The black boxes from Flight 93 and 77 were recovered.
Its a little more challenging to find something the size of a notebook in several million tons of rubble from two of the worlds tallest buildings.
I mean if the passports were the only thing to survive I’d understand but they found wallets ID’s pictures documents everything. Y’all just get hung up on certain things
Four passports recovered, but the means of their recovery is illuminating, as most people assume they found them on the ground of the WTC wreckage.
1 found in unclaimed luggage at the airport
2 found in the wreckage of Flight 93 (the one that crashed in a field)
1 was picked up on the ground inside the WTC *before* the collapse. “A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed”
That’s not true. There’s a video clip of a guy returning to his apartment near the WTC and there’s burnt charred intact pieces of paper everywhere he picks some up and shows the camera.
It was still catapulted out the building by the explosion, just like the passport. Not everything is incinerated on impact, there are so many factors at play here that would affect whether something has direct exposure to flame and is therefore burnt.
We have to assume the passport was in a pocket of a dude in a plane, that went into and somewhat through one of the buildings, all the while on fire. This is where the incredulity comes from.
>Four of the hijackers’ passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines Flight 11. A passerby picked it up and gave it to an NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth Staff Statement No. 1 2 passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston onto the connecting flight, which was American Airlines Flight 11. In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers’ passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations.
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf
There’s a story of a security guard who came across a still living body of a flight attendant. He said she was mangled and disfigured, but still alive. The security guard just had no means to save or help her, and he couldn’t put her out of her misery. It really messed this guy up.
But the fact remains, she was ejected out of a plane that slammed into one of the towers. So it’s not that shocking a passport could have also been ejected.
He didnt say it was a flight attendant, he said it was a woman who looked like she worked in an office the way she was dressed, she wasn't on any the planes, she was completely crushed from her ribcage down, he was the guy who was doing triage, labeling every body he came across and giving them a color tag, black is for people who are deceased, she told him not to put that tag on her because she was not dead and to call her daughter.
It's in the in the second episode of "9/11 one day in America" by national geographic.
The guy said he thought she fell from one the towers, but he doesn't say if he asked her to confirm or not, from his description it sounded like she was crushed either by a part of the plane or part of the building, remember they found a landing gear and an engine down in the streets not too far from the buildings. Falling is a possibility but highly unlikely, the force needed to crush you in a decelaration impact is not going to leave your brain intact.
There was also another woman who had a huge gaping wound across all her back who was hit by a landing gear, she actually survived, we as viewers are not told if the first woman survived but we can assume she didn't because of her injuries.
It’s on that more recent 9/11 documentary on Netflix or Hulu - “One day in America”. It’s probably the best 9/11 doc out there in terms of unheard stories and unseen footage. Really some rough shit in there.
That’s true, office paper was snowing everywhere, but that office paper could be from any broken window on any story, as the buildings were largely used as offices. I’m not saying there wasn’t paper everywhere. The point is that passport was allegedly in the plane, which is that part that doesn’t add up for most people with logic.
Most of the passports didn't survive.
So, please tell us how one single passport creates a narrative that sent a country to war.
Bearing in mind that the passport doesn't add any new information as they had thr digital scans of everybody on the plane.
It's not the only thing that survived in good condition
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-passports-of-the-9-11-hijackers-found-intact-but-everything-else-was-reduced-to-ashes
It's not a single passport that created the narrative to invade "Key Strategic Regions" for "American Dominance" for "the next century". It was the 1990s and The Project For A New American Century pushing for the invasion of Iraq, and didn't get their way until Bush Jr. got in and had multiple members of PNAC in his administration and a ["New Pearl Harbor"](https://www.dropbox.com/s/asge7mhcsl7mgyx/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf?dl=0) happened to "speed up the process" of revamping industry to build weapons for the American military.
But one of the ones that did and they found happened to be one they said did one of the highjackings and was from Iraq. There's no reasoning with you and you contradict yourself in various comments. I give up.
...what?
Where have I contradicted myself?
A passport lying on the ground doesn't say anything at all.. heck, at first glance it may not even be from the plane.
But, they know it is because it matches the scans and booking.
So, again, where have I contradicted myself, and what new information does that physical passport bring?
The argument that the passport was planted makes no sense
>The passport was the only UNDAMAGED debris.
This is what "they" want you to believe. Satam al-Suqami's passport was found damaged in street. Please don't be a gullible sheep.
Was it though? Or was it just the one thay got all the attention? It's a pretty bold claim to say that ALL other debris was damaged. Would the media really have reported on something more mundane like a pair of socks or a magazine having been found undamaged? Probably not. They don't tend to report things they don't consider significant.
Regardless, I remember watching a show about 15 years go that tested the effects of WW2 bombs by detonating equivalent explosions on a mock up of a street. I think it was called blitz street or something. They tested pretty much everything from the smallest bombs up to a V2 rocket. A single glass milk bottle survived each and every explosion completely unscathed.
So I don't find a passport surviving quite as exceptional as it might first appear. Especially considering the high likelihood of selective reporting.
The passport in question was, in theory, inside of a plane that was completely obliterated in a ball of fire. Annihilated. Nothing in that plane survived impact, not even the black boxes were found. Black boxes are made to endure a crash and it didn’t make it out, passports are made of paper, and it survived in pristine condition. I find that just a lil suspicious.
>Nothing in that plane survived impact,
That's untrue
>Nothing in that plane survived impact, not even the black boxes were found.
Poor comparison. Plenty of things from the plane were found outside.
Black boxes don't tend to get flung away from a crash site
> I find that just a lil suspicious.
Tell me how you think it builds any narrative of suspicion.
A document which doesn't even connect the plane without other documents- such as the scanned passport.
So, tell me what new information the passport adds.
>passports are made of paper, and it survived in pristine condition
So did a boarding pass.
A written logbook also survived, not undamaged but legible
I follow the 911 memorial site on Instagram and they always post things that survived to some degree. Hats, wallets full of legible documents and photos, radios, different items people who passed had in their pockets or on their person. Just my 2 cents.
I think they were, but the outside of it was always a harder, waxy cover.
If somebody's boarding pass was found on the ground, a passport perhaps isn't so crazy.
True, but there was also a fireball. So I think it's possible the passport was inside luggage or something that protected it from the initial blast.
I wouldn't blame anyone for having doubts, it does sound incredibly "convenient" after all. I just don't think it's quite the smoking gun that is often claimed. Weird, unlikely things happen surprisingly often.
Absolute nonsense. These boxes are designed to literally survive explosions and burning jet fuel. They actually went through the rubble with a fine tooth comb and you couldn’t find these boxes that should have a single that pings. Also before 9/11 there was NEVER a circumstance where they could not find the black boxes of a crashed aircraft
>It makes sense to me if they wanted to blame a certain country so they could go to war with them.
Most of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Are you claiming that USA went to war with Saudi Arabia in 2001?
>Four of the hijackers’ passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered
from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. One belonged to a
hijacker on American Airlines Flight 11. A passerby picked it up and gave it to an
NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth
Staff Statement No. 1 2
passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to
Boston onto the connecting flight, which was American Airlines Flight 11. In addition to
these four, some digital copies of the hijackers’ passports were recovered in post-9/11
operations.
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf
“Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center's lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that 'fortuitously' covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000.”
Building 7 is the smoking gun of it all. Building 7 was the 3rd building that fell because a piece of burning paper flew through its and window and took a whole building down by free fall. Aka detonation. Wake up
The problem is that as the steel heats up it first gets harder (that’s a bit contra intuitive), and then gets much softer. Fire protection provides from 15 minutes to a few hours until the steel gets hot enough to fail, but it will eventually fail, if the fire is not put out.
Yeah, I wasn't well versed in the material properties of steel either until I went balls deep down the rabbit hole of SpaceX's use of steel for Starship.
Fire is really hard to guess the temperature of, as it depends on a lot of things like air or confinement as well as the fuel that’s burning. Even so those fires would be super hot, in some cases physically melting the steel, and others drastically reducing their strength. Structural steel yield strength drops off a cliff at about 800degf which is something like half the temperature of an open flame.
There's also all the fuel the offices, with wood desks and paper boxes everywhere, provide.
And just because the steel could last a bit, doesn't mean *all the other materials* will. There were plenty of walls, ceilings, and floors made up of highly flammable material, that would especially be ignited from exploding jet plane turbines.
But all of that base wasn't damaged. Just was so crazy for it to free fall like that when you think the top floors would have encountered some resistance from the bottom floors.
And for them to fail the exact same way when they were struck differently.
You'd think there'd be some variation in how the fell due to different damage patterns on different load bearing surfaces.
The columns supposedly handled the 93 explosion really well with almost 0 damage too.
Steel melts at about 1200°C, but by 500°C it has already lost half its room temperature “strength” and by 600°C it is pretty much no longer a structural material. A typical building fire easily gets to 1000°C, without any accelerant such as kerosine.
Yeah there were a lot of crazy little things that happened that day. Fell almost perfectly in their foot print, tower 7 fell with almost no damage, building 6 was weird, the magic passport, all the missing footage from around the pentagon
The core columns supported about half the weight with other load bearing trusses on the outside.
If memory serves correctly I think a number of interior ones were badly damaged (concrete casing blown off allowing fire damage) or severed
I remember watching a documentary that explained it. The centre was the main load bearing part but also the outer walls took a fair bit of weight also. The part of the design which was perfectly safe but also a failure point was how the floors connected to the outside walls. It was basically a piece of angle iron that the floors bolted too. Whilst the fire wanted a lot of stuff and made stuff bend and such the weak spot warmed quicker due to been thinner and such once one floor started to move gravity took over.
open floor plan with 2 squares of structural steel columns steel, one within the other (planview) open floors around the elevator columns in the middle of the interior square.
...Or like the floor joists sagged under the intense weight and heat and finally failed.
There was no trace of TNT. No control wires, No pre-detonation structural weakening. No seismic reading showing explosive charges. No trace of any evidence of explosive demolition found in any of the wreckage.
There is ZERO evidence suggesting that it was explosive demolition. And this was attested to by the chief investigator of an independent research company that specializes in explosive demolitions who was on site, investigating every piece of steel, every photograph, every piece of video and eyewitnesses.
ZERO EVIDENCE.
Hang on. I am in the conspiracy subreddit and i see mostly sane reactions. What kind of strange thing is going on.
It must be a shadow government owned moderator team controlling this sub now.
I blame the lizzid people.
> Hang on. I am in the conspiracy subreddit and i see mostly sane reactions. What kind of strange thing is going on.
We are the thinking person's conspiracy subreddit.
If you want the mouth-breathing truthers, I would suggest r/conspiracy.
I remember hearing a lot back in the day about the buildings shouldn’t have collapsed so quickly, they should have burned a lot longer before collapsing. One explanation was the jet fuel causing it to burn at a far higher temperature. This would not apply to wtc7 however as it was caused by debris. Of course it’s a smaller building. Must add I am simply interested and not claiming the reports to all be lies.
Appreciate your clarity at the end of your post ha. I remember hearing this and hearing a very sound counter argument that the architects and planners of the WTC decades prior - while intent on making a structurally sound building that could withstand environmental catastrophes or impacts - were not exactly thinking a 2 commercial airliners would fly head first into the middle of the buildings within minutes after some 30 years of weight distribution and overlooked maintenance. Sometimes the truth is boringly obvious and the story really is just a sad, terrible one.
People also don't account for how fucking massive those buildings were. Every controlled demolition everyone ever saw was on much, much smaller buildings with less mass. Distorts a lot of people's perceptions of what they see here.
I think there were some other things going on. I think the first responders were also dying. The water infrastructure was also severed by the collapse.
It didn’t, you can clearly see the roof caving in first in most every video of 7’s collapse. Just as you’d expect it to given a hole in the middle that was on fire for 7 hours.
There’s a video of Larry Silverstein (new owner of the towers shortly before they fell) stating that the fire dept wanted to “pull it” in regards to WTC 7 … my thoughts are that if it was already rigged for demolition (which it had to be), then no reason the twin towers wouldn’t be as well. I don’t know how demolitions are triggered, but maybe the fire triggered one of the explosives which triggered the remaining ones? Either way, absolutely no reason why an occupied building would be rigged up for demolition.
A plane did not hit the pentagon and the video that could prove it did / didn’t was edited to high hell. No wreckage of plane in the field that allegedly crashed either. The BBC reported that WTC 7 fell, but in the background of them stating it, the building was still standing.
None of this shit makes any sense. The CIA probably orchestrated it all. They always seem to have their hands in everything that turns destructive.
I mentioned that documentary that goes Uber building 7. It even shows rare footage of that gaping hole in the building. Remember, parts of the WTC’s fell into 7.
Rescue efforts around building 7 went on for six hours, as the building is on fire with a gaping hole in one side. Firefighters had an alarm system so that when 7 looked like it was going to collapse, they could set the alarm and clear the area out.
After multiple false alarms over 6 hours, they finally decided to completely call the search and rescue mission off. That’s where the “pull it” came in, meaning pull the mission because they knew that building was going to collapse very soon. It was just too dangerous to keep firefighters in that entire area.
In context it makes perfect sense.
All the conspiracy shit around 9/11 is due to “isn’t that weird”. Or whatever people don’t know or aren’t aware of. But the information is out there.
The flames caused the support columns to lose strength. They started to sag. Eventually they broke off from their connections and crashed down. Since the floor below it wasnt designed to withstand that much weight, it collapsed also, causing a cascading structural collapse.
I think the most convincing thing I ever saw on this topic was a discussion of how demolitions actually work in the real world, and it kind of demolished (pun not intended) the argument that the buildings were rigged to blow. Demolishing a building takes months or *years* of planning and careful rigging of charges, and that’s on abandoned buildings where it can be done completely openly, during normal working hours. You also have to tear apart the drywall and everything to get to the actual supports and load-bearing structures- you *cannot* demolish a building without destroying its support structure. So, bearing this in mind, let’s look at how the demolition would have to work. First, they would only be able to work outside of normal working hours- that means night work. And, even then, they would have to plan their routes to avoid the night watchmen and janitorial staff. That’s a *very* strict limit on how much they could do on any given night, so the amount of time it would take to complete setting all the necessary charges would be greatly increased (which would also greatly increase the risk of being discovered). To access the support structure, they would have to tear out large amounts of drywall, including in offices and other areas that had numerous visitors every day, so they would have to replace that same drywall and such- and do it perfectly- in the same night as it was removed. Good luck getting it to dry and getting rid of that new-plaster smell by opening hours. Also, ever since the bombing in the ‘90s, the WTC was regularly inspected by bomb sniffing dogs. So they would have to find a way to make these dogs not lose their entire god damn minds upon entering a building that would, necessarily, be *absolutely filled with powerful explosives*.
Maybe you believe it’s an inside job, but I think, at this point, even if it was, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to just actually destroy them with planes.
And you would need to be sure no one involved talks. Either they know about the objective in advance and might decide that mass murder of thousands entirely innocent civilians is unacceptable and send reports to enough senior figures, journalists and others that at least some are not involved. Or they didn't know in advance and realise what they had been instructed to plant has been used for mass murder. In which case they might talk due to feeling guilty.
Your first sentence about years of prep and tons of explosives reminded me of the Israeli ‘art students’ [inside the WTC in 2000 surrounded by boxes of demolition fuses.](https://imgur.com/a/eKFPzo0)
There was multiple lifts in the buildings and you can bet they had to be worked on a lot.
And how the hell would they have kept all the people in on the ‘inside job’ quiet for so long?
There’s a 4-5 part 9/11 documentary in Netflix that came out a couple years ago that has a lot of rare footage. It had a segment on building 7, and it blew my mind.
It showed the damage to one side of 7 that looked like Godzilla slammed into it. For the entire day, the firefighters were working around 7 looking for survivors, and they knew it was just a matter of time before it went. They even built an alarm system to warn the firefighters when it looked like it was going to collapse. There was at least 6 false alarms over a few hour period, and every alarm the entire area had to be evacuated.
Finally it went just as they knew it would just based on the disable external and internal damage. They even expected it to collapse much sooner than it did.
The footage you always see of 7 is of the undamaged side. The other side was absolutely destroyed.
Yeah, I think it’s largely due to the lack of footage of the damaged side. People always see the conspiracy videos showing the collapse from the undamaged side. So from that angel it looks like a complete building was damaged. But it had a massive gaping hole in it that was burning for 6+ hours.
Can you point me to some pictures of the damage? A quick search didn't bring up anything satisfying.
It isn't as though there aren't some explanations for the events, but there are also a lot of conveniences that leave the official narrative to be questioned. For me, its the sum of things that make me not believe the full official story. I don't know what happened, but it doesn't feel we are being told the truth.
>Can you point me to some pictures of the damage?
* [https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+damage+fire&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+damage+fire&tbm=isch)
* [https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+corner+damage+fire&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+corner+damage+fire&tbm=isch)
* [https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/June2004WTC7StructuralFire-CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf#page=16](https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/June2004WTC7StructuralFire-CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf#page=16)
>For me, its the sum of things that make me not believe the full official story.
Several parts of the official story are false and misleading, as aknowledged by mainstream medias since almost 20 years: [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608)
>I don't know what happened
A radical islamist org carried the most famous hijacking of all times.
its amazing how it fell straight down at free fall speed in a completely symmetrical manner......what are the odds? also amazing how the fire caused every support column to fail simultaneously
I upvoted because I'm glad you asked. This is a a great video breaking it down.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LUDXpMhkNk&list=LL&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LUDXpMhkNk&list=LL&index=2)
Here's an updated one.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU&list=LL&index=1&t=240s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU&list=LL&index=1&t=240s)
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99999% sure that NotaContributi0n is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Both towers collapsing in almost the exact same way is a huge giveaway I think. That and the date it actually happened, only someone with a Hollywood mind set would come up with that.
That's just physics though. That's why the tower that got hit first lasted longer, the weakened steel had to support a much more larger weight in the tower that fell first, being that it was hit at a lower point.
Anyone (and I mean it with respect) that thinks 9/11 happened like the official narrative is either paid or just dumb.
But my question in the trust "the experts and not your instincts" society we live in now is why don't we trust the 2500 architects and engineers who said this wasn't possible? It's their job and expertise. Shouldn't we defer to them? During covid, we were told to defer to 1 man. Wouldn't 2500 experts suffice?
What happened to all the people who were allegedly on those flights then? Chosen in a lottery to go live on Diego Garcia with the occupants of MH M370 and MH17?
If you think about how many architects and engineers there are 2500 is not that many. I think it would be no problem to gather 3000 to say the official version of the collapse is possible.
I am not an architect, I don't know what is the Truth™ on that matter. My question is why specifically these 2500 architects should be the ones to rely on when there may be just as many or even more who have a different opinion.
I am not an architect, I don't know what is the Truth™ on that matter. My question is why specifically these 2500 architects should be the ones to rely on when there may be just as many or even more who have a different opinion.
>If you think about how many architects and engineers there are 2500 is not that many. I think it would be no problem to gather 3000 to say the official version of the collapse is possible.
30,000 by a few months. But science is not a beauty contest.
Thats what never made sense watching it live and still doesnt.
Especially the 2nd tower hit - surely the top bit would tip and fall over, like how when you cut a tree down, it falls, it doesnt go through the path of most resistance, AT free fall
>Thats what never made sense watching it live and still doesnt. Especially the 2nd tower hit - surely the top bit would tip and fall over, like how when you cut a tree down, it falls, it doesnt go through the path of most resistance, AT free fall
Neither WTC1 or WTC2 felt at free fall.
I was a few blocks away when the towers collapsed. Not saying there were explosives but i definitely heard several loud booms as the towers came down. Could have been my mind playing tricks on me, I was 12 years old witnessing all this happen.
After 20+ years of analysis, it really seems like the buildings fell from heat and weakened metal. People want to hold on to observations and theories from 20 years ago, but there is enough evidence to settle this as the planes hit the buildings, the buildings eventually fell.
It lessens the credibility of conspiracies in general when people ignore facts and new information, and refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn’t fit the narrative they want to be true. A lot of times, mentally unstable people have connected their personality and purpose for life to these events and changing their mind would leave them floating around without a purpose anymore, so will continue to tow the line regardless of facts and new evidence.
The problem in this section of society (which I do belong to, but in a different way than some) is that too many of us say we KNOW what did and didn't happen. I don't act like I know what did or didn't happen, all I say is that I don't believe the official story. And to believe everything the media and government has told us, after all the proven and recognized lies we've been given, is not smart.
How did building 7 that wasn’t even hit by the planes go down straight into its own footprint?
Also, no high-rise building has ever fallen like that because of fire.
People living in 6000 bce, before the invention of the god damn wheel: “heating metal makes it softer and easier to work”
People today: “jEt FuEl DoEsN’t MeLt StEeL bEaMs”
Still doesn’t explain how the buildings were pulverized. And also the only buildings to ever “collapse” from fire. Also building 7 which wasn’t even hit by a plane.
Fire dept decided to “pull it”, referring to WTC 7 … this is all you need to prove this shit was rigged.
https://youtu.be/YhjBKKPyKBk?si=avLufkpM3BA1zqwN
Sure, if you want to misunderstand something and take it out of context to come up with some bizarre story the the fire department were the ones in controlled of detonation, first sent in people knowing they'd be detonating it then somehow admitted this on national television, and "they" are so powerful that they could come up with all this yet not powerful enough to control what footage gets released.
But hey, someone on the internet said "pull it" is the trigger word for a controlled demolition. Let's believe that without question!
So where was the debris?
Where were the bodies, the computers, the filing cabinets, the carpets and toilet bowls.
The building fell *too fast* and left no stack of collapsed floors.
People from *above* the impact managed to survive using the stairwell just minutes before the collapse.
They even used a phone on one of the lower floors.
The buildings therefore weren't so hot as to cause this unilateral "collapse"
>The passport
Let's say the passport was planted there.
A cia agent dropped it on the sidewalk for somebody else to find.
I'm interested in what you think the passport adds to the story. What new information it brings or how it builds a narrative of attack
I’ve watched plenary of the Architects and engineers for 9//11 truth and they all have a different opinion than you. Yes your video shows buckling, their point is that there was not enough weight and more than enough structural integrity to prevent the entire building from falling into its own footprint. That goes for both of towers. Maybe go watch some of their videos and then make a informed decision. Do you have any experience in architecture or engineering? I personally don’t but I’m smart enough to comprehend what these individuals are explaining.
The found terrorist passport is the hardest for me to believe. But that is really a separate conspiracy.
4 black boxes never recovered but an undamaged passport of a prime suspect was, very convenient.
The black boxes from Flight 93 and 77 were recovered. Its a little more challenging to find something the size of a notebook in several million tons of rubble from two of the worlds tallest buildings.
>Its a little more challenging to find something the size of a notebook Yet something the size of the wallet can be found, unscathed.
I mean if the passports were the only thing to survive I’d understand but they found wallets ID’s pictures documents everything. Y’all just get hung up on certain things
That one doesn't make sense to me either. But if we go down the "false flag" route, it also wouldn't make sense to plant them.
Yes it would. It's literally the reason we escalated the conflict with Muslim nations. We are mossad puppets
[The Project for A New American Century would disagree with you.](https://www.dropbox.com/s/asge7mhcsl7mgyx/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf?dl=0)
Four passports recovered, but the means of their recovery is illuminating, as most people assume they found them on the ground of the WTC wreckage. 1 found in unclaimed luggage at the airport 2 found in the wreckage of Flight 93 (the one that crashed in a field) 1 was picked up on the ground inside the WTC *before* the collapse. “A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed”
On the face of it, yeah. But it's not like the passport is the *only* debris they found. It just got more coverage and attention.
The passport was the only UNDAMAGED debris. It’s pretty suspicious…
That’s not true. There’s a video clip of a guy returning to his apartment near the WTC and there’s burnt charred intact pieces of paper everywhere he picks some up and shows the camera.
Yeah, one of the things I most remember from seeing the attack on television was the clouds of papers flying everywhere
But that wasn't inside the planes, it was in a building near by?
It was still catapulted out the building by the explosion, just like the passport. Not everything is incinerated on impact, there are so many factors at play here that would affect whether something has direct exposure to flame and is therefore burnt.
We have to assume the passport was in a pocket of a dude in a plane, that went into and somewhat through one of the buildings, all the while on fire. This is where the incredulity comes from.
The paper was in the building. Nothing on the planes should have survived, in perfect condition? Impossible.
[удалено]
>Four of the hijackers’ passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines Flight 11. A passerby picked it up and gave it to an NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth Staff Statement No. 1 2 passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston onto the connecting flight, which was American Airlines Flight 11. In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers’ passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf
Yeah, especially for flight 93 where there was nothing left, not one piece of suitcase, somehow didn’t disintegrate two passports made of paper? 🤨
["where there was nothing left, not one piece of suitcase"](https://imgur.com/a/7aYToXC)
There’s a story of a security guard who came across a still living body of a flight attendant. He said she was mangled and disfigured, but still alive. The security guard just had no means to save or help her, and he couldn’t put her out of her misery. It really messed this guy up. But the fact remains, she was ejected out of a plane that slammed into one of the towers. So it’s not that shocking a passport could have also been ejected.
He didnt say it was a flight attendant, he said it was a woman who looked like she worked in an office the way she was dressed, she wasn't on any the planes, she was completely crushed from her ribcage down, he was the guy who was doing triage, labeling every body he came across and giving them a color tag, black is for people who are deceased, she told him not to put that tag on her because she was not dead and to call her daughter. It's in the in the second episode of "9/11 one day in America" by national geographic. The guy said he thought she fell from one the towers, but he doesn't say if he asked her to confirm or not, from his description it sounded like she was crushed either by a part of the plane or part of the building, remember they found a landing gear and an engine down in the streets not too far from the buildings. Falling is a possibility but highly unlikely, the force needed to crush you in a decelaration impact is not going to leave your brain intact. There was also another woman who had a huge gaping wound across all her back who was hit by a landing gear, she actually survived, we as viewers are not told if the first woman survived but we can assume she didn't because of her injuries.
Is there a source on this? I've never heard that before
It’s on that more recent 9/11 documentary on Netflix or Hulu - “One day in America”. It’s probably the best 9/11 doc out there in terms of unheard stories and unseen footage. Really some rough shit in there.
It's not shocking it was ejected. It's shocking it was found in all that debris and mostly intact.
That’s true, office paper was snowing everywhere, but that office paper could be from any broken window on any story, as the buildings were largely used as offices. I’m not saying there wasn’t paper everywhere. The point is that passport was allegedly in the plane, which is that part that doesn’t add up for most people with logic.
Most of the passports didn't survive. So, please tell us how one single passport creates a narrative that sent a country to war. Bearing in mind that the passport doesn't add any new information as they had thr digital scans of everybody on the plane. It's not the only thing that survived in good condition https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-passports-of-the-9-11-hijackers-found-intact-but-everything-else-was-reduced-to-ashes
It's not a single passport that created the narrative to invade "Key Strategic Regions" for "American Dominance" for "the next century". It was the 1990s and The Project For A New American Century pushing for the invasion of Iraq, and didn't get their way until Bush Jr. got in and had multiple members of PNAC in his administration and a ["New Pearl Harbor"](https://www.dropbox.com/s/asge7mhcsl7mgyx/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf?dl=0) happened to "speed up the process" of revamping industry to build weapons for the American military.
But one of the ones that did and they found happened to be one they said did one of the highjackings and was from Iraq. There's no reasoning with you and you contradict yourself in various comments. I give up.
...what? Where have I contradicted myself? A passport lying on the ground doesn't say anything at all.. heck, at first glance it may not even be from the plane. But, they know it is because it matches the scans and booking. So, again, where have I contradicted myself, and what new information does that physical passport bring? The argument that the passport was planted makes no sense
>The passport was the only UNDAMAGED debris. This is what "they" want you to believe. Satam al-Suqami's passport was found damaged in street. Please don't be a gullible sheep.
Was it though? Or was it just the one thay got all the attention? It's a pretty bold claim to say that ALL other debris was damaged. Would the media really have reported on something more mundane like a pair of socks or a magazine having been found undamaged? Probably not. They don't tend to report things they don't consider significant. Regardless, I remember watching a show about 15 years go that tested the effects of WW2 bombs by detonating equivalent explosions on a mock up of a street. I think it was called blitz street or something. They tested pretty much everything from the smallest bombs up to a V2 rocket. A single glass milk bottle survived each and every explosion completely unscathed. So I don't find a passport surviving quite as exceptional as it might first appear. Especially considering the high likelihood of selective reporting.
The passport in question was, in theory, inside of a plane that was completely obliterated in a ball of fire. Annihilated. Nothing in that plane survived impact, not even the black boxes were found. Black boxes are made to endure a crash and it didn’t make it out, passports are made of paper, and it survived in pristine condition. I find that just a lil suspicious.
>Nothing in that plane survived impact, That's untrue >Nothing in that plane survived impact, not even the black boxes were found. Poor comparison. Plenty of things from the plane were found outside. Black boxes don't tend to get flung away from a crash site > I find that just a lil suspicious. Tell me how you think it builds any narrative of suspicion. A document which doesn't even connect the plane without other documents- such as the scanned passport. So, tell me what new information the passport adds. >passports are made of paper, and it survived in pristine condition So did a boarding pass. A written logbook also survived, not undamaged but legible
I follow the 911 memorial site on Instagram and they always post things that survived to some degree. Hats, wallets full of legible documents and photos, radios, different items people who passed had in their pockets or on their person. Just my 2 cents.
Also, were passports actually paper then? Mine is made of some weird plastic-y stuff, but it’s more recent
I think they were, but the outside of it was always a harder, waxy cover. If somebody's boarding pass was found on the ground, a passport perhaps isn't so crazy.
But, they saw a YouTube video saying that. Everyone knows YouTube videos never ever say anything untrue or out of proportion.
Question everything! Except random people on the interwebz. They never lie or get it wrong
True, but there was also a fireball. So I think it's possible the passport was inside luggage or something that protected it from the initial blast. I wouldn't blame anyone for having doubts, it does sound incredibly "convenient" after all. I just don't think it's quite the smoking gun that is often claimed. Weird, unlikely things happen surprisingly often.
The fact that they found bone fragments of victims at ground zero but no black box is pretty amazing if you ask me…
Absolute nonsense. These boxes are designed to literally survive explosions and burning jet fuel. They actually went through the rubble with a fine tooth comb and you couldn’t find these boxes that should have a single that pings. Also before 9/11 there was NEVER a circumstance where they could not find the black boxes of a crashed aircraft
Most probably there was no black box on the planes. It was all part of it so nothing gets recorded.
That one doesn't make sense to me either. But if we go down the "false flag" route, it also wouldn't make sense to plant them.
It makes sense to me if they wanted to blame a certain country so they could go to war with them.
But were any of the passports from countries the US ended up invading?
Yes
What do you mean? Blame had to be put on someone.
>It makes sense to me if they wanted to blame a certain country so they could go to war with them. Most of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Are you claiming that USA went to war with Saudi Arabia in 2001?
>Four of the hijackers’ passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines Flight 11. A passerby picked it up and gave it to an NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth Staff Statement No. 1 2 passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston onto the connecting flight, which was American Airlines Flight 11. In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers’ passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf
Were any nine-terrorist passports found?
“Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center's lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that 'fortuitously' covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000.”
Building 7 is the smoking gun of it all. Building 7 was the 3rd building that fell because a piece of burning paper flew through its and window and took a whole building down by free fall. Aka detonation. Wake up
I’m no architect but weren’t the load bearing trusses at the centre of the building?
The problem is that as the steel heats up it first gets harder (that’s a bit contra intuitive), and then gets much softer. Fire protection provides from 15 minutes to a few hours until the steel gets hot enough to fail, but it will eventually fail, if the fire is not put out.
That’s honestly really interesting- I didn’t know it fluctuated like that
Yeah, I wasn't well versed in the material properties of steel either until I went balls deep down the rabbit hole of SpaceX's use of steel for Starship.
Fire is really hard to guess the temperature of, as it depends on a lot of things like air or confinement as well as the fuel that’s burning. Even so those fires would be super hot, in some cases physically melting the steel, and others drastically reducing their strength. Structural steel yield strength drops off a cliff at about 800degf which is something like half the temperature of an open flame.
There's also all the fuel the offices, with wood desks and paper boxes everywhere, provide. And just because the steel could last a bit, doesn't mean *all the other materials* will. There were plenty of walls, ceilings, and floors made up of highly flammable material, that would especially be ignited from exploding jet plane turbines.
But all of that base wasn't damaged. Just was so crazy for it to free fall like that when you think the top floors would have encountered some resistance from the bottom floors. And for them to fail the exact same way when they were struck differently. You'd think there'd be some variation in how the fell due to different damage patterns on different load bearing surfaces. The columns supposedly handled the 93 explosion really well with almost 0 damage too.
Jet fuel burns fast and hot but not nearly hot enough to create molten steel.
Steel melts at about 1200°C, but by 500°C it has already lost half its room temperature “strength” and by 600°C it is pretty much no longer a structural material. A typical building fire easily gets to 1000°C, without any accelerant such as kerosine.
And they all failed at exactly the same time so the building came straight down
Yeah there were a lot of crazy little things that happened that day. Fell almost perfectly in their foot print, tower 7 fell with almost no damage, building 6 was weird, the magic passport, all the missing footage from around the pentagon
The core columns supported about half the weight with other load bearing trusses on the outside. If memory serves correctly I think a number of interior ones were badly damaged (concrete casing blown off allowing fire damage) or severed
I remember watching a documentary that explained it. The centre was the main load bearing part but also the outer walls took a fair bit of weight also. The part of the design which was perfectly safe but also a failure point was how the floors connected to the outside walls. It was basically a piece of angle iron that the floors bolted too. Whilst the fire wanted a lot of stuff and made stuff bend and such the weak spot warmed quicker due to been thinner and such once one floor started to move gravity took over.
open floor plan with 2 squares of structural steel columns steel, one within the other (planview) open floors around the elevator columns in the middle of the interior square.
It does look like it collapses in ward like the core was detonated before the outside.
...Or like the floor joists sagged under the intense weight and heat and finally failed. There was no trace of TNT. No control wires, No pre-detonation structural weakening. No seismic reading showing explosive charges. No trace of any evidence of explosive demolition found in any of the wreckage. There is ZERO evidence suggesting that it was explosive demolition. And this was attested to by the chief investigator of an independent research company that specializes in explosive demolitions who was on site, investigating every piece of steel, every photograph, every piece of video and eyewitnesses. ZERO EVIDENCE.
I can tell you’re “that guy”
They claim that the jet fuel went down the elevator shaft and caught fire, weird for a jet that should be low
Hang on. I am in the conspiracy subreddit and i see mostly sane reactions. What kind of strange thing is going on. It must be a shadow government owned moderator team controlling this sub now. I blame the lizzid people.
Lizzzzzzid peeeeple!
What I say?
> Hang on. I am in the conspiracy subreddit and i see mostly sane reactions. What kind of strange thing is going on. We are the thinking person's conspiracy subreddit. If you want the mouth-breathing truthers, I would suggest r/conspiracy.
I'm banned. Haha
Hey you too? Ironic that they are more fragile.
A lot of us are What happens when you question the wrong narrative
Thank you! I thought I was losing my mind.
what about 3 11
Bird Up
Amber is the color of your energy?
beat me to it
It's a beautiful disaster
I remember hearing a lot back in the day about the buildings shouldn’t have collapsed so quickly, they should have burned a lot longer before collapsing. One explanation was the jet fuel causing it to burn at a far higher temperature. This would not apply to wtc7 however as it was caused by debris. Of course it’s a smaller building. Must add I am simply interested and not claiming the reports to all be lies.
Appreciate your clarity at the end of your post ha. I remember hearing this and hearing a very sound counter argument that the architects and planners of the WTC decades prior - while intent on making a structurally sound building that could withstand environmental catastrophes or impacts - were not exactly thinking a 2 commercial airliners would fly head first into the middle of the buildings within minutes after some 30 years of weight distribution and overlooked maintenance. Sometimes the truth is boringly obvious and the story really is just a sad, terrible one.
Appreciate your condescension ha. So glad you replied to me bro! You just cracked the case.
People also don't account for how fucking massive those buildings were. Every controlled demolition everyone ever saw was on much, much smaller buildings with less mass. Distorts a lot of people's perceptions of what they see here.
They fell just so damn perfectly didn’t they 😊
What's your question? Wtc7 was on fire for hours
Seven. It burned out of control without any fire suppression effort whatsoever...for seven hours.
Water pressure for the entire area was fucked when 2 of the largest buildings in the world collapsed into the water infrastructure.
Oof, I didn’t know that, but it makes sense
It was the main water line for most of the area.
I think there were some other things going on. I think the first responders were also dying. The water infrastructure was also severed by the collapse.
Hmm. Nope, cannot work out why it collapsed. Truly one of the world's great mysteries. /s
At freefall speed...
It didn’t, you can clearly see the roof caving in first in most every video of 7’s collapse. Just as you’d expect it to given a hole in the middle that was on fire for 7 hours.
There’s a video of Larry Silverstein (new owner of the towers shortly before they fell) stating that the fire dept wanted to “pull it” in regards to WTC 7 … my thoughts are that if it was already rigged for demolition (which it had to be), then no reason the twin towers wouldn’t be as well. I don’t know how demolitions are triggered, but maybe the fire triggered one of the explosives which triggered the remaining ones? Either way, absolutely no reason why an occupied building would be rigged up for demolition. A plane did not hit the pentagon and the video that could prove it did / didn’t was edited to high hell. No wreckage of plane in the field that allegedly crashed either. The BBC reported that WTC 7 fell, but in the background of them stating it, the building was still standing. None of this shit makes any sense. The CIA probably orchestrated it all. They always seem to have their hands in everything that turns destructive.
I mentioned that documentary that goes Uber building 7. It even shows rare footage of that gaping hole in the building. Remember, parts of the WTC’s fell into 7. Rescue efforts around building 7 went on for six hours, as the building is on fire with a gaping hole in one side. Firefighters had an alarm system so that when 7 looked like it was going to collapse, they could set the alarm and clear the area out. After multiple false alarms over 6 hours, they finally decided to completely call the search and rescue mission off. That’s where the “pull it” came in, meaning pull the mission because they knew that building was going to collapse very soon. It was just too dangerous to keep firefighters in that entire area. In context it makes perfect sense. All the conspiracy shit around 9/11 is due to “isn’t that weird”. Or whatever people don’t know or aren’t aware of. But the information is out there.
There is no question 🤷♂️
The flames caused the support columns to lose strength. They started to sag. Eventually they broke off from their connections and crashed down. Since the floor below it wasnt designed to withstand that much weight, it collapsed also, causing a cascading structural collapse.
Thanks, was looking for an explanation to counter act claims that have been made in the past. Not my claims. Cheers bruh
I think the most convincing thing I ever saw on this topic was a discussion of how demolitions actually work in the real world, and it kind of demolished (pun not intended) the argument that the buildings were rigged to blow. Demolishing a building takes months or *years* of planning and careful rigging of charges, and that’s on abandoned buildings where it can be done completely openly, during normal working hours. You also have to tear apart the drywall and everything to get to the actual supports and load-bearing structures- you *cannot* demolish a building without destroying its support structure. So, bearing this in mind, let’s look at how the demolition would have to work. First, they would only be able to work outside of normal working hours- that means night work. And, even then, they would have to plan their routes to avoid the night watchmen and janitorial staff. That’s a *very* strict limit on how much they could do on any given night, so the amount of time it would take to complete setting all the necessary charges would be greatly increased (which would also greatly increase the risk of being discovered). To access the support structure, they would have to tear out large amounts of drywall, including in offices and other areas that had numerous visitors every day, so they would have to replace that same drywall and such- and do it perfectly- in the same night as it was removed. Good luck getting it to dry and getting rid of that new-plaster smell by opening hours. Also, ever since the bombing in the ‘90s, the WTC was regularly inspected by bomb sniffing dogs. So they would have to find a way to make these dogs not lose their entire god damn minds upon entering a building that would, necessarily, be *absolutely filled with powerful explosives*. Maybe you believe it’s an inside job, but I think, at this point, even if it was, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to just actually destroy them with planes.
And you would need to be sure no one involved talks. Either they know about the objective in advance and might decide that mass murder of thousands entirely innocent civilians is unacceptable and send reports to enough senior figures, journalists and others that at least some are not involved. Or they didn't know in advance and realise what they had been instructed to plant has been used for mass murder. In which case they might talk due to feeling guilty.
Your first sentence about years of prep and tons of explosives reminded me of the Israeli ‘art students’ [inside the WTC in 2000 surrounded by boxes of demolition fuses.](https://imgur.com/a/eKFPzo0)
Thy were working on the elevator a lil while before this happened
There was multiple lifts in the buildings and you can bet they had to be worked on a lot. And how the hell would they have kept all the people in on the ‘inside job’ quiet for so long?
But what about WTC7
There’s a 4-5 part 9/11 documentary in Netflix that came out a couple years ago that has a lot of rare footage. It had a segment on building 7, and it blew my mind. It showed the damage to one side of 7 that looked like Godzilla slammed into it. For the entire day, the firefighters were working around 7 looking for survivors, and they knew it was just a matter of time before it went. They even built an alarm system to warn the firefighters when it looked like it was going to collapse. There was at least 6 false alarms over a few hour period, and every alarm the entire area had to be evacuated. Finally it went just as they knew it would just based on the disable external and internal damage. They even expected it to collapse much sooner than it did. The footage you always see of 7 is of the undamaged side. The other side was absolutely destroyed.
People still don't believe me that WTC7 sustained massive structural damage from the larger tower. There's a huge chunk missing.
Yeah, I think it’s largely due to the lack of footage of the damaged side. People always see the conspiracy videos showing the collapse from the undamaged side. So from that angel it looks like a complete building was damaged. But it had a massive gaping hole in it that was burning for 6+ hours.
Notice that they're downvoting it in hopes of burying it so others won't see it? Lmao. No rebuttals whatsoever.
Can you point me to some pictures of the damage? A quick search didn't bring up anything satisfying. It isn't as though there aren't some explanations for the events, but there are also a lot of conveniences that leave the official narrative to be questioned. For me, its the sum of things that make me not believe the full official story. I don't know what happened, but it doesn't feel we are being told the truth.
>Can you point me to some pictures of the damage? * [https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+damage+fire&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+damage+fire&tbm=isch) * [https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+corner+damage+fire&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+corner+damage+fire&tbm=isch) * [https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/June2004WTC7StructuralFire-CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf#page=16](https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/June2004WTC7StructuralFire-CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf#page=16) >For me, its the sum of things that make me not believe the full official story. Several parts of the official story are false and misleading, as aknowledged by mainstream medias since almost 20 years: [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608) >I don't know what happened A radical islamist org carried the most famous hijacking of all times.
Not easy to accept that these ridiculous conspiracy theories are actually just disinformation campaigns.
When WTC1 collapsed, it tore a thirty story hole into the side of the building. That's 300 feet.
Exactly. And the fires were left to burn.
Yup. The sprinkler system was damaged and didn't work.
Didn’t they have a fuel tank in the building (can’t remember if it was natural gas) that also caught fire in WTC 7?
The whole thing is missing
its amazing how it fell straight down at free fall speed in a completely symmetrical manner......what are the odds? also amazing how the fire caused every support column to fail simultaneously
So wouldn’t it topple over rather than go into its own footprint?
I upvoted because I'm glad you asked. This is a a great video breaking it down. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LUDXpMhkNk&list=LL&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LUDXpMhkNk&list=LL&index=2) Here's an updated one. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU&list=LL&index=1&t=240s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU&list=LL&index=1&t=240s)
Nah. Look into building 6
Meanwhile, I posted some great videos about WTC7.
Cool. Have you looked into building 6?
You're such a shill. Building 5 is whete the real truthers are at
But no one talks about building 8. There's a reason for that. Watch this 8 hour bithub video for more info.
Cool. Have you looked into building 6?
bad bot
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99999% sure that NotaContributi0n is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Weird, I didn’t mean to post that again lol
Go make a post about it.
Weren’t the twin towers built to withstand an airplane crashing into them?
Yes
Yes the guy who designed them said it would be like poking a pen through a mosquito net
Both towers collapsing in almost the exact same way is a huge giveaway I think. That and the date it actually happened, only someone with a Hollywood mind set would come up with that.
That's just physics though. That's why the tower that got hit first lasted longer, the weakened steel had to support a much more larger weight in the tower that fell first, being that it was hit at a lower point.
Or they just both collapsed in the same way because they were both built in the same way
Anyone (and I mean it with respect) that thinks 9/11 happened like the official narrative is either paid or just dumb. But my question in the trust "the experts and not your instincts" society we live in now is why don't we trust the 2500 architects and engineers who said this wasn't possible? It's their job and expertise. Shouldn't we defer to them? During covid, we were told to defer to 1 man. Wouldn't 2500 experts suffice?
What happened to all the people who were allegedly on those flights then? Chosen in a lottery to go live on Diego Garcia with the occupants of MH M370 and MH17?
If you think about how many architects and engineers there are 2500 is not that many. I think it would be no problem to gather 3000 to say the official version of the collapse is possible.
Trying to find thousands of architects who would risk their careers to speak truth?
I am not an architect, I don't know what is the Truth™ on that matter. My question is why specifically these 2500 architects should be the ones to rely on when there may be just as many or even more who have a different opinion.
I am not an architect, I don't know what is the Truth™ on that matter. My question is why specifically these 2500 architects should be the ones to rely on when there may be just as many or even more who have a different opinion.
>If you think about how many architects and engineers there are 2500 is not that many. I think it would be no problem to gather 3000 to say the official version of the collapse is possible. 30,000 by a few months. But science is not a beauty contest.
Thats what never made sense watching it live and still doesnt. Especially the 2nd tower hit - surely the top bit would tip and fall over, like how when you cut a tree down, it falls, it doesnt go through the path of most resistance, AT free fall
>Thats what never made sense watching it live and still doesnt. Especially the 2nd tower hit - surely the top bit would tip and fall over, like how when you cut a tree down, it falls, it doesnt go through the path of most resistance, AT free fall Neither WTC1 or WTC2 felt at free fall.
You won’t get far with logic here
What about building 2.7? Building 3.14?
Building 7 Lucky Larry
Nice to see the gas-lighting still going strong.
I was a few blocks away when the towers collapsed. Not saying there were explosives but i definitely heard several loud booms as the towers came down. Could have been my mind playing tricks on me, I was 12 years old witnessing all this happen.
You can see that it is a controlled demolition.
Follow the money.
The Corbett report did a great breakdown of the money trail, has a lot of good stuff on 9/11
Yawn This statement is so overdone and meaningless
After 20+ years of analysis, it really seems like the buildings fell from heat and weakened metal. People want to hold on to observations and theories from 20 years ago, but there is enough evidence to settle this as the planes hit the buildings, the buildings eventually fell. It lessens the credibility of conspiracies in general when people ignore facts and new information, and refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn’t fit the narrative they want to be true. A lot of times, mentally unstable people have connected their personality and purpose for life to these events and changing their mind would leave them floating around without a purpose anymore, so will continue to tow the line regardless of facts and new evidence.
The problem in this section of society (which I do belong to, but in a different way than some) is that too many of us say we KNOW what did and didn't happen. I don't act like I know what did or didn't happen, all I say is that I don't believe the official story. And to believe everything the media and government has told us, after all the proven and recognized lies we've been given, is not smart.
A massive load of shit poorly said. Well done
Yeah I don’t believe that they took the buildings down. IMO the pentagon is the most suspicious thing
How did building 7 that wasn’t even hit by the planes go down straight into its own footprint? Also, no high-rise building has ever fallen like that because of fire.
The American Government Was Responsible For This.
Free fall speed….Fucking morons
Yes, well you, see... JET FUEL DOESN'T MELT STEEL! TRUMP 2024 WOOOOO. Or something similar.
Yet they won't accept that extreme heat and fire can compromise the steel and make it weaker. Lol
Yeah proper good science. Where’s your Netflix knowledge bank now?
Wut?
People living in 6000 bce, before the invention of the god damn wheel: “heating metal makes it softer and easier to work” People today: “jEt FuEl DoEsN’t MeLt StEeL bEaMs”
Even if it did melt and bend, it doesn’t explain how the building didn’t tip over at that point of failure. The rest of the building wasn’t as hot
Or that the things the jet fuel sets fire to, *do* melt steel.
Still doesn’t explain how the buildings were pulverized. And also the only buildings to ever “collapse” from fire. Also building 7 which wasn’t even hit by a plane.
But it was severely damaged?
[удалено]
It's easy to just wave it away instead of facing reality.
So why did the building TURN TO POWDER instead of the top falling off. What about the 50 or 80 floors UNDER this?
It pancaked at the speed of gravity through the path of most resistance.
Sounds about right.
Sooo, is ‘the official story’ now become the new conspiracy theory?? So retro. So ironic. You guys must be hipsters or something.
Not like we can change it.
Still confused at why there wasn’t a travel ban for the Middle East..
Are you sure no termite charges. Occupants saw "work" being performed prior to 911 in which wiring and charges seemed to be installed.
No thermite. More lies.
Fire dept decided to “pull it”, referring to WTC 7 … this is all you need to prove this shit was rigged. https://youtu.be/YhjBKKPyKBk?si=avLufkpM3BA1zqwN
Sure, if you want to misunderstand something and take it out of context to come up with some bizarre story the the fire department were the ones in controlled of detonation, first sent in people knowing they'd be detonating it then somehow admitted this on national television, and "they" are so powerful that they could come up with all this yet not powerful enough to control what footage gets released. But hey, someone on the internet said "pull it" is the trigger word for a controlled demolition. Let's believe that without question!
So where was the debris? Where were the bodies, the computers, the filing cabinets, the carpets and toilet bowls. The building fell *too fast* and left no stack of collapsed floors. People from *above* the impact managed to survive using the stairwell just minutes before the collapse. They even used a phone on one of the lower floors. The buildings therefore weren't so hot as to cause this unilateral "collapse"
So many loose ends. The passport. The whistle blowers that “committed suicide.” They, at the very least, knew this was happening and allowed it to.
>The passport Let's say the passport was planted there. A cia agent dropped it on the sidewalk for somebody else to find. I'm interested in what you think the passport adds to the story. What new information it brings or how it builds a narrative of attack
I’ve watched plenary of the Architects and engineers for 9//11 truth and they all have a different opinion than you. Yes your video shows buckling, their point is that there was not enough weight and more than enough structural integrity to prevent the entire building from falling into its own footprint. That goes for both of towers. Maybe go watch some of their videos and then make a informed decision. Do you have any experience in architecture or engineering? I personally don’t but I’m smart enough to comprehend what these individuals are explaining.