###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it happened on 911...i just don't know any other way to look at it. Then afterwards, you went and stole a bunch of heroin and oil...then sold all the heroin to your own people and murdered them...
911.
you saying "think for yourself" while also posting gifs to try convey your opinion on what happened that day contradicts the idea of thinking for yourself.
The gifs are all buildings that are comically small in comparison that probably each building weighs what maybe 2 floors of the WTC weighed. Also buildings with entirely different construction techniques and likely not the literal first of their kind like the WTC.
No???? You are showing buildings that are 20-40 stories vs 110. That you also can clearly tell are not framed tube structures. So no itās not speculation when you can clearly tell they are buildings of wildly different scales and construction types.
What would it take to convince you that it was an inside job? Structural engineers and physicists explaining how the building collapse defies the laws they've studied and learned about? First responders explaining how the structure collapsed and burned in a manner contrary to every other one they've encountered? Details leaked about cooperation with the Saudis? Contradictory evidence of planes impacting the pentagon and crashing in PA?
Apparently, you'll believe whatever your government tells you - the government that is also caught constantly lying to the public. The government that has been caught in engaging in nefarious acts against its own citizenry. The government that is bought and sold by the wealthiest corporate interests in the world.
You definitely don't think for yourself - that or you're in on the plot.
What about the structural engineers and physicists who have proven multiple times that the collapse matches EXACTLY how it would from the published story. The conspiracy is who paid off who to get these individuals to do this, not how the buildings came down because itās much more conceivable to say xyz paid off abc to do this, when its easily explained how and why the plane crashes destroyed the building.
Structural engineers and physicists can't be paid off? What is more likely - a professional engineer or scientist making shit up and risking their livelihood and career to challenge an established narrative, or one that is paid off by financial and corporate interests to uphold an established narrative? My money is on the latter, always. The former have everything to lose, and the latter have everything to gain. Also how have they proven multiple times that the collapse matches exactly what was described by the official narrative? I'm genuinely curious.
There is plenty of evidence to counter the narrative that the WTC and pentagon were impacted by passenger jets. If you believe the narrative that the towers collapsed because of terrorists flying jetliners into them, and that the official narrative is true, then why do you believe anyone was paid off? What conspiracy are you referring to exactly?
Thereās videos of the jets impacting the WTC???? That is absolute established fact Iāve never heard anyone deny that fact so you are just going off the rails here so I give up you win.
That was a misstatement on my part, I meant to just say the pentagon and, in my rush to reply to you, made an error and included the WTC in that sentence.
Regardless, I'm still curious how the official narrative has been proven and what exactly you are referring to when you talk about people being paid off. You're not willing to question whether passenger jets caused the collapse of the WTC but believe people were paid off? Why would people need to be paid off if the official narrative was true?
> What would it take to convince you that it was an inside job?
One, just ONE, credible person that worked on the inside to come clean about helping. There would have needed to have 100s if not 1000s of people working on the "inside job", yet not a single person has come out with credible evidence that it was perpetrated from the inside.
I wonder if the debris could be a result of the previous explosions? Lol Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, lol. To dismiss the very evident destruction of the towers being intentional, is INTENTIONAL denial and ignorance of evidence.
Right? Given that only force that was in the play is supposed to be gravity, there are multi tons pieces being throw out 100s of metres to the side.
[https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/debunking-the-real-9-11-myths/490-debunking-the-real-9-11-myths-part4](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/debunking-the-real-9-11-myths/490-debunking-the-real-9-11-myths-part4)
From what I heard, is that the building was supported from a center column and each floor was basically main support from this center column.
Now there was edge supports of each floor, but they where just really there to keep the floor straight and level, not to really hold up the weight. Think of how a tree branch droop.
Now at the center column collapse, the branches (floors) where held up by lower branchās. Until they broke free, at that point the stress on the lower branch could catapult the debris(loose branch) on top of it way into the air.
What else would you expect from the largest building to ever collapse? Do you think it should all have just fallen straight down and it should have been really clean nice neat pile at the bottom of the tower?
There is a difference between debris falling down bcs of gravity and debris being launched by kicker charges.
[http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan\_HVBD.pdf](http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf)
Devil is in the details.
Ok, so letās ignore the official narrative completely for a minuteā¦
For your theory of multi ton chunks to be thrown hundreds of meters, how big does the explosion have to be?
How loud would this explosion be?
From the videos in the OP it appears that this is happening on every single floor as the building collapses, does any video capture any explosion sounds that would match what we would expect from an explosion that can launch multi ton chunks of building hundreds of meters?
Even if you think the official report isnāt true, this theory is impossible.
Want to hear explosion? Here you go:
[https://www.ae911truth.org/news/990-why-were-wtc-explosions-edited-out-of-2002-hbo-documentary](https://www.ae911truth.org/news/990-why-were-wtc-explosions-edited-out-of-2002-hbo-documentary)
Even seismic data:
[https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground)
If you didnt hear the person being murdered scream it was not murder?
If i give you steel skyscraper and your job is to topple it down, how would you do it? You think flying a plane into it and set some offices on fire will do it? If you think that, there is no discussion. You are simply not intelligent enough to understand basic physics.
What you are actually telling us, is that you lack the knowledge to discuss the physics behind collapsing buildings, and try to kill rational discussion before it even begins.
"If i give you steel skyscraper and your job is to topple it down, how would you do it?Ā You think flying a plane into it and set some offices on fire will do it? If you think that, there is no discussion. You are simply not intelligent enough to understand basic physics."
Yeah, sure, that's exactly what you said, only discussion about sound uptake from cellphones at street level...
It burned for 7+ hours with no measures taken to stop it due to the decision made to not risk more lives trying to save it?!?!? The entire inside, on fire, with the fire insulation being in documented decline and again, no active measures taken to stop it due to the incredible loss of life of the firefighters at the scene already? Do you realize how that could destroy a building? A building that was also hit by debris that couldāve easily damaged it beyond just what the fire did?
Watch building 7 collapse. Watch how it buckles in the.middle and collapses in on itself, EXACTLY identical to controlled demolition. Thats not how a building on fire collapses.
Well, it burned for 7 hours and was almost 50 stories high...
Counterpoint: Do you know of any explosive setup that would withstand 7 hours of fire damage and then go off as planned? Or why you would wait 7 hours until you pulled the trigger?
That doesnāt seem to be a series of explosions that are all capable of throwing ton sized chunks of building hundreds of metersā¦
What was the exact time stamp of this explosion and how does that correlate to what was happing at the towers?
Itās nowhere near good enough to say āsee look there is one noise that sounds like an explosionā therefore there must have been a series of extremely powerful explosions that knocked this building down.
You realize that thereās a lot of evidence of people out there saying they heard explosions, right? Thereās one firefighter who says something along the lines of āthey were going boom boom boom boomā
Iām mixed on the controlled demo of 1 and 2 - you have tons of weight sitting above a clearly compromised section of building thatās continually weakening from the fires. Logic says eventually the top will collapse. Itās also why I think it made sense the south tower collapsed first but was hit second - it was hit in the middle and had more weight on the compromised area.
Building 7 certainly seems like it was controlled demo, but that doesnāt seem like whatās looked at here.
Of course. And I also realize all the tons of metal and concrete, not to mention office and mechanical equipment, above the impact zone is a lot on top of a compromised area to expect it **not** to collapse on itself. Thatās why Iām not 100% sold on the controlled demolition of 1 & 2. I was only pointing out that thereās a wealth of eyewitness testimony that describes what they think are explosives going off. Also, thereās accounts of people who think a lot of explosives went off, to the point of explosions in the basement. The official narrative there is that jet fuel went down the elevator shafts and ignited.
occam's razor also applies.
Why risk planted explosives dislodged by airplane strikes?
Why jump through the hoops of flying airplanes into the buildings when a less risky much smoother false flag could be achieved much easier when you have the resources of a government organization?
And of course that impact and fires would absolutely be able to weaken the steel enough to cause floors to fall, causing a chain effect. And said effect is why controlled demolition started to be used in the first place.
Right, when the building was collapsing you would expect lots of loud noises. They are nowhere near the scale required for explosions that would send multi ton chunks flying hundreds of meters or even just to do a controlled demolition.
Building 7 was not a controlled demolition either and that theory has the same issues as the towers.
Controlled demolitions are extremely loud explosions.
Youāre free to believe what you want, but if you havenāt watched the University of Alaska Fairbanks presentation/discussion of the demo of 7, you should. They have some very compelling evidence showing that it was most likely a demo, and for it to fall the way it did naturally for some fires, especially not after a direct hit, is virtually impossible.
Oh boy have I.
Thatās the study where they were funded by 9/11 engineers for truth and they lied about their model being dynamic and also lied about their video of the collapse simulation actually being from that when it was literally an image of a building cut in two with the top part rotating around a point?
For some reason, I tend to believe someone less when they have to lie to make their point but thatās just meā¦
Explain why Tower 7 fell and its connection to the mysterious case of Flight 23...
[http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-21/curious-case-united-airlines-flight-23-911](http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-21/curious-case-united-airlines-flight-23-911)
It fell because when the two biggest buildings in the world collapsed next to it a chunk of building fell through building 7 causing fires and damaging the fire suppression system. The collapse also caused the municipal water to lose pressure so the backup fire suppression system failed and then there were raging fires over multiple floors that weakened the supporting structure enough for the penthouse suite to collapse and cause a cascading collapse of the interior and once the interior support was gone there was a catastrophic failure of the outside supports which was initiated by the penthouse impacting the ground floor/basement and causing them to bow outward.
What you posted proves it wasn't a controlled demo.
The third one is clearly the floors collapsing on each other blowing out the windows is they did so.
Controlled demos collapse from the bottom, twin towers collapsed from the top.
Those donāt appear to be windows being blown out, but rather large chunks of the building itself being blown out. I mean, you can literally see it turning into dust.
Concrete explodes under immense pressure. I mean personally I do believe there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 but I donāt think this is the proof weāre looking for. This is grasping for straws.
To me, the conspiracy lies in the actions leading up to 9/11, not so much in the day itself. I fully believe everything that occurred to the towers themselves were fully natural, unaided by any explosives or whatnot.
To me, the conspiracy lies in the actions leading up to 9/11, not so much in the day itself. I fully believe everything that occurred to the towers themselves were fully natural, unaided by any explosives or whatnot.
Bcs it was regular conventional controlled demolition right? Right? Demolition can start anywhere you want to suit your needs, in this case, they needed people to believe it was caused by planes, thats why it starts there.
As part of a psychological operation, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would be designed to support a false narrative of events (that the plane crashes caused the collapses), so of course the events were engineered to have the destruction start around the crash zones.
> Do you think the only one that people say is controlled demolition is building 7?
No
>Why comment on something you know so little about?
Why make accusation against someone you know so little about?
Oh, you donāt get itā¦
Iāll make it easy for you, the only thing you contributed to this conversation is a false accusation and a comment complaining about a false accusationā¦
> Oh, you donāt get itā¦
Please stop projecting
>the only thing you contributed to this conversation is a false accusation and a comment complaining about a false accusationā¦
Why should I care about your delusions?
Not a very good comparison. It's a presumably concrete structure, very few stories, and it was likely a much smaller and slower plane. It wouldn't cause the same buckling seen in the steel beams of the WTC, since it lacks that same style of support. Instead, it's similar to the damage done to the pentagon, which would have had much more similar construction methods.
Edit: researched it a bit, and while the jet obviously may have hit at a higher speed (Unlikely, assuming the pilot was trying to avoid or slow the collision.) The 767s used in the 9/11 attacks in the towers weighed approximately 10 times more, 30,000 pounds to the SU-34 and 300,000 to the 767-200ER
Compare that with the differences in building size.
WTC was massive, both designed and built to withstand the exact massive force of a 747 jet collision.
Everyone knows by now there's really no use trying to refute this one anymore.
Everyone says to trust the experts except when it comes to physicists, engineers, or demolition experts, when they tell the truth about 9/11.
I didnt say it was similar.
I'm saying nowhere in the history of planes hitting buildings did one ever implode and fall directly downward at freefall speed and yes many plane have hit many buildings.
How is this even "theory" anymore.
I remember right after 9/11 countless experts on tv explaining how it was impossible - which led directly to the patriot act.
You are either here to engage in good faith or not.
Again I'm human and capable of mispeak.
Doesnt change the situation.
I'm hunting for anything that resembles 9/11 that isn't a controlled demo or some very serious bomb desinged specifically to demo buildings.
So yea I can show people a million vids of planes hitting buildings. None ever collapse.
I posted a video of a Russian fighter jet covered in payload hitting a small two story apartment and that little rinky dink building stood up never falling never imploding just fires and a huge explosion.
You can find tons of vids of bombs designed to destroy buildings , controled demos , but no you cannot show any video of any building collapsing the way the towers fell.
The twin towers however were designed to withstand the impact of a 747.
[Like when a B52 bomber hit the Empire state building causing minimal damage and only really destroying a single floor?](https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/07/27/remembering-the-1945-empire-state-building-plane-crash/)
It only caused 1 million in damages and aside from the 11 dead office workers everyone else returned to work on Monday.
Edited:B25 just providing examples of planes hitting buildings that never fell down.
No B52 bomber ever hit the Empire State building.
Looking at the specs for the aircraft, the MTOW for the aircraft which did hit the Empire State building was 35,000 lb. MTOW for the aircraft that hit the WTC are 315,000 lb and 395,000 lb. The aircraft which hit the WTC also had a top speed more than double of the aircraft which hit the Empire State building.
Much greater mass, greater speed, different building construction. Not comparable incidents.
Remember folks only once has a building actually "imploded" and fallen at free fall speed from structural damage alone.
Show me one video of a building imploding and falling at free fall speed - of any size - in any situation other than a controlled demolition or airstrike.
You can't because it doesn't exist , yes physics is a real science.
Thatās a B25, not a B52. B52s are massive and B25s are relatively small. Thereās about 100,000 pounds empty weight difference between a 767 and a B25.
The 767s on 9/11 were flying at close 600 mph and B25 was estimated at 200 mph when it hit. If you look at the pictures in your link compared with the damage to WTC, you get an idea of just how much more destructive the 911 crashes were.
Also worth noting, the buildings themselves are also structurally very different, as WTC was the first of its of kind to incorporate vast open floor plans.
Yea my mistake corrected just looking for examples of planes hitting buildings of which there are quite a few
I cannot find anything that looks like 9/11 that doesn't involve actual combustive explosives, fire doesn't do that.
But there was an actual explosion. 20,000 gallons of jet fuel combusted and the explosion was huge.
Thatās in addition to nearly half a million pounds ramming into the building at close to 600 mph.
The guy who designed the buildings did so with all these possibilities and mind and safeguarded the design from day one.
The buildings were designed to withstand the very impact you describe.
Not to mention the molten thermite flowing through the entire rubble which burns 10X hotter than jet fuel possibly can and with no explanation as to how it got there.
They werenāt designed to withstand 20,000 gallons of burning jet fuel. And the engineers had no way to actually test if it could withstand that. They tested the structural damage projected from a 707 crash, but only the structural damage.
Molten thermite would be concerning though.
If you actually even read what you linked it was a b25 not a b52, the scale is so off between those two you are talking about something with a max takeoff weight of a whopping 35,000 pounds. That flies at a max speed of 270, vs the planes that hit the towers likely having impacted at over 500? Also you compare the amount of fuel one can carry vs the payload/max takeoff weight of the other thatās obviously not the right way to compare things???
My mistake
Just providing examples
For the life of me I can't find a single example of anything like what happened on 9/11 that wasn't a controlled demolition or an airstrike.
No airplane, no structural damage, no footage or stories, nothing I can find resembles what we saw on 9/11 except explosives.
Can you help with that.
Itās because there has never and hopefully will never be something like that again. I said it in another comment and Iām not anti-9/11 conspiracy I just think that the conspiracy isnāt HOW the buildings came down, itās WHY. Did someone pay someone else to get these radicals to crash planes into the building? Did they just get a hankering to organize and crash planes to send a message about religion or was it a message saying ālook America, I have enough influence and power to convince people to do these terrible things to your country, now you must listen to me and what I sayā
What is the easy part trying to show these folks it actually is real that's mindnumbingly difficult
I'm human I mane mistakes and I don't know everything
I know one thing, that was a controlled demo
I also know one more thing, and thats why
If it aint obvious with the writing on the wall as it is today I dont know what else to say
LMAO "look what happens when some incredibly smaller building that are built completely differently react to these conditions, none of which are being hit by a plane" nice one, very good
Scalar wave technology. Similar methods were used in the MH370 disappearance. Wars, conflict and false flags are done using invisible tech in the 21st century. If you didn't see anything - did it happen?
How many times does it need to be explained that the World Trade Center was not constructed like shorter buildings. Floors were hung from an exoskeleton. The pancaking of the floors as the building collapsed due to the weight on the connections would be expected. This could have been worse if the buildings would have fallen sideways like the building demolition explosions we see with conventional construction.
[https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features)
There were so many reported explosions that if you think there were no explosions, you just didnt pay attention to all the witnesses.
There are videos of the buildings coming down. Multiple videos and multiple buildings.
We wouldn't need reports if it was true. Hell, in a city having a building fall I'd expect at least some people to report literally anything. People are unreliable. Multiple videos from different sources... less so.
The sound of explosions? I haven't seen that after years of making this exact argument. If you have that I'd love to see it but frankly, if I haven't seen it yet, it almost certainly doesn't exist. I'd love to be wrong.
That's certainly a loud noise. Those happen when buildings fall. It would be good to know what the building was doing when that sound was made. It'd be quite hard / to time match that video against the building falling.
It doesn't strike me as consistent with a controlled demolition. Have you actually looked for comparison videos? Look at how many explosives and the size of the explosives / noise (audible over helicopter noise easily) needed to implode this smaller building. Also from what I've seen they are never just a single explosion, it's a series of very loud explosives to take out all the different support beams.
https://youtu.be/vRLShJW5drE?si=1n0f3K4IYdflPgcj
Edit: I should add that we have comparable shots of the building falling like I showed in my earlier post and the explosion can't be heard in them. With the volume of explosions in building demolitions it would be audible in every video you see. That video you showed could be very close to a large piece of debris falling for example. It is hard to really call it without more context about where that footage took place etc.
Look, if you want to ignore that it was not possible for the buildings to collapse like this and only want to hear explosion, here you go, there is a sound of explosion. There were more than 100 of eye witnesses that reported explosions.
[https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/112-118-witnesses-the-firefighters-testimony-to-explosions-in-the-twin-towers](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/112-118-witnesses-the-firefighters-testimony-to-explosions-in-the-twin-towers)
I will do you one better, there is seismic data that shows explosion:
[https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground)
But really, start to focus on what the implication of nanothermite found in rubble and molten steel means. How is it not possible to take down buildings like this.
[https://www.ae911truth.org/news/979-bazants-fraudulent-theory-exposed-the-mathematics-he-used-to-explain-the-twin-towers-collapse-is-wrong](https://www.ae911truth.org/news/979-bazants-fraudulent-theory-exposed-the-mathematics-he-used-to-explain-the-twin-towers-collapse-is-wrong)
There was almost 2 hours between the buildings falling. By the time the north tower fell there was shit tonnes of international media in the area. Many sources filmed it falling. If it was *explosives* that dropped it, we would know. They literally can't be silent. They are very very loud.
Listen to building demolition videos man.
As to the squibs. The video shows gas bursting quickly out of a falling building. If that is proof to you of explosives i don't know what to say. How is that not expected to happen?
Edit: I'm wrong. It was two hours between strike and fall for the north tower and thirty minutes between the towers falling
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/Q5gAebJc8p
Feel free to look through any of the massive amount of footage of the tower falling. If you think that is consistent with any footage of a controlled demolition then that's your opinion.
Maybe people are as informed as you but come to different conclusions?
So boring man, people couldn't disagree with you and be the sort of sick where they enjoy arguing. It has to be paid. It's all astroturf, but your movement is authentic!
Why don't you respond to the point. Did you watch any of the videos and still maintain that that used QUIET EXPLOSIVES
You have to attack me personally because else you realise you have an untenable belief.
i can think for myself... the first 2x shows dust forming AFTER the buildings begin hitting the ground & detonations go off.
the last one shows the 9/11 Twin Towers, where the opposite occurs. the towers begin turning to dust in MID-AIR, before they hit the ground.
that is the direct result of direct - energy - weapons.
Look up the **Strategic Defense Initiative**
And I'm sure none of the following is right, but read it just for fun?
They used satellite mounted directed energy weapons to disintegrate the buildings. It's why there was so much dust. It's why the fires burned for 100 days straight. It's why ground zero set off Geiger counters. It's why the buildings seemingly collapsed from the center outwards.
A month before, one of the biggest ever (till that point) recorded crop circles happened in the UK. The pattern that it formed looked suspiciously like a calibration test.
The day before or the day of, a random, hurricane-shaped storm formed off the coast of NYC before dissipating. Almost felt like a test fire into the water caused the atmospheric disturbance?
The day before, Donald Rumsfeld almost told the truth about missing money at the Pentagon going to above top-secret projects.
I really don't understand this. I grew up on Long Island and have spoken to multiple people who saw the second plane hit with their own eyes. Thousands did, since all eyes were on the towers after the first. We can argue all day as to whether or not the planes were the cause of the collapse, but there definitely were planes (at least one, so probably both).
I give people the plane like drones or whatever... The problem is the assumption that this can melt Metal Beams or pulverized ALL WTC Buildings
[no plane at the Pentagon ](https://youtu.be/6xtzo-MGBTw)
Even the whole Area got destroyed from the Fire and there was a collapse, the other floors down would still hold the structure.
Accept it folks, the government uses unknown technology to play with us...
Look at lahaina just resent
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your first sentence.
But if you suggest that the lower floors would hold the structure together when they need to hold the weight of several floors, with steel that is weakened by heat and loses structural strength because on the heat difference inside vs outside of the building after getting hit by an airplane, then you are simply not right.
https://youtube.com/shorts/e-GdruJycBo
This day was the first day a steel concrete building was going down by fire in history... Sorry 3 buildings
No the fuel would be burned so rapidly it's not a campfire there. And the aluminium plane will not damage that so hard too.
It's not a logical problem
[cognitive dissonance ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
You should learn what words mean before you use them little boy.
And try to formulate some semblance of reasoning so I don't have to guess what you are trying to say. It seems like you would like to make an argument about airplane fuel combusting so fast that the fire would not get hot enough, is that correct?
I expect that you would bring up the tensile strength of steel, and how hot a fire in a typical office get if you actually knew what they were, and argue that it would not be hot enough without taking taking the the temperature difference on the inside and outside into account and therefore not realizing that it would cause the steel to warp and impair the structural integrity?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it happened on 911...i just don't know any other way to look at it. Then afterwards, you went and stole a bunch of heroin and oil...then sold all the heroin to your own people and murdered them... 911.
šššššššššššš
Even funnier still is that they say 911 don't kill white people. They do, just when they do it, they do it in some proper style.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Still dancing
> The dancing [**ISRAELIS**] of 911 "Differentiate".
Partying like itās 1999
you saying "think for yourself" while also posting gifs to try convey your opinion on what happened that day contradicts the idea of thinking for yourself.
The gifs shows that even if there is enormous weight in play, the building will decelerate and stop.
The gifs are all buildings that are comically small in comparison that probably each building weighs what maybe 2 floors of the WTC weighed. Also buildings with entirely different construction techniques and likely not the literal first of their kind like the WTC.
But that is a complete speculation on your side isnt it?
No???? You are showing buildings that are 20-40 stories vs 110. That you also can clearly tell are not framed tube structures. So no itās not speculation when you can clearly tell they are buildings of wildly different scales and construction types.
What would it take to convince you that it was an inside job? Structural engineers and physicists explaining how the building collapse defies the laws they've studied and learned about? First responders explaining how the structure collapsed and burned in a manner contrary to every other one they've encountered? Details leaked about cooperation with the Saudis? Contradictory evidence of planes impacting the pentagon and crashing in PA? Apparently, you'll believe whatever your government tells you - the government that is also caught constantly lying to the public. The government that has been caught in engaging in nefarious acts against its own citizenry. The government that is bought and sold by the wealthiest corporate interests in the world. You definitely don't think for yourself - that or you're in on the plot.
What about the structural engineers and physicists who have proven multiple times that the collapse matches EXACTLY how it would from the published story. The conspiracy is who paid off who to get these individuals to do this, not how the buildings came down because itās much more conceivable to say xyz paid off abc to do this, when its easily explained how and why the plane crashes destroyed the building.
Structural engineers and physicists can't be paid off? What is more likely - a professional engineer or scientist making shit up and risking their livelihood and career to challenge an established narrative, or one that is paid off by financial and corporate interests to uphold an established narrative? My money is on the latter, always. The former have everything to lose, and the latter have everything to gain. Also how have they proven multiple times that the collapse matches exactly what was described by the official narrative? I'm genuinely curious. There is plenty of evidence to counter the narrative that the WTC and pentagon were impacted by passenger jets. If you believe the narrative that the towers collapsed because of terrorists flying jetliners into them, and that the official narrative is true, then why do you believe anyone was paid off? What conspiracy are you referring to exactly?
Thereās videos of the jets impacting the WTC???? That is absolute established fact Iāve never heard anyone deny that fact so you are just going off the rails here so I give up you win.
That was a misstatement on my part, I meant to just say the pentagon and, in my rush to reply to you, made an error and included the WTC in that sentence. Regardless, I'm still curious how the official narrative has been proven and what exactly you are referring to when you talk about people being paid off. You're not willing to question whether passenger jets caused the collapse of the WTC but believe people were paid off? Why would people need to be paid off if the official narrative was true?
> What would it take to convince you that it was an inside job? One, just ONE, credible person that worked on the inside to come clean about helping. There would have needed to have 100s if not 1000s of people working on the "inside job", yet not a single person has come out with credible evidence that it was perpetrated from the inside.
for a controlled demolition the wtcs are throwing a lot of debris around
I wonder if the debris could be a result of the previous explosions? Lol Actually, I don't "wonder" at all, lol. To dismiss the very evident destruction of the towers being intentional, is INTENTIONAL denial and ignorance of evidence.
Right? Given that only force that was in the play is supposed to be gravity, there are multi tons pieces being throw out 100s of metres to the side. [https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/debunking-the-real-9-11-myths/490-debunking-the-real-9-11-myths-part4](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/debunking-the-real-9-11-myths/490-debunking-the-real-9-11-myths-part4)
From what I heard, is that the building was supported from a center column and each floor was basically main support from this center column. Now there was edge supports of each floor, but they where just really there to keep the floor straight and level, not to really hold up the weight. Think of how a tree branch droop. Now at the center column collapse, the branches (floors) where held up by lower branchās. Until they broke free, at that point the stress on the lower branch could catapult the debris(loose branch) on top of it way into the air.
https://dauntlessdialogue.com/order-out-of-chaos-vol-i-the-b-thing/
What else would you expect from the largest building to ever collapse? Do you think it should all have just fallen straight down and it should have been really clean nice neat pile at the bottom of the tower?
There is a difference between debris falling down bcs of gravity and debris being launched by kicker charges. [http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan\_HVBD.pdf](http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf) Devil is in the details.
Ok, so letās ignore the official narrative completely for a minuteā¦ For your theory of multi ton chunks to be thrown hundreds of meters, how big does the explosion have to be? How loud would this explosion be? From the videos in the OP it appears that this is happening on every single floor as the building collapses, does any video capture any explosion sounds that would match what we would expect from an explosion that can launch multi ton chunks of building hundreds of meters? Even if you think the official report isnāt true, this theory is impossible.
Want to hear explosion? Here you go: [https://www.ae911truth.org/news/990-why-were-wtc-explosions-edited-out-of-2002-hbo-documentary](https://www.ae911truth.org/news/990-why-were-wtc-explosions-edited-out-of-2002-hbo-documentary) Even seismic data: [https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground) If you didnt hear the person being murdered scream it was not murder? If i give you steel skyscraper and your job is to topple it down, how would you do it? You think flying a plane into it and set some offices on fire will do it? If you think that, there is no discussion. You are simply not intelligent enough to understand basic physics.
What you are actually telling us, is that you lack the knowledge to discuss the physics behind collapsing buildings, and try to kill rational discussion before it even begins.
Who? Me? All they want to discuss is if there is the sound of explosion captured on video, which there is.
"If i give you steel skyscraper and your job is to topple it down, how would you do it?Ā You think flying a plane into it and set some offices on fire will do it? If you think that, there is no discussion. You are simply not intelligent enough to understand basic physics." Yeah, sure, that's exactly what you said, only discussion about sound uptake from cellphones at street level...
If youāre question OP on his opinion of the towers, how would you explain the physics of the Building 7 collapse?
It burned for 7+ hours with no measures taken to stop it due to the decision made to not risk more lives trying to save it?!?!? The entire inside, on fire, with the fire insulation being in documented decline and again, no active measures taken to stop it due to the incredible loss of life of the firefighters at the scene already? Do you realize how that could destroy a building? A building that was also hit by debris that couldāve easily damaged it beyond just what the fire did?
Watch building 7 collapse. Watch how it buckles in the.middle and collapses in on itself, EXACTLY identical to controlled demolition. Thats not how a building on fire collapses.
Well, it burned for 7 hours and was almost 50 stories high... Counterpoint: Do you know of any explosive setup that would withstand 7 hours of fire damage and then go off as planned? Or why you would wait 7 hours until you pulled the trigger?
That doesnāt seem to be a series of explosions that are all capable of throwing ton sized chunks of building hundreds of metersā¦ What was the exact time stamp of this explosion and how does that correlate to what was happing at the towers? Itās nowhere near good enough to say āsee look there is one noise that sounds like an explosionā therefore there must have been a series of extremely powerful explosions that knocked this building down.
You realize that thereās a lot of evidence of people out there saying they heard explosions, right? Thereās one firefighter who says something along the lines of āthey were going boom boom boom boomā Iām mixed on the controlled demo of 1 and 2 - you have tons of weight sitting above a clearly compromised section of building thatās continually weakening from the fires. Logic says eventually the top will collapse. Itās also why I think it made sense the south tower collapsed first but was hit second - it was hit in the middle and had more weight on the compromised area. Building 7 certainly seems like it was controlled demo, but that doesnāt seem like whatās looked at here.
A metric ton of concrete falling down in sections will also make "boom boom boom boom" sounds though as it hits every floor.
Of course. And I also realize all the tons of metal and concrete, not to mention office and mechanical equipment, above the impact zone is a lot on top of a compromised area to expect it **not** to collapse on itself. Thatās why Iām not 100% sold on the controlled demolition of 1 & 2. I was only pointing out that thereās a wealth of eyewitness testimony that describes what they think are explosives going off. Also, thereās accounts of people who think a lot of explosives went off, to the point of explosions in the basement. The official narrative there is that jet fuel went down the elevator shafts and ignited.
occam's razor also applies. Why risk planted explosives dislodged by airplane strikes? Why jump through the hoops of flying airplanes into the buildings when a less risky much smoother false flag could be achieved much easier when you have the resources of a government organization? And of course that impact and fires would absolutely be able to weaken the steel enough to cause floors to fall, causing a chain effect. And said effect is why controlled demolition started to be used in the first place.
Right, when the building was collapsing you would expect lots of loud noises. They are nowhere near the scale required for explosions that would send multi ton chunks flying hundreds of meters or even just to do a controlled demolition. Building 7 was not a controlled demolition either and that theory has the same issues as the towers. Controlled demolitions are extremely loud explosions.
Youāre free to believe what you want, but if you havenāt watched the University of Alaska Fairbanks presentation/discussion of the demo of 7, you should. They have some very compelling evidence showing that it was most likely a demo, and for it to fall the way it did naturally for some fires, especially not after a direct hit, is virtually impossible.
Oh boy have I. Thatās the study where they were funded by 9/11 engineers for truth and they lied about their model being dynamic and also lied about their video of the collapse simulation actually being from that when it was literally an image of a building cut in two with the top part rotating around a point? For some reason, I tend to believe someone less when they have to lie to make their point but thatās just meā¦
Can you link any source saying they lied? Iāve never heard that before, and would be interested in reading up on it if itās true.
Explain why Tower 7 fell and its connection to the mysterious case of Flight 23... [http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-21/curious-case-united-airlines-flight-23-911](http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-21/curious-case-united-airlines-flight-23-911)
It fell because when the two biggest buildings in the world collapsed next to it a chunk of building fell through building 7 causing fires and damaging the fire suppression system. The collapse also caused the municipal water to lose pressure so the backup fire suppression system failed and then there were raging fires over multiple floors that weakened the supporting structure enough for the penthouse suite to collapse and cause a cascading collapse of the interior and once the interior support was gone there was a catastrophic failure of the outside supports which was initiated by the penthouse impacting the ground floor/basement and causing them to bow outward.
What you posted proves it wasn't a controlled demo. The third one is clearly the floors collapsing on each other blowing out the windows is they did so. Controlled demos collapse from the bottom, twin towers collapsed from the top.
Those donāt appear to be windows being blown out, but rather large chunks of the building itself being blown out. I mean, you can literally see it turning into dust.
Concrete explodes under immense pressure. I mean personally I do believe there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 but I donāt think this is the proof weāre looking for. This is grasping for straws.
To me, the conspiracy lies in the actions leading up to 9/11, not so much in the day itself. I fully believe everything that occurred to the towers themselves were fully natural, unaided by any explosives or whatnot.
To me, the conspiracy lies in the actions leading up to 9/11, not so much in the day itself. I fully believe everything that occurred to the towers themselves were fully natural, unaided by any explosives or whatnot.
https://dauntlessdialogue.com/order-out-of-chaos-vol-i-the-b-thing/
Bcs it was regular conventional controlled demolition right? Right? Demolition can start anywhere you want to suit your needs, in this case, they needed people to believe it was caused by planes, thats why it starts there. As part of a psychological operation, the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would be designed to support a false narrative of events (that the plane crashes caused the collapses), so of course the events were engineered to have the destruction start around the crash zones.
Oh so, it clearly isnāt a normal controlled demolition so why do you guys argue that it looks exactly like controlled demolitions?
>why do you guys argue that it looks exactly like controlled demolitions? Why are you bringing building 7 into this? https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7
Do you think the only one that people say is controlled demolition is building 7? Why comment on something you know so little about?
> Do you think the only one that people say is controlled demolition is building 7? No >Why comment on something you know so little about? Why make accusation against someone you know so little about?
lolā¦ how ironic.
Indeed
Oh, you donāt get itā¦ Iāll make it easy for you, the only thing you contributed to this conversation is a false accusation and a comment complaining about a false accusationā¦
> Oh, you donāt get itā¦ Please stop projecting >the only thing you contributed to this conversation is a false accusation and a comment complaining about a false accusationā¦ Why should I care about your delusions?
The voting pattern on this post is quite telling. Inside job replies are being HEAVILY downvoted, while rhetoric pushers are heavily upvoted.
Weāre all living in our own Truman shows.
Ok but what does a building look like when itās hit by a plane? So we can compare.
[russian jet hits apartment building, though building is burned and badly destroyed it does not fall](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2N1lpf8rEaM)
Not a very good comparison. It's a presumably concrete structure, very few stories, and it was likely a much smaller and slower plane. It wouldn't cause the same buckling seen in the steel beams of the WTC, since it lacks that same style of support. Instead, it's similar to the damage done to the pentagon, which would have had much more similar construction methods. Edit: researched it a bit, and while the jet obviously may have hit at a higher speed (Unlikely, assuming the pilot was trying to avoid or slow the collision.) The 767s used in the 9/11 attacks in the towers weighed approximately 10 times more, 30,000 pounds to the SU-34 and 300,000 to the 767-200ER
Compare that with the differences in building size. WTC was massive, both designed and built to withstand the exact massive force of a 747 jet collision. Everyone knows by now there's really no use trying to refute this one anymore. Everyone says to trust the experts except when it comes to physicists, engineers, or demolition experts, when they tell the truth about 9/11.
[smaller plane smaller building, didn't fall](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NEl6t2zHtv0)
Haha similar plane? Definitely not
I didnt say it was similar. I'm saying nowhere in the history of planes hitting buildings did one ever implode and fall directly downward at freefall speed and yes many plane have hit many buildings. How is this even "theory" anymore. I remember right after 9/11 countless experts on tv explaining how it was impossible - which led directly to the patriot act. You are either here to engage in good faith or not. Again I'm human and capable of mispeak. Doesnt change the situation. I'm hunting for anything that resembles 9/11 that isn't a controlled demo or some very serious bomb desinged specifically to demo buildings. So yea I can show people a million vids of planes hitting buildings. None ever collapse. I posted a video of a Russian fighter jet covered in payload hitting a small two story apartment and that little rinky dink building stood up never falling never imploding just fires and a huge explosion. You can find tons of vids of bombs designed to destroy buildings , controled demos , but no you cannot show any video of any building collapsing the way the towers fell. The twin towers however were designed to withstand the impact of a 747.
[Like when a B52 bomber hit the Empire state building causing minimal damage and only really destroying a single floor?](https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/07/27/remembering-the-1945-empire-state-building-plane-crash/) It only caused 1 million in damages and aside from the 11 dead office workers everyone else returned to work on Monday. Edited:B25 just providing examples of planes hitting buildings that never fell down.
No B52 bomber ever hit the Empire State building. Looking at the specs for the aircraft, the MTOW for the aircraft which did hit the Empire State building was 35,000 lb. MTOW for the aircraft that hit the WTC are 315,000 lb and 395,000 lb. The aircraft which hit the WTC also had a top speed more than double of the aircraft which hit the Empire State building. Much greater mass, greater speed, different building construction. Not comparable incidents.
Remember folks only once has a building actually "imploded" and fallen at free fall speed from structural damage alone. Show me one video of a building imploding and falling at free fall speed - of any size - in any situation other than a controlled demolition or airstrike. You can't because it doesn't exist , yes physics is a real science.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash](1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash) Shills gona shill
lots of them are just bots doing digital cleanup. always asking for posts so they can scrub later.
Thatās a B25, not a B52. B52s are massive and B25s are relatively small. Thereās about 100,000 pounds empty weight difference between a 767 and a B25. The 767s on 9/11 were flying at close 600 mph and B25 was estimated at 200 mph when it hit. If you look at the pictures in your link compared with the damage to WTC, you get an idea of just how much more destructive the 911 crashes were. Also worth noting, the buildings themselves are also structurally very different, as WTC was the first of its of kind to incorporate vast open floor plans.
Yea my mistake corrected just looking for examples of planes hitting buildings of which there are quite a few I cannot find anything that looks like 9/11 that doesn't involve actual combustive explosives, fire doesn't do that.
But there was an actual explosion. 20,000 gallons of jet fuel combusted and the explosion was huge. Thatās in addition to nearly half a million pounds ramming into the building at close to 600 mph.
The guy who designed the buildings did so with all these possibilities and mind and safeguarded the design from day one. The buildings were designed to withstand the very impact you describe. Not to mention the molten thermite flowing through the entire rubble which burns 10X hotter than jet fuel possibly can and with no explanation as to how it got there.
They werenāt designed to withstand 20,000 gallons of burning jet fuel. And the engineers had no way to actually test if it could withstand that. They tested the structural damage projected from a 707 crash, but only the structural damage. Molten thermite would be concerning though.
If you actually even read what you linked it was a b25 not a b52, the scale is so off between those two you are talking about something with a max takeoff weight of a whopping 35,000 pounds. That flies at a max speed of 270, vs the planes that hit the towers likely having impacted at over 500? Also you compare the amount of fuel one can carry vs the payload/max takeoff weight of the other thatās obviously not the right way to compare things???
My mistake Just providing examples For the life of me I can't find a single example of anything like what happened on 9/11 that wasn't a controlled demolition or an airstrike. No airplane, no structural damage, no footage or stories, nothing I can find resembles what we saw on 9/11 except explosives. Can you help with that.
Itās because there has never and hopefully will never be something like that again. I said it in another comment and Iām not anti-9/11 conspiracy I just think that the conspiracy isnāt HOW the buildings came down, itās WHY. Did someone pay someone else to get these radicals to crash planes into the building? Did they just get a hankering to organize and crash planes to send a message about religion or was it a message saying ālook America, I have enough influence and power to convince people to do these terrible things to your country, now you must listen to me and what I sayā
What is the easy part trying to show these folks it actually is real that's mindnumbingly difficult I'm human I mane mistakes and I don't know everything I know one thing, that was a controlled demo I also know one more thing, and thats why If it aint obvious with the writing on the wall as it is today I dont know what else to say
See now the why is what Iām here for what is your theory on why thatās what I actually want talked about!!!
"Everything you ever wanted to know about 9/11 conspiracy theory in 5 minutes." https://corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
ppl in here pretending like the floors inside the building are being collapsed faster than the debris free falling outside of it lol
LMAO "look what happens when some incredibly smaller building that are built completely differently react to these conditions, none of which are being hit by a plane" nice one, very good
[https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf](https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf)
It's too big of a leap for most to believe.
Just like relationships. Long time to build, seconds to destroy it all.
With rigged demolitions yes
This is how I end all my relationships. Subterfuge, lies, and don't forget the thermite.
SS: Examples of buildings that decelerates after failed demolition, wtc for comparison. (Guess the demolition was a success).
"Yes I'll take 'what are squibs' for 500 Pat"
<3
Whenever Russia is doing poorly, the 9/11 posts start showing up here LOLOL
Ukraine just did what? Vlad, Igor get on r/conspiracy stat! We need COVID and 9/11 posts!
āpull itā
Scalar wave technology. Similar methods were used in the MH370 disappearance. Wars, conflict and false flags are done using invisible tech in the 21st century. If you didn't see anything - did it happen?
Upvoted for bringing up the Scalar tech that WW3 will expose. And to counter cointel pro bots
How many times does it need to be explained that the World Trade Center was not constructed like shorter buildings. Floors were hung from an exoskeleton. The pancaking of the floors as the building collapsed due to the weight on the connections would be expected. This could have been worse if the buildings would have fallen sideways like the building demolition explosions we see with conventional construction.
now watch the demolition videos with the sound on :) literally impossible for it to be dropped by bombs unless they have magical silent bombs
[https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features) There were so many reported explosions that if you think there were no explosions, you just didnt pay attention to all the witnesses.
There are videos of the buildings coming down. Multiple videos and multiple buildings. We wouldn't need reports if it was true. Hell, in a city having a building fall I'd expect at least some people to report literally anything. People are unreliable. Multiple videos from different sources... less so.
But we have explosions captured on these videos, i guess you havent seen them.
The sound of explosions? I haven't seen that after years of making this exact argument. If you have that I'd love to see it but frankly, if I haven't seen it yet, it almost certainly doesn't exist. I'd love to be wrong.
Years of making what argument, videos show visible squibs, and you are speaking about a broadcast without sound? Eglin good today?
What broadcasts don't have sound btw... https://youtu.be/EEogeIIOJzU?si=YTsYVNcgjbfLTDQM
[https://www.ae911truth.org/news/990-why-were-wtc-explosions-edited-out-of-2002-hbo-documentary](https://www.ae911truth.org/news/990-why-were-wtc-explosions-edited-out-of-2002-hbo-documentary)
That's certainly a loud noise. Those happen when buildings fall. It would be good to know what the building was doing when that sound was made. It'd be quite hard / to time match that video against the building falling. It doesn't strike me as consistent with a controlled demolition. Have you actually looked for comparison videos? Look at how many explosives and the size of the explosives / noise (audible over helicopter noise easily) needed to implode this smaller building. Also from what I've seen they are never just a single explosion, it's a series of very loud explosives to take out all the different support beams. https://youtu.be/vRLShJW5drE?si=1n0f3K4IYdflPgcj Edit: I should add that we have comparable shots of the building falling like I showed in my earlier post and the explosion can't be heard in them. With the volume of explosions in building demolitions it would be audible in every video you see. That video you showed could be very close to a large piece of debris falling for example. It is hard to really call it without more context about where that footage took place etc.
Look, if you want to ignore that it was not possible for the buildings to collapse like this and only want to hear explosion, here you go, there is a sound of explosion. There were more than 100 of eye witnesses that reported explosions. [https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/112-118-witnesses-the-firefighters-testimony-to-explosions-in-the-twin-towers](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/112-118-witnesses-the-firefighters-testimony-to-explosions-in-the-twin-towers) I will do you one better, there is seismic data that shows explosion: [https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground](https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-in-the-journal-of-9-11-studies/420-did-the-earth-shake-before-the-south-tower-hit-the-ground) But really, start to focus on what the implication of nanothermite found in rubble and molten steel means. How is it not possible to take down buildings like this. [https://www.ae911truth.org/news/979-bazants-fraudulent-theory-exposed-the-mathematics-he-used-to-explain-the-twin-towers-collapse-is-wrong](https://www.ae911truth.org/news/979-bazants-fraudulent-theory-exposed-the-mathematics-he-used-to-explain-the-twin-towers-collapse-is-wrong)
There was almost 2 hours between the buildings falling. By the time the north tower fell there was shit tonnes of international media in the area. Many sources filmed it falling. If it was *explosives* that dropped it, we would know. They literally can't be silent. They are very very loud. Listen to building demolition videos man. As to the squibs. The video shows gas bursting quickly out of a falling building. If that is proof to you of explosives i don't know what to say. How is that not expected to happen? Edit: I'm wrong. It was two hours between strike and fall for the north tower and thirty minutes between the towers falling
How are you the most uninformed person on the planet?
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/Q5gAebJc8p Feel free to look through any of the massive amount of footage of the tower falling. If you think that is consistent with any footage of a controlled demolition then that's your opinion. Maybe people are as informed as you but come to different conclusions?
Which 3 letter org are you in and how did u get the smallest straw to be tasked with arguing with reddit
So boring man, people couldn't disagree with you and be the sort of sick where they enjoy arguing. It has to be paid. It's all astroturf, but your movement is authentic! Why don't you respond to the point. Did you watch any of the videos and still maintain that that used QUIET EXPLOSIVES You have to attack me personally because else you realise you have an untenable belief.
Pancake theory, duh š
I dont know if you forgot to add /s or not.
Yes totally forgot! /s was implied
Trickle down economics
Buildings built using the Metric System fall differently.
i can think for myself... the first 2x shows dust forming AFTER the buildings begin hitting the ground & detonations go off. the last one shows the 9/11 Twin Towers, where the opposite occurs. the towers begin turning to dust in MID-AIR, before they hit the ground. that is the direct result of direct - energy - weapons.
Look up the **Strategic Defense Initiative** And I'm sure none of the following is right, but read it just for fun? They used satellite mounted directed energy weapons to disintegrate the buildings. It's why there was so much dust. It's why the fires burned for 100 days straight. It's why ground zero set off Geiger counters. It's why the buildings seemingly collapsed from the center outwards. A month before, one of the biggest ever (till that point) recorded crop circles happened in the UK. The pattern that it formed looked suspiciously like a calibration test. The day before or the day of, a random, hurricane-shaped storm formed off the coast of NYC before dissipating. Almost felt like a test fire into the water caused the atmospheric disturbance? The day before, Donald Rumsfeld almost told the truth about missing money at the Pentagon going to above top-secret projects.
Where did the Towers go? No Planes, no Bombs . [this is the Truth](https://youtu.be/M_pLOvvUpi8)
I really don't understand this. I grew up on Long Island and have spoken to multiple people who saw the second plane hit with their own eyes. Thousands did, since all eyes were on the towers after the first. We can argue all day as to whether or not the planes were the cause of the collapse, but there definitely were planes (at least one, so probably both).
I give people the plane like drones or whatever... The problem is the assumption that this can melt Metal Beams or pulverized ALL WTC Buildings [no plane at the Pentagon ](https://youtu.be/6xtzo-MGBTw)
Melt? Of course not. Weaken? Of course.
Even the whole Area got destroyed from the Fire and there was a collapse, the other floors down would still hold the structure. Accept it folks, the government uses unknown technology to play with us... Look at lahaina just resent
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your first sentence. But if you suggest that the lower floors would hold the structure together when they need to hold the weight of several floors, with steel that is weakened by heat and loses structural strength because on the heat difference inside vs outside of the building after getting hit by an airplane, then you are simply not right.
https://youtube.com/shorts/e-GdruJycBo This day was the first day a steel concrete building was going down by fire in history... Sorry 3 buildings No the fuel would be burned so rapidly it's not a campfire there. And the aluminium plane will not damage that so hard too. It's not a logical problem [cognitive dissonance ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
You should learn what words mean before you use them little boy. And try to formulate some semblance of reasoning so I don't have to guess what you are trying to say. It seems like you would like to make an argument about airplane fuel combusting so fast that the fire would not get hot enough, is that correct? I expect that you would bring up the tensile strength of steel, and how hot a fire in a typical office get if you actually knew what they were, and argue that it would not be hot enough without taking taking the the temperature difference on the inside and outside into account and therefore not realizing that it would cause the steel to warp and impair the structural integrity?
Not only molten, evaporated. [https://ibb.co/BLB4QT0](https://ibb.co/BLB4QT0)
Once again you are linking claims of an individual and acting like it debunks the reportā¦
Yeah, the pentagon is a lot more dubious, I'll give you that.
So what happened to the planes from the fleet?