2 general questions for those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Any logically thinking persons should ask these 2 questions.
1. Why WTC7? What would be the point? What evidence do you have to support this?
2. Why not use a plane on the Pentagon? Why go through the troubles having to make sure no one sees a missile? To plant parts? To dispose of the plane and passengers?

The Pentagon

1.jpg

@liberty.movment your own image debunks itself. Security cameras are pointed downward to catch people. They are not pointed upward, at the horizon, to catch planes.
FYI, I think the people who saw the plane and the plane parts prove otherwise.

1. People actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon. It is pretty easy to distinguish between a drone and a Boeing 757. 2. The FBI confiscated videos because they were the investigators. 3. The people are not carrying anything from the site. Fist off, whatever it is it is clearly light (some people are using only one hand). It is more likely that they were bringing something to the site. Aerial photos show plenty of tents with blue tarps over them. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html Follow my other accounts @YoungTeaParty5.0, @TheBurkeSociety and @Crux.Est.Amoris Follow my other admins at @southern_conservative_, @ravanforcongress2026 and @liberalism_2016 Checkout my blog https://mrcredible.wordpress.com/ Link in the bio #911WasAnOutsideJob #911WasntAnInsideJob #CredibleHulkOriginal #republicans #elephant #donkeys #democrats #obama #Hillary #noobama #nohillary #hillary2016 #2014 #2016 #aca #obamacare #randpaul #randpaul2016 #Benghazi #rememberbenghazi #feminism #LP #libertarians #endthefed #ronpaul #tedcruz

A post shared by S&M&S&P (@_credible_hulk) on

2.jpg

“No plane debris at the Pentagon”. Fun fact. People saw a plane flying towards the Pentagon.”

3.jpg

About 89, a number of eyewitnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.
at least 45, a number of eyewitnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: ‘airliner’, ‘big’, ‘silver’, ‘roaring’, etc.
at least 23, a number of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.
at least 22, a number of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.
at least 17, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.
at least 12, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.
at least 11, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.
at least 5, a number of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.
at least 2, a number of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretation of the witness accounts.
at least 0, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn’t relevant!
at least 0, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.
at least 0, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
at least 3, a number of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)
at least 1, a number of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it’s gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)
at least 25, a number of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.) To see the knocked down light poles look at the above image.

I would even argue that the video released in enough to prove a plane hit the Pentagon

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1540586.stm

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/lightpoles/

4.jpg

 

Myth: There was not enough destruction in the Pentagon.
These claims rely on the remote assessment of non-specialists against the on-site investigation of experts on structural engineering. The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building: such an aircraft is mostly empty space, with voids in the wings for fuel and the fuselage for passengers; only the floor of the passenger compartment, the undercarriage, and the engine cores are particularly solid objects. The damage is consistent with this scenario: nobody but truthers would seriously expect a cartoony plane-shaped hole–

Fun Fact: The B-25 bomber which crashed into the Empire State building tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. A B-25 has a wingspan of 67 ft and 7 in (20.60 m). Guess the Pentagon is not the first building to have a plane crash into it and cause a hole smaller than the plane’s wingspan. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

5.jpg

1. People actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon. It is pretty easy to distinguish between a drone and a Boeing 757.

2. The FBI confiscated videos because they were the investigators.

3. The people are not carrying anything from the site. Fist off, whatever it is it is clearly light (some people are using only one hand). It is more likely that they were bringing something to the site. Aerial photos show plenty of tents with blue tarps over them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

1.jpg

The Bush administration had not yet passed a budget so it was not about protecting the current administrations. The 2.3 trillion that was unaccounted for was lost over decades and decades so it’s not like they disappeared overnight. Instead, they were lost because of poor technology (and possibly recoverable). Here is the portion of the speech where the Secretary of Defense announces the lost: “The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.”

This was not a shocking revelation from THE Secretary of Defense regarding money stolen from the budget but instead, it was a speech regarding the that there were decades of data, which they are unable to efficiently access because of out-of-date systems.” All sources are hyperlinked into the page.

1.jpg

1. The plane can actually be seen in one frame. Beyond that, just because footage does not exist does not mean something did not happen or something sketchy is going on (Credit to Miles Powers for that quote). 2. The plane is Taiwan was obviously going much slower. I do not think anyone would debate this.

3. The plane was traveling at 780 ft per second (more than 530 mph). The simple reality is that it was going so fast it would only be caught in 1 or 2 frames.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a675/2815396/

 

WTC7

1

WTC 7 was not struck by a plane but instead, a tower partially fell on it. WTC 7 was the only building where its fires were not fought. WTC 7 also received critical structural damage. The claims that it was not publicized to is irrelevant. Also as I (will) explain it was an incorrect report which happens.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

2

Silverstein’s Quote:
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” -Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander -Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein’s spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified: “In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.” He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence… “They told us to get out of there because 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. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally, it did come down. From there – this is much later on in the day because every day we were so worried about that building we didn’t really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally, it did come down.” – Richard Banaciski

http://debunking911.com/pull.htm

3

I assume media reports need to be 100% accurate 100% of the time. 9/11 was a chaotic time where information could easily be confused and wrong information could spread can be spread like a wildfire. If anyone has ever played the game telephone you know how easily information can be distorted. Also as the recent MH17crash showed information can easily be inaccurate. It was originally reported that 26 Americans died when it was only 1. Also, the report originally came from Reuters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

4

1.jpg

@killyourtv here is the thing. These are actually different buildings with different circumstances and designs. If we had five car crashes and in just one of those crashes a person died we could not say it was a conspiracy because the death was in the “best” crash. You need to loom at the specifics of each.

Unlike the rest of the buildings, WTC7 has another building fall on it causing critical damage. Firefighters even abandoned the building before hand because they thought it was going to collapse.
http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov071.pdf

1.jpg

No WTC7 does not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Truthers try and claim that it collapsed at free fall but the reality is that it did not. The meme claims a 9.5-second collapse but the total collapse actually took 18 seconds, almost three times longer. Why the difference? Truthers will ignore the beginning of the collapse, as seen by the penthouse collapsing, and the multi-second gap following it. This showed that the collapse began before the outside walls collapsed.
Here is the short of what happened. The interior of the building failed as can be seen by the penthouse collapsing and kink developing in the building. After the interior collapsed the outside was held by nothing. This gave the appearance of free fall and a controlled demolition. The article linked below goes into more depth if you are interested.

http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov071.pdf

Twin Towers 

1.jpg

Myth: WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT?
Niels Harritt, Steven Jones, and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nano-thermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.
Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nano-thermites and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nano-thermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nano-thermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nano-thermite!
Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nano-thermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thematic material.

1

Myth: WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS MELTED BY THERMITE?
Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered Everywhere. Even if the microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study said, “Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC … Iron-rich spheres … would be expected to be present in the Dust.”

2

Myth: The collapses were consistent with controlled demolitions.
Characteristics of a controlled demolition
1. Loud explosion heard miles away.
2. Inward collapse
3. Falling in the footprint
4. Collapse starts at the bottom.
5. Falls at Free Fall

South Tower:
1. No cameras picked up an explosion on their audio.
2. Outward collapse
3. Fell out of footprint
4. Collapse starts near the top at the point of entry.
5. See another post on this

North Tower:
1. No cameras picked up an explosion on their audio.
2. Outward collapse
3. Fell out of footprint
4. Collapse starts near the top at the point of entry.
5. See another post on this

WTC7
1. No cameras picked up an explosion on their audio.
2. Outward
3. Fell out of footprint
4. The collapse happens at the bottom
5. NIST studied the collapse of one face of the 47-story Building 7 and found that indeed, on that one face, it collapsed “at gravitational acceleration” for eight stories over 2.25 seconds. The rest of that collapse was at considerably less than free-fall.

The only tower that had a characteristic of a controlled demolition was WTC 7 and even, in that case, it was only one.

Myth: The Twin Towers fell at free fall

Simply by looking at the above image you can see that this is not true. The derbies are falling faster than the building is collapsing. Unless the debris has rockets pushing them down then the fastest they can be going is free fall.

It actually took the North Tower 11 seconds to collapse and the South Tower 10-15 seconds (25 seconds if you wait for the center column for the bottom 40 floors). But how do people get free fall? It is quite simple actually. They stop counting when the DERBIES hit the ground not the actual building.

3

The core column of one of the WTCs. It remained standing for 25 seconds after the collapse began. If thermite charges were placed all over the building then this column should have collapsed.

4

From loose change. The core column can be seen standing after the collapse.

1

“As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.” http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

2

This is shockingly easy to debunk. After 13 years you would think that people who claim to have researched the event would have accurately timed it.
When somebody tells you that the towers fell at “free-fall speed,” they’re more or less pulling that out of their ass. Or at least, they’re referencing some other conspiracy theorists who pulled it out of their ass. They’re not referencing any kind of scientific theory or measurement; they’re just timing the fall as they watch YouTube videos and declaring that it looks different from how it plays out in their imagination. In other words, they don’t actually know what they mean by “free fall” except that the buildings seem to be falling more quickly than they’d expect from the almost certainly zero controlled demolitions they’ve seen before.

Most of the video of the actual collapse is filmed in Cloverfield-style shaky-cam, but if you watch any of the still-camera footage, you can debunk the free-fall claim simply from the fact that there’s debris coming off the tower that’s falling faster than the tower is. We’ve known that objects free fall at the same speed ever since Galileo dropped some balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa so that more or less puts the kibosh on the whole free-fall business.

Part of the problem is that the Twin Towers were basically big, featureless rectangles that made it look like the whole thing was falling at once. Conspiracy theorists like Rosie O’Donnell like to rattle off statistics like how the towers fell in nine seconds, which just happens to be free-fall speed. But nine seconds is more likely the amount of time that Rosie put into researching the issue, because if she’d actually timed the collapse, she would have found that the towers took about 15 and 22 seconds to collapse, well short of free-fall speed. But then, that’s why very few engineering graduates cite Rosie O’Donnell as a source.

1

@building710 First let me state the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics are two journals that Jones could have submitted his papers. There are many well-respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted this paper is the Wiki of Journals. One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review.
Now to debunk the supposed thermite. Niels Harritt, Steven Jones, and other 9/11 controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nano-thermite particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure the dust samples were untainted and used advanced instruments to measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.
Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen supply when they burn so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et. al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nano-thermites and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nano-thermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nano-thermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nano-thermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nano-thermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thematic material. Also, the materials found lacked critical elements of thermite.

And lastly for the iron orbs. Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered everywhere. Even if the microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study said, “Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC … Iron-rich spheres … would be expected to be present in the Dust.”

2

The angles are there so the columns fell in a specific direction during cleanup, not because of thermite.

http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm

3

Fun fact, no molten steel was found at Ground Zero. Contrary to what truthers want you to think the images above do not show molten steel but heated steel. Any metal worker can produce this.
Here are some excerpts from the subject from a debate I had with @ancap_outlaw some time ago. I will link to the debate and you can get my sources on that page (I’m trying to make this one comment long). “[T]he pictures [of supposed molten steel] you link to seem to fall into three categories. 1. Hot metal 2. Molten aluminum (which you conceded in”t steel) 3. Water/A light (I don”t think you want to argue firefighters can stand in molten steel) since category 2 and 3 are irrelevant to let us discuss category 1. It is important to note the difference between red-hot and molten. I”ll provide a link below to a picture of molten steel and the picture clearly in”t the same as what is in category 1. Your pictures of “molten steel” are really just red hot steel.
Lastly to your testimonials. The first response that comes to mind, and which itself is sufficient in my opinion, is how do they know what type of metal it is? Did they test it or can they just tell molten steel orangeish-red from molten aluminum orangish-red? How do they know what is dripping off beams in”t water or another metal or a plastic? These seem to be far more reasonable explanations than a giant conspiracy.
I”d like to see the full quotes. I”m not saying you are intentionally doctoring them but the truther movement has a history of misquoting.” “Here are four reasons why I think your testimonials shouldn’t be given weight.
1. Why is there no photographic evidence? There clearly were plenty of cameras at ground zero.
2. Why was no physical evidence take? This clearly would have been wired. They didn’t they pick it up and take it somewhere to show the investigators? That described river had to lead somewhere.
3. How do they know it is steel? The twin towers were office buildings and restaurants plus whatever else. While there would have been more steel there should have been plenty of other metals. I doubt they tested the pools to see what substance they were.
4. The thermite explosions were in the tower prior/during the collapse. During the collapse, any molten steel would have dispersed. Most if not all should have hardened on the way down but even if they did why would they form pools?
5. On the ground, assuming they somehow were in pools, how would they of stayed in a liquid state so long? Once the temperature went below X they should have solidified.” ” For a moment let me assume molten steel was found. This does not need thermite for steel to melt. The pressure would have been immense. Increased pressure will always make fires hotter because you will have more oxygen per unit. This means the stand office fire temperature is an inaccurate measure of how hot it is and that a regular fire would be significantly hotter due to pressure. This provides an alternative explanation for possible molten steel putting, even more, pressure on your need to prove explosives were used because we can no longer say molten steel proves explosives were used.” http://www.debate.org/debates/Were-the-twin-towers-brought-down-in-a-inside-job/1/

4

What if I told you that the Twin Towers were not hit by Boeing 707s but Boeing 767s (the 200ER model was used on both towers) and that Boeing 767s are larger?

Boeing 707s have a length of 144ft to 152 feet depending on the variant. The 767-200ER has a length of 159ft.
Boeing 707s have a wingspan of 130ft to 145ft depending on the variant. The 767-200ER has a length of 156ft.
Boeing 707s have a fuel capacity of 13,478 gallons to 23,855 gallons depending on the variant. The 767-200ER has a fuel capacity of 24,140 gallons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications

Here is Leslie Robertson, architect of the Twin Towers, on the 707/767 controversy.

5

1. That is likely aluminum pouring out the building.

2. What about the Leslie Robertson quote? It is a true quote and the source will be below. Does this prove what truthers want it to prove? I argue no. This quote leaves out two important parts of his talk. First off he says “like” which could suggest that he was not attempting to speak in the most precise terms or was simply drawing a comparison. Secondly, he says this was months later. As I stated in another post, “For a moment let me assume molten steel was found. This does not need thermite for steel to melt. The pressure would have been immense. Increased pressure will always make fires hotter because you will have more oxygen per unit. This means the stand office fire temperature is an inaccurate measure of how hot it is and that a regular fire would be significantly hotter due to pressure. This provides an alternative explanation for possible molten steel putting, even more, pressure on your need to prove explosives were used because we can no longer say molten steel proves explosives were used.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lmzI7R5Bo8

10684129_702450209838429_61844164_n

 

The odds of getting a credible source from a truther seem to be in the ballpark of being struck by lightning.
I went looking for a source to this claim and found this claim on a number of sites. Here are two examples.
http://911blogger.com/node/13272
http://www.globalresearch.ca/are-tall-buildings-safer-as-a-result-of-the-nist-wtc-911-investigation/5309676
Shockingly, none of them gave an original source. In all likelihood, this was made up and caught fire among truthers.
10914507_564504567019018_199423130_n

@thepoorguy 1. no thermite was found. Ignoring the problems of how the samples were handled (which itself would disqualify the study) the study is bunk. Steven Jones found a substance with the same makeup as thermite but that is just aluminum and oxide. That is present in TVs and Laptops. According to the paper, the “thermite” made up .1% of the dust collected. That is a way to high. An independent follow-up study confirmed that this was not thermite but likely paint instead.

2. What about molten metal? That is a slight of hand designed to mislead viewers. It is meant to make people think of molten steel but allows you to avoid this criticism. No molten steel was ever found and molten steel has never been found at Ground Zero. Molten metal is vague. Metals have different melting points. Molten metal could be found and the official story could be true. Even IF molten steel was found, the official story could be true.

1

1. The is completely irrelevant. “The Bush administration had not yet passed a budget so it was not about protecting the current administration’s ass. The 2.3 trillion that was unaccounted for was lost over decades and decades. Here is the portion of the speech where the Secretary of Defense announces the lost money, “The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.”
This was not a shocking revelation from the Secretary of Defense regarding money stolen from the budget but instead, it was a speech regarding that there were decades of data, which they are unable to efficiently access because of out-of-date systems.”
https://mrcredible.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked-debunked/

2. It is a crash site. Call it whatever you want but a plane crashed there and left plane parts.
3. Except for the engine, landing gear, fuselage, etc
http://tinyurl.com/zgym8y9

4. So? When the B-25 crashed into the Empire State building it left a much smaller hole. Contrary to what truthers think, planes do not leave cartoon cutouts. As I write this, I have a post on this coming.

5. “This is simply a case of really good luck for a few people and those few people (unintentionally) profiting over the bad luck of thousands. American Airlines stock price had lost 20% of its value in two months and had announced a string of bad news. Many investors were predicting the stock could go lower (as can be seen on Yahoo! Financial boards). The picture for American was all around bad. United was also experiencing bad news.” The investors simply preparing for what they thought would happen.
https://mrcredible.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked-debunked/
6. I could not find where this quote was from but plenty of witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

7. This is just an example of bumper sticker phrases that take paragraphs to refute. I will have another post on that.

8. No one is claiming it can melt steel beams (under normal circumstances). It did not and it did not have to melt steel beams for the official story to work.

9. Under normal circumstances, no one is claiming it can or did. Molten steel was never found.
10. Thermite was never found.

11. Yes. That was done in order to make beam removal easier. Smaller beams are easier to move plus portions of the beams would have been under rubble.

12. If we are dealing with people who are willing to kill thousands why would they have disaster relief in the area? This could expose them.
13. At best they could be referring to two individuals who were far away from the Pentagon and said they saw a commuter plane. Everyone else says they saw a large plane. See sources above.

14. Okay? I am not sure what this proves. Cause and effect?
15. Do people not understand explosions do not vaporize everything in a certain area? Experimental worms survived Columbia. Anyone want to claim a conspiracy?
http://www.liebertpub.com/global/pressrelease/experimental-worms-survived-reentry-break-up-and-crash-of-space-shuttle-columbia-according-to-a-report-in-the-journal-emastrobiology-em/428/

16. No, they did not. Conspiracy theorists claim this by stopping count once the debris hit the ground but the building itself was not finished collapsing. The debris would fall at free fall.

17. He did but he also admitted to it later. He could have been denying to keep the Taliban protecting him.
18. Cause and effect are proved once again.

19. Explosions do not mean explosives. Explosions can be electrical, cleaning materials or just a loud noise that sounds like an explosion.

20. Did you want to leave it at Ground Zero forever?

2

“Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process “pancaking,” and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. “When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it’s going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, “but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/ “Another

is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It’s said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there were steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed through the core anyway it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core…” http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

3

The B-25 has a wingspan of 67 ft and 7 inches and was 16 ft and 4 inches tall. The hole in the Empire State building was 18 by 20 feet. Guess the Pentagon was not the first time that happened, that the length of the whole was not as large as the plane’s wingspan.

But what about the fact that it did not fall? It is all in the differences. The B-25 was going slower (it was coming in for a landing), it was smaller and had less fuel. Plus, the Empire State building is a different building with a different design that the Twin Towers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Specifications_.28B-25H.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92987873

1

Patriotsquestion911 claims they have a grand total of 250 pilots and aviation experts who think 9/11 was an inside job. Some of which are veterans. There are over hundreds of thousands of veterans with flight experience. It would seem that former military pilots are far less likely to believe that 9/11 was an inside job than the general population.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

2

There are 2 million engineers and over 100,000 architects in America.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has less than 3,000 supporters and that is not even adjusting for those outside the US or who might have weak credentials.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/the-number-of-architects-in-the-us-grew-in-2015_o

https://www.nspe.org/resources/press-room/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-engineering

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Other

2

Turns out no evidence exists to suggest Obama Bin Ladden was a CIA agent known as Tim Osman (the name is part of the same claim). http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html

3

@ziplockm80 this quote seems to be authentic.
Via Haaretz.com
The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001, terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel. “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.” http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

5

1. He was killed by the government… “Apache County deputies tried to arrest Cooper on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment stemming from disputes with local residents in July and September. A handgun-toting Cooper fled when the deputies identified themselves. He opened fire as two deputies closed in…” He shot one deputy in the head. Clearly an assassination attempt to silence him.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/07/news/mn-1182

2. Let us assume that the quote “about” 9/11 is true. Who cares? We were a wacky conspiracy theorist who made an extremely vague comment about “something” happening. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

4

LINK TO VIDEO: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA CAPTION: In this video, a metalworker easily debunks the “Jet Fuel” argument with a simple experiment. The man takes a metal rod out of a forge burning at around 1800 degrees. He then takes out the rod and places it in the anvil. He bends the rod with ONE FINGER back and forth like a noodle. Now if the steel can bend that easily at just 1800 degrees, 45,000 tons of the top floors of the WTC could easily destroy the integrity of the steel beams that had not already collapsed.

18162121_1476749222397600_2992411918234288128_n

@thefreethoughtproject if only there was a website that debunked all these… oh wait! There is! Me!

https://mrcredible.org/?s=9%2F11

1. Explosions are wired. Wired things survive explosions. This is not a wired occurrence. For example, worms survived the failed Challenger reentry. Furthermore, why bother? Planting passports were completely unnecessary. It did nothing to advance any narrative.

http://www.space.com/19538-columbia-shuttle-disaster-worms-survive.html

Just to bury this a little further, passports were not the only IS’s found. For example, Joe Doyle’s license was found. Then again, maybe it is all part of the conspiracy?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/07/15/cover-ground-zero.htm

2. It was not magic, as the vast majority of architects and engineers will tell you, it was because a critical support column collapsed causing the interior to collapse leaving the exterior wall which fell in on itself without support. This is supported by videos of the collapse.
3. This proves nothing. The B-25 has a wingspan of 67 ft and 7 inches and is 16 ft and 4 inches tall. When one crashed into the Empire State Building, it left a hole that was 18 by 20 feet. Guess the Pentagon was not the first time that happened– that the length of the hole was not as large as the plane’s wingspan.

4. This was done after the collapse to make removal easier. You can see pictures of the same beam before the cuts were made.

Advertisements

Posted by Roman Bilan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s