for everyone(not "awake") makes me feel like I'm condoning the immense stupidity and willful ignorance, and adversely makes me berate myself.

I'm not saying at all that any given second of the day I'm about to have an aneurism but I simply, and absolutely refuse to condone the waking choices of the sleeping, destructive populace.

Hope that made sense.

They also said the Titanic was unsinkable...