yep no controlled demolition of bld 7 or lost libertys since 9/11 alright

[Montrovant]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

Building 7 Explained - YouTube

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

If the video is true why didn't at least one of THESE collapse? Why has no other steel-framed highrise in HISTORY collapsed from fire?

If I understand the guy's conclusion correctly, he claims no other building of this type has ever burned uncontrolled for 7 hours. I can only assume the buildings in your picture are either things he doesn't know about, or the fires were contained in some way, etc.

I'm not saying the guy in the video is right, merely making a point about the use of the word fact and the silliness of looking at youtube videos as paragons of accuracy.

 

[GuyPinestra]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

Building 7 Explained - YouTube

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

If the video is true why didn't at least one of THESE collapse? Why has no other steel-framed highrise in HISTORY collapsed from fire?

If I understand the guy's conclusion correctly, he claims no other building of this type has ever burned uncontrolled for 7 hours. I can only assume the buildings in your picture are either things he doesn't know about, or the fires were contained in some way, etc.

I'm not saying the guy in the video is right, merely making a point about the use of the word fact and the silliness of looking at youtube videos as paragons of accuracy.

This guy's conclusion is bogus, and it's based on an easily refuted lie. It took me all of 5 minutes. I could post dozens of pictures of buildings that have burned for better that 12 hours, some as long as 24 hours, and never collapsed.

Check this out...
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

 

[paulitician]

Yeah sure, buildings on fire collapse perfectly symmetrically all the time. Sure thing Big Brother.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O6pISuPzTA]This Is An Orange - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!

Building 7 Explained - YouTube

And there are plenty more.

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.

If this computer simulation is to be considered so accurate....then why do tell, doesn't the NIST allow their data to be used for replication purposes?
Your ignorant appeal to a government authority is really telling, in that you don't seem to realize that it is certain factions within the US government that are the perpetrators of the lies regarding the 9-11 attacks.
How the fuck can you expect to appeal to the authority that is the main culprit, and that was tasked to conduct an honest and open investigation, including being forthcoming with the way the obtained their results....but were not?

We have posted proof and evidence that anyone with a basic grade school education could understand concerning the obvious distortions in the NIST report, yet you insist on using this discredited agency and report as a defense against what we post???

I could post much about their report that doesn't jive with the real world and readily visible results, and how they jumbled their data, but it is up to you as one of their defenders to prove us wrong, and you and the rest of your cohorts have failed.

Get with it or get on down the road, you bring nothing new to the discussion that solidifies your views.

And this is why so many of us have so little patience with the CT posters.

I did NOT appeal to government authority. In fact, I clearly asked if those who are NOT part of the government investigation, but agree with it's findings, must also be part of whatever conspiracy is at work.

I did not use the NIST report to try and debunk any claims you have made. I posted a youtube video of someone who claims to have debunked the free-fall, full building collapse idea.

Maybe if you didn't automatically assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a paid government agent, or completely believes the government's investigation, or whatever other assumptions you are making, you might see that some people just DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS. Some people just are NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIDENCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED. None of that means belief in the NIST conclusions. It is possible to disbelieve both, or at least not be sure what the truth is.

Get back to me when you want to talk about what I actually post, rather than the delusions you create to pigeonhole me into whatever box you find most convenient.

You posted a video that used the NIST report and explanation that claimed it was true. You indirectly appealed to NIST as an authority on the subject.
Do you even watch the videos that you post beforehand??
The video does nothing but advance the reasons why so many think NIST is full of shit. I'll explain----

In the video, he states that the WTC7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires.
Like has been said already, there have been numerous occasions of hirise buildings engulfed in larger fires that exceeded the 7 hrs of flame time at WTC 7, and they did not collapse into it's own footprint, like the video creator admitted happened to WTC 7
.
It is not mentioned that these buildings like most others had a degree of safety factor built into them, and are designed to withstand 3-5 times their limitations.
He goes on to say that 7 was supported by a series of steel columns (and beams) he also says that steel loses half of its strength at around 1200 degrees, then shows a steel beam being overcome by 2000 deg. flame.
Questions-Is the steel used in the video tempered and assembled to specs for use in a hi rise building?
The alloys and the heat treatment used in the production of steel result in it having different values and strengths. Testing must be accurate to determine the properties of the steel and to ensure adherence to standards.
High-tempered steel can be used exactly the same as untempered steel but is preferable in the area of construction.
Was it ever proven that the fire temps even reached 2000 deg. in the WTC 7?
NO.
Was the piece that was used in the video treated with fire retardant?
Doesn't appear to have been.

Here are tests results that cast doubt on the NIST theory of fire doing all the damage it claimed.
A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction.

Next he involves the thermal expansion that supposedly took place, but leaves out the fact that the components were held in place by the shear studs, that would have had to rip apart, and also does not mention that the expansion would have also occurred at the other end of the piece..NIST is caught distorting facts regarding the shear studs by saying there were none in a 2008 report. This contradicts directly with what they said on Sept.2005,
"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs.
Typically the shear studs were 3/4 inch think x 5 inches long spaced 1 to 2 ft. on center.."
Without this thermal expansion concoction by NIST, and the deception regarding the shear studs
the whole fabrication is laid bare..
That and the fact that they tried to lie about the FF, then admitted to that as well, but left out the explanation for it.
It would be impossible for the minimal amount of thermal expansion to rip apart the heavy shear studs, so NIST pretends they didn't exist....After first admitting that they did.
This is but one example of the deception NIST used to achieve the demanded outcome, of a fire only explanation for the WTC 7 demise. It is very unlikely that this massive building would have come down so evenly at the rate that it did by only office fires. NIST admitted that the fires burned for 20 minutes or so then moved on. Fires cause asymmetrical random damaged as they are not controlled, so why the seemingly symmetrical collapse?

The theory that the inner core of 7 was falling down is absurd, as this implies that the outer columns and components were never connected to the inner structure.
In order for this massive building to come down as it did, producing FF for 8 stories, the supporting structure was taken out of the way. This is evident by the penthouse falling into the building first. This could not have occurred by random roving office fires, as a distorted collapse would have ensued and not the symmetrical one that was witnessed.

The idiot that produced your video, is also comparing a bridge, that is built with encased concrete, to the WTC7 .
Concrete does protect the steel that is encased within it, but at high temps the concrete explodes and the much thinner steel is exposed to the high temps of the tanker truck and collapses, much like a building that is used to try to prove their case regarding steel buildings and collapses.

The video producer asks why did 7 collapse, and he answers by saying that 7 was only one in history that was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours! How he can say this with all the other videos of other massive buildings that burned uncontrolled for much longer times, available is either ignorant or very deceptive of him.

Some of the warranted comments on the video-
"Another lying conspiracy retard. Amusing."
"Probably the lamest explanation of the WTC collapse I have had the misfortune to read.
I used to work in construction and I know those steels used in construction are as tough as hell. Fires are not enough to bring them down. Period."
"And you see, the guy who composed this video stated "it is only one in the history to burn, uncontrolled, 7 hours". And you believed to him without trying to check it."...

This video is lame, and full of lies. I also noticed that he didn't let the NIST simulation play to the end while doing the side by side comparison of the actual WTC7 collapse.....They look nothing alike...

Her's a much better and more detailed explanation regarding the shear studs and the thermal expansion that destroys the video you claim explains the demise of 7...And uses actual NIST reports in the process..Specifically the area around the famous column 79 that called for 3800 shear studs....on just one single level of the 47 story structure -4:00 minute mark.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qGe0E9cjUbI]Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]

Why would they directly state the abundance of shear studs in building 7, then omit them out of subsequent reports
and their simulation model?
Well they admitted they were having trouble "getting a handle" on explaining the collapse, so they settled on the thermal expansion theory, but in order for it to be even remotely plausible, the rigid shear studs had to be removed from the equation..

Their thermal expansion theory does not hold up to scrutiny with these types of extra fortifications placed 1-2 ft apart
like they mentioned in their 2004 report.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PO_3pKXYMk]NELSON - Shear Stud Welding - YouTube[/ame]

Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):

June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center**. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders.

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot stand up. Then they hide their computer modelling data so it can't be replicated?
Why?

WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?

OpEdNews - Diary: NIST fraud - WTC 7 Shear Studs

 

[Montrovant]

From the post I made with the video :

"My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?"

Perhaps you are unable to understand that I posted that video by way of making a point, not as some sort of definitive proof of the accuracy of the NIST report.

I was trying to show that for those of us that are not physicists, nor engineers, much of what you claim is scientific proof that the NIST report is wrong is not obvious.

I also wondered if there are any independent scientists from pertinent fields, not involved in the investigation, who concur with the NIST report. If, in fact, there are such scientists, then either the evidence you think so obviously proves the report wrong is not unambiguous, or these scientists are unable to draw the obvious conclusions from data within their field of expertise, or they too are involved in the conspiracy.

And last, I was making a dig at the prevalence of youtube videos posted by conspiracy theorists, all of which supposedly prove their particular theories. Very often we see posts that say something like, "Watch this youtube video! It shows I am right!" That is usually followed by, "You didn't even watch the video, you can't disprove it, you're a troll/goose stepper/paid disinformation agent/poop". Often these videos have no sources given, no way to verify the accuracy of the content, etc. I'm confident there are many others I could find that argue against the conspiracy idea.

 

[Mr. Jones]

From the post I made with the video :

"My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?"

Perhaps you are unable to understand that I posted that video by way of making a point, not as some sort of definitive proof of the accuracy of the NIST report.

I was trying to show that for those of us that are not physicists, nor engineers, much of what you claim is scientific proof that the NIST report is wrong is not obvious.

I also wondered if there are any independent scientists from pertinent fields, not involved in the investigation, who concur with the NIST report. If, in fact, there are such scientists, then either the evidence you think so obviously proves the report wrong is not unambiguous, or these scientists are unable to draw the obvious conclusions from data within their field of expertise, or they too are involved in the conspiracy.

And last, I was making a dig at the prevalence of youtube videos posted by conspiracy theorists, all of which supposedly prove their particular theories. Very often we see posts that say something like, "Watch this youtube video! It shows I am right!" That is usually followed by, "You didn't even watch the video, you can't disprove it, you're a troll/goose stepper/paid disinformation agent/poop". Often these videos have no sources given, no way to verify the accuracy of the content, etc. I'm confident there are many others I could find that argue against the conspiracy idea.

I post videos that are relevant to what I believe and make sense.
I understand that you could find videos that are posted on U-Tube about this topic like you did, but I simply pointed out how easily BS can be found, and quickly refuted. There are many kooks out there who post insanely illogical crap, to paint those that are sincere with a broad brush of "conspiracy theorists"
I stay away from the nonsense and deal with understandable and logical findings and conclusions.
I'm sure you could find a video that suggests visitors from outer space have taken over the planet are really really the ones who did it!!!

Let's stick to the facts. I believe that the WTC could not have physically come down, in the short amount of time that they did due to kerosene office fires and plane damage.
I have submitted what I believe to be proof, and evidence of my belief, that entail calculations, along with scientific data, and theories that use available physics and said science, that directly rebuke the NIST findings. This is the heart of the objections to the OCT as told by government agencies their lackeys, and their propaganda arm in the MSM.
If you would like to post something other then insurance fraud, or the common "someone would have talked" excuse for your belief and include some scientific data, this can turn into abetter discussion and maybe we both would learn something, who knows? Have at it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

From the post I made with the video :

"My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?"

Perhaps you are unable to understand that I posted that video by way of making a point, not as some sort of definitive proof of the accuracy of the NIST report.

I was trying to show that for those of us that are not physicists, nor engineers, much of what you claim is scientific proof that the NIST report is wrong is not obvious.

I also wondered if there are any independent scientists from pertinent fields, not involved in the investigation, who concur with the NIST report. If, in fact, there are such scientists, then either the evidence you think so obviously proves the report wrong is not unambiguous, or these scientists are unable to draw the obvious conclusions from data within their field of expertise, or they too are involved in the conspiracy.

And last, I was making a dig at the prevalence of youtube videos posted by conspiracy theorists, all of which supposedly prove their particular theories. Very often we see posts that say something like, "Watch this youtube video! It shows I am right!" That is usually followed by, "You didn't even watch the video, you can't disprove it, you're a troll/goose stepper/paid disinformation agent/poop". Often these videos have no sources given, no way to verify the accuracy of the content, etc. I'm confident there are many others I could find that argue against the conspiracy idea.

I post videos that are relevant to what I believe and make sense.
I understand that you could find videos that are posted on U-Tube about this topic like you did, but I simply pointed out how easily BS can be found, and quickly refuted. There are many kooks out there who post insanely illogical crap, to paint those that are sincere with a broad brush of "conspiracy theorists"
I stay away from the nonsense and deal with understandable and logical findings and conclusions.
I'm sure you could find a video that suggests visitors from outer space have taken over the planet are really really the ones who did it!!!

Let's stick to the facts. I believe that the WTC could not have physically come down, in the short amount of time that they did due to kerosene office fires and plane damage.
I have submitted what I believe to be proof, and evidence of my belief, that entail calculations, along with scientific data, and theories that use available physics and said science, that directly rebuke the NIST findings. This is the heart of the objections to the OCT as told by government agencies their lackeys, and their propaganda arm in the MSM.
If you would like to post something other then insurance fraud, or the common "someone would have talked" excuse for your belief and include some scientific data, this can turn into abetter discussion and maybe we both would learn something, who knows? Have at it.

we already know beyond a doubt that explosives brought the towers down because of these facts below.

Yeah thats all in my thread that I have going.The people that come on there and keep defending the fairy tales of the government obviously dont want to watch that video.Its not just that,but bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission that they cant get around and always ignore because this point goes ignored EVERY SINGLE TIME,that there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 was that had far more extensive damage and far more extensive fires to them than bld 7,yet unlike bld 7,they did not collapase.

then there is this other fact the trolls on here constantly dodge and ignore as well that the twin towers and bld 7 were not on the only buildings to collapse that day,but they were the first ever to collapse due to fire and were the only ones owned by zionist Jew Larry Silverstein.the official conspiracy theory apologists and the paid trolls like sayit ignore these facts EVERYTIME and have no answer for them.its just one bizarre mere coincidence to them.

It also makes no difference to them that the pattern follows the JFK assassination in the fact that just like in that event,people who came forward and gave versions different than the governments wound up dying in mysterious deaths.There were witnesses who said they heard explosions going off who later wound up dying mysteriously later on.The biggest mysterious one is Barry Jennings who was in bld 7 and told reporters that BEFORE the towers collapsed,bld 7 and the basement blwe up and was gone due to explosions,that the entire basement was gone and this all happened in bld 7 BEFORE the twin towers collapsed.It was very conveininet for the government that he died just a couple days before the NIST report came out because his testimony would have shreeaded to pieces the lies and propaganda of the NIST report.

Plus there were many credible witnesses that were firefighters who were experienced in the sounds off explosives that were witnesses who called the 9/11 coverup commissions investigation what it was-a half baked farce.

thats the most overhwhelming proof and evidence it was a controlled demolition.everything else besides the video on this thread thats been said is irrelevent.

 

[Montrovant]

Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?

It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have. Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?

It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have. Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.

Indeed they put "the gov't did it" in front of or behind virtually every tragedy.
Their worship of all and any CT is not limited to actual events. When polled most even swore allegiance to a bogus CT injected just to test their lucidity and integrity. They failed.

 

[eots]

Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?

It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have. Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.

Indeed they put "the gov't did it" in front of or behind virtually every tragedy.
Their worship of all and any CT is not limited to actual events. When polled most even swore allegiance to a bogus CT injected just to test their lucidity and integrity. They failed.

so have you got around to reading and understanding the NIST theory yet ??
or are you still just going on faith ?

 

[Dude111]

Normally when a Plane crashes, the area is cordoned off and an investigation is done which can take months or years. Not so with the twin towers after 9/11.

No not at all as they knew exactly what happend there!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Normally when a Plane crashes, the area is cordoned off and an investigation is done which can take months or years. Not so with the twin towers after 9/11.

No not at all as they knew exactly what happend there!

Really? Is that why it took them years to write a BS report that doesn't make scientific, or physical sense? Or why the panelists of the 9-11 commission have claimed they still don't know much about what actually happened?
Are you aware that Kean thought that aftershocks" from planes caused the collapse of WTC Building 7, or that in their report they state the towers came down in 10 seconds?

 

[Dude111]

No they came up with the BS report right away bud! (They knew what really happend like I said)

 

[Mr. Jones]

Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?

It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have. Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.

Indeed they put "the gov't did it" in front of or behind virtually every tragedy.
Their worship of all and any CT is not limited to actual events. When polled most even swore allegiance to a bogus CT injected just to test their lucidity and integrity. They failed.

You're a fucking liar.
I've explained that it probably would not take the "whole government" and that something like this would be highly compartmentalized. In truth it is you who worships the most outrageous CT to come down the pipe in years, and what's even more ridiculous is that you don't even defend the obvious gaping holes that others point out about your OCT!

You hide behind claims of insurance fraud, and "too may people to keep quiet" BS, and you have no shame when your lack of thinking and logic is exposed.

Hey when are you going to address what we've been pointing out to you you pompous twink?
Kerosene and office fires, exploding hirises that produced tons of ejected steel, defying known physical properties and capabilities?
This isn't about bigfoot and aliens, or the entire US government asshole...If anything Israel is implicated more then the US.
But we're kidding ourselves if we expect anything of relevance from you. You'll continue to generalize, minimize avoid and evade facts while worshiping a theory that can not stand when put to a proper evaluation.
You make a fool of yourself by your obvious lack of knowledge and well known information that has been in circulation regarding this topic. You should have asked questions instead of pretending you knew something and trying to cover it by generalizing about "any and all CTs and your constant use of your limp wristed phrase "princess" you stupid MFKer LOL.

 

[Mr. Jones]

No they came up with the BS report right away bud! (They knew what really happend like I said)

Sure

 

[paulitician]

Yep, Big Brother is preserving our Freedom & Liberty, by taking it away. Just like his Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace stuff. What a Catch 22 sham, huh?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Whats the matter seems like no one can substantiate their crazy conspiracy theory that consists of what is in this entertaining little video?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded]9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube[/ame]



Why can't any of you OCT NIST nuthuggers just come out and admit this is what you believe in???? It's all true isn't it???

 

[Montrovant]

Whats the matter seems like no one can substantiate their crazy conspiracy theory that consists of what is in this entertaining little video?

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube



Why can't any of you OCT NIST nuthuggers just come out and admit this is what you believe in???? It's all true isn't it???

So, let's see what we can in this video.

First, no, I don't think that Manhattan was the most heavily defended airspace in the world. Also, were all 4 of the airline pilots military combat trained? If so, did that training include hand to hand combat?

The whole video is a snarky bunch of misrepresentation and loaded phrasing (did you stop beating your wife?) which, while it may be an attempting to respond to similar things directed at truthers, certainly does nothing to increase the video's credibility or persuasiveness. It also overshadows any truths that are, in fact, in the video and important.

I also wonder why, if the government could supposedly pull this off with no more than a couple of dozen people (someone in one of these 9/11 threads has said that), when Al Qaida is said to have done it it's the most sophisticated, elaborate terrorist operation ever. Hijacking the planes and flying them into buildings requires elaborate, sophisticated planning and execution, but adding the hidden use of demolitions to bring down the towers, as well as everything necessary to facilitate the cover-up afterwards, doesn't require more than 20 or 30 people?

Assuming we can agree that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, is it your contention that those planes were not hijacked by terrorists, but rather by agents of the US government willing to die for this plan? Or were the planes empty and remotely controlled? Or were there actually terrorists, but they were being manipulated by the US gov't? Or was this just a coincidence and the demolitions were in place as a contingency, then set off when the planes hit?

As usual, CT posters seem to equate disagreement with complete faith and trust in anything government. If you cannot see how that view is not only foolish, but incredibly limiting, there's probably no reason for anyone to have a discussion with you.

 

[SAYIT]

Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?

It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have. Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.

Indeed they put "the gov't did it" in front of or behind virtually every tragedy.
Their worship of all and any CT is not limited to actual events. When polled most even swore allegiance to a bogus CT injected just to test their lucidity and integrity. They failed.

You're a fucking liar.

You're a fuckin' CT idiot.