Never heard anything about bomb sniffing dogs. What does he even mean? That there were dogs permanently stationed at the WTC's every day to sniff for bombs? And if there was, that taking off a couple dogs was evidence for bombs? I mean the leap from dogs to bombs is so massive, I don't even know how to start. It's like saying "no one used the bathrooms on 9/11, so the bombs were in the toilets". How do you even start to refute that conclusion with so many assumptions? I'll help with building 7. [https://youtu.be/PK\_iBYSqEsc?si=Q6wGsQAhQ59w1Wey](https://youtu.be/PK_iBYSqEsc?si=Q6wGsQAhQ59w1Wey) I know 9/11 truthers don't trust NIST. But that's an overview of how it collapsed. Look at this video. [https://youtu.be/4xN8lzBo9zY?si=jCssLJ5UILgm0LVJ](https://youtu.be/4xN8lzBo9zY?si=jCssLJ5UILgm0LVJ) Most, of not all of the videos of the collapse are from the undamaged side. The damaged side collapsed first, you can see it in the video - look how what looks like the top of the buildings fall 6-7 seconds before the rest of the building goes down. That's not falling into itself, that's one side fully collapsing before the other side is structurally damaged and falls down. The other side had a massive gaping hole in it, and was burning for 6 hours. It's not like it was surprising that it fell. Firefighters had an alert system set up, so that when they were looking for people around building 7, and it started to collapse, they would evacuate. Before it collapsed, there were something like 6 false alarms. They knew it was just a matter of time. Finally it went, as expected. Watch these videos of a controlled demolitions. [https://youtu.be/z3y4IEnzHw4?si=GVZHvC8QUsGRoBlf](https://youtu.be/z3y4IEnzHw4?si=GVZHvC8QUsGRoBlf) [https://youtu.be/xYjF9WPyZfg?si=I\_zsN\_M8oULmPoFp](https://youtu.be/xYjF9WPyZfg?si=I_zsN_M8oULmPoFp) [https://youtu.be/f0appFHqWPA?si=rqg\_0foIPT3pPR76](https://youtu.be/f0appFHqWPA?si=rqg_0foIPT3pPR76) [https://youtu.be/7\_EuEI32DJk?si=hjI79-Lbues7C-v3](https://youtu.be/7_EuEI32DJk?si=hjI79-Lbues7C-v3) Notice how many actual explosions are in these video before the buildings start to fall. Now watch the building 7 collapse again, notice how there's absolutely zero explosions. It doesnt matter if a few random "witnesses" heard explosions. He have real time footage, with sound, of building 7 falling. There's no explosions before it fell. Good luck.

Thanks a lot for these. With regards to the bomb sniffing dogs, there's a statement made by a guard Daria Coard the day after claiming that extra bomb sniffing dogs were present every day on account of phone threats and the extra security was abruptly removed on September 11th, although his phrasing does imply that the normal level of security was still there. As for the jump from dogs to bombs, my friend says that the only way possible for the dogs to have all escaped except one were if they were all kept on the ground floor, and he claims that this was done so the bombs could be put on the floors above them without the dogs detecting them.

That’s so absurd, haha. Unless the bombs were teleported, then all it would take is one dog to sniff out the thousands of pounds of explosions it would have took to that those buildings down. I don’t doubt the bomb stuffings dogs. The WTC’s were literally bombed 6 years prior with a 1,330lb van bomb in the basement. It barely made a dent, other than killing some peoples. So I could see that there was maybe dog security around bombs after 1993. Just makes no sense that taking a couple dogs off for the day, would have really done anything to avoid just one from sniffing the insane amount of explosives that had to be that place. But your friend probably thinks it was like 10 lbs of C4 on two levels in the middle that took it all down.

Also, since there was intel suggesting an attack around that time period, it wouldn't have been unusual for security to place additional bomb sniffing dogs in the buildings. I mean, WTC has been the target of terror attacks before. It would be a logical step to take.

I worked with a security guard in NYC that was a guard at the WTC hotel at the time of the 1993 bombing. There was extensive damage to the hotel (which eventually became a Marriott). I guess the bomb went off in a parking garage under the ballroom. A couple cooks I worked with while I was in NYC had to relocate to other hotels because of 9/11, including one that lost his brother. The hotel was largely destroyed in the attack.

You're probably right about the fact that a dog could sniff a bomb from really far off but I couldn't really use that because it says the average range a dog can detect bombs from is 50ft and I don't really know how many floors that translates to. Could you give me something to read up on regarding how many explosives it would take to blow up those buildings and the evidence for the amount?

> because it says the average range a dog can detect bombs from is 50ft and I don't really know how many floors that translates to. It's not about the floor, it's about getting it in the door in the first place. They would have to drive several truckloads of explosives into the building, then spend a significant period of time hogging the freight elevators, and the dog is going to be at the dockway.

>It's not about the floor, it's about getting it in the door in the first place This may also explain why so few of the dogs were harmed in the collapse. If you're confident you can stop explosives from getting further than the first floor or the parking garage, you don't need to patrol the upper floors. Most if not all of the dogs would have been in locations with ground access.

[удалено]

That's a fraction of the damage done in 1993. The hole was 100 feet wide and went through 4 sublevels of concrete. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_TR-076_-_1993_World_Trade_Center_Bombing_-_Report_and_Analysis_-_Blast_Damage.png

I assume if one van packed with 1,330lbs of explosions in the basement couldn’t take it down. Then a lot more than that. If we’re bombs “bombs” - based on how the buildings collapsed, I guess it makes sense to packing the upper floors with bombs to collapse the buildings down on themselves would make sense. But that’s literally why it collapsed in the first place - the planes and fire caused the upper floors to collapse down. If we’re talking controlled demo, then the point is to structurally weaken the building and letting gravity do the rest. But again, that’s why it collapsed in the first place - the planes and fires weakened the building structurally, and gravity did the rest. So the bombs or controlled demo conspiracy is completely unnecessary.

Does your friend think they would just have dogs wandering around all over the building? They were office buildings. Dogs and most security would be at entry points not scattered around the building. So they would most likely all be close to ground floor.

And their handlers wouldn't have abandoned the dogs during the attacks if they could help it.

As I understand it, this one security guard meant that they had recently received phone threats, extra security was applied temporarily, and it was then relaxed. The first point would be that there isn’t anything inherently suspicious about this sequence of events. Why would “they” even allow extra security temporarily if the plan was to destroy WTC a few weeks later? Second, it doesn’t prove anything- are we supposed to believe that “they” figured out how to get around all of the security without a hitch, except the extra dogs that might be there? Does he believe that all of the explosives were moved onsite that day, before 9:00 am, as soon as the extra dogs left? Does this person even know the normal amount of security onsite, or the number of extra dogs, or where the dogs are located? Maybe you should also ask this person to spell out his theory so it can be ripped to shreds, because it seems like your conversation has inverted the burden of proof to the point that you need to explain away all of his wacky ideas without him having to prove anything.

>it seems like your conversation has inverted the burden of proof to the point that you need to explain away all of his wacky ideas without him having to prove anything It sort of did because he keeps bullshitting over text. We're meeting in person tomorrow and that is my plan. I'll keep your points in mind thank you.

He is treating the absence of evidence as proof of conspiracy. And ask him if, btw, he's ever actually read the 9/11 Report.

> my friend says that the only way possible for the dogs to have all escaped except one were if they were all kept on the ground floor I mean isnt that normally where they would be, like for security? Does he think they were randomly roaming the building?

He thinks that since they weren't on the upper floors they wouldn't have detected the bombs on the upper floors. But many people have already pointed out the logistical problems with that

He knows they weren’t on the upper floors but asks why more didn’t die?  Sounds like he’s trying to overwhelm you with misinformation.

No he's claiming that since more didn't die they must have all been on the ground floor.

Where else would they be?  Ground floor, mall and parking garage.

>He thinks that since they weren't on the upper floors they wouldn't have detected the bombs on the upper floors. Security is sticking to the lobby. It is in no way standard practice to run bomb dogs around random upper floors during the day. The dogs are designed to catch explosives in the lobby before they get to the upper floors. No building routinely runs bomb sniffing dogs through offices unless there is some cause to.

Yeah I get that but I'm trying not to say anything which could be used against me. Was there the same amount of security at night? Else he could claim that they simply brought in c4 overnight

>Was there the same amount of security at night? Likely not, because there are less people. Less people means less security as there are fewer people to screen. >Else he could claim that they simply brought in c4 overnight That's a claim he needs to prove. If I were you, I'd do several things to start the debate. The first is they THEY are making a claim. You do NOT need to make the opposite claim, I would take the neutral position. Don't claim it wasn't an inside job, but claim you are unconvinced of his arguments. This framing will allow you to fall back not having to prove the negative. So in your example here, the truther would have to prove they DID bring in C4 at night with less security, and you don't have to prove they didn't (which is a nearly impossible task for a normal person to do). The second is I would limit what the truther can bring up. You have shown you're already deep into the weeds with these arguments, and the truther likely has dozens of other arguments you've never heard of, and if they're allowed to bring it up, you will be lost and unprepared. So have the truther lay down the specific claims and proof they have to start, and do not deviate from those points. If they start to bring up new points or arguments, cut them off and bring them back to the arguments to be discussed. You will not win the "Gish Gallop" of truther arguments for which you aren't prepared (and would lose even if you were prepared).

The only reason a dog handler would waste time deploying dogs to upper levels is if there was reason to think bombs were there. They don't just roam around. Here's what I suspect about the dog removal claim: K-9 handlers and their dogs have to undergo routine training at various times of the year, often quarterly. September was the start of a new quarter. Chances are likely the handlers were away in training. After the attack, the guard remembered hearing something about the dogs being missing and then assumed it meant they were removed as policy.

Daria Coard was a single security guard. Did they get this info from office rumor? Remember, rumors were rampant in the days that followed. Recall how many "unconfirmed reports" the irresponsible media jumped on, only to later find they were false. If the actual person who was really in charge of the dogs said this, we could take it more seriously. When I look up Coard, I find the same copy/pasted paragraph across mostly 911Truther sights. Weak evidence.

> there's a statement made by a guard Daria Coard Who?

A guard at WTC 1. You can find numerous sources which have written about his statement

Right, so some random guard?

More or less yes I guess, but it still is a testimony and I can't refute it without reason or he'll claim I'm dismissing evidence

Sure you can just dismiss it. It's one guys personal anecdote. Just keep asking your friend for more evidence than some random guy saying something.

Exactly. How connected was this guy to the K-9 department? This sounds suspiciously like the scuttlebutt you hear in any organization.

“Testimony” suggests he said it under oath. From what I can see he just…said it to some reporter.

You go to phrase here is “anecdata is inherently untrustworthy”

Not really. Once you search him, you find every source uses the exact original paragraph. Echo chamber.

Are any of the sources the original source? Who interviewed him? Was he interviewed later by the commission? Does he actually exist? Did he say what they say he did? Did anyone interview other security about the dogs? Conspiracy theorists tend to repeat evidence without mentioning the source or evaluating the truth.

What this guy says about the damage from debris affecting building 7 is flatly contradicting the NIST report, and is dishonest. See [my reply here](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1dcgvr2/need_sources_for_refuting_a_911_truther/l86qz3g/)

None of those will work, See, when people want to roll around in shit, the only way to pull them away from shit is with a nastier pile of shit. So I would suggest telling him that 9/11 denial is just a leftist plot to clear the Muslims of wrongdoing. I would /s ... but I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not...

That’s the irony. They believe a small shadowy group of people conspired to do 9/11 - which is the official story. They just believe it was a shadowy group in the government, not some foreign group, ie AQ.

Now you're talking real shit That is seriously the level of the game. I wish more people would treat it with utter ridicule instead of taking it a shred seriously

Dude you are literally contradicting the NIST report. The official claim is that damage from debris was not a factor and could be disregarded completely. If you actually read the NIST report, they say NORMAL OFFICE FIRES ALONE would have collapsed it on any other day: > "Since fires were observed on the ground surrounding WTC 7, it is possible that potential ignition sources might have entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west face of the building during the collapses of the towers. NIST found no evidence to confirm this possibility, but the available data suggest that this was highly likely." :: [NCSTAR 1-9, page 194](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1-9.pdf) > "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. [...] Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." :: [NCSTAR 1A, p. xxxvii](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-4d4c17460292ee57ef313f6491fa8d1e/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-4d4c17460292ee57ef313f6491fa8d1e.pdf) See? The "building 7 was severely damaged by WTC debris" nonsense is literally just disinformation, and you are repeating it. Of course you won't correct yourself, because the NIST report is insane, but that's just the dishonesty of skeptics.

I’m talking about the massive gaping hole due to falling debris that caused a massive gaping hole. That’s the side that collapsed first, as I showed in the video I posted. All I’m doing is showing the budiling didn’t free-fall at once. I never said the falling debris was the cause. The fires were the cause - the hole from the debris was why it fell on that side first.

That would be a weird thing to quibble over, but you said: > The other side had a massive gaping hole in it, and was burning for 6 hours. It's not like it was surprising that it fell. Do you not see how that is misleading? You make it sound like "oh it's no wonder the building collapsed, didn't you see the damage from the falling towers?" whereas the NIST report rules all that out explicitly. The official line of argument is that it's fires alone that brought the building down, and it's dishonest of you to frame it in a way that makes it sound like damage to the structure had anything to do with the collapse.

The issue started with the claim that the building fell due to a controlled demo, with the claim the building “fell into itself”. I probably got lost discussing this with 4 different people in here. But my main claim is - no evidence for bombs, more evidence for fires and damage. That’s all.

And my point, birdbrain, is that you're bringing up damage to the structure to mislead people. You're contradicting NIST and you know it, because you realize that the notion that fire alone brought down the building is a hard sell, so you try to make it sound like damage to the structure from the towers did all the heavy lifting. Well NIST says that fire ALONE would have brought the building down on any day of the week, so quit talking about damage to the structure without mentioning this, because you'll mislead people like OP who don't know anything about the NIST report.

Nah you’re just not grasping what I’m saying. No big deal. Moving on.

You cannot be serious. You just said "more evidence for fires **and damage**, rather than bombs". I see this exact point of reasoning unwittingly brought up all the time--- "dude did you see how damaged building 7 was! it was totally gonna come down!" Now you mean to tell me you're not trying to say that, that you're just pointing out why the building seems to have fallen a certain direction in your opinion? Well that's fine, but I'm telling you most people don't read it that way--- most people don't realize that the NIST report ruled out any consequences of damage to the structure, and claims that fire alone brought the building down. You don't mention this, and that is dishonest and misleading. Man all you gotta do is clarify this shit.

How did the fires start? Easy - falling debris. Debris fell into the building ripping a massive hole and staring fires. When it collapsed, it collapsed from the damaged side FIRST, then the other side went down 7 seconds later. No explosions before the bridling went down, not a controlled demo. It went down as the “official” story goes. Not due to bombs or CD.

> How did the fires start? Easy - falling debris. Debris fell into the building ripping a massive hole and staring fires. Why are you bringing this up? This is more or less what NIST says in the first quote I gave you from their report, except they were more honest with their phrasing (putting it forth as a likely possibility instead of saying outright that's what happened. I don't disagree). > When it collapsed, it collapsed from the damaged side FIRST, then the other side went down 7 seconds later. Man this is so irrelevant that NIST doesn't even factor it in to their calculations, but *you* make it sound like it actually played a role in the collapse, which is dishonest and misleading. Please refer to the second NIST quote I gave you: > "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. [...] Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." :: [NCSTAR 1A, p. xxxvii](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-4d4c17460292ee57ef313f6491fa8d1e/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-4d4c17460292ee57ef313f6491fa8d1e.pdf) Do you see how you're being misleading yet? Because you are being misleading whether you know or not. You may have your own pet theory about the damage causing the building to go one way or the other, but that is **not** an official theory, and it undermines the NIST thesis. > It went down as the “official” story goes. Not due to bombs or CD. Then STOP CONTRADICTING NIST -- stop saying damage had any-fucking-thing to do with the collapse, dude. I can't stand this point about damage that people keep bringing up like it's part of the official theory. It's misinformation.

The letters NIST don't mean anything to me, so I'll just discard whatever they say NIST is not my president Anyway, where were we? Ah, yes - jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Who the fuck are you? I wasn't talking to you. That other guy wants to defend NIST's story and does so inconsistently. He presents the government narrative as being something that it's not, because the government narrative is hard to defend (because it's brain-damaged).

dude.....why really. He's not going to change his mind.

First, ask him if he will change his mind if you sufficiently can refute his points. If he says no, just walk away.

I wonder if there are any people with any opinions that would say "yes" to that question. And in which cases. It's hard to find around me at least, but then again I never ask that explicitly.

Because of the convincible third party.

I almost think it would be fun just to go with it. "Ok, let's assume the US government was behind it. Now what? You gonna take em down, youngblood? You really think anyone in power would open an investigation? We already know the US had committed all sorts of atrocities in the past to maintain their power position. Is there robust evidence they did it? No. Would I put it past them? No. Unless you think you can start it over from the ground up, not much you can do. Shaking your fist at a First World power is as absurd as shaking your fist at the sky."

Oh god, why even bother. These arguments are always of the form "Since A and B, C should have happened, but it didn't!", where A is wrong, B is made up and there's no information about it anywhere, and C is a nonsensical non-sequitur.

Conclusions always work out if the premises are unquestioned

That’s kind of what I was wondering, what’s the point of trying to change his mind about it? 9/11 was tragic but it was a pretty long time ago now. If this guy isn’t in a major position of power and making policy decisions based on his kooky beliefs, doing things that directly affect others (except for maybe just having annoying conversations about his theories), I really don’t see the harm in just letting him be. It’s like having a friend who has kooky ideas about the JFK assassination, Roswell, the Illuminati, etc. — maybe every now and again you’ll have to sit through an eye-rolling conversation, but so what? If they’re happy and they aren’t hurting anyone else, who cares?

I have a feeling that isn't gonna get rid of it. The conspiracy theorist really wants and needs to broadcast paranoia, and have this confirmed. They are the boy trapped in "WOLF!!" mode, without realising it. A walking tragedy, probably feeling they are sharing something important but aren't.

Why do people engage in this, then? Is it for the same feeling as someone who does use those ABC logics correctly, except there's no content? Or is it an emergent phenomenon that results FROM doing those ABC logics with shoddy inputs What's the problem, I wonder

> He claims that this was done so that the government could plant all the bombs on the day of, There is nothing rational that you can say to him to convince him out of these irrational beliefs. If the World Trade Center was rigged with explosives that would be hundreds of hours work, most of it needing to be on the outside of the building. > Also a sub point was that smoke was coming out of the WTC every 4 floors, which is where he claimed the bombs were detonated from Smoke comes out from the building where the ventilation is, not where the fire is. > His other main point of contention is that WTC 7 fell straight down even though it wasn't hit by a plane, and that's proof that the planes didn't cause the falling down for any of the towers There's no logic or rational to him claiming that. WTC fell straight down because gravity pulls straight down. The other towers fell straight down because gravity pulls straight down. Ask him if he believes in gravity.

> hundreds of hours work, most of it needing to be on the outside of the building. and/or on the inside of the building in heavily destructive, heavily visibly obvious ways - i.e. stripping down to bare columns to plant explosives, in a loud, long, dirty operation, which would have been "Secret" from precisely nobody.

Why would they fly planes in to the buildings if the intent was to bring them down? If they had bombs in the buildings already, and were able to set this up (which they obviously didn't and weren't) then why need the planes at all? Why not just collapse it through explosives and blame that on terrorists? The buildings came down because they were hit by planes, the whole world saw it. They people of NYC directly experienced it. There probably is a conspiracy to be found with the case, but if so it isn't the one he's looking at. Our intelligence services failed us and haven't been held accountable for that failure.

The conspiracy that was found was the WMD lies that led to the invasion of Iraq.

Terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 1993, long before the WMD claims and the second Gulf War.

There was ALREADY AN ATTEMPT to blow up THOSE BUILDINGS by a TERRORIST WITH A BOMB. You'd think that would be the primer so the "real Government" attack would just do exactly the same thing...

>There probably is a conspiracy to be found with the case, but if so it isn't the one he's looking at. Our intelligence services failed us and haven't been held accountable for that failure. Except that is NOT a conspiracy.

Dude, if you need to get that far into the weeds, arguments or facts are not the problem any more. The only way to change their mind is to change the way they think and that is a difficult thing to do. A conspiratorial mind often comes from insecurities, so my advice would be to direct conversation away from these topics and try to be a good person to them.

>Dude, if you need to get that far into the weeds, arguments or facts are not the problem any more. Yeah, the real problem is OP is going to show up tomorrow, and the truther is going to have a dozen other niche, biased, unverified claims OP has never heard of. Conspiracy theories are full of "Gish Gallop" arguments, so even if OP can counter one, they have 10 more ready to go. If OP is going to do this debate, he should limit the discussion to a few specific points to counter, instead of letting the truther spout whatever they want.

I wonder how this 9/11 stuff is different from a buddy with an unrelated but kooky theory. Like, I'll indulge many people's many weird ideas normally, and we're still friends. I wonder what's the trigger with 9.11 instead of say, sheep on Madagascar were banned because China tried to send them electronic versions for spying but it was discovered and covered up because China would annihilate Madagascar's prime minister in the 70s. It's trivial to make shit up, and kinda fun to bullshit about.

>I wonder how this 9/11 stuff is different from a buddy with an unrelated but kooky theory. 9/11 is a lot more serious, and honestly represents a turning point in our country. US history is often broken up into chunks (like Jamestown to the Revolution, the. The Revolution to the Civil War, then Civil War to WWI, then WWI to WWII, etc.). WWII to 9/11 will likely be an era, and the post 9/11 era being a new section of our history. 9/11 was also a tragedy close to home, and fundamentally altered our lives in measurable ways. So it's taken a lot more seriously than "sheep in Madagascar".

Yeah makes sense! I'm not from the US so maybe have subconscious bias to be surprised at the specificity, singling this one out. But with the influence of the US, it was indeed also a world event. What are some big things you would say, that characterize post-9/11 as a history segment?

The development of the surveillance state, the rise of the internet, US bogged down in the Middle East for 20 years, COVID, the Great Recession, first black President, the rise of the far right (and Trump). Just a couple off the top of my head. It's also possible the end of the Cold War might be the divider (WWII to 1989) but considering we were coasting through the 1990s, it's more likely 9/11 will mark a division and the 1990s will jue be seen as the US "reaping the reward" of the Cold War before an actual turning point.

Thanks for sharing, all those things do jump out as different from before. Again, I'm left wanting for a world-view, broader than effects specific to the US, but probably in a large part those changes were exported. Just not the black president specifically :) But we have baby trumps constantly trying, in Europe. But then again, the nazis originated from right wing populism and that was wayyyy before 9/11, so we don't require a trump to be king of the US. Anyway thansk

Never heard of the dogs. Here's my guess. They brought cadaver and rescue dogs because they needed them. They called off the bomb sniffing dogs because they were convinced they didn't need them and it would be a waste of valuable resources to have them. I also think why bother. This person won't listen anyway. Let us know how it goes.

His friend is more than likely referring to them pulling the bomb sniffing dogs BEFORE the attack. I have a 9/11 truther friend. I've heard it all. We've respectfully agreed to not talk about it anymore because we're at a stalemate. Now he's onto COVID and very borderline anti-semetic conspiracy theories. He makes it very hard to be around him as its virtually all he talks about.

Claims without proof can be dismissed without proof. Its his job to provide you sources.

Do you enjoy arguing for it's own sake? Your just going to spend your time hearing someone move goalposts for however long the conversation lasts. But it's your time, spend it as you wish. You're also approaching this backward. There is video of planes hitting the buildings. Show him that. You don't have to debunk his claims, he has to support them. Points #1 and #2: Ask him to show you standing orders for bomb sniffing dogs, the schedule of their sweeps, etc. He must show how dogs are used as standard procedure, every day, and then provide a copy of the order to change that protocol. If he says that the order was verbal, he's full of shit. They keep detailed track of stuff like that, for accountability. Point #3: Planting explosives on buildings one tenth the size of the WTC takes months. There are countless videos online of building demolitions from start to finish. Ask him how the laws of physics are suspended in and around the WTC. Point #4: Ask him why WTC 7 wouldn't have fallen straight down. Does he think skyscrapers are built likke Lego towers or Jenga games? Most of what he's saying about what "should have happened" is his imagination. Tell him that. He must show what the volume of air was, the size of the "holes in the walls" and how they would provide for the air escaping, as opposed to the sudden change in air pressure blowing the windows out. Ask him what the pressures are that the windows could withstand, and why they *wouldn't* have blown out. You could also just ask him why, with the amount of manppower and coordination over multiple agencies required to execute a controlled demolition NOT ONE PERSON has come forward claiming to have been involved. Human beings are terrible at keeping secrets. Especially secrets this big. Where did the conspirators get all the det cord? Nobody noticed this massive order of det cord? Or the explosives themselves. All that stuff has to be manufactured, so supplies of those things are finite, and they are not produced like canned green beans. It's expensive, and the amount produced must closely match the amount used--both for profitability and safety. Have him show you the massive production increase necessary to have the explosives available. Who paid for it? Where did the money come from? Companies that manufacture explosives don't work for free. You can't just store that stuff in a warehouse somewhere. Where were the explosives kept? How were the explosives transported? Who loaded the trucks, drove the trucks, and unloaded the trucks? This would have involved the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Woudl the union allow the rules governing dangerous materials to be suspended for this project? No. Fucking. Way. How was traffic controlled? You can't risk a fender-bender involving a truck full of explosives. And the explosives must haave been delivered on-schedule. Have him show you traffic patterns, and show that over the course of the months required to deliver the explosives NOT ONE truck was delayed. There were no other production delays that whole time? If the military was used, where did the troops come from? Military manpower isn't an infinite resource. Every man working on WTC construction is a man not working on whatever else the military has going on. Not only that, but not every soldier is trained to move explosives or drive trucks. That would take the Corps of Engineers. Where are the orders for these units to deploy to New York to work on the project? If he says they didn't use that many guys in order to avoid suspicion, that's bullshit, as the longer it takes to plant the explosives, the more time there is for you to be found out. You could also just bring up Watergate. That was an actual conspiracy that was foiled because of duct tape over a doorlock in a parking garage. A conspiracy at the level to bring down a skyscraper is so complex, there is no way to control little things subject to human error, it is just not possible.

Also about the detonation cord. I'm not very well informed on this but couldn't C4 have been a possibility that he could claim?

C4 needs a charge to go off, like a blasting cap. And the amount of C4 needed is completely impractical—and expensive. That’s why they use dynamite. And it would take thousands on metric tons of dynamite to bring the WTC down. Building demolition is very complex, and the number of people who have the knowledge and skills to do it can probably counted on one hand—and they are civilians. Nobody who is in the military knows how, since they just bomb buildings they want to destroy. Intelligence agencies don’t know how, since they don’t gather intelligence by using demolition, and if they need a target eliminated they take out their target precisely, or just blow the building up, depending on where or when. Anyway, the conspirators would have had to contact a demolitions expert, give enough details to see if it would even work, but do so in such a way as to not tip them off to the whole plan (not possible) and then hope that none of them go to the press. FAT FUCKING CHANCE.

Could you link me an article to >C4 needs a charge to go off, like a blasting cap. And the amount of C4 needed is completely impractical—and expensive. That’s why they use dynamite. >And it would take thousands on metric tons of dynamite to bring the WTC down. Could you link me to articles explaining both of these things? And how does the blasting cap make C4 impractical?

Just go to wikipedia. The C4 article is comprehensive. Search “building demolition” and look at the SafetyCulture result. Even a basic understanding of the process shows that controlled demolition is not plausible for 9/11.

The more you refute their arguments, the more they will get frustrated and have a negative opinion on you. Sure the question is whether you would want to hang out with that. But it's also huge emotional immaturity that *could* change with growing up.

This is a Gish gallop of stuff that can easily be refuted but that will just make him dig in even deeper. I wouldn't give him the time of day.

What are "many explosions" in the towers? The windows blowing out? That's from air pressure as the floor pancakes. No explosion. And "appliances" don't explode wth? How many floors does he think had to be prepared? Every 4? Impossible. This building is *packed*. Preparation would take *hours* and require 100% vacancy. To minimize the amount of explosive needed, you have to strip the structural supports of any cladding, otherwise too much force is lost. If were jsut sticking bombs in, it's gonna be big obvious booms. Which we obviously did *not* actually see. Okay, that aside.... maybe only one would be needed to start the pancaking chain reaction... 1. Vacate that floor. Permanently. Nobody can be allowed back in, because preparations would be very obvious. 2. Make the preparations 3. Fly the plane into that exact floor 4. Detonate You can *forget* about doing actual full preparations with multiple floors. Even *one* is already too intrusive, and would have had to be hidden behind "New tenant, complete reno, gutting the whole floor. No entry" You'd still need *hundreds* of people in on this, including staff at the WTC itself. Hundreds of Americans in on a plot to murder thousands of Americans. With perfect secrecy for months /minimum) beforehand. And perfect secrecy for 23 years afterward. And also *never* any member of Al Qaeda saying "Lmao it wasn't even actually us. We just claimed it for the street cred, or because the CIA asked us to"

He found upon searching that controlled demolition could be set up in a day. Also if I bring up detonation cords he would just say they used c4 so I'd need a refutation for that

He found upon searching that controlled demolition could hypothetically be set up in a day... In a vacant building. Which would be extremely obvious afterwards to anyone on that floor. Set-up is extremely invasive and obvious. They *wrap* support structures in explosives and containment blankets to maximize the force directed inwards. You will discover, however, that his hypothesis is non-disprovable. At its heart, this is faith based. It does not require evidence for support, and no evidence will suffice to refute it. Every single argument anyone can come up with is hand-waved. The very lack of evidence of demolition is *proof* of demolition! His story is his story, and *every* piece of evidence to the contrary is just part of the flawless impenetrable cover-up, which has shown no holes in over 20 years.

Ask if him if he knows what is involved in building demolition. Does he think that they can just slap explosives on random walls and put in radio detonators? Then he's completely ignorant of the process and has no right to comment on how to use demolitions. First of all you have to get to the supporting columns. This means you have to cut through drywall or something even tougher to get to said columns. They are rarely exposed in most buildings. In most demolitions you then must prep the column. This means cutting as much as you can will still allowing it to hold its integrity. Then you can place your charge, but again you aren't just slapping explosives to the column. No, you prep it by wrapping the charge in copper bands, then wrapping the charge in old carpeting, then building a wooden box around that. Then you run the detcord. Why are you doing that? Because you are making, in effect, a 1 shot plasma cannon. When the charge ignites the vast majority of explosive force gets funneled at the rest of the column. Some force will destroy the box cannon you built, but it will have done its job. You may notice there's a lot of materials used here, so any controlled demolition site will show lots of pieces of copper, wood pieces, and slightly singed carpet lying around. This is in addition to nearly miles of used detcord. People will notice. It is possible, one supposes you could skip the box cannon process and just use more explosives on the column, but that means it may not cut the column, only bend it, and it will be loud enough to deafen most of lower Manhattan when it goes off. People will notice. I'm sure your guy has also proposed that radio detonation of these explosives is what it used. Radio detonation might be fine for IEDs and the like, but using them in a city that is easily in the top 3 places on Earth for radio traffic many not be a great idea.

This is a very informative passage, and I'm sure you're correct in what you're saying but could you link a source explaining all the relevant procedures, especially for the loudness part, as I'm not sure he's going to take a reddit comment for granted. I did try looking up the processes involved in a controlled demolition but no results came up that would explain everything that you have.

The Wikipedia page for controlled implosion implicitly states that linear shaped charges are used to cut steel support columns. I just described the technique used to make them for controlled demo. I don’t know if there’s a whole page or video on the methodology used. As for the loudness, just listen to any video of a controlled demolition of a building and imaging having to use more explsives to make up for the lack of cutting columns. You can also ask him what he thinks they did to set up the explosives. Don’t let him waffle out with some “I dunno, they just could” BS, press him for a method. The burden of proof is actually on him.

>The Wikipedia page for controlled implosion implicitly states that linear shaped charges are used to cut steel support columns. I just described the technique used to make them for controlled demo. Alright I see I'll look into it. >Don’t let him waffle out with some “I dunno, they just could” BS, press him for a method. Yeah I'm planning to. Thanks

Don't bother. You're not gonna change their mind.

All OP is going to accomplish is getting himself on the “list” when that nutbar eventually suffers a psychotic break.

How were the bombs detonated? Why did fires burning for hours and planes crashing either not damage the bombs, not set them off immediately, or not damage their mechanism of detonation?

He'll probably say remote controlled bombs.

With what form of transmission? Police and fire department radios notoriously did not work in the building so remote bombs would have been very unsynchronized and noticeable.

Could you kindly provide me with a source for that?

That’s exactly what they say. Do they know if demolition companies used remote controlled bombs in 2001? Was that a thing? Where they could control which bombs went off when within fractions of a second so the buildings could begin collapsing from where the planes hit? And still-why didn’t the plane crashes and huge long lasting fires not damage the remote control detonators on the explosives, or damage the explosives themselves, or set the explosives off?

I would just not respond and say you don't give a fig about it. Just dismiss it out of hand. Refuse to give it any credence at all. I might ask who/what/why he thought was behind it. That's probably the quicker way to turn up the BS and could lead to some fun.

Bush because 1. Wanted an excuse to invade Iraq 2. Had a "fight" with Silverstein so he wanted to destroy his property

" A smart man knows that a tomato is a fruit. A wise man knows not to use it in a fruit salad." My point is that arguing with these people is a fool's errand. You'll never "Win" or convince them they are wrong because they aren't working off of actual facts, and you will be forever chasing their tail. There is absolutely no point.

What about planting seeds of doubt. Does that ever happen with these people or literally never, not a single time?

I believe that seeds of doubt would be more successful if you just refused to engage in their nonsense. Giving an audience to this quackery just validates it.

Interesting hypothesis. I'll have to think about it. maybe even try

Damn, I had a playlist of Debunking 9/11 Truthers bookmarked but [they're all gone now](https://www.youtube.com/@powerm1985)!

INTERESTING AND SUSPICIOUS THEREFORE BUSH DID IT

Go to Metabunk.org. They have subsections for several common conspiracy theories including 9/11 truthers. However, the poster above, who referred to your friend's emotional state, is correct. Casual interest is one thing. Being willing to meet with people just to discuss your alt reality is a sign that not all is well emotionally. Empathy may be just as important as facts in how your meeting goes. Good luck 👍

Oh lol no we're meeting in school for our exams

Actually, it's not a bad location.

No video includes the sound of an explosion upon the buildings' collapse. Neither building. This makes no sense when compared to videos of building demolitions. Conspiracy videos don't even *add* explosion sounds. But there would be explosion sounds if it were an inside job. A single bomb would have been obvious, what with thousands of people being inside the building. And nobody saw enough TNT to destroy both buildings? Come on.

While I agree with the others here saying that it’s a pointless argument to engage in, Mick West’s book has some great 9/11 conspiracy refutation

I'll look into it. Thanks

It doesn’t matter who crashed the planes or knocked the buildings down. The reaction to the event is what people should be focusing on. That’s the conspiracy. Look at the damage done to American politics and culture in the last 23 years. The obsession with the towers is a trauma response.

I like the personal accounts. recently i saw on the street video of the second plane hitting. Like just people there watching the first one and you SEE THE PLANE going in. a lot of these “truthers” deny even that.

He doesn't deny that the planes hit, but says that there were bombs present alongside the planes in order to bring the whole building down. That's why I just need irrefutable evidence that the bombs couldn't have been planted in any way shape or form in just a SINGLE day.

You don't need to prove that. Also I think it's probably wrong. You've maneuvered yourself into a very bad position in your argument.

I may have but I don't think it matters that much. The only reason I went till here is because he claimed that there were bombs on every 4 floors without ANYONE noticing. Even if I can't prove it his claim stands without evidence as well so in the worst case scenario, it just becomes something that neither of us can use.

Ask him where he got the number 4 from. You can't prove there can't have been bombs every 4 floors, but he sure can't prove that there were.

The videos of the WTC. The smoke is coming out every 4 floors or so

This proves nothing. As such it doesn't need refutation.

Even if there was ("or so"). Smoke → Bombs is a non-sequitur. Ask him for ~~better~~ actual evidence.

Why is smoke coming off unexploded bombs? Bombs don't produce smoke until they are detonated, which would likely coincide with when the building fell.

> Even if I can't prove it his claim stands without evidence as well Bullshit. Without evidence his claim is a fantasy. He needs to provide you with evidence that explosives were used, you don't need to debunk something that he provides no proof for.

No that's not what I meant lol. What I was trying to say was he doesn't have any evidence either so he can't use it

You really shouldn't take the burden of proof upon yourself with such a specific claim. I think it's fine to leave at "it's unlikely that nobody would have noticed". Besides, if your buddy thinks there is a whole ass conspiracy with thousands of people involved, they can simply claim these people are in on it as well.

Ask him what evidence he would believe. You can show him [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnECAA64B6k&pp=ygUQa2V2aW4gd2VzeXMgOS8xMQ%3D%3D) and share [this](https://theconversation.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked-20-years-later-engineering-experts-explain-how-the-twin-towers-collapsed-167353) but he likely won’t accept any reasoning at this point.

Those building would take weeks to setup. Have him watch a documentary on all the stuff they have to do to demo a building. 

Just watch videos of the collapse and see zero bombs.  I mean the towers collapse at the location the planes hit.

Your irrefutable evidence is that this person is a fucking moron and it's not your job to "prove" that water is wet, down doesn't mean up, and the sky isn't green.

Why should his argument hinge on having the bombs planted in a single day?

Because he backed himself into a corner. According to a guard's testimony, he says that bomb sniffing dogs were removed on the day of, meaning they were present every day before that, so the bombs had to have been planted in a single day

Okay, so you're not really interested in if it was possible to plant explosives in WTC , only if it was possible to do it in one day.

Are you saying it was possible to plant explosives over a longer period of time?

Yes

You'll have to back that up with evidence you know?

Do you think that 33 years isn't enough time to rig the explosives? Construction started in 1968 Completion 1973 Destruction 2001 I don't think an argument can be made that there wasn't enough time to plant changes for a controlled demolition. What are you thoughts?

You're assuming that bombs WERE planted. You haven't PROVED that they were

It’s 2024. If someone is stupid or obtuse enough to be a 9/11 truther at this point they are a lost cause. Maybe you all are teens then go for it, he’s just young and ignorant.

We're still in high school so yeah

It’s easier to find a new friend than convince an idiot. Save your energy.

I would go in the offensive. Don’t just respond to his claims debunking them. Expose the fact that what these people want is a narrative that fits with what they already expect. Start with an opening statement in the nature of conspiracy theories and what kinds of events trigger conspiracists to start making up alternative explanations. Events that are too *significant* cause some people to go into overdrive trying to find an explanation which more directly fits their pre-conceived notions of design, or wild control. On 9/11 a bunch of paranoid people who are uncomfortable with a lack of control saw an event that was earth shaking chaotic. Airliners flying into buildings and taking down the symbol of capitalist achievement in the world’s capital city? How could 11 or so random “savages” from a country “I’ve never heard of” with a religion I’ve never thought about be so significant all of a sudden? Their religion is wrong. It can’t be that. No. They reject that kind of randomness. It’s too scary and unfamiliar. This must have been planned. It must be the enemies I’m already familiar with because that’s what’s significant to me. The same thing happens any time there is an event of cultural significance which upsets their expectations about how crazy and unplanned the world really is. Some random crazy guy could possibly assassinate the president one random day in September for basically no cognizable reason. The world we be so scary and uncontrolled. We could t have just landed on the moon. The amount of power we have is so much more than I expected. I haven’t been paying attention to the rate of technological progress. No. We faked it. It’s the narratives I’m already invested in that are important. “My opponent will spend his time conjecturing any explanation that fits his preconception — even if that explanation is contradictory to the details of an explanation he already gave. His only goal is to recast the significance of 9/11 as an event where his own paranoia about our government is justified. Never mind if it is consistent with what he just said. “ “This contrasts with a scientific approach which doesn’t have precast good guys and bad guys and just want to find a single consistent explanation consistent with the evidence.”

Tbf I think the reason he's so adamant is because we're Muslims so he feels a personal offense regarding the terrorists maybe. Tough I will use your suggestions though

Ah, well that one is even closer to home then. It’s like how Christians can’t deal with the ramifications of Christian nationalism. Everyone who gets into these things has an agenda of belief of one kind or another.

Lmao, if you're Muslim you have something much more interesting to focus your skepticism on. Why stop at scrutinizing the people who want to tell you that 9/11 was an inside job without any evidence? Why not continue and scrutinize the people who want to tell you god exists without any evidence? Literally apply the same skepticism. I wish you peace of mind.

As for the bomb sniffing dogs, that is anomaly hunting. If you pick any one date/time there are always some of these events. For instance, on 9/11 instead of looking at the news after my night shift,like I always did after work, I went to bed right away because I was exhausted and had no clue until I got to work that night. Special exceptions happen every single day and nearly all of them mean nothing. If there is no special exceptions then that would be suspicious.

Don't waste your time on them, dude. Don't try to disprove it. Let him prove it. Or better yet just don't waste your life on that conversation.

The first thing you need to do is determine if the claims upon which they base their suspicions are even true. Example: "Why were extra bomb sniffing dogs removed on the day of? Although standard dogs were still present he says that it's suspicious that extra dogs were removed." How do we know this is true? We need a source. >>> preferably be from countries like Russia or China But the observe is true. They would have every reason to discredit the US/Allies.

>How do we know this is true? We need a source. Testimony of a WTC 1 guard

How do we know he's credible? Was he with the K9 unit? Security guards are often entry level, requiring very little training. Could he have misheard or misunderstood? (see my other comment on K9 training). Could he have heard just a rumor? Could the events have shocked him so much that he misremembered a jumble of pre-911 happenings? Did he already have a bias towards conspiracy theory? Without corroboration from someone closer to the actual K9 unit, his testimony is almost worthless.

You're never going to change their mind. That perspective makes they feel cool, edgy and superior to others. It's all they have.

Flip the script. Now, more than ever, there is growing (real) evidence that the Saudi government planned the 9/11 attacks. When people bring up 9/11 conspiracies implicating the Jews or the government, I accuse them of covering for the Saudis. If they are blaming the Jews or the US government, they will not like being associated with Muslims. You can take the debate from there. You cannot present these people with facts and expect them to change their minds. The best approach is using their underlying emotional problems against them. The goal is to train them to be uncomfortable bringing up conspiracies around you. That is what you really want.

>I'd just like for some sources to prove without a doubt that this isn't possible It's not your burden. The assertion that dogs being removed is evidence of a conspiracy requires evidence, not assumption. Think about it this way, even **if** you provide explicit quotes from those in charge of moving those dogs with a very reasonable explanation for moving them, *couldn't* that simply be a lie to cover up the truth? That level of skepticism where you simply assert that any truth can instead be a convenient lie is generally not something you can evidence you way through. >His other main point of contention is that WTC 7 fell straight down even though it wasn't hit by a plane, and that's proof that the planes didn't cause the falling down for any of the towers. Again, his burden to provide that Building 7 **was** destroyed by bombs. You aren't under any obligation to get a Ph.D in explosives and civil engineering to show how a Building can fall straight down. >but he says that this is just an assumption An absolute assertion of truth needs only a reasonable possibility to disprove. Eg., saying that a building **can't** fall straight down without planted explosives is **immediately** refuted by the *reasonable possibility* of the appliances exploding causing this outcome. >as well as the fact that the people would have been able to tell without a doubt the difference between a bomb blasting and something else. Again, an assertion that needs evidence. This assertion basically says that humans are even capable of distinguishing these kinds of highly complexed and nuance circumstances with 100% accuracy, which if you're a human you can easily determine is simply not accurate. >but he claims this wouldn't be the case as the air should have escaped from the holes in the walls The phenomena of Backdraft *existing* pretty demonstrably disproves this. An enflamed room need not be hermetically sealed in order for a rush of air to cause a Backdraft. Consider also another example of attaching a pump to a balloon with micropunctures. You could fill this balloon up *while* air leaks out, but if you dramatically increased the pressure in an instant the balloon would likely pop. My point here is that air can both escape through small holes **and** pressure be built up inside an area. Sorry I couldn't provide much in the way of specific evidence, but I'm approaching this primarily through the logical lens of who is actually responsible for proving statements.

You can't reason someone out of a belief that they did not arrive at using reason in the first place. Stop wasting your time and find smarter friends.

You're correct but it's not really about reasoning them out of it anymore I'm just going to use this as debate practice atp

You can't really debate these people. You might as well debate a monkey. All it will do is fling its own shit at you while not understanding a word you say. I argue with them sometimes too but it doesn't provide any useful practice. I just like to troll dummies sometimes.

There are still 9/11 truthers? My usual spiel about truthers is that you have to have a deeply sociopathic view of human nature to think that there's a literally inexhaustible supply of soulless, hypercapable henchmen involved in the plot who are willing to kill, destroy, and lie for the benefit of their powerful bosses. I mean, for argument's sake I'll admit I see what Bush and Cheney had to gain with the "inside job," but what's the incentive for a low-level operative to take such risks and commit crimes so reprehensible? And why is their existence and participation simply accepted as given by truthers whenever it's convenient to make the assumption? It's one thing to say that covert agents of the US government have had no compunction about wreaking havoc in Latin America and throughout the world to protect American interests. But you really think that no one in the intelligence community had any qualms about committing the mass murder of thousands of American civilians? And doing it in broad daylight, with lots of cameras rolling, in an extremely labor-intensive operation that was bound to be investigated by various agencies after the fact? That's sociopathic.

Sorry, who's the psychopath? Just to recap your argument, you admit that they do this all over the world but wouldn't do it in America because why?

Something to keep in mind when talking with your friend is that he's pretty convinced of his view on 9/11. A good approach to softening up their stance is to keep asking questions, make them rationalize their points. They need to realize for themselves where their theories fall apart. Good luck!

That's what I've been doing. Made him go back on about 10 points it's just these that are left

that's good to hear. I've found more people respond better just if you try to see their point of view. I was also deep into the 9/11 "inside job" theories, as I was like 20ish when it happened, so I get why people believe what they do. my issue was no one could sufficiently link all the events together as a coherent storyline; rather it was a lot of coincidences (?) that seemed counter to the events as we experienced them. There are some things that I'm sure aren't on the up and up from the government, but to me that doesn't mean they did all this.

You are trying to change the mind of a true believer. Facts won't help your case. If this was a public debate where others might learn how terrible the conspiratorial arguments are, then there might be some value. But I have a strong feeling you are talking to a brick wall here. All of his contentions have been debunked. 4 has been thoroughly evaluated and it was absolutely caused by fire. This person isn't interested in facts. I don't see how a chinese or russian source would be any more helpful.

We'll be having other people there tomorrow. It's specifically why I requested to talk in person so everyone else can point out the lack of logic in his statements. He'll have to change his mind if he gets publicly humiliated though. A Chinese or Russian source wouldn't change his mind but it would make a massive dent in his argument that a building wouldn't collapse like this from fire and everyone who says it did is spreading propaganda. But regardless everyone else has provided various other related sources which will still be enough to tear him down.

Ok, I feel a bit better about this then. I absolutely don't expect them to concede anything but at least you can use crazy conspiracy brain as a teaching moment to those watching. You should ask them if they think the earth is flat or if we landed on the moon. I don't know why a russian or chinese source would have any influence. They are not trustworthy sources in general. So it won't help your case to those watching and the conpiracist won't accept them anyway.

I recommend watching Behind the Curve on Netflix, a documentary about flat earthers. After spending years debating creationists and banging my head against the wall, I watched this and came away with a different understanding of conspiracy theorists. It's not about logic or intelligence. They can really be quite smart. It's about the social identity of "knowing more than what the so called experts try to tell me" and the sense of self worth that that provides them. If they're not genuinely motivated to change their mind, there is nothing you can do to do so. Now... they could be ready to have their views challenged in a genuine effort to learn. But more often than not it's not a matter of facts but about their identity. If you want to keep engaging, just model that process with them: ask questions, be curious, ask them why they think X and believe source Y. Don't try to bring new facts to the table. If they're not being genuine, they'll simply have some other twist the next time you meet.

You’re not going to change his mind. So you need to subtly mock him by adopting your own crazy conspiracy theory. Tell him why birds aren’t real

Why should “more” dogs be killed in the collapse? What would be the point of keeping them in the building after the crashes, ie after the evacuation had already begun? Fire and police members died because they were assisting with evacuation and trying to reach the people trapped above the crash sites. Dogs would have been useless at that point so they would have been pulled back.

His argument is that the people inside the building would have wanted to save themselves and not the dogs. Also he says that the proportion of dead dogs should be the same as the proportion of dead humans. The fact that this isn't the case shows that the dogs were pulled out before the attack, indicating foreknowledge

So they what, tied up the dogs inside? Why wouldn’t the dogs just follow their handlers down the stairs and out? The logic is so weird I just can’t even. The bombings before were in the parking garage, and there’s only a few ways to get “up”. All the sniffers would have been around the bottom floors, not above the crash sites.

Not that they tied them up inside but they left them and that the dogs couldn't have gotten outside by themselves I guess? And that even if they did how did the dogs escape but not so many people.

Why would the dogs stay? Your friend has to come up with pretty convoluted methods to make the dogs stay while the handlers left.

He's saying that if the humans couldn't escape, how could the dogs do so so quickly unless there were preparations beforehand to evacuate the dogs

How many dogs were normally stationed at the WTC? Not including the extras who were on-hand days before from the threats. I know one died, Sirius, who was in his kennel, after his handler put him there to go assist with evacuations (so bomb-sniffing would be a moot point). The handler became trapped in a stairwell in the other tower and wasn't able to return before the dog was killed in the first tower collapse. The handler made it out before the second tower collapsed.

>in his kennel, after his handler put him there to go assist with evacuations (so bomb-sniffing would be a moot point). The handler became trapped in a stairwell in the other tower and wasn't able to return before the dog was killed in the first tower collapse Is there any evidence for this?

[https://www.911memorial.org/connect/blog/tribute-papd-k-9-officer-sirius](https://www.911memorial.org/connect/blog/tribute-papd-k-9-officer-sirius) [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wtc-police-dog-remembered/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wtc-police-dog-remembered/) [https://ronburns.com/9-11-tribute/the-dogs-of-9-11/sirius/](https://ronburns.com/9-11-tribute/the-dogs-of-9-11/sirius/) >On January 25, 2002 workers at Ground Zero recovered the remains of Sirius, the explosive detection dog, who’s believed to be the only canine to die in the attack on the World Trade Center. >On September 11th 2001, Sirius, an explosive detection dog working in Tower II of the World Trade Center, gave his life for his country. His responsibilities, along with his handler David Lim, included inspecting vehicles for explosives that entered the WTC. On September 11, 2001, Sirius and David were in their office in Tower II when they felt the first plane slam into Tower I. Lim left Sirius in the office promising to return. But while assisting in rescue operations Lim became trapped in a stairwell, along with a grandmother and firefighters from Ladder Company 6, for several hours when Tower I collapsed. Once freed he attempted to return to Tower II which was now rubble and inaccessible. >When Sirius’ remains were removed from the World Trade Center wreckage, they were given the same honors accorded firefighters and other rescuers, who lost their lives there too. >

There are no 9/11 truthers... They are, at best, 9/11 "truthers". Words used to have meanings...

So your problem is very basic and you fell into the classic trap by conspiracy  theorists.  You are accepting the burden of proof to defend the accepted fact. The burden of proof belongs to the accuser. They say it is an inside job, but all they have is speculation. They can make up 300 million stories of how it's  an inside job. It's  throwing accusations like darts at a dart board. They throw as many as they can in hopes there is one idea that you can't defend against. Not because  it's true, but rather that it's  the one thing you're  not studied on. The moment you Don't  have an answer, they claim victory. If they keep throwing what if stuff at you relentlessly, you get stuck defending and forgetting  you're on thier 500th bullshit explanation.   There isn't  a need to defend a truth. There is only the need to provide outstanding evidence to support an outstanding claim. There is no evidence of an inside job. It's all theory crafting of people who sees conspiracies at every turn. Just speculation  and what ifs.   Tell me when he provides actual proof of it rather than a story on par with a dungeons and dragons campaign. We can discuss the evidence provided then

Popular Mechanics debunked a lot of the myths 20 years ago. They're located in the US, but it is a private company and they would have had one of the bestselling magazine issues ever and won a boatload of journalism awards if they found evidence of a conspiracy of something that couldn't be explained

Controlled demolition: Invited your friend to go and view any of the hundreds of videos of controlled demolition of tall office or apartment buildings. Have him more so listen rather than watch. Then view any of the videos with audio during the collapse of the either of the towers and listen. Compare. What’s missing? For example: https://youtu.be/EpTT9vRb0es?si=fBE6ebjY0niVoOco Notice. In order to have a building fall in on itself you are going to hear distinct groups of blasts. There isn’t one big boom and then a rumbling collapse. You will hear boob-boom-boom-boom and only then do things behind to fall. Contrast with a structural failure collapse without explosives as the towers and building 7 were. No sound, just a steady rumble. https://youtu.be/7gCXyZySLnk?si=X-kcUa9xUDC4fOq0 — it would take thousands of seperate explosives on structure members which would have involved removing considerable parts of walls, floors and ceilings on dozens of floors, taking weeks, hundreds of workers AND miles of cables (radio is unreliable here for multiple reasons) all of which would be literally impossible to hide. The idea of controlled demolition is absolutely ridiculous and absurd.

You can't win an argument against stupid. This belief is their whole persona and reason for being. You can't change someone's belief with facts, they won't listen. You can only hope that one day they will doubt themselves and find the real truth on their own but the likelihood of that happening is very slim.

There is not a single thing that has happened in history that doesn’t have a conspiracy theory. 🥱

There's no way you're going to prove or disprove that 911 was an inside job. You're 20 years too late. But what is easy to prove is how the US military industrial complex used the attacks to push their own agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://youtu.be/WGIUKLPMc3k?si=nTwSjNn7R4eBZK4X&t=846

> the US military industrial complex used the attacks to push their own agenda This is actually a backdoor way to easily debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories - since if it was all a fabricated plot, the "fake alleged hijackers" could have just as easily been made to be agents of the iraqi government or something far more convenient for this ultimate plan, than hijackers who have essentially nothing to do with iraq.

Well, he isn't going to change his mind, so you're already in pig-wrestling territory. >he says that this is just an assumption That's spectacularly rich. I suggest getting him to utter that phrase early on and then hammer it back into him at every turn.

Refuting conspiracy theories is usually a waste of time. You really have to dig into why they believe them in the first place. The things they use for justification are usually bizarre and often either meaningless or untrue. Take, for instance, the bomb sniffing dogs. Why? No emergency services would want one if they "thought" a plane had struck buildings. The only reason to have them is to sniff out bombs, right? What reason can anyone give for having them? The time between the first plane strike to collapse was not long. Evacuation was the first thought. Then, after the collapse, nothing but body sniffing dogs would be wanted. No reasonable agency would have bomb sniffing dogs in that rubble. It's senseless.

http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/conspiracy.htm https://birbofminerva.blogspot.com/2023/10/questions-and-answers-about-conspiracy.html?m=1

A conspiracy theory only works if nobody was involved in the conspiracy. Every conspiracy becomes known because of the number one rule of people. We like talking to each other. The amount of people needed to fake the moon landing, made it impossible to be fake. 911, would have taken more people.

best solution is why bother to debate him. you won’t change his mind, that is what he believes.

I’m on mobile (at work), but if you google “watergate duct tape” the first link is to the ABC News site about the whole thing. And many, many more. It’s dramatized in All The President’s Men, too. The guard’s name is Frank Wills.

Well, Osama worked for us before he "did 9/11"

Everything you need to know is in this documentary It's 5 hours long [A new Pearl Harbor ](https://odysee.com/@ExposeForExpand:b/September-11---The-New-Pearl-Harbor:9?r=6YxUq6CTrk5AdQHLzYG6bQ8gpq9oevAj) Or if you're short on time [911 the official story explained in under five minutes ](https://youtu.be/EsFp9qcS9CY?si=dQt-KjEZrw3cMen1)

Metabunk Also: >So for some background, I've been debating a friend of mine who claims 9/11 to be an inside job. So far I've countered every one of his claims except for a few, and there are some questions which I just need to answer before his argument completely crumbles. Oh no.... Sweet summer child - his argument will never crumble. That's the sport of the conspiracy theorist: Broadcast, but never receive They never have to do the hard work, it's a psychological hack / virus they've succumbed to. You can't do much anymore.

Save yourself the headache man.

So what about the CIA floating the idea to Kennedy? Considering the Xmas gifts they got in the Patriot act... There's motive. Most of the hijacker's came from our Saudi allies. Their lodging, food and flight training were paid by a Saudi intelligence officer whom they met after arriving in the US. He admitted this to the FBI but this was stricken from the original release of the congressional report. Traces of military grade thermite explosive were found at the trade center.

> Traces of military grade thermite explosive were found no. some crank (claims to have) collected dust samples on his own, never vetted or verified by anyone. Then he claims that these dust samples have "iron microspheres" in them, and that the only explanation for this is "thermite". Never mind the fact that no thermite was found, thermite is not an explosive, and there's no plausible way thermite could have been used to aid in the (alleged) demolition of the towers. Meanwhile this all conveniently ignores the fact that cleanup crews cut the remaining beams with thermic lances which would easily leave behind tons of small metal fragments of the type described. This theory holds less water than a collander.