1. Get all of your “evidence” from YouTube videos and 9/11 twoofer websites. 2. Reject any information that may disprove your fantasy, regardless of the source. 3. Pretend to understand physics and structural engineering. 4. Assume that any professional who defends the official story has been paid off by the CIA. 5. Assert that over 100 peer-reviewed papers published in major physics and structural engineering journals which support the official story, are all wrong. 6. Convince yourself that anyone with solid evidence of 9/11 being an inside job has been paid off, threatened, or killed. (This is the only explanation as to why there has been no engineering or physics paper with calculations disproving the official story). 7. Act superior to anyone who isn't gullible enough to buy into conspiracy theories. 8. Wear a tinfoil hat at all times.
Read the official report on the events of 9/11 They don't even try explain half the shit that occurred. Not that i'm claiming anything, just saying that the guys who were actually paid to look into the shit left a bunch of shit out. Hell the thing had to be unconditionally approved by George bush or it wasn't getting published. 3,000 pages of nothing getting solved.
But not knowing exactly what happened 100% and not putting every detail in doesn't mean anything.
Daniel Thompson
It means that it's entirely unresolved. They don't explain the temperature peaks, freefall speeds, the architectural stability and hundreds of other things. As i said, they wrote 3,000 pages of utter garbage that doesn't support the claims made. The official report is contrary to common belief and official claims made. You'd know that if you actually read it. Again, i'm not denying or speculating anything whatsoever because i'm not even american. But i did manage to wolf a few hundred pages of that garbage and they i think they need a re-write. It fails to clarify any cause for the events that i previously mentioned and much more. Whoever approved of that unfinished report is a major asshole who just didn't give a fuck.
I swear, my friends -- who are actually quite bright and reasonable people otherwise -- actually believe this 9/11 conspiracy bullshit. I just have to get up and walk away when they try convincing me of their stupid conspiracy ideas. I can't even. I just don't know how anyone could be that foot-draggingly retarded to believe we somehow managed to pull off an incredibly complex and elaborate attack on ourselves for a war that didn't even pay off. It just put us further in debt. And fuck, Clinton can't even get a blow job in office but Bush was somehow able to pull THIS shit off? No fucking way.
Brody Fisher
was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA, while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires, and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.
Brody Hernandez
I bet you're a fucking 10 year old baby who just heard for the first time that yes, indeed our government follows through with false flag attacks, even on native soil. Just go back to bed, little kid.
Easton Johnson
Well it's the official report and the event DID transpire shorty beforehand. Besides it's still cited today and is scientifically accurate.
Nathaniel Nelson
Fuck you, you fucking zombie mongoloid piece of shit. Keep getting assfucked by Uncle Sam and asking for seconds, while the real men take care of fucking business for your ignorant cocksuckers.
Thomas Cooper
Nope, wrong again.
Sebastian Garcia
Yes, but what you aren't understanding is that they're not going to know everything about it right after it happened. Just making the assumption that they didn't care and they did it on purpose needs to be backed up by evidence.
Thomas Gutierrez
Enlighten me.
Aiden Edwards
>It just put us further in debt. It only put the american public in debt. Oil companies, construction companions and weapons manufacturers didn't take a single piece of that debt. In fact, they profited hugely from the aftermath of 9/11 Oh and if you actually believe that Bush has ever masterminded anything in his entire life you're the one that's retarded. Dude didn't even run your country when he was president, Clinton held his hand every step of the way. >Inb4 9/11 conspiracy theorist I don't deal in speculations like that, i'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
Xavier Stewart
debt is the whole point of war. to make the warmongers rich. debit IS the payoff.
Cooper Roberts
Big planes fly into big buildings and big damage occurs. What more needs to be explained to you?
Most of what you just said, frankly, is wrong. The building didn't fall at free-fall speeds. No where close. It reaches the dust cloud and that's where they stop the clock -- with like 40 more stories to go. So that's easily debunked.
Jack Martin
>can't bring anything of value to thread. >I can't explain stuff so I'm going to resort to namecalling. >BUT YOU'RE THE ZOMBIES!!!!
Look at the evidence and stop being so simple minded.
Andrew Watson
> They don't even try explain half the shit that occurred.
It's because you made that half of the shit up.
Alexander Edwards
The argument is that our government -- Bush presiding -- is the one who helped orchestrate the whole thing in order to steal oil and make money.....or something.
It's retarded and doesn't make any sense.
Levi Morris
Kek
Adrian Parker
Is this real?
Colton Bennett
Idk I couldn't tell either user lol
Asher Hughes
They literally did a full report on it buddy. Anything that was left out was left out intentionally. The accuracy of the 9/11 report was to an extreme degree that even nasa would be proud of. The only thing it fails in, is explaining why. They accurately described velocity, temperatures and density but they didn't explain how. Fucking read it, i'm not trying to convince you of anything. You're the one who's supposed to convince me with hard evidence and scientifically accurate reports. I'm not assuming that they didn't care, i'm providing you with evidence that whoever approved of the report, didn't do his fucking job, not because the people who made the report lacked the evidence but because they didn't put it in. Oh and there STILL hasn't been a single report that can explain in scientific terms how the circumstance came to be, they only explain the circumstances themselves. This is why we have naysayers and truthseekers because the report is inconclusive. To this day the entire event is unresolved. If nasa had tried to pull this shit with their failed mission the entire fucking nation would have been in uproar.
Jace Rivera
>What more needs to be explained to you? Every single fucking detail. For future reference and fullproofing. >The building didn't fall at free-fall speeds Read the fucking report. The rubble did fall at freefall speed.
Colton Lopez
I could get mad but I just have to laugh at the people who look at two massive, commercial airplanes loaded with fuel flying into two massive towers, watch them fall down, scratch their heads and think...
>well that doesn't make any sense
Like what part confuses you? The big planes? The big towers? What part of their falling down so surprised you? It was a killer fucking attack. Yeah, big planes + big towers = big fucking results
By the way conspiracy theorists talk, you'd think the planes should have landed inside the towers with everyone getting off the plane like "shit, did we hit some turbulence or something? that was kind of a rough ride!"
James Roberts
Didn't make shit up buddy. It actually does make sense, hitler pulled the same shit on a smaller scale. Not that it has any bearing on what ACTUALLY happened but yeah, you'll get no-where with your friends if you don't try harder.
Aiden Kelly
> Vague as fuck.
Yeah, that only fools other conspiracy theorists.
Anthony Thomas
The rubble that was ejected from the building you mean? Yes that rubble fell as all things ejected into the air commonly fall -- in free fall.
The building itself did NOT fall at free fall speeds.
For fuck's sake just look at the video, you dolt. There is debris and rubble falling FASTER than the building itself. So what was that shit falling at? Free-fall +20 ?
Ryan Powell
Why are you typing out your frustration? Calm down user. Anyways, you're not trying to prove anything to me other than that the reports were poorly done. Yes, this is probably why many people are nay sayers, but who's to say that they aren't just following other people's misguided beliefs? The point of my post was to show how dumb the Non-believers are. What you're trying to show is one single report. Even though it is the "official" report it doesn't mean that they are going to have every single detail and be able to explain every reason certain things happened, like I said before.
Lucas Harris
The building were actually designed to withstand the very planes that crashed into them with minimal damage. It's in the official report and original architectural planning.
Gavin Jones
> Superpower > Gets trashed by two commercial airplanes > hijacked by mountain monkeys > we need to invade > oil > the end
Evan Jenkins
>on a smaller scale
And that's crucial. Hitler staged a little mock attack by the Polish border with a couple tanks and soldiers. It was very easy and it achieved his desires.
Bush could have done something so, so, so much smaller and easier and achieved the same results -- a war in the middle east.
But no, had to go with the holographic planes, tons and tons of planted explosives, and all the other stupid shit conspiracy theorists believe
Adrian Smith
> Didn't make shit up buddy
Yes, yes you did. It's always a bunch of biases, fallacies and lies. You are the broken record I've been listening to for years.
Brayden Harris
I'm not copypastaing the fucking report for you. You can download it for free and read it yourself, until then shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about and have 0 scientific evidence to support your claims and i'm not making any claims that aren't straight out of the official report. I';m not claiming inside jobs or conspiracies, i'm pointing out the flaws in your argument is all. Explain HOW the rubble reached freefall speed, in scientific terms. If i dropped a bit of rubble from the TOP of the towers, it woudn't reach freefall before hitting the ground.
Zachary Wright
>685343496 The buldings were built in the 60's. If you really think that they knew exactly how the planes were going to crash and that it was definitely going to withstand the blows, then I don't know what to tell you. America had never experienced something like 9/11 before this so tell me how exactly they were supposed to know the limits of the buildings?
Jace Gonzalez
I'm not claiming truth to anything these people are saying. I'm merely pointing out the invalidity of your argument. >Yes, yes you did Point to one sentence that isn't supported by the offical 9/11 report. I don't believe it was an inside job or that bush conspired to make it happened. I have made 0 unfounded claims in this thread except that the guy who approved of the report didn't care, which is just my personal opinion and speculation.
Sebastian Jones
>You can download it for free and read it yourself
Hasn't actually read it himself. Not clear about what he thinks is wrong.
> not making any claims that aren't straight out of the official report
Transparent. We all know there is a bunch of truther bullshit behind whatever weaknesses you believe there is.
Gabriel Hughes
...
Jason Miller
So the planes should have bounced off, then?
The buildings weren't designed to withstand anything. They were designed with the possibility of a plane flying into them IN MIND but it wasn't like they knew for sure what would happen if it actually happened.
Bridges are designed to withstand high winds. Guess what? High winds sometimes knock bridges down. It happens. There's no real certainty in design and architecture for things like that.
The buildings weren't designed to withstand plane hits. That wasn't their purpose.
William Adams
The buildings were designed to withstand the EXACT planes that flew into them. Building skyscrapers requires alot of physics AND the planning needs to be fullproof. They knew exactly what they could and couldn't withstand otherwise they COULDN'T have built them. Jesus dude you are worse than these fucking conspiracy theorists. Proofread your fucking posts beforehand.
Jose Kelly
>I'm merely pointing out the invalidity of your argument.
Is that what you're trying to do? Well you're doing a terrible job.
Jaxon Mitchell
...
Gavin Foster
Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here, I'm legitimately wondering....
Where's the plane? I haven't found any pictures with plane wreckage.
Thomas Barnes
...
Aiden Jenkins
I've read a few hundred pages. I pointed that out in my first post. >We all know there is a bunch of truther bullshit behind whatever weaknesses you believe there is. I don't even know what this means. They should've still been standing. With a shit ton of damage, yeah but they shouldn't have toppled. >Guess what? High winds sometimes knock bridges down. >There's no real certainty in design and architecture for things like that. Learn2architecture >The buildings weren't designed to withstand plane hits. That wasn't their purpose. That was exactly what they were designed to withstand. Get some fucking evidence bro. I'm out lol. You've done 0 fucking research on this subject and know nothing of architecture.
Juan Hernandez
> Assuming the rubble didn't do exactly what would be expected from rubble falling from the top of a tower
See, this is what I mean with just making shit up. Warping your brain to the point where you believe that others believe that rubble was falling at maximum velocity early on, to the point where you believe it enough yourself to make it your actual argument.
Joshua Diaz
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk
Carter Ramirez
As i said. > If i dropped a bit of rubble from the TOP of the towers, it woudn't reach freefall before hitting the ground.
Nathan Parker
The wreckage is everywhere. You expect it to be different, but it aint, cuz physics.
James Reed
user, there's no way they could have possibly known exactly what the building could withstand. As stated before, nothing like this has ever happened in the US for them to be 100% correct on what the building could and couldn't withstand.
Wyatt Thomas
> You know nothing bro I know everything bro > Still at maximum vagueness
Aaron James
>for them to be 100% correct on what the building could and couldn't withstand. It's called architectural planning buddy. Buildings need to be designed, not thrown up and with the heights of the towers they specifically intended them to be able to withstand the impact of a Boeing 767 Post proof or get the fuck out.
Jaxson Young
Which is not an argument against or for anything, because you have no fucking clue about how the rubble from the twin towers fell, nor for that how matter how rubble should fall. You know nothing about anything.
Zachary Thompson
You keep missing my points completely. You're the one saying that they knew everything about the building. You're the one who's supposed to show the evidence. You're making the big claim. You want to try and point out everyone else's flaws in their arguments, yet you have the biggest flaw of all.
Xavier Murphy
And they are designed, but not for the purpose of withstanding plane strikes.
It's not like a bunch of architects got together and said "let's build the most plane-withstanding buildings ever!"
They were built with planes IN MIND. It's more like, "let's build some towers -- oh, and what about planes?"
Do you not understand the vast difference between those two statements and their respective consequences?
Christopher Rogers
>only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to a for.
That's not a suspicious. How did the fires burn hot enough to melt steel without your fucking precious jet fuel to weaken the structure first whatever the fuck that even means. You people are so blind.
