Do You Believe The Official 9/11 Story?

Most of us remember September 11, 2001 as a tragic and world-changing day. In the only major attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, over a dozen Muslims hijacked planes and crashed them into the Twin Towers, collapsing the buildings and killing thousands of people in New York.

While the explosions and fires were put out soon after, the social and political consequences for American and global citizens alike are becoming ever more severe. We spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to replace priceless civil liberties and security in our own country with draconian surveillance systems and militarized police.

Domestic spying is just one of the many benefits of perpetual war with a global enemy...

Domestic spying is just one of the many benefits of perpetual war with a global enemy…

More specifically, here is a summary of the borderline treasonous measures the government has implemented in response to the attacks:

  • The Patriot Act, which eroded fourth-amendment provisions and made it almost impossible to conduct financial transactions and digital communications without government surveillance
  • The Military Commissions Act, which confers “justice” to military prisoners without due process
  • The War on Terror, which was not only unsuccessful in even reducing Islamic terrorism but has cost taxpayers $1.7 trillion and killed thousands of American soldiers
  • The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which wastes exorbitant amounts of money while stripping away civil liberties and labeling all sorts of deviant groups (like white nationalists and people with too many bumper stickers) as “domestic terrorists”
  • The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the airplane security mafia that extorts law-abiding citizens who want to avoid cancer machines and full body pat downs, all while profiting from smuggled cocaine and fees for “easy access” lines
  • The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which legalizes indefinite detention for supposed “terrorists” and consolidates surveillance powers for unnamed defendants without due process

It is obvious that we lost a lot in the fourteen years since the attacks, and the potential future restrictions on our civil liberties in the name of stopping “terrorism” are seemingly neverending.

With so much at stake now and in the future, it is therefore imperative that we know the full truth of the event that started it all– the 9/11 attacks themselves.

Questionable Evidence

You might think that case has long been settled, but in what follows I will introduce several important facts that are left out of the official narrative.

While they seem to suggest more sinister motives at play than simply “Ay-rabs who hate ‘Murica,” the reader can draw his own conclusions based on the physical evidence. However, may the reader be warned: this article will pose more questions than answers.

Disclaimer: The remainder of this article is based heavily on the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I am not affiliated with this organization in any way, although I encourage the interested reader to support them however possible.

Steel Skyscrapers Don’t Collapse

Steel has a melting point of approximately 1370º C, while the typical temperature of building fires has been found to be 900-1000 degrees. This is why steel, and more specifically steel-reinforced concrete is chosen to build modern skyscrapers: it is unlikely to be structurally compromised from hydrocarbon fires, ensuring the building will not collapse even if all of its contents burn.

This is not just theory; in 1991, the majority of a 38-story building in Philadelphia burned for over 19 hours in a raging office fire of much larger magnitude than that of any of the WTC buildings. Yet it remained standing for 9 years afterward, despite minor structural damage caused by the extensive fire.

There are in fact countless documented cases of burning skyscrapers, and they have one thing in common: they do not collapse.

This modern skyscraper in Madrid burned much longer and much hotter than the WTC buildings and it didn't collapse.

This modern skyscraper in Madrid burned much longer and much hotter than the WTC buildings without collapsing.

In contrast, the WTC buildings collapsed after only the upper portions burned for a few hours. Although they were hit by planes, the major cause for collapse was determined to be structural damage due to the fires. However, even with the added jet fuel the fire could not have burned hot enough to melt steel.

Although it receives little mention, WTC building 7 also collapsed in addition to the other two towers. A modern steel-frame skyscraper like the one in Philadelphia, the NIST report claims it fell after structural weakening due to office fires ignited from burning debris.

But in order for it to collapse, all or most of its steel support columns must have been structurally compromised. This poses a problem, as a few hours of moderate fires could not have caused such damage when similar buildings haven’t collapsed after being subjected to much longer and hotter fires.

Even if we pretend that the flames could have melted critical support structures, that would not have been enough to bring the entire buildings down at the speed with which they collapsed.

Which brings us to the next major point…

They Fell At Free Fall Speed

You may remember from high school physics that an uninhibited object will fall with constant acceleration due to gravity, while the presence of resistive forces like drag or friction will reduce this acceleration.

This is intuitive, but it may come as a shock to you that all of the WTC buildings fell with acceleration close to freefall. Video analysis of the WTC 7 and the two towers shows that they fell with constant acceleration due to gravity, much like a baseball in a high school physics problem.

The building's height plots a parabola because it fell with constant acceleration

The building’s height plots a parabola because it fell with constant acceleration

For all three buildings to fall at this rate, there must have been little to no resistance under the upper floors that could have slowed down the collapse.

But buildings don’t have zero resistance, particularly steel-framed buildings whose columns have not been melted or even weakened by ordinary fires. And since the planes hit the towers on the upper floors, and the fire spread up, the lower columns were left untouched.

That the buildings did not collapse immediately suggests that the collision itself did not weaken the structure enough to bring it down. But the burning jet fuel and office furnishings could not have done the requisite damage to cause sudden freefall collapse either.

However, there was evidence of another material that might have been capable of doing so…

Evidence Of Thermite And Explosives

Thermite is a highly reactive mixture of aluminum and iron oxide (rust) that burns hot enough to melt steel and iron. There are two pieces of evidence that suggest this material was present at the World Trade Center explosions.

The first is actual unburned thermite that was found in the dust and debris. This material would not have been present unless it was put there specifically to aid in destroying the buildings.

High-tech forms of unburned thermite was found in the WTC dust

High-tech forms of unburned thermite were found in the WTC dust

The second reason is evidence of melted steel and iron. As discussed above, the steel beams would have barely been weakened, much less melted by the jet fuel and other materials that were supposedly present.

However, there is incontrovertible evidence that steel did melt: remnants of the I-beams themselves were eaten away and in some parts evaporated by a molten liquid slag. Not many materials can do that to steel, but thermite (or other explosives) certainly can.

The additional evidence for melting is the iron “microspheres” found among the dust that fell all over the city. These tiny spheres are formed by liquid iron droplets rapidly cooling.

Therefore, there must have been some fuel present capable of liquefying iron. This suggests thermite or another compound was used specifically to melt it.

Possible Explanation

Imagine investigating the collapses as if you knew nothing about the official story. Here we have three modern, steel framed skyscrapers collapse from fires when no such building has ever collapsed in the history of skyscrapers.

Planes flew into the two taller towers, impacting 2/3 and 5/6 of the way up. They remained standing for a few hours while oxygen-starved fires (read: low temperature) fueled by jet fuel and office furnishings raged on the upper floors.

Suddenly they collapsed, neatly and symmetrically falling on top of their own footprints at close to free fall speed despite the lower portions of the buildings remaining structurally sound and untouched by fires.

Meanwhile a third building, with fires supposedly ignited by debris and untouched by flying planes, collapsed in a sudden onset and at close to free fall speed, even though its dozens of steel support columns remained unharmed by the seemingly inconsequential fires.

In the aftermath, residue of explosives and evidence of liquefied steel and iron were found in the dust spread all over the city.

If NIST’s claim that the ordinary fires brought the buildings down is incomplete, as we have shown above, what could explain all these peculiarities of the collapse that are unanswered by their theory?

The only logical conclusion to the above evidence is that another motive force, separate from the fires or the plane’s impact, caused the buildings to fall. In fact, these circumstances are not that uncommon. In fact, old and defunct buildings are frequently imploded using controlled demolition.

Buildings are brought down all the time via controlled demolition

Buildings are brought down all the time via controlled demolition

Lined with explosives, the main columns are sequentially cut one floor at a time such that all the support structures are rendered ineffective. This is timed very carefully such that the penthouse falls in first and the rest of the building collapses on top of it.

It lands in its own footprint, and while dust and debris spread out, the bulk of the building lands on top of itself. Many examples on Youtube can be found of controlled demolitions of buildings.

These examples all have one thing in common: they almost exactly resemble the manner in which the three WTC buildings collapsed.

Conspiracy Theory?

I myself am not entirely convinced of the veracity of this theory. There are some good counterarguments to many of the points made in favor of it. On the other hand, there are other points that the government report does and cannot logically counter.

Particularly, WTC 7 is the smoking gun of the 9/11 farce. Its collapse cannot be explained by plane crashes, yet it uncharacteristically collapsed due to routine office fires. This is by far the strongest piece of evidence in favor of the coverup theory.

Compelling as that may be, the evidence presented here still poses more questions than answers. If explosives were used, who planted them? How were the attacks coordinated with the Muslim terrorists? Who organized the attacks?

We know that the CIA supported al-Qaeda-connected Muslims fighting against Russia in the ’80s. 9/11 also would not be the first time the CIA joined forces with foreign rebel groups at the expense of the American people and managed to keep it secret.

America and al-Qaeda were not always enemies...

America and al-Qaeda were not always enemies…

Despite fairly obvious motives and the potential for the government to have successfully carried out the attacks, it is still hard to imagine how exactly they would have been able to carry out and cover up this false flag event.

Of course, the improbability of the events is no reason to assume impossibility; we must continue to suspend judgment until more satisfying answers can be found.

In Conclusion

To that end, another investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center that accounts for the additional evidence ignored or denied by the official report must be carried out.

This investigation should be conducted by multiple cross-disciplinary governmental and non-governmental agencies with unrestricted access to all of the evidence yet remaining.

Although this interpretation of 9/11 has been labeled a conspiracy theory by the government and media, it is often the very ideas most vilified by the popular opinion that are necessary to think about. They use the term conspiracy theory in the same way as they use “racist” or “sexist”; that is to say, as a way to silence dissent and uncomfortable ideas.

But we have lost a lot since the attacks and the government has and continues to gain even more at our expense. We citizens have an obligation and a right to learn the truth, whether that be the official narrative has been correct all along, or that the government has duped us out of our essential liberties.

Only then will we have a better grasp of the truth and be in a better position to determine the value and necessity of the legal and social changes that have taken place since the attacks.

Read More: Inside The Mind Of The Social Justice Wanker

630 thoughts on “Do You Believe The Official 9/11 Story?”

  1. 9/11 truther articles now? Really hurting for content? I already listen to Coast to Coast AM every night.
    Up next, the Merovingian reptile bloodline Illuminati conspiracy.

      1. No, I will look for it. Thanks for the tip. I got the wife hooked on the show when we first started dating. It comes on early where I am at so its our nightly bedtime listening.

    1. How do you feel about the fact that a group of Mossad agents were filming the collapse of the towers in New Jersey, and, as bodies burned and innocent Americans leaped to their deaths, these Israelis danced, laughed, hugged each other and took selfies with the burning buildings in the background?
      I just asked you a question, Gundog.

      1. Every night and still as crazy as ever. George Noory is the main host with guest hosts on the weekend. They even made paranormal and conspiracy dating sites for listeners!

        1. I really like Art Bell, cant tell you how many evening I spent listening him long after I should have been a sleep. Never did get into Noory too much though.

  2. Sorry, but ROK is losing me here. 9/11 trutherism reminds me of Feminism’s Patriarchy claims: Conspiracy bullshit to explain unpleasant truths.
    When the IRA failed to kill Maggie Thatcher in ’83, they issued a statement: “We need to be lucky only once. You [Mrs. Thatcher] need to be lucky all the time.”
    The unpleasant truth about 9/11 is, 19 Saudi terrorists got lucky—and then a bunch of crazed Neo-Cucks took advantage of the situation to push for needless wars.
    No conspiracy, no false-flag, none of that crap: Just bad luck.
    But hey, if a worldview cannot allow for the element of luck, then conspiracy is the way to go.

    1. And even if it was what does it matter to keep dwelling on it ? Dwelling does nothing to fix it . None of us have the power to stop something like this from happening anyway .

      1. Exactly. Even if 9/11 was an inside job (which I have complete certainty was not), it doesn’t matter anymore.
        It’s like birthers: If BHO was indeed a Muslim born in Indonesia? Will that erase the last seven years and reset everything to 2008? No.
        Birthers, truthers, vaxxers—they’re all wankers as far as I’m concerned.

        1. Agreed , the only people who know what really happened are those in power . People say “if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it ” this only matters to those with the power to write it . Instead or writing articles like this maybe one should try and put themselves in a position to write it themselves

        2. You don’t think it matters if the government of the country you live in kills it own citizens to start multiple wars that will kill even more ?

      2. Because it might happen to you or your family next time. Besides, it’s part of a larger agenda, and what comes next might be truly terrifying.

        1. And how would you go about protecting your family ? Would know the exact day an attack was going to happen ? Doubt it . Unless you are top tier government or business executives you will never know how the world will play out .

        2. How ? The gulf of tonkin is a supposed well known “false flag ” that didn’t stop 9/11 from happening . You don’t have the power to stop it. Only high level politicians do.

        3. Oh ? Are you going to be their general ? What military skills do you have ? Last time I checked most of the men on here are afraid to join the US military …how do you think you’d fair fighting against it ?

        4. No, because you cry revolution but have no idea how to begin one let alone have the fortitude to start one . The way you talk makes you sound sheltered

        5. Then remain silent while men talk . You are complaining and expecting someone else to fight for you ,that is a woman’s nature

        1. “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams
          “One man with courage makes a majority”. How ironic you’re handle is of a glorified American gunslinger; you idealize a courageous man, yet cower yourself in nihilism. Why? Fear of loss. None of us will directly ‘take on the gub’mint’, the battle for good and evil is in yourself – like Solzhenytsin said – such that, when the time is right, and a certain ‘event’ happens that is in your power to stop that is commensurate with your current station in life, you act accordingly. The answer to fear is confidence. Confidence is achieved through competence. I hope to God you don’t have children.
          “I believe there is a God; and I see a storm coming. If he will we have me; I believe that I am ready” – JFK
          western rifle shooters association
          survivalblog
          Pat McNamara
          Kyle Lamb
          Max Velocity Tactical

        2. I have a different ,more realistic , opinion of things so I’m cowering? Haha you can quote all the people you want , I’ll ask you the sane question, are you going to step up and lead the movement that brings the government to justice ? No? Then fall back in line and go write for your “survival blog” by the way, the man with no name was a bounty hunter who steered clear of pissing off the government and was actually pretty good and playing people himself . He understood it’s best to go about your business and not get involved in things that don’t concern you or don’t involve money .

      1. ‘We’ Roosh? I enjoy reading articles here and occasionally I post comments here but this thing is an insult to a person’s intelligence. I read it and I rank it with the nuts who say the Holocaust did not happen. We all have good reason to be paranoid about Government and the people running it but this article is pure nuts.

        1. Quite a few starting with Homosexuals being victims of Nazi persecution creating a holocaust of its own. A lot of the falsehoods are based on politics such as counting Austria a victim of Nazi aggression after the war but a lot of truths remain starting with the Death Camps themselves and the millions murdered or worked to death there.

        2. The Six Million Number of Jews murdered comes from none other than Adolf Eichmann and many take him at his word since he was in charge of the business for Hitler and Himmler but with Historians well numbers of dead are varied some conservatively list Five and a Half million others up to six and a quarter million though I have seen some estimate as high into the seven million range in regards to the numbers of Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis and their collaborators (Numbers vary because the Nazis defined ‘Jews’ According to their ‘Racial’ Theories and some of their Victims did not consider themselves Jewish) the Nazis had a lot of court decions going all over the place, Lawyers were a major group of the Nazi party along with teachers and doctors. The Number of Gypsies murdered is believed to be in the quarter million range but nobody is sure how many were murdered, first of all nobody knows how many Gypsies were in Europe at the time available for murder and again the Nazi definition of Gypsy were not exactly what most people believed a gypsy to be at the same time the Nazis did not segregate their gas chambers or murder sights but murdered all they thought Unwanted and Unplanned for who they believed they had a right to choose to Murder which makes the numbers difficult to set. As for how the killings were done well we know about the gas chambers in the Camps (some like Treblinka having been excavated) also such as places like Babi Yar many of which throughout the former Soviet Union have also been excavated (historical note Difference between a killing by the SS Einsatzkommandos and by the NKVD at the time is the Soviets were very neat especially in shooting their victims and stacking the dead Katyn is Prime Example where the SS shot often badly and dumped their victims like garbage leaving plenty of evidence all over the place). We also know on many occasions in the former Soviet Union the Nazis would herd people into buildings and set them on fire shooting any who tried to escape. Those are the big methods for murder in addition to working their victims to death in the Concentration Camps.

        3. No but denying them is as too much real evidence both physical and credible witnesses has been brought up, the photographs of Bergen Belsen, the bodies found by American soldiers at the University of Strasburg that was to be the Nazi collection of Jewish Skeletons just to name a few (Auschwitz inmates selected for Anatomy all killed by Zyklon B). If you dispute the numbers I suggest you provide a good reason and some sort of evidence to back it up. Sad thing is that the Holocaust has become something of a milk cow to the left to justify themselves especially since pretty much everything they have done has caused ruin and harm. They believe they have the exclusive right to compare everybody who disagrees with them with hitler and routinely compare everyone who disagrees with their agenda with the nazis. At the same time such is the interest in what happened that a number of frauds have come up claiming to be death camp survivors or victims of the SS to sell bogus stories for lots of money, a movie starring Michael York comes to mind though I wish I could remember the title.

      2. You didn’t “lose me” with this article, but I will be much more skeptical of Tom Swyft’s contributions in the future.

    2. There was obviously a conspiracy. 9/11 did actually happen, and it was actually the culmination of a conspiracy. The question is this: who precisely was involved in the conspiracy, and to what end? Are we to believe that 20 suicidal Saudis, one blind sheik and one wealthy financier living in an Afghan cave were the only responsible parties? This is as implausible as Timothy McVeigh acting alone in OK City. Not impossible. Just implausible.

    3. Actually, no one supports the 19 Saudis theory anymore, not even the official us government 9/11 commission. Just like the official government conclusion on JFK is that there was a conspiracy. The original Warren Commission ruled that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman, but due to all the conflicting evidence the case was examined again in 1978 by the US House Select Committee on Assassinations who ruled it was a conspiracy. How many people know the government admits a multi-party conspiracy killed JFK?

    4. The unpleasant truth about 9/11 is, 19 Saudi terrorists got lucky—and then a bunch of crazed Neo-Cucks took advantage of the situation to push for needless wars.

      So essentially, a handful of Arabs (mainly Saudi Arabians), operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond or V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad.
      Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed; Airport security failed four times in one hour; NORAD failed; Air Traffic Control failed; The US Air Force failed; The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed; Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs. Got it.

      1. Right. And they just snuck up on the Pentagon after hijacking a plane and flying around in the most restricted airspace on the planet for 78 minutes. LOL!
        The guy who supposedly piloted that flight “could not fly at all” and could not even properly land a Cessna according to his instructor, but instead of just crashing into the East wing of the Pentagon where he’s already pointed and where all of the top brass are located, somehow miraculously managed to pull off a sweeping, 270 degree turn at 400+ mph to approach from the opposite direction, leveling off perfectly just off the ground (the maneuvering was such that those in the radar room at Dulles thought it was a military plane), and striking the West wing which — just by sheer coincidence — had been under renovation and was — conveniently — mostly empty.
        Amazing the sort of absurdities you can get the feeble-minded masses to swallow.

    5. Well, I’ll ask YOU then:
      How do YOU feel about the fact that a group of Mossad agents were filming the collapse of the towers, and, as bodies burned and innocent Americans leaped to their deaths, these Israelis danced, laughed, hugged each other and took selfies with the burning buildings in the background?

      1. Nice little anecdote, but it doesn’t really prove anything. If you look at the entire back to the future series, it predicts 9/11 too, but the dancing shylocks are on the same level of evidence in terms of robustness. There’s plenty of much harder evidence concerning what went on with the structure/engineering.

        1. The question isn’t whether or not it proves any theory definitively, but it clearly merits suspicion and investigation, and seems promising as a piece of a puzzle. It’s yet another FACT that makes blanket dismissiveness of alternate 9-11 theories all the more inane.
          But how do you feel about what they did?

        2. Powerless: if mossad was granted executive power by the CIA, FBI, military, etc to carry out this attack, if the President was forced to peddle the official lie that has been perpetrated for nearly 15 years, by his military, banker and corporation shadow government puppetmasters, if the media were bankrolled to ceaselessly propagate the theatre that has the world’s dumbed down masses believing the freefalling skyscraper as a result of a plane crash theory… well then everything that we’ve ever been told is probably a lie (including the theory of evolution, mankind’s history, etc).

    6. If you don’t think the US gov has close ties with terrorists, apparently you haven’t been reading the news lately.
      The only person hiding from an unpleasant truth under the guise of a bullshit “conspiracy theory” is you.

  3. Most, if not all “9/11 truthers” are Democrats/Liberals/Left leaning and they all hated President Bush. Any time a theory is presented and all of their supporters lean one way politically, religiously, or otherwise, I almost immediately dismiss the validity of the argument. Well written article but I’ve heard it all before.

    1. Don’t retarded libertarians believe the same conspiracy theories? (I know, I know, “retarded libertarians” is redundant.)

  4. I am simply at a loss for words that this stupidity made publication on this website. Now if anyone wants to discredit any of the wise and brilliant things that have been published here they just have to point to this intellectual diarrhea.

    1. +1. Crap like this discredit/undermines all the other articles on ROK.
      If I were editor-in-chief of ROK, I’d delete this now.
      It hurts the brand.

      1. I’m not sure what you are asking. I am me. Are you a nut who thinks of a website on the free internet with a single requirement that I personally meet is his own personal domain to challenge all who come with suspicion.

        1. I actually once encouraged Roosh to post an article about some or all of the strange, seemingly implausible and even apparently staged events of recent years, and he declined, very accurately predicting that there would be an onslaught of discreditors emerging from the wood work to impugn the credibility of ROK. For some reason, there is a whole volunteer (?) army of social media activists dedicated to having everyone remember publicly traumatic events precisely as they were reported by CNN, FOX and Congress.

      1. those buildings did have an enormous volume and thus a great deal of concrete and steel. It seems it would take much more than a fully fueled jetliner to melt such a large building. It really strains credulity.

      2. This is correct. The large steel beams are simply too much steel for the fires to get hot enough. Steel conducts heat very well and simple office and open jet fuel fires would have the heat conducted away through large beams. This is why NIST has the truss theory where the vulnerable small gauge steel in the floor trusses fails and brings the whole building down. Highly unlikely as I briefly explained in my other comment. It would be like pulling down a sky scraper with a tow strap and pickup truck.

    1. from the comment section on youtube: “Since you’re testing, how about another heating and bending a steel I-Beam with JP-4?”

    2. Ummm,
      He bent the steel bar. Not compressing it. The buildings fell straight down which means miles of concrete reinforced steel would of had to compress. If the steel failed as this guy demonstrated then the buildings would have at least twisted some.
      Not all the miles of steel bar would have heated evenly. The steel near the crash site would have. The lower floors may have had some damage from heat but the concrete surrounding the steel bars would have had to of melted as well.
      So to sum up… The crash sites would have acted as a fulcrum (the weakest point) and the buildings would have at a minimum twisted from the hottest points to the coolest points. Then after the twist the weak spot would have been a buckle point and the top portion of the buildings would have fallen over.
      Plus, I had a full blacksmith shop for 10 years and I have a pretty good understanding of how metal deforms. What this dufus did was in no way a comparison to what would have actually happened.

    3. Based on this video above, one would expect the buildings to tip over and collapse, after part of the steel frame was weakened, not fall directly into their own footprints at freefall speed. I saw the collapse live, and I remember thinking … that doesn’t look at all like how the building should fall. It should “tip over” not pancake like a demolition.

    4. So what?
      In your video, some hillbilly takes a *small* steel rod and bends it after placing it in a forge (which is designed to evenly and thoroughly heat metals).
      Let’s see him subject dozens of *large* beams to heating in a regular open fire (not in a confined forge), with jet fuel as the hydrocarbon of choice in ~21% oxygen, and then run a more realistic demonstration that models the falling of the Twin Towers.

  5. A very timely article with what is happening in Syria. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and here are some of the important key points to prove it:
    -Sep 10th: Donald Rumsfeld explains that over 2.3 trillion dollars have gone missing. Coincendently, the towers go down the next day along with the the accounting department in the Pentagon.

    -Look up the Project for the New American Century.
    -Wesley Clarks video:

    The very same thing is happening now with Syria. Flase flag attacks happened in Paris, and now the San Bernadino attacks. In regards to San Bernadino, multiple eye witnesses saw 3 athletic, tall white men shooting at the sight. Primary motivation behind these attacks: use a pretext to go to war in Syria.
    An explanation of false flag attacks:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-terror-a-historical-overview/5475591

    1. THIS is up-voted the most? Man, red-pillers have to roust the brain-deaders ASAP.
      Because that’s the real name of truthers: Brain-deaders.

      1. The sad fact is neo cons like you lot are absolutely brain dead, if you actually believe the so called “official” narrative. People treat this issue like a disgrace. You ain’t no “red pill” either.

        1. I’m not a neo-con, but hey, if ad hominem attacks are what you need to be happy, go for it, no skin off my backside.
          Which you can kiss, btw.

        2. Actually, you can go kiss my ass, you fat camel turd. Go believe the official narrative, live in denial and wage more wars for oil for your psychopathic beliefs.

        3. Logic? This coming from someone that believes in the official narrative, and dismisses the truthers as tin foil wearing loons?
          Yep, further proof I have lost faith in humanity.

        4. “Neo cons” Just saying stupid communist buzz words like that shows your true colors.
          Being a liberal ass licker is for sure NOT red pill so go fuck yourself.

      2. I think the Truthers are being pulled out of the wood work to this thing like moths to flame. This isn’t a good sign at all.

      3. I don’t understand why people get emotional or adversarial about this matter. Yes, building fell, and people died, and somebody did a very naughty thing. Beyond that, regardless of what actually happened, the events of 9/11 almost certainly happened differently than the official narrative because almost any noteworthy event happens differently than the official narrative. That’s the whole point of having an official narrative – to make people remember an event other than the way in which it actually occurred.

        1. I’m emotional about it because I was in it. It’s been said that conspiracy theories are history for stupid people. Congratulations on making the cut.

        2. Wow. You were in it? How very traumatic. Were you killed?
          The more ardently people defend the government’s official narrative, the less credulous I become.

      4. Anyone who uses “truthers” as a blanket condemnation of everyone who has any doubts about The Official 9-11 Story is either a total dipshit or has a hidden agenda.

    2. and why is there no footage of an airplane flying into the Pentagon, other than the Sasquatch quality film clip released a year or so after the fact by the Pentagon? There is a dense urban area just across the river, filled with security cameras and tourists with cameras. It just seems overly odd. And what about that plane that crashed in PA? Where’s the plane? Things don’t just disintegrate and magically disappear when they collide.

      1. Because it was a missile and I DID see the footage before it was scrubbed from the internet! Before google purchased youtube!
        Planes that big don’t fly 2 feet off the ground at mach 1 speeds!

    3. The war department had a long and ugly history with doctored financial statements and improper receipting that began in the vietnam war. They were defrauding the taxpayers of trillions of dollars, and had no intention of setting the books straight. The main database and records were housed in wedge 1 of the pentagon, and the only offsite backups was located in (you guessed it) WTC 7. Its no coincidence that they were both destroyed within hours of each other.

  6. Dumbest thing I started to read here.
    My wife shared an office in 7 World Trade. The place was a fucking dump – surprised it didn’t fall over on it’s own in a storm. And it was dwarfed by 1 and 2. And nobody died in 7 – so why would I not believe a shitty little building could collapse after the BIGGEST BUILDING IN THE WORLD falling on it.
    And why? What’s the motivation for dropping that dump?

  7. Whether there is any truth to these theories or not (honestly I think we’ll never know for sure) I think it’s best to avoid publishing articles like these. The fact of the matter is that the clear majority of people don’t believe 9/11 is an inside job and nothing is likely to convince them otherwise, so going down this alley is a dead end. Instead it just gives an opportunity to SJWs to attempt to discredit an otherwise disruptive and high quality website. Let’s leave this kind of stuff to zerohedge and stormfront.

    1. I disagree with your statement “The fact of the matter is that the clear majority of people don’t believe 9/11 is an inside job and nothing is likely to convince them otherwise, so going down this alley is a dead end.”
      Truth isn’t a matter for democratic up-or-down votes. Some truths are help by a tiny minority—but aren’t negated because the majority doesn’t believe it. Consider the earth-is-spherical truth that a majority didn’t believe in prior to 1492.
      The problem with 9/11 truthers is, no rational argument will dissuade them.
      Norman Mailer was a firm believer in a JFK assassination conspiracy, until he researched his book “Oswald’s Tale”—and reluctantly concluded that Oswald did it alone.
      Will the guy who wrote this piece be swayed by direct evidence that counters his truther argument? Will any truther? No—and that’s why 9/11 truthers ought to be dismissed, no different from Feminists: No amount of rubbing their nose in the truth will dissuade them from their notion.
      But truth as a democratic “most people don’t believe it so we shouldn’t say it” trope? Wrong too.

      1. I agree that truth isn’t a matter of democracy, but what I am stating here has nothing to do with the ”truth” per se, but rather political tactics. The question of whether or not the 9/11 conspiracy theories are true is largely irrelevant to the goals of the reactionary movement, and is therefore at best a distraction and at worst undermines our credibility.

    2. SJWs are already discrediting this site. They have no influence on what we print and they never will have. Once we give in to them, we are finished.

      1. But SJWs have generally not been successful in their attempts to discredit RoK so far because their criticisms (ie ”misogyny”) are really only of interest to their leftoid fellow-travellers. The majority aren’t put off by accusations of ”misogyny” but may be put off by conspiracy theories.

    3. I disagree. I don’t really have a theory or opinion about what happened that day other than what we were told is an obvious lie, and the US government was either directly or indirectly involved or knew (that much is completely irrefutable), but the red pill is about realizing you are being lied to and waking up to the truth. Many people are shocked to discover their government would lie to them and it becomes a first step to seeing feminism and democracy as lies also. People are passionate about different things. 911 is not a very important issue of mine (although I’m seriously pissed about the wars, the tsa, the laws, the homeland security and all the other stuff that came after) but for some people, that is their passion. If it wakes more people up to the false stories we are being told, then great.

  8. ROK needs to have a bit more discretion in publishing this kind of thing. Whatever you want to argue, it is not going to help in the long run. Don’t be like the cuckservatives and constantly throw good money after bad.

    1. Comparing us to cuckservatives because of an article you don’t like is a low blow. I hope you have supporters that are less likely to throw you under the bus like you are doing for us.

      1. It’s not a comparison so much as a warning.
        I don’t want to see the red pill/alt right message hampered just at the very moment we’re starting to break through the egalitarian/globalist narrative.
        Maybe you can call it “concern trolling” if you want, but I just don’t see much for us to gain in the propaganda war this way.

  9. Bottom line is this:
    what American government wants… DOES NOT EQUAL TO
    what American PEOPLE want.
    But what do American people do? They willingly go on their daily lives and just live. … IF you want change, throw a VIOLENT protest. You can’t have a revolution without a violence. You want a change. You don’t like how America is going down the road. Will what are you waiting for? … No need to throw your frustration on illegals or immigrant shop?
    Go directly towards DC.

  10. Thousands of years of blacksmithing prove that steel can be softened to deformity by heat well below the melting point.
    Controlled demolition is a long and detailed process that simply can’t be done in secret in a building that is used by tens of thousands of people every day. Not. Possible. They’d be gutting the walls on each floor to wrap explosives on the support structure. That’s really damn noticeable.
    This article is pure idiocy.

    1. They could disguise the installations as repairs…and at night there wouldn’t be many people around, at least not every where. Office drones would never understand what was going on. Don’t forget, it might have been planned for years. They didn’t have to install everything in a week or so.

      1. So many people still deny 9/11 was an inside job that its completely ridiculous, and yet are willing to believe the official narrative. These are the same idiots that believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
        Unbelievable how people can still live in denial.

      2. I lived in the Wall Street area in lower Manhattan until shortly before 9/11.
        NO WAY a demolition team (which I have seen up close and personal) could install demolition explosives in the WTC without anyone noticing. Anyone who has been around a demolition knows it takes a crap-load of time and care to pull it off.
        If it didn’t, then any old building could be demolished lickety-split in five seconds flat, without anyone the wiser.
        You know, logic… it’s a bitch!

        1. Yeah…logic from you. People also saw the Feds smuggle away the black boxes from the wreckage sites, and somehow, they vanished from the wreckage? Explain the logic behind that you camel turd.

        2. Why ? one man could do it if he had a year or so. Operating on carefully selected floors on times where they were deserted, during holidays, weekends, etc.
          It’s not like an entire team is really needed if you have time enough. I just don’t see why this is impossible.

        3. You don’t think a suspicious-looking person who tries this wouldn’t be caught on camera? Especially if he’s doing a lot of work on structurally significant parts of a building?

        4. A building is hollow. Once they get INSIDE the building, there are no cameras. Also, the demolition man probably had some kind of valid excuse to be there..like repairing something. I doubt the average man would have the knowhow to figure out what he is really doing.
          Besides, the guards could be in on it as well,

        5. One man, every day, for a year, in two giant & crowded office buildings, stringing explosives & miles of det cord, and nobody discovers it, and nobody accidentally jostles a single thing, and he waits until two jetliners are hijacked and fly into the buildings, and then he brings down the buildings perfectly, and nobody finds a trace of evidence left behind … but you figured it all out online?
          Riiiiiight.

        6. “crowded office buildings,”
          Did you miss the part where I said they could do it when the buildings were almost deserted ? Like at night. I don’t know about your job, but at my work everyone goes home at night.
          Why are you deliberately ignoring my points ?

        7. These denialists are idiots. They still believe the official narrative, want to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They are sheep.

        8. Just for clarity, who posited here or otherwise that Iraq had anything directly to do with 9/11? I know the politics made things fuzzy over the years but that was never the primary issue.

        9. The buildings were crowded every damn day. One man can’t string hundreds of feet of det cord at night, then cover up his progress before people arrive, and never be caught … at the fucking World Trade Center. Did you ever visit the WTC before 9/11? It was a fucking zoo. There were people EVERYWHERE.

        10. No security cameras? Inside the World Trade Center?
          Especially after the 1993 attacks?
          Think about it. A single person, or small group of people, would have to place thousands of small charges all over these buildings. You don’t think anyone would have noticed after awhile or looked into it?
          You can’t fool all the people all the time.

        11. Your explanation is based on a false premise. The idea that there are no security cameras inside of major office buildings, much less ones that were the sites of previous attacks, is preposterous.

        12. Don’t forget the debris was hastily sent to China for recycling before it could ever be searched for evidence.

        13. You didn’t see a huge demolition crew (wearing jackets saying “DEMOLITION”) run into the buildings on 9-10, so it couldn’t have happened?
          You know, fallacies… they’re a bitch!

        14. No way could an airplane that I have seen up close and personal be made to fly in to a skyscraper………….idiot

        15. No, you idiot .. he merely placed wastebaskets with a little jet fuel in them in strategic places.8) .. You do realize that is the official story right? You say it would take thousands of small charges to take the building down, but you’re willing to believe office fires did it. hint: strategically placed charges of thermite much > than many office fires.

    2. It’s true that steel can be deformed well below melting point… but the question is whether the heat (focused on the top floors) could conduct through the beams sufficiently to the bottom structural beams enough to deform them and then have them all come down in such a tidy footprint. The examples of the other office building fires that lasted much longer and were over a much greater volume of the buildings demonstrate steel’s strength against even larger fires.
      You are clearly new to the WTC issue if you aren’t aware of the many maintenance workers who were “servicing” the building in the weeks prior to 9/11.

      1. The planes ripped through much of the structure, and the weight above was much greater than the Philadelphia or Madrid examples. The deformed steel had much more pressure on them.

        1. Hold a basketball on top of a tennisball. Drop both simultaneously. The basketball’s mass will not accelerate the fall of the tennisball.
          All objects, regardless of mass, are attracted to the earth in accordance to the inverse square law, where the acceleration due to gravity can be given by:
          g=(GM)/(R^2). Capital G is a gravitational constant, M is the mass of the earth, R is th radius of the earth fro its center.
          None of those quantities are changeable without godlike technology. To believe the official story, you must assume something far more far fetched than the coverup theory.
          Either 911 truth deniers are spectacularly ignorant of Newtonian mechanics, or they are still plagued by the fear that animates the betacuck frame. Don’t get played.
          Like Trump said. We are at war. The enemy does not want to fight, but immerse us in a fog of war. Know yourself, and know your enemy. Know physics and geometry, like Napoleon.

    3. Take out a building’s core and it goes down. Weight pushing down also contributes but it is also a proven fact that molten aluminum (such as from the crashed airliners among other things) explodes when it comes into contact with water (such as from the fire sprinklers and bathrooms of the buildings which some believe contributed to brining down the towers to back this argument they point to footage of bright molten metal spilling out from the burning areas of one of the towers. It is not in the official report but that was brought up after it first came out and nobody official feels they should amend the report.

        1. With big events like this, it’s not exactly possible the big media can just avoid it entirely – however they can put a spin on it or make it seemingly irrelevant by spinning the narrative around. They have been in full force “islam is peace” ever since the attack so as to control the damage that it did on September 11th 2001. A good example of this is the “study” that shows White Americans are still the major terrorist threat in USA. it completely does not even count the deaths of 9/11. Huh, interesting.
          It isn’t exactly a mystery to assume the left would “make excuses” for Islam so as to further its own advancements of the ‘multicultural’ agenda; everyone on this site should at least understand all major mainstream media outlets are incredibly “left” leaning or biased towards egalitarian outlooks on the world.
          Why are we so shocked that a bunch of <90IQ towel heads that we gave tons of training/arms/supplies to that praise a religion that deems us ‘infidels’ and worthy of death for existence would want to hurt us when we constantly meddle in their affairs in their home countries? We are not welcome there, they do not like us. In fact the muslims in WW2 era sympathized greatly with nazi “racist” ideology – they’d rather be left to their own devices (however barbaric and disgusting I think it is). You’d also be hard pressed to find a right wing guy who really knows his shit who wanted to invade them.

      1. Just so everyone is clear:
        Islamic radicals, armed with box cutters, attacked the WTC as well as the HQ of the US Department of Defense; Effectively defeating the multi-billion dollar air defense system of the world’s most powerful country.
        This was all orchestrated by a bearded man in a cave, who evaded the world’s most powerful military and multiple intelligence agencies, for years, while on a dialysis machine. They did it because they hate our freedom.

        1. Islamic radicals are a fact. They conduct attacks regularly.
          Box cutters are scary to civilians. Most civilians are like sheep. They won’t raise a hand in their own self defense and would rather wait to see if things “calm down” before they try to fight. The air defense system is not geared toward civilian aircraft. The U.S. is powerful but also naive, especially after the end of the Cold War prior to the War on Terror. The man in the cave was aided by Pakistan, a rich and complicated country, and funded by Saudis, an ally of the U.S. The US intel community circa 2001 was not all that impressive, really.
          They did it because they want a caliphate.

        2. If Pakistan wanted a Caliphate, then why reject the Islamic State’s claims of including Pakistan and Afghanistan for its caliphate?
          The entire 9/11 Commission report is based on the assumption that bin Laden was behind the attacks. The report’s evidence to support this premise has been disowned by Commission’s own own co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. Here is a far more likely scenario:
          -> One year before 9/11 Saddam Hussein decides to stop selling oil for dollars.
          -> America is in danger of losing economic power over the region.
          -> White House geostrategists suggest that catastrophic events are necessary to justify war.
          9/11 > Iraq War > Iraqi oil is sold for dollars again

        3. “If Pakistan wanted a Caliphate, then why reject the Islamic State’s claims of including Pakistan and Afghanistan for its caliphate?”
          Almost every Muslim faction wants a Caliphate, but all of them want their leader as Caliph, there’s the rub.

        4. Prior to 9/11, law enforcement, the airlines, and common wisdom told people to cooperate with hijakers and not make waves or call attention to themselves, so the way people behaved that day makes sense, that is how they were ‘trained’.
          Since then people, like the shoe and underwear bombers, etc, who play up on a flight have found themselves hammered by their fellow passengers.

        5. Dude, Iraqi oil doesn’t matter for fuck. We spent way more money prosecuting the war than we ever got from oil. It was a net loss by a massive margin. The war was fought for other more existential and dark reasons.

        6. More like its a bullshit made up story. Sad Americans would actually fall for it, believing their countrymen to be such pussies that they wouldn’t even bum rush a bunch of terrorists with box cutters…
          The planes were probably drones, that explains how the flight paths were so precise. No novice C+ illiterate terrorist pilot could pull off a maneuver like that, let’s be real.

        7. How is it made up? That was the practice in the 70’s and 80’s, keep it calm and stretch things out. The longer the negotiation went on the more likely the hostages would be released, traded, or rescued.
          Until the first plane hit the first tower, the assumption was that it was a hijacking and hostage situation, not a terror attack, and people acted accordingly. When it was realized what was happening 93 fought back.

        8. Correction:
          Islamic failed pilots who inhaled pork and lived with strippers woke up late and left a car in the airport parking lot with their foreigner-grade kindergarden-level islamic prayers and a flight manual for the airplane (guess they were training while driving, LOL). They boarded the airplane and, because Americans have been trained to be sheep (the only part of the story I believe) they could take over the cabin with boxcutters. Then these failed Cesna pilots pilot the planes and take out the targets. One of them does a high-G maneuver that stunt pilots don’t think they could do to nail the Pentagon.
          Two towers are each thought to be in controlled fires by on-the-scene firefighters until there is a sudden burst of explosions and they pancake. Building 7 doesn’t even bother to use a novel method of collapsing. Classic controlled demolition symptoms. Neither does it have a major fire or any substantial structural damage.
          Meanwhile, all the military planes on the east coast are mysterously out of action and unable to intercept. The terrorists seemed to be able to create several simultaneous exercises on that day. And Dubya got the news that the 2nd airplane had hit and decided to keep reading a book about goats to a grade school class.
          Yeah. Great theory.

        9. > Islamic radicals are a fact. They conduct attacks regularly.
          Your chance of being killed by an Islamic is less than your chance of choking on a steak.
          > Most civilians are like sheep.
          They have been trained to be this way. The government likes sheep. The anti-gun agenda, the anti-male agenda, the PC crap. It is all designed to create useful passive idiots.
          > air defense system is not geared toward civilian aircraft.
          So when the military was running drills about passenger planes runnign into buildings before that, what am I to think? Is the government criminally incompetent or just planning for the future?

        10. The reasons are geopolitical. United States and Britain control the global maritime traffic. Look on the map the destroyed countries and to destroy, is the Silk Road. The theft of oil is bribery.

        11. Except it isn’t about profiting from oil but rather maintaining the dollar as the World Reserve Currency; Which was a major component of the Bush administration’s push for the Iraq War. The US’s hegemony is based on an reliance on dollar-denominated oil transactions. Invading Iraq because of 9/11 was a non sequitur. The Iraq War was ignited by Saddam Hussein’s declaration of adopting the euro for its oil-export transactions from various aspects. Saddam’s switch to Euro based oil pricing, made the war in Iraq an inevitability and absolutely had as much influence on Bush’s policies as the WMD propaganda campaign had on Americans.

        12. ‘We spent way more money prosecuting the war than we ever got from oil. It was a net loss by a massive margin.’
          It is now public knowledge that cia director george tenet falsified the case for WMDs, and that the real reason for the invasion of iraq was oil. This is duly confirmed by the invasion strategy, and the construction of permanent US military bases positioned directly on the oil fields. Buts its not really that simple. You see, in late 2000 saddam hussein threatened to switch for the euro for trading oil, and was pushing to convert iraqs ten billion dollar reserve fund at the UN to euros.
          This information about iraqs oil currency has been censored
          by the US media for the interest of the white house, federal reserve, and most importantly, the international bankers. Heres why: A country cannot produce an economy without energy. If countrys are forced to trade in their money for US dollars in order to buy energy, the value of the US dollar is increased proportional to the price of oil. So by then increasing the price of oil, you increase the amount each person has to now exchange for the same gallon of energy through the petrodollar, and the transaction balances out the deficit in the currency.
          This gives the currency its intrinsic value: Moneys just paper otherwise. Meanwhile, the central and international bankers who without this artificial bubble in are all reality bankrupt can keep their currency from crashing. Now combine this with the fact that iran and north korea,the two other axis’ of evil, were also planning to switch off the US dollar to the euro. The picture starts to become clearer. The banking systems of the western world and most of the globe rely on the commodotisation of finite raw resources that are forcefully traded through the US dollar in order to keep their currency and economic frameworks afloat.

        13. you’re such a GOOD GOY, yes, there there.
          keep doing and believing as your programmers tell you, slave.

        14. You really have no idea about the Middle East, do you. You really believe that Israel dominates Saudi Arabia, Irak, Lebanon and so on? Does Israel dominates anything outside its borders?

        15. You are aware that antisemitic referes strictly to hatred against jews? You can’t change the definition of words just because.
          Hatred of arabs is islamophobia.

        16. I dont know anything about the middle east because a stupid cocksucker says so.
          Israel controls the US so thats all that matters.
          If you were as smart as you thought you were, you wouldnt have to be told the obvious.

        17. Israel controls the US? You must be really stupid to belive that when US has the worst anti-israeli president in history, when US goes ballistic when Israel builds one house in it’s capital, when an american citizen born in Jerusalem doesn’t have Israel writen in his passport. Not to say anything about US giving green light to Iran to build nuclear weapons with which to wipe Israel off the planet.

        18. I take it as an aknowledgment that you understand that you were wrong, antisemitism is indeed hatred of jews and all your blabber was nonsense

        19. You just cant grasp the realities before you. Mainly because you are an idiot.
          Every single congressional candidate travels to israel and pays fealty. You really should not try to grasp intricate matters beyond your ability to comprehend.
          Keep coughing up what the tv programmed into you, since you are a democrat, instead of figuring it out for yourself.

        20. Bin Laden was extremely rich and was in the process of building a palace in Kandahar Afghanistan before the war, he was not in a cave. I like how you laugh at the idea of a lesser force defeating the most powerful nation in the planet, yet that’s the founding of America in a nutshell.

        21. I take that as an acknowledgement that you are a democrat that still doesnt know what a semite is and you are just fine with the liberal media peddling grievence mongering.
          You do not belong on this sight if you worship the mainstream media.
          This sight is for those who have left behind liberal programming, not those who still believe what the tv tells them to believe.

        22. You only describes yourself. No congressional candidates traveled to Israel so far this elections, and those who have done so in the past did only to score points with the christian right, not to “swear fealty”. You have no idea what you are talking about, I give you facts and you give me anti-israeli fiction the kind you only find in huffpo & their ilk.

        23. I am as far from democrat and “liberal media” as you are from reason and fact. You don’t know basic english and try to teach me semantics? You are just hopeless

        24. Given how stupid the masses are, there must have been a thousand less drastic means to manipulate their support for a war in Iraq.

      2. Hey Guido, use the power of the inter webs to research Operation Northwoods and then come babble some non sense.
        Go ahead and prove that was a fabrication.
        Only a total retard gives credence to stories peddled by liars.

    4. Even if it did warp the metal next to the fire it wouldn’t have compromised the lower levels at all and since the fire didn’t add weight to the structure even if the top portion collapsed the bottom half of the structure shouldn’t have compressed like an accordion. It was designed to withstand fires and even a plane hitting it. A bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 and didn’t do much to it at all. I might be wrong but I weld in the oil field and have seen shit break but never beams and structure just compress and fall out without someone taking sections out or demo it.

    5. Have you ever melted steel? I have.
      Have you ever brought a beam to failure? I have
      Have you ever designed anything with a sub-structure? I have
      I have engineered subsystems on full size commercial aircraft (787, A320, 737 etc…) I have a pretty good idea of the not only the physics involved but also the mechanics as well as the practical knowledge of having actually worked on the stuff. I have a little architecture in there as well.
      What we are told as the story goes is off. Something just ain’t right.

      1. Steel has a much different properties when impact loaded vs static or slow dynamic loading. The building was not designed for 1/3 of the structural mass to fall 12ft into the floor below. I have not calculated the kinetic energy, but I am sure it’s a large number that would have to be absorbed for the building not to collapse.
        The WTC was a big tube made of relatively thin sections, once you smash the tube it’s all going fall just like a beer can under a boot.

        1. Ok, I cant not get into this.
          “The WTC was a big tube made of relatively thin sections”
          Absolutely retarded assertion. The towers had unprecedented amounts of steel reinforcement in the center.
          Jesus fucking Christ what a bunch of jew cucks on here.
          The mossad agents were even caught and ARRESTED for dancing and celebrating as they recorded the attacks, you
          STUPID FUCKING FAGGOTS

        2. > I have not calculated the kinetic energy, but I am sure it’s a large
          number that would have to be absorbed for the building not to collapse
          So your argument is that you feel deep in your heart that you are right. Convinces me.

        3. Speaking of Jesus Christ, the December 25th birth date is pure bunkum, but among the few dates proposed by biblical researchers, Sept 11th was one. Numerism is massive for these people, but nothing would set them ancing more than striking on that date, if it is his true birth date. Here’s some related geometry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L777RhL_Fz4

        4. Your argument is the man behind the curtain did it.
          I know from actual engineering experience how easy it is to destroy steel and concrete. The impact resistance of room temperature hsla steel is 10 J transverse, or 15 J axial in a notched cm2 block. I would just hazard a guess that if we take some thing like 450,000kg and accelerate it at 9.8 m/s2 over 3.7m.
          Lets say it took 3 seconds for the first collapsing layers to hit each other at free fall acceleration. Thus velocity at impact is roughly 29 m/s.
          That’s 190,000,000 J of KE (similar to a truck bomb explosion, repeated every time a floor collapses) that has to be absorbed, by around 100 vertical supports with a web section of .0065m2.
          Simplistic analysis, but the magnitude of energy is so large it doesn’t matter.

        5. Can you give an actual link to any other sky scrapers collapsing due to fire other than the three buildings brought down with two planes?

        6. ‘The building was not designed for 1/3 of the structural mass to fall 12ft into the floor below.’
          The validity of this claim is dependent on a number of unspecified factors. Assuming a piledriver mass of 45,000 tons for WTC 1 and 86,000 tons for WTC 2, and a fall distance of half a meter, this motion would yield a kinetic energy of only 220 and 421 megajoules, respectively. This is a stress level well below what is needed to buckle the buildings supports.
          Thus, a typical column on column collision would result in only minor damage to the towers. In order to get something more destructive, the 911 debunker must specify one of two conditions: Either the upper block fell from a greater height than half a meter, or the columns of the two opposing structures somehow missed each other. Both of these claims have problems.

        7. Well we know for sure that each floor of the the WTC was more a meter tall.
          I know this will be in popular around here, but I have actually read and own a copy on the 9/11 commission report. In it we can see the the wtc had a thinned out structure to accommodate multiple central elevator shafts, putting most of the sport structure in the center on the building. Something like 5 stories were mechanically damaged and exposed to fire. The fire was made more destructive, because in the fire resistance coatings on the beams were inferior quality due to recent EPA changes in the late 60s.
          That said I would argue that the total energy release on the initial collaps was much much higher, due to not falling one story, but as many as five.

        8. Never said 9/11 did not happen. If we want to really look at who did it, maybe we should consider that most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

        9. Relevance? That’s a bit like arguing that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not happen, because we did it first.

        10. If the hijackers are Saudi, then that points to US and Israeli involvment, not vice versa, especially since the admin of the times did all it could to lay blame at Afghani, not Saudi feet.
          I dont really expect much from anyone who would believe two planes destroyed three buildings and there never being a skyscraper ever brought down by fire, before or since.

        11. Really?! The relevence is that fire could never make those building collapse at free fall speed. Its never happened before, or since-because its NOT possible.
          Your adherence to the official party line is telling. You do nothing but parrot the lame stream conspiracy theory.
          Did the Afghani Taliban who tried to turn over Bin Hidin to the CIA benefit from the invasion of their country spurred by 9/11?
          Did Pakistan, our ally, benefit from it?
          Of course not.
          Tell me who you saw who actually benefitted from it instead of shitting out the same liberal talking points that have thoroughly failed to lay this debate to rest.

        12. Sure, if the hijackers are Saudi of course there is Israeli involvement because the Saudis and Israelis are so friendly to each other… Are you retarded ?

        13. Nothing more than common sense should tell anyone that the government is lying.
          If the government says something happened, its likely that the exact opposite has taken place.
          They are a den of liars and thieves.
          The DOE illegally experimented on its employees with radiation exposure, the Army spread radiation into downtown St. Louis, and we have all read about the Tuskegee expirements that resulted in many deaths.
          But seriously, if you accuse the guv of any wrong doing, you are just a conspiracy theorist.
          Fucking democrats dont know their boyfriends asshole from a hole in the ground.

        14. Wow, You are in the tank. Are you arguing that these were the first skyscrapers to catch fire or have planes fly in to them ever?Of course they are not.
          It is reasonable to expect things to happen in the same way as they have happened many times before. I have no idea what your little example is supposed to mean.

    6. You have a relatively new account and are a first time ROK commenter with many up-votes from people I’ve never seen read ROK; and, I’ve been reading ROK for over a year.
      Where do you people come from? Are you this desperate to cover for these psychopaths?

      1. And? A new account might mean that he’s been blocked from sites that he wants to comment.
        I have a ” relatively new account” yet I’ve been posting with the disqus system for 5 years.

      2. Its not about covering up for the muslims, they are guilty of many atrocitys, but 911 wasn’t one of them. It was orchestrated solely by the neoconservatives.

    7. Thank you. Anybody who’s ever worked with explosives can tell you exactly that. Articles like this seem strangely out of scope with what’s usually published.

    8. But hot, softened small diameter steel cannot transmit large loads. It bends and fails. NIST’s theory rests on it being able to transmit those loads.

    9. Then please explain why no building before or since 9/11 has fallen in such a manner without—–without—-the use of controlled demolition.

    10. Thermite was found in the 9/11 dust and no plane found at Pentagon or Shanksville, PA; Just a hole in the ground. Where did the plane go? 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerry admits it was a conspiracy; John Kerry admits building 7 was a controlled demolition. Why would the gov’t confiscate footage surrounding the Pentagon? Why would the gov’t chose to label doubters potential terrorists, in lieu of releasing outright evidence to debunk them? Well over 2,000 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth expose the official narrative as a fairytale, which defies all laws of physics.
      Buildings don’t fall at free fall into path of most resistance unless all steel beams are cut within a fraction of a second. Where did the molten metal come from? Why did witnesses (including janitor, Richard Rodriguez) report explosions before any plane hit? How were all windows blown out and marble blown off walls in the lobby? What are the chances of NORAD running drills, same morning, using phantom planes, blips on radar that confused air force? And of the dancing Israelis, caught celebrating, filming the attack and failing a polygraph test but released, without charges and sent back to Israel? They later to confessed to traveling to the U.S in ADVANCE to film the attack, on Israeli television. Why does the media fall silent on all these issues? What about Lucky Larry Silverstein insuring buildings just months before and admitting ordering them to “pull it”?
      I can continue ad nauseam but gullible apologists, too afraid to look the truth in the eye, will explain these things away to the point of looking pathetic but people are waking up to the truth. These are not conspiracy theories, they are actual questions of events that can not and will not be answered.
      Try and answer the questions before labeling thousands of people with nothing to gain, idiots.

        1. Agree.
          While I don’t like David Icke’s “reptilian theory”, I will not automatically discredit his *great* work in investigating 9/11 (it would be a logical fallacy to do so). Here’s an excellent lecture by Icke on the subject of 9/11:

        2. yeah that guy doesn’t know what a furnace is. an open fire fuelled by the amount of kerosene contained in an aircraft can’t maintain anywhere near the kind of temperature needed to deform massive amounts of steel. So a comparison to Blacksmithing is irrelevant.
          Also look at the fireball, it’s pretty obvious most of the fuel was used up and heat produced on impact, and yet the melting steel theory would imply the fire kept getting hotter and hotter to a point where the steel gave way(like would happen in a closed furnace). but where were the flames and red hot material? did a few smoking chairs, tables and carpets bring down ALL the steal columns?? Yes fire/heat can deform steel, but not THIS fire

    11. Oh don’t forget the one earlier today where the idiot author said that Jim Jones and his followers were “driven to mass suicide by the US govt” lol

    12. Not only that, but the logistics of this – and remember that we haven’t even discussed the idiotic alternative theories about the planes and passengers – you’d have to have thousands of people involved in this conspiracy. For a decade and a half. With absolute silence. From the Government that can’t prevent Bradley Manning from downloading it’s secrets to a thumb drive and giving it to Wikileaks.
      Not gonna happen.

      1. Fuckheads don’t know that conspiracies ain’t possible. People fuck up. Always do. Fuckheads think its like a movie.

      2. That, and the fact that people peddling 9/11 conspiracies are still alive to tell them. If the gubmint had no qualms about killing civilians in this manner, taking down a couple websites along with those making these theories would be a walk in the park.

    13. And of course omit the HUNDREDS of people reporting explosions coming from the basements, and the ground outside!

      1. Don’t forget the insurance policy, filed 3 months before.
        Don’t forget hardly anybody showed up for work that day…

    14. You’re a shill. For those who work the iron your statement is false, much concentrated heat is required to carry plastic state. You can make this cut in steel spraying fuel, perhaps weaken it?

      1. Bottom line: We are only being asked to believe that a building can be brought down by jet fuel and office fires. It falls uniformly at free fall speed without one shard of the buiding’s main structure being left in place, even though it has never happened before or since. Oh Yeah, and then it happened two more times in the same day.

    15. Good job. You’ve copied the latest “anti-truther” meme. In the future just post the link and save the trouble. If you want to attack a straw man then at least give credit to the original.
      The “molten metal” thing is not about softening. It is about the ridiculous numbers of first hand reports of actual molten metal on the ground.
      As for controlled demolition I guess you don’t know about the “renovations” in teh elevator shafts for months before? Of course you don’t. Because you are a respectable person who only listens to news about the Kardashians and the 2 minutes hate against the government enemy du jour.

      1. Yeah, and while you’re at it, see who was in charge of security when these “renovation” works were taking place. Better have a bag for the brick that you’ll shit.

    16. So a known liar can be trusted? The idiots in the government get away with murder because of idiots like you.
      Go and look at all the vile dirt that the government has been caught red handed doing and cannot lie its way out of and then get back to us about how trustworthy they are.
      If the argument was truly fringe, it would have faded away by now.
      The only wacky conspiracy theory is the US governments ridiculous story.
      Even a dipshit like you can use the interwebs to learn the meaning of “Cui Bono”. Hint: it isnt you.

    17. ‘Controlled demolition is a long and detailed process that simply can’t be done in secret in a building that is used by tens of thousands of people every day.’
      This is much less of a problem when you have operatives in control of security at the WTC complex, as jerome hauer and brian jenkins of kroll associates were. These men had a plethora of suspicious connections to the 911 crime ring, and it may have fallen upon them to provide secure working spaces for demolition crews. The best way to proceed with such an operation is to conceal all suspicious equipment inside ordinary tool boxes, move them up through express elevators, and only bring them out when working in confined spaces or on empty floors. This is the method through which the 59 story citicorp building was secretly retrofitted in 1974 over the course of several months, without either the tenants, media, or general public catching on. Maintaining secrecy is not especially difficult, especially if wireless detonators are used instead of blasting cord.

    18. exactly. Ever need to get a bolt off your car? What do you do? You f’ing heat it up with a torch! It changes! Idiots. I am done with ROK. FU ROK! I used to stop by every day – now I can’t – because they sponsor idiocy.

    19. All very well but the steel below the heat source was still strong. The article is far from idiocy. You have a mental block when it comes to the truth.

  11. While I do believe 9/11 was an Inside Job, I don’t think this article belongs on this website. All you do is give feminazis and sjw’s more ‘ammunition’.

  12. I believe that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have really hurt themselves by focusing on the material/physical elements of the collapse. Like jet fuel can’t melt steel beams has become a meme because they would say it so much, claim thermite, claim a controlled demolition, but honestly no amount of evidence will ever prove this to people. Furthermore the fact no single individual ever stepped forward to reveal there part in the plot should be a telling sign. Trying to prove this to happen will never work even with 100% definitive proof, because people are fucking retarded and believe anything the government tells them.
    What I would instead focus on is the indirect, aka how the U.S. essentially funded Al-Qaeda and the Mujaheddin for years, gave them training, arms, and funding and taught them how to do all of these terrorist attacks. All of this is well-known and documented since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 1980’s. That’s where I believe the rub lies, along with the U.S. probably knowing about the terrorist attack in advance. That is that they might not have known the exact attack that would happen, but by funding, arming, and training them they just needed an attack to happen. Anything to give us the phony pre-text to attack the Middle East.

    1. I think it’s a mistake to view people skeptical of the official 9/11 story as a monolithic group. There will be those who focus on the scientific or engineering aspects of the thing because science and engineering are their individual areas of interest.
      Others, such as yourself, may be more interested political and military strategy. It may be the case that the US govt had advanced notice of the WTC attacks (1993 and/or 2001), or the OK City bombing, the Lucitania or Pearl Harbor. Given that the federal government is charged with protecting the persons and property of US citizens, fairly to intervene is complicity, so the people are right to be curious. And anyone who was taken an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic has some duty to investigate.

      1. Personally the cure for me believing in conspiracy theories was the Mitrokhin archive. The Soviets were smart and totally ruthless and engaged in no joke conspiracies all the time that routinely blew up in their faces.
        I’ve looked at both sides and “Al Qaeda did it” is by far the strongest by my judgement.
        Almost nobody is competent enough to pull off something on that scale with total secrecy. If “they” really wanted to go to war there were a dozen different ways to get a casus belli that were way less risky. The simplest explanation usually is the truest.
        Believing in conspiracies like this is far from safe. It can warp your judgement because it is never really falsifiable and paints your enemies as far stronger and capable than they actually are.

        1. There’s no evidence Al Queda was a real group at that time. The most solid conclusions point to Saudi government involvement (see the Bob Graham comments on the nine 11 commissions official report).
          I’d say crediting some group we’d never heard of before like Al Queda is the perfect example of “painting your enemies as stronger and more capable” than they actually are… doing the same thing now with IS, another group that didn’t even exist a couple of years ago. What will be next?

    1. People are naturally resistant to conspiracy talk and double that for 9/11. I don’t know why other then I think a large portion of the adult population went through a lot on that day and knew someone who died or was greatly effected by the events. Their natural reaction is to just want an explanation. I know people who think the CIA offed JFK but when you talk 9/11 conspiracy they starting throwing out objections. That is my guess to why perfectly reasonable people will not even entertain an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

      1. There are a world of consequences to diverging from any official narrative, and that’s amplified to the nth degree for something like 9/11. Its almost the difference between believing in a good God and an evil one

    2. I deleted the email for my old alias but I’ve post in here quite a bit . We’re allowed to disagree on here you know.

    3. There are many people who are at least as zealously dedicated to discrediting “truthers” as the “truthers” as the truthers are to discrediting the government. Why anyone is lining up to defend the credibility of the US government is an open question. Are they surreptitiously within the employ of the US government? Are they true-believers in the candor and virtue of the US government? It seems that the people most hotly offended by any displays of skepticism are supporters of Israel. Why? beats the hell out of me.

    4. This article is worthy of a Walter Durante Prize. What next is somebody going to post an article claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen either. A high velocity jet packed with highly flammable aviation fuel ramming into a skyscraper taking out its core can certainly nock it down. I have been watching articles on this subject for years. I was not there when it happened. I just watched it happen on TV. It just happened day after my birthday. First it looked like an accident and then the second one came in. After that the Pentagon got hit. I must say that day was extremely emotionally upsetting especially since I am from the area where Boeing builds its planes and were it not for the SST collapse I might still be living there. My mother’s family has been involved with Boeing since that company was started by Bill Boeing. My maternal grandfather even knew Bill Boeing. That Day I got to see three of Bill Boeings planes used as weapons to murder over three thousand innocent men, women and children.

  13. Those silly engineers! Going through all that trouble of preparing a controlled demolition with thermite all those years when 9/11 PROVED a simple office fire will cause a high-rise building to collapse into its own footprint.

  14. This article just shows how ROK is one of the more sites. What a great transition from pussy getting.
    Not that I am against the latter.

  15. The reason why steel might have melted is because Jet A burns hot, much hotter then an average office fire. Those planes were tankered up to for trans-Con flights probably to the max weight and balance would have permitted. That is a lot of fuel and it is going to burn hot and quickly. That said, I think there are tons of problems with the “explanations” for how the towers collapsed.
    The bigger 9/11 thing that gets me is the Pentagon. That story just doesn’t make sense and the fact the government won’t release any of the video from the actual Pentagon and the video that was confiscated from surrounding businesses and even people there is more telling to me.
    I hope there is another explanation then cruise missile because if we have rouge elements in the government and military that will launch a cruise missile at the public headquarters of our military, we are pretty much screwed.

    1. Much of the fuel burned in the fireball, but as the plane entered, it would have been spread throughout the floors it entered, with localized fires, as we observed. The question is why the portions of the building BELOW those fires fell at free fall speeds. It’s a huge building, the fire is way up there. How does the bottom fall from fires UP THERE? The collapse would have been realistic if the top areas fell, and stopped right where there were no fires.

      1. I’ve done work with fire suppression before and can tell you that a fireball is not going to consume that much Jet A. Those were larger planes on a trans-con run. They would have been tankered up to their max for what weight and balance would have allowed. Jet A probably cascaded down many floors.
        I’m not saying that this IS the explanation, but just that it is a viable one for how the towers fell more like a controlled demolition.

  16. Perhaps we should suspend judgement over 9/11. Bracket off the possibility that it was an inside job, while allowing for the possibility that the evidence for conspiracy might be flawed. ROK certainly shouldn’t align with the truther movement, however it is perfectly legitimate to look very closely at the legacy of 9/11, including the official account and what has been done in the name of the war on terror.
    The Project for the New American Century may well just have been improvisation on the part of psycho neo-cons, but it doesn’t change the fact that those self-same neo-cons were anticipating the advantage a new pearl harbour could afford for their desire to terraform the middle-east.
    Not everything is a false flag but that doesn’t mean that those who make policy aren’t always on the lookout for ways to disguise aggression as a form of defence. Indeed we should understand the whole of modern politics as a means of disguising aggression as defence.
    Personally I don’t necessarily buy the inside job line, but given the fact that the West is in bed with the Saudis I do find myself wondering whether it was entirely a surprise to all the intelligence services. Having said that I am also of the opinion that discretion is the better part of valour: maybe this isn’t the best place to explore this issue.

    1. I do like GhostofJefferson’s point of view: whether it was an inside job or whether it was the work of towelheads acting alone is largely irrelevant. What matters are the results that must be resisted now. Nothing is going to bring back the thousands of people who died at WTC, and by the time the truth does emerge, as with JFK, if there are any perpetrators not already dead on the planes or gunned down by SEAL Team Six somewhere in Pakistan, they’ll be dead of old age.
      The past is gone. The whole 9/11 truth issue is something of a sideshow, and both sides of politics know it: while you’re debating whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, you’re not paying attention to the slow creep of authoritarianism over the West. If all the man-hours spent on understanding and building webpages about fucking nano-thermite had been devoted to poring over, understanding, and publicising what things like the Patriot Act actually did, the US would not be in the shithole it already is.

      1. “while you’re debating whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, you’re not
        paying attention to the slow creep of authoritarianism over the West”
        Pretty much my position. I am perfectly happy to entertain the possibility that things were not as we were told. In fact put that way I would say it was a certainty, but it is a trap to focus on it. I’ve seen some pretty persuasive truther documentaries, but is their reasoning sound? I don’t know. The point is not that the truth of the situation doesn’t matter – of course it does – but that it given that it lies somewhere between the fatally slippy and unknowable there isn’t much point dwelling upon it. What one can do is point out how aggressive acts, terrorist or otherwise, ,get cynically exploited by powers who then become invested in what one might call ‘a false flag system’. The foundational event, the terrorist act itself becomes almost incidental to all those whose lives aren’t destroyed in the process, because within such a system such events are nothing more than fuel to burn in the vehicle of an engine that can only get to where it wants to go by using / burning that fuel. What we need to do is to focus upon the system, and how it may be colusive within an economy dependent upon terrorism as much as older forms of industry were dependent upon fossil fuels.
        If you focus upon the system, and the authoritarian creep that it produces, then you don’t have to go out on a limb with respect to a plausibly deniable like 9/11 – otherwise we are asking both ourselves and others to take a leap of faith into paranoia…a kind of paradox in its own right

  17. Lots of weird things happened on that day that were beyond coincidence. How is it they happened to have terrorist scenario at NORAD on the same day? What about the missing jet engines at the Pentagon site? The dancing Isrealis? And though I’m not a structural engineer, I’ve seen plenty of building demolitions on TLC and the like over the years. How did these buildings pancake one way down in such a short period of time? But other skyscraper fires don’t?

    1. That wasn’t the only terrorist event that was identical to a training scenario in the same city on the same day. In London, they were doing a scenario of a train bombing on the same day of the train bombing.

  18. Lots of new faces on this thread. I’m sure that’s a coincidence.
    I don’t know about controlled demolition, but the collapse of WTC7 is quite strange.

    BBC supposedly its collapse due to “weakening” before it actually collapsed. I do get a “green screen” vibe instead of her being downtown. It could just be a mistake in putting the wrong footage up… not sure if the BBC came out to state that..

    1. Don’t forget the pentagon and the missile that hit it.
      Don’t forget all of the footage of the missile hitting the pentagon that was scrubbed from the internet.
      Don’t forget the plane debris shipped in on flatbed semis covered with blue tarps and scattered across the pentagon lawn 3 hours after the missile impacted. Which was also scrubbed from the internet.
      And yeah, “fire” always collapses buildings at freefall speeds. You’re an ignorant conspiracy theorist if you believe otherwise!

    2. Coincidence, fucking LOL you knew your “”” twoofur ” milkshakes would bring more boys to the yard don’t denie it!

  19. We wanna talk 911 conspiracy and all this article gives is the steel beams spiel? Why not the infinitely simpler and more plausible – terrorists did it, but were funded by Saudi allies or American intelligence or both. That at least wouldn’t require much cover-up as sneaking thermite into the structural support of two gigantic manhatten towers

  20. Compelling evidence. My counter-argument: This is the U.S. government we’re talking about. It can barely deliver the mail on time, let alone run a decent war. If it were organized and efficient enough to have pulled this off, it wouldn’t have needed to.

    1. If you think only the US gov was involved, just shove your head up your ass since you can’t see 2 feet in front of you.

  21. There’s a documentary on Netflix called “911: In Plane Site” that describes the evidence doesn’t add up to just planes crashing into buildings that caused all the damage. There were cover ups and threats to those who tell a different story.

  22. I don’t believe the official version of events, not because I believe any particular alternative theory, but just because it seems facially implausible and the US federal government and media establishment both have long and storied histories of deceipt perpetrated against the American people (Dept of Energy radiation testing on civilians, Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the Tet offensive American “defeat,” Milosevic’s “genocide,” etc). The US government has no credibility. The official story seems extremely unlikely. And that is all.

  23. I am truly disappointed in the quality of this article. Swallowing the Red pill means asking the hard questions so such an article should be welcome on this site, however the quality of such a topic that impacts people so emotionally needs to go way deeper than 2000 words. And any association with the word “conspiracy” labels you a tin foil hat and slanders credibility. There is simply too much missing from this article; you have pentagon, cameras at WTC and Pentagon, video footages, documented warnings, tested lab results from thermite taken at the WTC and video footage of activated thermite still burning at the WTC scene. There is nothing substantial in this article. At the very least provide recently declassified government documents that show past False Flags such as the Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam a 20 year War was based on a lie and government officials knew). Once you prove governments DO in fact create False Flags it opens the doors to an exchange of information rather than being labeled some nut job conspiracy theorists.

    1. This is an article, not a book. He’s just touching on the subject in the form of an essay. There are tons of places online where you can find more info already.

  24. The WTC fires may not have been hot enough to melt the internal steel structures. They were certainly hot enough to weaken them substantially. That said, I’m not an engineer or any other sort of learned person regarding building construction.

  25. I never wanted to be a 9/11 Truther, but WTC 7 has not been satisfactorily explained to me, and there are several issues with the narrative I cannot find any good explanation for, so, reluctantly, I am a 9/11 Truther.

  26. I don’t know there are plenty of physicist and chemist from all over the world that watch the video of this thing. I would think they would be shouting B.S if it was impossible this building to collapse this way from a plane crash.

    1. The Remember Building 7 campaign is cosponsored by several groups, led by the NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), which is a non-partisan organization of 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, and by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of more than 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals who have put their professional reputations on the line to publicly challenge the official explanation of Building 7’s destruction.
      EDIT: from rememberbuilding7.org

  27. Can we please not post shit like this. This takes a blog that has a good place in the manosphere and turns it in to a crackpot joke.

    1. Come on, at best it’s asking a QUESTION–do you believe the official story? Yes or no. And it’s almost impossible to believe that load of nonsense.

  28. Going by the replies here, perhaps ROK’s broader readership is not as Red Pill as it presumes to be.
    Personally, I believe it was at the very least allowed to happen and at the worst, a controlled operation. The whole point of black ops is to create plausible deniability, which is why invoking arguments about the difficulty / impossibility of pulling this off as described by the engineers for truth are meaningless. Black ops specialize in the ostensibly impossible.
    They (or their colleagues) also specialize in trolling the net for articles like this to derail / dead-end. Don’t y’all just love Full Spectrum Dominance?

    1. Good observation.
      I’m just surprised that so many men become *emotionally driven* when it comes to events such as 9/11. It almost makes me suspect many of the people on comment boards such as this are either being paid to bring about chaos and misdirection, or are not actually men.
      They treat the event like a silly football game, becoming invested in “their team” or “their side”, and they fail to look through the lens of objectivity and reason.
      This article only *scratches the surface* of the events (and non-events) that took place on 9/11.

        1. Yes, I should have chosen my words more wisely; I was in a bit of a hurry.
          It’s perfectly normal to get upset and emotional over the horrific event itself (especially if you knew someone who was either in the Twin Towers or directly impacted from the event).
          What I’m trying to say is that when exploring the facts of 9/11, and the conspiratorial aspects of the event, one must keep a level head and not let their own personal biases affect their conclusions.

    2. “Allowed to happen” can plausibly occur. It requires very few links in a chain to make happen, ergo, a possibility. Just don’t place that phone call to warn ahead of time about the intelligence you were handed, boom, done deal.
      Major conspiracies though? Nah, I’ll go with Occam’s Razor when possible.

    3. I think half the morons that come here are in their tweens and weren’t even old enough to remember 9/11 happening.

    4. Well RoK isn’t Red Pill, apparently it’s Neomasculinity ( same thing different hat). Regardless, a conspiracy theory about 9/11 doesn’t have anything to do with Red Pill truths whatsoever.

      1. Yeah because real men don’t care about the government taking their rights away and killing thousands of people (including their fellow citizens). THAT’S MAD BETA YO!

        1. No, just stop believing in conspiracy theories. It’s the same as a 30 year that spends his extra time and money on comic book collecting.

    1. On that one, I like the most recent theory: Lee Harvey Oswald took a shot or two that missed, but one of JFK’s secret service protectors in the car following lurched when the car accelerated, he pulled his trigger accidentally, and his bullet took JFK’s head off. Admittedly this has a hole in it in that nobody in the car following testified to hearing the agent’s gun go off, but witnesses did smell gunsmoke at ground level in that rough location and the Secret Service agents had every reason to cover up the most monumental protective fuckup in history.

  29. Alright, let’s just set aside conflicting logic over steel and jet fuel and go at a different angle.
    We’ll say that WTC was an inside job. The US gov’t set things up and flew loaded transcontinential planes into buildings loaded with demolition charges.
    Proving that to American citizens would destabilize our country, right? Talking open rebellion, grab your rifle, and shoot to kill. Splinter groups stepping into power voids as leaders are cut down or driven into hiding. Just a shitstorm waiting to happen.
    Who would benefit from that? Which of our foreign enemies would step in and hit us right in the undefended balls? If the inside job theory is correct, then why haven’t nations like North Korea stepped up and submitted proof? In the very least it could be used to distance our allies from us. Seems like an easy hit that no one is taking.

  30. Among my bookmarks, I have two folders. One is marked ‘Information’ and the other ‘Entertainment’. This site has been in the entertainment section of my organized bookmarks for a couple of years now. It shouldn’t be. It’s a shame that I think it will never make that jump to join the ranks of other hard facts sites but articles like this will never do you any favors.
    It’s too bad. I’m an older individual that has subscribed to the so-called ‘Red Pill Philosophy’ before it probably had a name. It came with my age and experience. This doesn’t belong in it. This and quite a few other nonsensical articles (I’m not even talking about the ridiculous sponsored content) really do not align with that value system.
    Conspiracy theories are not empowering. They pass the buck to something irrational if looking at it isn’t convenient for you. That’s some seriously conflicting bullshit to subscribe to, if you ask me.
    I’d really like to know something. Is this site really for the spreading the great gospel of men living a good life on their own terms or is it simply to serve a guy running a website because he figured out how to monetize telling a group of people on the internet what they want to hear? Because that sounds more like a cult than a movement.

    1. “Conspiracy theories are not empowering. They pass the buck to something irrational if looking at it isn’t convenient for you”
      I agree with some of what you wrote, and you’re also right that indulging in conspiracy theory can damage credibility and lead one towards an approach to knowledge that can potentially lead one astray, but the problem is that in many ways ‘conspiracy theory’ arises because of the way truth and discourse are managed to favour official, mainstream ideas, which unsurprisingly tend to favour the interests of those in power. So when you say conspiracy theory is not empowering, what you mean is that power will always look dimly upon its practice. It’s also worth remembering that labelling something as conspiracy theory, or someone as a conspiracy theorist is way in which those who control discourse seek to de-legitimate rival forms of discourse, avoid troubling questions, criticism or critique. In other words 9/11 may not be an inside job but the way to establish that is not to dismiss theories that it might be as simply conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen

      1. Why is the burden of evidence on fucking conspiracy theorists? When you see blatant bullshit lies, you call them out. When someone is lying to your face, the burden of proof is on them!

        1. Burden of proof ought always be on the accuser. You have made some accusations and wonder why the burden ought to be on you to prove them rather than the accused to disprove? Why not just get a mattress and enroll at Columbia?

        2. Sorry. 911 skeptics only say that the gov conspiracy theory makes no sense.
          The USAGOV has presented a definitive case for what they claim happened on 911. And it is a comedy of errors. For instance, first responders consistently report molten iron on the ground. Clean up crews report the same thing. It is impossible for air combustion fires to do this. Get a CRC handbook out and calculate it yourself. Frankly, if you took high school shop class and your teacher wasn’t a moron then you would already know that to melt iron with a torch you need to use an oxy tank. And there were pools of it.

        3. I remember clearly the molten iron, the whole world was watching. My friends engineers and we could not believe our eyes. The power of denial of the American people is amazing, they sleep with the enemy and can not accept.

        4. A Crc handbook?
          I’ll be honest man, I really don’t care. Like not even a little. And I live in Manhattan. I would rather Brillo my balls than read that shit.

        5. The burden of proof is on the accuser. When you say the government is lying to you and intentionally killed its own people, you’re the accuser.

        6. It did not melt, the heat was more than sufficient to have the frame lose most of it’s strength from the fire, and the fact the temperature was not uniform at all places causing it to buckle.

        7. Even if that’s so, wouldn’t the building have toppled and fell sideways due to the fire being hotter (from the jet fuel) on one side of the building? Although it is possible the thermite was placed in the building to ensure that this wouldn’t happen, as it would have led to more destruction.

        8. That was aluminum you idiot. The grade of aluminum used by Boeing in its planes melts at a little under 1022 °F. Which is well below the temperature of burning jet fuel.

        9. No, the amount of weight and inertia from the collapse pretty much prevents any major sideways falls. The fact the building is a tube styled frame allows the building to basically implode onto itself. It took approx 10 seconds to fall at approx 200km a second. Free fall would had taken 8 seconds at 300km a second.

        10. I don’t know about a conspiracy or who was in on it, but what happened in our city was WITHIN AN HOUR of the towers being hit, every last gas station in the city jacked their prices up to nearly $10 a gallon, and there were police and armed guards at most of the stations. For that kind of coordination there had to be some preparations that took hours. And even if the Bush Administration wasn’t in on it, they sure use the disaster to keep the public in line while they invaded Iraq. . .Something they kept harping on before the election.

    2. “It’s too bad. I’m an older individual that has subscribed to the so-called ‘Red Pill Philosophy’ before it probably had a name. It came with my age and experience. This doesn’t belong in it. This and quite a few other nonsensical articles (I’m not even talking about the ridiculous sponsored content) really do not align with that value system.”
      Articles like this *absolutely belong* on websites such as this. Also, articles and comments dealing with the Jewish question have shown up here, which is a *great thing*. Two examples:
      1.) http://www.returnofkings.com/72572/why-is-there-a-prolific-jewish-presence-in-the-american-feminist-movement
      2.) http://www.returnofkings.com/62716/the-damaging-effects-of-jewish-intellectualism-and-activism-on-western-culture
      Both of these articles were thoroughly researched and the facts were well presented.

    3. To best answer all current and future:
      Look, the last thing I’m interested in is a blog debate. It’s not my thing. I only went out of my way because I saw something that I needed to overtly flag as kooky bullshit in the whole context of what is supposed to be an enlightening website on the matter of being men. These types of articles belong on Michigan militia websites that yammer on about how the federal income tax was never ratified (please don’t..).
      I can’t confirm or deny anything. I can only seek out the best information from a wide variety of sources and make my own decisions for myself. It’s what I would encourage for anyone. I also believe it is important to be able to file away certain events after I have enough facts. I’m interested in a diverse number of sources but it doesn’t have to be unlimited and never ending in pursuit. I can and will revise my position if more factual information presents itself. That is what any rational, thinking person should do.
      The short of it, any time you indulge certain ‘stories’ you bring a certain element with it. A parent doesn’t listen to a child’s temper tantrum as an objective source and I don’t think I’ll buy into Tom Swyft’s thinking it could possibly stimulate any positive and informative discussion on how 9/11 was an inside job or how it has anything to do with Red Pill philosophy. It’s an embarrassment.

      1. Your a fucking cuck. More like you find something uncomfortable, and refuse to question blatant lies.
        You do realize all of this shit is connected right? The government organized 9/11 to project power and enslave the citizenry of this population.
        Feminism results in people becoming isolated economic units who are at the mercy of the government for their survival. This is done through draconian legislation that destroys the family unit, and by extension, the communities they compose. At the end of the day, people lose agency and become more like slaves.
        So you better start making the fucking connections. All this stuff is connected. 9/11, national security, gay marriage (sic), transsexualism. Wake up dude!

        1. Well said. I find a willful ignorance with these types. They belong at FreeRepublica formerly wonderful website in the 90’s. They can all have a circle jerk and talk about stuff they’ve never investigated.
          At one time of of said something similar but I was challenged to look at the Architects and Engineers evidence. It was undeniable

      2. > any time you indulge certain ‘stories’ you bring a certain element with it
        We recently had some “conspiracy theories” about Iraqis conspiring to make weapons of mass destruiction. Killed a lot of folks, after the mainstream media took it up as gospel truth and played it up. Funny thing. If the government likes the conspiracy theory then you are crazy if you *don’t* belive it. If the government doesn’t like it then you are crazy if you *do* belive it.
        Frankly, the term is as meaningless as “terrorism”. Like “terrorism” is “violence the government doesn’t like”, “consipiacy theory” is an “explanation the government doesn’t like”.

    4. Non-conventional ideas get you to think. I do not think 9/11 was an inside job, but I appreciate that this article makes you analyze and consider evidence for an important issue. It is sheep leftists who ignore ideas that do not strictly conform to their preconceived ideas.

    5. I’ve always seen ROK as “infotainment” a lil from column A, a lil from column B its fun AND educational

    6. I guess all groups of people with similar and overlapping ideas can have their extremists and lunatic fringes. Its usually the sycophants that bend to and then fuel the cult thinking, but also I just take it as one of the inherent weaknesses in human nature. Its not just cultural Marxism or radical Feminism,any movement is prone to it and ours is no exception. I always watch out for those that just back the party line and never seem to have their own opinion.

      1. No argument. Name calling. Pure sophistry.
        You realize why people who know how science works hate morons like you?

    7. Here is how science works: You present evidence and ask all comers to take shots at it.
      Here is how religion works: You call your critics evil.
      Tell me. Does your response actually address any arguments or do you hide behind name calling. I though so. Go somewhere else where other stupid people live. At least some of us won’t miss you.
      And you have only *TWO* folders. LOL. I guess that explains it.

    8. Nunya, I agree with you. This type of content does not below here. It will push away new readers who want to take the Red Pill.

    9. By waging a selfish one man war upon anyone who doesnt think exactly like you, you have actually shown that you are true blue, through and through.
      Slinging retarded character assassination has in no way elevated your dim rhetoric.
      You are likely a democrat on the dole.

    10. Yet another profile created for the express purpose of commenting on this article and this article alone.
      And quite the long post too………….

    11. There is one thing in common with nearly all of the deniers, they’ve never looked at the well presented evidence. I.e. engineers and Architects presentation. It’s universal. They won’t even look. Total blue pill behavior.
      And the people who’ve never made an honest attempt to look at both sides are the most vociferous and angry like the original poster. No one could look with an open minda and not have real questions
      I was there at one time, then I looked and the evidence was undeniable.

  31. Anybody want to claim the Holocaust didn’t happen and that places like Auschwitz were staged or maybe some of you might believe Oswald was framed by the CIA or the Mafia for shooting Kennedy. Really people, articles like this belong in the trash with Walter Durante’s Pulitzer prize.

    1. Nobody claims Auschwitz was “staged”.
      You may be thinking of Dachau, and how it is now an “open secret” that the supposed gas chamber was actually prepped *after the war* to show off to various politicians and military personnel for publicity purposes.
      Both Holocaust scholars (most of them, if they are being objective) and revisionists now accept this, but for some reason many “survivors” still claim there to be gassings that took place at Dachau.

      1. I beg to differ Iran held a whole conference to that end claiming Auschwitz was never a death camp with David Duke one of the key speakers. Years earlier some nut even claimed to have taken chemical samples from the gas chamber sights and claimed they had never been used in that capacity as for Dachau I don’t know, I certainly know most KZs did have them by the end of the war either in use or under construction with many camps sub contracting to the T4 Euthenasia Centers to do their dirty work sending inmates there by truck to be gassed and disposed of there. In addition there were those awful Gas Vans or mobile gas chambers that were also in use.

      1. Pretty Much, The arguments pretty much fit the pattern a lot of the revisionists make, many really border on the absurd. The biggest argument that can be put forward on Oswald in his favor is that he was a lousy shot but that does not rule out his shot was a ‘lucky’ shot he fired off his entire clip and only hit his target once Extremely Unlucky for Kennedy.

        1. Personally, I suspect Kennedy was not the victim of a lone gunman, and I think a great many people share that assessment, possibly even the majority. There are conspiracies about both the kennedy assassination and the holocaust, but to place them on the same level seems wrong. Many politician’s have often been assassinated, typically by lone gunmen or the equivalent: the idea that they were all victims of lone nuts is far more nutty than believing that interest groups may have had a role in some of them, and in the case of Kennedy there certainly were many interested groups: from mafia to intelligence to rival politicians. None of it is final proof but it certainly enough for many to consider the possibility the JFK assassination was a conspiracy is a possibility

    2. Actually, Auschwitz is suspect. The number of deaths was reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million at some point, though the “6 million” – a number used dozens of times in WW1 even – remains in the narrative. The gas chamber (a mortuary on the camp blueprints) has a weak wooden door with a glass pane (unbroken). Interestingly, the only alleged death camps were the ones taken over by soviets after the war. It is a fact (jewish revisionist David Cole got his tour guide to admit on camera) that portions of it were put in “reconstructed” by the soviets, and are not original. There is a chimney stack built after the war attached to nothing, just for show.
      The soviets, zionists and post-war allies have an interest to make Germany’s intentions to be not only bad, but morally evil. The soviets gain by taking the focus off of their own millions of people killed in gulags (do you know even a single name of a Russian gulag… wonder why? victors rewrite history). The zionists get a rallying interest for the creation of their own country. The allies get to continue with the path they’re on (more progressivism, more communism).
      How do you maintain this type of conspiracy? Make it illegal to even point out any inconsistencies or lies. Thus, the holocaust is the only current historical event for which people are in jails for writing critiques. You can scrutinize literally any other alleged mass murder and never run any risk of being jailed, except one. Very odd.

      1. Look at the initial estimated numbers for the dead at 9/11 when the towers came down you will se the same pattern in many cases the same person murdered gets put on different lists and gets counted over several times and in other cases some people reported to have been sent to Auschwitz were sent elsewhere to be murdered and that does not come out until later. Unfortunately you can not kill off the argument that Auschwitz was a sight of organized Mass Murder nor can you deny the gas chambers as Zyklon B leaves a distinctive chemical residue which no matter how much time and exposure still remains in some small form at the same time with many of the Ash pits being found well the Crimes there and other places speak for themselves.

    1. Facebook is not exactly a science magazine. Burning aviation gas generates a great deal of heat that can melt steel.

      1. You literally have no idea what you’re babbling about. A diffuse flame in air with jet fuel as a source has a max temperature of 1,000 degrees C, and that’s only if air and fuel are mixed in a perfect ratio.

        1. A lofty skyscraper with a large hole in its side high above and many of its windows shattered open creates quite a draft. One of my brothers served in the Combat Engineers specializing in destroying things pretty much laid out the facts on how it can happen. And remember when the jets rammed into the buildings they pretty much cut through the cores of each. The fires weakening the steel plus the weight above pretty much did the job.

        2. Jesus Christ, and you little parasites like to think you’re smarter than everyone else.
          That is literally the dumbest thing I have ever read.
          “and remember when the jets rammed into the buildings they cut through the cores!”
          Pretty hilarious this is the best the JIDF can do.

        3. We don’t need to think such things as you are doing a pretty damn good job proving this to be a fact.

  32. ” Although they were hit by planes…” oh sure, no big deal. Buildings get hit by fully-fueled widebody commercial aircraft doing 500mph all the time

    1. Actually, planes do occasionally hit buildings, and this is the first time they demolished the buildings. The WTC was designed to take a direct impact from a larger plane, a Boeing 707. And of course WTC7 was not hit by planes at all. Is there a point here?

      1. The Boeing 707 is not larger than a 767.
        When was there any other instance of a widebody hitting a skyscraper at full throttle? How did the building handle it? Point being, since apparently the sarcasm wasn’t clear, is that the author downplays the role of the airplanes crashing into the WTC structures

      2. Don’t believe that just because something is “designed to resist such and such” that this proves anything. Every engineering disaster started with something that had supposedly been designed to resist the very thing that destroyed it.

  33. This is a thorough article. My belief on what happened is that the US is responsible. At one extreme is the idea that Bush and Cheney purposefully blew up the buildings to start wars and be evil. On the other extreme is the idea that the US government funded, trained, and armed an insurgent named Osama who years later attacked NYC with planes. Either way, the US government is at fault, either directly, or indirectly. The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between, but to me the details don’t matter nearly as much.

  34. I’m sorry, I’m with Bush on this one – 9/11 actually happened and was a terrorist attack. It’s Truther/TFH nonsense to suggest otherwise.

        1. My point was about Bush’s shady background, not about truthers. However, pointing to a wikipedia article that begins “Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists” and then asserts “Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields” doesn’t really convince me of the articles even-handedness. Professionals of any ilk will always be incentivised to side with official discourse so long as that’s where their bread and butter emanates from

        2. Actually, when professionals are exposed to all the evidence (and not just the gooberment’s carefully edited, self-serving and distorted 9/11 story), support is extremely high, which is why this group has the signatures of over 2,400 architects and engineers:
          http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
          Most professionals are like most people (and like you): bovine creatures who are terrified of being separated from the common herd and who simply believe what the gooberment tells them without giving it another thought.

  35. Never ever ever ever try to explain what really happened behind a government lie. Just expose the lie and walk away.
    NIST set about to find a mechanism to where the towers failed from fire. It did not investigate why the buildings failed it looked for a reason for them to fail from fire. It found one. A highly improbable one.
    The towers were two structures. The first a conventional ‘box’ construction of I beams for the core. The second was more or less a tube structure for the outer walls. The span between them was light weight trusses only designed to hold the floors and the stuff and people on them. It did not support the building’s weight and could not.
    NIST’s theory is that the fire proofing was knocked off these light weight trusses by the impact and the fire weakened them. These light weight trusses could be weakened by the fire. NIST then claims these sagging trusses then caused the collapse of the damaged main structures by pulling on them.
    This is where they probably set up their simulation wrong in the analysis. Because logically the joints between the trusses and the main structure would have failed before any load applied to the trusses could pull the main structures. That is if these softened trusses could even transmit that load back to the joints.
    A floor truss failure should have caused the failure of the floors between the two main structures. That is a hollowed out building. If a wind load or something else then broke the main structures we should have seen a very different result. A different sort of collapse.
    Nobody looks at WTC 3,4,5,and 6. Look at those buildings. These buildings were impacted with hunks of the towers and then burned. That’s the type of failure we should have seen at least for the core of the towers and WTC 7. Government does not address this. It can’t because they need to have WTC 1,2,and 7 failing from fire. We aren’t supposed to question why it was such an unusual failure.
    It can be logically shown that the government is feeding us a fairy tale and that’s where it should stop. To conjecture further only opens yourself up to those critical of your conjecture and exploit the weakness to discredit the real point, government did not follow proper method, government created a narrative. One which is full of holes.

    1. It kind of makes sense to start in the obvious place – the raging fires – and ask if they could cause the collapse before starting to wildly speculate about an entire universe of unknown causes. That’s common sense. If you can get the steel to fail with fire that you know was burning, you don’t have to look elsewhere.

      1. Proper method is to look at the evidence and see where it goes. Another sound method is to create a hypothesis and determine if the evidence, all of it, proves or disproves it. NIST did neither. It looked for how fire could cause a building failure. Of course it found a way, no matter how implausible. Now if one decided to look for how an energy weapon, like a Tesla death ray caused the collapse, they would find that too. Hell, one could probably find a way how the flapping of the wings of an insect in China caused it if he really wanted to. It’s because that methodology is inherently flawed.

        1. Wrong. The Tesla death ray and butterfly wings won’t bring down a building. And there is nothing implausible about a fire bringing down the building.

        2. Obviously your reading comprehension skills are bit off as well as how to investigate a crime or anything for that matter. Read some Sherlock Holmes and get back to me.
          “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.” – Sherlock Holmes

        3. I am an attorney and I conduct investigations all the time. I’m pretty comfortable with my reading comprehension and investigative skills. Unlike your fairy tale world of Utopian justice, we live in a world of finite resources. When you show up at a crime scene where a dead guy is laying there with multiple bullet wounds, you don’t say “well, I can’t rule out an asteroid strike to the head as the cause of death yet, so let me treat all possibilities, no matter how far fetched and improbable, as though they are equally deserving of attention.” Instead, you say, “the signs point to this guy having died by gunshot, perhaps we should confirm whether that is the case and start looking for someone with a gun that may have killed him.”
          If the autopsy later shows that the guy miraculously would have survived the bullet wounds, but there does happen to be a small meteorite embedded in his brain, you may change that initial assessment. The problem for “9/11 was an inside job” theories is that there is no such alternative evidence. The “thermite” discussed above is the closest we come here, and that has been thoroughly examined and discredited. See: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
          Sherlock Holmes may be good reading, but he is a fictional character that knows fuck all about real investigations. Take his statement at face value – how do you even know when you have “all the evidence?” I’m sure we could find new evidence about 9/11 even today. Should we just defer judgment about what happened indefinitely?
          What “biases the judgment” is ignoring evidence that runs counter to your hypothesis. Funny that this is exactly what 9/11 conspiracy theorists do.
          But let’s get down to the real nub of this issue – if you really believe that your government killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, why aren’t you armed, standing shoulder to shoulder with those guys out in Oregon? Hell, why haven’t you taken any violent action against the government in the past fifteen years? If what you believe is true, you live under an unjust, illegitimate and bloodthirsty regime that needs to be overthrown. Sitting on your computer talking about inside jobs may be satisfying as a form of mental masturbation, but at the end of the day, if you’re not taking action about this, you’re just complicit in it. If I really believed what you say you believe, I would have organized armed resistance against the government a long time ago. So what are you doing to engineer the downfall of such a corrupt system?

        4. As an attorney you deal with convincing people socially and emotionally where authority plays a big role. This has no place in a proper engineering investigation. And guess what my profession is? Failure analysis is part of what I do and there are certain basics that are to be followed to reach a correct conclusion.
          But let’s get down to the nub of this issue, mr. attorney, you’re debating socially and emotionally by trying to hang a straw man on me. Then once you think you’ve done that hanging you go on wild tangents using guilt by association and other fallacies. You demonstrate that you are exactly as I pointed out by doing so.
          What I believe is irrelevant wrt what brought the towers down. I haven’t stated what I believe nor do I have any particular conclusion about WTC 1,2, and 7. I do know that what the government produced is a load of crap. That much I know because it’s quite obvious when examining the evidence without prior bias. (BTW, when I had more limited information I accepted the failure of the towers as a simple tube buckling from the damage, with more information it became obvious it was not) The simple fact is that if you decide on the conclusion and then do the investigation to support that conclusion guess what happens? It supports the conclusion. Evidence is bent and adjusted to support it and if can’t be bent it’s tossed out.
          BTW, another skyscraper caught fire in Dubai. It happens regularly there. Guess what? The building’s damage is consistent with expectations and it didn’t collapse into its own footprint. Those who don’t have blind faith in authority are often told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The government simply doesn’t have the extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims, but it has legal authority.

        5. “As an attorney you deal with convincing people socially and emotionally where authority plays a big role.”
          Perhaps for some attorneys, but not in my practice. Just so you know – I studied architecture before I became an attorney, and I have taken my fair share of structural engineering, physics and mathematics courses. So I am not some rube humanities major that has no understanding of scientific principles. And in my current practice of law, one of the things I do routinely is critically examine the testimony of scientific and technical “experts,” and highlight the flaws in their conclusions.
          You claim to make your living in engineering failure analysis. Congratulations. You have a credential. Your appeal to authority proves what exactly? What evidence do you have that something other than the accepted narrative happened? I have asked you for this, and have not seen it. In the article above, I see three things: 1 – steel doesn’t melt at the temperature of burning jet fuel; 2 – a pancaking building won’t fall at free fall speed; and 3 – there is allegedly thermite that evidences demolition.
          First, I have already posted a link that discredits the thermite hypothesis. You have not offered a rebuttal to that.
          Second, a structural steel member does not need to “melt” in order to “fail.” If you really are in the business of failure analysis, you surely know this. A steel member supporting a static compression load only needs to “bend” in order to fail. As steel is heated, it, like other metals, becomes pliable. It is estimated that at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit, far below the temperature of burning jet fuel that is used in these retarded alternate theories, the structural steel in the WTC lost half of its strength. And this doesn’t account for the fact that it was not only jet fuel burning, but other materials as well, which could have pushed the temperature far higher – remember, on 9/11 no one was taking temperatures of the fires as they burned. You are operating from an estimate that is, at best, built on assumptions and not facts.
          Third, heat transfers through metal. It is not true that the only potion of the steel that was heated was the portion right next to the fire. As heat transferred through the members, they weakened wherever the heat transferred. “Failure” of a structural member does not take a long time, something you certainly know, and the actual time required for sequential failure of all floors under these types of conditions is likely imperceptible from “freefall” using the inherently limited video analysis techniques discussed in this article. What is obvious from the videos is that the towers did not collapse from the bottom, the collapse began where the planes hit. The WTC buildings were 110 floors tall. The damage from the first plane extended to the 99th floor, leaving 11 floors of static load weight above the impact. The second plan damage extended to the 85th floor, leaving 25 floors of static load weight above it. Setting aside the obvious point that many of the structural members were cut and destroyed in the impacts, which transferred much higher loads to whatever structural members remained, the structure was now being heated, and it didn’t need to heat enough to melt, only to bend, before it would fail. Once it failed, that tremendous static loaded weight above became a dynamic load that fell onto the heated, and therefore pliable, members below, that were not designed to resist these types of dynamic loads. You can do the same thing to a coke can. If you stand on it, static load, it will not deform and crush, if you jump on it, it will flatten instantaneously, and most importantly, even if you only apply a static load, any slight deflection in the can will cause it to crush. The forces involved here are tremendous, and it would not take a long time for the building to fall. It would appear as if in freefall, because, for all practical purposes, it was. You have claimed that failure of floor trusses would result in a “hollowed out” structure because the joints will fail. When the joints fail, they will be pulling on the columns, which will cause them to deflect and fail as well. The joints are not designed to break away from the columns. The force here was a large dynamic load pushing more or less straight down – why would the building collapse in any other direction that generally downward?
          The government scenario is not “implausible.” And I don’t see what other “evidence” contradicts it. You allude to such “evidence” numerous times, but you haven’t provided it. What evidence did you see that was ignored? What evidence changed your initial conclusion? I pointed out, correctly, that when a cause is apparent, it makes perfect sense to investigate whether that hypothesis is possible. This was not a case where the I-10 bridge failed for no reason, and we have no basis to form a conclusion at the start. In such scenarios, yes, you collect the evidence out of necessity before you develop hypothesis, but, let’s be clear, even under those circumstances, at some point a hypothesis develops, and this will almost always happen before “all the evidence” is collected. It can never be known when we have “all the evidence.” There is no way to prove that you have “all the evidence.” And so, on the most basic level, you are simply arguing about when the investigation of a hypothesis should start. This does not make the investigation of any hypothesis improper. You are arguing for confirmation bias, which I would be more willing to accept as a possibility if you could provide any evidence contrary to the hypothesis that was not already considered. You haven’t provided this evidence.
          You have accused me of trying to hang a straw man on you – wrong. You are the one who brought up Tesla death rays and flapping insect wings. If you consider these straw men, don’t argue them. And don’t be a coward. You claim that the government “lied” in reply to an article that hypothesizes that the government was actually responsible for 9/11. Now you want to claim that you haven’t stated what you believe about this
          incident. Well, ok, should I presume that what you’re really saying is that terrorists are still responsible for 9/11, but the government’s
          methodology to prove it is crap? Fine, I disagree, but I’d note that
          even if you were correct, the fact that the methodology was incorrect does not mean that the conclusion was necessarily incorrect. It means that the conclusion was not based on a sound methodology, but that doesn’t make the conclusion impossible, or even improbable. Typically, in rebutting a conclusion, you offer a counter hypothesis and back it up with some evidence, or you try to duplicate the conclusion and demonstrate that the results cannot be achieved. Many have duplicated this methodology and conclusion and demonstrated that it is possible. Your retort is that its not likely. So what is the more probable scenario, and where is your evidence?
          The current favorite alternative theory, as alluded to in this article, is that the government surreptitiously rigged the building for controlled demolition. It has been cataloged extensively throughout the other comments on this article why this is not only implausible, but virtually impossible to borderline retarded to believe. Too much time, involving too many people, too much damage to the building not to be noticed, and ultimately, there is no proof of it at all – the buildings were filmed collapsing, and there aren’t even sounds consistent with controlled demolition, like sequential explosions.
          Please provide some plausible explanation for how else the building could fall. Pointing to other skyscrapers, designed to different specifications, burning under different conditions, that do not experience tremendous instant application of large dynamic loads do not help your case.

        6. You don’t get to start slapping “credentials” out on the table and then when you lose the contest get to shove it aside. You wanted to play that game of “credentials” and you don’t have the winning hand. You also took watered down versions of the watered down version of statics and physics and so forth. I know what architecture majors took, it was a diminished version of what civil engineers took in those areas which itself was less than mechanical engineers (my major) take.
          Now you spend a lot of words not dealing with what I raised. You spend time dealing with what other people talk about as if that has some bearing on me. That’s what debunkers do when they encounter an argument they don’t know how to deal with. They pick whatever nonsense they can from other people who don’t believe what authority says and try to hang that on everyone that doesn’t believe authority. It’s a social argument which you’ve done twice now. You socially associate me with other people then dismantle what the other people say.
          I repeat myself, the towers were two structures spanned by open floors. The core was a conventional steel I-beam ‘box’ structure. The outer walls were essentially a tube structure. Between them the floors were spanned. The floors were designed to hold the stuff and the people. They did not hold the building up. The core and tube held the floors up. The government claims that the floor trusses failed from fire and that pulled the rest of the building down. Why does the government say this? Because they know the steel beams of the core would not fail from a fire of jet fuel and office materials. However the light weight floor trusses could. The problem, what we aren’t supposed to look at, is that the trusses were not strong enough to pull down the rest of the building. They make an assumption about those floor truss joints that doesn’t hold under more detailed examination. The bolted joints weren’t strong enough. Strong enough to hold desks, people, etc but they didn’t hold the building up. They couldn’t transfer the structural loads the government says they were transferring from tube to core or vice-versa because they were light weight with no internal columns.
          Now we are also dealing with floor trusses that are weakened by the fire. This means they fail to transfer the floor loads to the core or tube. By logical definition of the government’s argument, the floor trusses sag and fail. When they sag and fail the floor load is no longer transferred to the core and tube. Watch hot steel loaded in tension. It doesn’t hold the load, the steel stretches. The floor load goes straight down between the two main structures. The floor trusses fail but not the core, not the tube. They can’t pull it down because they have failed. There are no internal columns. It’s a simple span. The load falls to the next floor below. If that floor is solid then it either stops there or the joints fail in cascade and the building is left hollowed out as floor truss bolts shear for the floors below the point of impact. Even if wind loads or the impacts transferred as bolts sheared or something else causes the building to fall from there we get something different than the government claims and probably different than we witnessed.
          I don’t do speculation. I am not in a position to prove speculation. I can’t prove the credibility of witnesses and so forth. But I can deal with the report the government put out because their methods are laid out in front of me. They wanted to come up with a way to describe fires taking down the buildings so that’s what they did. But they made assumptions that just don’t pass basic logic when additional information on the construction of the buildings’ is considered.

        7. I love the wild and incorrect assumptions you make. You may be a mechanical engineer, but you are not a structural engineer, and you have no idea what my course of study was like. How, for example, do you know that I didn’t study primarily as a structural engineer before switching my major? Oh, that’s right, you don’t.
          Again, if you don’t want to argue credentials, then don’t. I’m hardly losing here because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
          The “evidence” you are pointing to is your “disagreement” with NIST’s conclusion. Fine. You have stated what you believe should have happened. You say that what you would expect is for the floors to collapse and leave a hollowed out tube. This is not a stable structure – you cannot build a steel tube that tall without trusses to provide tension that keeps it from buckling outward, and assist, with the concrete in resisting compression or shear forces that would cause it to buckle inward. If you think that all floor trusses do is support the weight of the floors, you don’t understand structures.
          If all the floors disappeared as you claim should have happened, the shell would have buckled without any tension supporting it and it would have collapsed. There is a reason that when these buildings are built, the lateral supports are not extended significantly above the level of the floors. They cannot be, or they will be unstable and collapse. Whatever you studied, it was not structural engineering.
          As I stated, the columns were also being heated and losing strength along with the floors. Remove the required tension from the system, apply an enormous and unplanned for dynamic load, and you get the collapse that happened, just like a coke can. It’s not implausible at all.
          You refuse to speculate about what caused the collapse and simply want to say that the methodology was incorrect. OK. You’re wrong, and have no alternate explanation for what happened. And I don’t see how you’ve pointed to anything that NIST did not consider. They did consider the building construction. You appear to disagree with them about how that type of structure should collapse, but your view is built on a misunderstanding of the function of floor trusses and how they function in a structure.

        8. You started the credential argument Mr. attorney. All you’re doing is whining and pulling more cards because it turn out as you planned.
          The “evidence” is logic and basic engineering knowledge. Why don’t you show me how your hot softened steel transfers load. You can’t because it doesn’t. It has lost it’s ability to carry and transfer load. If you had even a basic materials science course you’d know that.
          I didn’t state that a the tube and core without the floors would be stable. In fact I stated it could fail from wind loading or another factor but that IS NOT WHAT THE NIST REPORT STATED. If that were the case the NIST report is still feeding us bullshit. Failed without tension supporting it? Tubes do not require tension to support. A tube is inherently stable. That’s why the floor trusses in the tower could be so light weight and what made the towers economically feasible to build. Read up on the towers and design and you’d know that. This particular tube was damaged which is where the instability would have come from if there was any. But again, that’s not the government argument.
          “the columns were also being heated and losing strength along with the floors” There were no columns supporting the floor. Look at the structural plans. Look up some basics about the design. Open floor plan. The core with the elevators and such contained the vertical structural elements. These are huge pieces of steel and not even NIST claims they failed from heat alone. In fact you are just making stuff up, stuff that NIST doesn’t even claim. So let’s say this was some super fire (even though NIST says it wasn’t) and it had the ability to anneal the steel I beams. Guess what? THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NIST REPORT STATED. The report says the floor trusses, thin, small, light weight, and subjected to the same heat pulled the core columns. The only pieces that could have failed from that fire magically were retaining their ability to transfer load to the core. So again, if you’re right Mr. attorney architect structural engineer, NIST is wrong.
          I have no misunderstanding. You need to explain to me how heated and weakened stretching steel transfers load. NIST assumes it can. I know it can’t work that way. Why? Because it’s stretching. You structural engineer architect lawyers don’t deal in that range. Mechanical and manufacturing engineers do. That’s how steel is formed. What happens is that the load stretches the steel and less and less is transferred to the other end of the piece. The floor truss joints are being _unloaded_ by the hot stretching trusses. They can’t pull the core or tube because of that. They are pulling _less_ as they fail from fire, not more.
          Here’s what the NIST report says:
          “In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. ”
          “In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. ”
          It’s as I remember. They are claiming that the light floor trusses weakened by heat and stretching themselves pulled the core or tube. . It’s a logical problem. They are saying the steel can’t carry the loads as it is heated (true) but then they say it’s transferring the load it can’t carry. That doesn’t work, it requires the sagging failing floor trusses to transfer load but they can’t because they are hot and failing. And because they are thin and small they lose strength and fail first, before structural columns, by a long margin.

        9. This credential argument is getting old. You are the one who brought this into play by questioning my “reading comprehension” and ability “to investigate a crime or anything for that matter” while quoting a fictional character from literature to support your supposed ability to perform correct investigations. I invoked my credentials to rebut this, you escalated, I rebutted again. I am not losing this battle; you are no more knowledgeable in structural engineering than I am – a point you don’t dispute – and you still haven’t explained how we would know when we have “all the evidence” which means that ultimately you are just arguing about “when” it is appropriate to begin investigating a specific hypothesis. This isn’t a battle about credentials in the first place – credentials do not prove conclusions. Your conclusion is incorrect no matter who makes it or how many credentials they do or do not possess.
          You and I agree that hot softened steel cannot transfer a load. You state:
          “It’s a logical problem. They are saying the steel can’t carry the loads as it is heated (true) but then they say it’s transferring the load it can’t carry. That doesn’t work, it requires the sagging failing floor trusses to transfer load but they can’t because they are hot and failing. And because they are thin and small they lose strength and fail first, before structural columns, by a long margin.”
          They are not saying the hot steel was transferring a load. The trusses were not “pulling” against the outer support in the original design – they were “pushing.” The weight of the floors was distributed “out” to the columns and down. The trusses also braced the outer walls against inward deflection from shear and torsion forces, like the wind.
          You are correct that as steel warms, it stops transferring loads at some point, but you don’t understand the structural implications of that – this means that columns that were designed to withstand the transfer an outward pushing force were now asked to: 1) resist a force pulling inward; 2) without the corresponding outward resistance that would usually have been offered by the floor trusses. That these trusses started to pull less as they got hotter and stretched more is beside the point, the problem is that they stopped pushing and began pulling.
          Perform a simple coke can experiment. Load an empty can with a static load like a cinderblock to simulate the weight above the crash site. Apply “slight” inward force. The can crushes. If you could apply a bracing to the internal structure of the can (like the floor trusses in the WTC), it would resist this force. Now take some hot glue and attach strings to the inside of the can and thread them up through the top (drill a hole in your cinderblock and thread the strings up through that too). Pull the string gently but steadily and you will get the same result (the slight inward pull on the sides of the can will cause it to fail). If a string is not plastic enough for you, use chewing gum for all I care. You will get the same result. Without internal support to brace it, and with a heavy load above it, the tube cannot resist even slight inward pulling forces.
          I agree with you that this is a logic problem. Your logic fails.
          But again I ask, even if you were correct, so what? We know that two planes hit the towers and around an hour later each tower collapsed. We also know that the collapses started at the impact sites, and we know that the entire buildings collapsed as they did. You say that the government “lied” about the cause, and you take aim at this inability of hot steel to transfer a load (which misreads what they are saying), but you refuse to “speculate” about the real cause of the collapse. Even if I were to accept your argument (I don’t), what difference would it make? Unless you are trying to say that the government killed its own citizens and made up a lie about a terrorist plot to cover it up, I don’t see your ultimate point. Perhaps you’re just a guy who’s trying to advocate for better building codes to help resist airliner impacts to skyscrapers or something, but it’s curious, if that’s the case, to challenge the government’s conclusion as a “lie” rather than a “mistake,” a “poor conclusion,” “bad engineering failure analysis,” or something similar, particularly given that the title of this article is “Was 9/11 An Inside Job”. So, again, what is your ultimate point? I’ll relent – you don’t even have to give me a speculative explanation for how the towers could fail as they did, just tell me what is the point of thinking that the government “lied” about how it happened? You don’t have to tell me what I should believe the relevance of that “lie” is, just tell me what you think it is.

        10. I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again while you continually address things other people said so you’ve more than proven my initial assessment and yes, you started the credential dick measuring, stop whining it didn’t turn out the way you wanted.
          I quoted the NIST report for you. It says pulled yet you argue it says pushed. Again you prove my initial assessment of your reading comprehension. Here it is again:
          “In WTC 2, (…) The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. ”
          “In WTC 1, (…) The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, (…) ”
          Pulled is the word they used, not pushed. Furthermore hot sagging steel can’t push any better than it can pull. You’re trying again to rewrite the report to defend it. You don’t get to do that.
          The coke can. Yeah, I used that for years. Until I well read the NIST report in 2005 or so and learned more about the construction of the towers. Thanks for the reminder. Here’s the problem, that’s not what the NIST report says. Furthermore I stopped using the pop can analogy when I learned how the core was designed. That analogy only applies to the outer walls, the ‘tube’ structure. But let’s say my 2002 assessment of a damaged tube was correct, that by some mechanism unknown the core would have come down in the same manner with the tube, that means that NIST is still wrong.
          I don’t recall using the word ‘lied’ and best I can tell from searching I haven’t. But even if I did here you are again trying to hang something on me because you can’t actually form a relevant counter argument for what I have written. The simple fact is that the NIST report has two fatal assumptions as I have previously outlined a few times over. Your Hillary Clinton ‘what difference does it make?’ argument, well it doesn’t make any difference because so many people believe whatever authority tells them. They don’t think critically about it. And even decades later when the truth finally comes out they refuse to believe it. It came out some years ago, after all the principle players were dead that the Gulf of Tonkin event that really got the vietnam war going never happened. The LBJ tape so people can hear it LBJ’s and McNamara’s own words in their own voices was put on the internet. People still don’t believe it was lie. But even when cornered then it becomes a ‘mistake’ or a ‘poor conclusion’ or ‘incompetence’ or ‘a long time ago and doesn’t apply today’. So it doesn’t make any difference because those who run government set perception and perception is reality while people let them do it.
          There’s absolutely no way for me to change your perception. You read the quoted summary paragraphs from NIST and switch ‘pulled’ for ‘pushed’ to maintain your perception at all costs and that’s what most people do, whatever it takes to maintain perceptions. Heaven forbid they admit their grade school teachers or the talking heads on the TV told them something that wasn’t true. Worse that they have to admit believing it. They can’t admit believing a lie or wrong information or whatever so they’ll bend over backwards to insist its the truth, that it is valid fact. I just aim to make it as difficult as possible.

        11. Jesus Christ. For someone who accused me of having no reading comprehension, you certainly aren’t a fountain of credibility.
          1) – BEFORE the planes crashed, the trusses were transferring the loads OUT to the columns.
          2) – AFTER the planes crashed and the trusses heated, they stopped pushing OUT and started PULLING in.
          The report doesn’t say number one BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HAVE TO. That’s basic structural engineering. Does the report also have to tell you that the sky is blue?
          I’m not switching what the report says. I’m trying to explain to you why what the report says explains the collapse. The inner core was also a tube. The trusses were originally pushing against it too. It collapsed just like the outer tube for the same reason. Apparently all of this goes over your head. You’re not a structural engineer. Please, for the safety of people who have to live and work in structures, don’t try your hand at it.
          “I don’t recall using the word ‘lied’ and best I can tell from searching I haven’t.”
          The browser has this thing on the right side called a scroll bar. From your original post in this thread:
          “Never ever ever ever try to explain what really happened behind a government lie. Just expose the lie and walk away.”
          Oh, you’re right, my bad, you didn’t use the term “lied.” I suppose that “lie” has some significantly different meaning in the lala fairytale land where you live that also seems to use different structural engineering because it follows different laws of physics.
          But you also didn’t answer the question: even if you are correct, so what? What is the significance of this lie?
          Don’t dodge. You and I obviously aren’t going to agree on the cause of the collapse. But what is to be made of your version where the government has lied about the true cause? That’s not a Hillary Clinton, “what difference does it make” question, because I have already told you that it WOULD make a huge difference if the government intentionally killed its own civilians. So, what is the relevance of this “lie”? Are you saying that the government’s engineering investigation is unsound and should be reexamined to make sure that we’re properly designing buildings, or, are you, like this article, implying that the Government killed its own citizens? Or is it something else?
          Don’t puss out and refuse to answer just because you won’t change my mind. I’d like to know what kind of a man you are – are you serious or not? And, even though it’s true that you won’t change my perception, you should articulate your view for the benefit of readers who may find your above comments persuasive. So, what is the relevance of this lie?

        12. THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE IN REPLY TO MY QUOTING THE NIST REPORT:
          “They are not saying the hot steel was transferring a load. The trusses
          were not “pulling” against the outer support in the original design –
          they were “pushing.” The weight of the floors was distributed “out” to
          the columns and down. The trusses also braced the outer walls against
          inward deflection from shear and torsion forces, like the wind.”
          Do you see the word “BEFORE” in there? It’s not in there. I quoted the NIST report about the FAILURE of the structure. “Original design” is nonsensical. Your entire paragraph is nonsensical to anyone who’s actually read the report. And even in the before a plane crash case Mr structural engineer architect attorney the floor loads do not push out the walls. Pull out a fucking statics book and look at beam with two fixed ends with a distributed load. There’s no outward pushing (normally, NIST says there was thermal expansion early in the fire causing outward pushing before the floors sagged). Ever see one of these?
          http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FoFhMYh90sc/U3rsXfHx5rI/AAAAAAAABYo/5cMdqwKaMEs/s1600/F8.large.jpg
          Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_end_moment
          The floor trusses were BOLTED to WELDED shelves. The direction of the loading doesn’t change when a plane crashes into the building. It’s a bolted floor truss with a load on it before and after. You never read the NIST report. That much is clear. Look at figure 5-3 of the NIST report. Here is the same information repeated elsewhere on the web:
          http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/wtc/fig-2-6.jpg
          That floor truss connection cannot make a pushing load due to weight on the floors. The ends are fixed to the outer walls and core. Technically the load is downward at the ends so long as the composite floor and truss system is rigid. As it deflects it pulls -inward-. There is never an outward load (other than the thermal expansion before deflection per NIST). This isn’t some church from the 12th century with flying buttresses to hold up a vaulted roof, it’s a steel skyscraper from the early 1970s that’s bolted and welded together. It has floor trusses and a hat truss.
          The inner core was _NOT_ tube structure.
          Quoting NIST:
          “There were four major structural subsystems in the towers, referred toas the exterior wall, the core, the floor system, and the hat truss. The first, the exterior structural subsystem, was a vertical square tube (…) A second structural subsystem was located in a central service area, or core(…) The core columns were interconnected by a grid of conventional steel beams to support the core floors.”
          The core was a conventional structure of steel beams. Not a tube.
          Lied… laff. You sure are more attorney than structural engineer. Yes, when dealing with government narratives, that’s the general advice. But that’s not the same as saying NIST lied about some specific thing. Only a lawyer would try a scumbag game like that.
          As to the rest, stop trying to change the subject Mr. attorney. That shit doesn’t fly with me. Go read the NIST report. Maybe you’ll learn something. The simple fact is that it has severe logical problems. I will not speculate because again, I have no access to anything to prove speculation and that will only give you ammo. I stick with what I can put my fingers on and that is the NIST report.

        13. Are you functionally retarded? Again you have demonstrated complete reading comprehension failure.
          I am not saying that the PLANE changed the loading. The heating of the trusses, cause by the fire after the plane crashed, caused the trusses to fail, and this failure changed the loading from an outward transfer (conceptually a “push”) to an inward pull. The load was originally distributed out to the columns and then down, but after the crash, and the heating of the trusses, this outward transfer of load – which was what was originally designed to happen – switched to an inward pull when the trusses failed. The tube structure could not resist it because it was not designed to. The terms “push” and “pull” apparently confuse you. I’m trying to simplify it so you can follow conceptually because it’s obvious that you don’t know anything about structures beyond what you are able to quickly google. About the only things you have stated that are correct is that where the trusses join the columns, the force is generally downward, and normal deflection would exert an inward pull (you omit that it also exerts an outward push). What you don’t understand is that this downward transfer stops when the truss fails which transforms the truss from a structural member directing weight out to the columns into a giant dead weight pulling on them from within. You also don’t understand that the inward pull from normal deflection is nowhere near the magnitude that it is when the truss fails and becomes dead weight (and a dynamic weight at that) that the column must now exert outward resistance against. Here’s a hint that also helps explain the collapse, those same trusses were what allowed the columns to resist inward forces when they were rigid.
          Your whole theory about how the structure would have hollowed out once the trusses became plastic is predicated on the trusses having been designed primarily to pull inward on the tube structure to begin with, which wasn’t what they were doing. The predominant force was transferred out and down.
          But thanks for the awesome wikipedia research. You’re correct that I incorrectly referred to the core as a tube. Bravo. The core still collapsed for the same reason the tube did. It isn’t designed to resist a force that starts to pull it sideways. You might also want to consider that without any remaining vertical support to assist it, the core also wasn’t designed to resist a tremendous dynamic load falling on it from above. Maybe before trying to critique the NIST report you should take some structural engineering classes. In truth, you really shouldn’t need structural engineering classes because all of this is common sense, and any moron who does home improvement projects can replicate the same concepts in his back yard.
          As to the second part – you refuse again to answer what we should all believe is the relevance of the lies you have supposedly exposed. Thus, I’m left to conclude that you’re just some internet coward. This is an article about 9/11 being an inside job. You posted a comment about government lies. Whether you’re talking about government narratives or NIST reports, the only logical conclusion is that you agree with the author that this was an inside job. That means that you’re some anonymous pussy, who even though he thinks that his government is willing to randomly murder thousands of its own civilians, just sits on his ass typing retarded comments instead of taking action to bring down an illegitimate and corrupt state. Basically, as I expected. Thanks for playing.

        14. There’s no outward push. Before the planes. Before the fires. After them or anything else and insulting me doesn’t change that. It’s not a 12th century church. You’re wrong. Read the NIST report. If you’re going to defend the government narrative you need to defend the NIST report, defend what is written in it, not make up shit. Look at the design Mr. structural engineer architect attorney. Read the NIST report. But you won’t. You won’t cite a damn thing. You just act like a troll. You don’t look at reference material. You refuse to deal with my core arguments. You insult. You dive to created tangents. You try to rest on credentials. You assign me things other people said. You intentionally twist things. You call me a coward because I am not marching out in the street or taking over a federal building or whatever dumbfuck call to action you’ve decided I should be doing as a measure of the beliefs you’ve assigned me. You shuck and jive and deflect. It’s all troll behavior.
          You also continually walk over your own arguments like a troll. You just come up with whatever bullshit you think will work for each round. Last round you arguing that the walls and core were designed to resist outward lateral load from the floors. Never mind the floors don’t produce outward lateral loads in structure like this. Obviously you never got to statically indeterminate beams in your astounding coursework. Now you’re saying the structure can’t take lateral load. And a vertical symmetric structural element, if you had a fraction of claimed credentials you would know would take the lateral load in either direction equally. And once again, it’s very tall building. It was _designed_ to take lateral loads from wind, etc. Which is something you mentioned in the previous round but this round it’s all forgotten. You’re just acting like a troll. So let’s get back to facts.
          NIST says there was an inward pull from the hot sagging floor trusses pulling on hot weakened core and tube and bringing about the catastrophic failure of the building.That’s what they wrote. The weak, hot, sagging, stretching floor trusses imparted the fatal loads to the main structure according to NIST. That’s what NIST wrote, not the crap you’re flinging against the wall hoping for something to stick. You can’t defend the NIST report. You can’t even be bothered to read it. Instead you make up shit that is directly stated to be otherwise in the report. Like your current crap about the dynamic load of the building shifting above. It’s again clear you didn’t read the report. Because according to the NIST report the moving rigid block of the building above moved (causing cascading collapse) -after- the floor trusses pulled the weakened core/tube. It was a -result- of the floor truss sagging and pulling the weakened core/tube structures according to the report, not a cause of it. The cascade of final catastrophic failure begins with the floor truss sagging reaching a critical point according to NIST. That’s what you should be defending. Instead you’re coming up with things that don’t match NIST at all. You can’t deal with the logical flaw I see in NIST’s theory so you’ll do everything to avoid it. Including reducing yourself to a shit flinging troll.

        15. Pot, meet kettle.
          Here’s the defense of the NIST report: The trusses sagged as they heated. When they sagged, they started to pull against the columns. Because they weren’t doing this previously, and the columns could not resist this inward pull without rigid trusses resisting this inward force, they failed and the building collapsed. Pretty simple. And consistent with the design and construction of the WTC.
          You claim to be an engineer – yet you cannot grasp that when a structural member designed to transfer loads in one direction stops transferring that load and starts applying force against a different structural member in the opposite direction that you have a recipe for failure. Apparently this concept upsets you personally. I have defended the NIST report. I don’t write the laws of physics.
          In order to believe the theory of collapse that you have articulated, I would have to believe:
          1) that the floor trusses, as originally designed, did not provide resistance that allowed the columns to resist inward (toward the core of the building) pushing or pulling shear and torsion forces;
          2) that the failure of a sagging truss has zero effect on the column it is attached to by bolts and welds;
          2) that the failing trusses did not exert additional inward force on the columns when they failed because the effect of the weight of the floors is the same regardless of whether the truss transfers the gravity load to the columns or not;
          3) that the columns can resist inward pushing forces without the trusses in place, and so would have remained standing;
          4) that the dynamic load generated by the collapse of an entire floor (I’m completely ignoring the floors above the crash site to attempt consistency with your theory as to what should have happened) within a skyscraper is no big deal, and exists independently of the columns;
          5) that the cascading collapse of each subsequent floor, which generates larger forces as each floor collapses, has absolutely no outward impact on the columns – all of the force transfers DOWN only and perfectly;
          6) AND that some better, more plausible, but as yet un-articulated theory for the collapse as it happened exists.
          Any one of those assumptions renders your entire theory invalid. You can be mad that an attorney can point out these things all you want. But that’s the price you pay for trying to play structural engineer on the internet when you run into someone who has a basic knowledge of structural engineering.

        16. “Here’s the defense of the NIST report: The trusses sagged as they
          heated. When they sagged, they started to pull against the columns.
          Because they weren’t doing this previously, and the columns could not
          resist this inward pull without rigid trusses resisting this inward
          force, they failed and the building collapsed. Pretty simple. And
          consistent with the design and construction of the WTC.”
          That’s not what the NIST report says. You should try reading it. That is if you could understand it which I doubt. You’re just flinging shit against a wall hoping it sticks. You’re laughably wrong. Read the NIST report to find out why. Your theories are worse than those that claim energy weapons took out the towers.
          “You claim to be an engineer – yet you cannot grasp that when a
          structural member designed to transfer loads in one direction stops
          transferring that load and starts applying force against a different
          structural member in the opposite direction that you have a recipe for
          failure. Apparently this concept upsets you personally. I have
          defended the NIST report. I don’t write the laws of physics.”
          I love how you just make stuff up and ignore what I write. You just create strawmen and knock them down, round after round like a troll. You don’t debate. You troll. 1) I understand loading far better than you and 2) There is no opposite direction here. It’s not a 12th century church without outward loading on walls from stone vaulted ceiling. Read the NIST report to see how the towers’ structure actually worked. 3) the columns are symmetrical for the flip you claim (but NIST does not). Even within the confines of your imagination you’re making gross errors because symmetry would make the direction flip you claim irrelevant. There’s a change in direction by roughly 30 degrees to 90 degrees for a portion of the load. You remember vectors? Probably not because it’s very clear you never got the basics down. See page 97 and 98, and figure 6-11.
          “1) that the floor trusses, as originally designed, did not provide
          resistance that allowed the columns to resist inward (toward the core of
          the building) pushing or pulling shear and torsion forces;”
          My argument doesn’t require this. In fact the floor truss failure per my argument states that if the floor truss failure were per NIST we would have seen a different failure that would have been due to wind loading (or similar). I have stated such at least three times, but since you’re a troll you ignore it.
          “2) that the failure of a sagging truss has zero effect on the column it is attached to by bolts and welds;”
          My argument does not require this. In fact what I have argued is that the sagging trusses transfer less load because they are unable to transfer the load due to the stretching. This by definition an effect on the columns. I’ve stated and restated this at least a half dozen times, but since you’re a troll you ignore it in favor of your made up nonsense.
          “2) that the failing trusses did not exert additional inward force on the
          columns when they failed because the effect of the weight of the floors
          is the same regardless of whether the truss transfers the gravity load
          to the columns or not;”
          I stated no such thing. In fact I stated the opposite with regard to inward pull, that there was a diminishing inward force. Diminishing because the ability of the floor trusses to transfer any load diminished with their deteriorating condition. I have explained this to you more than once. Of course you ignore it because you’re a troll.
          “3) that the columns can resist inward pushing forces without the trusses in place, and so would have remained standing;”
          I argued no such thing. I argued that without the floor trusses we would have seen a different failure if the core or tube failed and it probably would have eventually from wind loads or similar. That’s what I actually wrote. It’s clear you aren’t reading and that’s something you don’t bother to do.
          “4) that the dynamic load generated by the collapse of an entire floor
          (I’m completely ignoring the floors above the crash site to attempt
          consistency with your theory as to what should have happened) within a
          skyscraper is no big deal, and exists independently of the columns;”
          Again I argued no such thing. You’ve made that up. I argued that if floor failure were to cause a building failure would have been different that what was witnessed. I did not say it would have no effect on the columns. I argued it would be different than what was observed. This is your reading comprehension problem again or your deliberate changing of what I write to suit your internal biases. Again, the behavior of typical trolls who are just looking to be argumentative. Think about it for a moment. If a collapsing internal floors caused catastrophic collapse it would have been from loads below the site of the aircraft impact.
          “5) that the cascading collapse of each subsequent floor, which generates
          larger forces as each floor collapses, has absolutely no outward impact
          on the columns – all of the force transfers DOWN only and perfectly;”
          My argument requires no such thing. My argument is that if floor failure occurs and if it cascades and if the rest of the building goes with it or not the result is different from what was witnessed. Furthermore if you look at how the floor trusses are attached, which I showed you, and the math behind such loading, which I showed you the plots for, you’ll note it is straight down. Floor trusses below the impact site were not damaged. They would have performed as designed, imparting loads straight down via the fixed joints. Do the math. This is why NIST does not claim impact of the falling floors caused the building failure, because they could not.
          “6) AND that some better, more plausible, but as yet un-articulated theory for the collapse as it happened exists.”
          Again, not required by what I’ve argued, and absolutely irrelevant to it. You desire counter explanations because you want to poke holes in something and I refuse to speculate because I lack the access to evidence to do so. I work from what I have, the NIST report. It tells me that hot sagging floor trusses transmitted significant loads to hot weakened core and tube structures and pulled inward on them resulting in catastrophic building failure. When considering how susceptible to fire these floor trusses were, as indicated in the NIST report itself, which you won’t read, I would find it remarkable that they could transfer such loads through the connections as described by NIST. This is a tangent you created because you can’t deal with the fact that the hot sagging floor trusses lose their ability to transfer load. That they transfer less and less of it as the load stretches the steel trusses. The load-displacement-temperature plot of steels shows this and you know it.
          “Any one of those assumptions renders your entire theory invalid. You
          can be mad that an attorney can point out these things all you want.
          But that’s the price you pay for trying to play structural engineer on
          the internet when you run into someone who has a basic knowledge of
          structural engineering.”
          You’ve created a strawman and knocked it down. Ignoring what I have repeated to you many times over like a the troll you really are. You’ve demonstrated a grade school knowledge of structure, as if you looked at a book with a brief description of flying buttresses once upon a time, but you do act like a lawyer, arguing socially and emotionally, attacking persons instead of debating facts, not actually reading the required material, twisting what was said, etc. So maybe that’s believable.

        17. Talk about straw men.
          I’m not saying YOU said any of those things. I’m saying those are assumptions I would have to believe in order to believe your theory about how the collapse should have happened.
          Who’s the troll here? I have been commenting on this site for quite a while, and you are welcome to look at my comment history.
          Perhaps I have forgotten, but I don’t recall seeing any comments from you prior to this article. You show up with a controversial comment that questions the methodology of the investigation. When I pointed out, politely and correctly, that there is nothing wrong with investigating a plausible hypothesis for a collapse, and ignoring implausible ones, you flipped on the smug condescension switch, questioned my intelligence and directed me to Sherlock Holmes, a veritable paragon of engineering expertise.
          Since then, this has largely devolved into an insult session because I’m happy to fling as much mud back at you as you are happy to fling at me. If you’d like to return to a more civil discourse, I’m happy to. However, on this topic, I don’t see much point.
          You are convinced of your position, and I am convinced of mine. One of us is right, the other is wrong. That’s true. But apparently neither of us is going to persuade the other to accept his position. Fine. I’m not losing any sleep over it.
          I have tried to advance the conversation to the more pertinent point – namely that assuming I were to accept your position, what should I make of it? You have doggedly refused to answer or tell me what you believe to be the significance of the “government lie” that you are on to. You have also accused me of trying to change the subject, as if trying to understand what I should believe about the relevance of your theory is a bad thing.
          Again, fine. Even if I agreed with you, which I don’t, you haven’t told me why I should care. So it turns out that you’re just some dude throwing bombs on the internet for no purpose whatsoever.
          We now know that you think the WTC didn’t collapse like it says in the NIST report. We don’t know why it actually collapsed. You won’t speculate. We also don’t know what we should do because of this interesting factoid, or why we should even care, because you refuse to say.
          OK. Cool story, bro.

        18. Haven’t seen my comments before? well look more often.
          You have deployed the troll techniques I have listed. You refuse to read the background material. You argue against things you make up, repeatedly ignoring anything I type that doesn’t suit your preconceived notions that anyone who doesn’t believe government must be some form of tin foil hat wearing kook. You keep trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. This is what you call trying to “advance” the conversation. You don’t have a position. You merely make up another one with each round. Some new fanciful way the towers failed from aircraft and fire. You don’t even read the NIST report to see they discounted your ideas already and threw them out because they don’t match the facts. I on the other hand disagree with the assumptions NIST made. I don’t disagree with the facts they use, only their assumptions. You create new facts and assumptions as it suits you. If you were any sort of engineer who ever had to solve problems you’d understand the difference between facts and assumptions. I’m done repeating myself, and thus done with this exchange.

  36. False flag operations have been put into action in the past, and I’m sure more are in store, and that is a fact. There have been ideas cooked up by our (US) government, including shooting down our own planes to go to war with Cuba under false pretenses (Operation Northwoods). Look at JFK’s assassination for fucks sake. All I’m saying is our government has no problem doing terrible shit to their citizens in the name of ‘the greater good’, whatever the fuck that may be. I do not follow blindly, and I will question everything.

  37. The Twin Towers are almost irrelevant at this point.
    WTC 7 is the smoking gun. No planes hit that building and it collapsed just like the others? Bullshit. Relatively small and contained office fires don’t collapse skyscrapers uniformly into a neat little pile of rubble, especially not fires that are spread out sporadically, limited to a small number of floors, and pretty much burnt out already. If they did, we’d have had dozens of cases of skyscrapers collapsing due to small office fires. It would be a global phenomenon.
    They fucked up with WTC 7, plain and simple. I’m guessing it was supposed to be hit by a third plane which never materialized, and was supposed to collapse at roughly the same time as the twin towers.
    But it didn’t. I reckon whoever really pulled off 9/11 spent most of the day evaluating what to do about that building and in the end, decided to take it down anyway. If they’d left it standing, it would have been combed over and the plot would have been discovered.
    Safer to bet on the comfortable ignorance of the masses and take it down anyway.

  38. The twin towers were of a tube design and think of stacking cards and smack a plane into a building it will destabilize it and cause it free fall.
    Here are two photo’s of it being built. Unlike other buildings again they did not have
    a plane crash into them.
    One thing you don’t hear in any of the video’s of building coming down is explosives
    going off when other building’s are being demolished.
    With demolishing a building it takes a lot of prep work to bring it down and sometimes
    shit happens and with building 7 the city’s water supply was damaged when WTC 1 and WTC 2 came down.

  39. Here’s the deal. If it was brought down by Saudis, by Al Queda, by Da Joos, by the U.S. government or by Boy Scout Troop 445 (those wiley bastards!), how does that knowledge change what is happening today to us regarding having our rights stripped away?
    Say it’s proven it was U.S. government operatives, just for the sake of argument. They say “Rogue agents!” and have plausible deniability. They then turn around and continue to strip us of fundamental human liberties and dignity.
    Knowing “whodunit” is a good exercise after the war is fought, but nearly useless when you’re repelling attack after attack by the liberty hating government types.
    Besides, major conspiracies require way too many players who all have to act in perfect coordination and who all have to be fully trusted not to spill the beans and keep everything secret. Given as human nature is a fallen nature, I don’t see this as being plausible.

    1. The last paragraph nailed it. Conspiracies require too many people to keep quiet. This one is so over the top it defies discussion.
      Whats sad is there’s probably conspiracy-people commenting here who weren’t even out of grade school when it happened while some of us at the time had experience handling actual explosives and planning demolitions. The events of 9/11 were ***not*** planned demolition, sorry.

      1. Same thing I tell people when they bring up “chem trails”.
        Yeah, Cledus, thousands of people are conspiring together in unison, from dock workers to jet fuel technicians to everybody in between, to spray you with some bizarre chemical. That not one credible actor in this chain of events has come forward in the five decades this theory has been around, to confirm “Yeah, I was part of it, here’s the photos of me and the gang dumping in the chems” is just a strange coincidence.

        1. Fucking moron. “Chem trails” and geoengineering have been proven and more recently admitted. Go parrot your govt. narratives to sheep that’ll actually believe you.

        2. “Natural clouds, you need glasses, old man.”
          Just one of those exceptional freedumbs that many take for granted, being sprayed from the air like crops.
          Remember the rest of the world hates America for its freedumbs, especially the Russians! After all what country could dispute the USA’s claim as the first, and so far only, country to have a steel framed building collapse from fire?
          Not Russia!

          Their buildings just burn and burn and burn and never conveniently fall at free fall speed into their own footprints.
          Oh, and not China!

          And, certainly not Dubai!

          Just look at that inferior engineering. Sickening.
          And that’s just scratching the surface, because when the USA does something, it does it big. So, setting records and defying physics by bringing down two buildings that were slightly smouldering wasn’t enough. Only in America:

      1. I figured it was evil white men. I mean, that’s a given right?
        But to my point, what would or could we possibly do if we knew it was some kind of government conspiracy? Appeal to that very self same government to redress the wrong? Seriously? Heh.
        I say, regarding these power mongering government dolts, to just dust off and nuke’em all from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure. Send in the forensic team when the smoke clears if you’re still curious about the root cause, but my concern is stopping the grabs at my life and liberties first.

        1. I mean if someone really believes that their government orchestrated something like 9/11 to kill thousands of people and start some wars (or whatever the purpose was), then shouldn’t they be hightailing it out of the country to somewhere with a less murderous regime? Who wants to live in a country where the government just murders thousands of its own citizens?

        2. And what is going to motivate people to stop the government from making grabs at their life and liberties? What is going to shock this nation into action?
          Unless it can be proven to a *majority* of citizens that the US government did something truly disgusting (such as using our relationship with the Saudis and allowing 9/11 to play out, if indeed this is what happened), then what is going to shock people into action, before it’s too late?
          I am willing to protect my liberties just as much as you are. But, don’t you see what is happening here? We’ve got a “me vs. you” mentality on this comment board that is further dividing the liberty-minded community.
          It’s like a bunch of Goddamn women around here. Debate is one thing, but this article seems to have brought many people to this comment board that have their minds made up and are unwilling to admit flaws in their logic.

        3. The NSA openly cops to monitoring all social media and internet traffic, keeps the records in Utah and laughs in our face.
          Not one shot fire.
          You tell me what will motivate them. Because 9/11 being “their” job won’t. Give their PR teams and media marketing types a week and the hubabaloo goes away and is buried in the back pages.

        4. Pound for pound one of the best movies ever made, IMHO. The others in the series, were ok. That one, man, I knew every fucker in that unit from real life, or so it seemed.

        5. Oh, man. And I was gettin’ short,too! Four more weeks and out.
          Now I’m gonna buy it on this fuckin’ rock. It ain’t half fair, man!

        6. Awright sweethearts, what’re you waitin’ for, breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! Day in the Marine Corps’ just like a day on the farm! Every meal’s a banquet! Every pay check a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the CORPS!

    2. “Besides, major conspiracies blah, blah, blah…”
      Yeah…
      Like the NSA, the largest intelligence agency in the US government employing tens of thousands of people, that operated in total secrecy — without the public even knowing of their existence — for decades. One of their operations begun in 1945 — Operation Shamrock — involved thousands of people, not just from the NSA but also from Western Union, RCA and ITT, and the interception of all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the US. That operation was kept from the public for decades.
      Other large scale “black” projects (like the NSA, much, much larger in scale than that of 9/11) that operated in total secrecy for years include the Manhattan project, which grew to employ 130,000 people (and which was only exposed after a few years because they used the weapons on Japan), and the F-117 stealth fighter project, which was kept secret for 13 years until it was revealed to the public in 1988.
      The 9/11 conspiracy is hardly a secret. Besides, what possible motivation would one of the few top-level conspirators (the only ones who would have had uncompartmentalized knowledge of the entire conspiracy) have for going public? Ditto for any conspirator who is clearly complicit. So they can be lynched as one of the biggest traitors in history? Idiotic. Any lower-level conspirators with enough partial knowledge to be a threat after-the-fact is probably long dead.

      1. Exactly. Every spy organization requires conspirator silence. Every subversive military action in the dead of night requires conspirator silence. Families keep quiet about things which would harm them if exposed. There are plenty of objectives where the benefits of being involved in a conspiracy (a plan that isn’t made public) far outweigh the benefits of making it public. Apple keeping their product features hidden until launch requires conspiracy.

        1. If I had definitive proof of 9/11 being a huge conspiracy I can tell you with confidence that I could have the protection of many major governments and a lifetime supply of wealth.
          The U.S. government is *incompetent* to regularly deliver the mail, fer chrissakes.

      2. The NSA was a secret? News to me since I’ve known about it for a couple of decades. The Manhattan project wasn’t secret either. The bomb was, but everyone knew that they were working on something. Oh, and as to the NSA, let me just mention Edward Snowden, a guy who spilled the beans because they were recording phone calls. But yeah, none of them would say a thing about the murder of thousands of civilians so we could wage two wars to kill a few thousand soldiers.

        1. Ah shit, now it’s clear. You’re in on it. You’re one of “them”.
          Fuck man. What is so wrong with just throwing off the yoke and shooting at the bastards harming us directly? This whole conspiracy thing is a pointless waste of time and energy.

        2. Yeah, it’s a waste of time and energy if you don’t give a fuck about your country and the people running it. If you had deductive reasoning skills, you’d see that the people enabling the terrorists are the main threat, not the terrorists.
          Everything is pretty damn obvious by now. Don’t you read the news? Can’t you put 1+1 together like you claim you’re so good at? You can’t see that terrorists are enabled, armed, funded, protected, and provoked by governments into doing what they do?
          If you can’t, I really feel sorry for you, because it’s everyday politics.

        3. Edward Snowden is a crock of horseshit. Do you honestly believe someone with a GED, just fucking waltzed in NSA headquarters with a thumb drive, and downloaded all these important files, and then fled the country without getting killed?
          The info he “revealed” didn’t tell us shit. Seriously, nothing new or noteworthy. I’m not sure what the point of this media psy op is, but Edward Snowden is not a whistle blower, he is some sort of ruse meant to convince the sheep that the security apparatus isn’t omniscient. If he had actually extracted secrets he would have been dead so fast, it wouldn’t even be funny dude.

        4. You have obviously never worked a day in you life in the Government. What you have just said happens in the movies, and nowhere else. Period.

        5. “The ND A was a secret? News to me since I’ve known about it for a couple of decades.”
          You definitely have a reading comprehension problem. I never claimed the NSA is currently a secret. This is what I actually wrote:
          “…operated in total secrecy — without the public even knowing of their existence — for decades.”
          The origins of the NSA date back to 1917, and the agency by its current name dates to 1952. The agency has run black operations against the public involving thousands of people — without the public’s knowing for decades. The one I previously mentioned — Operation Shamrock, began in 1945 and wasn’t exposed until the Church Committee in 1975… which is the point that went entirely over your pea brain.
          “The Manhattan project wasn’t secret either. The bomb was, but everyone knew that they were working on something.”
          Sorry, liar, but “everyone” most certainly did NOT know.
          “But yeah, none of them would say a thing about the murder of thousands of civilians so we could wage two wars to kill a few thousand soldiers.”
          Why would anyone directly involved admit it? That’s obviously an absurd notion. As for 9/11 whistleblowers, there have been plenty of those who have come forth. Your ignorance of them doesn’t change reality.

        6. OK, clown. If you think the government is full of tens of thousands of psychopaths who will kill thousands of innocent people without hesitation, why are you still alive? Certainly this evil regime will also kill those, like you, who question it.
          The fact is that these agencies are not, and never have been secret. Individual operations, perhaps, but not entire agencies.
          Try working for the Government for a while – it may give you a little much needed perspective about what it is actually capable of (hint: not much).

      3. And you know about every one of those. The NSA has always been a joke, when I was training in the military the book The Puzzle Palace came out showing how silly all of their supposed secrecy was, and how easily it was seen through. Which is exactly my point.
        Nice try.

        1. The Puzzle Palace came out in 1982. The origins of the NSA date back to 1917, and the agency was chartered by that name in 1952. Herp, derp. People knew about their operations decades after the fact. As previously mentioned and you completely ignored, Operation Shamrock (a black operation run against the American people involving thousands of people) began in 1945 and wasn’t exposed until the Church Committee in 1975. Nice try yourself.
          And your ignorance of all the 9/11 whistleblowers that have come forth doesn’t mean they don’t exist:
          A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers
          https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm
          This article just details a partial list of whistleblowers.

    3. A buddy of mine and I once thought through it and concluded you would probably need over 10,000 people to pull off an operation as described by these conspiracy theories. But I’m suposed to believe that the guys who can’t prevent Edward Snowden from telling their secrets to the world kept all these people absolutely silent for a decade and a half. Yeah, OK. Critical thinking at its finest.
      The depressing thing is that stuff like this is what keeps the manosphere from going mainstream. I’ve turned a few people on to this site. But I’m not sending anyone for a while until this ridiculous nonsense is buried under several months of articles. If this had been the first thing I saw the first time I logged in, I never would have come back.

      1. The problem is that denial of the theory reinforces the theory since it means “you’re in on it! Denier!”. It’s the same kind of mindset that we see in “Climate Change” totalitarians. Either agree, or your denial strengthens the claim. It’s lunacy.

        1. It baffles me that this exists in a space that it suposedly dedicated to fighting feminism, which is built on the same nonlogic.

        2. You obviously aren’t stupid. You have had the opportunity to look at the evidence for over a decade. The evidence is cleat that the official story is nonsense, that evidence was planted, that other evidence which should exist doesn’t (e.g. a hijacker’s undamaged passport being found while the flight data recorders weren’t). Within hours Osama was being blamed on every channel. He denied involvement and the supposed confession video was obviously an actor – it was faked. There were specific warnings beforehand, to Israelis, not Saudis. The dancing Israelis were confirmed Mossad. GWB refused to allow an investigation, then tried to get Kissinger to be the head.
          There are hundreds and hundreds of pieces of evidence, hardly any supports the official story. Ask qui bono? Arabs or Afghans? No. Israel, “defense” contractors, and a small clique with tight ties to Israel, like Netanyahu confidante Silverstein, who had the WTC lease for only a few weeks, double-insured.
          9/11 was organized by Israel, their Arab proxies / patsies, and the collaboration of mostly Jewish neocon supporters of Israel that had infiltrated our government.
          Since you aren’t stupid, have access to information, yet post over and over your risible red herrings, how can we conclude anything else but that you are a shill? You spend a huge amount of time posting here, it’s quite reasonable to suspect you of being a pro. Even if not, your support for the official lies has not only trashed your former credibility, anyone here who would trust you in a political group after this is a fool who deserves the knife in the back that you’ll someday deliver.

      2. “A buddy of mine and I once thought through it and concluded you would probably need over 10,000 people to pull off an operation as described by these conspiracy theories.”
        Over 10,000, eh? You are just making this up. You and your imaginary buddy didn’t think through anything. You are either lying are you are an idiot. One of the two.

        1. Wrong. Former officer who has actually planned and executed combat operations. I’l stick to my estimates. Thanks for playing, fucktard.

    4. Conspiracies don’t require too many players acting in coordination. The military does it by compartmentalizing information. People in one unit follow a specific set of orders without knowing what the end goal is. Another unit then follows a specific set of instructions without knowing what another unit did. Really not that hard to imagine.
      How convenient it has been for Western governments that 9/11 happened. If the U.S. Government was not directly involved, which I highly doubt, the mostly Saudi hijackers were used as cat’s paws to facilitate the pretext to the burgeoning tyranny we are witnessing.
      I’m saddened to see so many supposed Red Pill men denying what even engineers said was impossible, the official account of the collapse.

  40. Why not build a scaled model, with the same type of materials and construction principles, and then ignite it with the equivalent amount of jet fuel. If you did the experiment accurately enough, it should answer it once and for all. And of course in building 7 there where no jet fuel involved. And where did all the steel from the buildings go by the way.
    Woulden`t it make sense to keep it around for some time. Many questions here.

      1. The point would not be to recreate the events exactly, but rather to check if a jet fuelled fire could indeed make a scaled model building with the same materials and construction collapse in some way. I’m talking about a large scaled model, something like 1/10th of the real building. I would at least provide some answers. Using models is quite common in engineering/architecture after all.

        1. You would be hard pressed to scale the stresses/strains and get anything in the way of meaningful results. The structural/mechanical properties of the building will not scale. Your best bet if you really wanted results would be to use a computer simulation package like Abaqus or ANSYS. The problem with such computer simulations is they require many assumptions and the results would ultimately reflect your decisions more than reality.

        2. Possibly, but engineers use smaller models to test buildings for other forces yes, like earthquakes, and how strong winds effect skyscrapers! Speaking of high rises, when this building burns much more intensely than building 7, and is not in any way close to collapsing, well…you start to wonder.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN8wUnABlc0

    1. The Roman legions were fast at work excavating just above the magma chamber, weakening it to the point that it caused the mountain to blow. They always hated that Visuvinum wine distributor. Damned Roman legions.

      1. It was all an effort to destroy that library of Epicurean scrolls in one of the resort houses in Pompeii. Fortunately, the scrolls were uncovered and preserved …
        … OR WERE THEY?

        1. Cue Ominous Music! ™
          What’s fun, to me anyway because I’m on my last night of drinking Scotch for the next quarter of a year, is that Visuvinum was an actual wine sold in Pompeii at the time and is the first know marketing campaign in history. Fun fact.

        2. It’s really interesting. One of my hobbies is delving into origins of things, especially language and cultures. Excavated walls in Pompeii show political graffiti that looks little different than modern political bickering as well.

  41. The emotional responses and ad hominem attacks against the author and his article should be compiled and presented as further anecdotal evidence *against* the official story for future 9/11 articles. This will be similar to documenting feminists such as “Red” on YouTube, or documenting obvious shills such as Alex Jones.
    This aspect of the “official narrative” needs to be explored, as this article seems to have brought many people out of the woodwork and invoked an emotional response (or a coordinated effort to “shut it down”).
    These types of rehearsed responses are also indicative when one questions the “Holocaust” official story, although there is more physical evidence *against* the official Holocaust story (post war gas chamber construction/modification by the Soviets at Auschwitz and ridiculously crappy engineering and supposed method of execution).
    The damming evidence against the Holocaust narrative is why it is illegal to question in many countries; it would be too easy to debunk the myths in an *actual* court of law (not a post war show trial). Ernst Zundel has actually had this rare opportunity to testify under oath, and he and others easily debunked many Holocaust myths.
    The official 9/11 story and the official Holocaust narrative just *might* be linked by a common thread. These two events seem to spark the same types of snarky discourse and a complete breakdown of logical and rational discussion.

  42. Occam’s razor. Two nearly fully fueled aircraft crash into buildings at high speed. Which is more likely, that there was a synchronized conspiracy involving hundreds of people operating on all different levels, including the terrorists who took control of the aircraft, demolitions experts planting bombs in the WTC, and all of this had to go off without a hitch (by whom, and to what end?), or that the WTC had a weak structural design and was never meant to take an impact by an airplane and subsequent fires. These conspiracy theorists sound like the people who claim the British attacked Pearl Harbor in planes with Japanese markings to pull the US into WW2. This site is going down hill. First it was the infiltration by Stormfront clowns, now crockpot conspiracy theories. I propose ROTK change its name to Weekly World News.

      1. Read it. But who, why? Who could coordinate all of these different factors? The government? I have a hard time believing that based on their performance in other arenas.

        1. I’m not arguing that 9/11 was an inside job, although I am open to the possibility, and probably err on the side of the idea that the security services, and therefore possibly senior politicians / administrators had advance knowledge of an Al Quaeda attack. Such a possibility – which is tantamount to collusion – would actually eliminate the need for an elaborate conspiracy of the kind you consider improbable although equally it would not allow for the kinds of very specific targeting suggested by some truthers / conspiracy theorists. I don’t think we’re going to find out the truth of the matter though – mostly we’re dealing with faith of some kind in both directions – what matters though is the way the war on terror has been used to justify a disastrous foreign policy which has given almost free rein to the US / western military industrial machine to pursue geo-political strategic interests that arguably reflect special interests rather than US / western interests themselves, while at the same time of course providing a rationale for extending the surveillance / security state and eroding basic freedoms / privacy etc

        2. It would make sense that if there was advance knowledge of an impending threat that the subsequent political fallout would be used to greatest political advantage by the powers that be. I guess the critical question is if this knowledge was specific as to the nature of the threat and its modus operandi, or if it was simply a more general awareness of “watch out for these guys.” Probably somewhere in between. But then again, in the wake of 9/11 we in the public received all kinds of terror alerts, as if the probability of attacks could be calculated like that of forest fires.
          This again begs a Pearl Harbor comparison…volumes have been written about the degree to which FDR and Churchill “knew” about the raid ahead of time, or were simply more aware of Japan as a growing power with whom the Western powers had increasingly antagonistic relationships. In any case, the public reaction was used to propel the US into the middle of the conflict almost overnight, from “sleeping giant’ to fully engaged power.
          I agree that similarly, the most important result has been the resulting war on terror and its cascade of sociopolitical effects from the level of the individual rights to foreign policy. I recall after 9/11 seeing G W Bush stating something to the effect that “The US economy cannot stand an attack by Saddam Hussein right now.” Something definitely didn’t add up then nor does it now in regards to 9/11 having anything at all to do with Iraq, but the momentum caused by the attacks were certainly used in furtherance of preexisting political aims–George W finishing his father’s war.

        3. I’m inclined to believe there was at least some degree of foreknowledge, although in a sense that is harder to argue for from ‘the evidence’ in any specific sense than the more conspiratorial ideas that 9/11 was stage managed like a theatre production – by which I mean only that weighing up the pros and cons of the conspiracy proper involves assessing actual evidence, for instance the feasibility of the towers collapsing. With respect to fore-knowledge of a lesser kind e.g. some kind of intelligence warning – we are even more in the realm of supposition I think even if it seems more likely to me.
          The pear harbour issue as you’re probably aware links into PNAC and specific statements made by various neo-cons – ironically I think it was pentagon comptroller Dov Zackheim who specifically referred to the possibility of a ‘new pearl harbour’ as something that could be quite useful as a springboard to certain types of foreign policy action. Obviously that hasn’t exactly becalmed the conspiracy theory side of things but assuming it is simply evidence of an existing mindset that was alive to the possibility of events that might justify a preferred foreign policy we can still perhaps argue that if the government or groups within the government did in any way want such an event then there is a high likelihood that any inaction they might have been inclined towards amounted to serious collusion even if short of actual conspiracy. All I’m saying here is that even if there was no conspiracy in the truther sense then there may still be potentially serious culpability involved – mitigated only of course by a relative lack of evidence. I have actually heard of some evidence that intelligence was ignored but proving that that was malice of forethought rather than incompetence might be difficult

        4. I think what you are saying raises an important point regarding the point at which foreknowledge becomes complicity which in turns becomes collusion. The degree to which all of this becomes criminal is as you mention hard to pin down as a result of the lack of evidence, which is probably something we will never find out. Having worked in a number of state institutions, I’m aware of the degree to which vital information is often never written down for fear of being tracked or even, attributed.
          I’ve got to run for family matters. But thank you, I have enjoyed our conversation, for it has made me think more deeply about the issues involved. I have often made a wholesale rejection of alternative ideas about 9/11 as a result of finding the large scale conspiracy model unworkable given the fractured politics and ideologies and general inefficiences rampant in the 21st century. I had never really considered the more general issues of the degrees of the depth of foreknowledge and resulting collusion that may have taken place. Of course any culpability would likely be widely scattered in the land of pass-the-buck.

        5. Thanks. I think if you are any kind of professional there’s an expectation that you discharge your duty pro-actively, and with the knowledge and understanding you have available to you. A failure to act on a piece of information, or in this case intelligence could potentially be adjudged criminal even if were simply common negligence / failure of due diligence or some such. Here though we are not alleging simple negligence or incompetence but some kind of foreknowledge of events such as if acted upon could have saved lives, and indeed disastrous foreign adventures which may well have been anticipated even as the putative intelligence was not acted upon. Of course this is mostly supposition, except I would say this kind of calculation increasingly seems to reflect the world we live in. This is how politics is done today, in an age where overt aggression is much harder to justify. Let the opponent demonstrate aggression, or at least incontinence of emotion and then act defensively. Given that this sequence is in every sense anticipated – consciously or otherwise – and I would suggest for the most consciously – then yes it should be considered criminal to the extent that it can be demonstrated. Basically it could be described as giving the enemy or target enough rope to hang himself with, except when there are lives and much more hanging in the balance allowing your enemy that rope in the first place should certainly be seen as a criminal act. Were the intelligence services reviewed on such a basis and that review were not a whitewash perhaps the results would be quite interesting.
          Of course this is all to presume there is nothing in the conspiracy writ large. It seems improbable, but still we do live in a somewhat strange world.

    1. And you’ve essentially fulfilled Godwin’s Law with one post.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
      What normal person says things like “Stormfront clowns” and “crockpot conspiracy theories”? I’ve never heard anybody in *real life/real time* use these phrases. In fact, everyone I’ve discussed this with in person is quite receptive to the possibility of underlying conspiracies/motives.
      It’s only on internet comment boards that question things like 9/11 that people seem to really be drawn out in droves to parrot the same punch lines and empty rhetoric.

      1. Do you know what Occam’s razor is, and when/how it is applied? There’s a reason for Godwin’s law…WW2 was the dominant event of the 20th century.

    2. @disqus_GtBmz9xt7o:disqus

      These conspiracy theorists sound like the people who claim the British attacked Pearl Harbor in planes with Japanese markings to pull the US into WW2.

      What utter nonsense. Not one alternative pearl harbor theory has ever said this.

      1. “Some of the ‘theories’ about the attack rank right up there with Elvis sitings, including one contention that the attack was actually carried out by British aircraft based on one of the outlying islands of the Hawaiian group.” –James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi, “Victory at Sea, World War II in the Pacific.” William Morrow and Company, New York, 1995
        I have made something of a study of Pearl Harbor, and though I cannot find the original citation, the meta-history that Dunnigan and Nofi published in the above book is informative if general. I also recommend Toland’s “Infamy,” and Prange’s “At Dawn We Slept.” I think the original reference is probably in one of those two…just been years since I read them.

    3. While I don’t buy the conspiracy theory either, let’s remember one thing about Occam’s Razor: it is not “you must accept the simplest explanation of two possibilities for an event”, but rather than “causative agents for events must not be multiplied *beyond necessity*” — i.e. that if the simplest event is perhaps more *plausible* but the more complex event is the only one that allows for what is *possible*, then you must accept the more complex event. If there is something in the official 9/11 story that cannot gel with objective physics or reality as we understand it, then the official story has to be wrong and alternate explanations have to be open.
      That said, as the world’s greatest detective once said: once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains — however improbable — must be the explanation. Various truther accounts point to how *unlikely* the collapse was, but that’s not the point: if it’s not impossible, then like it or not its occurrence is a genuine explanation. Unlikelihood of an event does not preclude the event taking place — this is the principle upon which all lotteries rest.

      1. Thanks for the elaboration, Marcus. Too often Occam’s Razor gets distilled down to the fallacy you just mentioned. I have been reading this page for several years (though I’ve been posting for but a short while). But you are one of my favorite commenters here. In my 20’s I went to see my physician, worried that I might have a rare and serious illness. He listened to my symptoms and said, “Don’t worry. When we hear hooves we look for horses, not zebras.” I always thought that was a pretty good practical application of Occam. I liked your Sherlock reference as well.

  43. LOL as if, THE BIGGEST scam america has ever pulled off is:
    ….. Landing On The Moon….[yeah in a Hollywood studio]

        1. I’ve had the disqus account for a while, but I rarely comment. I read here almost every day, and agree with/learn from the vast majority of the articles that appear.
          There have been several articles I don’t necessarily agree with, but that is to be expected and doesn’t bother me.
          I do not agree with this article. It didn’t make me angry, but caused me to question the bona fides of the author.
          Your comment was smug and off-putting. Your arrogance inspired me to respond.
          Carry on.

        2. Derp derp.
          Go ahead and just post derp in the future. It will save you some wear and tear and help you avoid problems later.

        1. He didn’t impose anything but his opinion.
          He didn’t pronounce anything but his opinion.
          He didn’t specify anything but his opinion.
          If he doesn’t have authority, his opinion can’t be authoritatively imposed, pronounced, or specified.
          GTFO with your semantics.

        2. Wrong.
          authoritatively;
          having due authority
          Due;
          owed or owing as a natural or moral right
          according to accepted notions or procedures
          satisfying or capable of satisfying a need, obligation, or duty
          capable of being attributed
          Authority;
          the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
          So, no, he did not have due authority within his opinion. He is not an authoritative figure and therefore can not give an authoritative opinion.

        3. He still pronounced and specified an opinion, and did so authoritatively, by virtue of using an authoritative voice, as in Merriam Webster’s definition: “having the confident quality of someone who is respected or obeyed by other people.” This quality is not necessarily due to station but to tone. If I were to specify, “Zebras are all powerful,” I am making a declaration as if I am an expert on them. This is called an authoritative voice. How come you are arguing semantics, if you don’t want to argue semantics?

        4. An authoritative voice means nothing without authoritative figure, which he doesn’t have. He’s basically screaming in the middle of an empty field, just like I am. Therefore, his voice is not authoritative.
          Not to mention, his internet comment doesn’t contain audible voice. 3 out of the 4 definitions of the word voice are audible sounds. Therefore, his comment was neither “authoritative” nor a “voice”.
          I’ll play semantics all day.

        5. At this point I believe we are at an impasse drawn by varying interpretation. You clearly have yours as I have mine. You don’t happen to be a union steward do you?

        6. My interpretation is based on nothing but the definitions of the words. You know, logic and reason? That’s all.
          I will say that you unfairly targeted the original poster of the comment for no good reason, other than to discredit him, and the red pill community.

        7. How is the red pill community as a whole implicated? My whole point is that he does not speak for the red pill community, but spoke authoritatively as if he were representing it. More like, the community of people who do not believe the official account of 9/11. That is not equal to the red pill community.

        1. You were responding to those on the thread not agreeing with the article’s conclusion. Or were you speaking to the ether, no audience, or those that agree with you? Because if so, that would be pretty strange.

        2. You think it strange to respond to your posts to either the audience at hand, or nobody?

        3. What don’t you understand about how internet message boards work? I don’t need a specified audience or target to express myself online.
          It’s as simple as that.

        4. “If you consider yourself red pill….you don’t agree with my thoughts”
          Classic fallacy. If you wish to post random thoughts to nobody in particular, that’s not my issue. On this topic there are only a few ways of looking at it. The author’s way, the non-conspiracy way, or “other”. You posited “my way or you’re not really red pill” in response to the article.
          Your evasion would only hold true if you posted your comment in a vacuum devoid of context.
          Slainte

        5. It’s clear you don’t understand logical fallacies and that’s fine—-many people don’t.
          Also, it’s very obvious that you’ve never read the opinion section of any American newspaper @ghostofjefferson:disqus

        6. Yes yes, clear. Ok. I see you’ve trolled others below as well.
          Troll acknowledged, attention withdrawn. Enjoy your solitude.

        7. Oh of course @ghostofjefferson:disqus: when I respond to someone’s post it’s trolling but when you do it, it’s not.
          Classical hypocrite.

  44. No, they did not collapse on their own. Two large, hijacked passenger jets were flown into them by Islamic terrorists. Why is this so hard to believe?

    1. they did awfully well considering the training they had……or so I keep hearing. Not an airline pilot myself so can’t judge

    2. it’s because, America is strong, and always strong. if some dudes can damage USA so easily so it means USA is weak, but if 9/11 was an inside job is not weakness it is conspiracy, so USA was not weak from external attack, was weak internally. it is denial, South Park made a parody of it.

  45. This crap has been debunked a thousand damn times. Just stop. And increased government spying afterwards and US sometimes siding with Islamic groups proves bupkis. Governments routinely try to increase power and abilities over their citizens since time immemorial, and US and UK sided with the Soviets in WW2 then spend decades in a cold war against them.
    We should be thanking God the towers didn’t fall sideways killing even more people instead of once again trying to absolve rampaging Islamic nutters from the death, destruction, and chaos they are so fond of creating.

  46. for fucks sake.
    the steel doesn’t have to melt for it to collapse, it simply has to BEND a little would cause structural failure.

    1. Oh, so bent steal beams would cause a skyscraper to collapse at freefall speed as opposed to tipping over or partially collapsing? Riiiiiiiight.

        1. Er, um, yeah. 9.8 m/s2 (32 ft/s2) is the standard rate of falling on planet Earth, until you reach terminal velocity.

        2. Bent weakened steel won’t collapse an entire fucking skyscraper into it’s own footprint.
          You’re fucking nuts.
          Had the steel beams been weakened at the foundation, then MAYBE, but NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING BUILDING.

        3. I really don’t fucking care, mate. This conspiracy stuff is meant to keep you wasting energy instead of fighting the very real and visible powers actually stealing your life and liberty, that smile in your face. Embrace it if you will, but it’s a fool’s errand.

  47. I’m so glad to see this here.
    High five to the author.
    High five to the RoK staff.
    High five to the readers.
    And high five to all you guys arguing over it.

    1. No. But the site does allow for the expression of a wider range of ideas than the equivalent leftie echo chamber. If you don’t agree with the article, don’t read it and don’t comment on it.

  48. In addition to my earlier comment pointing out that the federal government is neither efficient enough nor effective enough to pull this off, I think alternative theories (I’ll leave out the c-word) speak to a simple human desire for large-scale organization over random, small-scale cause and effect.
    In other words, people aren’t comfortable believing that a handful of poor men from the armpit of the world sneaked into the U.S., posed as normal citizens, and one day carried out a simple plan to hijack and crash planes into buildings. People don’t want to accept the randomness and senselessness and simplicity of it.
    Large-scale theories comfort people (in a way) because we want to believe that something like 9/11 could only be carried out by enormous, wealthy, powerful agencies. And thus people ignore the empirical evidence and the simplest explanation.
    Maybe a group of individuals did carry out controlled demolition. The explosives had to come from somewhere. The people had to have worked for someone. The setup had to have occurred. Everyone had to have kept quiet about it, and no one could have noticed for it to all go off without a hitch. That’s just at the enforcer level; forget about the cognoscenti. And the hijackings had to have occurred as a cover (why bother??) and as part of this immense operation. There had to have been coordination between the US gov’t and Al Qaeda with no one on either side finding out that didn’t need to know. The government also had to have run the numbers and rationalized that blowing up the center of the financial world and plunging the US into shaky economic waters was worth two wars (supposedly so we could get our hands on more oil).
    IF the US government could do all of that, then I’d very impressed. In fact that’s great news – closing the borders, enacting universal health care, balancing the budget, and delivering the mail should be no problem at all for a government that can orchestrate 9/11!

    1. Exactly.
      The “conspiracy theory” requires so many assumptions that there needs to be an avalanche of evidence to make it work, to answer all of those assumptions. Hence, Occam’s and Hanlon’s razor.
      People try to use these theories to paint the government as evil, but the “standard” explanation already does that. We know that there were numerous warnings that went totally unheeded, that Bin Laden could have been killed numerous times if the government hadn’t farted around, and that this was blowback from the very terrorists the CIA trained in the 80’s to fight the Soviets.
      Do you really need any more?

    2. Pro comment. That you have Abe Vigoda as your avatar is just icing on the cake. Well said, sir.

    3. Best reply and comment to this thread so far. Yes there are things that don’t match up and we should not overlook them but it simply is a feat too complicated and risky to pull off for a government as stupid as the U.S.

    4. The government is extremely fucking capable. It can orchestrate and win wars on multiple continents simultaneously, it can create nuclear and hydrogen bombs, it can send men to the moon. Who are you to say it is impossible?
      Explain how novice C+ near illiterate pilots could crash passenger planes into the WTC and WTC 7 towers?
      Explain how the buildings fell in free fall speed
      Explain why there is no plane debris at Flight 93’s crash site.
      Explain why a British Army officer, several weeks after the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, flat out stated THAT AL QAEDA DOESN’T FUCKING EXIST.
      Where is your goddamn Occam’s razor then?

  49. There’s an old saying that if you only tell one man your secret, it will generally be safe, but if you tell three, a thousand will know. I understand there are some things that don’t make sense about that day, but I just find it hard to believe that a conspiracy so big could be kept under wraps for so many years, without one single guy leaking incriminating evidence to the public.
    Instead, I simply ask myself what use the asshole elites made of this crime. They’ve used it to take away our freedom without making us any safer; in fact our future is even less secure now than it was before. That alone is more damning than any conspiracy theory, true or not.

  50. Are we looking for clicks here? Because there are much more inflammatory things that could be said about social justice than conspiracy theories