Let's see the pro conspiracy theorists reply to this.
You can't really "headshot" people who keep shooting themselves in the face. I'd be happy to see one of the truthers come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that makes any sense.
Why is the burden of proof on "truthers" to explain every last detail of a supposed conspiracy? That's nothing but speculation. Nobody is claiming that the administration was even involved. Certainly the planning for something like this would have occurred well in advance of them taking office.
However, we don't need to speculate to see the actions of what transpired post-9/11, and how that certainly was beneficial to the expansion of government power. We don't need to speculate on the reasons for why this would have been beneficial, since it was clearly laid out in PNAC.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest.
So truthers don't have to prove anything. They can just question the true story with no proof and then don't have to prove their bull**** claims.
Tear everything down and build nothing.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Not really debunked… This is there first comment:
Between 9/11 and 2003 when the samples were taken, cleanup of the structure was obviously done. To remove beams they would have to cut them with torches. Said process while cutting out the steel creates a lot of micro spheres. So the assertion that ONLY explanation could be thermite isn't true.
The dust samples were from houses that had no exposure to the clean-up crew directly at ground zero for any supposed torches to have even exposed the dust sample.The debris was spread into the surrounding area and within many houses. Of course we also know that the beams were so cleanly cut and rushed into being shipped to China that the use of torches would likely not have been significant enough to cause the levels of micro-spheres you claim.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
So truthers don't have to prove anything. They can just question the true story with no proof and then don't have to prove their bull**** claims.
Tear everything down and build nothing.
There's plenty of proof of controlled demolition which is posted throughout this thread. That evidence includes physical evidence, video footage, analysis of dust samples, and the fact that a building hit by no plane collapsed on its footprint at free fall speed for no apparent reason when no other modern steel building has ever collapsed in totality like that from office fires.
But beyond the physical evidence, everything else is pure speculation that really adds little to the conversation. Disregarding all the physical evidence simply because nobody has all the answers is intellectually dishonest.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
So why did no one see the wires and the chargers?
Extensive wiring isn't necessary, and the charges could have easily been concealed, nobody was exactly looking for them. They could have been installed under the guise of fire protection.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this was the first (and only) time that a 47 story building had two 110 story buildings burn and collapse next to it.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2
If you've ever seen demolition wiring in person you know this isn't possible.
Real life isn't the movies.
You act like remote technology wasn't available in 2001. Again, this is all speculation, but you would not need extensive wiring. There are other reasons why demolition sites regularly use it that would not apply to this case if concealment were a priority.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this was the first (and only) time that a 47 story building had two 110 story buildings burn and collapse next to it.
Why didn't all the other buildings around WTC1 and 2 collapse if collapsing buildings causes that?
The fact is that MANY buildings were damaged by WTC1 and 2 - you see huge gaping holes in many of the smaller buildings. But did they collapse? No, they did not. And they were MUCH less structurally sound than the more modern & larger WTC7.
The Hollywood spectacle of the 9/11 event really allows people to completely disregard reason.
NIST is obviously a government institution, but they were working with a known outcome (a building collapsed, but we don't believe controlled demolition was the cause), and theorized a model to produce such a scenario. Essentially torturing the data enough to fit their pre-determined narrative.
I find their report highly flawed for the reasons mentioned in the two articles below:
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
Objection: WTC-2 is not an example --- its a classic buckle and collapse and you even see the wound inflicted. That leaves some ambiguity about WTC-1 and the theory that hadn't come into play before that the weight of the top descending down evenly is enough to start a domino chain reaction downward. The first hit was `beautifully placed' if it can be described such in being almost exactly middle line and level --- so the the fires there raged and destroyed roughly equally. Its not that hard to buy the idea that when that segment of building gave way, the weight above went down the way it did. There is such a thing as the disaster being the `first time' so precedent alone is no guide. The unusual iceberg damage to Titanic didn't have much precedents for a lengthy rupture that way.
WTC-2 is not even much mystery when you look at the damage.
Now with WTC-7 agree there are many weird things, and the eyewitness testimony if this was some other country and incident and day would lead almost naturally to a conclusion it had been `blown up. The resistance to it seems to be because of the adjacent two towers. But that can be a little too neat or forced. Certainly, agree there seems to be a very willful ignoring of these odd indications of damage and detonations from below the level of the witnesses when if anything things should falling on top above them. (And that only works if you ignore it happened before WTC-2 went down)
So there is certainly gray area here not to ridicule.
If you've ever seen demolition wiring in person you know this isn't possible.
Real life isn't the movies.
You act like remote technology wasn't available in 2001. Again, this is all speculation, but you would not need extensive wiring. There are other reasons why demolition sites regularly use it that would not apply to this case if concealment were a priority.
So how is it concealed to bring down a building as tall as building 7 was?
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
Objection: WTC-2 is not an example --- its a classic buckle and collapse and you even see the wound inflicted. That leaves some ambiguity about WTC-1 and the theory that hadn't come into play before that the weight of the top descending down evenly is enough to start a domino chain reaction downward. The first hit was `beautifully placed' if it can be described such in being almost exactly middle line and level --- so the the fires there raged and destroyed roughly equally. Its not that hard to buy the idea that when that segment of building gave way, the weight above went down the way it did. There is such a thing as the disaster being the `first time' so precedent alone is no guide. The unusual iceberg damage to Titanic didn't have much precedents for a lengthy rupture that way.
WTC-2 is not even much mystery when you look at the damage.
Now with WTC-7 agree there are many weird things, and the eyewitness testimony if this was some other country and incident and day would lead almost naturally to a conclusion it had been `blown up. The resistance to it seems to be because of the adjacent two towers. But that can be a little too neat or forced. Certainly, agree there seems to be a very willful ignoring of these odd indications of damage and detonations from below the level of the witnesses when if anything things should falling on top above them. (And that only works if you ignore it happened before WTC-2 went down)
So there is certainly gray area here not to ridicule.
WTC2 is not a classic "buckle and collapse", the building disintegrated as explosions fire in rapid succession down the building. The top portion appears to buckle and then disappears into a plume. There was no resistance whatsoever as the totality of the collapse happens at free fall speed. A true buckling would cause the upper portion to rotate and potentially collapse, while the remaining structure below was still in-tact.
Squibs are clearly visible well below the collapse wave, and the largest squibs are seen in the sections of the building most heavily reinforced
Here's one of the largest demolitions on record. Notice how it also has numerous squibs resulting in rampant pluming and disintegration of the structure. Now instead of the squibs firing equally at the same time, the WTC design timed them with the collapse zone downward.
The squibs are due to air pressure in the falling building.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
If you've ever seen demolition wiring in person you know this isn't possible.
Real life isn't the movies.
You act like remote technology wasn't available in 2001. Again, this is all speculation,but you would not need extensive wiring. There are other reasons why demolition sites regularly use it that would not apply to this case if concealment were a priority.
No need to state that. We completely understand that already.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
The squibs are due to air pressure in the falling building.
Air pressure of a "natural collapse" would not produce anything near the level of force require to expel the building radially outward like that in a humongous plume at freefall speed.
Have you actually talked to a structural engineer?
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
Objection: WTC-2 is not an example --- its a classic buckle and collapse and you even see the wound inflicted. That leaves some ambiguity about WTC-1 and the theory that hadn't come into play before that the weight of the top descending down evenly is enough to start a domino chain reaction downward. The first hit was `beautifully placed' if it can be described such in being almost exactly middle line and level --- so the the fires there raged and destroyed roughly equally. Its not that hard to buy the idea that when that segment of building gave way, the weight above went down the way it did. There is such a thing as the disaster being the `first time' so precedent alone is no guide. The unusual iceberg damage to Titanic didn't have much precedents for a lengthy rupture that way.
WTC-2 is not even much mystery when you look at the damage.
Now with WTC-7 agree there are many weird things, and the eyewitness testimony if this was some other country and incident and day would lead almost naturally to a conclusion it had been `blown up. The resistance to it seems to be because of the adjacent two towers. But that can be a little too neat or forced. Certainly, agree there seems to be a very willful ignoring of these odd indications of damage and detonations from below the level of the witnesses when if anything things should falling on top above them. (And that only works if you ignore it happened before WTC-2 went down)
So there is certainly gray area here not to ridicule.
WTC2 is not a classic "buckle and collapse", the building disintegrated as explosions fire in rapid succession down the building. The top portion appears to buckle and then disappears into a plume. There was no resistance whatsoever as the totality of the collapse happens at free fall speed. A true buckling would cause the upper portion to rotate and potentially collapse, while the remaining structure below was still in-tact.
Squibs are clearly visible well below the collapse wave, and the largest squibs are seen in the sections of the building most heavily reinforced
Here's one of the largest demolitions on record. Notice how it also has numerous squibs resulting in rampant pluming and disintegration of the structure. Now instead of the squibs firing equally at the same time, the WTC design timed them with the collapse zone downward.
That is actually WTC-1 but no less interesting to see where the thought process is coming from.
I see what is arguing, but what you are dealing here is while there are definitely `squib' like moments and `banana peal' plumes, what is being overlooked here is this: Those are phenomena -- but phenomena can be produced naturally or artificially. Is there not a `natural' way these very same phenomena could display?
It was my understanding there is. I recall reading various ones at times over the years. Once the collapse starts, you have no idea what internally has "migrated down" ahead of the camera on the external side. That there are forces and materials at work that can duplicate the effect of arranged demolitons-- hence `natural'.
I am not disputing the visual evidence. Just what the catalyst may be.
We have clear initiating causes for both WTC-1 and WTC-2. Kamikaze impacts by big planes followed by ranging fires in something that is not exactly a warship structure and in some ways not as sturdy as the Empire State Building was. (Which is one of the the events that makes the Twin Towers more shocking---how comparatively easier they were destroyed)
What are far more open to is the initiating causes for WTC-7 are very murky and contradictory and actually point another way in conclusion if it had been a different day and city context. And the Pentagon impact is poorly visually documented enough and late enough after the first pair to at least understand the skepticism.
Have you actually talked to a structural engineer?
Polling a random structural engineer wouldn't necessarily derive any sort of informed insight. They are highly specialized and obviously require complex stress models and design documentation to provide any sort of opinion, and as with any sort of science (as explained previously) you can torture the data/model to do whatever you want it do, which is precisely what NIST did.
That video I linked includes engineers discussing the topic. It shouldn't come as any surprise that not all engineers agree on every topic, especially one where a known outcome is believed to be true.
Not really debunked… This is there first comment:
Between 9/11 and 2003 when the samples were taken, cleanup of the structure was obviously done. To remove beams they would have to cut them with torches. Said process while cutting out the steel creates a lot of micro spheres. So the assertion that ONLY explanation could be thermite isn't true.
The dust samples were from houses that had no exposure to the clean-up crew directly at ground zero for any supposed torches to have even exposed the dust sample.The debris was spread into the surrounding area and within many houses. Of course we also know that the beams were so cleanly cut and rushed into being shipped to China that the use of torches would likely not have been significant enough to cause the levels of micro-spheres you claim.
No pay attention please read my post again. The reports they are talking about are from RJ Lee. That was done in 2002/2003 from inside of another building that was hit by falling debris. Pictures of the building are in the link provided.
Have you actually talked to a structural engineer?
But why!?
Its all explained in a YT vid. C'mon, man!!!!!
LOL
I watched it though. See what you make especially of the conservation of momentum part. That day did always look incredibly swift and surreal, and it turns out the clip (pace) of the descent seems to be violating physics. I was unsure of that, but I am familiar enough with the science to see at once the argument.
Once again, we at least see where all the doubt is coming from. And as for NIST ignoring "hard science" -- well they were ahead of their time and this govt admin ignoring even basic biology. And it was alleged the 9/11 report basically ignored W-7.
Certainly, some items to mull here.
All can be explained however, if the hard and fast statements about conservation and the speed of the freefall are simply incorrect. It is considerably out of my expertise.
All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest
Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.
"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.
If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?
I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.
Objection: WTC-2 is not an example --- its a classic buckle and collapse and you even see the wound inflicted. That leaves some ambiguity about WTC-1 and the theory that hadn't come into play before that the weight of the top descending down evenly is enough to start a domino chain reaction downward. The first hit was `beautifully placed' if it can be described such in being almost exactly middle line and level --- so the the fires there raged and destroyed roughly equally. Its not that hard to buy the idea that when that segment of building gave way, the weight above went down the way it did. There is such a thing as the disaster being the `first time' so precedent alone is no guide. The unusual iceberg damage to Titanic didn't have much precedents for a lengthy rupture that way.
WTC-2 is not even much mystery when you look at the damage.
Now with WTC-7 agree there are many weird things, and the eyewitness testimony if this was some other country and incident and day would lead almost naturally to a conclusion it had been `blown up. The resistance to it seems to be because of the adjacent two towers. But that can be a little too neat or forced. Certainly, agree there seems to be a very willful ignoring of these odd indications of damage and detonations from below the level of the witnesses when if anything things should falling on top above them. (And that only works if you ignore it happened before WTC-2 went down)
So there is certainly gray area here not to ridicule.
WTC2 is not a classic "buckle and collapse", the building disintegrated as explosions fire in rapid succession down the building. The top portion appears to buckle and then disappears into a plume. There was no resistance whatsoever as the totality of the collapse happens at free fall speed. A true buckling would cause the upper portion to rotate and potentially collapse, while the remaining structure below was still in-tact.
Squibs are clearly visible well below the collapse wave, and the largest squibs are seen in the sections of the building most heavily reinforced
Here's one of the largest demolitions on record. Notice how it also has numerous squibs resulting in rampant pluming and disintegration of the structure. Now instead of the squibs firing equally at the same time, the WTC design timed them with the collapse zone downward.
That is actually WTC-1 but no less interesting to see where the thought process is coming from.
I see what is arguing, but what you are dealing here is while there are definitely `squib' like moments and `banana peal' plumes, what is being overlooked here is this: Those are phenomena -- but phenomena can be produced naturally or artificially. Is there not a `natural' way these very same phenomena could display?
It was my understanding there is. I recall reading various ones at times over the years. Once the collapse starts, you have no idea what internally has "migrated down" ahead of the camera on the external side. That there are forces and materials at work that can duplicate the effect of arranged demolitons-- hence `natural'.
I am not disputing the visual evidence. Just what the catalyst may be.
We have clear initiating causes for both WTC-1 and WTC-2. Kamikaze impacts by big planes followed by ranging fires in something that is not exactly a warship structure and in some ways not as sturdy as the Empire State Building was. (Which is one of the the events that makes the Twin Towers more shocking---how comparatively easier they were destroyed)
What are far more open to is the initiating causes for WTC-7 are very murky and contradictory and actually point another way in conclusion if it had been a different day and city context. And the Pentagon impact is poorly visually documented enough and late enough after the first pair to at least understand the skepticism.
WTC7 is the easier case for the general populace to come to grips with, due to the lack of hollywood spectacle of the planes hitting it, but WTC1 and 2 do not exhibit any signs of natural collapse as the video posted describes. The freefall speed of the collapse removes all doubt. And natural phenomenom to occur in terms of "squibs" would not result in huge metal sections being thrown more than 600 feet laterally. The resulting temperatures and molten steel discovered at ground zero would also not have been evident for as long as it was.
There was an enormous amount of energy required to bring down the buildings at that speed which is not explained by the top portion being structurally compromised.
The problem with such thngs is you never know if the assertions in them are correct (if they are outside your field) . For example, that none of the 1,300 or more exprerts, and signees claims have been rebutted, but only ridiculed, is an assertion. If it is true that no one has refuted their arguments, that matters. But there is no way to be sure of that from such segments because the simply assert things.
However, physics was fortunately established during the Pax Americana and earlier and not in the 21st C and the arguments that it really seems to violate the physics are pretty jarring. Even the official inquiries seem to concede free-fall speed. I found the question of how they could obtain freefall speed while `pancaking downward' (the standard assumption) a pretty important one.
One thingi is for sure-- mocking and ridicule is not a rebuttal. Satellite on the other hand, has done excellent in offering counter arguments and that is how you do it.
This video here has raised a very Hmmm -- one about WTC-1. And besides, it is just fascinating --- physics and science is always more interesting than politics. Especially 21st C emotion `Sciency'.
