Israel was behind 9/11

[CrimsonNBlue]

Our incompetent government pulled off the most competent cover-up of all time. Weird!

[Deleted User 104]

Our incompetent government pulled off the most competent cover-up of all time. Weird!

Not the whole, but just a part (CIA) -- with the help of our own home-grown terrorists.

[Deleted User 104]

the day it happened, I remember watching the towers fall in real time and thinking, man that's not how I would have imagined a building that got hit by an airplane would fall.

but yeah, I stop short of full blown conspiracy.

The conspiracy part is with the idiots that think planes did not hit the towers and pentagon, or that missiles were used. Thermite might also be untrue as well. The twin towers might have fallen due to the plane damage alone, but there were explosives inside the buildings. Tower 7 on the other hand, could not have fallen the way it did due to fires on one side of it. Impossible. Thousands of scientists and physicists confirm it.

What was true was that there were additional explosives in the towers. There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI. You never heard much about it afterwards because it didn't fit the narrative.

Also, why is it you think all that steel that remained was shipped and sold to China and India immediately after the attacks? They wanted the evidence gone asap.

[Deleted User 89]

lobs, i've got some ocean-front property in arizona that i'm looking to sell (super cheap!)

interested?

[Deleted User 89]

Also, why is it you think all that steel that remained was shipped and sold to China and India immediately after the attacks? They wanted the evidence gone asap.

https://gcaptain.com/these-are-the-thre ... mber-9-11/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

dude, get a different hobby

maybe try to find out who actually killed JFK

[pdub]

What you are saying is not impossible lobster.
I just think it's very improbable.
About the same chances that Lightfoot makes the most 3 pointers for our team next season.

[Deleted User 104]

What you are saying is not impossible lobster.
I just think it's very improbable.
About the same chances that Lightfoot makes the most 3 pointers for our team next season.

Ha! But he did make one of them last year. I appreciate that you keep an open mind, even if you don't agree. Just remember though, Iran Contra was also a conspiracy until it wasn't. People should not accept authority and should look to science and facts instead.

[pdub]

"science and facts"

Well...are you reading the counter evidence that some of these posters are bringing to you?

[PhDhawk]

What you are saying is not impossible lobster.
I just think it's very improbable.
About the same chances that Lightfoot makes the most 3 pointers for our team next season.

Ha! But he did make one of them last year. I appreciate that you keep an open mind, even if you don't agree. Just remember though, Iran Contra was also a conspiracy until it wasn't. People should not accept authority and should look to science and facts instead.

These papers were all peer reviewed and all agreed with the NIST report.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 012-0285-6
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 012-0289-2
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 012-0286-5

Stay off of youtube.

[PhDhawk]

This is a peer reviewed journal article looking at the NIST report itself

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28 ... 1X.0000398

[Deleted User 104]

"science and facts"

Well...are you reading the counter evidence that some of these posters are bringing to you?

I've already read all their evidence. NIST is a government source, so it's obvious why they have a different explanation. No one in this thread has even made a comment as to why the 911 report did not mention WTC7 at all. The fact of the matter is, lots of people on here just don't know enough about it. If your sources all come from the mainstream media and the government, of course you're going to believe what they told you.

[Deleted User 104]

If there was a peer-reviewed report that weapons of mass destruction were real, would you believe it too?

[Deleted User 104]

Something for those of you seeking facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl85JSvDmsA

[pdub]

I think Elvis did it.

[Deleted User 266]

the day it happened, I remember watching the towers fall in real time and thinking, man that's not how I would have imagined a building that got hit by an airplane would fall.

but yeah, I stop short of full blown conspiracy.

The conspiracy part is with the idiots that think planes did not hit the towers and pentagon, or that missiles were used. Thermite might also be untrue as well. The twin towers might have fallen due to the plane damage alone, but there were explosives inside the buildings. Tower 7 on the other hand, could not have fallen the way it did due to fires on one side of it. Impossible. Thousands of scientists and physicists confirm it.

What was true was that there were additional explosives in the towers. There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI. You never heard much about it afterwards because it didn't fit the narrative.

Also, why is it you think all that steel that remained was shipped and sold to China and India immediately after the attacks? They wanted the evidence gone asap.

"Impossible"
* Really? Has it ever happened to that building before to deem it "impossible"?
"Thousands" of scientists may "confirm it" but there are plenty who claim it is/was possible.
Who exactly is claiming that it was fire alone that brought down Tower 7? There was structural damage (that was not caused by fire) that was known before the building came down.
Once again I'll say, thousands of scientists claim global warming is a hoax and thousands claim it's not. Who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be right and both can't be wrong.

"There were additional explosives in the Tower".
* Really? What type of explosives exactly? As I said before, things explode when they are ignited/heated. Many things in the building could have exploded. You know for a fact there were explosives planted in the towers? According to whom?

"There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI".
* Really? "STOPPED"? Who was driving the van/s and who's TNT was it? If they were STOPPED then why/how were they involved in explosives being responsible for taking down the towers?

"ALL that steel"?
Really? "ALL"? No.

"They wanted the evidence gone asap".
Who is/are "they" exactly?

[Deleted User 266]

"science and facts"

Well...are you reading the counter evidence that some of these posters are bringing to you?

I've already read all their evidence. NIST is a government source, so it's obvious why they have a different explanation. No one in this thread has even made a comment as to why the 911 report did not mention WTC7 at all. The fact of the matter is, lots of people on here just don't know enough about it. If your sources all come from the mainstream media and the government, of course you're going to believe what they told you.

No one made a comment as to why the 9/11 (commission) report (which you referred to as the "official report") didn't mention WTC7 at all? Really? Go back and read the thread.
I tend not to believe many/most things I am told/read 100%.
I believe our government hasn't told us the whole story - partially because they don't know the whole story and partially because there are things they feel we don't need to know - for whatever reason/s. I also believe our government very well may have lied about some things.
Doesn't mean I am going to fall in to the trap of believing 9/11 and many/most things regarding 9/11 are a "hoax" "created by our government".

[Deleted User 104]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aXhlf-6dlU

[PhDhawk]

These are all researched papers explaining/supporting the NIST report explanation of the tower 7 collapse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 961300432X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613004380
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9611004007
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613002824
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4X14001400
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4X05001525
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4X13003076
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4X13000369
https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en ... f722).html
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061 ... 5X.0000028
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061 ... 8369%29215
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613000801
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2245944
http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/978 ... ml/102.xml
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28 ... 09.0000138
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 012-0286-5
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/artic ... -buildings
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 55AE2983D6

[PhDhawk]

If there was a peer-reviewed report that weapons of mass destruction were real, would you believe it too?

Dude, you're posting youtube videos by crackpots and then shitting on peer-reviewed published articles.

In general, I will always trust a peer reviewed journal more than a youtube video.

[Deleted User 104]

the day it happened, I remember watching the towers fall in real time and thinking, man that's not how I would have imagined a building that got hit by an airplane would fall.

but yeah, I stop short of full blown conspiracy.

The conspiracy part is with the idiots that think planes did not hit the towers and pentagon, or that missiles were used. Thermite might also be untrue as well. The twin towers might have fallen due to the plane damage alone, but there were explosives inside the buildings. Tower 7 on the other hand, could not have fallen the way it did due to fires on one side of it. Impossible. Thousands of scientists and physicists confirm it.

What was true was that there were additional explosives in the towers. There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI. You never heard much about it afterwards because it didn't fit the narrative.

Also, why is it you think all that steel that remained was shipped and sold to China and India immediately after the attacks? They wanted the evidence gone asap.

"Impossible"
* Really? Has it ever happened to that building before to deem it "impossible"?
"Thousands" of scientists may "confirm it" but there are plenty who claim it is/was possible.
Who exactly is claiming that it was fire alone that brought down Tower 7? There was structural damage (that was not caused by fire) that was known before the building came down.
Once again I'll say, thousands of scientists claim global warming is a hoax and thousands claim it's not. Who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be right and both can't be wrong.

"There were additional explosives in the Tower".
* Really? What type of explosives exactly? As I said before, things explode when they are ignited/heated. Many things in the building could have exploded. You know for a fact there were explosives planted in the towers? According to whom?

"There were several vans carrying huge amounts of TNT that were stopped by the police / FBI".
* Really? "STOPPED"? Who was driving the van/s and who's TNT was it? If they were STOPPED then why/how were they involved in explosives being responsible for taking down the towers?

"ALL that steel"?
Really? "ALL"? No.

"They wanted the evidence gone asap".
Who is/are "they" exactly?

I will take time to answer your questions in more detail later when I'm off work. I don't want you think I'm ignoring you.