Comments by "Dirk Diggler" (@dirkdiggler8260) on "" video.

  1. Literally every single thing you say is false. Rumsfeld did mention they were having difficulty tracking that money (why incidentally would he even do this if they wanted to cover it up??), but it was originally announced publicly back in 1999 and several times after, so was old news. It was never actually missing in the way truthers like to claim. It was simply a case of having outmoded, incompatible computer systems making it very difficult to track money between departments. It has since been accounted for which truthers obviously don't like to acknowledge. All the documents affiliated to the missing money wasn't destroyed in the crash and such documentation was almost certainly backed up for obviously reasons. How else were they finally able to track it? As for proving with 100% certainty, i assure you we most definitely can and have using various, independent lines of evidence. There was mever any chance of getting any clear footage of an object travelling on excess of 500mph on a CCTV camera set at 1 frame per second and it's absurd to think otherwise. Work out how many meters that aircraft would have neen covering each second then you'll see what i mean. Besides, even if we had a 4k UHD video of the crash, truthers would only claim it to be fake, CGI. For the record, the security camera footage wasn't the only footage released and it was NOT spliced in any way, other than maybe on conspiracy websites in what i can only assume is an attempt to deceive. The fact is, we don't need any footage to know categorically that AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that day. Enter the word 'right blogger bastard' into your search bar and take a look at the mountain of evidence we have confirming this. I'm sure if you take the time to go through it, you will be left with no doubts either. Regarding the theory it was a missile, this has to be the easiest conspiracy theory of all to refute. Firstly, how could a missile with a 9ft wingspan take out lampposts either side of a street and slice the tops off trees? The explosion on impact was quite obviously a hydrocarbon explosion and a missile would not have left an exit hole. 136 people from all walks of life, who were mostly sat in traffic on their morning commute witnessed the approach and impact and EVERY one of them said it was a plane. Some of those witnesses were even pilots who flew 757's and they'd identified the plane model at the scene prior to details being released. The wreckage was from a 757, including the black box which when decoded, provided details if AA Flight 77's last 11 flights. The physical remains of everyone on board along with their personal belongings, all retrieved at the crash site; the damage caused to surrounding structures on approach confirm perfectly the dimensions of a 757. There is simply no way whatsoever 136 people could possibly mistake a 22ft missile with a 9ft wingspan for a 155ft aircraft with a 125ft wingspan.
    26
  2.  @crangonvulgaris9820  "my mind is in tatters" The truest words I've read from you yet. That's what believing highly irrational conspiracy theories does to you 🤷🏽‍♂️
    11
  3.  @David-mr4gr  Not at all. Each floor was designed to withstand a specific live load. The dynamic load however of those top sections slamming down on to the floor below where the collapse initiation began, massively exceeded the live load limit of that floor. That continued with each floor with an ever growing mass, meaning the floors below provided negligible resistance. Once the collapse began, it couldn't be stopped. The only thing that could arrest that huge mass was the ground. The fact the towers were designed to withstand earthquakes etc. is irrelevant in this respect.
    10
  4.  @studas2011  You've completely misunderstood him. He wasn't referring to any demolition whatsoever, he was talking about the operation being pulled & the fire fighters being pulled out & away from there as they'd deemed a collapse to be inevitable. Silverstein gave no such order either, it was solely the decision of Chief of Department FDNY Dan Nigro.
    8
  5.  @TheUnderwaterJones  For those towers to have fallen over sideways would have required a violation of physical law. They fell precisely how we'd expect them to given the circumstances. The top sections tilted before the angular momentum was corrected by gravity, thus bringing it straight down through the path of least resistance. To fall sideways would have required a huge lateral force which simply wasn't present.
    7
  6.  @David-mr4gr  A man with a genuine concern for truth, that's so refreshing. I found the 'conspiracy' very compelling myself initially, it seemed like a no-brainer on the surface but when i looked at each issue individually on their own merit, they simply don't stand up to scrutiny. I'd change my mind in a heartbeat should somebody present sufficient, credible evidence of a conspiracy but so far that's not happened amd the official stance stacks up 🤷🏽‍♂️
    7
  7.  @grimmertwin2148  Not true. The manoeuvre was a standard manoeuvre used by pilots to lose altitude. His flying was NOT spectacular in any way, he was just reckless and suicidal. Crashing a plane really isn't that difficult.
    6
  8.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  There are several studies dedicated entirely to this topic, why haven't you read them if you're serious about this? They explain in some detail what happened. To put it in a nutshell, thousands of tons of debris landed on it causia huge amountnof structural damage and widespread fires across many floors. Those fires were left to freeburn and therefore a collapse was inevitable, as the fire fightets who assessed the structure stated. The fires burned for two hours beyond their fire rating and due to the implementation of longspan beams used to create a large open atrium, this made them especially vulnerable to fire, which is why the structure appears to implode.
    6
  9. Iraq wasn't blamed for the attacks and didn't go in until 2003. It was Afghanistan that was invaded after the attacks.
    6
  10.  Snakejüce  Yeah that was pretty funny, however it hardly shows guilt for 911.
    6
  11.  @Aaron_Scissorhands  We're all waiting.....🙄
    6
  12.  Faiez Cader  I simply can't believe in something without evidence, even if i wanted to. Knowing what i know about religion, it's obvious to me that gods are man-made. Depending on where you are born, when you were born and of what faith your parents are the factors which dictates what god your believe in.
    5
  13.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  You're a conspiracy nut mate. The lunacy of what you're suggesting is insane. I think you know, hence you're not willing to get into the nitty gritty.
    5
  14.  @johnburdg9763  So an argument from incredulity? Doesn't cut it sorry. Your questions have been satisfactorily answered rationally and regardless of the absence of clear video footage, the mountain of evidence we have categorically proves AA Flight 77 crashed there that day. Regarding the footage, this was CCTV footage from 20yrs ago using cameras set at 1fps trying to capture an aircraft travelling around 500mph. Do the simple calculation to work out the distance it travelled every second and then tell me how you'd expect to see it clearly. All evidence supports the official stance.
    5
  15. Subjective nonsense. He handled it with class and decorum instead if the hysterical little girl you clowns believe he should have acted like. Thankfully most people have slightly higher standards of proof.
    5
  16.  @deelow1966  Gullilbe for not believing a highly irrational conspiracy theory that fails under scrutiny? 🤔 I think you're somewhat confused.
    5
  17.  @jebidiahnewkedkracker1025  Appreciate you taking the time to respond in such depth and keeping it civil. And yes, 9/11 was no doubt a conspiracy in that radicalised, Islamic fundamentalists conspired to attack the US in the way we witnessed that day. However, we all know the context in which i was referring to. I believe that it's highly likely that I've viewed all of the evidnece you've seen myself, but in my experience, having looked into the claims in detail, being sure of staying well clear of using notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites and the like as sources, i am yet to see any of the claims stand up when scrutinised. I myself jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon quite early on I'm jot afraid to say, hence my reason for investing so much of my time to it. The difference between us though is that i see no truth to any of it when embracing the full body of evidence we have available to us. Of course in an event of this magnitude and complexity, there will be coincidences we can shoehorn into the narrarive, but coincidences happen all the time and none are enough to convince me of any foreknowledge or involvement by the US government. Again, by all means show me any you believe shows otherwise and I'd be more than happy to disuss it with you. To address your reasoning for people not wanting to believe, i kinda get that but struggle to comprehend how anybody could choose to take such a stance if that wasn't their true feeling. I mean, who would they be trying to fool other than themselves? For me personally that would be impossible. I don't think foe one minute we can trust our political leaders and there is no doubt corruption at play all the time in such circles. But to think they would come up with such an insanely risky, eloborate and complex plan to me, requires intellectual suicide. Why hijack 4 planes instead of 1 for instance? Hijacking 1 plane and flying it into a building would have been enough to warrant the reaction of the US government. Why accuse Saudi nationals if this was an excuse to invade Iraq? There are so many fundamental issues, i find it incomprehensibly irrational to think they'd take such needless risks over and over and over again. The number of people required to be complicit with this is enormous, yet not a single whistle-blower. It couldn't happen, no way. The 'i already got my mind made up so....' reasoning is exactly how i feel when talking to the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. Most are way too much emotionally invested in this to accept they're wrong. Have a look around these threads and you will notice that every single thread on any video i have ever spoken to such sorts, they run away when faced with evidence that opposes their view. This is no exaggeration and i find it quite infuriating how many people purposely and publicly choose wilful ignorance over reality. For me personally, if you or anybody else were to show me sufficient, credible evidence that the US government were behind this attack, i would change my opinion in a heartbeat without question. I have no bias whatsoever, I'm not even from the US or have any affiliation whatsoever. Lastly, you stated that building 7 was the smoking gun, but i could not diagree more and fail to understand why people get so hung up on this. The fire fighters knew that building was going to collapse several hours before it fell. They stated it publicly and even pulled everybody away to create a safe collapse zone. This shows there was no mystery and it was no shock when it fell, unless of course such people believe the fire fighters who lost hundreds of their brothers that day, were also in on this alleged conspiracy. The reality is that any and every steel-framed structure (non-concrete reinforced) will collapse if left to freeburn. There can be no other outcome. Wtc7 was left to freeburn and was a non-concrete reinforced steel-framed structure which implemented the use of longspan beam, leaving it even more susceptible to fire. It burned for 2 or 3hrs (i remember exactly off-hand sorry) beyond what it's fire-proofing was rated at so again, collapse was inevitable. Anyway, thanks again for the civil response and I'd be happy to carry on the discussion and get into more detail if you so wish to do so?
    5
  18.  @jimmy6283  It's STEEL, not "steal" 🙈 No steel melted, nor needed to so nice try but no cigar sorry. At around 550°C, steel loses 50% of its initial strength ie. It weakens, massively. This steel (which was under HUGE load) didn't have a chance and once it weakened sufficiently, it buckled and resulted in a catastrophic failure, bring the entire structure down from the top in an ever increasing mass smashing through each floor, of which massively exceeded their individual dynamic load limits. Please stop talking about things you clearly have zero understanding of. Insurance job?? 🙈 That's insane. You think the government killed thousands of innocent American citizens to help a wealthy property mogul fraudulently cash in on an insurance policy he hadn't even finalised at the time of the attack??? You can't possibly be serious. In reality, Larry Silverstein lost a fortune in the event. You seriously need to stop pretending to know what you're talking about and spreading such lunacy.
    5
  19.  @crangonvulgaris9820  Yes, yes it is. Save your time, you'll only run away when faced with facts that oppose your ridiculous conspiracy theory.
    5
  20.  @crangonvulgaris9820  Sorry, I should have said you'll either run away or just make pointless, smartass remarks to deflect, which amounts to the same thing. Save us both the time and run along now, save yourself the humiliation.
    5
  21.  @grimmertwin2148  And the opinion of top pilots who have flown such aircraft at similar speed during low passes. The fact Hanjour came in so fast and so high is testament to how poor a pilot he was that forced him to make such a manoeuvre. The fact is he did it and it happened, so what's your issue here exactly?
    4
  22.  @here_to_watch2115  Without a single person seeing it? It makes zero sense whatsoever, especially when you take into account the Pentagon wasn't even armed with SAMS. Who told you it was??
    4
  23.  Faiez Cader  I accept the incontrovertible fact that life evolved. I also accept that the 'creation' of life if thats what you want to call it, was just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, and as we now know, those buildings blocks of life are abundant in space so life sparking was inevitable and has no doubt happened many times throughout the history and vastness of our universe. Again, it all comes down to evidence and if somebody were to show me sufficient, credible evidence that life was created by some kind of intelligence, then i would change my mind in a heartbeat. That would of course however just regress the problem further, raising the question of who created the creator? Natural origins from simple to complex makes so much more sense sorry.
    4
  24.  @VonJay  He's never even watched a snippet of it, simply repeating the liea of other truthers because that's all these people do and one of the reasons nobody listens to a word they say.
    4
  25.  @paidinyoursleep  There was plenty of plane wreckage, damage from the wings and vertical stabiliser, and the engine was NOT from a missile and PROVEN to have come from the 757 engine used on AA Flight 77. You are literally wrong on every count 🙈 lol
    4
  26.  @triggerhappydad65  1) War games go on all the time where many scenarios are carries out, i fail to see why this is an issue sorry. 2) And? 3) Those amateur pilots with minimal training and zero flight hours had gained commercial pilot licences so where more than capable of steering and crashing a plane; any plane. Steering a plane really is simple and crashing one is even easier. Nothing they did that day was difficult nor suggests they were great pilots by any stretch of the imagination. Those who flew into the twin towers had miles and miles of clear skies to line themselves up, and almost perfect flying conditions. You could literally draw a line in the cockpit window with a sharpie and just line it up with one of the towers, it could be that simple and easy. The difficult parts of flying are taking off and landing, neither of which these guys had to concern themselves with. Regarding Flight 77, thr fact Hanjour came in way too fast and way too high, forcing him to make a turn to lose altitude,.is evidence of his poor piloting skills and lack of experience. There are plenty of pilots who've stated this and voiced how silly the arguments of truthers are in this respect. I'd send links but Youtube won't allow them and whenever i try, my comments won't publish, but if you search the words 911myths giulio bernacchia and see what the experts say, you'll hopefully understand there was nothing special about what he did and this is just a typical argument from incredulity.
    4
  27.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  Multiple sources, I'm talking about the full body of evidence, there is no single source hence why your argument about blind faith in the government doesn't stand up.
    4
  28.  @snatchhog  Yes John, a Cruise missile because it would be so easy to mistake a Boeing 757 which is 155ft in length and has a wingspan of 125ft, for a cruise missile which is 22ft and has a wingspan of 9ft. Amd obviously there would no way of telling that it was a missile strike as opposed to a 200 ton commercial airliner right? 🙈 ffs, what kind of feckless dullards are you people??Seriously, get a grip and just THINK about what it is you're saying.
    4
  29.  @danielchoritz1903  What's crazy Daniel is the fact you believe bombs were planted at the bottom of the towers yet both collapses were CLEARLY initiated at the impact zones. Care to explain that one champ? And if there were bombs at the bottom, how did almost everyone in the lower floors survive? As for first skyscrapers to collapse from fire, can you show me ONE single comparable event? No you can't because in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. In reality however, steel-framed structures have been collapsing from fire ever since steel has been used to construct. Why do you think we coat steelwork in fire-proofing? There was the Plasco high-rise in Tehran, the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania and the Kader Toy factory in Thailand to name 3 off the top of my head. Once again we have somebody who's clueless about any related topic, talking like they're an expert. Stop believing everything you read in the internet.
    4
  30.  @truthteller8338  Such silly reasoning. How you've reached such a conclusion i have no idea but your beliefs don't purport to reality sorry princess. Far from it.
    4
  31. Not quite as you say it but he did use the term missile which is correct. The plane WAS used as a missile by definition. It is pretty safe to say that it was not a military missile that hit the Pentagon lol.
    4
  32.  @stevesherman1743  Tell that to the 136 direct eye-witnesses who ALL say otherwise, including the pilots who fly those very planes, who identified it specifically as being a Boeing 757. Tell all those forensic investigators or all those first responders, not to forget the ATC staff who observed it, and then explain all the 757 wreckage (including the black box) and physical remains of all those on board scattered throughout the crash site, and then explain the damage to surrounding structures hit in approach that PERFECTLY confirm the dimensions of a 757 wingspan and engine separation, and how such a missile exploded in such a blatant and distinct kerosene explosion and created an exit hole on the inner ring. I could go on a day but you get the picture. Your theory is absurd and EASILY refuted by so many independent lines of equiry. American Airliner Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and whether you accept that or not doesn't matter as facts remain facts regardless..
    4
  33.  @davebolan7282  Nope, the PLANE captured in CCTV and witnessed by 136 people.
    4
  34.  @MrSpaceace1999  You say no plane or luggage found for Flight 93, when in reality around 95% of the aircraft was recovered, including the black box. Hundreds of volunteers scoured the entire area, much of it on hands and knees, retrieving it all. Are you suggesting this was all planted along with the fragmented remains of the passengers and crew without anybody noticing? It's beyond madness.
    4
  35.  @mlb805  "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged WTC 7 a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision." - Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." - Deputy Chief Peter Hayden "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.....On the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good......Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." - Captain Chris Boyle NYFD "they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out." - Richard Banaciski NYFD Firefigher How many more would you like?
    4
  36.  @rahuldahoob4513  Why? I'm far too old if you're looking for somebody to groom 🤨
    4
  37.  Faiez Cader  Ok first off, making fun of a fictional being isn't distasteful. Second, im pretty certain EVERYBODY noticed 3 buildings fell when only 2 got hit by planes, but what you yourself fail to recognise is that all 3 collapsed from fire and not from plane impacts. Heat weakens steel, it's that simple. As for the plane's nose sticking out the other side, does this mean you're a 'no-planer'?? That's a no-planer argument. In reality that myth was debunked the day it was claimed simply by looking at the other footage showing a different angle. The other footage shows quite clearly that was not the nose of the plane exiting the tower, that would have been impossible. Not sure what your argument is but you're wrong, whatever.
    3
  38.  Faiez Cader  I'm all about evidence sorry and if there is a god, then he created me this way and will forgive me for being unable to believe 🤷🏽‍♂️ Anyway, this is a conversation for another thread. We're here to discuss the events of 9/11 but again, for me it's all about evidence and I'm yet to see any credible evidence of any conspiracy.
    3
  39.  @VonJay  You're not alone, believe me lol. How many times have you been told you're working for the fed or labelled a shill? 🥱
    3
  40.  @snatchhog  You clearly don't even know what an internet troll even is lol. If you think I'm wrong in anything I've said, then show how. If not, stop trolling.
    3
  41.  @keithbrown6887  Most definitely not. I encourage you to check and verify anything I've said but by all means, let me know if you're stuggling and I'll try and send links or at least direct you to a source. Belief isn't required.
    3
  42.  @Musiclover-bg2nn  They died when the planes crashed you disrespectful fool. Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
    3
  43. In reality, the damage was consistent with what occurred and there was plenty of wreckage, including the black box. Passports often survive plane crashes due to the high surface to mass ratio. Planting it would have served NO benefit whatsoever, it would have been a needless risk. Just another ill thought out truther argument.
    3
  44. Because it wasn't. The truther arguments all sound very compelling in the surface, but when you look into each of them on an individual basis, it soon becomes clear they hold no weight whatsoever.
    3
  45.  @christopherclink6931  Indeed it is, which is why your breathtaking display of wilful ignorance is so saddening. Keep running Chris.
    3
  46.  @kurtwollermann2210  But you do admit this is a baseless opinion without a shred of evidence to back up that claim, right?
    3
  47.  @bencavert7421  It was never lost, simply a case of it being difficult to track due to incompatible software systems between departments. The money was later tracked and accounted for.
    3
  48. Nonsense. Fire brought it down, just as the fire fighters predicted it would.
    3
  49.  @jebidiahnewkedkracker1025  The main problem here is the conspiracy theory holds no weight and has been thoroughly debunked over and over again. If you have any credible evidence to show otherwise then please present it.
    3
  50.  @BrianD1961  DEWs??? 🤣🤣🤣 I see we have a Judy Woods crackpot in our midst 🙈 She makes the average truther sound positively sane lol. Her insane, pseudoscientific claims were utterly refuted by other truthers 😂
    3
  51.  @WAVE_ZERO  I disagree. My points were pretty clear and straight forward. You made 2 false claims, the first being the towers collapsed through the path of MOST resistance when in reality, it fell through the path of LEAST resistance. The second false claim you made was that the towers collapsed into their own footprint when in reality, the collapse zone qas 6 times their circumference. I cannot simplify that any more for you sorry.
    3
  52.  @studas2011  Then you really need to familiarise yourself more with the available evidence & see just how absurd it is to believe it was a missile. You think people can't tell the difference between a 155ft airliner with a 125ft wingspan & a 22ft plane with 9ft wingspan??
    3
  53.  @HeathenFitness  It most definitely wasn't lol.
    3
  54.  @chriswood3370  Great analogy.......except that the twin towers were 95% hollow as opposed to a jenga tower being all but a solid block. It seems you're the one who needa to brush up on basic physics, or at least learn to be a little more honest. Those towers collapsed exactly as they should have given the circumstances and design of the structures. The top sections smashed through the path of least resistance which in this case, was indeed through the structure below. You seriously believe you've thought of something that would be so obvious, that the entire physics community have missed?? lol, oh please.
    3
  55.  @jpmonin7429  Yes, but they were NOT designed to withstand a hit from a 767 fully laden with fuel travelling around 600mph. They were designed to take hits from a smaller 707 lost in fog whilst coming in to land and therefore hardly any fuel and travelling at around 180mph. Incomparable. For the record, the towers DID withstand the plane strikes and remained standing, one for around and hour and the other around 90 minutes. It was the fire that brought them down, not the plane impacts.
    3
  56.  @harijotkhalsa5546  It helps if you actually understand some basic physical principles in the first place. The path of least resistance in the case of the collapses was straight down through the structure below. For those towers to have toppled over sideways would have required a sufficient lateral force.
    3
  57.  @xx7legion7xx99  The CCTV footage was running at a standard fps for a CCTV security camera. It did in fact capture a still which when zoomed in on, shows what is quite obviously a large plane with the American Airlines livery emblazoned across it. 136 people witnessed it's approach, some of whom were pilots who'd flown those very models of plane, and you're telling me none of them could tell the difference between say, a cruise missile which is 20ft long with a 9ft wingspan and a Boeing 757 which is 155ft long and has a wingspan of 125ft? The damage to surrounding structures on approach confirm thise of a Boeing 757 and would have been impossible to have hit if it were a missile. The explosion was also a clear kerosene explosion which is very different to that of a missile strike. The exit hole also isn't consistent with a missile strike. And then there's the fact there was plenty of plane wreckage found from a 757, including the blacm box which was decoded to show details of AA Flight 77's last 11 flights. The remains of everybody known to have been on board were retrieved from the crash site along with their belongings. There are even first responder accounts of the charred remains of passengers strill strapped into their seat, images of which were presented in court during the Moussaoui trial. The evidence is overwhelming and proves beyond all reasonable doubt that AA Flight 77 crashed there as the official stance states.
    3
  58.  @jackieclark9679  The money you're claiming was missing the day before was actually made public in 1999 and spoken of on a few occasions. The money was never actually missing as such as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, it was simply a case of them having difficulty tracking it between departments due to outmoded, incompatible software.
    3
  59.  Michael Hoffman  Great, let's dig. Begin by explaining to me, if it was such a shock and mystery that building 7 collapsed, how was it that the fire fighters said it would definitely collapse, several hours before it came down? Hence the collapse zone they put in place.
    3
  60.  @gabemarshall7777  You don't need to ie. you can't because you as well as i do there aren't any. NOT ONE!! So what you're telling everybody is, you think you know more about controlled demolition than the ENTIRE demolitions community. In reality, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have brought the twin towers down in that manner via a controlled demolition. Believe whatever you like Gabe, just don't expect anybody of worth to take anything you say seriously and get used to being ridiculed. This is not a matter of opinions sorry.
    3
  61.  @corneaterman  Because there's no corroborating evidence and to believe they would come up with such an elaborate, insanely risky, completely over the top plan is insane.
    3
  62.  @mlb805  No response to my previous replies i take it? As predicted 🙄
    3
  63.  @prism8289  Yes, we've all heard truther tales of pilots they know personally 🥱 I don't believe a word any of you say given how dishonest every last one of you are. What you fail to acknowledge are all the pilots who say otherwise and that the fact he had to pull that manoeuvre was BECAUSE he was a pretty poor pilot. He came in way too fast and too high which was the very reason he had to make a STANDARD manoeuvre pilots use to do reduce altitude. Many pilots will naturally say it would be difficult to do what he did but others say he was simply reckless and suicidal and therefore hardly had safety in mind. Here's one for you to ignore. Google the words giulio bernacchia pilot oh no not another expert and show it to your Alaskan Airline buddy. Regardless of what you believe or what a handful of pilots may have said, we have ample proof a Boeing 757 (specifically AA Flight 77) DID pull off those manoeuvres before slamming into the side of the Pentagon. It isn't open to debate in academic circles, only pockets of the internet where opinions don't matter, echoed only by the lunatic fringe. The evidence supporting AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon that day is overwhelming and conclusive.
    3
  64.  @prism8289  Again, you're categorically wrong. The transcript from the ATC literally says that they lost radar contact with Flight 77 and this happened because the hijackers turned off the transponder. There was then only primary radar that they had to rely on and they were in an area with limited radar coverage. Please stop pretending to understand things you clearly don't. Just ask yourself, why aren't there any ATC staff, radar technicians etc. exposing what would be such a glaringly obvious error and hole in their story if you were right? That should tell you something, just like why there aren't any demolitions experts claiming the twin towers were demoed..... but you know better 😉
    3
  65.  @prism8289  I've already made my opinion clear on your conjectural claims and their piloting skills. We KNOW that plane crashed there that day and we KNOW Hanjour was at the controls. He literally had to steer the plane which is the same principle regardless of the aircraft. Larger aircraft are often easier to control as they have more tech to help stabilise them in extreme conditions. Are you telling me he didn't have enough skill as a certified pilot, to just STEER A PLANE??? Even you could do it with no more than 30 minutes tuition! The difficult parts of flying are taking off and landing, neither of which none if the hijackers had to concern themselves with. They steered the aircrafts then crashed them. Steering a plane is easy; crashing one is even easier. Did you other looking up what i told you to, or was i right previously when i said you people don't give a damn about any conflicting evidence?
    3
  66.  @prism8289  Don't pretend you've read the Commission report because we both know you haven't. That would be far too much like proper research for a truther to do. You're just parroting the usual, out of context remarks truthers have to resort to doing to desperately try and bolster their kooky, cultish beliefs. Can you state any specific issues with the Commission report or just vague, blanket statements you choose to take in a context that supports your agenda?
    3
  67.  @jayh9529  Yes, gravity 🙈 ffs
    3
  68.  @Chris-0113  The kind of intellect I've come to expect from the average 9/11 twoofer. Can't refute a single, easily verifed thing I've said, so reply with a response we'd expect from a small child. Is there any wonder why nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notice of beIIends like you?
    2
  69.  @rogerham  Name one false claim i've made and I'll gladly back it up. What exact office do you believe it hit and why is this such a shock to you? Explain what exactly your issue here is because i don't get it sorry. Missile?? Lol, impossible for reasons I've already detailed above. This has to be the most absurd theory of them all, right up there with space lasers taking the twin towers down and anybody who even considers this as a viable theory does so through blinding ignorance of the available evidence. AA Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is an incontrovertible fact that cannot rationally be denied. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive and not knowing of it after all these years is not a valid excuse. Ps. Of course it was planned, those guys didn't just do it on a whim during a flight that was originally meant to be a bloody holiday! 🙈
    2
  70.  @rogerham  What are you talking about? 900 billion dollars? That's a new one on me, can you elaborate and then explain what it is you're actually suggesting here? Are you saying 9/11 was just a government plot to hide 900 billion dollars that you seem to be insinuating they stole? Just googled it quick and no mention anywhere of any missing 900 billion dollars 🤷🏽‍♂️ Still waiting for any false claims you allege I've made. Any chance? 🤨
    2
  71.  @eddieb9930  CCTV cameras were set at around 1 frame per second. Theblma e was travelling about 500mph. It's quite an easy calculation to work out how far that plane would cover in a second that I'm sure even you can work it out. Do that simple calculation then get back to me and tell me again how funny you find it. Just another dumb truther argument made in ignorance. Why are you so hung up on footage when the evidence we have proving Flight 77 crashed there is so overwhelming? We don't need any footage to know what happened and the fact you think we do says it all. Are you saying EVERY SINGLE PERSON who saw it are lying? Are you saying all the wreckage was planted along with the physical remains and personal belongings of those on board? Do you believe the ATC staff were in on this too, as well as all the first responders and forensics teams etc.? If you don't believe a plane crashed there, what exactly do you believe happened there that day? You're just being ridiculous and refusing to acknowledge the facts.
    2
  72.  @here_to_watch2115  Your source was wrong because no such missile batterys exist at the Pentagon. And yes i have seen the footage and ypu simply cannot tell by that alone what it is, which is why we look at the other evidence, ALL of which confirm is most definitely was indeed a plane, specifically AA Flight 77. Anybody who disputes this does so in ignorance of the available evidence. 136 people directly witnessed it, most sat in traffic on their morning commute. There were even pilots who witnessed it and identified it specifically as being a 757. All witnesses reported a plane whilst not a single witness for anything other.
    2
  73.  @VonJay  Agreed, but will they listen? 🙄 lol. They're only interested in what fits with their agendas. If what they believed were true, would Rumsfeld even bother making it public?? Makes zero sense whatsoever. It was actually made public first back in 1999 and mentiones several times between then and the attacks and has since been tracked. Again, truthers don't wish to acknowledge this.
    2
  74.  @SidewaysBurnouts  What a load of boIIox 🤣
    2
  75.  @suzanneoshannessy7666  Because you're gullible and believe everything you read on the internet.....
    2
  76.  @grimmertwin2148  Just because a minority of delusional crackpots aren't aware of/don't accept the mountain of evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, does not mean this argument hasn't been settled. Hani Hanjour flew that plane into that building whether you accept it or not, and we have the evidence to back it up. There is ZERO evidence of anything else other than AA Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon and the flight path was witnessed and backed up by the ATC and the FDR evidence.
    2
  77.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  Nope. Never said i did. I'm just going on the evidence.
    2
  78.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  I've answered both questions you've asked me in two separate replies.
    2
  79.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  Many buildings were hit, as would be expected. Are you suggesting it was purposely brought down in a manner so as to destory WTC7?? Lol, i do hope not. I don't know what your point here is, if you have any specific issues, let's hear it.
    2
  80.  @melbourne-heat.69-71  What a disgusting, despicable excuse for a human. Your BLATANT lies are easily refuted by a mountain of evidence so good luck trying to get any suckers to believe your treacherous buIIsh!t d!ckhead.
    2
  81.  @donroxitheoverthinker  I love how dumb, naive beIIends like you think just because somebody doesn't buy into you buIIsh!t conspiracy theories that means they automatically trust the government. We call that a strawman argument you clown. No the government can't be trusted but that doesn't mean they're behind every bad thing that happens.
    2
  82.  @ericsheep4895  Can you give me an example.of one hit by an airliner travelling around 500mph or having thousands of tons of debris falling on to them? If not then it's a moot point. That said..... the Plasco building was a high-rise that collapsed PURELY from fire without being hit by anything and there have been many steel-framed structures that have collapsed from fire, because guess what......fire weakens steel 🙄
    2
  83.  @loneranger9485  Why are you shouting? 🤨 When you say made from those materials, you mean a non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure right? Of which there are plenty, all from fire, none having the addition of being struck by a jet airliner with the force equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT. Ah ok, so not a single demolitions expert has spoken out saying they believe the twin were demoed, but you just personally know a few? Convenient 🤔 Why don't you ask them how the demo charges managed to survive the plane impacts and fires because to say that's a bit of a mystery would be a bit of an understatement lol.
    2
  84.  @bennynagon9322  I disagree. I personally believe, based on the available evidence, that there was miscommunication between the FBI and the CIA and more could have been done, but i just think it was more negligence than nefarious planning. If I'm shown sufficient, credible evidence to the contrary then my opinion is open to chance. So far nobody has been able to provide such evidence.
    2
  85.  @johnv6806  Great. Except it didn't. Both towers collapsed at the impact zones as opposed to collapsing from the bottom up, as controlled demolitions do. This would be impossible to achieve in terms of a controlled demolition, hence why there aren't any demolitions experts making this claim.
    2
  86.  Ludwig Nickles  No, almost every single he lists is garbage and demonstrably false. You really shouldn't believe everything people say on the internet without qualification.
    2
  87.  Ludwig Nickles  Of course you do, that's why you have just blindly accepted the utter horsesh!te David Savian listed, almost all of which is EASILY refuted and has been quite some time back.
    2
  88. Missiles that zigzag to their targets and leave exit holes 🤣👍🏼
    2
  89. @DC Nope, it was later accounted for and simply a matter of them having great difficulty tracking money between departments due to to conflicting softwares systems. If they seriously just pocketed the cash, why would they bother announcing it was missing?
    2
  90.  @joesmithguide  Truthers don't like to get bogged down with detail, they don't have the intellectual capacity to do so 🤷🏽‍♂️ And then they wonder why nobody listens to them......🙄 lol
    2
  91.  @hoodieso8858  The entire argument falls down on so many points. Why hijack four planes when just one flown into the Pentagon or one of towers alone would have been enough to achieve the same result and given them enough reason to invade Afghanistan 🤷🏽‍♂️ You just can't rationalise with conspiracy theorists unfortunately.
    2
  92.  @josephhuckabee4702  No it does not. It shows a man in shock trying to remain calm and collected. Fk truthers and their ridiculous pigeon understanding of human psychology. Over 20yrs of failed conspiracy claims, so just let me know when you guys have any credible evidence that stands up to scrutiny because so far you have literally NOTHING.
    2
  93.  @adamallen3365  As opposed to running out screaming like a hysterical child? He showed composure & didn't alarm the children, or maybe he just didn't know what the hell to do. Is this your evidence of a conspiracy? Wow lol. Let's just say my standards of proof are somewhat higher than yours.
    2
  94.  @christopherclink6931  No he didn't, it had been made public way before then. Stop believing everything you read on the internet.
    2
  95.  @christopherclink6931  Ok so not only wilfully ignorant but a shameless liar also. Yes it was spoken of that day but the fundamental fact you're failing to understand is that it was made public as far back as 1999. That kinda punches a whole clean through your beliefs, as does the fact the money was never stolen or really missing in the sense you lot insist on taking it. It was merely a case of them finding it extremely difficult to track between departments due to them having outmoded, incompatible software systems. But since when do you guys let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy right? 🤪👍🏼
    2
  96.  @kurtwollermann2210  Ok buddy, whatever you say 🙄🙈
    2
  97.  @frankfindout1505  As always, truthers taking things completely out of context to try and bolster their dumb conspiracy theories 🥱
    2
  98.  @kurtwollermann2210  What the hell does how it's printed have to do with any of this?
    2
  99. And had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever.
    2
  100.  @benperkins9237  There was a seperate study dedictaed entirely to WTC7, what are you talking about? In fact there were several and they all concluded fire was the cause of collapse. People don't dwell on this building as much as the towers for the sole reason, nobody died in there. If you think it was a controlled demolition then explain how the fire fighters knew a collapse was imminent several houra before it fell?
    2
  101.  @downsouth5971  Nobody forgot building 7, stop lying.
    2
  102.  @BeReal918  But nobody hid anything and the 2.3 trillion was never actually missing, or not in the way you guys claim. If they stole that money, why announce it publicly?? Makes so much sense 🤣
    2
  103.  @xKNO1x  A controlled demolition using magic silent explosives that created no corroborating seismic signature?? 🤣🤣 Whatever you say buddy lol. Please explain to me how the fire fighters tending to building 7 had publicly predicted its collapse several hours before it fell? Are you saying they were in on this alleged conspiracy also?? Lol, you're nuts.
    2
  104.  @CristiNeagu  They didn't know it was coming as such although they had intel to say some kind of attack on American soil was coming. They didn't know how or when though. There was gross negligence involved and if the agencies had provided each other with the intel they both had and put them together, they may have been able to stop the attacks from happening 🤷🏽‍♂️ We'll never know for sure.
    2
  105.  @sufinaali5767  Which is why he rejects the claims the US government were behind the attacks.
    2
  106.  @billionllc  You're talking utter nonsense. The fact you compare a tiny, MUCH lighter aircraft carrying hardly any fuel, travelling MUCH slower and therefore striking with MUCH less force into a structure of totally different design shows the level of intellect and understanding we're dealing with here. They incomparable for many reasons and if you need that spelling out to you, you're really in no position to be talking in such matters. Did you skip your high-school physics classes? As for the towers being controlled demolitions, strange how there isn't seemingly a demolitions expert on earth who agrees with you. But hey, you know better than the entire demolitions community even though you have no grasp of basic physics 🤷🏽‍♂️ Keep telling yourself that. In reality, it would have been literally impossible to have brought those towers down in that manner. How the hell would any demo devices survive the plane impacts or ensuing fires??? Impossible, you're being ridiculous. You've not even bothered to read the official studies and you really expect anybody to take anything you say seriously?? lol, get a grip.
    2
  107.  @liberatedentrepreneur149  How was the insurance a bonus when the payout was less than the rebuild and didn't cover all the lost revenue from tenants whilst still having to pay the lease money to the Port Authority? Hardly the best insurance scam lol.
    2
  108.  @tryksta7247  Coming from somebody who has fitted hundreds of CCTV systems, then yes i know what I'm talking about. The CCTV was there to monitor the perimeter of the structure ie. Windows, doors, fire escapes, low roofs etc. Basically any vulnerable areas where entry could possibly be gained and monitoring people entering and leaving the building. Why the hell would you point a camera away from the structure, down the street?? What purpose would that possibly serve?? Your argument is entirely one from incredulity and ignorance, hence why it holds no weight in the real world. The fact we have footage from 2 cameras at the security gate, the Citadel gas station and one other (if i remember rightly) that have been released to the public kinda punches a pretty big hole in your paranoid delusions. You're also conveniently ignoring the mountain of other evidence that categorically proves AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon that day, focusing entirely on a fundamentally flawed argument that has no bearing on anything. We could literally have 4k UHD footage with Hani Hanjour waving as they flew past, and you'd simply claim it to be fake. We don't need any footage. For the record however, one of those from the security gate DOES indeed show, when zoomed in on a single still, what is obviously a large plane with the American Airlines livery emblazoned across it, just as ALL other evidence (ie. Wreckage, black box, 135 direct eye-witnesses, ATC evidence, radar track, damage to surrounding structures hit on approach confirming the precise dimensions of a 757's wingspan and engine separation, remains of the passengers on board retrieved at the crash site etc. etc. etc.) confirms. Those CCTV cameras incidentally, were set at 1 frame per second so I'm sure even somebody as moronic as you can work out how much distance an object travelling around 500mph covers each second, so work it out and then tell me again how we should expect to see a clear image of the plane you clown. And yes, i am most definitely saying that a 757 could travel that speed at that altitude over that distance without "falling apart". Boeing have no issue with it, so why the hell do you?? The turn was a standard manoeuvre used by pilots to lose altitude when coming in to land and the fact he was forced to make that turn only serves to show how poor his piloting skills were as he'd come in too high and way too fast. A crackpot dullard you are, an aeronautical engineer you are not. How exactly have i cherrypicked my arguments when all I've done is address and rebuked EVERY dumb claim you've made? Unlike truthers, i don't bury my head to any facts and embrace the full body of evidence. Just look at how much evidence you choose to ignore! Hypocrisy, much?? Lying about me ignoring Lloyd England doesn't do much for your credibility either. I clearly stated your claim that he admitted lying was BS and the burden of proof lies with you to back that claim up, not i. I also addressed your claim about how you've quote-mined reporters and even asked you to provide the name of a single reporter there that day who doesn't believe AA Flighrb77 hit that building that day and you failed. The date on the camera footage is less than meaningless as you acknowledge. I've messed with the wrong one??? 🤣🤣🤣 Oh you silly boy, I'm going to enjoy handing you your backside. I've listed SOME of the fundamental evidence above that you choose to ignore, so how about we get into the evidence we have and let's see how you go shall we little one? Let's start with the 135 direct eye-witnesses who ALL reported seeing a plane, some of whom were pilots who dlew 757's and identified it specifically as an American Airlines 757. Are you saying they're all lying or simply mistaken? Can you also tell me what you believe hit the Pentagon if not a plane? Ps. I left you TWO replies to your previous comment. It seems you only read one. Either that or you're even more of a shameless liar than i initially perceived.
    2
  109.  @selfishstockton6123  The evidence categorically PROVES it did; specifically America Airlines Flight 77. The only way you can deny this is through denying the available evidence which you don't get to do sorry. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon that day whether you accept it or not and EVERY argument you have to say otherwise has been utterly refuted long ago.
    2
  110.  @crangonvulgaris9820  That's funny, you used the EXACT same copied and pasted response to me on another thread 🤔 and no doubt to many other more rational folk who've called you out on your kooky, scientifically rejected lunacy. This is nothing more than your pre-planned way of deflecting before running away whilst desperately trying to make it look like you're taking the moral high ground. Unfortunately for you, it's a little too blatant and to be sink to such levela of deceit, you really do need a good memory. Something your clearly don't have. As i advised you previously, it's best you tuck tail and run along to save yourself any more humiliation. Why are twoofers ALL so damned predictable? 🥱
    2
  111.  @psycleshift  So ONE person saw a military helicopter that nobody else saw? Saying somebody is a credible witness doesn't make it so and you seriously need to up your game in respect to standards of proof. There was no helicopter and Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
    2
  112.  @tedmusson5179  Only if you're unaware of the available evidence. 136 direct witnesses ALL saw a plane, whilst not one report a missile. A cruise missile is 22ft in length with a 9ft wingspan whereas a 757 is 155ft long with a 125ft wingspan ie. They are unmistakable and NOBODY is going to confuse one for another, especially airline pilots who identified it specifically as a 757. The wreckage has been identified as coming from a 757, including the black box which when decoded showed details of AA Flight 77's final 11 flights. Can you explain how a missile would explode on impact and then again to create an exit hole? Take a look at a hydrocarbon explosion and then look at the explosion from a missile strike. They are VERY different and the explosion we see at the Pentagon is CLEARLY a hydrocarbon explosion. Can you explain how a missile could slice the tops off trees and take lampposts down either side of a street over a hundred feet apart? There are many more fundamental questions i could put to you but i think the above is enough to confirm what i said initially of which you're doubting.
    2
  113.  @WAVE_ZERO  No stupid, it fell through the path of LEAST resistance and unless you consider 6 times its perimeter its footprint, it most definitely did not collapse into it's own footprint. More truther nonsense 🙄
    2
  114.  @WAVE_ZERO  Slumber, for correcting your tragically poor understanding of basic physics? Lol, get a grip you delusional crackpot.
    2
  115.  @zuckfacegobbels4527  Great comeback dickhead 👍🏼 Love how you call people who accept demonstrable reality 'sheep' whilst believing everything you read on the internet 😂 Hypocrisy, much? You uneducated bellends literally optimise sheeplike behaviour whilst running like the wind the second you're challenged. Look at the comments how you all run away when faced with conflicting evidence. Enough said. You won't catch me running because unlike you, i have the confidence to stand by my convictions and defend them. Unlike you also, i would change my opinion in a heartbeat should sufficient, credible evidence of a conspiracy be provided to me. So far, nobody has been able to do this and i all get is benighted clowns like you repeating LONG refuted lies, such as this one about 2.3 allegedly going missing and announced the day before the attacks. The fact you believe this EASILY debunked myths speaks for itself and a prime example of how gullible you are and poorly your research efforts have been. Jog on and save yourself further embarrassment.
    2
  116.  @bigtommy508  Oh Tommy, i do love it when twoofer feel the need to state something that is most definitely not a fact, as "fact". First off, NO buildings fell at freefall so well done on that one. Secondly, freefall can and does occur from buckling. Any structural engineer worth their salt will confirm that for you champ.
    2
  117.  @toejam6941  Yes, fire-proofing is used to protect steel-work from fire. It prolongs the duration steel can sustain exposure to fire. Unfortunately in respect to the twin towers, the fire-proofing was poorly applied to begin with and that which was located near the plane impacts was naturally blasted off when the planes hit. In respect to WTC7, the fires raged for 2hrs longer than the fire-proofing was rated at.
    2
  118.  @sevenmilewhite1407  No you cannot. What we are observing is air being violently expelled as entire floor slabs came slamming down on to one another. Where exactly do you think all that air would go? We literally observe the exact same thing during a verinage demolition which dontuse explosives. Drop a heavy book on a dusty table and you'll get the picture. I'm sorry but your pigeon understanding of demolition and building collapses doesn't quite cut it in reality. If it were that obvious, why aren't there any demolitions experts making this argument, or do you simply believe you've spotted something nobody else has?
    2
  119.  @toejam6941  Ah ok yes. No problem at all my friend, it's always refreshing to see people with an honest sense of enquiry rather than the typical crackpots around here who just refuse to acknowledge any opposing facts. All too common unfortunately. Anyway, always happy to help 👍🏼
    2
  120.  @BeefTallowBoy  You're an Alex Jones fan, now it makes sense 🤣
    2
  121.  @BeefTallowBoy  As opposed to your tinfoil hat? I'm actually British but don't let facts get in the way of your anti-Semitic hate Hanz.
    2
  122. Lol based on what?? What is it you have read that convinced you that somehow the overwhelming majority of experts in all related fields have missed, given how they have no issue with the official stance?
    2
  123.  @harijotkhalsa5546  Not really. The towers were indeed mostly hollow (around 95% if I'm not mistaken), but what happened was that the planes severed many structural columns on impact. The load they'd initially supported was transferred to the remaining columns which held up remarkably well. That was until the fires sufficiently heated them and they buckled. This resulted in the top sections of the towers above the impact zone, drastically tilting. The angular momentum was then corrected by gravity, bringing those top sections down through the structure below, as this was the path of least resistance.
    2
  124.  Michael Hoffman  Well your bravado was short lived hey? Seems like you've fallen at the first hurdle. What happened, can you not answer that fundamental question?
    2
  125.  Michael Hoffman  Seriously Michael, why give it the big'un then run away when challenged? I guess you just tried to call my bluff 🤷🏽‍♂️ Sadly, as is the case with literally every truther i encounter, you tucked tail the second you're posed with a simple question.
    2
  126.  @rastiga9196  Did you get my response to your question? Youtube playing silly buggers again as i can't see it myself 😕
    2
  127.  @prism8289  Yes they went out to sea in a standard procedure to create a donut or defence whilst awaiting further instructions. Again, they did NOT know where those aircraft were or what their intended targets were. Once the transponders were disengaged, they became lost amongst hundreds, maybe thousands of blips on a radar screen.
    2
  128.  @prism8289  What those hijackers did in terms of flying was nothing extraordinary or particularly skilled. They had commercial pilot licences so were hardly the completely inexperienced novices you people like to claim. They were reckless, nothing more.
    2
  129.  @Kiingchong  Have you heard of 'burden of proof'?
    2
  130.  @fouadmas5413  He was referring to the pulling operation and pulling everybody out and away from there due to an inevitable collapse as stated by the fire crews who assessed it. It was SOLELY the decision of Chief of Department FDNY Dan Nigro to pull, NOT Silverstein.
    2
  131.  @prism8289  🏃‍♀️💨 👋🏽😂
    2
  132.  @stevenbuzurro7308  Why would you commend somebody for spreading lies?
    2
  133.  @jamesfranklin8364  Yes, it's called 'fire'. In case you hadn't noticed, the towers remained standing for sometime after the plane impacts. As the official stance states, it was FIRE that brought all 3 buildings down that day.
    2
  134.  @ritchieaustin5451  Yes, frightening incompetence and poor communication between department who, if they'd have corroborated more with each other, they may have been able to foil the terrorist's plans.
    2
  135.  @ritchieaustin5451  Ok so you're now moving the goalposts. You started off claiming no building has ever collapsed from fire before. After being provided 3 examples of the many available, you've changed tact. That's fine because using your own standards, you refute your own argument in that the Meridian was a concrete reinforced structure with a granite curtain wall facade and didn't implement the use of long span beams, as WTC7 did in order to create a large, open atrium. It also had a sprinkler system that was still functional. The fire fighters however did abandon internal fire fighting due to fear of it collapsing. The Meridian also hadn't sustained a huge amount of structural damage after having thousands of tons of debris crashing down onto it from a collapsing sky-scraper. All in all, an incomparable example. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had 47 stories of weight on its supports after having the lower 10 floors scooped out 25% into the depth of the building by falling debris, whilst being left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. When you can provide me with another building that meets the above criteria, then your question is relevant. Unless that criteria is met, it's a redundant argument. In terms of the twin towers, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. Shall i continue or do you get the picture? This was an incomparable event.
    2
  136.  @bigpacotaco  The education system yes, given the level of intellect displayed by the 911 twoof movement.
    2
  137.  @unknowngentile419  No you cannot, stop talking nonsense. If it was that obvious, why no demolitions experts claiming it was a demolition? If you're going to try and say otherwise then name ONE. What you're actually seeing is air being expelled as the floors are pancaking internally. As I've already said, we observe the exact same effect occurring in verinage demolitions which don't even use explosives so care to explain that one? Didn't think so. I love how you guys think you're smarter than the entire demolitions community. Delusional doesn't come close. And what are you talking about that it wouldn't have come down so quickly?? What exactly are you basing that on, you're obvious vast knowledge of demolitions, structural engineering and physics that you don't possess? Get a grip.
    2
  138.  @scottmattern482  haha sorry for the confusion buddy 👍🏼
    2
  139.  @AB-zu1bx  Not that old chestnut again? 🥱 So what you're saying is Larry Silverstein got together with Mossad, asking them to give him a hand in pulling off an insurance scam? 🤔 Yeah, sounds perfectly plausible to me that 😂👍🏼
    2
  140.  @jamesrobbins2708  He's head's up CDI Inc., the world's leading authority in demolition and he said that he knew the moment the planes hit that the towers would fall. He also said in terms of bringing them down via a demolition in the manner they fell would be impossible. Again, truthers have to concern for reality, only conspiracy 🤷🏽‍♂️
    2
  141.  @jdinkaledgemorgoon2085  Except there WAS pieces of fuselage found, the black box WAS found and decoded to show data from AA Flight 77's final flights. There is also footage from the security gate which does indeed show a large aircraft, as confirmed by those 136 direct eye-witnesses, all debris, the personal possessions and physical remains of everyone known to have been on board, the damage to surrounding structures on approach which mirror perfectly the dimensions of a Boeing 757, ATC evidence, etc. etc. etc. Ignorance is not a defence.
    2
  142.  @Shawney-jf6kc  Which is what i said in my first response on this thread. Truthers seem to believe they went straight into Iraq following the 9/11 attacks, but then truthers aren't exactly known for their sound researching abilities hey lol.
    2
  143.  @stanhunt8543  No we most definitely don't. You might, but that doesn't make it true sorry.
    2
  144.  @horsemanofwar86wawahwoowah36  It had nothing to do with oil, that myth has been well and truly debunked.
    2
  145.  @gusmarokity6482  If the war was about oil then why was less exported from the region after the war? Doesn't quite hold up that theory sorry. Saddam was a monster who used WMD's on his own people and was trying to gain nuclear armament. He needed stopping regardless.
    2
  146.  @jayh9529  12 days and still no response. It's like you've fallen of the face of your flat earth 🙄
    2
  147. Lol literally EVERY claim you made is utterly false and easily demonstrated so. The myth about them still being alive was debunked TWO WEEKS after the event, yet here you are still claiming it 🤣 All the hijackers were on the flight manifest, every one of them. Remains of everyone on board Flight 93 was recovered along with over 95% of the aircraft. What exactly are you suggesting here and seriously, where the hell are you getting your information from?? 🙈🤣
    1
  148. Rubbish.
    1
  149.  @senoow4215  lol no, what makes you think that?
    1
  150.  @senoow4215  Kind words, thank you 😊
    1
  151.  @keithbrown6887  I never asked you to can you not read?? I notice however you blindly believe the garbage fed to you on that notoriously unreliable conspiracy movie Loose Change. Your agenda is blatant. There was nothing overly difficult or spectacular done by any of the pilot hijackers that day, you've just taken that on faith because it fits with what you want to believe. You blindly accept baseless claims that support your view whilst refusing to accept any that oppose it. And you expect anybody to take anything you say seriously?? You sound like MAGA cultist. As for the memorial you said sound be there if anybody died at the Pentagon. You mean like the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial constructed to honour all those who DID die there? You've clearly done a lot of research beyond watching your trashy Loose Change drivel. Of course people died there, how can you possibly believe otherwise?? You are the first truther I've ever heard dispute this incontrovertible fact, you're seemingly not quite wired right and completely incapable of conducting any form of reliable research on your own.
    1
  152.  @keithbrown6887  Anybody who asks that question seriously needs to familiarise themselves with the reasoning. We didn't exactly invade Iraq right after 9/11 did we? If it was jjst an excuse to invade Iraq or Afghanistan then why would they blame it on Saudis? That makes no sense on terms of the conspiracy. The truth movement IS a cult as far as im concerned. Truthers refuse to accept any opposing evidence. Ps. You know i'm not the real Dirk Diggler right? 🙄
    1
  153.  @Musiclover-bg2nn  There was plenty of wreckage and physical remains of the passengers to verify the official story. Only those ignorant of the available evidence could possibly dispute whether that plane crashed there but for many, it's not about reality, it's about the conspiracy regardless of the facts. People of that ilk, there's simply no rationalising with them.
    1
  154.  @shostako1284  Yeah, all 136 direct eyewitnesses couldn't tell the difference between a 22ft missile with a 9ft wingspan and a 155ft jet airliner with 125ft wingspan screaming past them 🤣🤣 Shut up you clown.
    1
  155.  @shostako1284  Stop claiming it's the most protected space in the world, that's utter sh!te, no it is not. It was/is well protected but believe it or not, not only did they not expect somebody to fly a plane into it, there really isn't much that will stop a 150 ton mass full of kerosene travelling at 500mph. As for your claim of the 136 eye witnesses are all lying and paid off, you really are seriously deluded beyond reason. Would you take money to help cover up the mass nutder of thousands of your fellow countrymen?? Like hell you would, yet you think all those 136 people were so morally bankrupt that they'd do such a heinous thing? Get real. The risk involved would be immense and no way would they take such a chance. It's all about risk to reward. There were airline pilots, doctors, clergymen, fire fighters and many other credible people who witnessed it, and you actually believe they're all lying and not one honest person witnessed it whilst sat in traffic on that busy highway??? Put the crackpipe down, you're insane. Now a single witness to anything other than a plane. On top of this, a mass of 757 wreckage including the black box, the remains of all the passengers and their personal belongings, ATC evidence detailing a radar track from Dulles airport to the impact site, damage to surrounding structures hit in approach which confirm perfectly the dimensions of a 757 wingspan and engine separation. The list goes on but hey, you keep clutching those straws and burying your head to all this incontestable evidence to try and keep your kooky, failed conspiracy theory alive 😏👍🏼 Ps. Your claim about the Mexican drug cartels in as ludicrous and unhinged as the rest of what you said. Just more baseless, naive hogwash. You've clearly been watching too much TV.
    1
  156.  @shostako1284  Planes were scrambled and flew as standard procedure to an offshore position to form a ring of defence. Unfortunately, due to the hijackers disabling the planes transponders, they had no idea where the planes were until it was too late. It's that simple, they got caught with their pants down as they never envisaged being attacked in this way by internal flights. Your utterly debunked argument from incredulity doesn't cut it in the real world sorry. Do you really believe that what would be such glaring holes in the story, would not get taken apart in court by the defence lawyers??? We know exactly who said what and when and where those planes took off from, when they took off and what their plan was if intercepted. You literally have NOTHING in the way of evidence to support ANY of your claims and with that, we can dismiss them without thought. The planes that crashed into their reported targets were without doubt the aircraft it is claimed, this has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. You making insanely stupid remarks like the government wanted the attacks to happen is just ludicrous beyond belief. I really can't take anything you say seriously sorry. Yes some people/companies make money from war and yes many civilians and innocent people are often sadly killed in war, but that doesn't mean the US Government were behind the attacks. You need evidence which you clearly don't have. What we do however have is a mountain of opposing evidence that proves those planes crashed into those buildings/the ground at Shanksville.
    1
  157. Except they actually announced it for the first time back in 1999 and several times in between. Why announce it at all if they'd stolen it or used it for nefarious reasons? Twoofer logic is dumb as sh!t lol.
    1
  158. Jesus David, that was quite possibly THE biggest load of unlearned drivel I've ever had misfortune of reading, and ive read some sh!te around these parts. It really was enough to send a glass eye to sleep. I'd love to have the time and inclination to respond to each and every spurious claim you've made, but unfortunately i don't. It would require an even longer and possibly duller response than your initial comment, and would no doubt fall on deaf ears given how much emotional investment you clearly have in all of this. Rest assured almost every single thing you claim is false, or at best based on a twisted half truth plagiarised from some notoriously unreliable conspiracy website. Do however feel free to pick any of your points individually and i will gladly correct the errors. Hopefully if we do this with a couple of them randomly, you might start to realise and accept that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and simply repeating (possibly even twisting) the lies of other gullible morons, also incapable of conducting proper research.
    1
  159.  @HELL-BENT74  The hole wasn't even circular. The idiot doesn't even know the difference between an entry and an exit hole. He is clearly talking about the exit hole, claiming it to be the entry. The entry hole was most definitely much larger and a bit more plane shaped, though the wings pretty much would have vaporised on impact given the structural integrity of the Pentagon, the mass of the plane and the velocity it was travelling at. That said, we can clearly see in the images where the wings caused huge damage on impact.
    1
  160. And you know this how? Because you read some sh!t on the internet and blindly believed it, that's why. It's also why nobody of worth takes anything you guys say seriously or ever will.
    1
  161.  @Thomas-xd4cx  No not really, you'd be surprised and i accept it is almost counterintuitive, but it happens and it's fully understood how and why. There were many paper postcards that survived the Hinderburg disaster and plenty of plane crash sites have turned up passports and the like of those on board. The passport in this case was ejected immediately by the blast so didn't suffer the ensuing fires. It was also found prior to the collpase otherwise it may very well not have been found. Edit. The fires weren't actually hot enough to melt steel, but they were plenty hot enough to weaken it greatly.
    1
  162. Facts?? Claims of 911 being an inside job is not based in reality. All these ridiculous, conflicting conspriacy theories fail under scrutiny.
    1
  163. He was a wise man. No doubt he wouldn't have believed this 9/11 conspiracy lunacy had he been alive today, that much I'm certain of.
    1
  164. Jesse Ventura??? 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  165. And if that's true, that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the missing money that was later tracked and accounted for.
    1
  166.  @joshuaboatwright5357  Yeah, because the fed no doubt pay people to go on youtube comment sections to coubter the long debunked, inane arguments of the tinfoil hat wearing members of the lunatic fringe, right? 🤪👍🏼 lol, get a grip you crackpot.
    1
  167. If you say so champ 🤪👍🏼
    1
  168.  Truth Switch  🤪👈🏽
    1
  169.  Truth Switch  🤪👈🏽
    1
  170. Really? Yet a piece of 2x4 timber can punch through concrete with much less force than thise planes hit, just from the wind blowing it 🤔 You clearly have a very poor grasp of basic physical principles. Those planes EASILY smashed through those columns because in reality, there really isn't much that can stop a 200 ton mass travelling in excess of 500mph, striking with the force equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT.
    1
  171.  @larsbee  Not lost, just missing in respect to them having trouble tracking it between departments. It was later recovered and contrary to truther mythology, it wasn't announced the day before the attacks in an attempt to allow the attacks to distract, it was actually made public back in 1999.
    1
  172.  @bevbiltgarage9791  No it isn't and if you actually believe that, you're insane. Such logic us so easily refuted and fundamentally flawed on several counts. Why would they announce it publicly if that were true? It makes zero sense.
    1
  173.  @tonysextremerestorations9896  Really? Is it? What a stupid comment lol.
    1
  174.  @derekstulce2023  Oh not that old chestnut again 🙈 In reality: 'The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
    1
  175.  @larsbee  It's well known they had some intelligence and recognised the high possibility of a forthcoming attack, and it's also known that if the difrerent agencies had worked closer together instead of maintaining some form of rivalry, there was a fair chance the attacks would have been thwarted. This doesn't equate to compliance. The US government most definitely did not allow this to happen willingly.
    1
  176.  @JackCarlock56  You don't think they would have had back-up documents? What are you suggesting exactly? Only the facade reached freefall once it became detached from the building itself. The actual building didn't reach freefall. The freefall also occurred midway through the collapse as opposed to at the collapse initiation, as occurs in a controlled demolition. This was simply due to buckling. Multiple studies have confirmed this you say? You mean one, which was funded by truthers who insisted the study began with the presupposition that fire wasn't the cause of collapse. All other serious studies have concluded fire was the cause, even if they differ slightly on the finer details. What do you believe brought the building down if not fire? How do you explain the fire fighters who assessed it stating a collpase was inevitable, several hours prior to it falling?
    1
  177. It's not like they just shrugged their shoulders and wrote that money off so i fail to see your argument and how your debt has any bearing on any of this? Your argument is nonsensical.
    1
  178.  @dylanmuncy4885  Stop spreading lies you delusional crackpot. No they did NOT pocket it, it was later tracked and accounted for. Why the hell would they make it public if they just stole it?? You guys just vome here seeking an echo-chamber from fellow whackjobs. Get a grip ffs.
    1
  179.  @rawnature5356  lol
    1
  180.  @arsh4d88  Not if i wrap myself in tinfoil! 🤪👍🏼
    1
  181.  @rawnature5356  Maybe if i watched a bunch of dumb conspiracy videos and blindly believed everything claimed on them, i would be as enlightened as you are 🤪👍🏼
    1
  182.  @chauvinemmons  Of course it was 🤣 Shocking how many people believe such utter buIIshit without a shred of evidence lol
    1
  183.  @rawnature5356  Oh p!ss of you delusional, unlearned dullard. You're not fooling anybody. You've got NOTHING. You've just watched the same buIIsh!t conspiracy videos and blindly believe everything said on them. You've not even bothered your lazy, uneducated ass to read the actual studies you're so desperate to dismiss. When you've gained some confidence to debate the facts, be sure to let me know and we can talk. Until then, your cowardly tactics masquerading as smug bravado won't wash sorry. Now run along and try find somebody dumb and gullible enough to believe the lunacy you spew.
    1
  184. Really? Can you provide any evidence to back up your claim that missing money (that was never actually missing in the way twoofers like to claim) was spent on 'black ops', or do we have to just take your word for it?
    1
  185.  @hornox4life  Wow, you have a seriously vivid imagination if you truly believe that 🤣 You're not serious are you surely?? If so then you be sure to let me know when you can back that truly insane claim up with evidence.
    1
  186.  @HELL-BENT74  Which is what happened, although the wings certainly did cause some damage, as did the vertical stabiliser.
    1
  187.  @KrikZ32  So when did you gain your pilots licence or degree in aeronautical engineering? You saying something is impossible doesn't make it so and you can find footage of large airliners doing very similar high speed, low fly passes here on YouTube. There was nothing whatsoever impossible about it and the trajectory works out just fine. We have the black box to confirm this as well as 136 direct eye-witnesses, some of whom were pilots who fly 757's who confirmed it to be just that. Nothing unusual about WTC7 hence why the fire fighters who assessed it stated several hours before it fell that a collapse was inevitable. Too many uneducated opinions talking like they're experts, that's the issue here.
    1
  188. Amazing that you don't, given the overwhelming evidence we have proving it.
    1
  189.  @hornox4life  Correction, what YOU believe is contradicted by ALL evidence. 136 direct eye-witnesses, ALL saw a LARGE plane, some confirmingit to be a 757. The structures struck on approach perfectly tally up with the dimensions of a 757's wingspan and engine separation. The wreckage retrieved was from a 757. The black box was from AA Flight 77 and detailed it's final 11 flights. The remains of all on board were recovered from the crash site in what was THE biggest forensic investigation in history. ATC evidence confirms a 757. In fact, there is ZERO evidence whatsoever suggesting it was a small plane. You really do need to learn how to conduct better research.
    1
  190.  @hornox4life  You're clearly very ill...... or drunk. Unlike you, i have the evidence to back up everything I say whereas you have literally nothing. Let's demonstrate that. Show me ANY evidence a small plane hit the building. You must either believe everyone who witnessed it is lying, or simply that nobody saw a thing. Which is it?
    1
  191.  @hornox4life  Sorry, was the request for evidence an unreasonable request? 🙄 lol
    1
  192.  @hornox4life  Evidence d!ckhead, do part of that word do you not understand? As a wise man once said, 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. Put up or shut up you fact-dodging clown.
    1
  193. Or maybe he just doesn't fall for the dumb sh!t you conspiracy kooks gullibly fall for.....🙄
    1
  194. 🤪👈🏽
    1
  195.  @StrongerThanBigfoot  Yes there was, stop lying.
    1
  196.  @Redman680  Another lying twoofer 🥱
    1
  197.  @TheBaBaTV  All there to protect the perimeter and NOT pointing down the street, away from the building. That's not the purpose of CCTV. Just an argument from ignorance.
    1
  198.  @backinthegsxr3881  THE biggest liar on the internet so far. You're all mental, pathological liars.
    1
  199.  @alexandermack66  Except there was.
    1
  200.  @jcreature11  Poles were hit, thus confirming the wingspan of the 757 everybody witnessed hitting the Pentagon. Strangely, not a single witness report of a missile 🤔
    1
  201.  @jcreature11  Ok so it wasn't a plane or a missile, what exactly so you think it was? And yes, theres plenty of eye-witness accounts, some interviews are even on youtube.
    1
  202.  @jcreature11  So hang on, you actually believe that everybody sat in traffic in their morning commute, including doctors, firemen, clergymen etc. etc. were approached by government officials and asked to lie about what they saw, on the most horrific day in modern, American history, to help them cover up the mass murser of thousands of their fellow American citizens??? 🙈 Jesus christ, you're clearly deranged lol. So you believe all the first responders were paid off, ATC staff, every single eye-witness, all the remains of everyone on board along with plane wreckage from AA Flight 77, all planted without anybody seeing or blowing the whistle???? 🤣🤣🤣 Ok pal, whatever you say 🤪👈🏽
    1
  203.  @S810IC  No you did not you shameless LIAR!!!!! I've watched that video many times and contrary to the whackjob liar you're replying to, it most DEFINITELY does not show any 'missile'. Why are truthers ironically all such bare faced liars?
    1
  204.  @jcreature11  You're a kook mate. A gullible crackpot who blindly believes everything he read on the internet, as long as it supports your agenda that is.
    1
  205.  @themandwellaeffect1970  Liar
    1
  206.  @chrisstrube1244  .....and another liar
    1
  207.  @matildamarmaduke1096  Jesus Christ, another one! So many shameless liars on this thread 🙈
    1
  208.  @snatchhog  What exactly are you smoking? What loose ends are there and are you telling you'd accept the conclusions of another investigation if it concluded it was as the official story states? No, of course you wouldn't! You'd just say that was a sham too because your sort are only concerned with conspiracy, regardless of the facts. How the hell would the goverment get charges with conspiracy?? On what grounds??? 🙈 You people are beyond ridiculous. You'd need something called 'evidence' for there to be any hope of doing that, and evidence is something you whackjobs don't have, otherwise you wouldn't all be seeking an echo-chamber on youtube forums.
    1
  209.  Jr Rj  🤪👈🏽
    1
  210.  @lizardfirefighter110  Where are you getting your information from? Cite your source please because i call BS. No footage was "confiscated", it was all handed in willing as is common place when investigating a crime scene with potential footage. Why truthers act as though the men in black swooped in and took the tapes by force and that this is odd when it really isn't is beyond me. Ps. The footage from the gas station is freely available to all and shows very little.
    1
  211.  @snatchhog  Yup, although i don't think it, i know it. You've fsiled to answer my question of which punches a vacuous hole in your ridiculous theory. Any chance or are you just going to bury your head and run away like ALL truthers do when faced with conflicting evidence? Your claims of missiles are beyond ridiculous and are easily refuted on several counts.
    1
  212.  @snatchhog  So you didn't say cruise missile to Back In The GSXR a month back? 🤔 Have you realised just how fkng absurd that claim it and now back-peddling? 😂
    1
  213.  @snatchhog  It took me all of 10 seconds to find you clown lol. My comments won't publish if i include links but search the words 'Pentagon right blogger bastard' and you'll find everything from interviews with the eye witnesses, evidence of the damage caused on approach to surrounding structures, damage to the Pentagon, wreckage, the remains of the passengers and their personal possessions plus much more. You'll even see a zoomed in still from the security gate footage that shows what is obviously a large plane displaying the American Airlines livery. Go and look at the mountain of incontrovertible evidence you choose to bury your head to.
    1
  214.  @hoodieso8858  Absolutely. Both ridiculous but the claims of missiles take stupid to a whole new level 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  215.  @Redman680  If you're going to question other people's intellect then you'd better get your facts straight your fkng brain donor. 12 billion?? You mean 2.3 trillion. And why would i just mention that when there was no context to do so?? Yes, he did speak the about it the day prior to the attacks but as usual, you beIIends only offer half a story and completely take it out of context. In reality, this missing money was never actually missing in the way you dullards claim as you aren't actually aware, given that all you've done is parrot the same lies the dumbass twoofer you heard it off. It was simply a case of them having difficulty tracking it between departments due to the them using incompatible, outmoded software. It was made public back in 1999 and spoken of publicly several times up to and after the 9/11 attacks, so to say it was never spoken of again simply highlights how tragically feeble your research efforts have been. The money was later tracked and accounted for so once again, epic fail. Stop talking about things you CLEARLY have no knowledge of. In respect to using 4 planes in the attack to warrant going to war, just one single plane flown into the towers, the Pentagon, the Capital builidng, Whitehouse or any other prominent structure in the US would have offered the EXACT same level of justification. There would be no need whatsoever to take the insanely high and pointless risk of hijacking 4 planes and doing what they did. And I'm the clown?? Get to fk you window-licking simpleton, stop wasting my time and come back when you've familiarised yourself a little better with the facts. Idiot.
    1
  216. Except there WERE impact marks from the wings AND vertical stabiliser. 136 people saw the plane approach and impact and ALL confirm a large plane with NO reports of a 21ft missile with a 9ft wingspan. If you believe experience pilots who fly 757's couldn't tell the difference between a tiny missile and a 155ft airliner with a 125ft wingspan, you're out of your mind. The hole was perfectly consistent with such an airliner slamming into it. Truther can't seem to differentiate between an impact and an exit hole. The exit hole was 14ft in diameter, NOT a meter 🤣 The impact hole was more like 75 feet across. Could you possibly be more wrong?? 🙈
    1
  217.  @dunningkruger3774  What a fitting name you've chosen. Your personal opinion doesn't really matter sorry cupcake. Do you have any actual evidence rather than a highly subjective personal opinion? 🙄
    1
  218.  @dunningkruger3774  Except he did and your opinion doesn't matter two fks sorry. I commend him for his rationale and decorum as many do, so what makes your opinion any more valid? That's right, fk all. You really are clutching at straws here little one lol. Weakest 'evidence' of claims of government involvement ever 🤣 But hey, you just carry on crying on YouTube for another 20yrs and let's see what good it does you, fkng pr!ck 🖕🏽😏🖕🏽
    1
  219.  @dunningkruger3774  🥱🖕🏽
    1
  220.  @chadwellington2524  What does that have to do with 9/11 stupid? Obviously being an uneducated, tinfoil-hat wearing kook, of course you're an anti-vaxxer! 😂 Who needs science when we have youtube right? 🤪👍🏼
    1
  221.  @adamallen3365  The military run exercises all the time, nothing whatsoever unusual about that. I call buIIshit on the guy interviewed u speak of & have no idea who u mean. But yeah, total buIIshit. This tells me you're in the high end of the crackpot scale to believe all this crisis actor boIIocks that the lunatic Alex Jones spreads. Even if it's true that you were in the Air Force (which so many people like on here but will give you the benefit of the doubt for arguments sake), how in the hell does that qualify you to speak on such issues?? How is being in the Air Force make you an expert in the physics of such an event? Don't be ridiculous. The fact you don't understand how a 120 ton mass (or whatever it was, I can't remember exactly now) can EASILY smash through a few relatively thin steel columns highlights your painfully poor grasp of basic physics. This really is high-school level. The greater the mass & the greater the velocity, the greater the force, or Force = Mass x Acceleration. Do the math & you'll see that the planes could have been travelling less than a third of the speeds they were & would still have struck with enough force to break through them with ease. As it was, those planes struck with a force equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT. Show me a single physicist who is making this argument & when you realise there aren't any, ask yourself if you seriously believe you've discovered something obvious that they've failed to. Ok, so claiming the STANDARD manoeuvre Hanjour used to make his final descent provea to me you weren't in the Air Force at all. If you were then it most certainly wasn't in a position that required any understanding of aviation in any way. How the hell is it impossible??? What would make it impossible? Boeing have no issue with it & again, it was a standard manoeuvre used by pilots to lose altitude when coming into land. There was very limited stress in the airframe & planes can EASILY withstand MUCH greater stresses. No thermite was found in any dust samples, that's been utterly debunked. All they found were red paint chips from the red oxide paint used to prime the steel prior to it being erected, along with iron microspheres which were in the materials used in the construction, liberated in the collapse. They were also formed in huge numbers during the collapse itself as they're simply the result of sparking. 9 trillion dollars did NOT go missing the day before. I think what you're referring to (whilst highlighting the shallow knowledge of this event) is the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld mentioned again (it had been made public YEARS prior) there was 2.3 trillion dollars they were struggling to track due to the fact they were using outmoded computer systems which made it very difficult to track between departments. It was never actually missing as it was stolen & was eventually accounted for. Why would they bother announcing it at all if it was all part of a government conspiracy to attack their own people?? Makes zero sense. Hang on, you're claiming to have been in the Air Force whilst saying it was a missile that struck the Pentagon?? 🤣 Now I am calling buIIshit on your claims of military service. There were tons of wreckage recovered, we have plenty of images of some from the day. Please explain how a missile explodes with an OBVIOUS hydrocarbon explosion which is very different to a missile strike? How would a missile take out lamposts either side of a street over 100ft apart? How would a missile leave an exit hole? How could all 136 direct eyewitnesses report it being a plane & not be able to tell the difference between a 155ft screaming airliner with 125ft wingspan, & a 22ft missile with a 9ft wingspan? How would a missile Alice the tops off trees? Where did all the plane wreckage (including the black box) come from? Where did all the remains of the passengers get there? I could go on but you get my point. Anybody who believes a missile did that really is in no position to be talking in this subject. Larry Silverstein was FORCED to take out insurance on the World Trade Complex by the Port Authority he leased the complex from. It was in the contract & is standard for businesses to be insured. This is not in the slightest bit suspicious in any way. He actually lost a fortune in the attacks as the claim didn't even cover the cost of the rebuild, let alone all the lost revenue whilst still having to pay the Port Authority 100 million a year in rent. Other passports were found but yes, one of the hijackers passports was found but to say it was unblemished is just false. It wasn't badly damaged, but there was damage. Passports survive plane crashes all the time & such items are easily expelled in a blast due to their high surface to mass ratio. It was found amongst THOUSANDS of pieces of paper & other debris that survives the blast. There were plenty of the passengers personal items recovered, wtf are you talking about? Go to the 911 memorial museum & you'll see some of them right there, donated by the families. Your knowledge on this subject is clearly very poor & your arguments invalid, all debunked a thousand times.
    1
  222.  @christopherclink6931  They didn't announce it the day before, that's an outright lie, just as claiming the money was missing as in stolen. Typical, spurious conspiracy BS that fails under scrutiny.
    1
  223.  @brianaspeelman9540  Literally every claim you've made is false. Unexplainable angle?? Says who?? Lol, don't talk ridiculous. There was plenty of plane debris, includingthe black box which was decoded to show the data from the last 11 flights of AA Flight 77. The security footage shows what is quite obviously a large, commercial plane with the American Airlines livery emblazoned across it. On top of this there were 136 direct eye-witnesses including several pilots on their commute to work, none of whom saying they saw a missile. The dimensions taken from the damage of surrounding structures struck by the plane show perfectly the dimensions of a Boeing 757. There is so much evidence proving Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, to take anybody claiming otherwise seriously is impossible. Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.
    1
  224.  @KnowbuddiezBusiness  Great, now explain how 136 direct eye-witnesses couldn't tell the difference between a 20ft missile with a 9ft wingspan and a 155ft aircraft with a 125ft wingspan and how a missile manages to hit lamppost either side of the street before exploding in a blatant kerosene fireball which left an exit hole? Idiot.
    1
  225.  @christopherclink6931  It won't allow me to post links but if you google '911myths missing trillions', you will get all the links and evidence you need. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.
    1
  226.  @brianaspeelman9540  Nice deflection Briana lol, what a cop-out. Unlike you, and unfortunately for you, i can back up my claims but then you'd need a genuine concern for truth for that to matter to you, which you clearly lack. For the record, what you're saying is that all of those witnesses sat in traffic on their morning commute, were paid actors yes? Why not a single account of a missile? How do you explain the fact we can take the security footage ourselves and pause it, zoom in and see what is OBVIOUSLY a large commercial jet? No need to believe the media, which i find such accusations hilarious given that all you do is blindly believe everything you read on notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites, compiled by crackpots as unlearned and gullible as yourself. Carry on with your kooky delusions and pretend you know better than the rest of us when you're so painfully ignorant of even a fraction of the mass of evidence we have available to us, of which categorically PROVES AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon that day. To believe all these people required to be involved and complicit with helping to cover up the mass murder of thousands of their fellow citizens, have kept quiet for all this time without a single one blowing the whistle, it really is the height of lunacy. You are out of your tiny mind and just telling us that 'we will soon see', after 20+yrs of failed conspiracy claims, is pretty weak. I'm afraid you're going to have to do a bit better than that sorry Briana.
    1
  227.  @kurtwollermann2210  What are you talking about Kurt? What 28 dollars??
    1
  228.  @josephrivera1679  🤣 Brilliant, so right. It doesn't fit with the crackpot's agenda, hence why they have no issue with it.
    1
  229.  @justinsavino5463  You're insane. Firstly you're nuts for believing 9/11 was an inside job, but if that wasn't bad enough, you think people are 'for hire' to pull off such events if you have enough money. Seriously, there the hell are you getting this sh!te from?? Take your meds and get some rest.
    1
  230.  @kurtwollermann2210  Great, except there is zero credible evidence of any government involvement and the so-called 'missing' 2.3 trillion had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.
    1
  231.  @22ucespatriotwarrior88  Not all, just you and the rest of the tinfoil hat wearing members of the lunatic fringe.
    1
  232.  @seedplanter7173  So what's your alternative?
    1
  233.  @brmbkl  Great, so why announce it at all? Why not just keep their mouths shut and simply cover it up, rather than going to such inconceivably insane lengths to cover it up with something WAY more difficult to cover up?? It makes zero sense whatsoever. Also, how risky do you think it'd be to fly a plane in to that precise location and take out everything they needed to take out? What if hardrives and files survived? Do you not think these files may just have been backed up? Would there not be a simpler, far less risky and more thorough way of getting rid of a few files without having to find a group of suicidal maniacs from other countries who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the US government, get them to learn how to fly a plane, hijack a commercial airliner and slam it into the correct side of the Pentagon? The entire prospect is beyond lunacy and people seriously need to think through what they're saying and raise the bar in terms of their standard of proof.
    1
  234.  @brmbkl  Probably?? So you have no evidence to back this up, you're just literally inventing excuses and desperately clutching at straws. What other parties would they be and why would they allow them to know in the first place? I'm pretty sure those behind the theft of 2.3 trillion dollars would take steps to cover their tracks wouldn't you say? If it got out to somebody, why not simply bump them off? I think that would have been slightly easier and less risky than what you're proposing here to say the least. To persuade people to give up their lives to help them cover up money they'd stolen, hijack planes and fly them into buildings is beyond belief and OBVIOUSLY never going to happen. You need to take a step back and evaluate what it is you're actually saying. Hopefully you'll see the lunacy of what you're suggesting here. Besides, why are you the only one saying this? Why is it every other truther claims he announced it the day before so that the attack would act as a distraction and smokescreen? You're also seemingly unaware that the money was later tracked and was never actually missing in the way truthers like to claim. It was simply that they were using incompatible software which made it extremely difficult to track funds between departments. The reality is so much more dull than the conspiracy you guys have invented, but as dull as it is, the fact remains sorry.
    1
  235.  @brmbkl  You are most definitely not using logic. But as you say, their spending and allocation must be reported which it has been and again, the money has since been tracked and accounted for and was never missing. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Pentagon attack. I notice you failed to address the small issue of how they persuaded people from other countries to sacrifice their lives to help the US government cover up this alleged theft. Any logic to shine on that one? You do accept that it was AA77 that crashed there that day right?
    1
  236.  @brmbkl  The comments no longe lr accept links but do a search and I'm sure you'll find the details easily enough, it's not difficult. Of course you'll likely just say it's all just another example of the government covering it up, that's how this goes right? There's just no rationalising or reasoning with conspiracy theorists unfortunately.
    1
  237. Not heard this one myself but regardless, there were bomb detection dogs present the whole time which wouldnhave detected any such devices. Secondly, the steelwork would have had to be stripped back to prepare for a demolition with miles of Detcord run throughout without a single person seeing. It couldn't happen and didn't happen. The fact both towers collapsed at the impact zones alone utterly refutes any claims of controlled demolition, hence why you won't fins a single demolitions expert who agrees they were demoed. We know why they fell and it CLEARLY wasn't an explosive demolition. No idea where you got thst from about Neil Bush but feel free to provide evidence to back that claim up because i can't find any anywhere. You're not getting confused with the myth Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the time of the attacks are you?
    1
  238.  @stephenpalmeri644  All evidence confirms that it was an attack that was orchestrated by Islamic radicals. The conspiracy claims all sound very compelling on the surface, but they simply fail under scrutiny 🤷🏽‍♂️ I've yet to be furnished with a shred of credible evidence that doesn't fall apart when detailed.
    1
  239.  @mforrest1508  What about them? They were young d!ckheads who at worst acted inappropriately. They most certainly had nothing to do with the attacks that's for sure, unless you know of additional evidence not made publicly available? Which version of the removal truck myth are you referring to?
    1
  240.  @stevengray8663  Using magic, silent explosives? 🤣🤣 Shut up you clown. Tell me how the fire fighters managed to predict the collapse hours before it fell if it was such a mystery? 🤔
    1
  241. I don't agree Bush, Cheney or anybody else in the US government had anything whatsoever to do with it, but i agree that Rumsfeld announcing this would make liberally no sense whatsoever had they 'stolen' the money. People think this was the first time it was mentioned publicly and was done so in order for 9/11 to help distract. Im reality it was made public back in 1999 so that's that theory out the window hey? lol
    1
  242. Lol i assure you they have most definitely been caught or killed whether you accept it or not.
    1
  243. It was accounted for and was never actually missing in the way conspiracy crackpots like to pretend. It was merely a case of them having incompatible computer systems which made it extremely difficult to track funds between departments. Those who believe this funded 9/11 aren't firing on all cylinders and have clearly never done a shred of research on the subject or even thought about it critically for one second. If this were true, why would they announce it at all? That makes no sense. Incidentally, most truther think this was announced the day before so that the attacks would act as a distraction, which is truly preposterous lol. In reality, this was made public as far back as 1999. As with all truther claims, this completely fails under scrutiny.
    1
  244. Words taken out of context and hijacked by insanely dishonest truthers. I assure you that reporter 100% accepts Flight 77 crashed there. Their point was simply that the plane hit so hard that it all but appeared to vapourise. That wasn't exactly the case and much, much evidence was found throughout the crashsite proving categorically that Flight 77 crashed there. Anybody disputing this out of ignorance.
    1
  245.  @seedplanter7173  How has the first ammendment gone and show how a single thing I've said is wrong otherwise your just offering your demonstrably wrong opinion. Prove im wrong or just carry believing everything you read on the internet like most of the other gullible fools around here.
    1
  246. I call BS
    1
  247.  @bryanzimmerman8646  How do i know that's your real name? How do you know this isn't mine? Pretty stupid using your real name on public forums in my opinion amd it certainly doesn't make your claims any more factual. Anyway, so you're claiming to have evidence that 911 was an 'inside job', even though we know for a fact it wasn't? Yet you're trying to expose it by commenting on a youtube thread? Hardly the path most would take given the gravity of what you're claiming. I don't really care what you believe because it's all about evidence, and the evidence does NOT support the conspiracy in any way, shape or form. We know without doubt that 9/11 was a terrorist act that was orchestrated by Islamic radicals. Tell me, who do you think was flying the planes?
    1
  248.  @binay413963  No, because the evidence proves it. Stick to believing everything you read on the internet you crackpot.
    1
  249.  @kiwidiesel  Controlled demolition? 🤔 So why aren't there ANY demolition experts saying the twin towers were demoed? What do you know the entire demolitions community don't? Maybe you can also explain how a demolition could possibly have brought both towera down precisely at the impact zones? Or maybe you can just bury your head to reality in order to cling on to your pathetic conspiracy theories....
    1
  250.  @brandonb7496  I have, it's total garbage based on complete pseudoscience. Don't waste your time on her.
    1
  251.  @mitsulang  So what you're saying is, you expected to see a plane shaped, cartoon silhouette of a plane in a heavily reinforced concrete wall? 🤣 I'm sorry but thats just stupid and nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Watch the video on YouTube of the Phantom F4 jet Sled Test where it hits a wall of similar structure at 500mph and then come back and tell me that again. The "round hole" incidentally you speak was actually the exit hole which most truthers bizarrely believe to be the impact hole. Just goes to show how seriously you take your research. I'd love to hear how you believe a missile would leave such an exit hole by the way lol. Contrary to what you say, there WAS impact damage from the wings in the walls, as well as damage from the vertical stabiliser. Next you mention the engines, and no they did not disintegrate and can clearlu be seen in some of the images of the wreckage. The entire engines aren't made of titanium, you know this right? Regarding Flight 93, that plane nose dived into the ground at 500+mph at full throttle so yes, OBVIOUSLY it broke apart into a million pieces, some of which buried several meters into the ground. Are you telling me this was planted? 95% of the aircraft was recovered from the crash site and surrounding areas by HUNDREDS of volunteers who scoured the area retrieving it all. All planted yes? Lol, come on. You then claim we know it was the named terrorists because of the "perfectly intact ID found on the ground at WTC" which i can only assume you're talking about the passport found prior to the collapse of the towers. Again, another argument from incredulity. Firstly, that is NOT how we know it was them. We know it was them from several lines of intelligence collated and the fact they were on the flight manifest which would make planting this passport (which is what you're suggesting) utterly pointless and nothing but a needless risk. In reality, passports often survive plane crashes and paper products often survive explosions due the high surface to mass ratio. This is well understood science so your arguments simply don't stand up to scrutiny sorry. This is the same with literally every truther argument made which is why the overwhelming consensus of experts reject there ridiculous conspiracy theories.
    1
  252.  @Xinjiekou_新街口_Station  Wrong. They knew it was going to collapse because of the huge amount of structural damage it had sustained and because they left it to freeburn and as any fire fighter will confirm to you, ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure left to burn will eventually collapse. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with explosions being heard and explosions/loud bangs are common place in building fires. Nobody thought there were bombs in WTC7 so please stop spreading such lies. The audios alone PROVE it wasn't brought down using explosives. Building 7 did NOT collapse symmetrically and did NOT collapse at freefall. It's collapse was highly asymmetrical and only the facade reached freefall ince it had become detached from the structure, midway through the collapse after the collapse of the building itself was already well underway, whereas IF it was a controlled demolition, freefall would have occurred at the collapse initiation. What do you mean the towers collapsed in uniform acceleration? They collapsed exactly how we'd expect them to have collapsed given the way collapase was initiated ie. at the collapse zone, bringing the top sections down through the path of least resistance in an ever increasing mass that WAY exceeded the static/live load limit of each floor below. This is why there isn't a demolition expert on earth claiming the twin towers were demoed. But hey, you apparently know better 🙄 Silverstein never said WTC7 was a controlled demolition, that's an outright lie. He said 'they made the decision to pull' of which he qas OBVIOUSLY referring to pulling the operation to save the building and pull everybody out and away to form a collapse zone. The fire fighters and chief of department Dan Nigro have voiced this publicly. They knew it was going to collapase (not be brought down) several hours before it fell because it was simply that obvious.
    1
  253.  @BrianD1961  Jesus Christ, that was enough to send a glass eye to sleep, it really was 🥱 Superfluous hogwash with zero substance. Do you not understand the simple concept of burden of proof? Seemingly not. You're clearly so lost in your delusion and balls deep down your imaginary rabbit hole, you've gone full Tonto and subscribed to the breathtaking insanity of Judy Woods. In answer to your question, who refuted her work, as i stated previously, this was done quite magnificently by a member of the so-called 'truth' community; a physicist by the name of Greg Jenkins who critiqued her work and calculated the energy required to do what that crooked whackjob Wood's claims, would be equivalent to the power output 5x that of planet earth. It's lunacy of the highest order. She has been exposed and proven to be a snakeoil salesman who has manipulated data and outright lied to try and bolster her deranged pseudoscience. In terms of truthers, you rank alongside the no-planers and make up the just a tiny percentage of the truth community. You are the fringe of the fringe. I on the other hand, simply follow the data and have no bias. If somebody were to show me sufficient, credible evidence of a conspiracy, i would change my opinion in a heartbeat. So far nobody has been able to and whether you accept it or not, the official stance backed by much science, has so far stood up to intense scrutiny. What i believe is believed also by the overwhelming consensus of experts in every related field. The burden of proof is yours.
    1
  254.  @glastonbury_awakening2224  Until you bother to actually scrutinse the claims made by 'truthers' and then it all falls apart. It's too easy to watch a conspiracy video and just believe what you're hearing. It's also exceptionally lazy and intellectually dishonest. The reality is, there is no evidence of any government involvement.
    1
  255.  @Bogsyism  You mean squibs? How ironic you correct other people's spelling. In reality they weren't squibs at all. What we can see is air violently being expelled as entire floor systems are slamming down on to one another. That air has to go somewhere, you accept this right? Drop a heavy book on to a dusty table and watch what happens. We observe the exact same thing in verinage demolitions of which don't use explosives. There isn't a single demolitions expert claiming the twin towers were demoed. Does that alone not tell you something? If it was as you believe, the entire demolitions community would be all over it. As for "building 3", i can only assume you're talking about WTC7 of which the fire fighters predicted the collapse several hours prior to it falling. It was that obvious a collapse was imminent as ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure will collapse if left to freeburn, as WTC7 was. It hadn't been hit by a plane, but it was hit by thousands of tons of debris from one of the collapsing towers. This resulted in widesprrad fires across a number of floors of which the fire department decided to leave burn, save risking any further loss of life. For the record, the planes didn't the towers down; fire did, just as with WTC7. The fact both towers collapsed at the impact zone is proof they weren't demoed as any explosive devices would have been destroyed instantly by the immense impacts and ensuing fires. Next you jump to an argument from authority, yet fail to realise just how weak that argument is. 80% of those so-called experts have NO experience or knowledge of high-rise construction, structural engineering or controlled demolition. They are comprised of people from completely unrelated backgrounds such as software engineers, electrical engineers etc. etc. That brings the total who have any experience or knowledge on anything remotely related down to around 600 people. That's 600 out of the MILLIONS of architand engineers out there ie. They're the lunatic fringe, nothing more. Its taken over a decade to gather such a tragically, feeble following and in that time they've completely failed in everything they've done and exposed as lying, cheating scumbags who have fraudulently tried to bypass the scientific process to cash in on their whacky conspiracy claims. The AIA even came forward to state that they do NOT share their views in any way shape or form, so the AIA members alone far outnumber those crooked crackpots over at ae911truth. So much for your argument from authority 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  256.  Ludwig Nickles  Great, be sure to let us all know when you've got any actual evidence to back that truly mental claim.
    1
  257.  @fouadmas5413  Fire, just as the fire fighters predicted hours earlier. I guess you must believe the fire fighters were in on this alleged conspiracy too huh? 🤪👈🏽
    1
  258.  @marie-laure.  Literally everything you said is wrong. No evidence was sent to India, where are you getting this information from??
    1
  259.  @Bogsyism  "Im not even going to finish reading this" i.e. I have no rational defence to counter anything you've therefore I'm just going to pretend i haven't read it. Typical twoofer coward tactic when backed into a corner lol. It's ok, I'm used to it but just understanding that it's fir reasons such as this, why nobody takes you clueless crackpots seriously, or ever will. Here's to another 20+yrs of achieving less than nothing 🍺😂
    1
  260.  @Bogsyism  I was going yo leave it at that but i feel you need publicly shaming to make an example of. If what you're saying were true, why can't you provide the name of this imaginary demolitions expert you speak of? Guess we'll just have to take your word for it 🙄 Given how you've shown yourself to be a fact-dodging, bare faced liar, that isn't going to happen. Provide names or we can safely assume you're just lying again. If youtube allowed links still i would take great pleasure in destroying your brazen lies with video footage of a fire fighter that day, HOURS before the WTC7 collapsed stating publicly that it was, and i quote "definitely" going to collapse. Because of the issue with sending links, the best i can do is provide direct quotes from the very fire fighters who tended to and assessed WTC7 and made the decision to pull the operation, allow it to freeburn and create a safe collapse zone to wait for the inevitable collapse. Here's a few of many for you to bury your thick head to. "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged WTC 7 a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision." - Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." - Deputy Chief Peter Hayden "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.....On the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good......Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." - Captain Chris Boyle NYFD "they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out." - Richard Banaciski NYFD Firefigher Don't talk to me about denial you mental fkn midget. I'm not the fact dodging coward who refuses to address the facts, you are 🖕🏽😉🖕🏽
    1
  261.  @donedeal725  Shipped the steel before testing for radiation????? 🙈 Just when i think I've heard the most ridiculous thing a truther could utter, somebody like you ckmes along and blows that belief clean out off the water 🤣🤣 So you believe they nuked the towers AND used thermite??? Wow 🤯 Please explain how both towers collapsed at the impact zones.......but you won't/can't 😉 For the record, there was NO molten steel and NO steel was shipped to China until being deemed to have had no part to play in the collapse. Take your medication and stop talking about things you have no understanding of.
    1
  262.  @sonnydayz2118  To even suggest those who chose to jump to their death rather than burn to death, were fake dummies makes you one sick twisted, insanely disrespect piece of sh!t. Fk you scumbag 🤨🖕🏽
    1
  263.  @charlesfoster575  Why is there always some religious crackpot forcing their primitive hogwash onto others? sigh
    1
  264.  @WhackyWeiner  People who believe 9/11 was 'an inside job' deserve to be ridiculed. Sorry. Not sorry 🙄
    1
  265.  @cconnon1912  Change the record, your precious conspiracy theories have failed under scrutiny.
    1
  266.  @burnsy6982  Rabbit hole?? No, it was Larry Silverstein's consortium of investors who leased the complex from the Port Authority who then underinsured them and hadn't even finalised the policies by the time the attacks took place, so if you're going to repeat the lies and lunacy of other twoofers, save your breath because thise facts alone decimate such ridiculous reasoning. The collapsing towers damaged all surrounding structures, as you'd imagine. What's your point? Silverstein lost a fortune in the attacks
    1
  267.  @jfunk4210  So why don't the twin towers look like ANY controlled demolition in history and why isn't there a single demolitions expert publicly claiming they were demoed?? Stop talking sh!te.
    1
  268.  @CristiNeagu  That I disagree with. No way would they sit back and allow that to happen, why would they? They got caught with their pants down well and truly, and the US government were made to look pretty stupid. Given how powerful the US government like to portray themselves to be, they would never willingly allow themselves to be shown to be so ineffective. The FBI had intel and the CIA had intel, but neither knew what the targets were or when exactly they would strike, but if both agencies had have shared their intel with each other, there is a chance they could have prevented the attacks. Things are different now and although such rivalry still exists between these agencies, they would never again be allowed to withhold information on this basis and many things (protocols etc.) have changed as a result of 9/11.
    1
  269.  @DemonTime08  Nothing to admit other than the US government's failure to prevent this heinous act committed against them.
    1
  270.  @Bogsyism  Still running Roy? 🙄
    1
  271.  @CristiNeagu  What else would you expect them to do though? He did what any president would have done and couldn't be seen to just roll over. Nothing to me suggests they had foreknowledge other than the intel we know of.
    1
  272.  @CristiNeagu  It's an even worse argument to say they knew and let it happen without a shred of evidence. All we can go on is the available evidence and as you say, it comes down to personal opinion. Personally I've not seen any evidence that makes me think for a second they allowed the attacks to take place, it just doesn't make sense in my opinion.
    1
  273.  @xKNO1x  Sorry stupid but the fact you think a fireman is capable of discern the chemical composition pf molten metal in those circumstances by site speaks volumes. You're clearly an idiot so your opinon doesn't really count sorry. I will ask you the same question again just to highlight your cowardice and reluctance to accept any conflicting that oppose your tinfoil hat lunacy. You refuse to answer because you know full well the only logical answer debunks your unlearned, kooky hogwash. The fire fighters who assessed the structure stated publicly that a collapse was inevitable. You lose. Ps. Thermite isn't used in demolition and was only invented by the bogus organisation of crooks and whackjobs that go by the name of ae911truth, because their initial assertions of explosive demolitions were utterly refuted. No evidence whatsoever of any thermite or controlled demolition in general. Just for good measure, here's the fire fighters themselves speaking about WTC7 to shut you up once and for all: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged WTC 7 a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision." - Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." - Deputy Chief Peter Hayden "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.....On the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good......Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." - Captain Chris Boyle NYFD "they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out." - Richard Banaciski NYFD Firefigher
    1
  274.  @CristiNeagu  Now switch your thinking to them not having any prior knowledge of the attacks and tell me what the difference would have been? None whatsoever. I choose to follow the evidence and nothing more. If there was evidence of foreknowledge, I'd accept it but there isn't so I don't. It's that simple for me 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  275.  @BeReal918  By which you mean you have no justification and know full well this is a vacuous hole in your truly ridiculous conspiracy theory. You do know the money has since been tracked and was initially disclosed publicly back in 1999? How does that fit with your tinfoil hat buIIsh!t? IYKYK?? You clearly know sh!t Jay, apart from the lunacy you've blindly swallowed after watching some dumb conspiracy website that is 🙄
    1
  276.  @stevesherman1743  Ok stupid, the fact you can't even spell 'dumb' tells me everything i need to know, let alone the fact you can't tell the difference between a bottom up collapse and a top down collapse you utter fkn moron. Wtc7 wasn't hit by a plane correct, well done. It was however hit by THOUSANDS of tons of debris from the collapsing north tower which caused HUGE structural damage and fires across many floors which the fire department decided to let freeburn, meaning a collapse was inevitable. The fire fighters who assessed it stated a collapse was inevitable so unless you believe they were part of this mental conspiracy you believe in, you're flat out wrong. Regarding your imagjnary "squibs", in reality what we were observing was air being violently expelled as floors slammed down on to one another internally, EXACTLY as qe observe in a verinage demolition if which don't use explosives. Stop talking about things you CLEARLY have no understanding of, pretending to know more about demolition than the entire demolitions community given how there isn't seemingly a single demolitions experts claiming the twin towers were demoed. What a clown you are. As for people carrying pieces of aircraft wing at the Pentagon, it's made from sheet aluminium, ie. it's light as a feather!!! What kind of feeble fk are you?? Not a Boeing you say? Airliner pilots on their morning commute to the airport next door who fly 757's for a living and watched the aircraft approach and impact said it was most definitely WAS a Boeing, so i think I'll go with those professionals who were actually there as opposed to some illiterate, tinfoil hat wearing whackjob on an intellectual par with fkng mildew.
    1
  277.  @432b86ed  Mick West is INFINITELY more honest and unbiased than Tony fkn Szamboti, and West and others have utterly decimated those crooks over that bogus organisation ae911truth truth who actively and fraudulently tried to bypass the scientific process in an attempt to cash in on the credulous. Ae911truth are as crooked as can be and make up the most insignificant bunch of nobodies, 80% of which have no relevant backgrounds or experience. They make up less than 0.01% if their respective communities and are commonly known as the luntic fringe. Regardless of details within the the NIST studies, there have been several key studies and whereas they may differ in the smaller details, they ALL concluded fire to be the cause of collapse........except of course, the one funded by the whackjobs over at ae911truth who not only funded it, but insisted it began with the presupposition that fire was NOT the cause. That's as far removed from scientific enquiry as you can get! Pseudoscientific hogwash, nothing more. Do you believe the fire fighters tending to WTC7 were in on this alleged conspiracy? I'm going to assume not, in which case, how do you account for their insistence that a collpase was "definitely" gojng to happen and was therefore inevitable, several hours prior to it falling? Either they were psychic or it was that obvious. Which is it?
    1
  278.  @deelady53  Loose Change is a notoriously unreliable film that has been forced to retract many assertions time and time again. You only have to look at the calibre if individual who created it, it's/he's a fkn joke. I'll be honest, the first time i watched it i was convinced ut was an inside job, but after delving deeper into each claim made, it soon became clear it was a crock of sh!te with no basis in reality. Everything claimed is based at best on half-truths and most total lies. By all means, tell me what you believe to be the compelling evidence of a conspiracy from the movie and I'll gladly show you the reality to check out for yourself. These people are making a lot of money by making this sh!t up.
    1
  279.  @432b86ed  Rubbish, that makes no sense when they could simply have not made it public at all. It was in reality, made public several times from 1999 onwards which again doesn't do many favours for the conspiracy theory whatsoever. Again, we KNOW what the issue was and the money has since been tracked. It's just one of many half-truths seized upon by conspiracy theorists in an attempt to try and validate their lunacy. You can have your own opinion but facts remain facts regardless. Tell me why ae911truth insisted on publishing their work in such a highly discredited, unreliable journal that holds zero weight in academia? Do a search on the infamous C.R.A.P. paper and see for yourself what a joke publication that is. Even though it's such a poor publication of which nobody in scientific circles takes seriously, the editor-in-chief still resigned over the matter. It speaks for itself and talks volumes of the calibre of this corrupt organisation. People are just too desperate to believe and choose to turn a blind eye to uncomfortable truthes about their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Ps. I notice you couldn't answer my question about the fire fighters who predicted WTC7'S demise so long before it fell which is a perfect example of what i just said.
    1
  280.  @432b86ed  lol, you could have just written the word trillion but whatever, there is nothing rational whatsoever about your theory for the simple reason i gave previously. They could have just said nothing. As for my sources, there are several documented news reports, Pentagon statements and a fiscal defence audit in 1999 to name but a few. Youtube won't allow me to send links but if you search for '911myths Missing Trillions', you'll find details of them all there.
    1
  281.  @kenhasibar2450  So you think you've worked out something the ENTIRE demolitions community have failed to work out? 🤔 You keep telling yourself that champ 😂👍🏼 In reality, fire weakens steel and steel-framed structures have been collapsing from fire ever since steel has been used to construct.
    1
  282.  @kenhasibar2450  Ok Ken, let's first punch a vacuous hole in your bizarre claim that fire has never brought down a steel structure by giving you examples such as the Plasco building in Tehran, the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania and the Kader Toy Factory in Thailand. How many more would you like? Yet more evidence that truthers will lie through their teeth in order to try and validate their lunacy. Secondly, the entire premise of your ridiculous conspiracy theory and overall argument is false, in that no steel needed to melt, only weaken. At around 550 degrees, steel has lost about 50% of its initial strength. Such temperatures are easily reached in standard office/hydrocarbon fires and given how this steel was under such immense lpad, it's nothing short of a miracle they remained standing as long as they did. The plane's didn't bring the towers down so that's just another strawman argument, well done. Ps. I notice you failed at naming a single demolitions expert who agrees that the twin towers were demoed. I rest my case lol, but you know better 😉👍🏼 Pps. I couldn't possibly be less of a Trump fan (in my experience the majority of ReTrumplicans are firmly in your conspiracy camp, champ. I'm an atheist although how that's relevant i don't know. Being a gullible sort like yourself, I'd have said you were more likely to have an imaginary friend than i. As for 'knowing science', I'm the lead technician in a QCMT laboratory so am guessing I'm probably a little more clued up on such subjects than yourself. The fact you don't understand how no steel required to melt and that fire weakens steel kinda speaks for itself. You've not even bothered to read the actual scientifoc studies yet have the audacity to call others scientifically illiterate and claim ultimate knowledge on the subject. You're clearly a very deluded individual suffering delusions of grandeur.
    1
  283.  @kenhasibar2450  So again, you can't name ONE demolitions expert who agrees the twin towers were demoed? Speaks for itself. 1000+ engineers?? Wow! What about the millions who have no issue with the official studies? You might also want to learn how science works and then you'll understand how irrelevant that feeble number of crackpots are until they follow the rules and go down the implicit route of peer-review. For the record, out of the 3000 signatories, over 80% of them have no background, knowledge, experience ir understanding of structural engineering, high-rise construction or controlled demolition. That brings the total down to around 600, all of which have seemingly forgotted how science works. The opinions of say, a software engineer or an electrical engineer arr meaningless, so you cling on to your 0.01% of the engineering community and I'll stick with what the real experts say and have backed up with actual studies. That has to be THE weakest argument from authority I've ever heard and highlights the desperation of your argument. Truthers are ironically all liars who would rather ignore any opposing facts before running away, hence why nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notice of you people. You will no doubt do the same, in fact you already have. Like i said, fire weakens steel and in STANDARD OFFICE/HYDROCARBON FIRES, temperatures of 600 degrees are common. Again, at around 550 degrees, steel has lost around 50% of its initial strength. What part of that are you failing to comprehend? This isn't open for debate, these are simply facts which remain facts whether you accept them or not. We literally have footage of entire floor slabs sagging from the heat and columns and beams buckling prior to collapse. To designers of the twin towers have no issues with the fact they collpased so it's pretty dishonest of you insinuating otherwise. Your argument is also a strawman given that the towers didn't collapse from the plane impacta so did their job. They fell because of FIRE. They remained standing for 60-90 minutes after the impacts and both collapsed precisely at the impact zones which I would love you to explain to me. How exactly did any explosives of fictional thermite charges survive the plane imapcts and ensuing fires?? Impossible. Literally, impossible which is the word used by the world's leading authority in controlled demolitions when asked how they would go about bringing down those towers in the manner they fell. But hey, you know better because you've watched a conspiracy video by Michael Moore 🙈 lol. And yes, weakened steel DOES explain how the entire towers came down which you'd know if you hadn't lazily watched conspiracy videos rather than reading the actual studies which explain the how. Allow me to enlighten you the simple concept that explains what happened. The planes severed a number of structural supports when they struck with the force equivalent to that of 1.35 tons of TNT. The load those columns were under was transferred to the remaining columns which were heavily involved in fire due to them being situated in the location the ignited jet fuelled flowed, igniting everything in its path. Once this steel that was under an immense load (greater than it was designed to take) got hot enough and sufficiently weakened, they gave way which led to a chain reaction of events that brought them to the ground. Each floor had a set static load limit of which was MASSIVELY exceeded by the dynamic of the floor above. With each floor, the mass became greater which was the reason there was acceleration. The resistance was negligible. Thermite isn't used in demolition because it isn't a reliable or efficient means to cut steel and there is NO evidence whatsoever of any such means being used. The only reason the crooks over at ae911truth invented this outlandish theory is because their claims of explosives failed under scrutiny. Next you claim the steel qas immediately removed which simply isn't true. NO steel was taken away until it was reviewed and deemed to have no bearing on the collapse. Any that was of interest was put aside, taken to Fresh Kills and studied. No evidence found whatsoever of any explosives or thermite. Regarding the passport, this was found BEFORE the collpase and was picked up by a passer-by. If you're insinuating it was planted, feel free to explain the purpose of taking this needless risk when we know full well he was on board as he was on the flight manifest? This made planting it completely pointless. Passports often survive plane crashes and paper often survives explosions due to its high surface to mass ratio. Literally hundreds of thousands pieces of paper survived and were all over the ground where the passport was found. The fact you tell me i need to do some research when you've done literally NONE yourself is laughable. Watching conspiracy films is in no way, shape or form classed as research sorry. Try reading the actual studies, how about that?? You're simply part of the tinfoil hat wearing lunatic fringe of whom deserve all the ridicule they receive. Please don't pretend your movement holds any weight because in academia, you're a laughing stock, don't deluded yourself otherwise.
    1
  284.  @kenhasibar2450  Lol, you are too predictable, doing precisely what i said you would. Continue blindly believing everything you hear on notoriously unreliable conspiracy videos before running away to claim victory like the proverbial chess-playing pigeon that you are. I'll on the other hand, will continue to follow the science as accepted by the VAST majority of experts in EVERY related field; embracing the full body of evidence rather than burying your head to any that opposes your view, whilst lying through your teeth to try and validate your kooky conspiracy theories. I don't need to believe the government, but why stop with the strawman arguments when you'reon such a roll? 🥱 Stick to serving drinks because science clearly isn't for you. Now run along princess, you're clearly way out of your depth here.
    1
  285.  @shermbot9776  Exactly. Try getting that through to truthers like Ken here though. They actually think they know more about demolition than the entire demolitions community then simply run away when faced with opposing facts. Then they wonder why nobody of worth takes anything they say seriously, forcing them to come on to youtube forums to find an echo chamber for their lunacy. It blows my mind that these people manage to convince themselves they've somehow discovered something so obvious that the experts have somehow missed. Conspiracy theories make the gullible and the stupid feel like intellectuals 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  286. @She Pulled the Trigger He changed his opinion on the moon landings like he changed his opinion on 911 because he became better informed 🤷🏽‍♂️ Good on him for being honest enough to admit when he's wrong.
    1
  287.  @sarahjanetefft  The overwhelming consensus of experts in all related fields say otherwise but hey, you've watched a bunch of conspiracy videos so you know best 🤪👍🏼
    1
  288.  @sarahscheurer2618  Judy Woods is a conmerchant who appeals only to the painfully uneducated, the gullible and the stupid. Even the vast majority of truthers accept she's a crackpot lol
    1
  289.  @liberatedentrepreneur149  The image of the steel beam cut at 45° was taken during the clean up when they were cutting the steel with oxy-acetylene torchs. There is no evidence of thermite, that's been long debunked. But we're the idiots you say? 🤔
    1
  290.  @black_hand78  Yes because I've never heard of Northwoods 🙄 How is that relevant when the proposition was immediately shot down in flames and never happened?? And even if the government are corrupt as hell, it doesn't mean they're behind every bad thing that happens and such logic is beyond stupid. The fact is, whether you accept it or not, is the ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and government involvement simply don't stand up to scrutiny, whereas the official stance does. If you have any ACTUAL evidence they were behind it, let's see it. Every claim you guys make has been utterly debunked hence why you're still no further at supporting your conspiracy theories 20+yrsnof crying conspiracy.
    1
  291.  @black_hand78  No, you clearly don't 'get it' given your feeble, highly predictable, irrational deflective response. Accusing anybody who doesn't subscribe your unfounded lunacy, "boot lickers", using the strawman argument that we automatically trust the government which is again, utterly fasle. You just believe everything you read on the internet that fits with your agenda and then cry when somebody asks you to back it up. Put up or shut up.
    1
  292.  @tryksta7247  Wrong, wrong and wrong again. There was plenty of wreckage, just not too many large pieces due the forces involved and the facts most of the plane would have flowed into the structure agter impact. Find me any of those reporters who don't actually believe Flight 77 crashed there. Good luck with that. So what that "the ceiling of the section was intact" after the impact?? What's your poing? Next, there are more than 3 rings to the Pentagon but it was 3 rings that were penetrated by the plane. However, NOBODY is claiming it was the plane's nose that did this 🤣🤣 It is well known that it was rhe plane's heavy landing hear that punched through. Said landing gear can even be seen in the images in that location. Why were the light poles "nonsensical?" What an odd choice of adjective. Several objects were struck on approach, light poles amongst them with plenty of witnesses who saw it happen. Lloyd England did NOT make any such confession off camera youying piece of sh!t. Back to conspiracy school for you, you're all over the place mate.
    1
  293.  @tryksta7247  Nope, NONE of those cameras were pointed in the directionnof approach and therefore didnt pick up anything. Any thay did were released, and no there were not ANY frames miasing from the security gate footage you shameless liar. Wow, somebody hadnt corrected the date on a security camera, and?? Are you saying this WASN'T security gate footage from that day?? When else was there a huge explosion st the Pentagon in that exact section??? What are younteyingto insinuate by that or have you not thought that one through either champ? Teams of "bomb sniffing dogs" prior to the crash? Any evidence of this or do we have to just take your word for it? So far everything youve claimed here regarding 9/11 has been wrong, so not about to take your word for anything on this matter sorry.
    1
  294.  @black_hand78  Still deflecting!! Lol, you are shameless. Of course you believe everything you read *THAT FITS YOUR AGENDA*, as I said butbyou conveniently missed out. Where else does this 9/11 conspiracy lunacy come from?? Perpetuated on the internet by inept morons such as yourself. Paying taxes, voting and shopping means you're a boot licker??? 🤣🤣🤣 What a bizarre little man you are. Now, no more running, evidence please or jog the fk on you fact-dodging, bed-wetter. Ps. It's 'you're', not your 🤨
    1
  295.  @black_hand78  And STILL you BLATANTLY deflect and dodged from the FACT you have NOTHING in the way of evidence to back up your ridiculous, 9/11 conspiracy and now choose to go off on a tangent in an attempt to divert from this fact. You're not fooling anybody sorry princess, it's clear for all to see. Just out of interest though, are you saying you don't pay tax?? Is your surname Trump by any chance? 🤔 Whatever, man the fk up and show me evidence 9/11 was a government conspiracy or admit defeat, tuck tail and do one.
    1
  296.  Truth Switch  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's fkng hilarious. Sadly some people believe that kind of sh!t 🙄
    1
  297.  @macalister8881  The only thing that's turned to dust is your mind you crank.
    1
  298.  @andynoble4948  A fireman wasn't filmed saying that at all. You're either mistaken or lying. Larry Silverstein used that term during an interview recorded way after the event and he was talking about the fire department pulling the operation. The premature reporting of WTC7 collapsing was explained in detail years ago. Basically, it was a mistake based on the fact the fire fighters had been saying it was going to collapse. They simply made a mistake and said it had. One of many mistakes reported that day, as is the nature of live reporting. You can't surely believe 'they' would inform the BBC prior and give them foreknowledge, thus exposing their guilt? That's absurd. What benefit would taking such a needless and immense risk offer?? None whatsoever.
    1
  299.  @bmcg8888  So you're saying as well as the fire fighters tending to building 7 that day, that the British Broadcasting Corporation is also in on this alleged conspiracy, along with all the other news outlets that would have seen the same Reuters feed they got the information from? Got it 👍🏽
    1
  300.  @bmcg8888  Not buIIsh!t, just basic physics most of us learned in high-school. The materials are irrelevant here. The dynamic load was simply much, MUCH greater than the static load limit of each individual floor below. With each floor it picked up, it gathered mass. There are simple experiments you can do yourself to demonstrate this if it confuses you so much.
    1
  301.  @swilsonmc2  Silverstein was in on it was he? Wow. Must be really into his government to allow them to destroy his buildings and leave him millions out of pocket lol. Get real. They came straight down because they couldn't possibly have fallen any other way. Find me a single demo expert who agrees with you the twin towers were demoed. Good luck with that.
    1
  302.  @swilsonmc2  Silverstein was in on it was he? Wow. Must be really into his government to allow them to destroy his buildings and leave him millions out of pocket lol. Get real. They came straight down because they couldn't possibly have fallen any other way. Find me a single demo expert who agrees with you the twin towers were demoed. Good luck with that.
    1
  303.  @swilsonmc2   @swilsonmc2  Silverstein was in on it was he? Wow. Must be really into his government to allow them to destroy his buildings and leave him millions out of pocket lol. Get real. They came straight down because they couldn't possibly have fallen any other way and for the record, every building anywhere near those towers in every direction was pretty much decimated so, so much for your theory. Find me a single demo expert who agrees with you the twin towers were demoed. Good luck with that.
    1
  304.  @swilsonmc2  So do you agree with Jowenko that the twin towers definitely weren't demoed?
    1
  305.  @swilsonmc2  Silverstein HAD to take insurance out when he took on the lease of the World Trade Complex, it was in the contract from the Port Authority and is standard practice to insurance commercial property. Why you guys make out this was unusual and a sign of foreknowledge is baffling. Yes he was awarded 4.54 billion which was only half of his and not enough to cover the cost of the rebuild, plus he had all the lost revenue from tenants he had to take the hit on, as well as still having to pay 100 million each year on the lease to the Port Authority. He lost out BIGTIME. As for the 3000 architects and engineers, 80% of them have no background or knowledge of high-rise construction, structural engineering or demolition works. That takes that number of relevant architects and engineers down to around 600...out of the MILLIONS out there who seemingly have no issue with the official studies. They're fringe crackpot's, nothing more. If they're so sure, why do they refuse to go down the proper channels and present their findings to their peers for review? It really isn't that difficult for them to do, yet they haven't. All we get are bogus, pseudoscientific studies reviewed by themselves and fellow truthers.
    1
  306.  @swilsonmc2  No, he made it quite clear the towers weren't demoed, quit trying to claim otherwise. No demolitions expert on earth believes the towers were demoed because to have brought them down at the impact zones would have been impossible. Jowenko knew this, just as every other demo expert does. You're clutching at straws and don't care about anything other than conspiracy. I also don't care what he says about WTC7 as the fire fighters knew it was coming down hours before it fell, so either they were on it or it was that obvious. Which is it? As for your Silverstein quote, you're clearly reading/hearing that differently to us sane folk. Yes, he spoke to Chief if Department Dan Nigro and HE decided (not Silverstein) that because a collapse was inevitable and efforts to save it were futile, it's best to pull the operation and pull everyone back and away from the structure and allow it to collapse. That's why the fire department created a safe collapse zone. To think Silverstein would out himself in a pre-recorded interview is beyond madness. Why would he do that??? Get real, think logically for one second. We're talking about an extremely intelligent guy here yet you believe he just admitted guilt like this without realising?? 🙈 Don't be so ridiculous.
    1
  307.  @swilsonmc2  Well to most people that isn't how it sounds at all, and again, to think this very intelligent individual would out himself like this in a pre-recorded interview is insane. Get real. Even if he did slip up, it was pre-recorded and not live and would have INSTANTLY realised and cut the interview to start again. His words make sense to most and fits perfectly with what the fire department have stated, so again, are you suggesting the fire fighters were in on this alleged conspiracy? And how has he backpedaled? Not to my knowledge he hasn't so can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you believe the fire fighters were in on this alleged conspiracy?? Quit lying about Jowenko, he made his feeling quite clear on this so why you're lying so shamelessly on this I don't know. You're either very confused or very dishonest. He detailed how any demolition devices would have burned up way before the collapse and to have brought them down from where the planes hit would have been "IMPOSSIBLE". How on earth do demolitions teams try to bring buildings down at impact zones??? By impact zone I'm referring to the location the planes struck. Demolitions happen from the bottom up, not two thirds of the way up. The world's leading authority on demolition (Mark Louizou of CDI Inc.) publicly stated it would be "IMPOSSIBLE" to achieve this via a controlled demolition, hence why there isn't seemingly a single demolitions expert on earth who believes the twin towers were demoed. But hey, you know better right? 🙄 So that's 2 demo experts who literally used the word impossible, and not a single one claiming the towers were demoed. You don't see much evidence for it collapsing?? Who cares what you see, you're no expert in anything related and are clearly very conspiratorial minded and therefore have no concern for truth. It looks very much like a collapse to the experts and sorry, but it's their opinions that count on such matters, not yours. The way the penthouse drops shows how the structure is COLLAPSING internally and being as you're obvious unaware, demolitions are EXTREMELY loud. Yet this was silent 🤔 No evidence whatsoever of any demolition yet we do have a scientific study that's stood up to global scrutiny explaining the how and why, as well as assertions on the day from the fire fighters that the building was "DEFINITELY" going to collapse. How desperate are you to believe this conspiracy? Bizarre. And no, the twin towers did in no way, shape or form turn to dust, that's a ridiculous claim and one that hold zero weight whatsoever. The amount of debris removed from that site tallied up just fine. I take it you're a Judy Woods fan? THE kookiest of all the crackpot conspiracy theorists out there pushing this lunacy. She's a liar, fraud and con-merchant. What do you mean you don't see much evidence they collapsed from office fires??? What exactly would you expect to see in your expert opinion?? We literally have footage from the choppers of entire floor slabs sagging and beams and columns buckling from the heat at the impact zones, prior to collapse!! I'd say that's pretty strong evidence for most personally. Steel weakens when heated, that's why we use fire-proofing. When the planes hit, they stripped that fire-proofing (which prior photos show was poorly applied in the first place) so it was nothing short of a miracle they remained standing as long as they did. At 550 degrees, steel has lost HALF of its initial strength. Those temperatures are easily reached in standard office/hydrocarbon fires so, no mystery whatsoever. As for how the top sections took the larger bottom sections out, if you bothered to actually read the studies then you'd understand perfectly. It's quite simple. The planes hit and smashed through a number of steel columns. Those columns were load bearing therefore the load was transferred to the remaining columns. Obviously there were huge fires located at the impact zones due to all the ignited fuel that spewed from the planes, and those fires weakened the remaining steel columns that were now under way more load than they were designed to withstand. Once they were sufficiently weakened, they buckled and the top sections came toppling down on to the floor immediately below. Each floor had a static load limit of which, the dynamic load of those top sections HUGELY exceeded when it came slamming down on to them. With every floor it smashed through, it picked up mass and therefore became an even greater dynamic load with every floor it picked up, hence the acceleration. Truthers tend to see the lower structure as one solid mass rather than individual floors with expanses of space between them. The towers were 95% air as opposed to being solid Jenga towers that truthers try to apply the physics to. The dynamic load exceeded the static load limits by so much, although there was measurable resistance, it was negligible. The towers did NOT collapse at freefall so why you're saying this I don't know. We can clearly see debris falling alongside the collapsing towers which are falling at a faster rate. Where are you getting your information from?? Try reading the actual studies instead of using your own unlearned reasoning on matter you have zero understanding of.
    1
  308.  @swilsonmc2  Oh please, spare me the pigeon psychology class. I stand by every word and believe all you're doing here, as all truthers do when faced with conflicting facts, is deflecting. Jowenko was quite clear he did not believe the twin towers were demoed. Yet to hear a truther admit this, but then yet to meet an honest truther. Instead they either deny, deflect or run away. All you're left to do is run.
    1
  309.  @Infinitebruhmoment69420  What's a "leftist theory"??
    1
  310.  @connectthedots5678  Said no demolition expert, ever. But hey, you clearly know better than the entire demolitions community right? Keep telling yourself that 🤪👍🏽
    1
  311.  @4465Vman  And? Talking about clutching at straws.
    1
  312.  @tonyyoung4590  No they weren't. If you're going to maintain that lie, cite your source.
    1
  313.  @Raven........  Yes, smaller lighter planes travelling MUCH slower. In case you didn't notice, the towers withstood the plane strikes & didn't collapse until 60 and. 90 minutes later because of the fires.
    1
  314.  @Spacejuno  I'm not sure who or what you're referring to sorry. BrianD is it? Looking back, I did respond to his last reply to me but if you want to highlight what was said that you don't believe I addressed, I'll happily do so 👍🏽
    1
  315.  @lonemaus562  Except they didn't 'lose' 2.3 trillion dollars, they simply had difficulty tracking it between departments due to incompatible computer software systems. It was later tracked and accounted for. Seriously, the fact you clowns use this ridiculous argument as evidence of a conspiracy blows my mind. If that was true, would they really have announced it publicly?? Shady how? Lying about what? Get a grip.
    1
  316.  @charleskemp2037  For the most part, contrary to what the lunaric fringe who haunt youtube threads and conspiracy forums, the mainstream media is for the most part, correct. Not always, but for the most part. In terms on 9/11, they were bang on. 21yrs of crying conspiracy and STILL not a shred of credible evidence to support those claims.
    1
  317. Oh well if you say so 🙄 Let us know when you have ANYTHING in the way of evidence to back that up and feel brave enough to discuss the evidence without running away. 🤪👈🏽
    1
  318.  @snatchhog  🏃💨 👋🏼😂
    1
  319.  @Kanoee64  Bravo?? For what, lying through his teeth or running away when faced with opposing evidence, exactly as i predicted? 🤔
    1
  320. Wow, hope you're feeling better after getting all of that off your chest 😂 Anyway, about this 'mound of proof from the day you speak of', could you possibly give me any examples because so far, I'm yet see a shred of evidence from truthers that stands up to scrutiny. Could you also specify where in the unredacted 28 pages released, it states how the US government knew of the plan, was complicit with the Saudi's and helped them carry it out because nowhere in the report do i recall any of that. Is this like when truthers speak about the official studies when they've never actually read them? 🤔
    1
  321. They did, years ago. It showed very little but the fact you've not seen it after all this time really does highlight how poorly you've researched this subject.
    1
  322. Coincidences happen all the time.
    1
  323.  @coachm2075  Not true but whatever, how does this apply to 9/11?
    1
  324. So you're saying 136 people (some of whom were pilots) couldn't differentiate between a jet airliner and a missile? 🤣 To put this into perspective, a cruise missile 22ft in length and has a wingspan of 9ft. A Boeing 757 is 155ft in length and has a wingspan of 125ft. Can you see the absurdity of your argument? And yes, there was most definitely plane wreckage at the crash site, including the black box, and yes there was damage from the wings as well as from the vertical stabiliser. Structures were hit on approach that tally up perfectly with the wingspan and engine separation of a 757. I think you're confusing the impact hole with the exit hole in ring C caused by the landing gear, which was incidentally also found, just outside the exit hole of ring C.
    1
  325. Cool story bro 🤪👍🏼
    1
  326. Nobody knew what was going yo happen. At best, they had some intelligence to say an attack was coming, but they did not know how, when or where.
    1
  327.  @GB-vn1tf  Another example and display of truthers parroting the lies they've been fed on notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites that they blindly believe. Saying it doesn't make it true sorry..
    1
  328.  @GB-vn1tf  BuIIsh!t. And i KNOW it's buIIsh!t because I've seen the interviews etc. on Israeli tv and the ONLY image of any van with said mural on the side was photoshopped. It's a myth. Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary and prove me wrong.
    1
  329.  @rastiga9196  What agent? Have you got a name and how would that fit with the narative that the FBI were involved?
    1
  330. 🥱
    1
  331. Actually, the landing gear was found and is what punched the hole through to ring C. The remains of every person known to have been on board was found at the scene. All but the hijackers were identified by there DNA. The black box was also found and decoded to show details of AA Flight 77's final 11 flights. The engine that was found has been proven independently by aerospace engineers as coming from an engine used on Boeing 757's. There was most definitely a large plume of black smoke and the explosion was clearly a large hydrocarbon explosion as opposed to type of explosion observed in the liked of plastic explosives. One person thinking they smelled cordite doesn't counter the overwhelming evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon that day. Where exactly are you getting your information from??
    1
  332. Because he's clearly smarter than you are.
    1
  333.  @Goonie856  Well i take it back with that dazzling display of intellect 🙄 Your ridiculously dumb conspiracy theories simply fail under scrutiny, which is why Rogan rejects them.
    1
  334. You seriously need to raise your standards of proof if that's all it takes to make you believe loony conspiracy theories lol. Don't tell me, you believe it was a missile and not a plane, right champ? 🤪👍🏼
    1
  335. So you're saying 9/11 was an inside job, the MSM only reports government backed lies and further education is a waste of time?
    1
  336. They do now yes, because it's since been tracked and accounted for.
    1
  337.  @van-gabondramblinrose6398  14 inch hole???? 🙈 It was about 80ft across you idiot! 🤣 I think youre confusing inches with feet and exit holes for impact holes lol. You're also confusing 757's for 737's you balloon 😂 You really are all over the shop lol
    1
  338.  @dantealighieri1265  A cruise missile is 22ft long with a wingspan of 9ft. A Boeing 757 is 155ft in length with a wingspan of 125ft. 136 people witnessed the approach and impact and EVERY ONE said it was a plane, some of them were pilots who identified it specifically as a 757, yet you're telling us that they couldn't differentiate between a tony missile and a huge jet airliner?? 🙈 You need your head checking mate. Tell me, how would the 9ft wingspan of a cruise missile take out lampposts over 100ft apart either side of the street? How would a cruise missile explode on impact and then create an exit hole 3 rings into the builidng? Why would a cruise missile explode in what was clearly a hydrocarbon explosion which is patently different to that of a missile explosion? Where did all the wreckage come from? Where did all the remains of the passengers come from? Were the ATC staff all in on this alleged conspiracy too? How about all the first responders and forensics teams? What made the wing and vertical stabiliser marks on the Pentagon facade? How did a missile slice the tops off trees? I could go on and on but you get the picture. You're talking utter nonsense.
    1
  339. Yes it was whether you accept it or not. The evidence categorically proves it conclusively.
    1
  340. BuIIsh!t. All the images show are electrical fuses lol. Detonators indeed 🤣 A perfect example of just how easily duped truthers are. As for your feeble atteptat an argument from authority, those tiny, insignificant number of alleged architects and engineers are an embarrassment and disgrace to their profession. Thankfully they are a fringe minority making up less than 0.01 of their respective communities. Even worse when you consider that 80% of them have ZERO experience, knowledge or understanding of high-rise construction, structural engineering or controlled demolition. I mean, who cares what the likes of say, a software engineer thinks on such matters?? 😂 They're a bunch of crooks who've found nothing; lied through their teeth and seemingly forgotten how the scientific process works. Instead of going down the implicit route of peer-review, those clowns purposely tried to fraudulently circumnavigate the scientific process in ordsr to sell their snakeoil and dupe the gullible and the stupid. Their work is meaningless and holds zero weight amongst academia, unlike the official studies which do.
    1
  341. You've studied this for over 20yrs and have concluded inside job?? 🙈 You seriously need to raise your standards of proof lol. Pilots for truth led by John 'the lunatic' Lear?? How about all the pilots out there saying they have no issue with anything that occured that day? They weren't good pilots at all, even though they held commercial pilot licences. They were simply reckless and suicidal therefore safety was of no concern. It blows my mind you've allegedly studied this for so long and wrongly concluded inside job. What a waste of 20yrs of study, imagine what you could have achieved if you'd have put that time into something more productive? You could have completed several Phd's in that time lol.
    1
  342.  @bigbobno11  Nope, utterly false myth being propagated by lunatic truthers with no clue. Countless pilots have come forward and said otherwise, test pilots take them beyond their V-limits all the time; we have footage of such aircraft reaching such speeds at extremely low altitude fly-bys and Boeing themself have no issue with ANYTHING those planes did that day. To believe a plane just falls apart the second it creeps beyond it's V-limits only serves to show how your 20yrs of alleged study have been limited entirely to conspiracy websites amd the reason why nobody takes anything you people say seriously. No wreckage??? 95% of Flight 93 was recovered and there was plenty of wreckage found at all crash sites. ALL plane parts most definitely came from the planes claimed so what the hell you're talking about there i do not know. Must more truther lies. All footage that captured anything at the Pentagon was released. The purpose of CCTV cameras however are to monitor the perimeter, as in people coming in and out and protecting fire exits, windows and other potentail entry points. They do NOT install them facing away from a structure, pointing down the street. Why would they?? That isn't their purpose. They were also set at 1 frame per second and im sure even you can work out the distance coveres by an object travelling at 500mph each second. There's no way a CCTV camera set at such low fps would capture an object travelling those speeds, you're being ridiculous once again. The "whole" in the Pentagon facade was plenty big enough (between 80 and 90ft wide if I remember rightly) but if you expected a cartoom silhouette, road runner style then you're gravely mistaken. Of course that wouldn't be the case, impossible! The wings would have naturally flowed into the structure given the forces at play but they did impact the builidng and we have images showing the damage they caused. You'd think after 20yrs studying this you'd have known this, but then this is what happens when you don't know how to conduct proper research and rely on notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites compiled by people as equally ignorant as yourself. Back to Flighr 93, like i said, 95% of the plane was recovered including the black box, and the physical remains of those on board were recovered throughout the crash site and retrieved by HUNDREDS of volunteers who searched, often on hands and knees the entire locality. All planted though right? 🤣 Get real. You clearly have no concern for truth and are only interested in conspiracy.
    1
  343.  @bigbobno11  No Builidng 7 wasn't hit by a plane, but it was hit by thousanda of tons of debris falling on to it at height from the collapsing towers which led to widespread fires across many floors which were left to freeburn for 2hrs beyond what the fireproofing was rated at. You saying small office fires doesn't make it true sorry and I'll take the word of the fire fighters tending to it over you every day of the week sorry. No fire chief said "pull it", that was Larry Silverstein and he was referring to command issued by Chief of Department FDNY Dan Nigro who was talking about pulling the operation and pulling hia men out and away from it as it was so obivously going to collapse. 'Pull it' is a rarely used demolition term that refers SOLELY to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which then proceed to pull the structure down in a way so as not to cause damage to surrounding structures. Never, EVER does it refer to an explosive demolition and the audio tapes and seismic PROVE categorically that this was not an explosive demolition. It also did not collapse into it's own footprint. Tell me, how do you explain the fire fighters publicly stating the collapse of building 7 was inevitable several hours prior to it coming down?
    1
  344.  @bigbobno11  Builidng 7 wasn't mentioned in the 911 Commission report because that report dealt SOLELY with the events running up to the attacks! You really do have no clue whatsoever and clearly haven't even read any of the studies or Commission report. There was a separate study dedicated entirely to WTC7, how do you not know this???
    1
  345.  @bigbobno11  NO evidence of thermite was found anywhere. More lies. How gullible are you?? 🙈 Molten metal yes, molten steel most definitely not. Feel free to provide me with any non-conjectural evidence for molten steel and i will concede. All gold was recovered and accounted for. What a waste of 20yrs of your life.
    1
  346.  @Skateandcreate9  And neither do I. That doesn't however mean they're behind every bad thing that happens, that's just irrational. They weren't behind 9/11, that we can be certain of.
    1
  347.  @grizleeone1  No reason??? 🤣 You mean apart from having hundreds (maybe thousands) of tons of debris from WTC 1 landing on it resulting in HUGE structural damage & fires across many of its floors? As for nobody talking about it, there is an entire study that was dedicated entirely to it! In fact there have been several. No mystery, fire weakens steel, it's that simple.
    1
  348.  @user-xm7sx8it9e  Yes,136 direct eyewitnesses, every one said it was a plane.
    1
  349.  @BeefTallowBoy  Silverstein had taken countless days off for meetings, appointments & holidays. He had an appointment that day, wow lol. He also doesn't have duel citizenship 😂 You are so full of sh!t lol.
    1
  350. Yet they still tracked the money so nice try lol. They also announced it LONG before 9/11 back in 1999 and several times after.
    1
  351. Except this is just more conspiracy BS that holds little truth. Yes there was 2.3 trillion 'missing' but not missing in the way conspiracy crackpots make out and it was not declared publicly the day before as claimed; it was made public in a number of occasions dating back to 1999. It wasn't like the money was stolen, never to be seen again. It was merely the fact that they found it extremely difficult to track due to having incompatible, outmoded software systems between departments. That's it, nothing more. As far as I'm aware, the money was later tracked and accounted for. People are just too desperate to believe the US government were behind the attacks which is ludicrous. If this money was used to fund this attack, why announce it at all?? It makes no sense. But then conspiracy nuts don't really care about reality and get very defensive when the reality is explained, thus exposing the emotional investment the tinfoil hat wearing members of the lunatic fringe are on this topic.
    1
  352.  @PrivateSi  As unbelievable as space aliens?? Only if you're oblivious to the available evidence. I'm fairly clued up with the evidence myself and see no issue with the official stance, as the vast majority of experts in every related field seem to agree with. I have yet to be given any credible evidence of an inside job that stands up to scrutiny and rarely encounter a truther who's even attempted to read the official studies. That speaks for itself. Those "low skilled terror squad" held commercial pilot licences and those aircraft were very easy to fly. The only difficult parts of flying is taking off and landing, neither of which those guys had to concern themselves with. Those pilots had more than enough skill and competency to pull off what they did that day and the claims of not being able to fly a Cesna properly were taken from comments made long before they continued their training and gained the commercial licences. Truther quote this either out of ignorance or out of dishonesty to try and validate their conspiracy beliefs. It's utter garbage that more experienced pilots couldn't pull it off, that claim has been well and truly debunked. They weren't great pilots nor did they need to be. All they were were reckless and suicidal and therefore had no concern for safety. What was convenient about the passport? What purpose and benefit would it have served to plant it? Absolutely none whatsoever given the guy was on the flight manifest ie. we know full well he was in board from that fact alone. That would make planting it a pointless, needless risk. Passports often survive aircraft crashes so nothing convenient or unusual about it. The claim the hijackers are still alive was debunked, explained and put to rest 20yrs ago within 2 week of the actual event so it truly does baffle me when people still say this. I assure you, ALL hijackers from that day are well and truly dead.
    1
  353.  @PrivateSi  I've just realised my previous response hasn't posted for some reason. Try again 🙄 The reason there was little footage was due to the fact there weren't any cameras pointing at the direction of approach; why would there be? The CCTV security cameras are there to monitor people coming in and out of the building and the immediate perimeter. There would be no reason to have the pointed away and down the road. It's also very unlikely a CCTV camera would pick up much of an object travelling up to 600mph given that CCTV back then was generally set between 1 and 5fps. That said, we do have some footage from the security gate which, when paused and zoomed in, shows a still of what is quite obviously a large airliner with the American Airlines livery emblazoned across it. The same as what most eye-witnesses accounts agree on as well as the dimensions taken from the damage to surrounding structures on approach and the building itself. The manoeuvre made were nothing special regardless of what a couple of pilots claim. There are plenty who say otherwise. What Hanjour did that day was a standard manoeuvre used by pilots to lose altitude when coming into land and it's treatment to how poor a pilot he was, showing that he'd come in way too fast and too high. The Pentagon is the biggest office building on earth and crashing a plane really isn't difficult. That guy held a commercial pilot's licence don't forget and again, zero concern for safety. Google the words right blogger bastard Pentagon and take a look at the available evidence which has been collated on to that site. Take the time to look through it and I'm pretty sure you'll find it hard to dispute American Airlines Flight 77 crashed there that day.
    1
  354.  @PrivateSi  But it isn't a mystery, we know pretty much every detail of the event, hence the overwhelming consensus of agreement amongst experts in every related field. Who's arguing? I'm simply asking for sufficient, credible evidence of any conspiracy. Did you look up the website i directed to you?
    1
  355.  @PrivateSi  That's great, except all you've done so far is offer a highly irrational opinion and made several demonstrably false claims without providing a shred of credible evidence to back it up, whilst also failing to even acknowledge (let alone refute) any rebuttals made. And you're accusing me of being gullible? You're the one blindly believing everything you read on the internet whereas i not only know how to conduct proper research, but also have the vast consensus of experts stood firmly behind me. Unlike you, i can back up my arguments and easily debunk yours. Hell, you even claimed the hijackers were still alive which was totally debunked 20yrs ago! Your misplaced bravado doesn't quite cut it in the real world sorry champ. I've asked you for evidence and you've failed. You've made several claims I've debunked and you refuse to address them. I even pointed you towards a source that provides a mountain of evidence that shows AA Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon to be an incontrovertible fact and you haven't even bothered to look. These aren't the actions of somebody with a genuine desire for truth and if anybody is getting suckered into buying a bridge, it is you. One thing i am not is gullible, far from it. Unlike you, I've read the actual studies and don't run away or bury my head to facts simply because they don't support my agenda. I embrace the full body of evidence, you should try it. I don't "believe" 9 Saudi's with fake passports" pulled this attack off; i simply accept the overwhelming evidence which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 15 Saudi nationalists (plus 2 from the UAE, 1 from Egypt and another from Lebanon) carried out the attacks. You don't even know how many hijackers there were or where they were from 🙈 Why talk so arrogantly about something you clearly know very little about? Why pretend it's a mystery when we have all the facts and evidence to back it up? If you (or anybody else) were to furnish me with sufficient, credible evidence of an 'inside job', i would happily change my opinion in a heartbeat. You can not say the same which speaks for itself.
    1
  356.  @zuckfacegobbels4527  Sounds like you are a conspiracy theorist if you believe a temporarily missing 2.3 trillion dollars had any bearing on anything here, or that 911 was an inside jurb. If the [tinfoil] hat fits 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  357.  @PrivateSi  Did you look at that website?
    1
  358. Really? How about you name ONE SINGLE demolitions expert who believes that? Guarantee you can't because there aren't any. The irony of you guys being called 'truthers' given the level of lies you all tell is mind-blowing.
    1
  359.  @lmiked84  Is that so? Show me a controlled demolition that starts 2/3rds of the way up a building. In reality, to anybody who knows anything about demolition, the twin towers looked NOTHING whatsoever likena controlled demolition. As for your 'plausible' theory in WTC7, that may sound plausible to you but to any fair-minded individual, it sounds as bat-sh!t crazy as the rest of what you crackpots believe. If it was such a shock and unexpected, please explain how the fire fighters knew several hours before that a collapse was inevitable? 🤔 I guess you must believe the fire fighters were in on this alleged conspiracy too 🙈
    1
  360.  @richardj9016  Except there are plenty more that have collapsed SOLELY from fire (without airliners laden with fuel slamming into them at 500mph, nor having thousands of tons of debris drop on to them) before and since 9/11. You morons just continue to spread lies even after being corrected. And that's why you all gather here to blow smoke up each other's backsides, because nobody in the real world takes any notice of you, and rightly so.
    1
  361.  @crangonvulgaris9820  Love how after telling you that you'd run away rather than address the evidence, you literally did exactly as predicted 🏃‍♂️💨 👋🏽😂
    1
  362.  @crangonvulgaris9820  As usual, it all sounds very compelling.......but then we look at the reality and see it isn't compelling at all. Just a typical truther smokescreen. You're talking about ae911truth who are a bogus organisation comprised mostly of crackpots and misfits, around 80% of which have ZERO knowledge, experience or understanding of controlled demolition, structural engineering or high-rise construction. Who cares what say, a software engineer or an electrical engineer thinks about such matters?? It's taken them all these years to collect less than 3500 signatures which make up less than 0.01% of their respective communities. It's a pathetic, puny attempt of an argument from authority. They have been shown to be exceptional dishonest, untrustworthy and corrupt to the core. The AIA actually took a vote as to whether their members believed there should be another investigation and 97% overwhelmingly voted against. So you see, it's YOU who believes he's more knowledgeable and has found something out that the vast consensus of experts have somehow missed, not i..... punk. You guys keep claiming demolition experts agree the twin towers were demoed yet not one of you can name a single one! Either name one or admit you're lying. No excuses, it should be a simple task but I guarantee you won't. You people don't give a damn about truth.
    1
  363.  @crangonvulgaris9820  So exactly as predicted, not one name. Ypure a liar, just like every other so-called truther I've ever encountered. And here you now are, shouting conspiracy and then asking ME for evidence! 🙈😂 You might want to try and familiarise yourself with the concept of burden of proof. Try again.
    1
  364.  @crangonvulgaris9820  Gone so soon? 🙄 🏃‍♂️💨 👋🏽😂
    1
  365.  @crangonvulgaris9820  My sentiments exactly, however you do serve as a warning to other, less broken sorts who may still be on the fence and have a genuine concern for truth, of just how mentally debilitating buying into the kind of lunacy you subscribe to. You've served your purpose, run along now, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out 👋🏽
    1
  366.  @crangonvulgaris9820  And you may be....sorry, ARE an unhinged, cowardly, tinfoil-hat wearing whackjob on an intellectual par with with mildew. So dumb you don't even understand burden of proof 🙈 Why are you even still responding when you literally have nothing to say other than superfluous nonsense in order to deflect from the fact you lack the confidence, knowledge and ability to stand by and defend your ludicrous, truly insane position. Again, keep running Mongo 👋🏽🤪
    1
  367.  @Apiaman1  Oh Mel 🙈 You really aught to check your sources because wherever you're getting your information from has to be one ridiculously unreliable source. I swear you've made most of your claims up yourself because I've never heard such nonsense before and I've been calling you kooks out on and off for quite some time. First off, who is this professor you allege Bush had struck off, have you got a name or do we have to just take your word for this? I can't find any mention of such a person anywhere so I'm sorry, without a name or source to check, i call buIIshit. Next, you say the pancake theory is buIIshit which, is true in the way that they ruled this out as the reason for collpase although, the floors DID pancake, obviously. They had to, there could be no other outcome as those floors DID pancake as the towers collapsed. You're simply confused because you've never took the time to read the studies you're clearly so desperate to dismiss. Always a sign of somebody with a genuine concern for truth 🙄 So who owns Popular Mechanics Finally you make out as though a team of demolition workers (that's what you're implying right? Correct me if I'm wrong) entered the towers every night for a week to wire them up for demolition. This is also completely untrue and once again, if you think anybody should just take your word for such ridiculous claims, you're crazy. Burden of proof is on you and before you tell everyone to do some research, i have; plenty. FAR more than you ever will in fact which is why i can say with confidence, you're full of sh!t and will literally believe anything you read on the internet without ever checking its validity. That's the problem with most truthers and one of the key factors in why nobody of worth takes anything you people say, or ever will. For the record, one of those towers would take months to wire for demolition, and then there's the bomb detection dogs that were present in the towers, of do you believe they were in on it too? And then possibly your biggest problem of explaining how the hell both towers managed to collapse at the impact zones which would be IMPOSSIBLE to do in a controlled demolition. That sole fact utterly destroys any claims of controlles demolition, there's simply no getting around that. Any devices located anywhere near those zones would have been instantly destroyed by the plane impacts and ensuing fires. Can you name ONE demolition expert who agrees with you that the twin towers were demoed. Just one will do and when you fail to do so, ask yourself why that is and then ask if you genuinely believe you have a greater knowledge of demolition than the entire demolitions community 🤔
    1
  368.  @Holymakinaw  Whoa, you cant ask a twoofer for evidence, are you mad? 🙄 lol
    1
  369.  @hobbes8737  LIAR!!!! Name ONE demolitions expert who believes the twin towers were demoed. Just one name or you've been exposed publicly as the liar you are. As for "countless architects", i think you'll find it's more like a tiny, futile, insignificant number if fringe kooks, 80% of which have no experience, knowledge or understanding of high-rise construction, structural engineering or controlled demolitions. They make up less than 0.01% of their respective communities and it gets worse when you realise it took well over a decade to gather that feeble number of signatories! 🤣 The AIA even publicly asserted they do NOT share the views of those crackpots/crooks over at ae911twoof. In reality, anybody with a shred of intellect or common sense would know it'd be all but impossible to drop those towers at the impact zones. You make such ridiculous, erroneous claims and have the audacity to say i haven't done any research?? I'm yet to meet a twoofer who's even bothered to read the studies they so desperately dismiss and you expect anybody to take you seriously? Calling you delusional doesn't come close.
    1
  370.  @Apiaman1  Cool story Mel. Now explain to everyone how ajy explosive devices located anywhere near those impact zones managed to survive the impacts and ensuing fires that raged for long after the strikes? Such devices are extremely sensitive to things like heat and geometry and would have been destroyed INSTANTLY. Yet here you are trying to tell us that you know better than the ENTIRE demolitions community? 🤔 Gtfo of here.
    1
  371.  @wildcardartsent  What does that have to do with anything? I doubt anybody trusts any government but that doesn't mean they're behind every bad thing that happens. The fact is, the conspiracy claims made about government involvement with 9/11 don't stand up to scrutiny whereas the official stance does. It's that simple.
    1
  372.  @wildcardartsent  Cool story bro. The fact is, what you believe to be suspicious isn't and you only believe that because you've been mislead by the exceptionally dishonest and ironically named 'truth community'. Give me an example of what you believe to be suspicious and let's see. If it is then I'll admit it but so far, I've not seen anything that stands up to scrutiny and hasn't already been long debunked. The problem with most truthers is, they have no real concern for truth and only care about conspiracy.
    1
  373.  @geetee2694  Agreed 👍🏼
    1
  374.  @wildcardartsent  I've read all of your replies to me and addressed them so why you say this i have no idea. As for me not reading much, far more than you it seems as you've clearly not even bothered to read the studies detailing the event. And yes, by definition you are a truther. I'm not classing you as the same kind of truther as many others (who give zero fks about truth and run away as soon as they have any conspiracy busting facts posed upon them) I've spoken with as we've not spoken long enough for that to be established. I reserve judgement on that one for now and sincerely hope you're not one of those. To address the questions you've asked me, explosions are common place and completely expected in building fires and even more so in one of this magnitude. There are many, many reasons for this such as electrical transformers going pop, oil filled generators, gas lines, diesal tanks, LNG, huge studs and bolts shearing, elevators freefalling into the ground, debris hitting the ground from a thousand foot up, entire floor slabs slamming down on to one another etc. etc. etc. There were no explosions prior to the plane impacts, that's just conjecture and isn't corroborated by anbody else, nor does the seismic data show anything of the sort. Besides, why on earth would there be bombs in the basement levels when the towers collapsed an hour to ninety minutes (depending which tower we're talking about) after the impacts and both towers collapsed at the impact zones, NOT from the bottom up? That makes no sense whatsoever and how on earth would they have evaded the bomb detection dogs present prior to the attacks? The guy you speak of who was burned and the explosions in the basement were from the ignited jet-fuel that spewed down the elevator and service shafts. All of this has been explained in rational terms using factors we know happened. This makes infinitely more sense than the alternative the conspiracy theorists propose. In respect to the allegations of insider trading, if you google the words 911myths Put Option then you will find a break down of this and see the reality for yourself. Not quite as the diehard truthers would have you believe. These people are dishonest and twist the facts to suit their agenda. Try finding a demolitions expert who believes the twin towers were demoed and then ask yourself why there aren't any. The very fact both towers collapsed at the impact zones alone utterly refutes any notion of controlled demolition.
    1
  375.  @leeohh427  Building 9?? And im sorry, at 10yrs old you have no clue whatsoever about anything remotely related to any of this and certainly no knowledge of structural engineering or controlled demolitions.
    1
  376.  @kurtwollermann2210  You're not making any sense again Kurt 🙄
    1
  377.  @fouadmas5413  You've taken his words out of context, as does every truther. He was NOT talking about a demolition, he was referring to THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS DECISION to 'pull' the operation to try and save the building as it was too heavily involved in fire and had sustained a huge amount of structural damage. The term 'pull' in demolition refers solely to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which pull the structure down. It does NOT refer to a controlled and the audios alone prove categorically that WTC7 was NOT an explosive demolition. Those things are pretty damn loud you know lol.
    1
  378.  @stonehaven2289  Sheep? Says the guy who blindly believes what he reads on notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites 😂 Truthers epitomise sheeplike behaviour whilst we choose science which is about as far removed from sheeplike behaviour as you can get. Do you guys ever say things that don't make you sound dumb as fk?
    1
  379.  @fouadmas5413  I have and i know full well what he meant and therefore, you HAVE taken it out of context. He clearly says "THEY decided to pull", meaning the fire department. Why on earth would he out himself on a pre-recorded interview and why would anybody take such orders off a property mogul?? No, it was the decision of Chief of Department Dan Nigro, and only hos decision. He has publicly confirmed this so there is no debate here. Again, the audios alone PROVE this was not an explosive demolition. I can find you the quotes from the fire fighters there that day, including Chief Nigro's statements on the matter if you like? Like i said, never in demolition circles does 'pull' refer to an explosive demolition.
    1
  380.  @jackno7danls  Eye witness accounts are the most unreliable form of evidence. We have footage, wreckage, radar tracks, the remains of passengers who were on board, there really is no question about it that those planes hit that day and anybody who disputes this is quite frankly fkn mental 🤪👈🏽
    1
  381.  @benperkins9237  Nope, impossible. There were bomb detection dogs present the whole time and the work required to rig such a building with explosives would take several months and would be blatantly obvious. There would be so much evidence in the rubble also yet there was none. The fact both towers collapsed at the impact zones alone utterly destroys all claims of controlled demolition, hence why there isn't a demolitions expert on earth claiming otherwise. But hey, if you want to pretend you know better than the entire demolitions community, so be it. Just don't expect anybody of fair mind to take anything you say seriously. Operation Northwoods was immediately rejected and never happened so try to crowbar that into this discussion all you like, it has literally no relevance whatsoever to this topic.
    1
  382.  @darenbergstrom9565  More truther rubbish. Marvin Bush was a director from 1993 until 2000so where you've got your information from i dont know but clearly an unreliable source. Security couldn't have been tighter during the build-up to the attacks and there were bomb detection dogs present the whole time. To say this was the only day Silverstein hadn't attended the towers is just nonsense. He'd had plenty of days off for meetings, appointments, sickness, holidays etc. This was merely one of them due to him having a chiropodist appointment of which his wife insisted he attend. So yes, coincidence and nothing more. Some people will ALWAYS gain financially from war and such atrocities, but that in bo way, shape or form equated to guilt in any way. Such infantile logic and rationale. Do you have any actual evidence to support your whacky beliefs, or is that it? If that's it then i suggest you raise the bar a little because your standard of proof is pretty pathetic to say the least.
    1
  383.  @silverman5707  Did it blow many 911 twoofers spurious claims completely out of the water?
    1
  384.  @silverman5707  So just another buIIsh!t truther video repeating the same old, denunked nonsense 🙄 When are you lot going to learn to conduct proper research instead of believing everything you hear on notoriously unreliable sources?
    1
  385.  @zmqazi1099  What, that started 2 thirds of the way up the building at the precise location the plane's struck?? 🤣 Ok mate lol. Find me ONE demolitions expert who agrees with you.
    1
  386.  @zmqazi1099  Nice strawman! 🤣 No steel melted, sorry to burst your bubble. No name then? You clearly know better than the ENTIRE demolitions community 🤪👍🏼
    1
  387.  @jamesjennings4206  Oh sweet Jesus 🙈 Did you serious just cite Donald Trump? 🤣 Planes get taken down by geese?? And?????? 😂😂😂 Please, please explain the relevance of that lol. The fact you don't understand how a 200 ton mass travelling around 500mph and striking with the force equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT then this is a nonestarter. You know we cut steel with water right? Hit perfectly you say? As opposed to what? They had miles and miles of clear skies in almost perfectly flying conditions to lone themselves up, a fkng monkey could have done it, even a low IQ twoofer! 50hrs in a Cessna? 🤔 I take it you're unaware they had gained commercial pilot licences and fail to understand how stupidly simple and easy it is to steer a plane? The difficult parts of flying is the take of and landing, neither of which those guys had to concern themselves about. You say "pilots came out of the woodworks and said they themselves couldn't get a plane to descend at thay rate and they would tear apart", to which i call you a fkn liar. Name one! Neither of those planes even exceeded their VD limit!!! 🤣🤣🤣 You clowns are so full of sh!t, it's no wonder why nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notoceof anything you say. You really are blinded by stupidity and ignorance.
    1
  388.  @zmqazi1099  Keep running 🏃‍♂️ 👋🏽😂
    1
  389.  @sevenmilewhite1407  Your response has no relevance to my reply to you 🤷🏽‍♂️ Nobody else has what?? Isolation tank? What are you talking about, did you forget your medication or something? Why have you just ignored everything i said and replied with some random, irrelevant nonsense? You claim controlled demolition yet there doesn't seem to be a demolitions expert alive who agrees with you, why is that? 🤔 Maybe it's just because they didn't watch the collapse in slow motion like you 🤣🤣🤣 Genius lol
    1
  390.  @abdullah04_m  There was no explosive devices and no demolition experts said anything of the sort. You need to understand that most truther are by definition, ironically liars.
    1
  391.  @abdullah04_m  No there wasn't. Some fire fighters naturally assumed there were bombs present because they knew it was a terrorist attack and the building had been bombed previously. The reality however says different. Both towers collapsed precisely at the impact zones so why the hell would there be bombs lower down? That makes zero sense whatsoever. Try finding a single demolitions expert who believes the towers were demoed. I guarantee you won't find any. How also would bombs have gone undetected by the bomb detection dogs present? I just don't get why some people are so desperate to believe this was a government conspiracy, it's just bizarre.
    1
  392.  @abdullah04_m  Nice strawman lol. Who said anything about believing the government??? Did you not read what I said? Address what i said or just admit you're just another unhinged, deluded, tinfoil hat wearing member of the lunatic fringe who would rather deflect from reality and run away from the facts than admit he's wrong. No requirement to believe the government on anything I said and you know it. Your argument is so fundamentally flawed and easy to refute on so many independent grounds, it's not funny. What is funny is watching you deflect from the fact the entire demolitions community say you're full of sh!t.
    1
  393.  @Apiaman1  Mel, you clearly live on a fantasy world and have no issues lying to try and validate your pathetic, failed, kooky conspiracy theories. He lost millions which is easily verified. His payout didn't even cover the cost of the rebuild whilst losing millions in rent, whilst still having to fork out milliona for his lease contract. So Mel, please explain to everyone here how you've concluded he made money from this or admit you're just a lying whackjob. Again, 'pull' is NOT a demolition term that refers to an explosive demolition, EVER. How dull your life must be to need such conspiracies in it irrespective of the evidence. Changed his tune?? Lol, he changed nothing. If it was as you say, why the hell would he have allowed that interview to be broadcast?? It wasn't live, he could easily have stopped the interview, made his excuses and asked to go again but no, dumb fks like you actually believe an extremely intelligent, savvy individual outed himself in such a way 🤣 Here's the reality Mel, straight from the horse's mouth: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged WTC 7 a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision." - Dan Nigro Chief of Department FDNY I suppose you'll now claim the fire fighters tending to the strucure were all in on this alleged conspiracy too right? 🤪👈🏽 lol How fo you explain the lack if audible explosions at the moment of collapse? You've clearly never witnessed a controlled demolition because if you had, you'd know just how deafeningly loud they are, yet no such bangs in any of the audios, nor corroborating seismic signature from seismometers located around that area. In fact, it was calculated that the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, so where was it? I guarantee you won't address any of the fundamental facts put to you because as we both know, there is no rational justification to explain away the above. Just do the inevitable and run away now, just like every other dumb twoofer does when faced with uncomfortable facts they can't reconcile with their feeble-minded delusions. I'd love to have a proper debate with one of you guys but you're all spineless, fact-dodging cowards which is partly why you guys will never be taken seriously. That and the fact you literally have ZERO evidence whatsoever that stands up to scrutiny to support your tinfoil hat buIIsh!t. Now run along and save yourself further humiliation.
    1
  394.  @Apiaman1  After reading another one of your ridiculous comments, i would like to address something you said to gee Tee. What are the names of these professors you claim were struck off after Bush himself took the time to visit the universities to get them sacked, because that's likely the way it would work right? The president of the United States arriving in person to do such a deed 🤣 You are clearly deranged lol. But give me the names so i can look into your claims, but i guarantee you're lying through your teeth. Also, you said that thermate is used in demolition. Where the actual fk did you get that little gem from??? 🙈 Find me ONE demolitions company that uses thermate to bring down buildings. There really is no limit to the level of dishonesty and deceit you crackpots will sink to is there? People like you are a disgrace and an embarrassment to your country and humanity in general.
    1
  395.  @smeghead7698  LIAR!!! That is NOT what they said at all. They never said they were "sent" to do anything and by document the event, they simply meant they started filming it. Anybody who pointed their camera at the towers that day did so to 'document the event' but your morons just twist everything to fit with your agenda whilst running away from all evidence that opposes it, hence why nobody takes you people seriously and why you have to come on here to seek an echo chamber.
    1
  396.  @snatchhog  Everyone of what??? I've made quite a few comments on this thread so have no idea what you're referring to.
    1
  397.  @snatchhog  "Boxes of detonate"?? What the fk are you talking about you lying kook? The pictire you refer to shows boxes of electrical fuses, nothing more. Google the writing on the boxes and see for yourself you delusional clown. So bizarre you people are this desperate to believe the government planned this, is your life seriously that dull?you If the towers were wired for demolition then please explain why ZERO evidence of explosives (eg. Detcord, detonator caps etc.) were found when there would be miles and miles of it throughout, then explain how it was that both towers collapsed precisely at the impact zones?? That fact alone decimates your ridiculous theory given how sensitive explosives are to things like heat and geometry. Yet here you are saying they withstood a direct hit from a 757 striking with the force equivalent of 1.35 tons of TNT, then survived the ensuing fires for 60-90 minutes lol. You're off your fkn trolley mate 🤣
    1
  398.  @carsonmarshall5736  Literally EVERY single thing you claim is false. At 550 degrees, steel has lost 50% of it's strength. No steel needed to melt, what part of that do you not understand about this unbelievably simple concept? You guys with your strawman arguments lol. Zero evidence of thermite whatsoever, stop lying. Never has a 200 ton airliner fully laden with fuel, hit a non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure at 500mph, so what you're comparing here i do not know but you clearly lack the ability to think critically.
    1
  399.  @gusmarokity6482  No. At the time of the attacks he had nothing to do with the company.
    1
  400.  @Apiaman1  Still lying through your teeth i see 🙄 lol
    1
  401. @Redrum357 By tower 3 i assume you mean WTC 7 as WTC 3 didn't collapse. If so then whereas it wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by THOUSANDS of tons of falling debris from the collapsing towers which led to widespread fires across many floors, of which were left to freeburn. The fire fighters tending to builidng 7 publicly stated that day that a collapse was inevitable, several hours before it fell. It was either that obvious to them, or they were in on this alleged conspiracy you believe. Which was it? Ps. For the record, the twin towers didn't collpase because of the plane impacts. All 3 collapsed due to fire.
    1
  402.  @hazelkagey6739  Space lasers and magic thermite hey? 🤔 Sounds like a rational theory ......🙄🤣
    1
  403.  @robertkennzingtonenterpris8684  LIAR!!! All gold stored there was recovered and accounted for. You people are shameless. The irony that you're labelled as 'truthers' given how many lies you tell.
    1
  404.  @dwightward4389  Empty claims Dwight, yet no facts. To say no buildings have ever collapsed like those 3 on 911 is such a meaningless statement. This was an unprecedented event; a one off that's never happened before, so what are you trying to compare them with?? It's just a pathetic strawman argument. It should however be noted that many buildings have collapsed SOLELY from fire without having being hit by a 200 ton mass laden with kerosene, slamming into them at 500+mph and striking with the force equivalent to that of 1.35 tons of TNT. Did the planes smashing into them at such a force, with all that jet fuel on board make them less likely to collapse in your tiny mind? Your argument makes zero sense. Just tell me how you explain both towers collapsing at the impact zones, or have your not thought about that conspriacy busting, demolition destroying fact?
    1
  405.  @toejam6941  You're welcome! Im not sure exactly what you're referring to though sorry 🙄 lol
    1
  406.  @hazelkagey6739  More lunacy spouted as fact when all your claims have been thoroughly, and utterly debunked long ago, even by your own fellow truthers eg. Dr Greg Jenkins. Judy Woods is a proven liar and conmerchant and i don't care if you claim to have been wandering around ground zero in the days that followed (obviously total buIIsh!t), we know full well why the heat remained and it doesn't take a genius to work it out. It's called 'insulation'. Heat was was of the main byproducts of the collapses which I'm sure i don't need to explain. Then all the debris covered it and insulated the area, thus keeping the heat trapped. There were also basement levels which would have served to supply oxygen to these areas and create almost like a furnace type scenario. No need to invent whacky theories about space lasers and magic thermite, of which there is ZERO evidence to support which if true, would be abundant. Vehicles damaged were due to falling, flaming debris, NOT Jewish space lasers 🙈 You're clearly bot wired right Hazel if you truly believe the lunacy you're spouting. Your theory is even more crazy than Judy Woods which is the pseudoscientific theory you seem to be building upon. Planned demolition you say? Strange how there isn't a single demolitions expert on earth who seems to agree with you, but yes, im the one claiming to be an expert right? 🙄 The fact you actually believe people are getting paid to come on to youtube to counter the insane claims of the tinfoil hat wearing members of the lunatic fringe speaks volumes about the state of your mental health. Seriously, you actually believe that happens?? 🙈 Can you imagine how morally bankrupt somebody would need to be to help cover up the mass murder of thousands of their fellow citizens? Yet not a single whistle-blower 🤔 Sounds likely lol. Get a grip Hazel, is it really that difficult to comprehend that most people simply don't believe the easily debunked madness you do? What your point about birds hitting and damaging the nose cones of planes is i have no idea. How is that relevant? Do you think the official stance is the planes survived?? No, they were shredded on impact but that doesn't mean they didn't cause immense damage when they hit! Did you skip you high school physics classes? Your painfully poor understanding of basic physics isn't an excuse sorry. Again, not a single physicist on the planet making this argument ...... but you know best, right Hazel? 🤪👈🏽 Regarding the "explosions" in the floors below as the towers are collapsing, as everyone with a shred of knowledge of this event knows, all we're observing is air being violently expelled as floor slabs slam down on to one another. Drop a heavy book on to a dusty table and you'll see what i mean. That air has to go somewhere, how can you not understand something so simple? We observe the EXACT same thing during a verinage demolition which don't use ANY explosives. Please explain to me how both towers managed to collapse precisely at the impact zones? Ps. You say the public aren't dumb and i agree. That doesn't however make them experts in high-rise construction, structural engineering, controlled demolition, metallurgy, aviation, aeronautical engineering and all the other fields related to this event. In terms of what the experts do think, the overwhelming consensus of experts in every related field stand firmly behind me. Pps. Just look how yoh congratulate somebody for spreading lies which are easily verified as utter garbage. You have zere concern for truth and are only interested in finding an echo chamber, even though the guy your congratulating on his lies almost certainly thinks your theory is absolute hogwash. I don't think you quite realise how you really are the fringe of the fringe and if you're here looking for confirmation bias, good luck with that.
    1
  407.  @VG-rj8pn  Another stupid, meaningless, truther comment 🙈
    1
  408.  @tysonatkins2236  If this was true then he clearly meant collapse. It'll take a not more than such conjecture if you're going to try and irrationally claim demolition.
    1
  409.  @tysonatkins2236  Except it didn't "fall at the same time", the collapse was highly asymmetrical. By "profits" you mean was only awarded HALF of his claim, losing a fortune in the event and not even claiming enough for the rebuild. That would make THE worst insurance scam in history lol. The BBC didn't predict the collapse, the fire fighters who assessed and tended to the structure did and the BBC simply reported it wronf. Fully explained and debunked, just like every other one of your irrational arguments. By "wasn't struck", you mean apart from the thousands of tons of falling debris from the collapsing towers, which led to widespread fires on many floors which were left to freeburn for 2 hours beyond what the fireproofing was rated at? NORAD run a wide range of simulations such as these all the time. This argument has also been utterly refuted and is not how you people claim 🙈 The odd one waa a similar circumstanced exercise but not the same. Rumsfeld did NOT suddenly announced the alleged missing money that was never actually missinf and later tracked. It was made public as far back 1999 and menetioned publicly several times prior to 9/11. If what you believe were true, why bother announcing at all?? Makes as much sense as everything else you irrationally believe sorry.
    1
  410.  @bencavert7421  Yeah great, except it had nothing to do with the government and the entire event was heavily documented.
    1
  411.  @tysonatkins2236  Show me your evidence it was going to cost 1 billion dollars to remove otherwise I'll take it as you're just repeating other truthers or lying. Irrespective of this, AGAIN, 4.5 billlion was HALF of the claim and DID NOT COVER THE COST OF THE REBUILD, so how the hell are you claiming it was 4.5 billion profit??? You're clueless and demonstrably wrong. And no, the insurance policy had NOT been "recently revised" at all. Acts of terrorism was standard in thr policy as it is with all such policies and was a contractual obligation forced upon Silverstein by the Port Authority of whom he leased the complex off. Are you intentionally lying or do you actually believe what you're saying?
    1
  412.  @tysonatkins2236  Well your research clearly didn't include basic physics as there really isn't much that will stop a 200 ton mass travelling in excess of 500mph and striking with a force equivalent to 1.35 tons TNT. If a piece of 2x4 can punch through concrete just as a result of wind, I'm sure as hell those planes could punch through the aluminium facade of the twin towers, taking a few structural columns with it. In fact the math has shown that those planes could have been travelling much slower and would still have struck with enough force to smash through those columns. You've heard of Northwoods? Wow. Find me a conspiracy crackpot that hasn't. It means nothing and it never happened in case you wasn't aware. It shows how desperate you must be for evidence to be using that one. The planes look the same in all footage and the wreckage and radar tracks prove they were as claimed by the official stance. To suggest otherwise is utter lunacy.
    1
  413.  @iancatt5915  It wasn't missing as in gone completely, never to be seen again. Truthers use this ridiculous argument to desperately try and prop up their failed conspiracy theory. Why the hell would Rumsfeld speak about it publicly if theynstole it and used it to fund 9/11??? In reality, it was merely a case of them having difficulty tracking the money due to them having outmoded, incompatible software between departments. It was later tracked and accounted for. Any more straws to clutch or are you done?
    1
  414.  @davidmusial1611  Wait, did you just suggest 9/11 was just an insurance scam to save having to pay for asbestos removal? 🙈 Dear god alive lol, seriously?? That's absurd! Plus, kinda backfired somewhat given how much money Silverstein lost in the attacks 🤔
    1
  415.  @davidmusial1611  Your lifetime of studying science tells you freefall cant be achieved withouf explosives?? Try buckling yiu clueless clown! Buckling can and does result in freefall and as witnessed in WTC7, freefall occurred MIDWAY through the collapse as would be the case if buckling was the cause, as opposed to immediately from collapse initiation as would be the case if it were a result of explosives. But hey, those were magical, invisible, silent explosives that left no trace of any blast event or evidence whatsoever so who knows 🙄 lol, who are you trying to fool here with your pseudointellectual nonsense?
    1
  416.  @davidmusial1611  Accusing me of copying and pasting my replies?? LIAR!!!!! Never have i done that in my life. I might make the same points amd jse similar wording because we're discussing the same topic so that stands to reason, but i do NOT copy and paste the same replies. Feel free to prove me wrong which you could easily do if you're right. The fact you actually believe people get paid to come on to youtube to counter the argument of delusional crackpots who nobody in the real world takes seriously as you know, in an attempt to cover up the mass murder of thousands of their fellow, innocent countrymen speaks for itself. You're just a typical conspiracy kook who lacks the ability, knowledge and confidence to stand by his convictions. Your ridiculous conspiracy theories have utterly failed and are dead in the water. You need to accrpt this, let go and move on and stop p!ssing on the graves of those who sadly perished that day.
    1
  417.  @davidmusial1611  As for "no science, no logic, just say what someone else said", you mean exactly what you're doing, or did you come up with your fantasy insurance scam reasoning all by yourself? That couldn't possibly be a better example of no science, no logic, just saying what someone else said .......and looking pretty fkng stupid by doing so. You don't seem to be aware of the scientific studies conducted that detail this event. WE are the ones with the science behind up, that's tha fundamental problem truthers have, zero science to support their lunacy. Try reading those studies, how anout that for a novel idea. You'd probably be the first truther to do so if you did. Tell me David, how would a controlled demolition bring both towers down at the precise locations the towers collapsed? Why aren't there any demolition experts who agree with you the twin towers came down via a controlled demo? 🤔 I'll await your excuses not to answer these fundamental questions. You're all way too predictable 😏
    1
  418.  @stevenseagal4664  .
    1
  419.  @stevenseagal4664  .
    1
  420.  @stevenseagal4664  .
    1
  421. @TheGrimm459 Would you not expect explosions when a plane fully laden with fuel slammed into a skyscraper?
    1
  422. @TheGrimm459 Most explosions reported and witnessed (including those few that were in sequence and easily explained) were way before the buildings fell and those that happened during the collapse were the same as we observe during verinage demolitions which don't use explosives. There are many reasons for this i can give you if you're genuinely interested, but as the world's leading experts on controlled demolition said, it would be impossible to have brought the twin towers down in the manner in which they fell, by means of a controlled demolition. The fact both towers collapsed at the impact zones alone refutes any notion of controlled demolition. Loud bangs and explosions are common and expected during building fires/collapses.
    1
  423.  @cscheatum  And? He was also known tonhave changed his story and been a very unreliable witness. The audios alone PROVE no explosives were used in WTC7 so i don't really care what this discredited source believed.
    1
  424.  @BeefTallowBoy  No mate, you're just a basement dwelling beIIend trying to be relevant 🤷
    1
  425. Proven liar and fraud who uses pseudoscience and demonstrable falsehoods to sell her snakeoil and dupe the gullible and the stupid. Dustification??? 🤣 Ffs. Even her fellow twoofers destroyed her claims and showed it would have taken the power output of FIVE times that if our entire earth lol.
    1
  426.  @jpmonin7429  Jesus, every 9/11 cliché going; all of which long refuted meaning, you don't know how to conduct proper research. Let me help you out a little. Eye witness accounts of "hearing explosions in the basement", so what? Explosions/loud bangs arr common place and expected in building fires, especially in ones of this magnitude. There are many, many reasons for hearing such things, In the basement what happened was ignited jetfuel flowed down elevator and service shafts. We KNOW this happened so deny it if you like, it won't change the reality. Just ask yourself, why on earth would anybody plant explosives in the basement?? It makes zero sense. In case you hadn't noticed, both towers collapsed at the impact zones. That fact alone refutes any claims of controlled demolition hence why you can't name a single demolitions expert who believes the twin towers were demoed, but hey, if you want to delude yourself that you know better than the entire demolitions community, that's up to you. Just don't expect anybody to take anything you say seriously. Regarding claims of molten steel, all conjecture sorry. It was assumed it was steel but in reality it was molten aluminum contaminated with a few other metals with lower melting points. There were thousands of tons of aluminium present and we KNOW temperatures were high enough to melt it. If you have any non-conjectural evidence of molten steel (eg. a chemical analysis of the molten metal found) lets hear it. If not it's a moot point. Regarding WTC7, the studies showed they were not diesel fires so well done for not even bothering to read the actual studies, you clearly have a genuine concern for truth and take the matter very seriously 🙄 Tell me, if it was such a shock and unexpected to collapse, why were the fire fighters publicly asserting a collapse was inevitable several hours before it fell? Why did they pull everyone out and away from the building and create a collapse zone if it wasn't expected to fall? Again, the reality is they know full well that ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure left to freeburn will inevitably collapse 100% of the time. There can be no other outcome and WTC7 was especially prone to fire due to the implementation of longspan beams to create an open atrium. What is your issue with Flight 77 all but disintegrating after slamming into a heavily reinforced concrete structure at 500mph?? You can see footage of a plane much smaller and lighter than a 767 vapourising on impact when hitting a similar wall at the same speed. It's physics and easily verified. That said, plebty of identifiable wreckage of Flight 77 remained, including the black box. Flight 93 nose-dived into the ground at high speed with its engines throttled up, and you expected that to remain intact?? 🙈 That's absurd. Again though 95% of that plane was recovered (including the black box) by hundreds of volunteers who scoured the area picking it uo, scattered far and wide. All in on the conspiracy along with the fire fighters yeah? Lol, get a grip. It's also quite common for passports to survive plane crashes and the passport in question was found along with literally thousands of pieces of paper that was also ejected as the planes hit. It's due to paper having a large surface to mass ratio meaning it is far more likely to survive a blast and be ejected. You're obviously suggesting it was planted which is again, ludicrous and would be a needless risk given the guy was on the flight manifest so we know he was on board. What would be the point in planting it? It'd be pointless. I cannot believe you're still claiming the hijackers are still alive when that was debunked and put to bed within 2 weeks of the event! lol. No serious truther uses that one any more and haven't done for 20yrs. You seriously need to start checking your sources.
    1
  427.  @DrugBa642  Sorry, this is video and thread about 9/11. I'm not getting into more irrational conspiracy theories based on something that hasn't even happened.
    1
  428.  @kiwidiesel  Partly because i appreciate reality and partly because it's handy to kill a few minutes if i find myself waiting around, just as I'm doing right now, waiting for a work colleague. I only ever use my phone so it takes seconds.
    1
  429.  @kiwidiesel  Thanks buddy, you take it easy 👍🏼
    1
  430.  @davidmcdonald7298  Ok stupid, clearly reality is an issue for you because neither of the twin towers looked ANYTHING like a controlles demolition which is why there isn't a demolitions expert on earth who seemingly believes otherwise. In fact Mark Loizeaux who heads up CDI Inc. (the world's leading authority on controlled demolition) has stated publicly that it would be impossible to have brought those towers down in that manner via a controlled demolition for several reasons. The fact both towers dropped at the impact zone alone PROVES they were not demoed because what you're failing to understand is that demolition devices are EXTREMELY sensitive to things like heat and geometry, yet you're here telling me that they somehow managed to survive the plane impacts and ensuing fires for 60 and 90 minutes??? Gtfo of here you clown. You blindly believe the utter lunacy spouted by other members of the tinfoil hat wearing lunatic fringe, and you have the audacity to call others sheep?? Hypocrisy, much? 🤔 For the record, all 3 buildings collapsed from fire, not the plane impacts. Regarding builidng 7, the collapse was anything but perfect and was highly asymmetrical. It was predicted to collapse HOURS before it fell by the fire fighters who were tending it and who assessed it. It burned for 2hrs beyond what its fire-proofing was rated at and as anybody who knows anything about such things would tell you, ANY steel structure (non-concrete reinforced) WILL eventually collapse if left to burn, 100% of the time. The audio tapes and seismic signature prove it wasn't demoed. You're just another deluded, crackpot twoofer who believes everything he hears on the internet whilst refusing to acknowledge any of the fundamental problems like the ones I've just highlighted, desperately tryinfnto cling on to your beliefs because it makes you feel special, figuring out something the rest of us are apparently oblivious to. I'll just stick with the facts and side with the experts thanks 🤪👍🏼
    1
  431. 🤪👈🏽
    1
  432.  @gabemarshall7777  Name one demolitions expert who agrees with you that the twin towers were demoed.
    1
  433.  @Bowhunter777  Insuring a building/business is common place so why you guys make a deal out of Silverstein insuring the complex i don't know. He literally had no choice as it was in the contract he had to sign on order to lease the complex from the Port Authority. He hadn't even finalised the policies at the time of the attacks and the reality is, he lost a fortune as a result. He was paid out only half of his claim which didn't even cover the rebuild costs, let alone all the money he lost in revenue whilst still having to pay millions in rent to the Port Authority. It's safe to say that Silverstein had nothing to do with this and utterly absurd to even suggest otherwise.
    1
  434.  @TubeYou138  The BBC prematurely reported WTC7's demise due to a Reuters feed that went out to most major news outlets, stating that it had collapsed. This was simply down to Chinese whispers because the fire fighters who assessed the structure had deemed a collapse was inevitable several hours before it fell. They pulled everybody out and away from the building to create a safe collapse zone. Unfortunately in all the confusion, it was wrongly reported as it had collapsed and was one of several wrongly reported things said that day, as is the nature of live reporting; happens all the time. To even contemplate that the US government would notify the British Broadcasting Company of their plan and take such a HUGE needless risk, when all they'd have to do was wait for it to come down and then allow them to report it as it happened, risk free? Please explain your logic to me because i just don't get it. As for WTC7 not being hit, I'd say having thousands of tons of flaming debris slamming down on to it from up to a thousand foot, could potentially be classed as 'being hit' 🤔 For the record, Jane Stanley reported the collapse 26 minutes before it fell, as opposed to the "hours" you claimed.
    1
  435.  @motherearth1147  The actual size of the impact hole at the Pentagon was about 96ft wide and around 26ft high. I think you must be confusing the exit hole in Ring C of the building which was naturally much smaller and created by the landing gear punching through.
    1
  436.  @moh13666  Then surely if it was a government conspiracy as some people claim, why not blame it on Iraqis instead of Saudi's? Makes no sense, just like all the other conspiracy claims.
    1
  437.  Michael Hoffman  What exactly would you like to know about building 7? Of course, if you really had a genuine desire to know, you'd have read the studies which have been in the public domain for many years of which detail what happened to that building that day.
    1
  438.  @laniejuanitawhitehurst1624  A big problem was that the hijackers had switched off the plane's transponders and were therefore all but invisible to the ATC. They simply didn't know what their intended targets were until it was too late.
    1
  439.  @harijotkhalsa5546  Is my response not clear? Your understanding of gravity is wrong.
    1
  440.  @MrSpaceace1999  Just tried to post 5 images separately and not one remains when i refresh the page. It won't allow me to. You'll probably chalk that up as a win as opposed to googling it yourself and finding those very easy to find images, but that's your choice. Like i said, HUNDREDS of volunteers searched the entire area with a fine-tooth comb and recovered, in total, around 95% of the aircraft, including the black box. Are you saying this isn't true and these volunteers were all paid to help the US government cover up the mass murder of thousands of innocent fellow American citizens? Do you understand the lunacy of holding such a belief?
    1
  441.  Michael Hoffman  Well that was short lived Michael. I replied just before going to bed and waa looking forward to waking up to your reply. Alas, silence.
    1
  442.  @motherearth1147  You can't even work out the difference between an entry and an exit hole and you're calling me an idiot? I've got leather shoes with greater mental function than you, you feckless dullard. In answer to your question, as I've already stated in this thread, there WERE seats recovered from inside, still with the scorched remains of the occupants strapped into them. This was reported by first emergency responders and images of these were accepted at evidence in a court of law during the Moussaoui trial. It was good enough for the defence and judge to accept so I'll take that over the unlearned opinion of a tinfoil hat wearing whackjob who lies so freely in order to desperately try and validate his precious conspiracy theory. OBVIOUSLY almost all of the bodies (save maybe a couple situated at the very back of the aircraft) would have been all vut vapourised on impact due to the immense forces at play. The fact your think soft tissue could survive such an event again highlights the level of intellect we're dealing with here. Engines parts were recovered so wrong again, as was plenty of other wreckage including the black box. The fuselage of the plane is made of a thin aluminium skin, and you expected that to survive an impact with a heavily reinforced wall at 600mph??? 🙈 Your understanding of physical forces is that of a small child. Google Phantom F15 crash test and watch what happens when a plane hits a reinforced wall at 500mph. It vapourises!! This was a much greater mass travelling with a greater velocity so, enough said. 136 people from all walks of life, (most sat in traffic on their daily commute) directly witnessed the plane's approach and we literally have an image of it which we can zoom in on and see what is quite obviously a large airliner displaying the American Airlines livery. The damage to the building as well as to structures struck on approach confirm the dimensions of a Boeing 757 perfectly. But hey, you think 136 people (including pilots who'd flown 757's) couldn't tell the difference between a 20ft missile with a 9ft wingspan and a 155ft airliner with a 125ft wingspan 🤪👍🏼 You seriously need to stop smoking what you're smoking and get out of the house a bit more.
    1
  443.  Michael Hoffman  lol yes, so clearly a bot 🙄 What a pointless, paranoid plonker you are Michael. No problem though, hopefully it's a lesson learned and you'll think twice in future about pretending to call somebody out, only to get called out yourself and completely and utterly (and publicly) bent over and exposed as the crackpot coward you are. O use people like you to show others who are maybe on the fence still, to show them how mentally debilitating subscribing to such lunacy can be. Even people like you serve a purpose 🤗
    1
  444. @Michaelangelo S I'm sorry that you've managed to convince yourself of something you clearly have no understanding of whatsoever, just because it fits with your agenda, but a delusion is a delusion nonetheless. A plane coming over international waters is a different ball-game altogether from an internal flight in terms of being able to track it by radar. NORAD simply wasn't prepared to track threats of such attacks internally. Switch the transponder off and primary radar is lost which meant those planes were merely a 1 of 4500 blips on the ATC radar. This happened on 3 of the 4 hijacked planes with the 4th had it's transponder code changed by the hijackers. You can have your own opinions but facts remains facts regardless sorry 🤷🏽‍♂️ Regarding the size of the hole, once again facts remain facts regardless of what you claim. The hole on impact, PRIOR to the collapse you mention, WAS indeed approx 96ft wide as i said (it was actually about 75ft strictly speaking, but the impact damage was 96ft across). The collapse of the top of hole would obviously have no bearing whatsoever on the width of the entry hole. I'd happily send you a link categorically proving this but youtube won't allow me to do so. I can however guide you to a website showing this if you like, but in my experience you guys aren't overly concerned with reality and prefer to choose wilful ignorance. Let me know. For the record, the exit hole you guys are so confused about was about 12ft in diameter so i really do have no idea where you get 20ft from. I'm sure you lot just make it up as you go. Yes volunteers from fire departments and other emergency services, serving and retired. Sorry, i assumed that was fairly obvious as opposed to simply dragging civilians off the street. There was approx. 125 volunteers who took part in this and it's all documented. I'm afraid i don't have a list of their names but i do know the Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller was amongst them so there's the one that you requested. Again, ignorance is not a defence and if you really wanted to, you could easily find all of this information out for yourself, but as with the vast majority of truthers (and conspiracy theorists in general), you've already made up your mind and no amount of evidence or conflicting facts will ever change that. This is why nobody of worth takes a blind bit of notice of you guys, or ever will. Here's to another 20yrs of crying conspiracy and achieving absolutely nothing 🍻
    1
  445. @Michaelangelo S Why would you expect to see pictures of people (who said anything about volunteers at the Pentagon anyway?) pulling debris and body parts from the Pentagon?? Not going to happen. There are however plenty of images of plane debris and the inside of that particular crash site, they're really not difficult to find. The site you want to look on for a pretty concise body of evidence dealing with the Pentagon crash, including the dimensions and images of the impact (and exit) hole along with much more (including a zoomed in image of what is quite obviously a large airliner displaying the American Airlines livery on approach, prior to impact), is one you should find by googling the words 'right blogger bastard Pentagon'. You'll find everything you need right there and if you take the time to go through it all, i would be very surprised if you still didn't believe Flight 77 hit that building that day. You claim flights that veer off course or turn off their transponders are intercepted all the time, so can you give me any example from around that time period to compare response times etc.? I can't take your word for that sorry, especially since i know better. Again, NORAD was not prepared or expecting to be attacked in this way from internal flights. You can look this up and see for yourself. You can easily find the precise details of what occurred that day in terms of attempts to intercept the planes. The standard procedure was to rv at a coastal location to form a donut of defence. When the transponders were deactivated they were invisible to primary radar and became 1 of 4500 blips on the ATC screen. They had no clue as to where they were or what their targets were until it was too late. This is all documented in detail by the pilots, ATC staff and those in command. You're demonstrably wrong on this. I didn't see any comment or questions regarding any papers on thermatic material being found, but if it included any links then it has probably been picked up by the YouTube algorithm and deleted. If i had seen it then i would have highlighted that this is what's known as junk science. Peer reviewed?? I don't think so. It was the work of Niels Harrit (known as a bit of a kook in his native country of Denmark) and the religious fundamentalist Stephen Jones who once wrote a paper on the travels of Jesus Christ around America 🙄 They fraudulently tried to bypass the scientific process by purposely choosing to publish in a pay-to-publish journal made famous by the infamous C.R.A.P. paper. If you aren't aware of that, look it up, it's hilarious and exposes the kind of wrag we're dealing with here. To say this journal holds zero credibility in academia would be putting it lightly. They will literally publish anything you like if you pay. Scientists tend to turn to using such vanity jounrals as they're aware that their work won't survive the peer-review process. In reality, what Harrit and Jones found were red/grey paint chips from the primer paint used during the construction of the towers. The shop primer paint used by the LeClede steel manufacturer who supplied the steel for the towers, has been shown to be an excellent match for Harrit and Jones samples; enough said. To show how bad a paper/study this was, the editor-in-chief of Bentham Press resigned over the matter. All this so-called study was meant to do was fool the layman but no serious or credible scientist take this with any credence. The conclusions of Harrit and Jones are simply wrong. They not only do not follow from the data presented, they are actually contradicted by the data. Even Harrit et.al. themselves saw immediately what every forensic expert would immediately see: The chips are paint. They look like paint not just from visual appearance but also in microstructure and nothing about them say 'thermite'.
    1
  446.  @soberserotonin1850  They certainly had some warnings but the reality was that they didn't know how, where or when exactly attacks were coming. They were caught with their pants down basically, and yes maybe it could have been presented had information been shared better between departments. Valuable, extremely costly lessons were learned that day but i agree 100%, they were most definitely not behind it in any way.
    1
  447.  @charleshammer2928  lol, oh come on. Many have spoken out about the Iraq war without comeback. You need to just accept that Trump is a lying, cheating piece of sh!t with no redeeming qualities.
    1
  448.  @tomerschubert2095  Total negligence i agree. I don't however think for ome second that they allowed it to happen.
    1
  449.  @mlb805  Silent explosives that have no corroborating seismic signature?? 🤣 Ok buddy. Name ONE demolitions expert who believes the twin towers were demoed. Guarantee you can't, meaning you believe you know more about demolition than the entire demolitions community 🤪👍🏼 Both towers collapsed at the impact zones after burning for 60-90 minutes. That is NOT how demolitions work and any demo devices located anywhere near that area would have been instantly destroyed by the impacts and ensuing fires. They looked nothing like controlled demolitions hence why no demo expers believe what you do.
    1
  450.  @mlb805  The hijackers turned the planes transponders off meaning they became all but invisible to primary radar. The air defence simply did not know where the planes were or what their intended targets were until it was too late.
    1
  451.  @mlb805  Next you ignorantly claim WTC7 sustained no damage and wasn't on fire meaning, you literally know NOTHING whatsoever about this event, yet claim ultimate authority over the entire demolitions community and are calling the fire fighters who tended to that building liars, essentially saying they were in on this ridiculous, alleged conspiracy. Literally every single thing tou say is completely wrong, and you wonder why nobody takes any notice of 9/11 crackpots like you 🙈
    1
  452.  @prism8289  A "top demolitions man in the country", named who? I can't find ONE single demolitions expert who believes the twin towers were demoed so I'd love to hear who you're referring to.....or do we just have to take your word for it? 🤔 Oh wow, an engineer from the MIT said it was a demolition?? Well i guess that settles it!! 🤣 Have you got a name for this guy too so we can check out his credentials and see what he's basing this EASILY debunked claim on? Hundreds of engineers and architects you say? So what about the MILLIONS who seem to have no issue with the ofifcial stance? Why blindly beleive the absolute fringe who have utterly failed to back up their claims and proven themselves to be a bunch of devious charlatans who purposely tried to fraudulently circumnavigate the scientific processs in a desperate attempt to bolster their claims? There are in fact around 3,500 signatories from architects and engineers over at ae911truth, which is still a pathetically feeble number of which has taken them over a decade to collate 🤣 If this wasn't tragic enough, it gets worse when you realise that around 80% of those signatories have ZERO knowledge, experience or understanding of high-rise construction, structural engineering or controlled demolition. I mean, who cares what say, a software engineer thinks about such topics?? This takes the number of RELEVANT signatures down to around 800. 800 names out of several million out there. Really?? 🙈 This has to be THE weakest argument from authority imaginable, you really are scraping the bottom of that barrel.
    1
  453.  @prism8289  More meaningless conjectural hogwash. Do you have any ACTUAL evidence that ANYTHING other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon or not?
    1
  454.  @prism8289  I've been in several actually and nobody said it was a video game so don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Steeringa plane IS easy, in fact it couldn't be much easier. Are you seriously denying this and exposing your utter ignorance once again? You people really will deny the sky is blue whilst refusing to look up. Who are you trying to fool here? Take a flying lesson, see for yourself, in fact there are plenty of videos here on YouTube that will confirm this for you. Hell, there's even one of a 9/11 conspiracy kook like you, flying and even landing a plane after less than an hours tuition!! AGAIN, it really doesn't matter what you think because we have various PROOFS AA Flight 77 crashed there and more than eye-witnesses who confirmed a large airliner (pilots amongst them even confirming it was a 757). Talk about flogging a dead horse 🙈
    1
  455.  @prism8289  You've not quoted a single thing nor even referred to any flight school instructor so again, more lies. The comments from the flight school instructor that you're referring to, are remarks made way BEFORE they went on to have further tuition, had simulator training and gained their commercial licences. Yet again this exposes how devious and dishonest you creeps are. Ps. AGAIN, nobody is saying they were great pilots or needed to be. They were poor pilots as evidenced by Hanjour's terrible approach. Keep ignoring this, it's fine lol.
    1
  456.  @prism8289  Diversion??? Ok, not once have you mentioned the towers or collapse. Secondly, i have addressed EVERY claim you've made to me, yet you've failed to even acknowledge much of what I've responded with, simply cherrypicking your way through and shamelessly ignoring anything that opposes your view that you're unable to counter. Any name for the MIT guy yet? What about a name of a single demolitions guy who believes the twin towers were demoed? But hey, let's move on from Flight 77 if the heats getting a little too much for you (even though i haven't even listed any of the overwhelming amount of evidence we have PROVING it crashed into the Pentagon) and let's talk about the twin towers then. Let's start with you explaining how both towers managed to collapse at the impact zones rather than from the bottom up, as per a typical demolition?
    1
  457.  @prism8289  Rigggghhtttt, already addressed that bogus bunch of fringe crackpots in my comment above in my comment that starts with, 'A top demolitions expert....'. One of the many points I've made thst you've chosen to ignore. I don't care what electrical engineers, software engineers, or a a bunch of other engineers or architects from completely unrelated backgrounds. That might sound like a good argument from authority to a simple-minded dullard like yourself, but not to me. I'll stick with the actual evidence as accepted by the 99.9% of experts from RELEVANT backgrounds thanks. You might want to try and familiarise yourself with the trie nature of scientific enquiry and the processes by which it proceeds instead of relying on pathetic, feeble arguments from authority backed by NOTHING. If those crooks were genuine, why publish in a pay-to-publish rag that holds ZERO weight in academia and made the headlines for the infamous C.R.A.P. paper? Is that your idea of real science?? 🤣 There's good reason why you guys have to come on to youtube to look for an echo-chamber because in the real world, experts who subscribe to the lunacy you do are very far and few. Tell me, why did the AIA publicly denounce this cprrupt organisation? What was the vote tally amongst them requesting another investigation of WTC7? lol, get a grip. Let me know when you're able to back up your beliefs using REAL science you uneducated cretin.
    1
  458.  @prism8289  Nice try but the cameras on the interstate weren't inatalled until 2003 🤣 Still burying your head to the 136 direct eye-witnesses who ALL saw a large plane, some identifyingit specifically as a Boeing 757. Not one report of a missile, drone or small plane but hey, don't concern yourself with any facts that oppose your crackpot conspiracy 😉👉🏽 Let's face it, we could have 100 videos of the plane in 4K UHD and you'd still claim it was fake or simply ignore it just like you ignore the actual image of the plane which is OBVIOUSLY a large airliner displaying the American Airlines livery; the mass of 757 wreckage (including the black box from AA Flight 77 that details the planes last 11 flights), the damage to surrounding structures hit on approach that confirm perfectly the wingspan and engine separation of a 757; all the physical remains and personal belongings of those known to have been on board, the ATC evidence, the blatant kerosene explosion, the fact there was an exit hole, etc. etc. etc. When are you going to acknowledge all of this and stop with this shameless display of wilful ignorance and desperate gish-galloping? No security was shut down prior, that's an outright lie and you know, just like you've lies about demolitions experts who believe the twin towers were demoed......shame you can't name a single one hey 🤔😂 Show me ONE camera that was facing the direction of approach or jog on with your silly strawman argument. The "green berets" (or SBS or American special forces) let Bin Laden escape, that's another outright lie. So what about Rumsfeld? If this was merely an excuse to invade Iraq, why blame it on Saudi's instead if Iraqi's? Makes as much sense as the rest of your lunatic beliefs.
    1
  459.  @prism8289  So what you're saying here is, nobody heard Flight 77 and missiles/drones are silent? 🤣 What an idiot. You seem to have a problem with the term 'steering' when it comes to aircraft which baffles me considering pilots and pretty much every aviation manual and the like refers to it as just that. HOW it steers is irrelevant you moron. As for throttle being used to gain altitude (or "elevation"), those guys throttled up whilst diving to gain velocity and thus increase the force when they hit. What's the relevance of all this?? Pinpoint precision?? Hardly lol. The Pentagon is THE largest office building on earth, how could not hit it?? And as for his frying instructors, when did they say he shouldn't have been given a licence?? Can you name and quote them or shall i assume you're lying yet again? Almost all remarks made by flight instructors that you guys like to use were made prior to them gaining their licences but I'll wait for you to confirm your claims before dismissing them entirely. I won't hold my breath. To claim nobody saw the plane overhead is ludicrous and i know for a fact many saw it flying over neighbouring towns as well as the 136 who watched it approach and slam into the Pentagon that you continue to ignore. It's quite obvious that you and all your whackjob brethren have no concern for truth. If you did, you wouldn't continue with this whack-a-mole tactic and would address the evidence put to you.
    1
  460.  @prism8289  As for the passport found near the towers, i fail to see any issue with this given how a) passports often survive aircrashes. b) paper often survives explosions due to the large surface to mass ratio. c) planting it (which is what you're insinuating) would be an utterly pointless and needless risk given how the guy was on the flight manifest, confirming he was on board, so please explain to me the benefit of doing this? Seriously, have any of you crazy-horses ever thought about thinking your arguments through before parroting your plagiarised, unoriginal buIIshit? Now when you're ready, get back to me on the above questions and evidence you continue to ignore.
    1
  461.  @prism8289  Are you for real? So after everything i put to you, THAT is the best you can come up with??? 🙈 Christ, talk about being up against the ropes 🤣 Why won't you name the demolitions expert YOU LIED about? Why won't you name the MIT professor YOU LIED about? Why won't you acknowledge all the evidence i listed found at the Pentagon and deflect with your usual whack-a-mole tactic used mostly by flat earthers and creationists? Anyone reading will see your cowardice and head burying so keep up this shameless behaviour as it only serves to expose your wilful ignorance even more. I'll keep calling you out until you address the fundamental facts I've raised ie. The mass of 757 wreckage, the black box, the physical remains and personal belongings of those on board retrieved at the crash site, the damage to surrounding structures hit on approach that PERFECTLY mirror the dimensions of a 757, the 136 direct eye-witnesses who all saw a large plane, the pilot witnesses who identified it as a 757, the ATC evidence and so on. In respect to your latest feeble attempt at a valid response, there are plenty of videos of those direct eye-witnesses at the Pentagon here on YouTube. The fact you don't know this or haven't bothered to look speaks for itself. So by your own standards, these interviews and personal accounts (which all tally up) prove you're wrong. Look them up and see for yourself. There were even 2 fire fighters who literally had to dive out of the way out of fear of being hit! Seriously, if you don't believe a 757 crashed there, what the hell do you believe it was?? The amount of evidence you choose to ignore in order to cling on to your ridiculous, easily refuted conspiracy theory is insane. The rest of what you've stated isn't worth addressing as it's tantamount to personal opinons or conjecture and nothing more. If Bush was behind it all, why would they publish anything and disclose things that exposed their guilt? Don't be ridiculous lol. It's like when you whackjobs claim they exposed themselves stealing 2.3 trillion that was, in reality, never actually missing in the first place, or certainly not in the way your sort like to pretend. The 'man who knew'? So what? It's hardly like there was no warning or nobody knew an attack was coming. He didn't know what they would do or when they would do it. He also knew it was Al Qaeda headed up by Osama Bin Laden so that's a bit if an own goal for you there considering what you believe. If he knew so much, how was he killed in the collapse? Surely he wouldn't have been anywhere near 🤷🏽‍♂️ Again, hardly something that points guilt to government involvement. You believe Gary Webb was murdered which i say once again, you're nuts. If that is the best you can come up with to prove your kooky conspiracy crap, then what a poor show. Now give me those names and address the evidence i listed you bed-wetting fact-dodger 🤨
    1
  462.  @sergiocarreno852  Your mum's friend's a liar.
    1
  463.  @ritchieaustin5451  Except the "government's story" in this case is true whether the tinfoil hat wearing members of the lunatic fringe accept it or not.
    1
  464.  @gabemarshall7777  Still waiting for ONE single name from you of a demolitions expert you claim believes the twin towers were demoed. Your silence says it all, you're a LIAR.
    1
  465.  @ritchieaustin5451  You actually believe they pinned it on the accused terrorists based on a passport?? Don't be absurd. You obviously believe it was plantes to which i ask you, for what purpose? What benefit would there have been to take such a risk when they were on the flight manifest? In reality, passport often survive plane crashes and paper is often ejected in a blast due to it's large surface to mass ratio. This is well understood phenomenon. Regarding the central cores of the towers, they were NOT free-standing so that's your theory blown out of the water. They remained standing after the towers came down before finally falling due to them not being free-standing. We can observe this quite clearly in the footage. You'd know this if you bothered to read the actual studies you guys are so desperate to dismiss. You'd also know that although the floors did obviously pancake, that was not the cause of collapse. NO steel melted so, wrong again sorry. Literally every claim you make is demonstrably false which is the case with EVERY SINGLE truther argument. And that's why nobody of worth takes any notice of you guys, nor ever will.
    1
  466.  @ritchieaustin5451  Ok well I'm not sure if you understand this but conjectural claims of molten steel doesn't make it true. Molten metal yes, molten steel no. Show me any chemical analysis showing otherwise or else all you have is conjecture which I'm sorry doesn't quite cut it in real life. The temperatures were simply not high enough to melt steel, and those crackpots who invented the utterly destroyed thermite theory, could not possibly account for the amount of molten metal present. Incidentally, Mark Loizeaux does NOT believe the twin towers were demoes which doesn't quite fit with your theory ao much hey? In fact there isn't a demolitions expert on earth who's claimed the twin towers were brought down via a controlled demolition, to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ps. If WTC7 was such a mystery, how is it the fire fighters tending to the building had predicted an inevitable collapse several hours prior to it falling? It clearly wasn't a mystery to those who assessed it, nor to those organisations who conducted studies, all of which concluded fire was the cause.
    1
  467.  @ritchieaustin5451  Passports have a large surface to mass ratio regardless so no idea why you're comparing it to a sheet of A4, that's irrelevant. Severed steel? What are you talking about? Surely not the columns at the base cut during the clean-up that a minority of truthers try to claim were cut prior? Lol, that myth was debunked immediately and no serious truther would use such a flawed argument. Why on earth would they severe columns at the base?? Both towers collapsed at the impact zones, they did NOT collapse from the bottom up like a controlled demolition would. Again, conjectural claims of molten steel are meaningless. How would anybody possibly know what it was without chemical analysis? They wouldn't and anybody claiming steel is assuming so. Given the temperatures weren't hot enough, we can rule it out as being steel. The temperatures were however plenty hot enough to melt other metals that were present in HUGE quantities throughout the structures, so it stands to reason it was those metals, not steel. Reharding the cores, without the surrounding tube in tube structure, there was nothing to hold them up, so once the towers collapsed, the cores finally droppes, as we would expect. This fully supports a fire-induced collapse but does not support a controlled demo. Are you really going to repeat the lie that no buildings have evwr fallen from fire before? Try the Plasco building in Tehran, the Kader Toy factory in Thailand or the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania for 3 examples. There are many more but i think 3 are enough to make my point. As for none collapsing from plane crashes, can you offer me a single comparable even? Obviously not, making this a moot point. This was a first therefore you have nothing to compare it with.
    1
  468.  @ritchieaustin5451  Sorry, would you like me to explain the meaning of 'conjecture'? How would a news reporter, fire fighter, or demolitions guy know the chemical composition of a molten metal without chemical analysis???? I don't care who or how many people completely unqualified to make that claim say it, it doesn't make it true. But let's humour you for a moment and pretend it could possibly have been steel. What could possibly have created such widespread heat to create such a vast quantity? Please don't say thermite because apart from that myth being completely refuted, it would take tons and tons to create such volume. So what's your theory and if they all truly believe it, why doesn't Mark Loizeaux believe it was a controlled demolition and why can't you name a single demolitions expert who believes the towers were demoed? Are you suggesting you know better than the entire demolitions community on this topic? Evidently you are. The video link you've sent shows what is almost certainly contaminated molten aluminium alloy and it's coincidentally emanating from the precise location the compacted remains of the aircraft would have come to rest with kerosene ignited fires raged, thus melting the many tons of aluminium present at the location. Ok so you're just going to ignore the fundamental fact the fire fighters who assessed WTC7 publicly stated it was "definitely" going to collapse? You clearly have a genuine concern for truth 🤨 In answer to your poorly thought out question is quite simple. The BBC had a Reuters feed in their office as do all the other major news channels. On that feed, a report came in that it had collapsed. This was one of several key mistakes reported that day, as is the nature of live reporting. Journalists race to the scene to try and be the first to 'get the scoop', it's how they make a name for themselves and progress their career. By doing so, things sometimes get reported wrong. In this case, BECAUSE the fire fighters had stated a collpase was inevitable, chinese whispers brought the news back to the news desks that it had collapsed as opposed to saying it was about to. I hope you're not suggesting they were fed inside information because as with your passport argument, that is totally irrational and makes zero sense. Why would 'they' take another HUGE pointless risk? What benefit would be gained from doing so? None whatsoever. All 'they' would have to do is wait for it to come down and then allow them to report it as it happened, risk free. Other buildings have collapsed from fire as I've already demonstrated. Repeating the lies of other truthers don't make such claims true, no matter how many times you repeat them. Any other building that have burned for longer and remained standing were concete reinforced, unlike the buildings that collapsed that day. ANY steel framed structure left to freeburn will eventually collapse, it's the reason we use fire-proofing. Now can you please address the FACT fire fighters predicted the collapse of WTC7 several hours prior? Mark Loizeaux also tried to warn the authorities when he saw the planes hit the towers, telling them that he believed they would eventually collapse. If only they'd have listened to him....
    1
  469.  @jamesfranklin8364  Oh well, if you say so. I'll just reject the overwhelming consensus of experts backed by several scientific studies of which have all concluded fire, because some numpty on youtube who's never even bothered eto read the studies, choosing instead to take his information from notoriously unreliable conspiracy sources 🤪👍🏼 Go away.
    1
  470.  @ritchieaustin5451  No molten steel, burden of proof lies with you if you want to claim otherwise. Conjectural reports are NOT evidence. Obviously steel piled up at the base, as expected after a building collapse. I'm not sure what you need explaining about that. Have you got a chemical analysis of the molten metal found? No, therefore it's conjecture. I know this forms the basis of your entire argument (even though you can't state what you believe could cause such volume of molten steel) and you're clearly emotionally invested in this argument, but it again doesn't make it true sorry. You do now acknowledge other buildings have collapsed from fire then yes? To say the cores didn't fall AFTER the supporting structure fell suggests to me you've never even watched the footage because it couldn't be clearer. I'll try and send you a link showing it but generally, any links i send won't post 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  471.  @ritchieaustin5451  Architects and engineers for truth?? 🙈 A crooked organisation who make up a tiny, insignificant number of architects and engineers, 80% of which have ZERO knowledge, experience or understanding of high-rise construction, structural engineering or controlled demolition. I mean, who cares what say, a software engineer or the like thinks on the matter?? They're a joke. The AIA publicly asserted they do NOT share their views and the fact they have purposely tried to fraudulently bypass the scientific process says it all. They're fringe kooks, nothing more. Their arguments have all been decimated and they've literally achieved nothing in the years they've been around, except grifting cash from the credulous who are easily duped by the fact they call themselves architects and engineers.
    1
  472.  @ritchieaustin5451  Already covered the premature reporting of WTC7's demise. Regarding the 2.3 trillion dollars, this was made public back in 1999 and not the day before as truthers claim. It had NOTHING to do with the Pentagon attack so no idea what you mean when you say it went missing in the crash. It was never actually missing in the way truthers claim. It was merely a case of them having outmoded, incompatible software systems that made it extremely difficult to track between departments. It has since been tracked. This is just another half truth the truther community has seized upon to help bolster their argument. If it had anything to do with the attacks, why mention it at all? Another argument that make no sense whatsoever.
    1
  473.  @bpfromowc  Because they were found to have had NOTHING whatsoever to do with anything, not that truthers will accept anything that goes against their agenda, but facts remain facts regardless sorry.
    1
  474.  @ritchieaustin5451  Just noticed this comment also which i didn't respond to in my previous reply. NO building fell at freefall that day, demonstrating once again that you really have no clue what you're talking about. You've clearly not even bothered to read the studies you're so desperately trying to dismiss, yet you expect anybody to take you seriously? Some people are simply all about the conspiracy regardless of the facts and sadly, you seem to fall into that category. What a surprise you're into covid conspiracies too, i would never have guessed 🙄 Anyway, be sure to get back to me regarding my previous response as I'm interested to see how you justify such shameless goalpost shifting and address the reality of the event that I've highlighted ie. This being an unprecedented event and therefore incomparable to anything else we've ever seen before. Ps. I'm not American.
    1
  475.  @tfGypsyKing  So you think you as a 14yr old knows better than the entire demolitions community about demolition? I think not. Saying something is impossible doesn't make it so sorry.
    1
  476.  @lundqvjrl9359  So ANOTHER delusional 14yr old who believed he knows more than the entire demolitions community? Can i ask, have you read the official, scientific studies detailing the collapses? Rhetorical question of course. That would be far too much like honest enquiry as opposed to lazy, unlearned speculation based on a personal opinion of a subject you literally know less than nothing about. Ever wonder why nobody of worth takes any notice of truthers? Wonder no more.
    1
  477.  @tfGypsyKing  What buIIsh!t would that be then and what are you basing this on, all your expertise in structural engineering, high-rise construction and controlled demolition you gathered in your 14yrs on this earth? Do you honestly not see the problem there? Demolition experts have said that have they? Name one. The only people I've heard say make such a stupid, insanely ignorant remark are truthers here on YouTube who lole to say it quite frequently. Demolition experts however don't and wouldn't say such a thing because they know how dumb that remark is. Try and name one demolition expert who even believes the twin towers were demoed, i guarantee you can't. That should hopefully tell you something.
    1
  478.  @lundqvjrl9359  I love how truthers all claim to be engineers and pilots etc. lol. Can i ask what field of engineering specifically you're trained in? I'm sorry but i don't believe anything truthers tell me because they're dishonest by definition and cannot be trusted. If you were an engineer then you'd have at least read the official studies detailing the collapses which quite obviously, you haven't. If you had, you'd know that the official stance is NOT a "freefall pancake theory" at all. Nowhere does it say the twin towers fell at freefall, neither does it blame pancaking as the cause of collapse. Why talk about things you have no knowledge of? How can you possibly believe the towers fell at freefall when the video footage alone shows debris falling at a faster rate than the collapsing tower? The only "fallecy" around here is you claiming to be an experienced engineer.
    1
  479.  @ritchieaustin5451  Did you bother reading my previous response to you address what you wrote to me?
    1
  480.  @johnlively819  Wow, that's a lot of Gish galloping to address right there, it would take a week and a detailed response would read like a novel. Was that your plan? The common creationist tactic of dropping a cluster bomb of claims that make debate impossible. I'm on route to work right now so cannot possibly address each point right now. I will do my best to plough through them but i will have to be fairly brief with each point simply due to the sheer volume you've hit me with. Bear with me.....
    1
  481.  @ritchieaustin5451  Weak. Forget the government, no need to 'believe' anything, what i said were staments of fact and your goalpost shifting fails on the basis i gave ie. completely incomparable. Simply saying i just believe the government is a get-out excuse because you cannot counter what i said. I could just as easily say you just believe what you hear on conspiracy websites and the like. The fact there isn't a single demolitions expert claiming the towers were demoed i think speaks for itself.
    1
  482.  @ritchieaustin5451  Suspicions based mostly on lies and half-truths. All debunked. Experts in every field??? Except demolition you mean? I assure you the VAST majority of experts in every related field are very much with the official stance. There are a tiny, insignificant number of fringe crackpots who say otherwise yet have so far failed to follow the implicit rules any serious engineer or scientist would do if they were worth their salt. Weakest argument from authority I've ever known. The war is irrelevant, as is the FACT terrorism is very real as is covid. Now you're just deflecting. Show me your evidence for a controlled demolition. You have none.
    1
  483.  @lrwiersum  Oh shut up you crackpot lol. Anybody who knows anything about controlled demolitions knows instantly those were CLEARLY not, hence why you couldn't name a single demolitions expert who says otherwise. What are you talking about you clown?? 🙈
    1
  484.  @johnlively819  Next you say there are many demo experts claiming the twin towers were demoed, so why can't you name one??? Why do you all run away when i push for a single name?? Just name one and prove me wrong, simple. You go in to claim the truly absurd claims of nano-thermite haven't been debunked but all this tella me is you're as clueless of how scientific enquiry proceeds as you are about controlled demolitions. Peer reviewed study?? 🤣🤣 If you say so champ lol. You're talking about the pseudoscientific hogwash claimed by the crackpot Nials Harrit and the even bigger crackpot Stephen Jones who also wrote a paper on the travels if Jesus across America 🤣 How could we possibly doubt such a pair of renowned and respecte, intellectual tour de force? Lol, do me a favour. They found NOTHING other than red oxide paint chips used to coat the steel during construction and iron microspheres which anybody can create with a piece of wire wool and a cigarette lighter. Sparks cause iron microspheres! To say the found high quantiies of nano-thermite makes you either a liar, or a gullible dullard who seriously needs to get a grip. Again, they found nothing whatsoever that shouldn't have been present, and they most certain did NOT find ANY evidence of nano-thermite. In fact, there were things that should have been present if thermite had been used that simply wasn't found. This is why they were forced to publish in a pay-to-publish journal that is a joke in the world of academia. It was proven that they will literally publish ANYTHING for a price. Look up the infamous C.R A.P. paper published by them (Bentham Press) and see for yourself. They could not have possibly found a less credible journal to publish in if they tried, yet even the editor-in-chief resigned over the fact this buIIsh!t paper was published. You seriously need to raise the bar on what you call research because it's no wonder you're so easily duped when you believe such lunacy to be science.
    1
  485.  @johnlively819  You then go on to say the buildings turned to dust meaning you're a proponent of possibly THE most ridiculous version of the conspiracy available ie. Judy Woods insane claims of impossible space lasers that would require the energy equivalent to that of the power output of FIVE planet earths 🤣 And you believe this!!! 🤪👈🏽 lol. NO STEEL TURNED TO DUST OR VAPORISED!!! Impossible. Get a grip man. Judy Woods is a conmerchant, nothing more. She is a laughing stock amongst her peers and has proven herself to be exceptionally dishonest and all about nothing other than money and notoriety. Yes debris was ejected outwards which is hardly surprising given the chaos and number of collisions during the collapse. This is a result of billions of joules of potential, gravitational energy being suddenly and catastrophically released.
    1
  486.  @johnlively819  You next lie again by claiming i have ignored the lunatics over at ae911truth when in reality, i have covered their nonsense many times in this thread. Basically, without having to repeat myself yet again, around 600 of the already pathetic number of signatories (around 3000 is it now?) have ANY knowledge, training or experience of high-rise construction and structural engineering. The rest have none and are made up of the likes of software engineers, electrical engineers and other branches of engineering completely unrelated to anything remotely connected. This makes their opinion no better than say, yours. That's 600 out the MILLIONS out there who seemingly have no issue with the official stance. Pathetic. Top experts in their field indeed 🤣 You're such a sensationalist liar. The AIA publicly asserted that they do NOT share their opinions and do not wish to be associated with them. They are a bunch of crooka who are cashing in on the gullible and the stupid. You couldn't find a more bogus and corrupt organisation if you tried.
    1
  487.  @johnlively819  How did they (ae911twoof) debunk the NIST studies? They did acknowledge the facade of WTC7 managed to momentarily reach freefall midway through the collapse due to buckling. Wow. Clearly a demolition! 🙄 lol. There have been several studies on WTC7, all reaching the conclusion fire brought it down. There is ONE which didn't anf that was the one THEY funded and insisted began with the presupposition that fire did not bring it down. That is NOT how science works!!! That says it all about what kind of crooked charlatans they are.
    1
  488.  @johnlively819  All NIST's data is available apart from a few, small details they aren't able to publish due to security risks. Once again you blindly believe a bunch of crooks over REAL scientist's who genuinely ARE respected in their fields. As for creating a working model, what are you talking about?? Their model works just fine, math doesn't lie! They have provided simulations that mirror the collapse perfectly. The fact you've not seen this or even bothered to read the studies yourself speaks volumes about how serious you are in your studies. Were you expecting them to build a to-scale structure to then recreate the collapse?? Surely not? 🤣
    1
  489.  @johnlively819  Your next false claim is that all the "steal" and rubble was sold off to China. Why the hell would China want rubble??? 🤣 No, what actually happened was SOME of the steel (NOT rubble) was scrapped and shipped over to China AFTER it had been assessed and shown to be of no interest to the investigation. To say otherwise means again you're either ignorant as fk, or a shameless liar. Any steel thought to have any bearing on the collapse or to be if interest in any way was kept and ALL rubble was sent to Freshkills and got sifted through for YEARS after. Don't know what 'documentary' you're talking about but what a waste of 19hrs. You could have read the actual studies all you kooks desperately reject. I can't take any of you clowns seriously when I'm yet to meet a truther who's even read them! The fact you think people get paid to counter your lunacy shows the kind of broken mind I'm dealing with here.
    1
  490.  @Anti-You420  You think i do this to try and change the minds of uneducated whackjobs like you? 🤣 No, no no lol. I do it for the more rational, honest individuals who have either been duped by delusional beIIends like yourself who claim to know more about controlled demolitions than THE ENTIRE demolitions community, or those still on the fence and genuinely seeking truth. I'm under no illusion people like you are broken beyond repair; fact-dodging cowards who ALWAYS run away when called out. As for accomplishing nothing, says the crank who's been crying conspiracy for 20+yrs and achieving literally nothing lol. Here's to another 20yrs of crying conspiracy without having a shred of credible evidence that stands up to scrutiny 🍺😝
    1
  491.  @johnlively819  Just noticed your other comment and can't help myself from correcting the myths, half-truths and lies you've included there also. First you say the towera had been "purchased shortly before 911 and went to private ownership by larry silverstein" and that they were previously owned by the Port Authority. Not true. Yes they were owned by the Port Authority, and the entire complex still is. Silverstein never owned the twin towers, he took out a leasehold on them. It's false assertions like these that destroy all credibility as you clearly haven't done any real research to be so ignorant of basic facts, whilst showing dishonest by brazenly lying in this way to try and bolster your agenda. "One of his backers/investors"? Wrong again. There is a consortium. Next lie. "The new own doubled the insurance and added terrorist attacks to the insurance". Seriously, where do you get off making this sh!t up? In reality, insurance is standard for any commercial building and acts of terrorism is almost always included. He did NOT specifically add it, it was simply an cover-all policy. Secondly, he did NOT double the insurance policy, in fact he did the most basic policy available to keep costs down. He hadn't even finalised the policy at the time of the attacks!! He literally had no choice about taking out this insurance as it was part of the lease contract he had to sign from the Port Authority. You really are a devious individual.
    1
  492.  @johnlively819  Next you try to insinuate that he had to strip all asbestos from the towers and that this was the basis for what would be the kost elaborate, umfathomably crazy insurance scam in history which to even consider this as an option says everything about the kind of mind we're dealing with here. Asbestos is safe as long as it isn't disturbed. Why would he bother taking out this lease if he such a huge expense stripping it and it wasn't financially viable to do so?? You don't get to be as successful as him making such poor investments! You go on to say only a small portion of the towers were habitable which is ludicrous!! What are you talking about???? You are literally plucking all of this straight out of your backside and you know it. Yes, to strip all asbestos from those buildings would have been expensive but to say the cost would have been more than the value of the buildings is again, insane and completely untrue. The next utterly false claim you make is that he got paid out 10x on his investment when in reality, he got paid HALF of his claim which didnt come close to even covering the cost of the rebuild, all whilst losing 100 million a month in rent that he still had to pay whilst collecting zero in rent from tenants. He lost an absolute fortune! Of course he tried to claim twice given it was two buildings hit by two separate attacks, wouldn't you??? It's what anybody would do, and rightly so! Was his claim successful? No, what ut hell as like! Yet here you are lying through your teeth again by claiming he did. What a scumbag you are to try and dupe people in this way.
    1
  493.  @johnlively819  Moving on because, that's not where your dishonesty ends. You being up Silverstein's interview where he stated they decided to pull it to save risking any more lives, of which he was OBVIOUSLY referring to pulling the operation and pulling everybody out and away from a building they had assessed and deemed to be structurally unsound and about to collapse. Contrary to your typical BS, the term 'pull' in demolition does NOT refer to an explosive demolition, EVER. It is a rarelynused term that refers to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which then pull the structure down in a way so as not to damage surrounding buildings. A term a property mogul would very unlikely know, as would the fire chief who was actually the one who made that call, NOT Silverstein as you claim. To even suggest Silverstein would out himself in such a way on a pre-recorded interview that he could easily have just scrapped and started again the second he realised he'd let the cat out of the bag, once again highlights just how mental you people are. I mean, AS IF!!!! 🤣 As i said, this was NOT Silverstein's call to make and he gave zero orders that day. It was in fact the sole decision of Chief of Department Dan Nigro who has publicly corrected your lies and stated that he was referring to pulling the operation and pulling everyone back to create a safe collapse zone as a collapse was inevitable. Yes the BBC did prematurely report the buildings demise as a result of the fire fighters publicly stating the building was about to collapse. The BBC simply made the mistake of saying it had, as opposed to saying it was. A simple error and one of several fundamental errors reported that day, as is often the case in live news reports. You clowns simply seize on this because again, you feel it supports your agenda. I should say, wrongly feel it supports your agenda because it doesn't and you've clearly not thought this through. Explain to me why they would give the BBC inside information? What possible benefit would they gain from this? NONE WHATSOEVER!! All they would do is create an utterly pointless risk and a HUGE risk at that. All they would have had to do is wait for it to collapse and they'd have reported it as it happened without any risk whatsoever. You're seemingly too dumb to have worked that one out, or simply more dishonesty?
    1
  494.  @johnlively819  Unfortunately the depths of your depravity doesn't end there and you go on to claim nothing hit WTC7 when every man and his dog knows full well it sustained a HUGE amount of structural damage from thousands of tons of falling debris dropping on to it from as high as a thousands foot. I'd hardly say that was nothing. This led yo widespread fires on many floors that the fire department decided to let freeburn, and thus willingly allowing it to collapse because there could be no other outcome given the design of the structure. They knew this when they made this decision, hence why they stated it would "DEFINITELY" collapse several HOURS before it fell. As i told you previously, leave ANY non-concrete reinforced, steel-framed structure to freeburn and it will collapse 100% of the time. Heat weakens steel, it's that simple. You then ask why the debria didn't make other buildings collapse that were hit, and the simple answer to that is, because they were all concrete reinforced and of completely different, incomparable design. And no, Silverstein didn't own WTC7, he leased it. In fact he leased the entire World Trade complex, including all those other buildings that got hit that didn't collapse so, WRONF AGAIN!!! You and your 19hr documentary lol, try conducting some proper research for a change you lazy, uneducated crackpot. Perhaps then you won't be made to look so stupid. Spread lies like this and there will always be somebody who will call you out and expose you. You cant even use the excuse of ignorance as you've read the statements from Chief Dan Nigro confirming what I've said, along with statements from the other fire fighters who tended to building 7, all detailing the immense structural damage and fires of WTC7. You're just an outright, shameless liar, no excuses.
    1
  495.  @thebeagles2025  Indeed, plus the fact they would have had to have made sure they weren't rendered useless by a 200 ton airliner laden with fuel slamming into them, given how they collapsed precisely at the impact zones. Impossible, it couldn't happen. Try getting a truther to address that fundamental problem that alone destroys any claims of controlled demolition lol.
    1
  496.  @mratmcmillan6559  Wtf are you talking about?? He got paid out 4.55 billion which didn't even cover the cost of the rebuild!! He also lost a fortune in rent whilst still having to pay millions to the Port Authority for the lease. He did NOT "increase the insurance" whatsoever and you're a shameless liar making such erroneous claims. In reality he was FORCED to insure them in an 'all-cover' policy of which acts of terrorism was part of, by the Port Authority as part of the lease contract. This is standard practice for commercial buildings and the fact he underinsured them and hadn't even finalised the policies by the time of the attacks speaks for itself. This is why nobody takes any notice of you people, because you just make it up as you go.
    1
  497.  @rectum5754  Yup, it was due to incompatible software systems between departments. It was later tracked but don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy hey 🤪👍🏼 Tell me, why announce it at all if wjat you believe were true? You do know it was public knowledge from 1999 right?
    1
  498.  @gabemarshall7777  Still waiting for ONE SINGLE NAME of these demolitions experts but still silent 🙄 Why are truthers such shocking liars? It's disgusting how you people take such a big, steaming p!ss over the graves of those who died that day, fkng disgusting.
    1
  499.  @rectum5754  Nope, im not a demolitions experts and neither are you. The difference between us however is that i choose to listen to the experts rather than some tinfoil hat wearing dullards on youtube who make sh!t up and lie through their teeth to desperately try and validate their kooky, inane conspiracy cr@p. The world's leading authority on demolition say it would have been impossible to have brought those towers down in the way they fell via a controlled demolition. Are you claiming to know better? Can you name just ONE demolitions expert who believes the twin towers were demoed? We both know you can't so why do this to yourself? What i do know is how sensitive demolition devices are to things like heat and geometry so to think ut possible for them to survive planes impacting them with the force equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT and then survive the intense fires is beyond ludicrous.
    1
  500.  @unknowngentile419  Of course you're an architect, i believe you ......honest 🙄 An architect who hasn't even bothered to read the actual studies that would no doubt be very interesting to an actual architect. The fact you say it wasn't hit by anything speaks for itself, you clearly know NOTHING about this topic, yet here you are, being an arrogant arsehoIe trying to lord it over me with your bogus claims of imaginary career paths. If you really are an architect, going on what you've said, i wouldn't let you design me a bird bath. Of course WTC7 was hit! It sustained HUGE structural damage from THOUSANDS of tons of falling debris from the collapsing North tower! How do you not know this? As well as all the structural damage, there were widespread fires across many floors of which were left to freeburn. Being an architect, you're no doubt aware of the purpose and importance of fire-proofing, though you're somehow unable to grasp that this building had freeburned without any attempt to stem the blaze, for 2hrs beyond what it's fire proofing was rated at. Another key factor was the implementation of longspan beams used to create a large open atrium which as you will know, are more susceptible to heat than shortspan beams for obvious reason. This is what gave the impression that the building fell in on itself. Well done for completely deflecting my previous response and changing the subject. Is that because you couldn't refute the verifiable facts i put to you, or find a single demolitions expert who agrees with you? You couldn't even justify your stupid claim that the towers couldn't have come down in the time they came down! You're just a typical, lying, fact-dodging truther who will no doubt run away rather than address the fundamental problems with your reasoning or acknowledge any evidence or facts that oppose your kooky conspiracy theories. That's not the actions of somebody with a genuine concern for truth. Regarding your claim the attack was "put into movies and videogames before it even happened", i truly and honestly cannot even think what you possibly mean by this. Care to explain exactly what you're saying here because to suggest they would do this purposely is beyond lunacy and if that's what you believe then i can smell the reek of mental instability emanating from yourself from here.
    1
  501.  @annascott3542  Just because you're not aware of the facts and available evidence doesn't mean the rest of us are crippled by such ignorance. Nothing you say is backed up by reality whereas the official stance is. Please don't assume the rest of the public are as ineffective as yourself when it comes to conducting research.
    1
  502.  @scottmattern482  As much as truthers overestimate the ability of the government to pull off an insanely complex event and attack their own people? 🤔
    1
  503.  @harijotkhalsa5546  Nope. The top sections tilted as we observed before gravity corrected the angular momentum and brought them down through the path of least resistance which, in these cases were straight down through the structures below. Please don't about physics when you clearly don't understand the basics.
    1
  504.  @chrisstrube1244  Oh that reliable source Fahrenheit 911? 🤣🤣🤣 And truthers wonder why nobody takes them seriously 🙈😂
    1
  505.  @harijotkhalsa5546  NO, we do NOT agree that the path of least resistance was the "air beside" the towers and WAS through the structure below. Quit talking about things you don't understand and humiliating yourself with your mind-numbing ignorance of basic physical principles.
    1
  506.  Michael Hoffman  "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.....On the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good......Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." - Captain Chris Boyle NYFD "they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out." - Richard Banaciski NYFD Firefigher How many more would you like? Ignorance is not a defence sorry stupid 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  507.  @scottmattern482  I think you're confusing me with somebody else or simply projecting your own emotions on to others.
    1
  508.  Michael Hoffman  There was no countdown, that myth was well and truly shut down and the fact you still believe this speaks volumes about your ability to conduct proper research. This only serves to prove categorically how easily duped and gullible you are. To say this fictional countdown was captured on film just highlights how readily you're will to lie. If you're going to continue with this ludicrous, buIIsh!t claim then send a link/cite your source and show everyone how easily fooled you are. Next you try and explain to me how demolitions work with your pigeon understanding based on BS you've heard on conspiracy videos. In reality however, the audio tapes and seismic data alone PROVE WTC7 wasn't an explosive demolition. If you've ever witnessed an actual demolition, then you'd know how loud they are. What magical, silent explosives do you believe were used exactly? 😂 The smallest blast required to take the critical column of WTC7 would result in an explosion with a sound level of 130 decibels. No such blast is on any of the audios. How do you reconcile that fact with your kooky conspiracy beliefs? WTC7 did NOT collapse into it's footprint and the reason it appeared to 'implode' is quite simple due to the building's design, with the implementation of longspan beams used to create a large open atrium. How do you not know this? How do you expect anybody to take anything you say seriously when you are less than clueless regarding the basics? Yet here you are, trying to pretend you're some kind of demolitions expert lol, it's quite hilarious. If these "teams" you speak of that you allege wired WTC7 with explosives, how come nobody saw anything? The building was occupied and it would have taken weeks to wire and it would have required access to key places and peeles back to the supports in order to drop it with any kind of precision. Another huge problem for your bizarre theory is, this building was randomly hit by debris from the towers. Nobody couldnhave predicted that building would have been hit for sure or sustained such huge, structural damage. So do you not think that would have raised a few eyebrows had it not been hit and just suddenly collapsed?? And why would they need to demolished WTC7?? Any records contained in there were no doubt backed up, and besides, would it not be easier to just incinerate any paperwork etc. or dump it in the sea, rather than going to such lengths? A demolition is hardly the most secure or reliable means to destroy paperwork to say the least. What you're suggesting is sheer, unadulterated lunacy of the highest order. Name ONE other non-concrete reinforced, steel framed structure that you claim burned for 12hrs without collapsing and I'll gladly explain to you just how wrong you are. Finally you appeal to one of the most weakest arguments from authority I've ever heard. Ae911truth are a tiny, insignificant number of whackjobs that make up less the 0.01% of their respective communities. It's took them 2 decades to collect just 3500 signatures which is just pathetic lol. Out of those 3500, around 80% of them have ZERO experience, knowledge or understanding of structural engineering, high-rise construction or controlled demolition. Who cares what a software engineer and the like think on this matter?? Most of them are as clueless as you. So that's 600 out of the millions of engineers out there. Wow 😂 What makes this even worse is that they have all seemingly forgotten how the scientific process works and even tried to fraudulently bypass it. The organisation is a joke. The AIA even spoke out to say they do not agree with their opinions. Again, this just goes to expose how easily you are conned. Your final, fundamentally flawed argument regarding Silverstein, is once again easily refuted as more absurd nonsense. First off, what he said was that "they" decided to pull, referring to pulling the operation and pulling the fire fighters out and away to save risking any more lives. It was a pre-recorded interview so let's pretend he slipped up, he would have immediately realised and stopped the interview and asked to do a retake, obviously lol. And no, 'pull' is a rarely used term used only by demolition professionals which refers PURELY to a structure being rigged up with cables attached to excavators which then pull the structure down to avoid damaging surrounding structures. Never, EVER does it refer to an explosive demolition so wrong again. Silverstein never made that call either, it was entirely the decision of Chief of Department Dan Nigro. How do you explain the fire fighters tending to WTC7, publicly stating a collapse was inevitable several hours prior to it falling? Why did they set up a collapase zone? Are you seriously suggesting the fire fighters were in on this alleged conspiracy?? You're out of your mind lol. Now if you have any actual evidence to support your crazy notions, then present it because so far you've given nothing and just repeated arguments that have been long debunked.
    1
  509.  @GORILLABREATH1  Because like everything else he said, it's total nonsense which, being a feckless twoofer, you're obviously drawn to. 20+yrs of failed conspiracy claims, when are you clowns going to give it up and accept your ridiculous conspiracy theories fail under scrutiny?
    1
  510.  Michael Hoffman  Where'd you go champ? Any chance of responding or have you been humiliated enough?
    1
  511.  @johnwesterlund7204  Twoofers calling other people retards 🙈 Hypocrisy, much? 🙄
    1
  512.  @lindabelcher8087  Most people don't actually believe that wholehearted, but that does NOT mean they are behind every bad thing that happens. Terrorism is very real and 911 was most definitely a terrorist act that eas planned and carried out by Islamic radicals.
    1
  513.  @deg6788  Oh wow, i am quaking in my boots 😬🤣 Get a grip you delusional, deranged crackpot! Anybody who believes the government employ people to come on to youtube to counter the arguments of insanely dumb, 911 twoofers in an attempt to help cover up the mass murder of their fellow citizens is in die need of psychological help. You lot from the lunatic fringe are an insignificant bunch of crazies who's ridiculous beliefs completely fail under scrutiny. The only threat you are is to yourself. Any evidence to support your bizarre beliefs that actually stands up yet? 🤔 Didn't think so. Move on kook.
    1
  514.  @joshngu6631  You see your problem is that because you don't trust the government (which, for the record i don't either), you automatically assume they're behind everything bad that happens which is just irrational. I follow the evidence, it's that simple. In the case of 911, although the conspiracies initially sound very compelling after watching things like Zeitgeist, Loose Change and all the other awful, specious conspiracy movies, but when you take the time to properly research each claim made, it soon becomes clear there's no truth to them whatsoever. How about you show me what you believe to be the most compelling evidence of a conspiracy and let's see. In fact, just show me ANY evidence of conspiracy, that would be start because so far, all I'm hearing are the same, parroted lies/half-truthes that were debunked years ago. If you can show me sufficient, credible evidence of a conspiracy, I'll gladly change my opinion in a heartbeat.
    1
  515.  Michael Hoffman  lol deluded to the end 🙈🤣 You have no shame. I've ended EVERY discussion we've had as anybody who opens the thread (or any other thread we've spoken on) will see. You're a bed-wetting coward who runs away when faced with facts that destroy your inane, kooky conspiracy beliefs. Jog on coward, you're just here to troll.
    1
  516.  @joshngu6631  Great, then let's talk evidence instead of acting like a fkng child. What evidence do you have for a conspiracy? Can i just ask though, are you willing to admit if and when you're shown to be wrong, or like most truthers (Micheal Hoffman here being a shining example), will you refuse to acknowledge any opposing facts and run away when pushed? You won't see me running away and i giari will address EVERY claim made, just as i have throughout this thread so far. With knowledge comes confidence.
    1
  517.  Faiez Cader  Only when you're dumb enough not to understand it was FIRE that brought those buildings down and NOT the plane impacts. Heat weakens steel, what a shock 🙄 lol. Just another stupid argument from incredulity.
    1
  518.  @jacobbrizammito7187  More utter garbage stated as fact by lying/gullible twoofers. No evidence of thermite found in the dust whatsoever. Key elements were missing that would most certainly have been present if thermite was used. All they found was iron microspheres and red paint chips from the primer paint. And what's the discrepancy you believe exists? This is a new one on me so until you can provide evidence to back it up, i call buIIsh!t again sorry.
    1
  519.  @twotatanka5396  Still flogging that dead horse huh? 🥱
    1
  520.  @Beachandpool  Except he isn't, but then since when have truthers cared about reality? 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  521.  @glebeboi  Can't find any such image so can't comment on that, but seems a ridiculous argument anyway give the amount of evidence supporting the incontestable fact Flight 93 crashed there. Are you seriously suggetsing otherwise?? Regarding your Pentagon claims, is this your personal opinion or are you basing your reasoning on sound, verifiable physics and if so, let's hear it because the experts have no such issues. In fact they say what we observe is exactly what we'd expect given the circumstances and forces at play. The wings clearly impacted the Pentagon wall and left marks that prove this, along with striking objects on approach which mirror perfectly the dimensions of a 757's wingspan and engine separation. The engines were also found along with a mass of wreckage including the black box, so wrong again.
    1
  522.  @Beachandpool  How much does who pay me?
    1
  523.  @Beachandpool  Would i be right in saying you're one of these deranged crackpots who thinks the government pay people to come on to youtube to counter the absurd arguments of 911 truthers in an attempt to help cover up the mass murder of their own citizens? 🤣🤣🤣 🤪👈🏽
    1
  524.  @shilohwehrmacht2947  Ok first off show me your evidence that WTC7 had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the so-called 'missing 2.3 trillion' dollars that was never actually missing and later accounted for, because i call buIIsh!t. You saying it doesn't make it true and i can't find ANY evidence whatsoever to back that up. And you seriously don't think such information would have been backed up??? 🤣 Get real. Most of you clowns claim it was rhe Pentagon office that was hit that was investigating it, so which was it? Evidence please because in the words of the mighty Hitchens, 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed withour evidence'. In fact i will say now, i guarantee you will dodge this because as you know, you've just taken that claim on blind faith after hearing some other tinfoil hat wearing whackjob saying it. It's BS mate, no truth to it whatsoever. It's common knowledge and no secret whatsoever that the CIA had an office in there and set up a command point after the 93 bombing of the twin towers, but beyond that, there's no link whatsoever. Prove me wrong. Secondly, heat weakens steel. It's that simple. They were non-concrete reinforced structures which made them far more susceptible to heat, hence why we use fire-proofing. The fire-proofing incidentally was blasted off by the impacts so the fact they remained standing as long as they did was nothing short of a miracle. It should also be noted that we literally have footage of emtire floor slabs sagging and beams buckling from heat prior to collapse. Theres no mystery here, we know why they collapsed and we have no need to invent crazy-arsed conspiracy theories to justify any of it. In respect to building 7, how am i meant to take you seriously when you claim it wasn't hit by anything?? 🙈 In reality it was hit by thousands of tons of debris from the collapsing towers which resulted in huge structural damage and widespread fires across many floors, of which were left to freeburn. Any non-concrete reinforced structure left to freeburn will eventually collapse, every time. Wtc7 burned for 2hrs beyond what its fire-proofing was rated at. Again, no mystery at all, and the fire fighters who tended to it even publicly stated that a collapse was inevitable. Why talk about things you clearly know nothing about??
    1
  525.  @shilohwehrmacht2947  Well there were indeed plane debris on the front lawn of the Pentagon if which there are images of, easily found with a 10 second google search. But, most of the wreckage that survived would naturally have flowed into the structure due to the forces at play, as any physicist will confirm. There is no 'if' a plane hit the Pentagon, the evidence is overwhelming and categorically proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. Anybody who disputes this is clearly unaware of the available evidence and therefore does so through ignorance.
    1
  526.  @shilohwehrmacht2947  You're not even aware of the exit hole in Ring C of the Pentagon???? 🙈 Seriously, jog on you clown. I can't be bothered talking to somebody so utterly clueless yet so arrogant and delusional. Familiarise yourself with the available evidence and then come back to me when you have any real understanding of this topic.
    1
  527.  @shilohwehrmacht2947  Missile???? 🙈 Oh sweet Jesus, just jog on you feckless dullard. Sick of repeating this stuff now but just for you, 136 people watched it approach and impact yet you're trying to tell me not one of them could differentiate between a 155ft jet airliner with 125ft wingspan, and a 22ft missile with a 9ft wingspan?? What made the wing marks on the facade? What sliced the tops off trees? What took out the lampposts over 100ft apart? How does a missile explode with a blatant kerosene explosion? How does a missile leave an exit hole 3 rings in? How does a missile leave behind the wreckage of a 757 and the physical remains of everyone on board? Shall i carry on or are you starting to see how fkng absurd your claims of missiles are? Go away now, you have no place talking about this topic.
    1
  528.  @al-kaseltzer  And your field of expertise to make that call is what exactly? That's right, YOU HAVE NONE!! I think I'll listen to the experts who've put their studies into the public domain for the rest of academia to assess, and who seemingly have no issue with it except for a tiny, insignificant group of crooked charlatans, the majority of whom have no relevant backgrounds in any related fields. Stop spreading your lies and breathtaking ignorance you tinfoil hat wearing nut. Standard office/hydrocarbon fires produce more than enough heat to weaken that steel to less than half it's initial strength and the fact youre too lazy to even research that one basic fact alone shows how little your concern for any of this is. We literally have footage of entire floors sagging and beams and columns buckling from heat prior to collapse! Read the studies a d educate yourself instead of spreading your blinding ignorance and dumbass conspiracy theories on public forums you clown.
    1
  529. @James Neal Agreed, but not when ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX people were eye-witnesses and EVERY ONE said they saw a plane whilst there wasn't a single witness to anything other than a plane. I think airliner pilots who've flown 757's stating specifically it was a 757 prior to it being announced counts for something too. But hey, that aside, we still have the wreckage, black box, radar track, ATC sightings, damage to surrounding structures which confirm perfectly the wingspan and engine separation dimensions of a 757 and the remains of everybody on board scattered throughout the crash site. There are even first responder accounts of the scorched remains of passengers still strapped into their seats, images of which were used and stood as evidence during the Moussaoui trial. Anybody who disputes Flight 77 crashed there is either ignorant of the facts or simple an imbecile.
    1
  530.  @dazza_shirley  You mean except for the Plasco building in Tehran, the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania, the Kader Toy factory in Thailand and all the other steel framed structures that have collapsed from fire, WITHOUT having thousands of tons of debris dropping on to them? Stop repeating the lies of others that you've blindly accepted as truth.
    1
  531.  @bobkost5731  You define sheeplike mentality you clown; blindly following all the other moronic, intellectually redundant sheep on the internet bleating the same lies you've fallen for. Your pathetic conspiracy theories have failed. It's been over 20yrs now, you really do need to get iver it and get a grip of yourself 🐑
    1
  532.  @dazza_shirley  What happened Darren, was the humiliation too much for you?
    1
  533.  @chuckesthedoughboy703  The hijackers passports weren't recovered from the wreckage/debris at the Pentagon.
    1
  534.  @muffy2293  No, NOBODY daid they got any such call, it was said as a joke by a comedien and truthers have run with it, as they do. There was no "jew call" 🤣
    1
  535.  @keithbrown6887  Here's another 2 for you, 'unreliable source'. Learn how to conduct proper research and quit being so lazy in your efforts.
    1
  536.  @fbm9001  Oh sweet Jebus, sre you fkng serious?? 🙈 There really is no end to the lunacy of twoofers. Please explain to me what predictive programming means and what benefit would there be for them to put this in movies etc.? Which movies? Does that mean the writers and directors etc. were all informed vy the government of their future plans? Sounds a little risky to me to say the least, and for what benefit??
    1
  537.  @sedg03  Not sure what your comment is in reference to sorry. All I know is that this has nothing to do with Bush.
    1
  538.  @sedg03  Show me ANY evidence of this being an inside job.
    1
  539. The money was later tracked and accounted for.
    1
  540. Was that Mark Loizeaux by any chance? He said the same thing that day and tried to warn the authorities but unfortunately, his warnings went unheeded in all the panic etc. going on. Let's face it though, no amount of evidence can ever change the stagnant, polluted mind of a truther 🤷🏽‍♂️
    1
  541. So you're saying Rumsfeld knew this was going to happen and actually allowed it to happen?
    1
  542. Typical twoofer buIIshit. That myth has been utterly refuted a long time ago and the engine part you're talking about has been PROVEN to have come from a 757 engine. The hole was (if i remember rightly) over 75ft across, NOT 16ft. You're confusing the impact hole with the exit hole (which begs the question, how would a tomahawk missile create an exit hole??? 🤣) which was 14ft in diameter, not 16ft. A Tomahawk missile is 21ft in length with a wingspan of around 9ft. Please tell me how a missile of these dimensions could possibly take out lampposts either side of a street and cause damage to surrounding structures much firther apart than 9ft? Please tell me how ALL 136 direct eye-witnesses ALL confirm they saw a large plane, including pilots who confirmed it to be a 757? Are you telling me experienced pilots who fly 757's couldn't tell the difference between a 21ft missile with a 9ft wingspan and a 155ft 757 with a 125ft wingspan?? 😂 You're insane.
    1
  543.  @francescoallevato6507  And this relates to 9/11 how?
    1
  544.  @mindsigh4  haha oh god, please stop before you start the crazies off again 🙈 lol
    1
  545.  @carproauto4379  He's a sell-out?? Or maybe he's just better informed than you and sees the lunacy of the nonsense you subscribe to 🤔
    1
  546.  @GhostSal  Why not ask me yourself? No i don't think Joe was "talked to", don't be so fkn paranoid lol. As for me believing everything I'm told, please don't tar me with the brush as you, who blindly believes he sees on the internet. Unlike you, i have the power of critical thought and know how to conduct proper research. I don't need to believe the goverment because the evidence is available to all. The fact is, your ridiculous conspiracy theories fail under scrutiny.
    1
  547.  WorcestershireSauce  Sheer lunacy, what are talking about? 🙈
    1
  548. It's called insulation you dense fool. Thermite?? 🤣 Sorry kook but those desperate, unfounded claims have ZERO evidence to back them up and have been utterly refuted. The plumes of smoke and explosions observed that you speak of, as everyone with a brain knows is just the result of air being violently expelled as entire floor slabs are slamming down on to one another. Drop a heavy book on a dusty table and you'll see the effect. Where exactly do you think the air is going to go when those towers began pancaking internally?? Nobody can be this dumb 🙈 For the record, we observe the EXACT same thing during a verinage demolition of which don't use any explosives. Watch a verinage demolition and see for yourself. Also, thermite is NOT an explosive and is extremely unreliable and inefficient means of cutting steel in demolition. Can you explain to me how such devices managed to survive the plane impacts and ensuing fires given how sensitive to heat they'd be? You are aware both towers collapsed precisely at the impact zones right?
    1
  549.  @markasmith194  Ok first off, search 'Phantom F4 sled test' here in youtube and watch what happens to a smaller, lighter aircraft with less mass slams into a wall at 500mph and then come back and tell me you seriously expected ANY wing debris to survive or that we should have been able to piece the plane back together 🤣🤣🤣 The fact we have so much debris was due only to the size of a 757. Secondly, a cruise missile is 22ft long with a wingspan of 9ft. A Boeing 757 is 155ft long with a wingspan of 125ft. So what you're saying is, 136 direct eye-witnesses (some of whom were pilots who flew those model aircraft), on their morning commute to work, couldn't tell the difference between those 2 things? You're insane lol. Next, please explain how a 9ft wide missile takes out lamppost on either side of a street, slice tops off trees, hit an electrical generator and clipped a wall without detonating, before detonating on impact and then again after it had entered the building to create an exit hole? Please explain where all the 757 debris came from (including the black box), the personal belongings of the passengers as well as their physical remains? Were the ATC staff all in on this alleged conspiracy too? There's many more hugely fundamental flaws in your logic but i think I've made my point. Now let's see how much you genuinely seek truth......
    1
  550.  @cmdrw9855  Literally EVERY claim you make is utterly false. There was damage from the engines, there was debris from the engines recovered, there was NOT "150 cameras that saw it", there were only 85 in the entire vicinity and this WAS the only one that captured it. There are WAY more than 2 frames in the video and we can even pause the footage, zoom right in and see what is quite blatantly a large aircraft with the American Airlines livery emblazoned across it. There are NO "anti air turrets' on the lawn or anywhere else. Seriously, where the hell are you getting your information from??? You are literally THE worst truther I've ever encountered 🤣
    1
  551.  @jdinkaledgemorgoon2085  As for WTC7 collapsing demo style, i take it you've never actually witnessed a controlled demolition before, this much is clear. Checknout some videos and make sure you have the volume on. I'll ask you what i ask every other truther which no doubt you will fail to answer, just as every other truther fails to answer; if it was such a shock that WTC7 collapsed, how do you explain the fire fighters who were tending to and assessing the structure, publicly asserting it would definitely collapse several hours before coming down? 🤔 Do you believe they were in on it too?
    1
  552.  @marklewen4401  Oh good god, we have numerology nut in our midst 🙈 The earth's flat too hey buddy? 🤪👈🏽
    1
  553.  @lancemilliken9078  No, air traffic control told us it was a plane, 136 direct eye-witnesses mostly sat in traffic on their morning commute say it was a plane; ALL debris says it was a plane as does the remains of everyone on board recovered from the crash site in what was THE biggest forensic investigation in human history; the dimensions of the damage to the building and surround structures hut on approach say it was a plane, as does the footage from the security gate; You get the picture 🤨
    1
  554.  @crangonvulgaris9820  Oh here he is, the champion of truthers who runs away from the facts like every honest individual with a genuine concern for truth naturally would 🙄 Check out aeronautical data regarding commercial jet flight speeds?? Quit parroting your plagiarised buIIshit and ask yourself why Boeing themselves have no issue with what any of those planes did that day? Forget the fact also that many, many people literally witnessed them doing it and all the recovered wreckage and remains of those on board etc. 😂 In reality, those planes can EASILY reach those speeds at such altitude in a dive. Contrary to dullards such as yourself, planes don't instantly break up the second they exceed their v-speed limits. In fact those limits are simply the limits set by Boeing as to what they are willing to guarantee the structural integrity of the aircraft. Test pilots take them beyond those limits to create a safety margin. That plane only reached those speeds after a dive and reached them momentarily before crashing. Had the aircraft continued in such a trajectory for a sustained period of time at that speed, maybe the plane would have eventually have suffered some structural damage. In case you hadn't realised though, Hani Hanjour didn't really have safety in mind and was somewhat suicidal 🤨 "PLANES WITH A HOLOGRAPHIC OVERLAY"???? "EMF remote force generators"??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Jesus christ, now i know why you don't want to go toe to toe with me on this lol. Just keep running. Ps. The 'cartoon wing impact damage' we saw on the twin towers is exactly as any sane individual with a shred of common sense would expect. Did you not think a 200 ton mass travelling around 500mph would strike with enough force to cut through aluminium sheets? 🙈 Where's your squirty flower you clown? 🤣
    1
  555.  @cmdrw9855  Again, literally EVERYTHING you say is false and/or has been utterly debunked and the fact you believe such garbage speaks volumes about your ability to conduct proper research, or rather inability. I'm not repeating myself again, what's the point? Burden of proof lies with you. Show me for instance the evidence you take it that their is ANY kind of ballistic air defence situated on the lawns of the Pentagon. Sorry for standing up for truth and calling conspiracy crackpots out on their inane, easily refuted lunacy 🤷🏽‍♂️ Maybe if you actually cared about truth, you'd take your research a little more seriously. Ps. I'd love to hear how you reconcile all the facts I've stated regarding Flight 77 with a missile strike lol.
    1
  556. What, you mean straight down theoughthe path of least resistance as a collapse of this nature would HAVE to do given the physical laws that govern our world? It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a controlled demolition to have brought those towers down in the way we saw, literally impossible, hence why no demolition experts believe they were demoed. But hey, you guys know best 😉👍🏼
    1
  557.  @jaymeese7714  They had very good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's. He was known for it and had even used them in his own people. We did also find his plans for nuclear armament so we got him just in the nick of time if you ask me. If this was all just a government ploy to invade Iraq, why blame 911 on Saudi's?
    1
  558.  @tedmusson5179  The only naive ones are those who blindly believes the lunacy spread by the notoriously unreliable conspiracy websites you use for 'research'. Learn how to conduct proper research and you'll likely have a change of heart when you realise just how insanely ludicrous your current beliefs truly are. The vast, overwhelming majority of experts in every related field have no issue with the official stance, which speaks for itself. Watching highly suspect conspiracy videos isn't research sorry.
    1
  559.  @stanhunt8543  It's simply down to youtube algorithms picking up on certain words. Nothing suspicious about it whatsoever, there are no government spooks reviewing youtube comments and people from all sides have comments deleted/hidden which alone punches a big hole in any claims of biased censorship. Israel had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11 and if you're going to spread such malicious lies, you'd better have some pretty strong evidence to back it up.
    1
  560.  @stanhunt8543  Lol oh go, do tell us why. Is it because youtube are part of the Illuminate and they pay people to immediately delete any evidence that exposes their involvement with 911? 🤔🤣🤣 You're a crackpot mate. Already explained why some messages dont publish but no, you have to turn it into another conspiracy 🙈 Must suck being so paranoid. If you had a shred of intellect then you'd have worked out ways to avoid the algorithm picking up the things they don't like, but no, you just stick to your paranoid delusions that the men in black are watching your every move and deleting your youtube comments 🤪👈🏽 Ps. Don't worry about sending links just TELL me what evidence you have and I'll check it out for myself. As a wise man once said though, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Make it good.
    1
  561.  @BeefTallowBoy  I'm British but would rather have a tiny hat than your tiny mind any day of the week, you deranged window-licker 👉🏽🤪 I take personal attacks as a sign of defeat as you clearly aren't able to counter anything I've said. Bitter little loser 👋🏽😂
    1
  562. Yes, because no matter how compelling the conspiracy theories may appear on the outset, the reality shows something very different. Your precious conspiracy theories simply don't stand up to scrutiny sorry, which is why the overwhelming consensus of experts have no issue with the official stance. But you guys know best, who needs to go to college when we've got youtube right? 🤪👍🏼
    1
  563. 🤣🤣🤣 Are you serious???
    1
  564. Mini nukes???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 What a kook lol
    1
  565. How would you expect to see a plane hitting the Pentagon??? If you were there, you'd have seen it just like everyone there did, confirming it was a 757.
    1
  566.  Snakejüce  You mean unless they're of sound mind and capable of conducting proper research, as opposed to being a tinfoil hat wearing member of the lunatic fringe who blindly believes everything he reads on the internet. When you say everyone knows it was an inside job, you exclude the overwhelming consensus of experts in every related field who i assure you, very much reject the lunacy of your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Instead of believing what you hear on the internet, try reading the actual studies you're all so desperate to dismiss. When you can refute them with sufficient, credible evidence or show specifically how they're wrong, maybe people of worth will think about taking you guys seriously.
    1
  567.  @downsouth5971  Take 50.....
    1
  568.  @downsouth5971  🙋🏽‍♂️
    1
  569.  @onebodyinyahuahlosangeles1206  There's always some religious crackpot who uses any opportunity to preach their primitive hogwash. It's because of religion we have sh!t like this happening!! When will people learn? 🙈
    1
  570.  @jayh9529  One of THE worst channels on Youtube, are you mad? 😂
    1
  571.  @432b86ed  Aw, do you have an imaginary friend too? 🥺
    1
  572.  @jayh9529  So you're a flat earther? 🙈 Sweet Jebus lol
    1
  573.  @432b86ed  All? 🤔 Are you referring to the voices in your head? Weirdo 🤪👈🏽 No, we don't all have imaginary friends by any stretch of the imagination. I grew out of mine many years ago, and your primitive death-cult is swiftly dying out and will soon by cast alongside the thousands of other failed religion. Seriously, get a grip and get some help.
    1
  574.  @jayh9529  Did my response not publish?? Try again....🙄 The word theory has a very different definition in theory than the standard definition of the term, and in science something can be theory AND fact at the same time. You are aware of that aren't you? Just like 'level' doesn't equate to flat. If you want proof, go and check out Lake Ponchartrain Causeway and you'll CLEARLY see the sea following the curvature of the earth. How you people make it through each day without causing serious harm to yourself and others baffles me. There is no global conspiracy involving the entire scientific theory, spanning many generations, trying to trick us about the shape of the earth to try and take us away from Jesus 🤣
    1
  575.  @jayh9529  How does address a single thing i said??? Hebrew cosmology indeed 🤣 Primitive woo, nothing more. Now address what i wrote you fact-dodging fool.
    1
  576.  @jayh9529  Are you drunk?? Can you just address what i wrote and stop deflecting! For the record, the Gleesom map is NOT evidence of a flat earth you utterly delusional clown.
    1
  577.  @ibtissempharm8800  Saddam Hussein pursued the most extensive chemical program during the Iran–Iraq War, when he waged chemical warfare against his foe. He also used chemicals in 1988 in the Al-Anfal Campaign against his civilian Kurdish population and during a popular uprising in the south in 1991. Are you seriously denying these well documented facts? You sound like his number one fan. And if the war was all about invading Iraq for oil, how come less oil was exported from the region since the war and why blame 9/11 on Saudi's?
    1
  578.  @karebushmarebu233  I'm talking about the conspiracy theories most around here believe in that they think the US government were behind the attacks, ot Bin Laden. I know full well Bush had a boner for Saddam but never did they claim Bin Laden was in Iraq. They misled the public by claiming they had something to do with the planning which of course was bogus. They never allowed Bin Laden to escape & actively hunted him from the outset. Bush used the attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq, but it wasn't about oil. If that were the case then why was less oil exported from the region than prior to the attack? I know it's naturally the obvious conclusion to jump to buy it's just not true.
    1
  579.  @BeefTallowBoy  Oh wow, a Jew hater on the internet, how unusual lol. I take it you can't manage a rational argument or refute a single thing I've said right? So straight to the anti-Semitism because that makes lots of sense in terms of this subject 🤪👍🏽 lol
    1
  580.  @BeefTallowBoy  Yes, because me being M0ssad would make so much sense 🤣You deranged m0ron 👉🏽🤪
    1
  581.  @hornox4life  So how would it be any different if it happened as it is claimed by official sources? All you have is a highly subjective, baseless interpretation of a reaction to an incomparable event. I see no issue whatsoever personally, as do the majority or fair minded individuals. You are seeing what you want to fit with your conspiracy agenda. Unfortunately for you, your conspiracy beliefs don't purport to reality whereas the official story does regardless of whether you accept it or not.
    1
  582. Not quite true but then hey, you're a 911 twoofer so why let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy right? 🙄
    1
  583.  @chiefreficul9774  Are you a shameless liar or do you actually believe what just wrote? You do realise collecting any available CCTV footage that could potentially capture something of interest at a crime scene is standard practice and there's NOTHING whatsoever unusual about that? The footage was handed in rather than seized as you drama queens like to insinuate. They did not say they would release all 85 videos, that's an outright lie. ALL footage that remotely showed anything was released and the security gatehouse footage was WAY more than a few frames lol. What you've done is watched an edited version on a conspiracy website/video and just blindly believed that to be the only footage. It isn't so please stop misleading people and spreading lies.
    1
  584.  @julieyoung3315  That means nothing. What are you suggesting exactly?
    1
  585. You clearly know nothing. They had no idea they would be attacked hy internal flights and always posited such an attack would come from international flights. They got caught with their pants down, end of. Your silly conspiracy kookery simply doesn't stand uo to scrutiny sorry Brad.
    1
  586.  @bradd188  So your argument is one of incredulity, and that's why nobody takes you clowns seriously. Regardless of your unsurpassed intuitive reasoning, they most definitely did NOT foresee such an attack coming from an internal flight. I don't care if you believe that or not, facts remain facts irrespective of your unlearned, baseless opinion. As for why the towers collapsed, the fact you're unaware exposes your lazy, inept research skills. Try reading the actual, unrefuted studies you're so desperate to dismiss and you might actual learn something and save yourself further embarrassment. Can you name ONE single demolitions expert who agrees with you that the twin towers were demoed? Or do you believe you know better than the ENTIRE demolitions community? Please explain how a controlled demolition would bring both towers down precisely at the impact zones because the world's leading authority on demolition say that would have been, and i quote, "impossible". In reality, the collapses looked NOTHING like controlled demolitions as controlled demolitions go from the bottom up. And yes, they were designed to withstand plane strikes, but what you fail to recognise is the strikes they were designed to withstand were the scenario of a smaller, lighter aircraft (a 707) getting lost in fog as it was coming into land and therefore travelling around 150mph, with all its fuel spent. They were NOT designed to withstand stand strikes from larger aircraft travelling 3 times that speed, fully laden with fuel. Those are incomparable circumstances and vastly different forces at play. For the record, both towers withstood the strikes exceptionally well in case you hadn't noticed. They collapsed long after due to the fires. Please stop talking about things you are clearly so utterly ignorant of and spreading demonstrably false lies.
    1