>> ^bmacs27:

@Duckman33 There is no such thing of odds when discussing single-case events.
Also, what is fishy about classifying footage of our national security epicenter being successfully attacked?
"I'm asking questions." -Eric Cartman


Ok... so there's absolutely no possible way on earth to figure out the probability of that occurring then? Sorry, not a math wiz myself. Or even a novice for that matter.

What's so classified about a well known and documented event? Are you seriously trying to say the footage of the "jet" smashing into the Pentagon should be classified? What possible "National Security" secrets could it reveal that needs to be hidden from the general public?

Agreed. 150%

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yes, you could post those links. I might actually pay attention to the content, unlike you. You'd apparently prefer to believe what you want in a vacuum of contrary thinking. Which is fine, it's your right, but don't expect people's opinions of you to improve.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/FOIA-Lawsuits-Cause-Release-of-New-WTC7-Collapse-Video?loadcomm=1#comment-1166922'>^Duckman33</a>:<br />
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny. <br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager</a> I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.<br></em>


No I don't prefer to think what I want. I prefer to think about what I have already read and watched on the subject. And I have read and watched a lot on both sides. For some reason you all assume I haven't because I still ask questions. I guess asking questions is not allowed.... Sorry, from now on I'll be a good little robot and keep my mouth shut.

There are many expert opinions on both sides of this subject. Everything from architects and engineers to firefighters. Who's to say which side's opinions are right and which are wrong? Why do you and the others here assume the links you provide to me are the end all truth of the discussion because it follows your line of thinking? Or that I haven't already read them? Much like when I watch the news on TV, or read news articles on the internet, I don't assume the information I read or watch is 100% accurate or correct. But I do give info on both sides my consideration.

Since you mentioned it, here's a link for you read away.

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

See, the problem is, this subject isn't cut and dry by any means. There's alot more to this than just WTC 1, 2 and 7. But that's what all "debunkers" always seem to focus on. And that's what you guys think I/we only focus on, because I/we make comments about them on these sifts. However, there's a lot to the official story that doesn't add up. One thing I can think of off hand is the fact that the Government still refuses to release surveillance footage of the Pentagon "attack". That is suspect, and only serves to raise questions. There was a lawsuit placed just to get what little footage has been released so far. The question has already been asked once. Why does it take a lawsuit to get this footage released if there's nothing to hide? The fact that all the material from the WTC site was rushed off to China to be recycled before anyone could analyze it is suspect as well, and only serves to raise questions. I'm sorry if it's so hard for you to accept we are being lied to, or at least not being told the entire story. However, as other have mentioned. The sad reality is it's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. Sadam having Weapons of Mass Destruction comes to mind....

What was to gain from this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/transactions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

Kill a bunch of people?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/index.html

These links aren't meant to be taken as gospel truth, rather something to think about.

The other two questions are harder to answer. Hence why the whole controlled demolition theory is a hard sell. That doesn't mean people shouldn't still ask questions. In all reality the bottom line is, until someone can build an exact duplicate of WTC 1 & 2, and can then smash jets into them, people can theorize all they want but we will never really know for sure why the buildings collapsed. Good thing for us that isn't the only thing fishy about this.

BTW, I could care less about your or anyone else's opinion of me. I don't know you, or anyone else on this site personally and even if I did, I still wouldn't give two shits what you think. This isn't High School, nor is it a popularity contest. My friends all think I'm nuts, so what? That doesn't change who I am as a person. They understand this and are still my friends. At least they listen to me with an open mind. I got over worrying about what other people think about me when I was 16. Perhaps you should do the same.

[Edit] P.S. No-one has yet to provide the odds of this happening, despite the evidence already produced. Which was my original question.

FOIA=Freedom Of Information Act
>> ^joedirt:

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

Yes, you could post those links. I might actually pay attention to the content, unlike you. You'd apparently prefer to believe what you want in a vacuum of contrary thinking. Which is fine, it's your right, but don't expect people's opinions of you to improve.

>> ^Duckman33:

What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


1.what is to gain from it?
this is the question that really stood out to me.
my friend.look up "false flag operations".
read bryzenski's "the grand chessboard" or chalmers johnson "blowback" and naomi klein's "shock doctrine" for more insight in to what might be gained from any fear-inducing crisis situation.
why?
because governments lie...thats why.
this is not my opinion but historical pattern.

as for the rest of your inquiry,i tend to agree with you and is one of the reasons i am not a "truther" but to suggest that somehow asking questions of a seriously flawed "conspiracy theory" put forth by the american government somehow makes people "dumb-fucks",is dis-ingenuine at best.because just as many 9/11 truther theories fail under scrutiny,so does the version put forth by our government.

so lets keep asking those questions and understand that the government is not our buddy,our pal or our friend and governments lie.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


lol although there are defintly mental conspircy things holographic planes and totaly weard shit there are a whole bunch of things that everyone would want and agree with , it seems the ultra conservatives and people who made money out of 911 benofit the most out of verbaly atacking truthers.

evan if a % of truthers come out with stupid shit i think the vast majority of people actually have legitimate questions which Evan outside of 911 would serve well to be anserd/investigated.

The 911 official report has sections missing and dosent realy shine a light on blatant governmental faileors.

the other weird stuff like how american government wont admit they shot the other plane down ,I guess if they admited to that it puts more questions on there reluctance inactivity to shoot down th eplanes that hit WTC and pentagon.

What i really dont understand is the truthers that make shit up or focus on details that could never be proven disproven and dont realy serve any benofit to know the ansers to.

In the end ultimetly bush administration/ whoever funds them and who ever owns us government right now will pritty much do whatever the fuck they want it seems that some "truthers" think some how knowing the full story behind 911 will fix politics result in those responsible going to jail in the end evan if a photograph was found with bush presing a button that said blow up wtc nothing would happen.

there are loads of strange things with the London bombings as well , but if annything what the terrorist atacks go to show is that we cannot realy do annything to stop them , and its actualy a realy low risk to be killed in one , if for example 4k people died every year from terrorism that still way way way less people that get run over by cars. If you spent evan a fraction of the war money used to fight terrorisum on car safty then u wud save more people do more good in the world , i mean evan put that money into clean water forest restoration, redusing malaria . thats whats obsurd about the situation

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


I enjoy the dissenting viewpoints for 9/11. Most of them are probably wild accusations, but that doesn't make the official 9/11 commission's report the open-and-shut gospel. What I find interesting is the amount of varying opinions from that day, and I think that deserves our attention. I'm not sure I buy the official story, but that doesn't mean I believe Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11.

It's not like government hasn't ever lied to us. Gulf of Tonkin incident took the US into Vietnam, remember?

1. War? Which means profits. Investing in improbable insurance to cover the buildings? I simply do not know, but smarter men than me probably could come up with some reasons.
2. Some physicists claim the explosions are visible during the collapse, as concrete is blown outwardly and reduced to dust.
3. Exactly the kind of question that should be asked. I did watch some people interviewed who work in the building say the security was on hiatus for that month while a construction crew moved in a week or so before the incident.
4. Meh. Not sure even if this was an "inside job" if they'd want that to happen.

I find the whole debate fascinating!

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

>> ^Duckman33:

I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

So you're claiming a monopoly on reasonable explanations? If the explanations would stand to reason, then why does it take FOIA lawsuits to obtain video? Why is any information about the building collapses withheld at all? I'm not a supporter of many alternative theories, but I know that the first version of history never survives.
>> ^MaxWilder:

It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

I can't believe there are still people bringing this crap up.

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.
2. The towers were all designed to collapse downward in case of catastrophic failure. That is a design priority for skyscrapers, and has been for decades.
3. WTC7 was seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, which also started fires across a number of floors. The damage to the water system caused by the collapse of the larger towers allowed the fires to burn out of control for almost seven hours.

The structural damage to WTC7 plus the uncontrolled fires caused a progressive collapse. That means that several internal collapses occurred before there simply wasn't enough structure left to hold up the building. You can see the penultimate collapse right there in the videos, when one of the penthouse structures goes down into the building. It is likely that several internal collapses happened before we see that.

I'm not saying people should forget about what happened. I'm not even saying we should stop trying to figure out exactly what happened. It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

Two of the tallest structures ever built by man collapsed amidst dozens of other massive structures. It's amazing they didn't take more with them.

>> ^Mandtis:

>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

Third steel structure to collapse from fire? And I thought the other two collapsed due to a plane crashing on them...


Yes, the official story is that the fire from the jet fuel caused the steel girders to soften, which in turn caused the buildings to collapse. [Edit] If I remember correctly, the designer of the WTC buildings is on record stating the buildings were designed to take not one, but two impacts from similar sized jets carrying virtually the same amount of jet fuel as the jets that hit the WTC 1 & 2 without causing the buildings to collapse.

>> ^Duckman33:

I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?


Third steel structure to collapse from fire? And I thought the other two collapsed due to a plane crashing on them...