AggiEE said: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
He's either mentally ill or a troll. Why people keep feeding him is a mystery. Don't waste your time. It's like arguing with the guy who claims he's the King of England.Old Army Ghost said:
flying planes into them works but not a good plan
your troll is running out need to up your game
tie in flat world
How many floors in WTC 7?AggiEE said:
This building actually had most of it fallen on (WTC6), unlike WTC7
Why did it not entirely collapse, rather symmetrically, at free fall speed?
You obviously have no clue how demolition contractors bring down buildings. There is no evidence of demolition...no flashes, no sound, no credible evidence in the rubble.AggiEE said:
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
Quote:
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.
New World Ag said:No. Just no.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
Actually agree with the tenor of most of your posts on it, as did above. But imo this is the wrong kind of reasoning to look for. IF this kind of thing was actually true, it would be too powerful for standard organizations to risk going out against. Think of the vendor issue with Trump and just getting copies made. The intimiidation factor is too great. The reason outliers can make stances is because they are not jeopardizing a pre-existing relationship.New World Ag said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
How many architects and engineers are part of this organization? A few thousand? I'll theorize that for every engineer who buys into the conspiracy theories, there's at least 8-10 others who dismiss them. No professional organization has endorsed this group. Same thing goes for demolition professionals.
Imagine getting that many people involved and ordering pizza for lunch. I'm sure everyone would be in complete agreement on what is ordered and there would be no complaining once it was delivered and consumed.New World Ag said:
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are so complicated and involve so many people, that nobody would seriously consider even attempting such an endeavor. To accept such a plan and be part of it, each individual person have to:
Believe in the merits of the operation
Believe in the goals of the mission
Have no issue killing thousands of innocent citizens
Believe it would work
Believe they wouldn't be caught
Find thousands of others who felt the same way, knowing they would accept
Believe anyone who thought the mission was insane would never say anything
Believe nobody spill the beans before or in the years afterwards.
It's just ridiculous. The very idea that someone would even come up with this goes beyond the realms of logic.
Your assuming all were told the entire plan, including its deadly consequences AND that they were even told the truth. If you have an OPEN mind, consider each participant was only informed of their 'limited' role in the whole scheme...with phony emphasis on how their participation would benefit mankind. Plus..."it's TOP SECRET, HUSH, HUSH" and "your government...AMERICA is depending on YOU"!!! "If anyone fails his/her duty...Americans will die"!!!New World Ag said:
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are so complicated and involve so many people, that nobody would seriously consider even attempting such an endeavor. To accept such a plan and be part of it, each individual person have to:
Believe in the merits of the operation
Believe in the goals of the mission
Have no issue killing thousands of innocent citizens
Believe it would work
Believe they wouldn't be caught
Find thousands of others who felt the same way, knowing they would accept
Believe anyone who thought the mission was insane would never say anything
Believe nobody spill the beans before or in the years afterwards.
It's just ridiculous. The very idea that someone would even come up with this goes beyond the realms of logic.
New World Ag said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
How many architects and engineers are part of this organization? A few thousand? I'll theorize that for every engineer who buys into the conspiracy theories, there's at least 8-10 others who dismiss them. No professional organization has endorsed this group. Same thing goes for demolition professionals.
whatthehey78 said:Your assuming all were told the entire plan, including its deadly consequences AND that they were even told the truth. If you have an OPEN mind, consider each participant was only informed of their 'limited' role in the whole scheme...with phony emphasis on how their participation would benefit mankind. Plus..."it's TOP SECRET, HUSH, HUSH" and "your government...AMERICA is depending on YOU"!!! "If anyone fails his/her duty...Americans will die"!!!New World Ag said:
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are so complicated and involve so many people, that nobody would seriously consider even attempting such an endeavor. To accept such a plan and be part of it, each individual person have to:
Believe in the merits of the operation
Believe in the goals of the mission
Have no issue killing thousands of innocent citizens
Believe it would work
Believe they wouldn't be caught
Find thousands of others who felt the same way, knowing they would accept
Believe anyone who thought the mission was insane would never say anything
Believe nobody spill the beans before or in the years afterwards.
It's just ridiculous. The very idea that someone would even come up with this goes beyond the realms of logic.
After the fact..."apparently someone failed".
Hmmm, I wonder why I had to harness up and install hundreds of tension cables in a building that was partially occupied.Duckhook said:whatthehey78 said:Your assuming all were told the entire plan, including its deadly consequences AND that they were even told the truth. If you have an OPEN mind, consider each participant was only informed of their 'limited' role in the whole scheme...with phony emphasis on how their participation would benefit mankind. Plus..."it's TOP SECRET, HUSH, HUSH" and "your government...AMERICA is depending on YOU"!!! "If anyone fails his/her duty...Americans will die"!!!New World Ag said:
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are so complicated and involve so many people, that nobody would seriously consider even attempting such an endeavor. To accept such a plan and be part of it, each individual person have to:
Believe in the merits of the operation
Believe in the goals of the mission
Have no issue killing thousands of innocent citizens
Believe it would work
Believe they wouldn't be caught
Find thousands of others who felt the same way, knowing they would accept
Believe anyone who thought the mission was insane would never say anything
Believe nobody spill the beans before or in the years afterwards.
It's just ridiculous. The very idea that someone would even come up with this goes beyond the realms of logic.
After the fact..."apparently someone failed".
But, if this compartmentalization is in fact true, nobody, of the hundreds or thousands of people involved, in the 21 years since then has had second thoughts about their role?
Hmmm, maybe that wasn't actually some innocuous package I was wiring to support columns in WTC buildings.
Hmmm, maybe those innocent looking passengers from that flight didn't really need to be murdered.
Hmmm, I wonder if that remote control I wired on those airliners was really for the purpose I was told.
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.
TexasAggie_02 said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/y14kgx/the_crimean_bridge_after_the_fire_with_the_wheels/
Tell me again about fire and steel....
TexasAggie_02 said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/y14kgx/the_crimean_bridge_after_the_fire_with_the_wheels/
Tell me again about fire and steel....
Duckhook said:TexasAggie_02 said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/y14kgx/the_crimean_bridge_after_the_fire_with_the_wheels/
Tell me again about fire and steel....
I was told on this thread that something like this is un-possible. Were these wheels engineered to withstand being crashed into by a 707?
At this point it's obvious you're just a troll…actually it was obvious a long time ago.AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
Here's what Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, had to say:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index_textonly.shtmlQuote:
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
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
agracer said:At this point it's obvious you're just a troll…actually it was obvious a long time ago.AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
Here's what Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, had to say:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index_textonly.shtmlQuote:
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
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
It's been shown multiple times on this thread that none of the buildings fell at near free fall speeds but you keep repeating the lie.
agracer said:At this point it's obvious you're just a troll…actually it was obvious a long time ago.AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
Here's what Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, had to say:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index_textonly.shtmlQuote:
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
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
It's been shown multiple times on this thread that none of the buildings fell at near free fall speeds but you keep repeating the lie.
Quote:
Indeed, when we count backwards 5.4 seconds from the point at which the roofline disappears from view, we find that there is no obvious, continuous movement of the building that could be reasonably interpreted as the start of the collapse. According to Chandler, "Since their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18-story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a 5.4-second measurement to match [the model]." Then, NIST assumed that the downward acceleration during those 5.4 seconds was "approximately constant" 4 even though the building was almost entirely motionless for more than a second. Based upon this inaccurate characterization of WTC 7's motion, NIST denied the occurrence of free fall.
New World Ag said:You obviously have no clue how demolition contractors bring down buildings. There is no evidence of demolition...no flashes, no sound, no credible evidence in the rubble.AggiEE said:
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
Correction on my earlier statement....the Marriott hotel was WTC 3, not WTC 6.
As for why WTC 6 (as well as WTC 3, 4 and 5) didn't collapse like WTC 7...we are comparing different buildings with different damage and differing fire conditions. WTC 7 was a much taller building with much more loads involved. It had significant fires, unlike the other buildings We know that uncontrolled fires, given enough time, do weaken steel, and that 7's design contributed to the way it collapsed.
You continue to hand wave the reasoning and psychology of the conspiracy theories. There is no reasonable explanation to demo WTC 7. No sane American would even dream up this convoluted, indescribably complicated plan to kill thousands of citizens just to provide impetus to go to war in the Middle East. A plan that would take thousands of people to plan and execute, involving the government, contractors, the media, members of both political parties, the military, etc. Everyone they approached to be part of it said "sure, that an awesome idea! Count me in!". Not one person said no, not one person talked, there is no evidence of any plan. Explain that away.
True! One tower fell in 9.2 sec and the other in 10 sec. with no observable "deceleration" during the entire collapse...which should have occurred as it fell upon an undamaged floor below, and so forth until all of the initial kinetic energy was totally expended and the collapse ended. Successive explosive detonations would change that scenario. If each detonation was automatically 'triggered' as a floor fell onto its lower neighbor, it would appear exactly as we all witnessed. Whereas, if the lower floors were NOT detonated...their inherent, undamaged, structural integrity would have halted the collapse before reaching ground level.snowdog90 said:agracer said:At this point it's obvious you're just a troll…actually it was obvious a long time ago.AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
Here's what Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, had to say:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index_textonly.shtmlQuote:
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
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
It's been shown multiple times on this thread that none of the buildings fell at near free fall speeds but you keep repeating the lie.
No. Ugh. NIST itself said tower 7 was freefall for 100 feet. The other 2 were very close to freefall, much closer than should have been with 60+ floors of uncompromised steel frame.
Ed Harley 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.
Still waiting for an answer to this question.
AggiEE will write a thesis on a guy that heard something after the planes had crashed into buildings 1 and 2 (shocking someone would hear something that sounded like an explosion on 9/11), but won't answer this basic question. Weird.
