AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

You have to be careful debating or arguing with people who are conspiracy theorists. It's useless. Their arguments lack only one thing - common sense. It's true insanity and the fact they don't see it all is hard for normal people to comprehend. It's best not to engage them.

Why would they have waited 7 hours to demo WTC7?

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

---

It's actually very difficult (impossible, actually) to connect the dots of the conspiracy I laid out.

And you still, after 30 pages of this nonsense, have not answered the question I've asked multiple times: buildings that are demolished have lots of the internal structures removed prior to demolition and they have been vacant for a long time prior to demolition to allow for that. We know WTC7 was occupied up until 9/11.

How do you explain this and how could it have been demolished without following this standard protocol that would have been impossible given that people still worked there?

This is the only question I want answered. I don't want to hear about some dude who heard an explosion. I don't want to hear about exploding paint. I don't want to hear about another dude who saw some hot coffee on a table. I don't want to hear about remote controlled planes. I don't want to hear about any of the other **** you deflect with.

I want a direct answer to this question.

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

---

It's actually very difficult (impossible, actually) to connect the dots of the conspiracy I laid out.

And you still, after 30 pages of this nonsense, have not answered the question I've asked multiple times: buildings that are demolished have lots of the internal structures removed prior to demolition and they have been vacant for a long time prior to demolition to allow for that. We know WTC7 was occupied up until 9/11.

How do you explain this and how could it have been demolished without following this standard protocol that would have been impossible given that people still worked there?

This is the only question I want answered. I don't want to hear about some dude who heard an explosion. I don't want to hear about exploding paint. I don't want to hear about another dude who saw some hot coffee on a table. I don't want to hear about remote controlled planes. I don't want to hear about any of the other **** you deflect with.

I want a direct answer to this question.

---

Stop and realize:

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. - G.K. Chesterton

RWWilson said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

---

It's actually very difficult (impossible, actually) to connect the dots of the conspiracy I laid out.

And you still, after 30 pages of this nonsense, have not answered the question I've asked multiple times: buildings that are demolished have lots of the internal structures removed prior to demolition and they have been vacant for a long time prior to demolition to allow for that. We know WTC7 was occupied up until 9/11.

How do you explain this and how could it have been demolished without following this standard protocol that would have been impossible given that people still worked there?

This is the only question I want answered. I don't want to hear about some dude who heard an explosion. I don't want to hear about exploding paint. I don't want to hear about another dude who saw some hot coffee on a table. I don't want to hear about remote controlled planes. I don't want to hear about any of the other **** you deflect with.

I want a direct answer to this question.

---

Stop and realize:

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. - G.K. Chesterton

---

You're right. I'm done asking questions that can't be, and never will be, answered by the conspiracy theorists.

And this Chesterton quote was tailor-made for this thread.

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

I just don't understand what is so hard to believe about WTC7 collapsing. 2 of the tallest buildings in the world, which were across the street from it, collapsed, raining down burning debris all over the place, damaging WTC7 and catching it on fire. It's fire sprinkler system didn't have the pressure to operate so it sat there and burned uncontrolled until it collapsed.

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

---

It's actually very difficult (impossible, actually) to connect the dots of the conspiracy I laid out.

And you still, after 30 pages of this nonsense, have not answered the question I've asked multiple times: buildings that are demolished have lots of the internal structures removed prior to demolition and they have been vacant for a long time prior to demolition to allow for that. We know WTC7 was occupied up until 9/11.

How do you explain this and how could it have been demolished without following this standard protocol that would have been impossible given that people still worked there?

This is the only question I want answered. I don't want to hear about some dude who heard an explosion. I don't want to hear about exploding paint. I don't want to hear about another dude who saw some hot coffee on a table. I don't want to hear about remote controlled planes. I don't want to hear about any of the other **** you deflect with.

I want a direct answer to this question.

---

I've answered this many times before. If you are curious, this article spells out how it could have occurred

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

TXAG 05 said:

---

I just don't understand what is so hard to believe about WTC7 collapsing. 2 of the tallest buildings in the world, which were across the street from it, collapsed, raining down burning debris all over the place, damaging WTC7 and catching it on fire. It's fire sprinkler system didn't have the pressure to operate so it sat there and burned uncontrolled until it collapsed.

---

As mentioned many times before, there are much closer buildings than WTC7, that had far more significant structural damage (huge gaping holes, such as WTC6), that did not collapse from the raining debris and ensuing fires

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

---

It's actually very difficult (impossible, actually) to connect the dots of the conspiracy I laid out.

And you still, after 30 pages of this nonsense, have not answered the question I've asked multiple times: buildings that are demolished have lots of the internal structures removed prior to demolition and they have been vacant for a long time prior to demolition to allow for that. We know WTC7 was occupied up until 9/11.

How do you explain this and how could it have been demolished without following this standard protocol that would have been impossible given that people still worked there?

This is the only question I want answered. I don't want to hear about some dude who heard an explosion. I don't want to hear about exploding paint. I don't want to hear about another dude who saw some hot coffee on a table. I don't want to hear about remote controlled planes. I don't want to hear about any of the other **** you deflect with.

I want a direct answer to this question.

---

I've answered this many times before. If you are curious, this article spells out how it could have occurred

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

---

Nope. I've watched your videos and I'm not reading more bull*****

You are happy to write scribes on everything else on this thread; so, answer the ****ing question right here so we can all see it.

If you don't, we know you are admitting this is all bull*****

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

AggiEE said:

---

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?

---

Designed for dead load plus live loads and safety margins. Anything more is over designed and not cost efficient. No structure is designed to withstand the overwhelming dynamic forces of 15, 20 floors above it falling and impacting the floors below. The only way they wouldn't have collapsed is if the impact zones had been much, much closer to the top...maybe if there had only been one or two floors above but that's not what happened. This also logically plays out in the timing of the collapses...the south tower was hit lower and closer to a corner (more weight above with more critical structure hit) so even though it was hit second, it was the first to fail.

The volume of the buildings is 95% air and you can see that air being instantly forced out as each floor collapses as the momentum and speed increase over the length of the towers. I really don't get why you think it's "unnatural".

The whole free fall argument....it seems conspiracy advocates seem to think that the towers fell at free fall and that this is evidence of demolition (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm guessing you think the structure would but up more resistance, but as stated above, the dynamic forces are exponentially higher than what the structure is designed to hold....they never stood a chance. There was some resistance...you can see that in all videos of both collapses with pieces of the structures thrown outward, free falling downward, while the top of the collapse is above..but the speed of the destruction is entirely predictable and not surprising when you do the math (see video I posted previously).

New World Ag said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

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?

---

Designed for dead load plus live loads and safety margins. Anything more is over designed and not cost efficient. No structure is designed to withstand the overwhelming dynamic forces of 15, 20 floors above it falling and impacting the floors below. The only way they wouldn't have collapsed is if the impact zones had been much, much closer to the top...maybe if there had only been one or two floors above but that's not what happened. This also logically plays out in the timing of the collapses...the south tower was hit lower and closer to a corner (more weight above with more critical structure hit) so even though it was hit second, it was the first to fail.

The volume of the buildings is 95% air and you can see that air being instantly forced out as each floor collapses as the momentum and speed increase over the length of the towers. I really don't get why you think it's "unnatural".

The whole free fall argument....it seems conspiracy advocates seem to think that the towers fell at free fall and that this is evidence of demolition (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm guessing you think the structure would but up more resistance, but as stated above, the dynamic forces are exponentially higher than what the structure is designed to hold....they never stood a chance. There was some resistance...you can see that in all videos of both collapses with pieces of the structures thrown outward, free falling downward, while the top of the collapse is above..but the speed of the destruction is entirely predictable and not surprising when you do the math (see video I posted previously).

---

Let's see what the designers had to say.

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

John_Skilling
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there."

"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 doorthis intense gridand the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

---

Conspiracy theorists love cherry picking information. How about this cherry pick? Do you believe this? Shouldn't we ascribe as much credence to this as to eyewitness accounts that you think supports your position?

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

---

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0

funny not allowing george bush to rig the buikding with explosives isnt one of there recommendations

I've seen them done in a sim... you can't do them obeying the rated minimums and operating conditions, but the planes will actually do them without breaking up. I'm sure there are 500 videos you can post to confirm your bias but .

Here's what Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, had to say:

Quote:

---

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index_textonly.shtml

New World Ag said:

---

Here's what Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, had to say:

Quote:

---

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index_textonly.shtml

---

The speed argument actually works against the official story, since we know a 757 could not have flown at those speeds at near sea level without significant aerodynamic issues

Secondly, the lead designer says multiple planes could have impacted the tower. It doesn't matter that a 757 is slightly larger, faster, or with a tad more fuel, it was already designed above and beyond a 707, but the 707 was the only specific case analyzed specifically

This still only discusses the impact zone, it does nothing to address how even if the floors failed that it led to global collapse, at near freefall speed, through the path of most resistance

A true collapse would have the momentum slowed down while the top portion crumbles or falls over, while leaving the structure below in tact

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I've seen them done in a sim... you can't do them obeying the rated minimums and operating conditions, but the planes will actually do them without breaking up. I'm sure there are 500 videos you can post to confirm your bias but .

---

I've seen multiple experienced pilots in a flight sim fail to hit the pentagon using the same exact constraints detailed from the alleged FDR

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

---

Conspiracy theorists love cherry picking information. How about this cherry pick? Do you believe this? Shouldn't we ascribe as much credence to this as to eyewitness accounts that you think supports your position?

---

How would a fire chief be able to predict the complete collapse of a stable building due to minor structural damage and fires when that has never happened before?

Old Army Ghost said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

---

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0

funny not allowing george bush to rig the building with explosives isnt one of there recommendations

---

Again, NIST never analyzed for complete collapse, just initiation, using a pre-determined outcome.

Subsequent university studies conclude that complete collapse must have occurred with concurrent compromise of every core load bearing column

AggiEE said:

---

The speed argument actually works against the official story, since we know a 757 could not have flown at those speeds at near sea level without significant aerodynamic issues

---

767s. A 757 hit the Pentagon.

We have video proof of the 767s hitting both towers....are you saying they were not??. Speed estimates are well over 500 mph ground speed, which does exceed the never exceed speed for the jetliners at that altitude. Had both planes landed they likely wouldn't have flown again, but we know that was never the intent of the hijackers.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

---

Conspiracy theorists love cherry picking information. How about this cherry pick? Do you believe this? Shouldn't we ascribe as much credence to this as to eyewitness accounts that you think supports your position?

---

How would a fire chief be able to predict the complete collapse of a stable building due to minor structural damage and fires when that has never happened before?

---

First off, the Fire Captain describes the building as having much more than minor structural damage and minor fires. So, seeing this and just having seen 2 similar buildings fall under similar circumstances, the chief probably was working from a good base of intuition. Turns out the chief was right.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Without quoting your whole screed, I'll just point to the first sentence of your Blue Pill section. "The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen."

It is possible that conspiracies happen, but they didn't in this case. You seem to be implying that conspiracies ALWAYS happen.

---

No, I did not say that conspiracies ALWAYS happen. They certainly did in this case, but of course we've been preconditioned by the mainstream media to laugh/ridicule/mock at any suggestion that what they spoonfeed the American public is false. It certainly plays well into the government's favor.

---

I think what most people are laughing at/ridiculing/mocking on this thread is the convoluted scenario that has to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people and has to play out perfectly to create the desired end result.

Why did "they" wait 7 hours to "demo" WTC7?

---

Why did WTC7 defy all laws and of physics that day if we are to believe they were felled by minor fires and structure damage?

I can't answer a speculative question, the collapse of WTC7 requiring near simultaneous core column failures is not speculative

---

Conspiracy theorists love cherry picking information. How about this cherry pick? Do you believe this? Shouldn't we ascribe as much credence to this as to eyewitness accounts that you think supports your position?

---

How would a fire chief be able to predict the complete collapse of a stable building due to minor structural damage and fires when that has never happened before?

---

an entire building falling on it is minor

lol you blew your troll cover you win though

I seen multiple experienced naval aviators miss trap wires on aircraft carriers. Guess what, I've also seen plenty do it as well!

Hell, only one person ever made an RTLS triple out in a shuttle sim...is it possible or not?

AggiEE said:

---

A true collapse would have the momentum slowed down while the top portion crumbles or falls over, while leaving the structure below in tact

---

No. Just no.

This building actually had most of it fallen on (WTC6), unlike WTC7

Why did it not entirely collapse, rather symmetrically, at free fall speed?

Conjecture on my part but WTC 6 was a hotel and likely a dissimilar design to WTC 7, which had long open spans throughout its structure. WTC 6 didn't have the long uncontrolled fires that 7 experienced.

So we hand waive away a massive gaping hole while it was likely drenched in the same molten lava steel foundry around ground zero (seen by the white smoke thermate residue), yet the structure remains standing

Fire does not bring down buildings. If all it takes to bring down buildings is "uncontrolled fires", there'd be no need for demolition companies

flying planes into them works but not a good plan

your troll is running out need to up your game

tie in flat world