9/11: All conspiracy theories about 9/11 are painfully false.

Sadly I could not address every point con makes as I only have 10000 characters. I'll try next round though. Links at bottom. Con states that the towers were brought down "in the same style as a controlled demolition". While at quick glance this might seem true, if you ever look at footage of a known CD, you will see some major differences between the two. A real CD rigs the buildings main structural supports, and then sets them off in a pattern to make the building fall nice and clean straight down into itself. Real CD's begin with a very loud succession of explosive bangs that can be heard at great distances. They also start from the bottom of the structure. Link (1) is a known controlled demolition of a roughly 50 story building. Link (2) is video of the collapse of the South Tower. There are some major differences. One of the biggest differences between the two is the starting point. The controlled demolition begins at the bottom of the structure while the Twin Towers coincidentally start from the point of impact by the airplanes. Con states that the towers "imploded", but if you look at the footage, you can clearly see the towers did not come down in upon itself. Debris was tossed far outside of the perimeter of the building creating a giant mess, unlike the video of the known controlled demolition where the entire building falls nice and neat down into itself. In link (3), you can literally see the building twist, buckle and collapse. And the other glaring difference is the absence of any explosive noises coming from the towers. There were many people in the area of the towers that day, and many that were well within range of being able to hear if anything was going off, yet no one heard and no video camera picked up anything that even remotely sounds like a real CD. There were 16 people that survived inside the North Tower's B stairwell, and while they report being able to hear the floors hitting each other, they did not report any pattered explosive sounds. Con states that the Towers fell at free fall speed. This is also not true. They did fall fast, but not at free fall. Evidence of this can be seen in link (4). What we see in link (4) is debris falling faster than where the building is during the collapse. This debris was loose debris that came off of the top of the towers, debris that was no longer attached to anything thus it was falling at free fall speed. But the towers are lagging behind the debris. How could the towers be falling at free fall speed but be so far behind the loose debris? Was the loose debris falling faster than free fall speed some how? If the towers were falling at free fall, they would be neck and neck with the debris, but it wasn't. Con states "this means all floors of all 3 buildings had to have been weakened." I think what con is saying is the only way the upper part of the building could collapse the lower part of the building all the way to the ground is if the floors were weakened. While con did not say this, I have heard many in that movement ask the similar question of "how can the top 1/5 of the building crush the bottom 4/5 of it?" I think that relates. Well the answer is simple, that top 1/5 did not need to crush that bottom 4/5 in the same instant, it only had to crush one floor at a time. Floors 92-110 crushed floor 91, now we have floors 91-110 crushing 90, now we have 90-110 crushing 89, and so on. This sequence did occur quickly, around 10 seconds or so, but it wasn't like when me or you jump on top of an empty soda can. Con states "When asked about a picture taken of one of the planes, Boeing said that the second plane to hit did not fit the design of any of their planes. Many witnesses said it looked like a military plane, having no windows on it." There were thousands of witnesses for when the second plane hit, and I don't know how well a witness down on the street, with the sun, is going to be able to see the planes windows. This plane was going about 550 mph after all. One person who got a extraordinary view of that second plane was a man named Stanley Praimnath. He worked on the 81st floor of the south tower. Stanley was at his desk when he noticed a plane coming his way from the Statue of Liberty. The plane went on to strike very close to Stanley, but he lived, and he reported afterwards seeing the United logo on the plane as it hit. And lets also ask that even if this was some grand conspiracy, would they be stupid enough to use the wrong plane in full view of the entire world? As for the Boeing comment, I'm not sure what to make of that. I have never heard that before. I would have to ask for a source on that because Boeing makes quite a few planes. Con states "Smoke means that the fire is weak. A strong fire would have had a lot of visible flame and sparks and little smoke." This is also not true. Lets take a look at link (5). Link (5) is a fire at a skyscraper in Turkey. As you can see there is plenty of both fire and smoke. Does it look like the fire is weak? We also had dozens of people that were in the area of the fire, both above impact and below, that reported seeing a lot of fire. And I am not sure how people outside of the towers would be able to see a lot of the fire that was inside the building. There is however video footage that is zoomed in showing entire floors engulfed in flames. Con states "If you take the burning temperature of jet fuel, and take the temperature that steel starts to get fatigued, you will see how it is unlikely that the buildings fell do to fatigue, as the fatigue in metal doesn't start until way after the burning point of jet fuel". The buildings fell as a result of both the fire and the plane hit, which severed several columns. Structural steel begins to soften around 450C and loses half its strength at 650C. The WTC fires were thought to top out at about 1000C. As for WTC 7, con states that Larry Silverstein, the person that owns the lease to the WTC, said to a fire chief to "pull it", a phrased used in the demolition industry. But if you listen to the quote, what he actually said was "and they made the decision to pull it". He was referring to the emergency workers, and that it was there decision, as it is in these types of situations. It is not up to Silverstein to direct emergency workers during circumstances such as this. And this is also a quote made over a year later that was taken out of context. Silverstein saying "pull it" is not proof of a controlled demolition. Con states that you can either hear or see explosives going off in the video of the collapse, yet none of the hundreds of emergency workers who were actually there reported anything. WTC 7 has been explained many times. One of its vertical columns lost horizontal support causing it to buckle, taking the building with it. Most of the footage people see is of the north face, where not much is visible, but again, workers who were actually there and could see the south face reported heavy fire on some of the lower floors. They also reported hearing the building creaking and groaning, in fact they were so worried of this building collapsing, they evacuated the site several times that day. The steel in WTC 7 had a fire rating of 2 hours, yet was allowed to burn for 6 or 7. And the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged the water main, making it so firefighters didn't have a water to fight the fire with. And by the time they did get water (from a pump boat in the river) it was to dangerous to fight. Con states that "at the Pentagon, some parts of the plane should have been visible, but they were not". This is also not true. A simple Google search brings up several photos of plane debris in the yard of the Pentagon. But lets not forget, the plane crashed into the building, so a lot of the debris would have been inside the building. And the part of the building where most of the debris would have been collapsed. And it would have been difficult to distinguish parts of the plane when it was among so much rubble from the building. But unless you were allowed inside of the building, you would not get a chance to see a lot of the debris. And lets not forget that a lot of the plane was aluminum, which could have easily melted in the temperatures produced in the fires. And lets also not forget that 130+ people witnesses the plane come down and crash into the building. This is a very busy area, there is a busy highway that runs along that side of the Pentagon, there is no way there wasn't anyone around to see what happened. And you can also argue that even if this was the work of the US government, why wouldn't they just use a plane. As for the size of the hole at the Pentagon, let us remember that this was a concrete building that had 1.5 inch rebar rods strengthening its frame. And we had a mostly aluminum plane crashing into it. It is hard to imagine the end parts of the wings being able to penetrate that type of material. Plus, there was a plane that crashed into the Empire State Building decades ago. The hole that was produced was far smaller than the wingspan. As for the paper and books, look at photos of the building that was attacked in Oklahoma City, you will also notice similar scenes. It is just random, some things get it, some things don't. An explosion does not mean automatic obliteration of everything it touches. As for the lack of release of better video of what happened, you have to ask yourself why would they release it? The government isn't in business to satisfy conspiracy theorists. Plus this is a video of people dying, these people had families, I wouldn't want it out either. But the 130+ witnesses and the photos of debris are more than enough to show this was a plane. (1) #t=11 (2) #t=87 (3) #t=385 (4) #t=435 (5)