They are not brain dead, some people feel happy believing in that "side", their bubble stays intact, they are questioning something from opposite side (side that makes them happier) to feel better and right, some truth can change their reality and burst their illusion, so they just find confirmation that everything is all right and they are not doing anything wrong, same with questioning their actions, they would actually find some cult, movement and lifestyle that can justify everything they do, than sit and face their problems and why they feel so depressed and lifeless despite of everything, it's easier to create illusion and feed it/defend it, than face the problems, reality and truth *yes*

 

Hmmm yeah true, but when i'm pissed off...they're brainwashed sheep '0)

 

I only suggest those who live in the US to take a trip abroad and see if the rest of the world thay consider so inferior believes in the official version of 9/11

 

That's actually great advice, not just concerning this matter, but in general, there is more to it than you think you know, what is shown and presented to you, for example you would be amazed how Europe is "normal" actually (opposed to "weird European thing"), how different every country is and how they deal with everyday life, on other hand visiting some country from my first page picture (countries that have US as nemesis) could help you even more, go in country you think is your enemy and try to see yourself from there, life changing for sure *yes*

 

cheers!

Not necessarily. However, you seem to very much believe that they did NOT. Although you will happily cherry-pick what they do say, for anything that does support your view. And you reject the rest - especially the stuff that does not support your view.

Of course, any Government agency (ANY AGENCY) deserves appropriate levels of suspicion. But, NIST employees have bona-fides......science and engineering degrees par excellence. No? Their reports and conclusions are published and open to challenge. They also make recommendations for the Building Code. So, here we have two major bulwarks ensuring "professional and scientific competence". Sure, Academia isn't perfect either......but the more you undermine these things as part of your faith in a wider conspiracy and corruption, then the wider The Conspiracy goes (vastly so) and the more you undermine the Institutions upon which you rest your own "experts'" bona fides.

The "science" and "engineering" of NIST is bent - to fit the narrative needs of The Conspiracy? No - sorry - I can't imagine that being possible, when NIST is open to such professional scrutiny and is accountable for the Building Code.

Rather NIST made an accurate report.......and that the old Building Code was inadequate. Moreover, apparently Port Authority Buildings did not have to submit to the same building codes as other buildings in Manhattan. The PA owned the construction of WTC.

My worrying conclusion is that there are many buildings in America and around the world that are far more vulnerable than we have been led to believe. They updated the building code - that seems to acknowledge it. Though they don't like to look at it like that, of course.

So...there are issues. That the Building Code was insufficient. That PA managed to avoid the Building Code. That the Fire Chief of New York warned at his retirement that new, lightframe, steel-frame buildings were putting New Yorkers and his firemen at huge risk. He warned of a coming disaster.

For me, that's scandal enough. But it's been obscured entirely - including by all this stuff about bombs, demolition, conspiracy etc.

911 Truth can be seen as functioning to DIVERT attention from areas deserving of attention. Such as the Building Code.......such as EXPLICIT FOREWARNINGS. Negligence - not conspiracy.

Yes, but by the same token they are setting the Building Code......so if they make it junk (so as to support The Conspiracy) and buildings fall down.......they will be sued. Businesses don't like buildings collapsing, normally. Right?

That's one way of putting it!

Another is to say that provisionally NIST suggested a "pancake theory" but they later discarded that explanation in favour of ...."progressive collapse" (IIRC). To suggest they changed their view during the investigation because of !independent researchers" or whatever is baloney. Their investigation led them to change their view - and the difference between "pancake" and "prgressive collapse" is just a technical one. They change dtheir view....based on the evidence. That's what one is supposed to do. There's no reason to attribute responsibility for the change down to "independent researchers" aka "nutter professors". ;)

Well, I didn't say that. ;)

I don't see anything especially odd about the collapses. They occur exactly as I would now expect - both Towers collapse begins at the point pf plane impact and fires - and once the top portion is moving, it's only heading one way.

Most simply - lie on the floor and balance a brick on your head. Easy. Now try dropping the brick from 8 ft? Not so good, right?

Your skull can easily withstand one brick. Maybe 4,5,6? But it won't take a single one dropped from.....3 feet?

One of the main guys that built it said he knew it would collapse as soon as he saw the pictures. He was trying to get in touch with police etc to warn them.

I can't see why there is such resistance to a regular explanation.

You know steel burns? [In fact, rust is burning - oxidisation. Large piles of rusty steel get hot - and can self-ignite. Especially if they insulated - like being buried undrground. And especially if they have an oxygen supply - from below. This was the situation at Ground Zero.

I have NEVER seen any direct evidence of this "molten steel" - though it's invariably mentioned. Yes, there were heat-maps taken for Ground Zero - but they do nothing except say it was very hot. No surprise - Ground Zero was a big pit of fire, covered over with millions of tons of junk. And, aside from a few vague quotes, there is NOTHING by way of evidence to support this belief in "molten steel".

How do you know it was steel? Aluminium melts much lower temps - and WTC was loaded with aluminium. And anyway - why wouldn't Ground Zero be very hot? There were probably a million different fires at times.

Why is it so unreasonable to just accept that? Why posit all these other things when there's no direct evidence for them?

Errr - there's few people directly making more money out of it than your "independent scientists" and "researchers". They have a personal financial interest in keeping it going.

Your "independent researchers" sell mugs, and TShirts, book after book (about the same stuff), and spend their lives touring the world "raising awareness". Hmmmm.

Look at UFO book sales and stuff? Bookshops are loaded with stuff, it's an entire industry - and yet NOT ONE 'ALIEN SPACESHIP" HAS EVER BEEN FOUND. We haven't even found a microbe from anywhere else - let alone spaceships. But that doesn't stop the UFO'ers, does it? They're all "independent" right? But that compromises them even more, in ways. If they turn around and say "This is all rubbish!" then their entire career and income is gone. Whereas tenured professors can say what they believe - without fear of sacking. Somewhat, at least. So, are you sure it cuts the way you imagine?

----

That's one of the implications of believing in this stuff, in this way. Anyone thinking like that should be asking themselves why they do? What makes you so different to the other "sheep"? And if you're thinking of society in terms of pathetic "sheep" and heroic "Knights of Truth" then I suggest you are already falling into dangerous modes of thought and belief. It doesn't take much to transform "sheep" into "untermensch", and the hero into Uber. The thought is already there......

 

I like you G string, but 9/11 is just one of those things we'll never agree on I'm afraid dude

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toPlyXdpurw

 

This is just awesome, thanks for sharing, I'm on 17th minute and glad I started watching, fade to black into the lie, human error in it's finest, but I guess like folks in comments, this is just not relevant, curious about comments after this video

 

the funny thing is the nose of the plane coming out of the other sideof the tower

 

Just finished, wow, this is awesome, so many contradictions and so many errors in process of hiding the errors of footage, I think this is it, thanks for sharing, I wish you posted this earlier and turned out this debate other way around *yes*

 

Do you really think that video contributes anything?

I can't imagine why.

IT actually happened - in NewYork! It wasn't just a broadcast event. Lots of people saw it. Seriously? How can you doubt even that? I don't get it. And look how readily you lap it up? It's surely self-evident tosh.....isn't it?

 

i was wrong,u r not blind,u see what u want because it s safer

 

Here we go

Like that guy that wrote a book about it and than claims it's not possible to smooth the edges, hilarious

 

So you really believe that video? That the planes never hit the towers?

 

You need to be blind and oblivious not to at this point, your call

But guy offered 100k for anyone that prove him wrong, check that out, better than proving me wrong, I made up my mind few years ago (Aaron Russo), this actually blew my mind *yes*

 

i do.and a last consideration:
have u ever cut a tree?if u don t eep the blade flat the wood will fall on a side,right?
now,look at the angle of the cut that s supposed to be caused be the "plane",it s obliquitous,be so kind to explain me how it is possible that the upper part of the building didn t fall on a side

now my goal in life it to earn those 100,000 bucks

let me remind u that some people still think that david copperfield had the statue of liberty disappear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2TaA4Gl3w

 

Awesome

I don't know what more is there to prove, c'mon video editing guys, chime in, share your professional thoughts about this

 

A tree is really not a good comparison.

Watch this video - it isn't difficult to understand what's happening. And my! Doesn't it look just like the WTC collapse? It looks exactly like it - and the plane, explosions, fireball and fires can easily replace manually removing a few supports (as in the video). NO EXPLOSIVES.

And again - looks near identical to WTC.

 

Man at this point, you need to earn that 100k to prove anything, good luck with that

Just in case you missed it above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2TaA4Gl3w