Quote:

---

And as was pointed out in the other thread, you don't just put explosives on a building and it comes down. It takes A LOT of work by A LOT of people (there's that 100's involved in the conspiracy again who all have remained silent) to get a building ready to fall down. Also, it was NOT "controlled". Both the North and South towers damaged the buildings around them and DID NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEED despite the elementary education student stating it repeatedly.

---

The whether or not there on the rate of fall seems a little ambiguous. Building 7 sure does look like it meets it.

But just as an outlier --- the wild card is this notion-claim of some kind of pre-wiring done after 1993 as some kind of ultimate precaution. That event rattled a lot of people, with the specter suddenly of `what if they came down' and people started thinking about it. (That part is true) It is just possible to see in the rather naive and upbeat 90's where the future looked ever bright that something odd was done as a failsafe in completely good faith. I don't believe it but the fact is some of those citations had a lot of testimony, who had access type stuff, other connections, etc. Since one has no way of knowing what is simply made up without doing the research themselves, can't possibly venture whether its all just fabrication. But one thing is clear and more slack should be given -- its easier to understand why a subsection of the public is buying into some of this.

To distinguish own stance. Remain rather agnostic about Building 7. Its so much later, its just conceivable even some kind of elaborate fiscal payback/insurance motive, whatever - with tycoon level wealth its hard to know - it might have been dropped. No one died from it-- another clue that a benign drop might just be true there, and it is leading everyone astray about the rest. Napolitano before he was crazy seemed to think something in it, even Geraldo. Just saying that it is possible for analysis to be confused about an outlier that is true, and ends up making everything else screwed up in interpretation.

B-1 83 said:

---

Pages later, and we still don't know what island the passengers were shipped off to……..

---

Imagine the lives all these people are living in paradise.

The most rational position imo:

Our CIA is evil and has committed nightmarish atrocities. No telling what we don't even know about it...I am not sure I even want to know about the heinous activities and operations that will never see the light of day. Thankfully, their warped actions have mostly been taken against foreigners, and not Americans. Our FBI is evil and corrupt to the core. You might as well just always assume out government is lying to us.

That being said, this would have just been way too big and complex for them to pull off...and may even cross ethical thresholds for the CIA (although not sure about that).

But anyone who doesn't subscribe to the line of thinking in my top paragraph, I pretty much tune out immediately, there is no discussion to be had.

Charles Hickson Knows said:

---

Farsight Institute out of Atlanta, GA, did a project on the 9/11 events using a technique developed by Stanford Res Inst. and our CIA for military espionage purposes.

Here is the trailer for the data collected:

9/11

---

So we should trust psychics rather than actual evidence and eye witnesses?

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

The most rational position imo:

Our CIA is evil and has committed nightmarish atrocities. No telling what we don't even know about it...I am not sure I even want to know about the heinous activities and operations that wil never see the light of day. Our FBI is evil and corrupt to the core. You might as well just always assume out government is lying to us.

That being said, this would have just been way too big and complex for them to pull off...and may even cross ethical thresholds for the CIA (although not sure about that).

But anyone who doesn't subscribe to the line of thinking in my top paragraph, I pretty much tune out immediately, there is no discussion to be had.

---

Possibly (slightly) more optimistic take, if more cynical? Is this:

What really has faded and been exploded is the unique almost quaint American notion of a `good' powerful government. The truth is as a a major but wise liberal, Gore Vidal put it, the political and press system attracts and rewards "ambitious second raters" in society. Not the best, not those with character. (Today I have no doubt he would say "third raters" -- a much devolved stock - enter those two fields.

Is the CIA or FBI really more evil than the KGB was or the SS/SD or China's Secret police? What about Mossad and MI-6? Probably not. The myth may have been that they are far, far better. You know the meme about it takes very rough types manning ramparts to protect, right? There is such a thing as a necessary evil in real-politik.

Think of it that way -- the covert arms of ANY empire do not pass moral bars in their behavior or actions, or truthfulness. All that one can really hope for is to avoid the special kind of corruption (as unfortunately see now with the OBidens) of when that apparatus is turned against its own people for purely self-serving reasons rather than trying to protect the overall (like shooting the 19 hijackers before 9/11 would have--a crime, but laudable. The KGB and Mossad definitely would have). The necessary evil or `lawless' part of such groups can too easily lead into the belief they are doing the worst, as well. When they usually are not. They are made up of citizens just like anything else.

Our problem right now is under Left dominance of the DNC-MSM-Academy-Alphabets---- you are dealing with a special level of evil, because it is focused against its own nation's long term future. Even the times the KGB did that were limited, and sometimes had to be violently cleaned up by the Politburo.

We are in one such now. Were we in the 1960's? That's another question that may relate to these theories that seem to reach back to then for their precedent examples.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

You have a problem with the facts of why the feds wouldn't release footage from inside the Pentagon (assuming it exists, which i think most believe it does - I certainly do) even though I've told you why based on actual real world experience at various military installations regarding taking pictures and how the feds and .mil handle what pictures can and cannot leave the installation due to security risks.

But hey...whatever works for you I guess.

---

Those facts being what? The ones that may or may not exist? If no footage actually exists then reasons to not release it can't exist, so not facts at all.

You're either as important as you think you are and have Top Secret clearance or a clown. Anyone who knows your posting history knows you're a clown.

---

You are so awesome. I mean, really, really awesome. Such a zinger you provided there!

You keep doing you, we all need something to laugh at periodically and you provide good entertainment.

I have never argued, and frankly nobody on this thread or any other thread has ever argued, that the government is lily white and pure as the driven snow. Quit trying to make that argument because it simply is nothing more than trying to change the subject or move the goalposts so you can find some "gotcha!" moment that you think actually validates your beyond skewed view of a sequence of events.

What has been argued, and backed up with facts, data and everything else - is that your dumbass belief that no investigations were done until years later and that the WTC towers physically could not have collapsed the way they did and that the Pentagon wasn't hit with a 757 is pure, utter, complete stupidity and garbage. I'm sorry if those words hurt your feelings....but them's the facts brosephus.

Like you said though - absolutely nothing will change your mind, because you are so far gone from reality that you cannot comprehend anything other than your little fantasy world. I honestly feel sorry for people that cannot accept factual, logical and rational data presented to them because it doesn't line up with whatever make believe fairy dust world they live in and will spend hours trying to prove something that doesn't exist, wile flat out ignoring anything that doesn't align with their little unicorn world dreams and telling everybody that they just can't see it because they are big government lemmings.

Terrorist in 3 planes hit 3 buildings. Nothing changes that fact.

snowdog90 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Many ask for theories from truthers about what happened. I've responded with my answer many times.

---

If you've ever given a theory on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, supported by evidence, I've missed it.

Usually what I see is a word salad containing some combination of JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, Iran Contra, CIA running drugs in Arkansas for Bush and Clinton, Iraq 1 with Gulf War Syndrome, Waco, Oklahoma City, all the Clinton and Obama corruption, ivermectin, stolen election.....

If you'll post your theory here, along with your supporting evidence, I promise I'll bookmark it and never ask you again.

---

I'll think about it. As my above post attests, I can be long-winded. My last post was supposed to be a couple paragraphs at most.

Does it really matter anyway? You will call me insane. Your mind is made up, as is mine. It will accomplish nothing. I still may provide it if I get inspired, but again...

It doesn't matter. It's been 21 years. We are where we are. I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Who's right? Doesn't matter. Psychopaths are in charge and have been for a long time, and we can't do a damn thing about it.

---

You're right it doesn't matter since clearly your mind is made up and you refuse to actually accept any of the massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. But let's not pretend we're debating something subjective like whether Arby's tastes good or replay is beneficial for football.

One side has facts backed by literally thousands of eye witnesses and mountains of evidence. The other side has a few anomalies that would simultaneously require a massive multi level conspiracy to murder thousands of American citizens, ignoring those eye witnesses and mountains of evidence, and generally believing in something that is logistically impossible. These aren't equal sides to the debate.

---

Yes. Keep shoveling that ***** A few anomalies? No. Massive, major anomalies. Hundreds, if not thousands. Eyewitnesses? Like the hundreds that heard explosions in New York? Like the janitor in North Tower who said a bomb went off in the basement before the first plane hit? Like the other eyewitness who reported a bomb going off in tower 7 before the towers fell. He was trapped in a stairwell in tower 7 for hours.

Eyewitnesses. Many eyewitnesses reported that feds were on scene around the Pentagon within minutes confiscating video from all surrounding businesses.

Are these the eyewitnesses you're referring to? No, these are the eyewitnesses you will discredit or call them wrong or stupid.

It doesn't matter.

---

Yes, because a janitor is exactly who I would run to when I need to get expertise on bombs going off.

My god, I honestly hope you don't work in any position that either influences kids or has any significant responsibility. Because if you do...I question a lot of different things.

I wish that laughing/crying emoticon was available here, because it fits perfect with this drivel.

AggiEE said:

---

The challenge is with hitting the pentagon face directly and using the flight path that was recorded

---

This is all completely false and has been proven to you umpteen times over.

BTW, the 757 didn't hit it directly. It hit the ground first and hit at an angle to the face of the building.

schmellba99 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

The challenge is with hitting the pentagon face directly and using the flight path that was recorded

---

This is all completely false and has been proven to you umpteen times over.

BTW, the 757 didn't hit it directly. It hit the ground first and hit at an angle to the face of the building.

---

Whoah -- I don't think it HIT the ground ---- almost certain they said its right engine clipped a generator truck, but not a belly `swipe' on the ground. Even the tree being amputated is a little above the ground but usefully dead in the path helping to mark the place.

Related: apparently it also clipped a light pole coming in --that's why one engine streaming a contrail (or it had malfunctioned either way). That's what you see in that security-cam footage that some have assumed (reasonably in visual terms) was the trail of a fired missile.

WARNING! WHEN READING 911 TRUTHER THREADS, KEEP IN MIND THAT ONE-HALF OF THE POPULATION IS BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND YOU HAVE FOUND THEM.

JJxvi said:

---

If you go back and watch 9/11 live news broadcasts in New York prior to the second crash, you will see that almost everybody interviewed by news reporters or calling in to the studios to talk about what they saw about the first tower hit underestimated the size of the airplane and gave really bad descriptions. People aren't good at identifying aircraft generally.

---

Generally speaking across the board - eyewitness testimony is some of the worst you can get in almost every situation. Humans have a tendency to see what they want to see and memories can be altered based on outside influence without a whole lot of effort. Pre-disposed attitudes also have a significant effect on what people remember or don't remember.

Example - jet airliners fly into tall buildings. Chaos ensues. First thing somebody hears is that it is a conspiracy and that bombs wen toff before the plane hit in the basement. The people that didn't see or hear anything suddenly have vivid recollections of those very things happening. It happens quite a bit and isn't a rare phenomenon. Which is why any lawyer will tell you that eyewitness testimony is unreliable at best and can usually be picked apart with focused questions.

You can convince a large group of people in a very chaotic situation that they are not prepared for or have little to no training to deal with of almost whatever you want to convince them happened. It's human nature, and isn't limited to chaotic situations either. People tend to remember an dfocus on the first bit of information they get in almost any situation and that is what ultimately defines the narrative from that point on.

Another factor, is very, very few saw the first airliner hit WTC 1, the North Tower. And those that did would automatically assume it was some poorly flow private plane---- just the bias of the times. The mental image of an airliner careless enough to do it in broad daylight simply was not there. I still remember that being the first question popping up --- "weather is crystal clear here" (D.C.) "is New York having a squall" --- of course only matter of minutes you learned "no the weather is clear" and that led automatically to "must have been a Learjet or something" and "either a fool or heart attack".

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

And as was pointed out in the other thread, you don't just put explosives on a building and it comes down. It takes A LOT of work by A LOT of people (there's that 100's involved in the conspiracy again who all have remained silent) to get a building ready to fall down. Also, it was NOT "controlled". Both the North and South towers damaged the buildings around them and DID NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEED despite the elementary education student stating it repeatedly.

---

The whether or not there on the rate of fall seems a little ambiguous. Building 7 sure does look like it meets it.

But just as an outlier --- the wild card is this notion-claim of some kind of pre-wiring done after 1993 as some kind of ultimate precaution. That event rattled a lot of people, with the specter suddenly of `what if they came down' and people started thinking about it. (That part is true) It is just possible to see in the rather naive and upbeat 90's where the future looked ever bright that something odd was done as a failsafe in completely good faith. I don't believe it but the fact is some of those citations had a lot of testimony, who had access type stuff, other connections, etc. Since one has no way of knowing what is simply made up without doing the research themselves, can't possibly venture whether its all just fabrication. But one thing is clear and more slack should be given -- its easier to understand why a subsection of the public is buying into some of this.

To distinguish own stance. Remain rather agnostic about Building 7. Its so much later, its just conceivable even some kind of elaborate fiscal payback/insurance motive, whatever - with tycoon level wealth its hard to know - it might have been dropped. No one died from it-- another clue that a benign drop might just be true there, and it is leading everyone astray about the rest. Napolitano before he was crazy seemed to think something in it, even Geraldo. Just saying that it is possible for analysis to be confused about an outlier that is true, and ends up making everything else screwed up in interpretation.

---

It's later because it took 7 hours of uncontrolled interior burning before the structural support systems could no longer do their job. You know...physics, metallurgy, etc. Actual science.

No one died because it was only damaged by falling debris from WTC2, and there was ample time to evacuate the building before anybody could be in a position where death was really on the table. Again...facts and all that jazz. It, like WTC1 and WTC2, didn't come down in anything resembling a controlled manner. Not even close. Back to those facts, physics and science stuff.

Give up on the "it was dropped" or controlled demo or whatever - it makes you appear and sound really, really, dumb. I mean really dumb. I want to believe you aren't that dense upstairs, I really do. But the more you post this nonsense and refuse to look at actual facts, the easier it is for the rest of us to come to the same conclusion concerning your IQ. A bunch of us are really trying to help you out here...you should take that help.

Eyewitness accounts CAN be sketchy, no doubt, but my friend in DC at the Pentagon was an ex Naval pilot who now was a fixed wing commercial pilot. I'd take his word on "it was a 757!", all day, e'ry day.


Some schmoe who claims to have heard an explosion and attributed to a bomb.....no.

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

What exactly was that maneuver?

No investigation was done into the total collapse of the buildings. Just the initiation of collapse. And it's entirely based on flawed modeling to fit a pre determined narrative.

More recent academic studies have debunked the NIST report

AggiEE said:

---

More recent academic studies have debunked the NOST report

---

Links?

FedGov is definitely corrupt as hell and lies to us. This has been established multiple times over. Not a single soul disputes that or has argued otherwise in this or any other thread. Everyone is in agreement on that fact. But that's a strawman with no bearing on this topic because there's a mountain of specific, detailed, incontrovertible evidence that supports the fact that 3 terrorists flew planes into buildings and a 4th plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Those are facts.

If the Truther argument was that the government knew of an imminent attack but failed to act, that's a reasonable, believable take worthy of serious discussion. Otherwise, if 9/11 "Truthers" don't wish to be ridiculed and/or dismissed as loons, then they should offer alternative theories that aren't logistically impossible and certifiably insane, buttressed by data.

Normal people with common damn sense have little patience with people who insist water isn't wet.

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

And as was pointed out in the other thread, you don't just put explosives on a building and it comes down. It takes A LOT of work by A LOT of people (there's that 100's involved in the conspiracy again who all have remained silent) to get a building ready to fall down. Also, it was NOT "controlled". Both the North and South towers damaged the buildings around them and DID NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEED despite the elementary education student stating it repeatedly.

---

The whether or not there on the rate of fall seems a little ambiguous. Building 7 sure does look like it meets it.

But just as an outlier --- the wild card is this notion-claim of some kind of pre-wiring done after 1993 as some kind of ultimate precaution. That event rattled a lot of people, with the specter suddenly of `what if they came down' and people started thinking about it. (That part is true) It is just possible to see in the rather naive and upbeat 90's where the future looked ever bright that something odd was done as a failsafe in completely good faith. I don't believe it but the fact is some of those citations had a lot of testimony, who had access type stuff, other connections, etc. Since one has no way of knowing what is simply made up without doing the research themselves, can't possibly venture whether its all just fabrication. But one thing is clear and more slack should be given -- its easier to understand why a subsection of the public is buying into some of this.

To distinguish own stance. Remain rather agnostic about Building 7. Its so much later, its just conceivable even some kind of elaborate fiscal payback/insurance motive, whatever - with tycoon level wealth its hard to know - it might have been dropped. No one died from it-- another clue that a benign drop might just be true there, and it is leading everyone astray about the rest. Napolitano before he was crazy seemed to think something in it, even Geraldo. Just saying that it is possible for analysis to be confused about an outlier that is true, and ends up making everything else screwed up in interpretation.

---

It's later because it took 7 hours of uncontrolled interior burning before the structural support systems could no longer do their job. You know...physics, metallurgy, etc. Actual science.

---

I know all that. Back when that thread was going on, took a deep dive into the Bldg 7 stuff. What you are missing is the NIST report ended up inaccurately modeling the form of the collapse. It was even apparent when examining the plans and the imagery. There was a big long academic rebuttal that effectively showed that much. Or appeared to. All that did was create room for exploring that `there might be something in it.'

Quote:

---

No one died because it was only damaged by falling debris from WTC2, and there was ample time to evacuate the building before anybody could be in a position where death was really on the table. Again...facts and all that jazz. It, like WTC1 and WTC2, didn't come down in anything resembling a controlled manner. Not even close. Back to those facts, physics and science stuff.

---

You are mis-writing what said and really do not like that. I said nothing about the other two towers. The whole point is are agnostic about Building 7. NOT the other two. The point was the collapse didn't kill anyone, so its less sinister even if it was put down. Just an observation, not an assertion. And it appears people were killed earlier in the day by debris and the like there, so that wording was precise for a reason.

Quote:

---

Give up on the "it was dropped" or controlled demo or whatever - it makes you appear and sound really, really, dumb. I mean really dumb. I want to believe you aren't that dense upstairs, I really do. But the more you post this nonsense and refuse to look at actual facts, the easier it is for the rest of us to come to the same conclusion concerning your IQ. A bunch of us are really trying to help you out here...you should take that help.

---

No, what is sounding dumb probably is having what one said mis-stated with snarky manner when the unedited version is still there to read. I think you are mistaking my saying "I see where they are coming from" for I BELIEVE or, SUSPECT, they are right. FALSE. I Do Not.

Back off with your "us" stuff. My analytical standards hold for self are ridiculous. I don't care about conclusions made by someone not even correctly parsing what I wrote. The entire discussion was simply hearing some out and and about the need to allow for what is leading some down the paths they are --- they are not looking at just a few tweets of info.

NOWWHERE did I endorse any of it. In fact, with the Pentagon, even expressly said "none compelling".

All I ended up saying was this, and stand by it:

Quote:

---

Just saying that it is possible for analysis to be confused about an outlier that is true, and ends up making everything else screwed up in interpretation.

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

What exactly was that maneuver?

---

It's THE maneuver, c'mon man!

Seriously though, that's the extent of the answer that you'll get from him. A more practical answer would be "flying like someone with very low hours." In other words the thing that highly experienced pilots are trained not to do.

The Fife said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

What exactly was that maneuver?

---

It's THE maneuver, c'mon man!

Seriously though, that's the extent of the answer that you'll get from him. A more practical answer would be "flying like someone with very low hours." In other words the thing that highly experienced pilots are trained not to do.

---

Highly experienced drivers could not exactly replicate this in a simulator. Every single one hit the light pole!

Quote:

---

Whoah -- I don't think it HIT the ground -

---

Hit a helipad first

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

Still not seeing proof of this ridiculous assertion

AggiEE said:

---

No investigation was done into the total collapse of the buildings. Just the initiation of collapse. And it's entirely based on flawed modeling to fit a pre determined narrative.

More recent academic studies have debunked the NOST report

---

I only believe those "academic studies" that say what I already believe, hoss.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Whoah -- I don't think it HIT the ground -

---

Hit a helipad first

---

Wasn't the helipad a bit left (when looking at the west wall) northwesterly, of the impact? The Pentagon engineering performance report mentions reported clipping some light posts coming in and some construction equpment (apparently that generator truck was meant) but not grazing the helipad itself? Interesting if it did.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

Still not seeing proof of this ridiculous assertion

---

Now this is a point where will risk sounding `dumb' because don't know ---- as one experienced is there anything especially hard about pointing a plane you are willing to wreck right at the side of such an enormous and wide building? Isn't the course sort of just what you would expect -- dropping to treetop level for the final run, even overdoing it (clipping lamps) and then Wham.

It even seems he overshot the Pentagon before descent, and that is the purpose of the long circling around (possibly fatal delay if there had been overhead fighters like in a war)

chickencoupe16 said:

---

The Fife said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

What exactly was that maneuver?

---

It's THE maneuver, c'mon man!

Seriously though, that's the extent of the answer that you'll get from him. A more practical answer would be "flying like someone with very low hours." In other words the thing that highly experienced pilots are trained not to do.

---

Highly experienced drivers could not exactly replicate this in a simulator. Every single one hit the light pole!

---

I caught the same sort of thing on my dash cam in Baton Rouge on I-10. Good luck pulling this one off twice!
Edit: obviously this is CGI and not someone with bad tires and brakes who needed to change his shorts afterwords

https://imgur.com/a/yAl1CjA

What is this object colliding with the WTC as seen in these 18 vantage points?

chickencoupe16 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Yes, they did manage to hit only the side face of the building, with an incredible maneuver that highly experienced pilots could not replicate in a simulator

---

What exactly was that maneuver?

---

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/06/prweb534642.htm



57 thru 1 hr 13

1 hr 34

1 hr 55

And a whole host of information here from pilots that question 9/11

https://911pilots.org/

chickencoupe16 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

More recent academic studies have debunked the NOST report

---

Links?

---

https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

These 9/11 Truther threads get more action than even the SuPeR fIT CaThOLiC GuYs WiTh GuNs pining-away-for-theocracy threads. And nearly just as convincing.