No, I am not referring to that incident and nor did the WTC's 'just disintegrate'. In addition, the building struck by EA1862 was in no way of similar construction, so this is a red herring. AE911T garbage doesn't wash with me as I know the subject and can spot all their silly rhetoric.




Sorry, most truther videos on Boobtoob are partisan garbage (actually, most stuff on boobtoob is for idiots). Your personal incredulity is built upon a lack of understanding of the physics which explain the forces at play. Just read the link I posted for you. Otherwise, you are just wasting my time with truther nonsense.

Again, that is not completely accurate. One can clearly see the inward bow of the outer shell of WTC1 & 2 when one examines the pictures. At the impact point, the floors sagged and pulled the outer supports inwards until failure point of the truss joints had reached. I've already explained the collapse mechanism of WTC 7 and it's not difficult to understand if one examines the evidence.

So, as I expected, when you don't have a valid answer you always resort to this stultifying tactic in order to justify your opinion. I was waiting for it. Whether American or Australian, it's immaterial, and to make the distinction is a rather dishonest exit strategy for you. Don't you think surveillance increased here after the Bali Bombings? Don't you think it increased in Britain after the London Bombings? In Spain after Madrid? They are all connected to 9/11, and this is a global problem which has little to do with being a US citizen, and it is certainly not confined to the US.

Australians and citizens from other nations are dying in Afghanistan and ASIO are monitoring our communications just as the NSA are monitoring yours, so don't give me that jingoistic garbage.

Anyway, I'm not really all that interested in your opinion, as I've heard the same things over and over again, but that of those who haven't fallen fully for the truther BS.

So, it's all right to quote minutiae when it suits you, but it suddenly becomes irrelevant when debunked.

You can dismiss everything that is inconvenient to your story with a handwave, but it doesn't change the fact that truthers have been clogging up message boards with garbage for 12 years and yet nothing has come of their stories. No prima facie case, no evidence, just hysteria and silly tales.

I think a better question is, "What are YOU afraid of?"

Not true, there have been partial collapses previously, (one in the Netherlands IIRC) but the factor you have overlooked is that the fires you googled were fought. WTC7 wasn't for 7 hours. Is this a feature of the others you looked at? No. Moreover, have any other skyscraper fires occurred in buildings with a similar design using similar materials? No. Please don't fall for the logic fail so many truthers succumb to, that is, "this has never happened before so it must be a CD". That is just poor logic and reasoning as many things happened for the first time on that day and they aren't given any significance.



The interior collapsed before the outside shell. This was due to the failure of column 79(?) under the Penthouse and you can see this in the video. The collapse of the interior started under the penthouse on one side and then progressed toward the other with the outside shell following suit soon after. Earlier when someone quoted 6 seconds for the collapse they failed to realise that this merely applied to the exterior and the actual collapse began 8 seconds prior.

I suggest you follow the link I posted for you and then you will have a better understanding of the collapse. There is a mountain of work on the subject and you can read more of the scientific details at JREF.

If you genuinely seek to understand the subject, I am willing to provide you with the information. However, if you are just another truther troll....

Sorry, but this is just silliness. 'Sheeple' is just another dumb internet ad hominem directed at those who don't agree with the claimant. It's rather puerile to say the least, and I don't ascribe or subscribe to such games.

LOL What a crock!

True. This has been circulating for a while now, and not much, if any, can be attributed directly to Obama's tenure in office. It's convenient for right-wing propaganda that Obama gained office just after the GFC hit.

The initial reason was Alexis I of The Roman Empire (Byzantium) appealed to the west for military aid in his campaign against the Islamic Invasion of the Roman provinces in Anatolia and Palestine. All the other reasons are merely the propaganda of the day employed to incite the nobility to raise armies to join the fight against Islam. Peter the Hermit was instrumental in spreading this message throughout western Europe.

Turkey. I would love to see Constantinople (I will NEVER call it Istanbul).

What Holy Wars? Do you mean the wars to stop Islamic incursions into the Roman Empire and Europe that are now known as the Crusades?

Spin on MacDuff! You seem to forget how many weapons are manufactured in China and Russia. How popular are the AK-47 and the SKS among insurgents and terrorists? Hmmm?

Great answer.

And that folks, is about the current level of debate one can expect from 9/11 truth.

Personal prejudice and hatred blinds their reason. They use lines like "how could 19 ragheads living in caves commit such an atrocity". Not only is it racist garbage, as they didn't live in caves and the organisation is well funded, but many of the hijackers had degrees in various fields.

The underlying tone throughout all the truther madness is hatred of the American government, be it republican or democrat, their belief system doesn't make a distinction. They will swallow the propaganda of your enemies (RT & PressTV) before they believe anything produced by your government. Even if they got their new investigation into 9/11, they wouldn't believe the results, except in the unlikely event that it supported their James Bond stories, so what would be the point?

Go to this site and look into it, don't just swallow the truther nonsense, and please read it. Few truthers ever bother to actually study the evidence.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

They use WTC7 as 'proof' of a CD as no plane struck the building. Of course, there is no other proof to support this silly idea.

Ok, this old line. I put it to you, has there ever been a case where a building was struck by the debris of a larger building and where fires raged unfought for seven hours?

Think about it.

This is it. 9/11 truth cherry picks evidence that supports their stupid stories and ignores the wealth that disproves their garbage. Mix it in with ample doses of personal incredulity and ad homs and you have the limit of their intellectual capabilities.