AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

WTC7 was minor office fires

---

Not true, but I guess if you say it enough times you will start to believe it.

And that's not even taking into account structural damage from the falling tower.

But, honestly, I don't know why I'm debating someone who believes the passengers on AA77 were taken off the plane and murdered.

Carry on.

---

Yea, it is true. The fires were incapable of severing all the columns near simultaneously to allow for complete collapse.

I have brought up the structural damage issue previously - WTC6 sustained much more structure damage and had a massive hole in it. Guess what? It was still standing.

I don't know why I'm debating someone that thinks buildings are so easily brought down by mere fire when the core structure is designed to withstand them easily and it literally takes a controlled demolition to bring them down.

---

WTC6 had fire and structural damage?

WTC7 had fire only without structural damage?

Quote:

---

I don't know why I'm debating someone that thinks buildings are so easily brought down by mere fire when the core structure is designed to withstand them easily and it literally takes a controlled demolition to bring them down.

---

You keep dismissing the ferocity of the fires to support your crusade, but all evidence shows that they were major infernos, including WTC7

And as I've said multiple times before, building are not designed to withstand uncontrolled fire for seven hours. The components have fire ratings in terms of hours, sometimes up to three. They are not indefinitely fireproof. All you have to do is look up the properties of steel and how its strength lessens with heat. But you'll just ignore this like you always do.

You're so lost, I don't know why I bother. Guess I'm the actual fool.

The thing about conspiracy theorists is they rely on isolating very specific unclear or questionable aspects of a given event and then focus all their energy on using those aspects as proof of their claims. They do this while simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming body of data surrounding the event for which their theory either cannot account for or for which there is absolutely no rational refutation.

For ANY of these theories around 9/11 to be true, they must refute such a massive number of both likely events and incontrovertible facts that the grand narrative claims can be dismissed outright.

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

WTC7 was minor office fires

---

Not true, but I guess if you say it enough times you will start to believe it.

And that's not even taking into account structural damage from the falling tower.

But, honestly, I don't know why I'm debating someone who believes the passengers on AA77 were taken off the plane and murdered.

Carry on.

---

Yea, it is true. The fires were incapable of severing all the columns near simultaneously to allow for complete collapse.

I have brought up the structural damage issue previously - WTC6 sustained much more structure damage and had a massive hole in it. Guess what? It was still standing.

I don't know why I'm debating someone that thinks buildings are so easily brought down by mere fire when the core structure is designed to withstand them easily and it literally takes a controlled demolition to bring them down.

---

WTC6 had fire and structural damage?

WTC7 had fire only without structural damage?

---

They both had fire and structural damage. The structural damage was far more extensive and devastating on WTC6

double aught said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know why I'm debating someone that thinks buildings are so easily brought down by mere fire when the core structure is designed to withstand them easily and it literally takes a controlled demolition to bring them down.

---

You keep dismissing the ferocity of the fires to support your crusade, but all evidence shows that they were major infernos, including WTC7

And as I've said multiple times before, building are not designed to withstand uncontrolled fire for seven hours. The components have fire ratings in terms of hours, sometimes up to three. They are not indefinitely fireproof. All you have to do is look up the properties of steel and how its strength lessens with heat. But you'll just ignore this like you always do.

You're so lost, I don't know why I bother. Guess I'm the actual fool.

---

There's no evidence of "ferocious" fires in WTC7, and even if there were, there's no evidence that ferocious fires should be able to completely level a building. Buildings are designed to be more than capable of withstanding such fires without all the core columns being completely compromised, as was required for WTC7's collapse

Steel is designed to withstand temperatures that greatly exceed the fires exhibited. It doesn't even start weakening until fires have greatly exceeded what you encounter in office type settings. It's why we have countless examples of raging fires in modern steel buildings yet no complete collapse. Certain sections are obviously significantly damaged, of which the fire protection is supposed to mitigate, but the only way you will have free fall and complete collapse like WTC7 is of the entire structural columns are removed. Confirmed by demolition experts in the field like Danny Jowenko

You continue to ignore the ongoing university research that's been posted which corroborates these claims.

Modern, synthetic office contents get extremely hot when burned.

Okay, quantify what extremely hot means and then tell me how those extremely hot fires could take out all the core columns when we have plenty of buildings that presented in a much worse state in terms of raging fires that didn't come close to collapsing the entire building

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

You think that all of the passengers on AA77 made it to their final destination and not a single one spoke up to say they weren't actually dead? Is that what you're saying? If so, you're more looney tunes than I originally thought.

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

You think that all of the passengers on AA77 made it to their final destination and not a single one spoke up to say they weren't actually dead? Is that what you're saying? If so, you're more looney tunes than I originally thought.

---

That's not what I'm saying, I believe they are all deceased. How they died is a different matter

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

You think that all of the passengers on AA77 made it to their final destination and not a single one spoke up to say they weren't actually dead? Is that what you're saying? If so, you're more looney tunes than I originally thought.

---

That's not what I'm saying, I believe they are all deceased. How they died is a different matter

---

So, again, you said "It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination.".

But you don't actually believe this theory.

If AA77 is a part of the whole, grander 9/11 conspiracy, then what happened to that 757 and its passengers if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Or you think it was that AA 757 that crashed into the Pentagon, sans passengers? But no evidence of ANY sort of what might have happened to the passengers if they weren't on the plane. Just "they're deceased".

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

You think that all of the passengers on AA77 made it to their final destination and not a single one spoke up to say they weren't actually dead? Is that what you're saying? If so, you're more looney tunes than I originally thought.

---

That's not what I'm saying, I believe they are all deceased. How they died is a different matter

---

So, again, you said "It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination.".

But you don't actually believe this theory.

If AA77 is a part of the whole, grander 9/11 conspiracy, then what happened to that 757 and its passengers if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Or you think it was that AA 757 that crashed into the Pentagon, sans passengers? But no evidence of ANY sort of what might have happened to the passengers if they weren't on the plane. Just "they're deceased".

---

I was asked to speculate, so that's what I responded with. There are a multitude of other possible scenarios of what could have occurred.

I prefer not to delve into aspects we don't have much evidence for. But luckily that's not a requirement for dismantling the official story

We only need to prove what was impossible, which was clearly demonstrated with many aspects of the official story, the main smoking gun being WTC7

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

You think that all of the passengers on AA77 made it to their final destination and not a single one spoke up to say they weren't actually dead? Is that what you're saying? If so, you're more looney tunes than I originally thought.

---

That's not what I'm saying, I believe they are all deceased. How they died is a different matter

---

So, again, you said "It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination.".

But you don't actually believe this theory.

If AA77 is a part of the whole, grander 9/11 conspiracy, then what happened to that 757 and its passengers if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Or you think it was that AA 757 that crashed into the Pentagon, sans passengers? But no evidence of ANY sort of what might have happened to the passengers if they weren't on the plane. Just "they're deceased".

---

I prefer not to delve into aspects we don't have much evidence for.

---

Of course. That makes everything a lot easier.

You talk about the "impossibility" of WTC7. But there are plenty of legitimate studies by experts in the field of structural engineering that show that it is entirely possible. You just choose to believe elsewise.

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

You think that all of the passengers on AA77 made it to their final destination and not a single one spoke up to say they weren't actually dead? Is that what you're saying? If so, you're more looney tunes than I originally thought.

---

That's not what I'm saying, I believe they are all deceased. How they died is a different matter

---

So, again, you said "It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination.".

But you don't actually believe this theory.

If AA77 is a part of the whole, grander 9/11 conspiracy, then what happened to that 757 and its passengers if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Or you think it was that AA 757 that crashed into the Pentagon, sans passengers? But no evidence of ANY sort of what might have happened to the passengers if they weren't on the plane. Just "they're deceased".

---

I prefer not to delve into aspects we don't have much evidence for.

---

Of course. That makes everything a lot easier.

You talk about the "impossibility" of WTC7. But there are plenty of legitimate studies by experts in the field of structural engineering that show that it is entirely possible. You just choose to believe elsewise.

---

I have not seen a single study. The big flaw to what NIST reports is that they bound the scope of their investigations to only look into what caused the initial area of collapse. They did not actually substantiate what caused the global ensuing collapse.

Any such study that claims the collapse was possible used totally implausible assumptions. Essentially starting the investigation from the mindset of "this must have been fire", and torturing their data model to comply using completely ridiculous and faulty assumptions

AggiEE,

I'm curious. I'm in my 50's and don't believe the official story, obviously. I believed the official story for years, I really didn't realize there was controversy until maybe 2005 or so when I first started hearing about "truthers". I immediately dismissed them as idiots, so I understand the pushback you and I get on this forum.

In 2013 or so, I saw a video on 911 that blew me away. Tower 7 was the kicker, I just couldn't believe that I knew nothing about that. Then watching it collapse and seeing all the controversy coinciding with it - it was stunning. Tower 7 and all the hundreds of other hard-to-explain details are what caused me to change my opinion on the whole thing.

I'm curious how old you are and what made you change your mind.

So we've gone from buildings with structural damage and on fire don't fall down without demolition charges (of which there are Zero witnesses to those being placed) to the passengers on the planes were offloaded to another plane, then murdered?

We've gone beyond jumping the shark to lunacy.

agracer said:

---

So we've gone from buildings with structural damage and on fire don't fall down without demolition charges (of which there are Zero witnesses to those being placed) to the passengers on the planes were offloaded to another plane, then murdered?

We've gone beyond jumping the shark to lunacy.

---

Are you new here? The whole thread is lunacy. Like most conspiracy theories, the proponents will actually claim the absence of evidence as their evidence.

Loon: The planes were flown by remote control.
Normal person: Where is your evidence?
Loon: How else could two planes be flown into buildings by amateur pilots?
Normal person: That is not evidence. The absence of knowledge (not knowing how something was done) is not evidence of other facts.
Loon: Also, the passengers were offloaded.

Did you really just ask if agracer is new here?

snowdog90 said:

---

AggiEE,

I'm curious. I'm in my 50's and don't believe the official story, obviously. I believed the official story for years, I really didn't realize there was controversy until maybe 2005 or so when I first started hearing about "truthers". I immediately dismissed them as idiots, so I understand the pushback you and I get on this forum.

In 2013 or so, I saw a video on 911 that blew me away. Tower 7 was the kicker, I just couldn't believe that I knew nothing about that. Then watching it collapse and seeing all the controversy coinciding with it - it was stunning. Tower 7 and all the hundreds of other hard-to-explain details are what caused me to change my opinion on the whole thing.

I'm curious how old you are and what made you change your mind.

---

I was in a similar boat. I'm in my 30s, have been a conservative all my life.

What always struck me about 9/11 was the destruction of the towers, it never seemed natural to me going back to basic physics. When I initially saw the attacks I never anticipated for them to collapse like that.

The sheer awe of the event and the huge glut of information that happened that day quickly turns your attention to who is responsible, so I just went with the mainstream narrative.

In the mid 00s I saw the truth movement gaining popularity and like you I instantly dismissed it. Then I watched Loose Change and the film raised so many questions that I started to pay closer attention, especially after finding out about WTC7

Shortly thereafter, AE911Truth was formed and a bunch of great material from various scientists and engineers started to appear. My belief that it was an inside job was solidified by the work of David Chandler and Steve Jones, the latter who studied the dust and found evidence of nano-thermate that has no justification for why it should exist in such large quantities.

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, and I certainly don't want to believe any of this. It's a lot more comforting to think this was the result of foreign terrorists rather than a false fiat attack orchestrated by elements of our own government, but the evidence is too definitive to ignore these uncomfortable truths.

It certainly has made me a much more cynical person, especially as it pertains to governmental policy and initiatives - it makes me question everything from the standard American diet to COVID and so forth.

AggiEE said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

AggiEE,

I'm curious. I'm in my 50's and don't believe the official story, obviously. I believed the official story for years, I really didn't realize there was controversy until maybe 2005 or so when I first started hearing about "truthers". I immediately dismissed them as idiots, so I understand the pushback you and I get on this forum.

In 2013 or so, I saw a video on 911 that blew me away. Tower 7 was the kicker, I just couldn't believe that I knew nothing about that. Then watching it collapse and seeing all the controversy coinciding with it - it was stunning. Tower 7 and all the hundreds of other hard-to-explain details are what caused me to change my opinion on the whole thing.

I'm curious how old you are and what made you change your mind.

---

I was in a similar boat. I'm in my 30s, have been a conservative all my life.

What always struck me about 9/11 was the destruction of the towers, it never seemed natural to me going back to basic physics. When I initially saw the attacks I never anticipated for them to collapse like that.

The sheer awe of the event and the huge glut of information that happened that day quickly turns your attention to who is responsible, so I just went with the mainstream narrative.

In the mid 00s I saw the truth movement gaining popularity and like you I instantly dismissed it. Then I watched Loose Change and the film raised so many questions that I started to pay closer attention, especially after finding out about WTC7

Shortly thereafter, AE911Truth was formed and a bunch of great material from various scientists and engineers started to appear. My belief that it was an inside job was solidified by the work of David Chandler and Steve Jones, the latter who studied the dust and found evidence of nano-thermate that has no justification for why it should exist in such large quantities.

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, and I certainly don't want to believe any of this. It's a lot more comforting to think this was the result of foreign terrorists rather than a false fiat attack orchestrated by elements of our own government, but the evidence is too definitive to ignore these uncomfortable truths.

It certainly has made me a much more cynical person, especially as it pertains to governmental policy and initiatives - it makes me question everything from the standard American diet to COVID and so forth.

---

Similar story here. I believed the official story to begin with but then saw the way the Bush administration handled the Patriot Act and the war and I started piercing things together over time. If it were only the 2 towers that fell, I probably wouldn't have questioned it, but WTC7 falling was completely unnatural.

A firefighter that helped clean out the rubble told me that the NYFD firefighters told him about the explosions they heard before they fell. With all the obvious lies the government tells us daily, who can't believe the official story? The last 2 years of COVID insanity sold be enough to make everyone distrust the government.

Quote:

---

What always struck me about 9/11 was the destruction of the towers, it never seemed natural to me going back to basic physics. When I initially saw the attacks I never anticipated for them to collapse like that.

---

I'm the opposite. I remember after seeing the first videos thinking that some sort of structural failure was possible, if not likely. Then again, I have a construction management background. Nothing in how they collapsed has ever given me pause.

These tales of growing doubts are intriguing.

There are so many preposterous things about the `Truther' claims about the Towers that it seems and always has seemed, beyond poppycock.

However, have become aware of a very surprising fact --- that in many circles it is alleged that there actually was a pre-demolition option for some dating back to the 1993 failed attack. When I made the quip about a "other than maybe having already self-destruct device since such an important HQ" several pages back, I had no idea that this was seriously being argued. It was a farcical explanation. To learn that it has been advanced and not just by crack pots is notable.

Instead of scoffing at it (which personally still do) for those determined to dig into this, would propose this form of Occams' Razor approach: Was such a pre-existing self-destruct device/option possible and could it have been in place. I think not, but that's your big thing to answer.

Why? Because it covers both version of `demolition' controversy --- the terrorist attack could have started fires that simply set off the damned things, triggered the process/or made it necessary to trigger (this really looks conceivable with Building 7 since no on inside to endanger by taking it down) --OR an inside job would also use the same mechanism. Either way--your key is that installation if it could exist. (It seems insane, but just saying what the bottom line would have to be)

An examination of just feasibility of such a demolition installation, not a hasty rigging, is about the only thing that seems even worth contemplating. Not special weapons or means that probably didn't exist in 2001 even if they exist now.

New World Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

What always struck me about 9/11 was the destruction of the towers, it never seemed natural to me going back to basic physics. When I initially saw the attacks I never anticipated for them to collapse like that.

---

I'm the opposite. I remember after seeing the first videos thinking that some sort of structural failure was possible, if not likely. Then again, I have a construction management background. Nothing in how they collapsed has ever given me pause.

---

I considered the possibility that there could be structural failure of the top floors, but the video footage of the planes on impact shows an extremely resilient structure. I never expected a complete free fall collapse with huge plumes of banana peel pulverization of concrete and massive ejection of steel columns being thrown laterally in an enormous pyroclastic flow. Then again, I have an engineering background with extensive coursework in physics, statics and dynamics.

WTF do you expect when you have the massive dynamic forces of (insert huge number) of tons of structure falling downwards?

Quote:

---

Free fall collapse

---

Why do you continue to use this phrase when this has repeatedly shown to be not true?

As you get older, you start gradually noticing the constant government lies, atrocities against its own citizens, transparent propaganda, certain political figures getting away with anything, dozens of folks "committing suicide" under ludicrous circumstances, and you finally realize that our government is full of power seeking, power abusing sociopaths. Nothing they say can ever really be trusted. After that you start questioning every government story because it is most likely bull*****

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

AggiEE,

I'm curious. I'm in my 50's and don't believe the official story, obviously. I believed the official story for years, I really didn't realize there was controversy until maybe 2005 or so when I first started hearing about "truthers". I immediately dismissed them as idiots, so I understand the pushback you and I get on this forum.

In 2013 or so, I saw a video on 911 that blew me away. Tower 7 was the kicker, I just couldn't believe that I knew nothing about that. Then watching it collapse and seeing all the controversy coinciding with it - it was stunning. Tower 7 and all the hundreds of other hard-to-explain details are what caused me to change my opinion on the whole thing.

I'm curious how old you are and what made you change your mind.

---

I was in a similar boat. I'm in my 30s, have been a conservative all my life.

What always struck me about 9/11 was the destruction of the towers, it never seemed natural to me going back to basic physics. When I initially saw the attacks I never anticipated for them to collapse like that.

The sheer awe of the event and the huge glut of information that happened that day quickly turns your attention to who is responsible, so I just went with the mainstream narrative.

In the mid 00s I saw the truth movement gaining popularity and like you I instantly dismissed it. Then I watched Loose Change and the film raised so many questions that I started to pay closer attention, especially after finding out about WTC7

Shortly thereafter, AE911Truth was formed and a bunch of great material from various scientists and engineers started to appear. My belief that it was an inside job was solidified by the work of David Chandler and Steve Jones, the latter who studied the dust and found evidence of nano-thermate that has no justification for why it should exist in such large quantities.

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, and I certainly don't want to believe any of this. It's a lot more comforting to think this was the result of foreign terrorists rather than a false fiat attack orchestrated by elements of our own government, but the evidence is too definitive to ignore these uncomfortable truths.

It certainly has made me a much more cynical person, especially as it pertains to governmental policy and initiatives - it makes me question everything from the standard American diet to COVID and so forth.

---

Similar story here. I believed the official story to begin with but then saw the way the Bush administration handled the Patriot Act and the war and I started piercing things together over time. If it were only the 2 towers that fell, I probably wouldn't have questioned it, but WTC7 falling was completely unnatural.

A firefighter that helped clean out the rubble told me that the NYFD firefighters told him about the explosions they heard before they fell. With all the obvious lies the government tells us daily, who can't believe the official story? The last 2 years of COVID insanity sold be enough to make everyone distrust the government.

---

It's fascinating to me how quickly people dismiss all the eyewitness accounts of explosions, and we also have plenty of video evidence of explosions as well.

Doesn't surprise me that there's a lot of firefighters that think it was an inside job due to that and the molten steel

New World Ag said:

---

WTF do you expect when you have the massive dynamic forces of (insert huge number) of tons of structure falling downwards?

Quote:

---

Free fall collapse

---

Why do you continue to use this phrase when this has repeatedly shown to be not true?

---

The lower structure of the building is specifically designed to handle the load of multiple times the weight of the floors above it.

Even NIST admits the buildings fell at near freefall speed, what exactly is incorrect about that statement?

Old Army Ghost said:

---

yet in 21 years no member of the conspiracy has come forward to admit it

---

In return for what? Its far from obvious there is anything advantageous to it.

I thought I made clear i do not believe it. Merely was setting the benchmarks of the only thing that is the main outlier that would lead to all bets are off.

redcrayon said:

---

Did you really just ask if agracer is new here?

---

It was a rhetorical device. I see he's not new here

This passage from Chesterton helped me understand this entire thread.

"Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't doubt they saw a plane, there's no convincing evidence to say it was AA77

---

But how much does it change? If it was some very skilled military pilot and not a hijacker isn't he still committing suicide??! That extraordinary aspect is the big question mark.

---

I believe the planes were all flown remotely.

---

Ok. You got me. Trolled my ass off.

Yes, that was a bit of a definite clock out point for me as well.

Yet you believe they just pre-wire buildings for demolitions "just in case" a fire happens?

The technology to remotely fly planes is ancient. If this were intended as a false flag it most certainly was accomplished that way

AggiEE said:

---

Yet you believe they just pre-wire buildings for demolitions "just in case" a fire happens?

The technology to remotely fly planes is ancient. If this were intended as a false flag it most certainly was accomplished that way

---

No, I don't believe that either. I said that is the minimum for some of this to make sense. That they were pre-wired far enough in advance for an originally benign purpose. A precaution to prevent greater harm after 1993 is just plausible, but only barely. I set that as the terms for one to investigate.

I know you can fly some planes remotely and it had been around---but lets just say the initial obstacles to believing all four planes were remotely flown is sounding like some of the Flight 19 scenarios off Bermuda.

The only thing believe so far is that deliberate implosion is exactly what one would conclude looking at Building 7 and especially given some of the context of it being empty at the time, and Silverstien's odd statement about `pulling it'. But that's not conclusive either. I just take serious that the architects discussing the NIST report found things it just did flat wrong, and its reconstruction doesn't even match what you see. That is as far as it goes now.

(Oh, and the possibility that a very skilled pilot was flying hijacked AA 77 instead)

They pre wire all planes for remote control too, just in case they need to fly them into buildings.