eric76 said:

---

I tend to view people who believe conspiracy theories to be pretty much lacking in intelligence.

---

LOL.

You think we landed on the moon in 1969? We can't land on the moon and it's 2022.

Does the guy that thinks there was a "Jew warning" sent out still post here?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Quote:

---

The government that told us what happened on 9/11 is the same government the gave us the covid response and the 2020 election.

---

By your logic, it's the same government that gave us the Constitution and the 13th Amendment.

---

I don't understand how you can say this. I am saying the exact opposite. The US government of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Lincoln in no way resembles the US government of the last half-century.

I would think that would be incredibly obvious without me giving the myriad examples that I could spend an hour typing.

I watched the war on tv and know SCUDS are not that accurate.

New World Ag said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Just some Tower 7 facts.

1. BBC and others reported that Tower 7 had fallen about 20 minutes BEFORE it fell.
2. Videos showed cops and firemen warning people to get away because Tower 7 was coming down. I've seen the videos, but they're hard to find now.
3. Owner of WTC said that because of loss of life on 9/11, they decided to "pull it" (Tower 7).
4. Tower 7 was ignored in first NIST report. Over a year later, due to uproar, they added Tower 7 to the report, saying the tower collapsed due to office fires.

The Truther movement was not started as a whim by hippies or lunatics or meth addicts. It was started by family members of victims of 9/11 who were looking for answers and didn't believe the official story.

The government that told us what happened on 9/11 is the same government the gave us the covid response and the 2020 election.

You wonder why the Bush's and Cheney's are so anti-Trump? Trump is not in the Club and was a huge threat to the Club.

The Club is evil and has been for a long time, and it includes Democrats and Republicans.

---

Snowdog, have you taken the time to watch the video link posted earlier? Here's the first one of 7.

---

You and I have had many cordial conversations on Texags. We are both big Rush fans and even chose our usernames based on that.

I have spent countless hours researching 9/11. I've posted many opinions and videos on Texags and been called crazy and stupid and unpatriotic and emotional and many other things because of my opinion. My beliefs and opinions about 9/11 are not some whim or hastily gathered poorly-evidenced fantasy. They are based on evidence.

I might watch the video you posted, but I've probably already seen it. I've been on these 9/11 threads for years. I've started them, and most eventually got locked. Most, if not all, of the youtube videos I watched and shared on prior threads have been scrubbed from youtube and are now hard to find.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I doubt there is anything you could say that could change my mind. And that's okay. I just get irritated when otherwise logical, thoughtful people minimize "truthers" as crazy without actually doing the research.

What I believe is insane to most people. I know this. I mean, our own government is responsible for 9/11? That can't be possible!!

But then we see the Jeffrey Epstein debacle, Trump being investigated and harassed nonstop and impeached twice, Covid, the vaccines, a fraudulent election followed by an incredibly corrupt President who is crippling our country, and it becomes less and less unbelievable. It's the same people.

It's easy to dismiss 9/11 as some crazy conspiracy theary, but it's the same people who have killed scores of thousands in the last 2 years that were in charge when 9/11 happened. They are evil.

It's hard to rationalize how evil they are because it sounds so crazy to people like us who are just trying to live our lives and be happy.

It's not fun being called crazy, I don't enjoy it, and it's not normal for me on this board. But the ongoing current events and the blatant nonchalance of corruption and fraud at the highest levels, and the willingness to not even try to hide the corruption anymore, give credence to my beliefs.

I will respond again if I watch the video. I've already spent way more time on this thread than I planned.

AGHouston11 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea on everything but I will never buy that Building 7 fell because of the WTC collapse.

---

Building 7 burned down, but assuming it hadn't, but I'm curious what exactly do you think could have been gained by blowing it up 8 hours later?

---

Does it really matter what was to gain? I have no idea. I don't believe a 47 floor building "burned down" and looked like that.

---

Just because you dont believe it doesnt mean it isnt true.

---

No kidding
But just because you say it did or the government says it did doesn't mean that's the way it actually happened

---

True

But video proof of the events of the day and a bit of knowledge of structures tells me it happened the way the actual data says it happened.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

My beliefs and opinions about 9/11 are not some whim or hastily gathered poorly-evidenced fantasy. They are based on evidence.

---

That's why I disagree. 99.999% of the "evidence" out there is simply bullcrap.

---

Yep. We disagree. I think the debunkings are bullcrap.

Most conspiracies are based on lots of evidence, but it is all random circumstantial evidence.

Like the BBC reports that WTC 7 has collapsed before it does...ok that is circumstantial evidence where a conspiracy believer can point to it as something that supports the idea "it was already known that WTC would collapse that day" but there is no deeper evidence beyond that. They have no real supporting evidence of what was used to demolish the building, who did it for what purpose, why were they late, why did they tell the schedule to the BBC of all people, etc etc. There is no evidence of any of that. There is just this thin circumstantial veneer that can be shaped around the shape that the conspiracy theory wants to form, and almost all huge complex events have these circumstantially quirky facts, that someone can use to paper mache on top of their story to make something look believable to someone that only wants or is only capable of looking skin deep.

JJxvi said:

---

Most conspiracies are based on lots of evidence, but it is all random circumstantial evidence.

Like the BBC reports that WTC 7 has collapsed before it does...ok that is circumstantial evidence where a conspiracy believer can point to it as something that supports the idea "it was already known that WTC would collapse that day" but there is no deeper evidence beyond that. They have no real supporting evidence of what was used to demolish the building, who did it for what purpose, why were they late, why did they tell the schedule to the BBC of all people, etc etc. There is no evidence of any of that. There is just this thin circumstantial veneer that can be shaped around the shape that the conspiracy theory wants to form, and almost all huge complex events have these circumstantially quirky facts, that someone can use to paper mache on top of their story to make something look believable to someone that only wants or is only capable of looking skin deep.

---

Yep.

And it's not like reporters don't get things wrong - hell, just look at any live report of any significant event even today and you'll see that about half of the initial reports are incorrect to begin with.

The BBC reporting that WTC7 had collapsed could have been a guess, miscommunication based on overhearing something in the heat of the moment or a hundred other things.

I think it just really was already known that WTC 7 was going to collapse that day, but not on predetermined terms from before the attack, but like the people there on the day knew what could happen based on the situation in the building that afternoon from what they could hear or see from the ground. It was simply known that it could go at any time in the hours before it did and there was miscommunication with Reuters and BBC who reported that it had collapsed rather than could or was going to collapse.

JamesPShelley said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I tend to view people who believe conspiracy theories to be pretty much lacking in intelligence.

---

LOL.

You think we landed on the moon in 1969? We can't land on the moon and it's 2022.

---

what are you talking about?

the Chinese just landed on the moon.

the Israelis just sent a lunar module which was a few feet from the surface before crashing.

I can't imagine anyone not believing the last FIFTY YEARS of NASA activities.

so all of Cape Canaveral is a vast fraud and conspiracy that no one has mentioned over decades?!?!

Fair enough, sir. Not only are we both huge Rush fans, but we are both '90.

Discussion of this goes all over the place. There are actually different scenarios of what would constitute a conspiracy about it.

The `let it happen' type --- easiest and simplest, which allows the AQ hijackers to do what they did, and the fires, and the structural forces, and all the rest, all naturally.

The "it was staged" type -- you hear particularly about the Pentagon, but seems to rest on preposterous ideas that don't realize what airframes and metal do in intense heat.

The most bold and least tenable claim even the WTC attacks are partly pre set up (the demolition model, etc)

Another variety says WTC 7 was deliberate, even if they others were not. Seems far-fetched, even if it held records someone wanted destroyed it is inconceivable that WTC 1 and 2 were "staged" to give it cover. And if they were not, its a bit hard to see its intentional destruction than being planned in the interval since 9amto 5pm.

Here's the one conspiracy probably worth a closer look --- the conspiracy to hijack the attack itself and mis-inform (if he was) Bush about Iraq and get the response directed at Iraq as soon as possible, even to prematurely taking the eye off the Afghanistan ball. This seems to have some legs given Colin Powell's manner after he was put into the position of making the Feb pitch 2003 to the U.S. he did for it appears he has all but recanted it or is mad about it.

Just some idle thoughts --- the point being, I think the real questions are the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the deployments planned, rather than the attack getting through.

But just an opinion, not an argument.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Occam's Razor is just a lost concept on most conspiracy theorists.

---

Ah, the Occam's Razor post. How clever. Simplest answer is the most likely answer.

Tower 7

1. Fell almost straight down at very near freefall, like a controlled demolition.
2. Firemen and policemen warned people that the building was coming down.
3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.
4. Owner said months later that they had decided to "pull it" (tower 7).

Occam's Razor says controlled demolition.

Quote:

---

3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.

---

So you think these reporters were told about the whole thing before hand?

Always appreciate your thoughts and your rational demeanor, Titan. We've had these discussions on other 911 threads.

snowdog90 said:

---

Tower 7

1. Fell almost straight down at very near freefall, like a controlled demolition.

When things fall, they fall at freefall.

Explain to me how thousands of pounds of explosives were brought into the building and wired, yet no one notice.

2. Firemen and policemen warned people that the building was coming down.

Because it had been burning for 8+ hours

3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.

Now we believe reporters, who are racing to put out news first?

4. Owner said months later that they had decided to "pull it" (tower 7).

"Pull it", as in pull all firefighting attempts and clear the area. Words have more than one meaning.

---

The evidence points to planes being flown into the buildings being the cause of building collapse.

snowdog90 said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Occam's Razor is just a lost concept on most conspiracy theorists.

---

Ah, the Occam's Razor post. How clever. Simplest answer is the most likely answer.

Tower 7

1. Fell almost straight down at very near freefall, like a controlled demolition.
2. Firemen and policemen warned people that the building was coming down.
3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.
4. Owner said months later that they had decided to "pull it" (tower 7).

Occam's Razor says controlled demolition.

---

Controlled demolition with what? Are you suggesting it had a self destruct mechanism built in?

It surprises me how many conspiracy theorist are domain experts in demolition, aviation, space travel, material science, physics, and engineering.

bmks270 said:

---

The evidence points to planes being flown into the buildings being the cause of building collapse.

---

To say the least.

Only the Pentagon seems a little off to so many people because you are lacking precisely such spectacular footage of a large plane banking in and coming in level to slam into the sides. You do have testimony, but what is hanging people up is that low level (which fits a missile or similar projectile perfectly) and the lack of any kind of snap or good footage of the moment.

Considering its visibility from so many directions, the skepticism about this lack is understandable. But there is other kinds of evidence affirming the identity of the plane used. It is true it seems thinner compared to those luxurious details and footage of the WTCs but its what you have.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.

---

So you think these reporters were told about the whole thing before hand?

---

I don't think they were told about the whole thing, but I think someone knew the building would come down and was warning people and journalists.

I agree, it's weird, it doesn't make sense. Why would journalists report a building had fallen when it hadn't? Then the building falls less than a half-hour later. Wtf.

Many people reported explosions from tower 7 earlier in the day, before it fell. Debunkers will say, "oh those explosions could have been anything, gas lines or fuel containers exploding due to fires". I agree. But we don't know what the explosions were. We only know that NIST reported that they didn't test for explosive residue because there was no evidence of explosions. This is a lie.

Based on all of this, it seems that somebody knew that building would fall, and probably planned it. I don't know who or why, but it doesn't seem like such a huge leap to come to that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Why would journalists report a building had fallen when it hadn't

---

false reports happen daily. especially in crazy times like that day was.

you are right about it not making sense that the people that "control demolition" brought down the building reached out and told the media beforehand. its frankly silly to think that is evidence of anything.

snowdog90 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.

---

So you think these reporters were told about the whole thing before hand?

---

I don't think they were told about the whole thing, but I think someone knew the building would come down and was warning people and journalists.

I agree, it's weird, it doesn't make sense. Why would journalists report a building had fallen when it hadn't? Then the building falls less than a half-hour later. Wtf.

Many people reported explosions from tower 7 earlier in the day, before it fell. Debunkers will say, "oh those explosions could have been anything, gas lines or fuel containers exploding due to fires". I agree. But we don't know what the explosions were. We only know that NIST reported that they didn't test for explosive residue because there was no evidence of explosions. This is a lie.

Based on all of this, it seems that somebody knew that building would fall, and probably planned it. I don't know who or why, but it doesn't seem like such a huge leap to come to that conclusion.

---

Take that for just a second.

Does this scenario assume that WTC II and WTC 1 are natural events as a result of the attack, and then, in the chaotic aftermath, a process is initiated to destroy WTC 7 (perhaps for records)?

If so, how was the process set up so quickly between the first plane impact on WTC 1 and the 5pm fall of WTC 7?



OR is this saying
All of it is manufactured including WTC II and WTC 1 falling the way they did-- (which personally consider preposterous)

Just trying to fit-in what is even the assumption about WTC 7's "rigging" here? (not at this moment the evidence, just the context)

Quote:

---

1. Fell almost straight down at very near freefall, like a controlled demolition.
2. Firemen and policemen warned people that the building was coming down.
3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.
4. Owner said months later that they had decided to "pull it" (tower 7).

---

2. b/c it had been burning nonstop for several hours, and you already 2 buildings come down
3. b/c in all of the chaos and everything that had already transpired that day, they probably heard that it "was" coming down as present tense instead of future tense, and reported that it had fallen.

there would have been no way to prep that building for detonation without anyone knowing. It would have been impossible to prep it and run all the charges and det cord on the day of, or even prior to. I suggest you watch some youtube videos on the process.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Tower 7

1. Fell almost straight down at very near freefall, like a controlled demolition.

When things fall, they fall at freefall.

Explain to me how thousands of pounds of explosives were brought into the building and wired, yet no one notice.

2. Firemen and policemen warned people that the building was coming down.

Because it had been burning for 8+ hours

3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.

Now we believe reporters, who are racing to put out news first?

4. Owner said months later that they had decided to "pull it" (tower 7).

"Pull it", as in pull all firefighting attempts and clear the area. Words have more than one meaning.

---

---

These answers are a joke. I've been through these 911 battles 100 teams seeing the same responses. Believe what you want to believe. I really don't want to beat my head against the wall today.

I've come to the conclusions I have based on what I've seen, no emotion. If it's different from yours, so be it.

Quote:

---

agree, it's weird, it doesn't make sense. Why would journalists report a building had fallen when it hadn't?

---

I'll take "Because they are idiots" for $1,000.

Or, they were wrong.

Or, they lied.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Anyone that believes those buildings were brought down by explosives is a moron.

---

There's one born every minute. Unfortunately moron 9/11 truthers get a vote too

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

These answers are a joke

---

Then you can easily debunk my assertion that a controlled demolition of Building 7 would require weeks of work, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of wiring and det cord, hundreds of workers...

...and somehow, it was all done in total secrecy.

---

He won't respond