9/11

Interesting to note in this video, clip around 1m. There is a huge chunk of debris shooting down at faster than the rate of gravitational free fall, and this has been measured approximately by researchers. Now what could cause that to happen?

 

Who's to say I haven't looked into the subject? Just because I don't believe in the conspiracy and believe that planes and the fire took down the buildings themselves?

Just because I make up nonsense doesn't mean I haven't studied. Just means I know what pushes your buttons.

 

How many support is there for an expansion of Israel? Has this support grown after 9/11? How many people, governments and countries would support this? The far far majority is against it and would convict it, even if it would just be about the palestine territories (of which there is enough criticism already, but alright a minority would perhaps be for it. Doesn't matter though, it is not why the twin towers collapsed). This is really ludicrous.

How it seems to me is that people just want to conclude SOMETHING. They can't leave this open. Sure it is good and admirable that the average Joe looks into these stuff as well and form their own opinion. To conclude some weird thing that is not sure at all and then talk on public forums for 15 years telling people their uncertain conclusion is really what and why things happened... is unneccessary and not particularly useful it seems.
Most of the time simply ask them how they got convinced that their theory is the real truth and you will see it is not certain at all. It was a terrible happening and yes, the american government acted upon it so it had some consequences but people: it is not sure that the american government is the main culprit behind sending these planes in the building.

It is ok to conclude you are not sure. It is the only conclusion that is 100% right (so far). If you are 100% certain and think it is obvious (not only that it was abused by the government afterwards but also really staged by them) how come you can't convince anybody else? Obvious things that are really certain should be able to be explained in a way that makes it certain for other people too. It appears it is just not the case.

 

It's not about that though, it's about liberating the people of Iraq, Syria.. and bringing them democracy. It's about fighting terrorism.

That's the scariest part of all this, how easy it has been to brainwash society, at one time even myself.

 

If you say so.

I want to believe

 

It's not an easy truth to swallow.

The theories about who is behind it and the reasons are highly speculative, but those are the most likely explanations IMHO. Also, as PR says it was also an excuse to further erode our civil liberties through the patriot act etc.

Just forget about whodunnit and why and all that and just look at all the evidence for the use of explosives to bring down the three towers and think about it, logically.

This is a good starting point, there are no half baked bullshit conspiracy theories in here, just real peer reviewed science by professional scientists and engineers. They have a new one coming out in a few days as well.

http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation

 

It is not an easy truth to swallow because it is not evidently the truth. It's not like I don't wanna accept this thing you and others keep calling the truth. I would if it was so. I, like Meliai, accept that it is very curious how these buildings collapsed, but no matter how well that gets explained it doesn't say with certainty who was behind it. This is my concern when people try to say it is so, and even ridicule others as being stupid for not seeing the obvious truth (which is not an obvious truth).

Same with claiming with certainty why these planes were able to get into the buildings in the first place (like it is fact that it was deliberately let to happen), or that bin Laden died 10 years prior to 9/11, etc. etc. All worthy considerations but when it is put forth as the absolute truth and then conclusions that are derived from that are also put forth as the evident truth I just have to say no, it is not so. I don't claim to know the absolute truth in this case, which sucks. But so far this is how it is. Same with people like you and Pressed Rat.

You have to admit that when thinking logically about it we can come up with several theories. People who are already convinced of stuff like a greater israel project (for example) is real seem to go sooner with this conclusion that the gubberment did it. I am not saying it can't be so. But I am not convinced in a long shot. It is not certain and the wisest conclusion to me seems to acknowledge that.

 

You're not even prepared to look at the evidence I have presented to you, and you've already made your mind up so there's no point in discussion this further with you.

 

I clicked the link you came up with and read it. AND clearly said I am prepared to look at evidence. Read better: I am saying that evidence of the twin towers coming down for another reason than the planes crashing into it is only evidence of that. You can't conclude with certainty who and why. If you can please do. I encourage you to convince me

You are one of the people who conclude things that are not certain. I'm not. Please don't get that mixed up.

 

You can't have read all of the 48 paqes in that document in the time it took you to return your post.

Read my posts better, I'm not saying with any certainty I, or anyone else other than those who were behind it know who was behind it. But there is plenty of evidence that points the blame in the direction of certain people and certain organisations. Osama Bin Laden was never formally indicted by the FBI for this. Why? Because they never had any evidence and they still don't. Why? Because Osama Bin Laden had fuck all to do with it. Yet, for some rather obvious to me reason the intelligence services knew within hours of the attacks that it was Osama Bin Laden, and it was all over the largely Jewish run global media.

What is almost undeniable in all of this is that those buildings could not have collapsed like that due to the planes impacting them and the resulting fires. It's almost impossible, and for three of them to come down like dominoes on the same day is further conclusive evidence that they must have been prepared with thermite, nano-thermite or superthermite prior to the attacks. This then must imply that there was some sort of inside involvement and the story about terrorists hijacking planes was all staged for the false flag event.

There's plenty of other non-scientific evidence that point to this being an inside job, but I can't be bothered going into to all.

 

1) Que Bono

2) Follow the money

Once you have concluded the official story is absurd, then there is quite a limit to exactly who could have been behind it and who stood the most to gain from it. Once you look at ALL the evidence -- not just regarding the planes, the towers and how they fell, etc. it becomes all too obvious that the government and intelligence apparatus was complicit. I doubt the people crying foul have looked into the alleged hijackers and their connection as patsies to the CIA, the CIA/Pakistani ISI connection, the CIA/bin Laden connection, The Project for the New American Century, insider trading, government money laundering to terrorists and terrorist groups, alleged hijackers still alive, the mysterious death of John O'Neil, foreknowledge of the event, mysterious drills coinciding with the attacks (Tripod II, Vigilant Guardian etc.)... I could go on and on. There are many areas to examine regarding the attack, which I highly doubt people like Asmo and others have bothered to look into. It's much easier to just believe what they hear on the news. Myself and other credible people have looked into it, and found that almost nothing regarding the official story ads up. Whether you believe the official story or not matters little to me.

 

No but I read what it is about. This is the thing with sharing a link like that and nothing else. I rather have people accompanying it with their own thoughts. After all YOU CAN explain why YOU are convinced right?

Well, when you can be bothered let us know.


Rat: I do not believe anything with certainty about this issue. I said I am ready for the truth but won't side with any uncertain conclusion. You conclude somehow that because I don't accept what you see as evident that I just believe what is on the news. This is not the case.

 

You already know/knew what it is about. The whole fucking point is to read it before you pass judgment on it!

 

There is currently a study going on at the University of Alaska into the feasibility of the official explanation behind the collapse of building 7 versus the controlled demolition hypothesis

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/03/university-of-alaska-fairbanks-professor-launches-new-911-research-project.html

Unlike the 9/11 Commission who initially completely omited WTC7 from their report (oops) and NIST who still refuse to release their computer model data on the collapse, the University of Alaska intends to be 100% transparent with their research and findings, and you can follow everything here

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

 

I don't believe any of the buildings were brought down with any traditional form of controlled demolition.

 

Yeah but controlled demolition, right? Some form of super thermite...

 

I know what it is about because I took notice of it. I didn't pass a judgement on it like it is wrong (or not) at all. Like I said I am open to be convinced what is the truth about who did it and what was the motive. It is just so that what PR says is not certain to me. If people know how and why it is as they see it I can't wait for them to explain it to me Not just tell me how it is, but also how they got there. Not with sharing a link and nothing else. But explaining. Most people who know and are passionate about their discovery would. But in reality most people on here who are asked can't do it. Why? Because it remains a theory, either from them or from the people/source they got it from. Most of the time they won't even share their source because they know it is subjective.

 

I've already explained several things to you about it. If you want a full thesis on the subject matter then read the fucking booklet.

I've spent many hours of my time trying to explain this to people and 99% of them still don't get it, so why should I bother wasting any more of my time. What you need to know is all in there. I suggest you read at least half of it before commenting any further.

 

I don't believe that. Myself and many others are skeptical about A&E for 9/11 Truth and people like Richard Gage. I personally see these people as controlled opposition. I am thinking more along the lines of people like Dr. Judy Wood, who points to some type of directed energy weapon being used. Keep in mind "thermitic materials" were found in the rubble -- not thermite. But what does thermite consist of? It consists of iron oxide and aluminum. The buildings consisted of these two things, and when you have buildings like this pulverized and turned to dust by a high energy source, there is going to be "thermitic materials" found in the rubble.