9/11 Conspiracy Thread

So, the theory is that we allowed 5 jets to be hijacked, 2 of which we knew were going to hit both WTC main buildings. We felt this act of terrorism wasn't enough to gin up the American public, so prior to the hijackings we secretly loaded the buildings with thermite to bring them down in a controlled demolition. Although we knew no plane was going to strike WTC 6, we decided to demolish that one too, prior to the hijackings, of course. Do you guys even realize how absurd that sounds? How many people would have had to participate and keep their mouths shut? If you were going to do it why not make 'em topple and destroy a bunch more stuff and kill more people?

There were massive bumbling with the hijackers. From the FBI knowing about their sketchy business in the country to the equally sketchy flight abilities. Funny that aviation experts have said that the manuvers pulled off by these hijackers, whom were not ace pilots, would not be able to have been pulled off. But these guys who scored very poorly on their flight tests managed to do. As far as WTC 6? Yeah accepting a simple office fire brought this building down, in almost the exact same fashion as the other 2 WTC buildings is totally believable. The 2 main WTC buildings fell like they did because of the planes right? Ok fine. But why is it that WTC 6 fell just like a controlled demolition as well? So all 3 buildings fell in what looked exactly like when casinos are demolished in Vegas. Thats completely byond question right? If you honestly cannot take a step back and see that there are a ton of flaws in the NIST report and what the government has told us happened on 9/11 then you obviously are just a sheep.
 
Ok but answer this, how does his opinion mean more than the other architects?
It doesn't.

Many people seem to feel threatened by anyone questioning the official story. We've been conditioned to accept the government account as factual / infallible.

If most people look at the information that is available to the public with these conditions:

Objectivity
Humility
Curiosity

I believed the official story for years. I didn't question anything. Like most Americans old enough at the time I watched the coverage including the second plane hit, both WTC South & North towers collapse and later WTC 7.

The molten steel is unavoidable. Either you admit that the existence of molten steel raises questions or you don't believe molten steel was present at ground zero.

I'm very curious about all of the information that hasn't been released to the public regarding 9/11. What else don't we know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
It doesn't.

Many people seem to feel threatened by anyone questioning the official story. We've been conditioned to accept the government account as factual / infallible.

If most people look at the information that is available to the public with these conditions:

Objectivity
Humility
Curiosity

I believed the official story for years. I didn't question anything. Like most Americans old enough at the time I watched the coverage including the second plane hit, both WTC South & North towers collapse and later WTC 7.

The molten steel is unavoidable. Either you admit that the existence of molten steel raises questions or you don't believe molten steel was present at ground zero.

I'm very curious about all of the information that hasn't been released to the public regarding 9/11. What else don't we know?
How do you know for certain you're seeing molten steel?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
How do you know for certain you're seeing molten steel?

Molten steel/iron glows orange. Several accounts described molten steel flowing/dripping - one person described a river of molten steel.

Molten aluminum is silver not orange.

How do you explain the numerous eyewitness accounts of seeing molten steel in the basement of the twin towers?
 
You're going to need to do better than that.

Fire resistant materials being knocked loose from the collision still wouldn't explain molten steel.

I don't believe that ductile failure of 3 steel frame high rise buildings is what we witnessed on 9/11.

Weakened steel doesn't result in free fall collapse.

It's never happened prior to 9/11. Not sure if it's happened since (possibly the collapse video above in Iran).

the report suggests that the force of the collision removed much of the fire-resistant material sprayed on the steel, making the structure more susceptible to heat damage
 
Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams

Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams
74b3c45a8c27d1a6233563b21e861030
Kevin Ryan
3 years ago
Eleven years ago, I initiated a discussionabout the fact that jet fuel fires could not have melted steel at the World Trade Center. The government agency investigating the WTC destruction responded by holding “some of its deliberations in secret.” Although it’s not a secret that jet fuel can’t melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion. In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.
Today no one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beams—not even The Posts’ new science champion, who doesn’t bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about “retarded metallurgical things.” Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result. If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.
This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with America’s ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say “Jet Fuel Can’t Melt Steel Beams” when they want to convey that “Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC.” The second major problem is that certain mainstream media sources continue to put a lot of energy into dis-informing the public about 9/11.
Sources like The Posts, The New York Timesand some “alternative media” continue to work hard to support the official myth of 9/11. That effort is not easy because they must do so while providing as little actual information about 9/11 as possible. The dumbing down of the average citizen is a full time job for such propagandists. Luckily for them, American students receive almost no historical context that encourages them to think critically or consider ideas that conflict with blind allegiance to their government. When it comes to the WTC, it also helps that almost 80% of Americans are scientifically illiterate.
As media companies attempt to confuse the public about 9/11, they must avoid relating details that might actually get citizens interested in the subject. For example, it’s imperative that they never mention any of these fourteen facts about 9/11. It is also important to never reference certain people, like the ordnance distribution expert (and Iran-Contra suspect) who managed security at the WTC or the tortured top al Qaeda leader who turned out to have nothing to do with al Qaeda. In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find. Unfortunately, that bewildering strategy becomes more obvious every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
There were massive bumbling with the hijackers. From the FBI knowing about their sketchy business in the country to the equally sketchy flight abilities. Funny that aviation experts have said that the manuvers pulled off by these hijackers, whom were not ace pilots, would not be able to have been pulled off. But these guys who scored very poorly on their flight tests managed to do. As far as WTC 6? Yeah accepting a simple office fire brought this building down, in almost the exact same fashion as the other 2 WTC buildings is totally believable. The 2 main WTC buildings fell like they did because of the planes right? Ok fine. But why is it that WTC 6 fell just like a controlled demolition as well? So all 3 buildings fell in what looked exactly like when casinos are demolished in Vegas. Thats completely byond question right? If you honestly cannot take a step back and see that there are a ton of flaws in the NIST report and what the government has told us happened on 9/11 then you obviously are just a sheep.

Typed a wall of text without addressing anything I said.
 

not sure if this is the same guy as has been quoted before. but if this is the idiot spouting his building as "fire/plane/collapse" proof, he also has ocean front property to sell you in Denver.

if you told any engineer worth their license you were suddenly removing several of their load bearing columns, and ask if it is still fit for human occupation, and they are ok with it, they are lying. if they aren't worried about a major fire incident, they are lying. if they say they aren't worried about a jet liner smashing into their building, they are lying. Not one engineer should ever sign off, or even give tactic approval of such statements.
 
Who's saying the collapses were fake?

I've only been asking questions about new evidence and documented eyewitness accounts that were not addressed by the NIST report / official government story.

Do you agree it is a proven/accepted fact that molten metal was found buried beneath the debris of all 3 WTC buildings?

If no, why not? There are many eyewitness and MSM news accounts that document this fact.

If yes, how did it get there? The temperatures from the fire wouldn't reach temperatures required to melt steel (>2700 F).
there is at best circumstantial evidence to support your theory of controlled demolition. while you are completely ignoring the very real facts of planes hitting the towers, and wide spread fires, being a possible way to bring down the towers.

there is a big difference in questioning the official story, and jumping down the truther hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
It doesn't.

Many people seem to feel threatened by anyone questioning the official story. We've been conditioned to accept the government account as factual / infallible.

If most people look at the information that is available to the public with these conditions:

Objectivity
Humility
Curiosity

I believed the official story for years. I didn't question anything. Like most Americans old enough at the time I watched the coverage including the second plane hit, both WTC South & North towers collapse and later WTC 7.

The molten steel is unavoidable. Either you admit that the existence of molten steel raises questions or you don't believe molten steel was present at ground zero.

I'm very curious about all of the information that hasn't been released to the public regarding 9/11. What else don't we know?
lol, to the bolded. playing absolutes when you have no facts yourself. yes there was molten metal, but what questions do you want raised? this is where you make major leaps of faith.

I started on the opposite end. I believed the truther nonsense. then as I dove deeper into it I noticed all the inconsistencies and later as I started down my career path, I learned that a lot of the stuff they are saying is wrong/slanted and/or ignores other facts.

that doesn't mean I buy the government story. it just means the truthers are moonbats trying to sell a story and are doing whatever they can to do so. including a bunch, and I mean a bunch, of intellectually dishonest stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
One of the most iconic truther faux pieces of evidence.

Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later]

And this isn't even taking into account what the hell good ground level cutting of this type would do anyway.

I guess there’s no way of telling exactly when it was cut, however, your link shows two pictures of the same column at different times...one being Oct 29, 2001, and there is a lot of smoke or smoldering still....that’s an awful long time for debris to still be smoldering...would you agree?
 
I guess there’s no way of telling exactly when it was cut, however, your link shows two pictures of the same column at different times...one being Oct 29, 2001, and there is a lot of smoke or smoldering still....that’s an awful long time for debris to still be smoldering...would you agree?

How long should that much debris reasonably be expected to smolder? How much debris was it? What was the debris composed of?
 

VN Store



Back
Top