Israel was behind 9/11

[Deleted User 104]

The fact of the matter is, I've presented a very strong case that no one has come even close to rebutting on here, and thousands of architects, engineers, physicists and professors agree with at least part of what I've talked about. I know some of you are too old and set in your ways to really challenge your intellect and perception ability, but I hope that at least a few on here will be curious to seek out more truth on what really happened. There's comfort in those fake NIST reports and WMD's, but it will take someone who's not afraid to think for themselves instead of bowing to authority.

[PhDhawk]

The fact of the matter is, I've presented a very strong case that no one has come even close to rebutting.

Uhhh no you really haven't. You posted some YouTube videos and then made some declarative statements about stuff you're not an expert in.

[Deleted User 89]

A broken clock is right twice a day.

and even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut

[Deleted User 266]

People said the same thing when I told them the weapons of mass destruction were a lie. Some of us can see through the b.s. better than others.

Can you admit to everyone that you didn't tell people "the weapons of mass destruction were a lie" AND were 100% confident and knew for a FACT when you did as such?
Regardless, there were two planes that flew in the the WTC Towers. There was a plane that flew in to the Pentagon. There was a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Agree? My guess is you don't. Fine either way.
BIG difference between an assumption that you had a 50/50 chance of being right about and EVERYTHING that took place and didn't take place before, during, and after, 9/11.

[Deleted User 266]

The fact of the matter is, I've presented a very strong case that no one has come even close to rebutting on here, and thousands of architects, engineers, physicists and professors agree with at least part of what I've talked about. I know some of you are too old and set in your ways to really challenge your intellect and perception ability, but I hope that at least a few on here will be curious to seek out more truth on what really happened. There's comfort in those fake NIST reports and WMD's, but it will take someone who's not afraid to think for themselves instead of bowing to authority.

What?
You've presented videos that help support your assumption/s - and some videos that disputed your assumptions. I and others could "present" hundreds of videos that dispute what you believe.

You say, "no one has come even close to rebutting on here".
* Really? Then why did you respond to my (and other's) "rebutting" and in some cases say, "I don't know"?

You say, "thousands of architects, engineers, physicists and professors agree with at least part of what I've talked about.
* I'm going to get deep here. Millions if not billions of people believe "the Bible". It's instilled in some/many people to believe the bible word for word. It is also instilled in people to believe what they choose to believe. If the bible is God's word/s, then why are there different interpretations of the bible?
If "thousands of architects, engineers, physicists and professors agree with at least part" of what you have talked about - do you completely discount what the architects, engineers, physicists and professors who don't agree with what you talk about?

You say, "I know some of you are too old and set in your ways to really challenge your intellect and perception ability".
* What an insulting and ignorant thing to say. What does age have to do with believing what did and didn't take place on 9/11? If anything, I find those who are "too old" to be the ones that DO challenge their intellect and perception ability more than those who are "too" young.

You say, "I hope that at least a few on here will be curious to seek out more truth on what really happened".
* I can only speak for myself but I have been curious since 9/11/01 and I will be curious until the day I die. I'll also seek out more truth through DIFFERENT sources that I feel don't have a particular agenda and I will be open minded. I will NOT allow myself to be brainwashed as to what others believe.

You say, "There's comfort in those fake NIST reports and WMD's, but it will take someone who's not afraid to think for themselves instead of bowing to authority".
* Seems you take comfort in believing things that have not been and can not be proven.
I agree with you 100% that it takes people who are not afraid to think for themselves. Meanwhile, you feel the need to continuously post things that share what others think. I do believe there are too many people who "bow to authority" but I also feel "authority" knows more than people believe they themselves know.

[Deleted User 62]

Some of us can see through the b.s. better than others.

Fucking hilarious

[Deleted User 104]

People said the same thing when I told them the weapons of mass destruction were a lie. Some of us can see through the b.s. better than others.

Can you admit to everyone that you didn't tell people "the weapons of mass destruction were a lie" AND were 100% confident and knew for a FACT when you did as such?
Regardless, there were two planes that flew in the the WTC Towers. There was a plane that flew in to the Pentagon. There was a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Agree? My guess is you don't. Fine either way.
BIG difference between an assumption that you had a 50/50 chance of being right about and EVERYTHING that took place and didn't take place before, during, and after, 9/11.

1. Can you admit to everyone that you didn't tell people "the weapons of mass destruction were a lie" AND were 100% confident and knew for a FACT when you did as such?

No, I was 100% confident it was a lie. I did tell my friends such, and that's why they were so angry at me. Years later, they apologized and asked how I could tell. I told them, "it was easy -- the story didn't add up, and their body language gave it away." Body language is a skill that few people really study, but I have. Bush and Rumsfeld gave off obvious signs of being dishonest. Similar to how I knew about WMD's, I'm 100% confident Tower 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.

2. Regardless, there were two planes that flew in the the WTC Towers. There was a plane that flew in to the Pentagon. There was a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Agree? My guess is you don't. Fine either way.

I never said there were not planes. I researched the facts and yes, there were four planes that crashed that day. You would have to get all those passengers to somehow fake their own death. The planes were real, but the towers did not come down just because of the planes. Flight 93 was supposed to hit tower 7, but crashed before it could reach NY.

I agree, but there's too much overwhelming evidence that 911 was planned inside the US intelligence and outside by Israel's Mossad. I would say this is the most likely explanation for what happened. However, the science tells us those buildings came down from controlled demolition.

[pdub]

Lobster is a body language expert.
Maybe he could even tell what Perry Ellis was thinking.

[PhDhawk]

So...Lobster doesn't really understand what 100% confidence means.

[Deleted User 104]

Paul, I just want to make sure you're really reading what I've written before I write more. I never once said "there were no planes." Those who do are the real conspiracy idiots. Unfortunately, there was a popular film tilted "Loose Change" that had a lot of wrong information about 911, including the idea that there might have been no passenger planes used. People see that film and then it's easy to understand why they dismiss the possibility of another explanation other than the "official story".

Anyway, I'll continue talking with you, but I want to make sure you're understanding what I'm really writing. No point in my wasting my time if you think I'm one of those nuts who believes no planes were used.

[pdub]

What about the extra fuselage on the bottom of the planes?!

[Deleted User 104]

If you were sincere in talking about this, I would answer that. But since some of you just want to substitute your own intelligence for NIST reports, there's not much else I can do for you.

[Deleted User 104]

I'll help you guys out on the NIST and why it's wrong. Their premise was that there "were no explosions heard or witnessed". There were over 120 witnesses and I even included video footage that cleans up their claim. When you have a false premise, the conclusion is wrong.

[Deleted User 89]

that “noise” has been debunked, whether you want to believe so or not

[PhDhawk]

I'll help you guys out on the NIST and why it's wrong. Their premise was that there "were no explosions heard or witnessed". There were over 120 witnesses and I even included video footage that cleans up their claim. When you have a false premise, the conclusion is wrong.

Everyone named Bill is a basketball coach. Bill Self is named bill, therefore he is a basketball coach.

That statement has a false premise but a true conclusion.

I don't think anyone would say that there for sure is not an inaccuracy or a mistake made in the NIST report, of course they could have missed something or gotten a detail wrong. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that some detail was left out to cover someone's ass. If you told me that was the case and had some evidence of it, I'd probably tend to think it was true.

But what you're asking us to do, is that based on some conflicting eye witness data and a minority of experts who've raised concerns, that we should all abandon all the evidence we have that support the NIST report and instead believe an even more outlandish story...one that you're never really described or provided any evidence for. And if you ever really did put together an explanation for what happened you know it would be easily and quickly disproven by the overwhelming amount of data.

There is an n of 1 for that incident. And it was tragic, and it was weird, and it was incredibly messy and drawn out and complicated. When something that's never been done before is done on an enormous scale, there might be all kinds of unexpected things that happen.

You make statements like "a steel highrise wouldn't collapse like that from being on fire". Well, how many 47 story buildings have been damaged by planes crashing into neighboring sky scrapers, caught fire, had failed sprinklers, and been left to burn for 8 hours....exaclty one. So even if it fell in an unlikely way, we don't know how likely a building in that scenario is to fall like that. Maybe it's 95 out of 100, maybe it's 3 out of 100...we don't have 100 47 story steel buildings to destroy to find out.

I'm sorry, but your evidence for a CIA cover up is that the CIA occupied one floor of one of the buildings destroyed. I mean, what are the chances of destroying several enormous buildings in lower manhattan and not having some government agency occupying at least some space in one of them?

[japhy]

that “noise” has been debunked, whether you want to believe so or not

If you have ever heard a building collapse or just heard a structural element break you would know it is loud. Breaking one connection clip angle will sound like a shotgun going off. Sometimes you can watch them break shit through the windows at the KU Structures Lab. Most everyone in the room jumps when the specimen snaps.

[Deleted User 89]

that “noise” has been debunked, whether you want to believe so or not

If you have ever heard a building collapse or just heard a structural element break you would know it is loud. Breaking one connection clip angle will sound like a shotgun going off. Sometimes you can watch them break shit through the windows at the KU Structures Lab. Most everyone in the room jumps when the specimen snaps.

preaching to the choir, brother

[Deleted User 89]

i’ve heard 8”x8” oak beams snap...can only imagine what steel sounds like

[japhy]

I'll help you guys out on the NIST and why it's wrong. Their premise was that there "were no explosions heard or witnessed". There were over 120 witnesses and I even included video footage that cleans up their claim. When you have a false premise, the conclusion is wrong.

Everyone named Bill is a basketball coach. Bill Self is named bill, therefore he is a basketball coach.

That statement has a false premise but a true conclusion.

I don't think anyone would say that there for sure is not an inaccuracy or a mistake made in the NIST report, of course they could have missed something or gotten a detail wrong. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that some detail was left out to cover someone's ass. If you told me that was the case and had some evidence of it, I'd probably tend to think it was true.

But what you're asking us to do, is that based on some conflicting eye witness data and a minority of experts who've raised concerns, that we should all abandon all the evidence we have that support the NIST report and instead believe an even more outlandish story...one that you're never really described or provided any evidence for. And if you ever really did put together an explanation for what happened you know it would be easily and quickly disproven by the overwhelming amount of data.

There is an n of 1 for that incident. And it was tragic, and it was weird, and it was incredibly messy and drawn out and complicated. When something that's never been done before is done on an enormous scale, there might be all kinds of unexpected things that happen.

You make statements like "a steel highrise wouldn't collapse like that from being on fire". Well, how many 47 story buildings have been damaged by planes crashing into neighboring sky scrapers, caught fire, had failed sprinklers, and been left to burn for 8 hours....exaclty one. So even if it fell in an unlikely way, we don't know how likely a building in that scenario is to fall like that. Maybe it's 95 out of 100, maybe it's 3 out of 100...we don't have 100 47 story steel buildings to destroy to find out.

I'm sorry, but your evidence for a CIA cover up is that the CIA occupied one floor of one of the buildings destroyed. I mean, what are the chances of destroying several enormous buildings in lower manhattan and not having some government agency occupying at least some space in one of them?

You got it. Very few buildings ever get hit with catastrophic loading events. Whether they be F5 tornadoes, huge hurricanes, volcanic eruption, tsunamis, large earthquakes that have large vertical displacement components to their ground motion, bombs, hit by jet planes or enthusiastically set upon by 5 dancing Isrealis. Every time shit like that happens NIST and SEI and ASCE go and look at damage and behavior to find out what we didn't know about building frame behavior under extreme loading events. We thought we knew most of what there was to know about EQ events until Northridge. Vertical ground motion was higher than expected and the seismic design codes introduced "near fault" zones after the research was done into the building failures. These people aren't there to validate that there was an EQ or a bomb or enthusiastic dancing Isrealis were in the vicinity. They are there to investigate the collapse mechanism of the structures and try to understand if any of the data is applicable to the building codes so that the next similar event doesn't cause as much loss of life. They aren't doing a bomb or how do earthquakes happen investigation; they are doing a collapse investigation.

[japhy]

i’ve heard 8”x8” oak beams snap...can only imagine what steel sounds like

And keep in mind that every engineer in the room watching the steel piece deflect and distort is expecting it to break soon. And still someone shits their pants when it does. If you are applying 15,000 lbs of force to an object and it breaks, there is that much force released instantaneously that is going in the opposite direction of the force applied. And released in an uncontrolled fashion and there is banging and clanging all over the room.