9/11 Conspiracy Theorists - Would you do the following?

An exact replica of the WTC complex is built. Down to the very last detail - office furnishings, paper, the lot.

You and any experts of your choice, preferably those who also believe it was a controlled demolition, are allowed to inspect the entire building, in as much details as you want, until you are happy there are no explosives at all (of course, that much explosives would be obvious, but you can take your time, as long as you need).

Then, planes are flown into the buildings, in exactly the same way as on 9/11. Same speed, course, angle, same planes, same weight, same materials. Remotely flown of course, but even with dummies in place to simulate passenger weight.

You're on the top floors of either building. So you're safe. The only danger is smoke inhalation, but you've got loads of air tanks and breathing masks. You're good and safe up there for a few days if needed.

The ONLY possible danger to your life, is the building collapsing because a plane hit it at high speed, caused serious damage to many supporting columns, and is now burning hard.


Would you agree to stand in it? If it was a controlled demolition, then surely there's no danger right? There's firecrews (hundreds of them) on hand ready to put the fire out in due course, and they'll be able to get you out, assuming it doesn't collapse.


As a bonus - those who believe it was only WTC7 that was a conspiracy (not sure on the logic behind that one, but I digress), would you agree to stand in WTC7 while the exact same damage was inflicted on it, once you'd satisfied yourself there were no explosives in the building?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html
cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/the-prince/summary-and-analysis/chapter-7javascript:;
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qscqn-cVTRM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
youtube.com/watch?v=svUNCI76v1A
youtu.be/vdXTlFVz3w4
youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs
youtube.com/watch?v=sAcjxKtQSEQ
youtube.com/watch?v=2B6Lusn-HLM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

the building may collapse,but not in the way it did. Falling straight down in a few seconds,identical to a controlled demolition

Ya ill get right on it fucken tard

That kind of refutes the argument that it was a controlled demolition.

I think most conspiracy theorists claim that the building wouldn't have collapsed without explosive charges. Otherwise why would they make the claim?

Osama bin Laden spent his last years on Youtube comments arguing with people who called 911 an inside job.

you can basically do this now with computer models
Some tech school tried to build a model of the building 7 collapse

It didnt fall down, it literally evaporated to the sides.

Well, technically both buildings failed at the point of impact and the enormous weight of the top floors destroyed the floors below.

Surely if it had been a controlled demolition it would have gone from the bottom?

And what happened?

> I think most conspiracy theorists claim that the building wouldn't have collapsed without explosive charges. Otherwise why would they make the claim?
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't
That's why they put the explosive charges, so they wouldn't leave the collapse to chance
And if they planted explosive charges, they knew the planes were going to hit in the first place, which means inside job, which means it was a false flag attack with ulterior motives

But why the collapse then? Surely two fucking planes slamming into a building was reason enough to do whatever they were intending to do?

And if it was a false flag, why didn't they go ahead with the follow up plans?

Sure, they went to war in Afghanistan, but that had been done before and was pretty much on the cards anyway. Same with Iraq.

We're getting off topic now, but I think the main answer to the question is "no, they wouldn't get into the mock-building to test out their theory, because they know it is bullshit".

That's my idea for a great TV show down the pan...

lmao this thread is fucking retarded hahah

you could never recreate that in exact detail, OP. it's 100% impossible. and who the fuck would ever stand in a building a plane is going to hit?

...

...

...

...

...

...

>But why the collapse then? Surely two fucking planes slamming into a building was reason enough to do whatever they were intending to do?

Planes are literally hollow aluminum cylinders with fuel tanks. Let alone cutting steel beams, such a construction should never take down two seperate sky scrapers, and a third whose collapse was allegedly caused by the debris from the falling towers. Absolute denial newkid. The planes were illusions to distract from the actual explosions job going on with thermite and whatnot.

9/11 never happened, it was just a Lego model

...

Were i a time traveler, I’d put a GoPro on top of each building, and base-jump from one of the towers after the planes impacted.

T. Ok with official story, just wish we’d ordered a purge of KSA 16 years ago

Fuck off Jew.

...

...

BLOODY HELL

I would stand on building 7

> But why the collapse then?
Maybe to destroy documents? If I remember correctely, there were shitloads of documents on the pentagon auditing trilions of dolars that were missing. There was no more investigation after the planes blew up the department investigating it
Maybe because toppling down the twin towers in a spectacular fashion has a greater impact on the public than has it stand for a couple of hours more, while the victims are evacuated

>And if it was a false flag, why didn't they go ahead with the follow up plans?
The follow up plan WAS Afghanistan. You can't just declare a war on a foreign nation without a reason. You need to trick the average joe into supporting you and sending his sons to die in a foreign land.
They justified attacking Afghanistan before because of communism. With Iraq and the gulf war, it was another false flag youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y (this bitch was later confirmed as a liar)

I wouldnt get in the mockup building because even though I believe on the bombs, I dont want to be in a building a plane just crashed in and die because of smoke or because of debris falling down my head.
It's like saying "why don't you get on this test car that will crash against a wall? don't you believe in seatbelts? you conspiracy nut!"

>cuck truthers won't put their money where their mouth is

what a shock

Also bin laden was (probably still is), Tim Osman, from the CIA
false flag

how do people not already know it was Israel?

>Would you agree to stand in it?
Yes
>If it was a controlled demolition
Not of it collapsing anyway
> then surely there's no danger right?
Well there is still a blazing inferno between me and the safety at ground level.

Do i get some reward for doing this? I don't even need money, i just want to tell you ''i told you so'' while pissing on you.

...

...

No I would not. I'm a conspiracy theorist, not a brain dead idiot. The only brain dead people are the ones who are 100% sure the buildings collapsed due to the planes hitting and that there's absolutely no reason that the government would lie about it.

...

...

>Surely if it had been a controlled demolition it would have gone from the bottom?
No, it would have gone exactly like controlled demolitions goes. There are thousands of videos of high rise buildings being brought down with explosives.

Which is exactly how it went.

...

I would stay on WTC7 if if was assured no part of falling towers will hit me and i will be comfy from all the ash.

You have to be seriously retarded to belive it collapsed becouse of planes hiting WTC1 and 2
look up the official explanation for it's collapse and how they were changing it multiple times becouse of using false data, ending up with whole story based by false information that some company was keeping fuel there which they said they didn't , but speed up the case so people can't protest it and now refuse to renew it even though thousands of engineers are opanly saying it's all bullshit

...

Someone who genuinely believes those buildings couldn't possibly collapse due to a plane hitting them and it HAD to be thermite/explosives.

So you'd stand in the mock up building then? You're saying they would not and could not collapse without thermite and explosives?

Support for both Afghan and Iraq was low. Yet governments don't care and just do that shit anyway, fuck what the people think.

I've just realised, it's also a slightly retarded argument - people are saying the government is so powerful it can kill thousands of its own people in order to justify a shitty war in a country most people couldn't give a fuck about. So if they're that powerful, why not just go to war anyway and laugh at stupid hippy protesters in the street? (The last bit is pretty much what did happen).

And while my "proposal" is extreme, I'm saying you'd have masks and be well protected in the top floors of that building. Plenty of people would have survived in the real 9/11 who were trapped on the top floors, had the building not collapsed. If people are saying it wouldn't collapse without thermite and/or explosives, they'd be happy to prove it by standing in the mock up building.

Absolutely. I've even had these thoughts before. None of the buildings would collapse without explosives.

Sorry, bad wording in my original post -

No, in my mock up, there is NO explosives or thermite. You can check the whole building. If a building CANNOT collapse due to a plane hitting it, as so many truthers claim, then the building will NOT collapse.

It will simply burn for a bit, and get smokey. You'll have very high-grade safety equipment to protect you from the fire many floors below. Once the fire is put out, you'll be rescued.

Your reward is being able to walk around with a big grin on your face, having proven that you aren't a conspiracy nut, and that in fact a building like the WTC cannot collapse due to two planes hitting it.

Investigators will inspect the charred, but standing, remains of the mock towers, and will also conclude the the major support beams, although damaged, can still hold the weight of the structure, and that it would indeed require explosives or thermite to make the building actually collapse.

Those buildings fell the way they did because they were designed to do so. Why the fuck would you have dozens of multi-hundred foot tall building literally within feet of each other and not build them to minimize damage in the worst case scenario?

>I would stay on WTC7
kek
same

>Your reward is being able to walk around with a big grin on your face, having proven that you aren't a conspiracy nut
I would do it without a second though. There is no way those towers would have collapses without demolition charges, either explosive or termite.

I just grab a lawn chair and park my ass up top and then wait until its over.

>Someone who genuinely believes those buildings couldn't possibly collapse due to a plane hitting them and it HAD to be thermite/explosives.

regular explosives wasn't enough.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

those were precisely placed loads by professionals

911 truthers are all unequivocally fucking retarded beyond redemption. You have absolutely no critical thinking skills and are just as gullible as flat earthers.

buildings implode on themselves in a controlled demolition, the WTC's collapsed because a very large top portion was destroying each floor as it fell downwards. you can even look at the wreckage and see that the debris is well and truly spread out everywhere.

you can say it was an inside job or that they used thermite all day, but it one thing it 100% was not was a controlled demolition.

If you're a WTC7-only guy, then yeah, you'll be on the top penthouse, away from any debris. There'll be shields and stuff to protect you from flying glass and smaller chunks of concrete, almost like a little interior shelter complete with air filtration for the dust.

So assuming the building cannot collapse without being demolished on purpose, you'll be fine.

There is a really great photo actually of WTC7 which has the slogan "the photo 9/11 conspiracy theorists don't want you to see" and is a rare view of the building not obscured by smoke before it came down, and there's enormous damage to the south face. Like, a gash from pretty much the top, to the bottom, almost as deep as the whole building in places, and at times about half the width.

Oddly that photo has been suppressed....

Chill, brah.

It shared exactly ZERO similarities to a controlled demo. You are a fucking moron.

>meme flag
>meme post
checks out
the top part doesn't have enough energy to bring the whole thing down
come on, it's basic physics ffs

you can rip a phone book in half by spreading the pages out slightly and ripping each page individually. same principle here, each floor was destroyed by the falling mass. if the falling parts destroyed the entire building at once, you'd have a fine point... but it didn't

>Oddly that photo has been suppressed....
No it hasn't, people don't post it though because only severely retarded bootlickers would think that the pic somehow disproves the fact that it was brought down on purpose.

>look there is some damage there so it makes sense for the whole building to pancake in on itself at free fall speed
Its like these fucking retards never even demolished a lego tower of wooden blocks when they where kids.

...

OK, so a twist for your point - You get to stand in the lower floors, like the lobby. Which was perfectly safe until the whole building came down.

You're saying that just the top bit would collapse, and the rest would remain standing right?

Again, you'd have a little internal shelter that would protect from the upper portions falling, but it wouldn't be enough to protect you from the whole thing collapsing.

You'd be happy to do that?

read it all seriously
scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html

skyscrapers were taking much more damage with plenty of floors collapsing in the past and none of those collapsed like 3 towers of WTC collapsed.

...

Well, you've already said you'd be happy to stand in the mock-up without a second thought, so I'm happy with your explanations.

...

>I've just realised, it's also a slightly retarded argument - people are saying the government is so powerful it can kill thousands of its own people in order to justify a shitty war in a country most people couldn't give a fuck about. So if they're that powerful, why not just go to war anyway and laugh at stupid hippy protesters in the street? (The last bit is pretty much what did happen).
If Trump said "we are going to war with Uzbekistan" how many people would be excited to join the war? Even the most die hard conservative would scratch his head at that.
How do you "go to war anyway" when nobody wants to? Do you go door to door forcing people to enlist, even though those guys have assault weapons and the second amendment?
You cant rule without support of the people, no matter how powerful you are.
If you force people to do what you want, you get impeached or assassinated

Go read Machiavelli, here is a good summary of one of the chapters from "the prince":
cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/the-prince/summary-and-analysis/chapter-7javascript:;
Borgia didn't fuck around. And neither does the deep state.
Look at what democrats did to america. They don't care that thousands of illegals, from god knows where, are coming into the country, stirring up trouble and stealing taxpayer money. As long as they get their votes

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qscqn-cVTRM

...

>scientistsfor911truth.org/introduction.html
I've read this before and it shows nothing of the sort.

What other building had a fully-loaded 767 fly into it at near full-speed?

People say "no other building has collapsed due to fire alone before", and they're correct. It didn't happen before 9/11, didn't happen on 9/11, and hasn't happened since 9/11.

No one ever claimed those collapses were due to fire alone.

...

Not sure what country you're from, but I think you'll find no enlistment was needed. The likes of the US, UK, etc have big military forces anyway.

There was no conscription for Afghan or Iraq (at least not in the UK, and I assume not the US) so it was just soldiers who were already serving, and they're just do as they're told.

I think if Trump went to war with say, Yemen (a possibility) right now, people would be up in arms like they were around Iraq, but it wouldn't change anything.

All the serving servicemen would simply go to war, there'd be a war, and they'd leave a mess.

Back home there'd be SJWs marching in the street, unfunny TV comedians would do routines on it, and there might be a few more terrorist attacks from Muslims.

Nothing we've not dealt with before.

Nothing free falls, lest resistance is removed.

equal exchange of forces means that the same number of floors above and below impact point would be destroyed
if it were to collapse at all
as long as I don't have to breath asbestos

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash

Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday. The crash spurred the passage of the long-pending Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, as well as the insertion of retroactive provisions into the law, allowing people to sue the government for the accident.[10]

youtube.com/watch?v=svUNCI76v1A

youtu.be/vdXTlFVz3w4

>OP BTFO

I'll also leave that one for good measure
youtube.com/watch?v=rStJ5BgadPs

B25 while attempting to land
Maximum speed: 272 mph (237 kn, 438 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,960 m)
so far less than that

vs
767-222
530+ mph

this

WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO

based judy

>an ancap argues to defend the government narrative

>i-i-it was us guise, I-I-I swear

Jet fuel can't melt bedrock. Which is exactly what happed on 911. Small briefcase sized nukes took down the towers.

That's a totally different point. I was talking about buildings collapsing due to fire alone. The Empire State Building crash wasn't due to fire alone, and it didn't collapse.

Plus, it's well documented that a B25 is much lighter, smaller, slower, and has far less fuel (especially near landing) than a 767 fully-laden. That's before we get to the differences in construction.

It's a poor example to use even if you do believe 9/11 conspiracies.

consider this. What kind of impact would the planemake if instead of the plane traveling at x speed, the building was traveling at x speed. Would the way in which the airplane sliced through the building still occur? Why or why not?

impact didn't do shit to construction of WTC towers it collapsed after and hour from the hit and it was standing straight just before collapsing

and you can't explain WTC7

no one can. official story is based on lies that some company was keeping there fuel they didn't keep

referring to this>> youtube.com/watch?v=sAcjxKtQSEQ

youtube.com/watch?v=2B6Lusn-HLM

>impact didn't do shit to construction of WTC towers
given that they are no more id say it did a fair bit innit

>can't explain WTC7
99%sure the models were released for it but feel free to keep posting the undamaged side and going on about freefall when you have 0 understanding of the physics

>molten concrete everywhere

thx I'd never seen that pic

Technically the towers were traveling at about 600mph when the plane hit them/they hit the plane, which is approximately the speed of earth's rotational force at the approximate latitude of New York.

why nukes? they would leave obvious radiation signatures, conventional explosives are much easier to conceal

fucking THANK YOU. how does no one understand that they were built that way on purpose?

you can stop shilling now
it's over
everybody knows already

>Those buildings fell the way they did because they were designed to do so
this has to be one of the most retarded things i've ever read here on Sup Forums
no one can be this stupid, its impossible

So, if the building is moving at 600mph and The plane is stationary in the air, do the buildings decimate the plane, or does the plane slice into the building?

checked
young Tim

I despise governments largely. An-Cap is the closest flag on here to my beliefs, but I'm probably best described as a minarchist.

What I find funny, is that most "truthers" are so doe-eyed about the "all powerful government" that they cannot believe this happened. It MUST have been our lords and masters in govenrment right? I mean, how could they let this happen when they're meant to be watching over us and protecting us. So it must have secretly been them right?

The sad, and far more scary reality, is that governments are generally incompetent fools, who have surprisingly little control over what we do or how the world works.

A catalogue of government idiocy surrounds 9/11 - from inadvertently funding the likes of Al Qaeda in the first place when the US thought they could help drive back the Soviets (sort of worked admittedly), to spending billions looking for attacks coming from outside and having a poor system in place for if an attack came from within.

If you want the scary truth, listen to the NORAD tapes from 9/11. They were utterly clueless and totally unprepared, with no idea what to do or how to do it. Most of the time a ticket agent at the likes of United Airlines has more of a clue about the whereabouts of a hijacked airliner than the military commander in charge of the East Coast.

These are the people who demand a portion of our wages, under threat of imprisonment, in return for "protecting" us. That's the real issue for me - that we allow that to happen and barely question it.

And this is supposed to be an argument in favor of the "official story"?

Reminder that this supposedly happened because a single support beam collapsed. It wasn't hit by a plane, but burned for something like 8-9 hours. Then it collapsed in a few seconds, not even tilting as far as spilling across the single street-width between it and the building next to it.

Think about it:
>47 story building escapes being hit by plane or much of anything
>Burns for ~9 hours (office fires on a few floors, not fierce enough to even really be seen from the outside except some smoke out a few windows)
>A single supporting pillar supposedly fails
>Suddenly collapses in a matter of seconds
>The collapse is so neatly evenly distributed that debris from this 610 feet/190 meter tall building doesn't even fall on the two buildings next to it, a New York side-street's length away, except for a few MINOR chunks of concrete

The main people responsible for planning this should be fitted with pacemakers, respirators and given drug cocktails to stay awake no matter what. Then they should have their complete skin flayed with their families forced to watch from behind a glass screen. Exerpts of the footage from this could be made into a documentary to show what happens to traitors of this level, and their skins used to taxidermy replicas of them to signal to the elites that they will indeed live on forever, but in the way they imagined.

Actually the nips did it by proxy. Osama just wanted to be like cloud

>Then, planes are flown into the buildings, in exactly the same way as on 9/11. Same speed, course, angle, same planes, same weight, same materials.
>Remotely flown of course, but even with dummies in place to simulate passenger weight.
Ahh of course.

Yeah, I'm anti-conspiracy theory as you're all aware, but even I admit this is an utterly retarded argument against the controlled-demolition theory.

They collapsed like that because buildings don't tend to have much lateral force when collapsing. Gravity made them fall down. What did people expect, them to topple over from ground level? This only happens in, hold on, controlled demolitions.

Also, you need to consider the momentum behind the plane if it's flying. Since it's not flying we still have to represent the momentum somehow. The plane will need to be not only stationary but unmoveable as well. It must fully connect with building. Will the plane crumple when the building hits it?

I'm amazed it took this long for a "the planes were remotely controlled" truther to pop up!

Let's turn it around. Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin and Mao are all sitting around a table in the top floor of WTC1. They are almost attaining their plans of world domination, but you can stop them by bringing the entire building down. Do you think one airplane would do the trick? Where would you fly it? Why would it work?