1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Like I said, I already posted footage from the get go of tower 7 damage from falling debris. If you want to ignore this after your retarded point of pointing to the opposite side of the building was called out then that’s your choice. Either way you’re a perfect example of the emotional confirmation biased “truther” who won’t let something like reality get in the way of your conspiracy theory.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, yes I did. It’s in the video I posted in the OP. You refusing to watch it because your retarded point got called out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Funny how “truthers” have to deliberately ignore evidence, wouldn’t want that conflicting with your confirmation bias!

0
Cyber1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes, the truth remains the same every time.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

If that’s not your argument then who do you think did it? And it isn’t a text book example, you have literally zero evidence for this. The engineering/physics point is on my side. All you have is some CNN reporter saying “it’s going to blow up” lol.

Seriously, where’s your evidence for any of your claims?

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Semantics, point is you posted a photo of the opposite side. I already posted evidence in the OP, the video contains footage of where tower 7 was hit.

You should try at least knowing what my argument is before posting and embarrassing yourself.

0
Cyber1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

Complete projections, “truthers” are the ones with a horrible confirmation bias. Someone saying that doesn’t at all prove that it was a controlled demo by Mossad or the CIA, I want you to try and make that argument.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey, notice how the smoke is coming from the opposite side? Like I said, the video shows the footage of where the tower 7 was hit by debris. Pathetic attempt dude.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

You arent presenting evidence though, your bringing up complete nothing burgers and vaguely implying its evidence of some vast conspiracy. Get real, someone saying "its going to blow up" from CNN is not even close to being evidence for this.

NIST does explain in great detail the engineering behind the collapse. The whole "truther" argument for tower 7 hinges on the lie that the tower collapsed for no reason when it was completely unharmed, but the easy to find reality is that it suffered horrible structural damage from falling debris from the twin towers and a fire that raged inside of it for 7 hours. Can you at least acknowledge that?

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

How does him saying "its about to blow up" at all in anyway prove that it was a controlled demolition conducted by Mossad/CIA ect?

basic laws of physics

The NIST report and all evidence concerning that are on my side though, not yours.

0
Cyber1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

Considering his video is just repeating the points made in the NIST report, yes. The video, which does include footage that proves that "truthers" have lied about how tower 7 collapsed, it much more credible than the nonsense I see "truthers" post as evidence.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

The link to the youtube video I posted contains it. My post is a recap of the points made in that video. Again, eye witness testimony is already trash evidence, but 18 years after the fact is laughable.

-2
Cyber1776 -2 points ago +1 / -3

18 years after eye witness testimony of a reporter with no engineering knowledge whatsoever

This is already trash evidence.

-1
Cyber1776 -1 points ago +1 / -2

I found this clip of Ron, nowhere does he say anything about the towers being deliberately, nor does he mention tower 7 at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2c4DRR_150

0
Cyber1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

from Engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

From structural engineer Ramon Gilsanz https://web.archive.org/web/20090419050714/http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Actual engineering experts agree with the NIST reports, its only confirmation biased "truthers" who try to nitpick it. Also, eye witness testimony is less than worthless and Ron Insana never testified to anything as far as I know, either way this wouldnt at all be evidence.

0
Cyber1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

The 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 Al-Qaeda Operatives on the orders of Osama bin Laden. The attack was planned out by Khalied Sheik Muhammed who was behind the 1993 world trade center bombing.

-1
Cyber1776 -1 points ago +1 / -2

So this art team did this and from this, "truthers" just make the giant leap that all the boxes had explosives secretly in them? This is just making up head canon.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

How is that absurd? What do you make of Muhammed Atta attending flight school, earning a pilots license from the FAA, going to the Miami airport and training on simulators of the exact planes that crashed into the towers, and boarding Flight 11 AND being on airport security camera footage boarding the plane? Its funny how convenient this "wow sounds suspecious" shit is for "truthers"

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Intense enough for you to completely abandon your original point lol. Like I said, "truthers" are animated by emotions and outrage, not by common sense or logical analysis of the evidence.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just going to ignore the fact that you did the classic "truther" thing of completely ignoring the intense structural damage to the buildings and that pretending it was just a fire didnt work?

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

No dude, like I said when has a building had a fucking boeing jet smash into it at full speed and then have huge chunks of it smash into a smaller tower near it?

You fucks always do this shit, ask "w-why didnt this building fire cause it to collapse?" while you completely ignore the massive structural damage. It very obviously wasnt just a fire. Is this your "common sense" in action?

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Another building? When has this ever happened before? When has a Boeing jet smashed into a tower at full speed and then debris from that tower fell through a near by smaller building causing massive structural damage and a fire that raged for 7 hours? It wasnt minimal at all.

"truthers" arent motivated by sense, but by emotions and mysticism.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

The official narrative is pretty straight forward, you have to use reverse Occom's razor in order to believe in the incoherent, convoluted, and outright mystical shit you "truthers" believe. Its pure emotional outrage for you guys and not at all based on reality.

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is a report from 3 dudes who are affiliated with a conspiracy theory "truther" movement. No actual engineer disagrees with the NIST report or found serious issues with their findings. Again, trying to appeal to authority on this is a losing play for "truthers"

1
Cyber1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" lol conspiracy tard garbage organization. Stop trying to make an appeal to authority when you clearly will lose on that point.

2
Cyber1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

Heres some responses from actual engineers to the NIST report as well to rub your nose in it even more.

from Engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

From structural engineer Ramon Gilsanz https://web.archive.org/web/20090419050714/http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›