Are we witnessing the collapse of America?

Link; http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

You admit being privy to nothing, but say you 'worked it out' anyway.

Bu the FBI didnt?
The CIA didn't?
The UN didn't?
Nations world over didn't?
The Democrats didn't?

And even if they all played into a conspiracy, NOBODY involved or privy to the information ever came out as a whistleblower? No Deep Throat, no Assange, no Pentagon Papers. Just absolute, flawless secrecy on a scale unimaginable, from a government you claim is... Stupid?

Just a bunch of people 'privy to nothing' 'worked it out.'

The alternative is simply that you're wrong. But you will never believe that I fear because this isn't a belief, it's a religion, and it will withstand all rational argument by simply disregarding anything that doesn't meld with the Dogma.

 

The important part is it probably wasn't steel.
From what I have read, it did flow through the floor then found the easiest way out.
There is a possibility it fell through the floor AND out of the building.

It's just another more likely theory.

The only way to know for sure is to fly another plane into an identical building - which is unlikely to occur.

Nobody wants that. Well, I don't.

I don't personally believe every single word within the report on 9/11 (A. because I have not read it all B. It is unlikely to be 100% accurate).
I'd rather believe the majority of a story that is backed by some form of science and logic.
I'm not sure what your theory is and where you are getting your information from - so don't know if it is anymore credible.

 

There are many people like that.
They don't believe people that were there.
They don't believe family members.
They only believe the Internet.
To be fair, I don't know where, cinnamond, falls into the spectrum of belief.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVnQPGE36P4"]9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip - BBC - Full Version - YouTube

 

I will tell you what I believe and why.

If something doesn't make sense then it probably isn't true and that is my starting point.
If something defies the laws of physics, then it is not true.
If a group of my fellow professionals sit around and to a man agree this was a 3 building demolition job, then it is true.
Add to that the overwhelming evidence, which supports an "inside job" theory then it is truly was.

On the other side of the argument, we have an event 100% orchestrated by the world's most powerful government, with all the facilities at their fingertips and control over everything. Who then fail to file a proper report on any of the individual plane crashes, which is mandatory, or building collapses, also mandatory.

The overall report, if you can call it that, was instigated, by this government and under their full control at all times. The whole thing was conducted behind closed doors in a fraction of the time normally expected for such a complex incident and ignores any evidence which doesn't fit the official story, plus crucially no new evidence found at any point..

The original official story produced by the end of week one, stood in it's entirety and that does not happen either.

 

So what can you believe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk"]Dave Allen on Religion - YouTube

 

I think you told me why but not really what.

This isn't true. Are your caveats what you deem to be 'proper' and what you consider to be 'individual'?

It might be slightly fair to say the perpetrators were quickly identified but how it occurred and everything else within the 'official report' wasn't revealed within 7 days.

I imagine you are talking about 'free-fall' and the 'molten steel' amongst other things, right? If not, what defied the laws of physics?

Professional what? Lawyers? Doctors? Nurses? Fast Food Service providers?
How long were you sitting around for and what evidence did you sift through to come to your collective conclusions?

I seriously doubt there is overwhelming evidence.

To be fair, my response to what occurred was/is that if you fly a plane into a building it's likely to collapse at some point.
I don't think there is any doubt two planes hit two towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8"]Unseen 9/11 Footage of Second Plane Hitting Tower - YouTube

If you fly a plane into a toughened building it's likely to be shredded beyond recognition.
I'm not particularly conspiratorial.
I have no axe to grind.

 

29, 49 or 60?

 

I will list the overwhelming evidence.
1-3. No steel framed building has ever completely collapsed as a result of a plane strike, or a fire, yet 3 fell down in one day, one of which was never hit by a plane. All of these buildings were designed specifically to withstand an commercial aircraft strike and none contained any combustible materials.
4-7. No plane has ever crashed in a known location without some evidence of major wreckage, wings, tail, engines. yet 4 did this in one day.
8. If you look at the standing structure of the buildings between the twin towers and building 7, you will see what should have been left.
9. The chances of finding a pilots passport, which was hitherto in the pilot's pocket, inside a burning plane, inside a fire engulfed building, which then appears in the street completely undamaged, conveniently identifying the hijacker...is maybe 100,000,000 to 1.

In addition to the fast rate of fall of all the buildings and the symmetrical way they all fell, which is also impossible, but which you carefully ignored.

You don't think that is overwhelming evidence? Okay, your belief in politicians is biblical and you must believe in miracles, sorry mate I don't.

Would anyone like to explain how a building with asymmetric damage can fall symmetrically, let alone 3?

xxix-rev1 xxix- rev14 UK A5476539

 

How many Boeing 767's have hit steel framed buildings?

Yes, I've read they were supposedly able to withstand a plane hit.
Wasn't the Millennium bridge designed to only sway so much, and not shake enough for it to collapse?
It's perfectly understandable for those that built the buildings to say the building is perfectly safe - even if that is a false sense of security.
They are not going to say: "Dunno, mate - maybe!"
Was the analysis they conducted similar to the damage inflicted on 9/11?
If you wish to accept 50 year old analysis, and the word of the builders - fair enough.

There was plenty of wreckage.
Do you think there would be whole wings and tails surviving these crashes - like the movies?

Not sure what you mean.

That's a strange one. No answer for that one.
It's good you do actually accept planes hit the towers and not holograms or mysterious balls flying through the air.

As far as I am aware buildings are not designed to topple over.
They are designed to cause as little surrounding damage as possible - which it to fall in on themselves.

Watch the film (conspiracy road trip) above at approx 20 min'.

Not particularly.
You managed to give me some well known theories, but didn't tell me what you actually think.
Do you think explosive experts rigged the building?
Was thermite used?
Etc.

 

What is this supposed to mean?

 

Don't quote that shit man! Not the illuminati will find you!

 

:hide::leaving:

 

You have been very selective in your answers, no explanation of how a building with asymmetric damage can collapse symmetrically, no wait........
As far as I am aware buildings are not designed to topple over.
They are designed to cause as little surrounding damage as possible - which it to fall in on themselves. You plonker, buildings are designed to fall symmetrically?!!!!...now you really shouldn't have said that...someone please tell him.

The buildings didn't collapse as a result of the plane hitting them in fact no plane came anywhere near building 7 and that fell in 5 seconds. The official story was that the collapse was due to fire.

There was plenty of wreckage.
Do you think there would be whole wings and tails surviving these crashes - like the movies? Not the movies, just the news.
Show me pictures, or newsreel film the wreckage you refer to.... The actual aftermath, as we see with every other plane crash, not something dug up.

I didn't say I accepted that passenger planes hit the twin towers, I don't trust any part of the government story, furthermore I am not here to speculate what really did happened. Only to disprove one single aspect, if one aspect cannot be true then the whole story falls. I think we are there biys.

That is why this is not a conspiracy theory at all, I have, and need no theory, I just need to demonstrate the official story was could not be true. Sorry to disappoint you guys against CT's.

 

I asked you to watch the film above that explains why theoretically certain buildings collapsed, and how they theoretically did.
It tries to explain the reason a lot more clearly than I could.
If you do not agree, then you can explain why that theory is not legitimate.
You can also explain how buildings ARE designed to fall if a plane hits them, and if indeed there is a particular design aspect if a plane was to hit them.

Imho, two buildings did fall due to a plane hitting each of them.
I know WTC7 did not fall due to a plane hitting it.
It was a consequence of another plane hitting another building.
You can contest that as much as you like.
I am asking you: why did they fall if it wasn't a plane?

Why the news? Surely you have seen pictures of the wreckage sites and can see wreckage, or prove there was no wreckage.

What did then?

You said you sat around with a few of your friends and collectively decided the 'official story' wasn't true.
I am asking you: what is your alternative explanation.
If you have no alternative explanation, I really wonder why you engage in such debates.
Trying to disprove one aspect isn't a convincing way to disprove the entire picture.

Well, that's convenient isn't it.
You are not really disproving the official line, more disproving others knowledge.

If you were to lay out your entire theory are you afraid it might be full of holes?
Surely your theory is airtight.
If a part of your theory can be disproven, does that mean your entire theory is false?

 

It would also be nice for you to explain why in one instance you said you were 49 and another you were 60. What's that all about?

 

I don't need a theory Odon, can't you read.


A fool's brain digests science into superstition........

.........farvel så længe

 

I can read. I just think it is a cop out.

 

Michael Moore is no such thing, he is a hero because he goes out there with his cameras and exposes the real truth behind the topics he is filming about.

Michael Moore, Julian Assange and Ross Kemp are 3 of the "real hero's" in my world.

 

At least the word should get more Micheal Moores..........

 

Totally agree. Have to add that the criticism of Mr Moore could have had a little more depth.