A basic question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists....

Condescension noted.

Clearly you are only listening to the CT sites and not investigating the matter beyond what you are fed by the nutters.

1. There is ample evidence for the Shanksville crash.

2. 7WTC did not collapse at free fall speed (PM me for a full explanation of the science). It collapsed owing to the severity of the fires.

3. The security camera footage details have been published. It is a myth that they are withheld.

4. Eyewitnesses said they heard explosions before the planes crashed? You mean Rodriguez, and his story is as mutable as change itself.

5. Some of the FDR units were recovered. Only those lost in the WTC attack are missing, and that is understandable under the circumstances.

[video]http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes[/video]

6. The cell phone canard ignores the airphones etc.

So basically, you're parroting old junk that has long been debunked, and if you investigated beyond sites designed for the gullible, you would know this.

 

Have no fear, I never thought you had any answers.

I'm also suspect of your ability to "add up"

What you are prompting is simple denial, not reason or logic.

 

Oh right, because architects, engineers, and pilots can't add up either and have no logic. Give me a break. You deniers spend more time trying to insult and come up with fast ones than to actually make an argument. It doesn't even matter when you bring up witnesses. You've got a half witty comeback ready for anything. A clear sign of immaturity and inability to reason.

 

No, I am not a man of faith. And certainly not a man of faith in the government to tell the truth and not cover (*)(*)(*)(*) up like a cat in a sandbox.

A cat in a sandbox, multiple sandboxes, is what the Pentagon guys looked like to certain 911 Commission members, changing their story so many times.

The official story is simply not true. The vast preponderance of the evidence contradicts the story.

 

Ha. You call everyone who disagrees with you a sheep and then complain about insults. You can't take the high road when you're swimming in the sewer.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever which contradicts the story.

No one has yet to produce any such evidence of any kind especially you.

You have made repeated claims such as no building can fall like that or no plane crashed at shanksville.

Your claims are not evidence however and you have zero evidence to support your assertions

 

yeh but that does not stop the posers from pretending to believe it anyway LOL

 

Yeah well when you get called a nutter every other post, why not join the party?

 

AE911T's membership is not all architects and engineers. Much of the membership is made up of individuals with little or no experience in the field and they represent less than .01% of the architectural and engineering community.

Here is a link to over 50 academic papers in support of the NIST report:

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_lite rature_that/

Don't you find it odd that all these architects and engineers who claim 9/11 was an inside job haven't been able to produce one academic paper in support of their claims? Don't you find it odd that they lack the evidence to build a prima facie case for a new investigation?

If you don't find it odd, you should.


Pilots for Truth is run by Rob Balsamo-a man who claims many things about the 757's & 767's, yet he is easy to disprove. He is just a crop duster scamming idiots.

Rob says this can't happen:

[video]https://youtu.be/Uiv6UvYnf3s[/video]

 

Ad hominem is a typical tactic used by those who support 9/11 truth. Remember what Jay Windley said: "The goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion and not reach a conclusion."

 

One thing i remain unclear about
Is it possible that the heat from the burning jet fuel could have weakened the structural steel?

 

The Citgo camera indeed shows a 757:



View attachment 36469

 

dont recognize even the (*)(*)(*)(*)tiest fakes I see.
thats some awesome investogaterin who ever dug those up

 

Please explain these issues. I mean, just look at the BS building 7 model.

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf

 

That's some bad Photoshop work. Where's the footage from these cameras?

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/ats48924_062a_comp-jpg.3178/

 

Not even close. Jet fuel doesn't even come close to burning that hot. Check out this link. There was molten steel found at the site. In fact, the rescue teams couldn't dig in certain areas of the rubble for two months after the collapse.

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf

 

Yes,considering the fuel wasn't the only thing burning

- - - Updated - - -

There was no 'molten steel' found

 

Any proof that it's 'photoshop' other than your argument from incredulity?

 

Just to be clear
Are you saying that the jet fuel could not have caused the molten steel you claim was found at the site?

Or are you saying that the fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken steel and therefore cause the collapse?

 

So you can't discredit it? That was a given.

 

That's some poor extrapolation. You just assumed that obviously.

Nice dodge. I think you need to back track a little and demonstrate that what I posted is false, as it is clear you just dismissed it with BS. I may entertain your request after you address the evidence I posted with a rational response instead of some rehearsed bleating.

Your pic of the cameras on the Pentagon does not agree with reality, and I call it false, or taken from another section. The area around the impact was not covered with cameras as that pic would have us to believe. The fact that the maker of that image did not cite the actual position speaks volumes.

All footage that was relevant to 9/11 (not just the Pentagon) is archived as evidence in the Moussaoui trial:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

 

Don't dismiss my response and evidence with a question. That is just rude.

Did you read the academic papers I linked to in order to answer your 25 questions? Do that, then get back to me.

 

Notice how those 'cameras' were sorta spaced,well,unevenly? shoddy work..

 

Both. Regular office fires absolutely cannot weaken steal let alone melt it. If it did, we would start building skyscrapers differently knowing they could collapse because of a simple fire. Building 7 is the key. That building was never struck by a plane. No steel structure in history has ever collapsed completely due to fire.

If you don't believe me on the molten steel, check out this link (especially the video that shows the molten steel flowing out of the tower just before collapsing) and also Google search the images.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affil...se-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

What do you call this?



- - - Updated - - -

If you can't tell the third picture is BS then I can't help you. My career also is in video so I'm trained to tell when something like that is poorly done.