No, but after 9/11 New Yorkers freaked out and worked to block a mosque Islamic community center from being built. Donald Trump was at the center of the effort.
Eventually the effort succeeded, and the organization trying to build the center was pressured to sell the property.
Same honestly I look back at my younger self and I'm embarrassed. I think most of the debunking stuff out there just focuses on the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme.
Bullshit. Don't lie to me. You think "fire" can just "burn" a building and it will collapse because "gravity"? I bet you believe in other fairy tales too, like public healthcare and the moon
Do You believe in cheese? "Cheese" is an edible polymer developed by DuPont in the 50s. Do you believe that the government holds tons of cheese in caves in Missouri? Those are obviously the location of the soundstages used to film the lunar landings.
There was a kid in my class for aviation maintenance who was a genuine flat earther. If you ever pressed him on it he would say "what do you know, you probably think we landed on the moon!"
It was also smacked by debris from the falling tower that ended up damaging several support trusses and simultaneously igniting like a dozen floors on fire at the same time. Tbh it's kinda amazing the building lasted as long as it did.
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
Theres been so many studies by incredibly reputable people. They aren't going to believe no matter how much is said. At this point they're worse than the maga people. Their believing in the lie has cost millions of deaths in the middle east through global imperialism. They dont want that blood on their hands and its finally gone into a war with Iran that will never end. The people who you are asking to tell you the truth wouldnt even tell you that the building was so full of hazardous building materials that it was going to give untold amounts of people cancer.
I used to think that it was a hoax because of WTC7 but I did something that people don't usually do: challenge my own views and yeah, it was burning for the entire time + rubble hitting it. The steel bar exceeded the containment of concrete causing a structural collapse
Yeah fair fucks to you. I have only one rule for people I keep close to me in my life: I don't mind if you're a cunt to me occasionally, because we're all a cunt occasionally, as long as you go off and reflect on it and good job, you reflected on it.
There's footage of it, it literally isn't simultaneous on all sides lmfao. It slumps inward on one side, then a facade collapses, then the rest of it comes down following the already collapsed sides
Look at this goofy structure built over an inadequate foundation (meant for a 25 story building; Building 7 was 40+ stories) and tell me this building didn’t collapse:
maybe I overlooked it, but the FBI article conveniently "forgot" to mention that
Emad Salem, an FBI informant and a key witness in the trial of Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, stated that the bomb itself was built under supervision from the FBI.
The CIA definitely is, with how many military coups they've backed against democratic South American countries that were considering universal healthcare
Also, forget about the massive amount of puts that were purchased against the only two airlines involved in the hijackings just days before the attack.
Oh, and forget about the fact that the building owner profited $300 million by purchasing an exorbitant insurance package after buying the building only nine months before.
Also, definitely forget that Building 7 and the section of the Pentagon that was targeted were housing all the personnel and evidence involved in the biggest financial crimes investigation of the century.
That's blatantly not true. One of the journalists involved with the Panama Papers died in a car bombing shortly after the Panama Papers were released. That happened.
To be fair if you just bought a building that was a target of a terror attacker just a few years earlier it does make sense to purchase an insurance policy
Oh and don't forget to forget that a large number of agencies that were the ones to deal with that emergency just so happened to be wargaming something very close to the unprecedented event that actually happened that same day: dealing with a terrorist attack that uses airplanes as missiles and flies them into buildings.
NORAD was one of them. Iirc NY firefighters were another.
It's both hilarious and disturbing that, 25 years later, we still have a significant number of people believing controlled demolition took down the WTC towers and building 7. But then again, it's been nearly 70 years since the JFK assassination and most people still think Oswald was a patsy 🤷
Conspiracism is like gossip, but on a national level. It's pure poison. It can lead to anything ranging from destroyed personal relationship and reputations, to the Holocaust (think of the shit said about Jews for centuries leading up to it). We shouldn't be so blasé about that shit.
And the Epstein case had something 9/11 truth doesn't: evidence, court-worthy and verifiable evidence. Prosecutable evidence. Undeniable evidence. Show me a bomb-planter who did 9/11 and the paycheque he received for his work from Dubya, and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you have is gossip.
I mean is it a coincidence that prior his assassination, Kennedy was trying to derail Israel’s nuclear program? A case could be made to suggest that Israel helped plot the assassination.
The official story has a few questionable things...
The Pentagon is definitely sus.. not only the destruction doesn't look like a plane hit it... But also how rumsfeld a few days prior talked about missing trillions of dollars
Building 7... Larry Silverstein talking about "pulling" the building..(never mind his incredible timing on insuring the towers against a terrorist attack.
George Bush talked about how he watched the first plane hit the building on TV and he thought what a terrible pilot... But he didn't have much time to think about it as he had to go talk to some kids in grade school
Just follow the money, there's documented evidence of unusual pre-9/11 trading that profited from short bets.
Allen Poteshman's peer-reviewed study in The Journal of Business (2006) concluded: "there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks."
that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks
ugh. that language does not actually say anything. the question is: is it inconsistent with investors trading without advance knowledge of the attacks? i.e. could they also have behaved that way if they had not known of the attacks
You cant post anything that slightly resembles 9/11 conspiracy on this site without a slew of downvotes. I made a post just asking if people believed the official story and got verbatim some of the same comments and a slew of downvotes. Presuming they're not with other malicious motives, I think they're just close minded dicks
You'll have to forgive us close minded fucks, we've been listening to people spew uninformed shit about jet fuel and steel beams for 25 years and we're kinda tired.
I don't believe most of what the government said. I also don't think that tower 7 was some sort of inside job. I simply don't believe the finance bros and the government are capable of keeping these things secret
It was "pulled" (audio recording of him calling it) by Zionist WTC owner Larry Silverstein, with announcement of its destruction press release read on TV with WTC 7 visibly still standing in background image. Most experts believe the operation would need several days of preparation instead of the few hours that took place until a bit past 5pm the same day, and because of this, Silverstein's $1B asbestos problem that 9/11 solved, could have provided a "backup solution" for the 2 main towers melting beams from jet fuel.
This thread is impossible. The amount of people posting sarcastically without denoting it and the amount of people sincerely posting conspiracy theories (believable theories and dumb theories that belie a lack of understanding physics) appear in almost equal measure.
According the an accountant, Building 7 was collecting information about black ops budget items, and it was doing so when it got demo'd during the WTC incidences.
Since we're all fighting about it, the version of WTC 7 I heard:
Buildings above a certain height tend to have magnesium charges installed, so that in the even of catastrophe (like say two hijacked airplanes), they can be brought down in a controlled manner with as little collateral as possible. I've heard WTC 7 was accidentally wired up alongside the twin towers, so when the call was made, it came down as well.
No, it's not true. You wouldn't ever use magnesium for that anyways, you'd use an actual demolition charge if you were dumb enough to rig every tall building with explosives. But no, nobody is that dumb - the kernel of truth at the heart of that one is that some large buildings have demolition plans drawn up when they're constructed (important note: the WTC didn't have that, it's both very rare to do and a much more modern practice than the WTC buildings), which are just a reference for if/when the building is demo'd in the future. They're not rigged to blow, though. Hell, aside from all the obvious reasons you wouldn't do that, chemically most explosives would become uselessly unpredictable after being strapped onto a building for that long. Just an absurd idea.
Like a system like the swiss bridges? They have marked points but don't just leave the charges on the bridge. It flies in the face of conventional engineering to plan a failure point on something that should never fail. So all building are wired to go at any moment? You would think there would be a few more accidents and this would require a large and obvious agency to manage and monitor in secret. Considering how much demolition work costs it is not "easy" to bring a building down.
No, Building 7 was just poorly designed. I used to find it a compelling point, then I actually read about how poorly thought out it was. They built a 40+ story building on a foundation meant for 25 stories, it’s surprising it lasted as long as it did.
I don’t think you’re reading into this joke correctly. I take it as “people only ever talk about the two towers, but other shit was destroyed too and nobody cares”
At the risk of repeating the deleted comments (be gentle if I am, please), I read it as the US government telling us to remember the twin towers, then not telling us to remember wtc7 (FBI involvement and rule of threes for the joke), and to totally forget the Epstein files.
I always found that particular angle to be hilarious. Like, if you didn't know the towers were sorta built like a bundle of wires on end and that deforming even the tip of the bundle with heat could cause the roof to fall in and split the whole thing open, then the argument from the conspiracy theorist that it was a controlled demolition sounds plausible. How could that tiny plane hitting so high on the tower knock it down, twice?
Suddenly the WTC-7 guy appears. He's wearing a literal tinfoil hat and he hasn't showered in a week. He hijacks the entire conversation to explain how a building that was slapped by the (burning) tallest building in the world couldn't have possibly collapsed after 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.
By now you're probably realizing you have somewhere else to be, and that's fine, because the two crazies are now shouting over each other about why the Pentagon didn't collapse, how the entire attack was cover for UA 93 to flee for South America, or whether it was the CIA or aliens who orchestrated the whole thing.
Like, if you didn't know the towers were sorta built like a bundle of wires on end and that deforming even the tip of the bundle with heat could cause the roof to fall in and split the whole thing open
Yeah... The wtc was basically supported by a center frame tube support structure tied together with a couple hundred perimeter support beams by giant hat truss. If the hat truss is damaged the whole thing collapses under its own weight.
how a building that was slapped by the (burning) tallest building in the world couldn't have possibly collapsed after 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.
But but, no sky scraper had ever been brought down by fire before...... They always forget the part where a giant chunk of building fell on it doing a ton of structural damage before a multi floor uncontrolled fire burnt for 7 hours straight. Plus, there have been several buildings of similar size that have collapsed due to fire since 2001.
People who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition simply do not not know enough about engineering to have an educated opinion. There are only a few demolition companies in the world large enough to take on a project that size, and it would have taken months of hundreds if not thousands of civilian workers and engineers working onsite around the clock to execute.
And where do you suppose the government is going to find hundreds/thousands of civilian bluecollar workers willing to murder thousands of their fellow citizens?
Yeah... The wtc was basically supported by a center frame tube support structure tied together with a couple hundred perimeter support beams by giant hat truss.
Do you have a source? Not doubting, just curious to see the schematics myself since I didn't know it had that kind of structure
I don't have the schematics or as-built on hand. If you read through the development tab on the buildings wiki I'm sure you could parce it out. The towers were built to be almost transparent, so the architect wanted the minimal internal support and a lattice work of perimeter support. It really was a uniquely designed building for the time, but the actual construction was a bit sloppy to say the least.
There are only a few demolition companies in the world large enough to take on a project that size, and it would have taken months of hundreds if not thousands of civilian workers and engineers working onsite around the clock to execute.
Eh... I'm no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there's one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don't care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
But yeah, let me reiterate, it was not a controlled demolition, and the buildings collapsed due to steel supports being weakened by fire and airplane impact.
*The one 9/11 conspiracy I am kind of on board with is that various US intelligence agencies were aware of the impending attack and failed to do anything about it. Either because they were grossly incompetent ... or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen, because the people in charge (Bush administration) wanted it to happen: that way they could have excuses to justify new wars in the Middle East, the Patriot Act, forming the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE), etc.
*Oh, and a further 9/11 conspiracy I could get on board with: Flight 93 (the hijacked plane that didn't hit anything) was supposedly taken down because the passengers on board had heard of the other attacks and decided to fight back, and the plane lost control in the struggle and crashed. But I suspect that might be a cover story. I suspect that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile, and the story of heroic passengers fighting back was invented in order to absolve the US government of the guilt of shooting down a civilian plane full of innocent passengers. With that cover story, the passengers are self-sacrificing heroes, rather than victims of collateral damage who'd been sacrificed by their own government.
Eh... I'm no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there's one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don't care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
Not really, successful planned demolitions are definitely a legitimate engineering feat. Safety of course requires a ton of planning and work, but that's mainly because you have to issue temporary evictions to anyone living in the surrounding area.
Even planned demolitions where you don't really have to worry about collateral damage go tits up all the time. Which ends up being an expensive mess to clean up afterwards. You really have to know what you are doing to make sure there just isn't a partial collapse, and as I said there aren't many companies that specialize in it.
Either because they were grossly incompetent ... or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen
I mean, there's been plenty of evidence of just how incompetent us intelligence agencies were behaving before 9/11. It's one of the reasons they created the department of homeland security afterwards. The agencies were to busy fighting for funding and getting caught up in dick measuring contest to actually do there jobs.
I think it's just a case of a politician "not letting any good tragedy going to waste" rather than someone allowing something to happen. The risk vs reward of that scenario is just too unpredictable for someone like Cheney or Bush to be on board.
The wtc never achieved free fall speed. Parts of building 7 achieved free fall speed, but that was just the facade falling in after the internal structure had already collapsed.
Into its own footprint?
Kinda to be expected when the building's floors falling on top of each other was what initiated the vertical collapse.
been hundreds of structual engineers who have come forward calling it a controlled demolition.
The list of "engineers and architects" for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have never been verified, nor does it differentiate between what kind of engineering specialty they claim to belong to. At the time anyone could join that group and claim they were an engineer or architect and be counted.
How exactly do you suppose the proposed demolition team laid miles of det chord and thousands of pounds of explosives without being seen? Why wasnt there any evidence of explosives witnessed or collected at the scene? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition......? They aren't exactly hard to miss.
147 Comments
Hylactor@sopuli.xyz · 207 pts · 1d
I had to look it up, the striped building with the dome is from Epstein's Island.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 54 pts · 1d
Oh thank you! I was like, was a local mosque destroyed but everyone was too antimuslim to report it?
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 22 pts · 1d
No, but after 9/11 New Yorkers freaked out and worked to block a
mosqueIslamic community center from being built. Donald Trump was at the center of the effort.Eventually the effort succeeded, and the organization trying to build the center was pressured to sell the property.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 1d
Yeah, that I do remember. Although I'd forgotten it was him. Stupid racist
criss_cross@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1d
I wish someone hit that with a plane
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wkKLEaWnDQ
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11h
Oh yeah I always forget about his islam kink
dismay3915@lemmy.world · -38 pts · 1d
Funny how it's fully jewish architecture
Siegfried@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1d
Dome of the rock was built by Christian workers from Constantinople* and ordered to be constructed by muslims, if that is what you are refering too.
*Allegedly, S. Runciman history of the crusades, as i recall.
TheMinister@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 1d
What’s funny
kurwa@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
It actually looks like a mosque imo
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
It's intended to. Epstien had some weird stuff going on relating to islam there.
khannie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
How is it funny? Explain it to me
Kirk@startrek.website · 174 pts · 1d
How did WTC7 burn and collapse when the only thing that hit it that day was a massive skyscraper? 🤔
Agent641@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 1d
Concrete rubble can't melt steel beams
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 28 pts · 1d
Actually... enough concrete falling at once creates an enormous amount of heat, maybe enough to weaken steel and lower its max capacity.
hypnicjerk@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 1d
nice try thermcel but everyone knows you can't create energy
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
Big engineering always wants you to believe their bullshit.
yogurtwrong@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
yogurtwrong@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
energy is ONLY created by the GOD ALMIGHTY and engineers are heathens
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1d
And the act of bending metal generates heat as well.
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Big, if true
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
Worse: true if big.
SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space · 20 pts · 1d
I wasn’t there
workerONE@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 1d
Suspicious thing to say
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10h
I thought the Building 7 shit was compelling until I looked up how that building was actually built. Now, I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did
Kirk@startrek.website · 2 pts · 9h
Same honestly I look back at my younger self and I'm embarrassed. I think most of the debunking stuff out there just focuses on the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme.
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Inside job!
deHaga@feddit.uk · 94 pts · 1d
It collapsed because it was on fire all day
ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com · 133 pts · 1d
Bullshit. Don't lie to me. You think "fire" can just "burn" a building and it will collapse because "gravity"? I bet you believe in other fairy tales too, like public healthcare and the moon
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 1d
If the moon isn't real, where does all the cheese come from? Checkmate conspiracy theorists!
gex@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Do You believe in cheese? "Cheese" is an edible polymer developed by DuPont in the 50s. Do you believe that the government holds tons of cheese in caves in Missouri? Those are obviously the location of the soundstages used to film the lunar landings.
danc4498@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1d
If the moon was real then how come nobody talked about it before stanley Kubrick made 2001 a space odyssey?
lime@feddit.nu · 7 pts · 1d
yeah there's a reason there was no moonlandings during the time anyone has actually been alive except for 2001.
newton@piefed.social · 5 pts · 1d
Wrong ,we did , read the travel earth to the moon ,from Jules verne
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
newton@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
Can you read or even think ? In langue de moliere
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Un peu
newton@piefed.social · 2 pts · 19h
C'est très bien
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
Fun fact, that movie actually came out before 2001. I know, unbelievable!
danc4498@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
I don't think so
glups@piefed.social · 11 pts · 1d
There was a kid in my class for aviation maintenance who was a genuine flat earther. If you ever pressed him on it he would say "what do you know, you probably think we landed on the moon!"
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
So sad for him that he never went to the beach. Never watched a ship slip over the horizon. Just depressing.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 1d
It was also smacked by debris from the falling tower that ended up damaging several support trusses and simultaneously igniting like a dozen floors on fire at the same time. Tbh it's kinda amazing the building lasted as long as it did.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
🙄
Ever hear of a little thing called George Bush?
RmDebArc_5@piefed.zip · 10 pts · 1d
The University of Alaska Fairbanks did a report that concluded that the fire didn't lead to the collapse
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 1d
The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
deHaga@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 1d
Peer reviewed?
SirLeToet@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
Was it the WTC7 sized chunk of the north tower that fell on top of it?
Crazy how they conspiracied that.
Shindo66@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
Theres been so many studies by incredibly reputable people. They aren't going to believe no matter how much is said. At this point they're worse than the maga people. Their believing in the lie has cost millions of deaths in the middle east through global imperialism. They dont want that blood on their hands and its finally gone into a war with Iran that will never end. The people who you are asking to tell you the truth wouldnt even tell you that the building was so full of hazardous building materials that it was going to give untold amounts of people cancer.
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 1d
I used to think that it was a hoax because of WTC7 but I did something that people don't usually do: challenge my own views and yeah, it was burning for the entire time + rubble hitting it. The steel bar exceeded the containment of concrete causing a structural collapse
khannie@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Yeah fair fucks to you. I have only one rule for people I keep close to me in my life: I don't mind if you're a cunt to me occasionally, because we're all a cunt occasionally, as long as you go off and reflect on it and good job, you reflected on it.
darkwing_duck@sh.itjust.works · -25 pts · 1d
A structural collapse that's exactly simultaneous on all sides of the building? lmfao
The nonsense people will eat up to avoid challenging their core worldview is mind boggling.
itsjustachairmary@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 18h
There's footage of it, it literally isn't simultaneous on all sides lmfao. It slumps inward on one side, then a facade collapses, then the rest of it comes down following the already collapsed sides
You can literally just watch video footage lmfao
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
Look at this goofy structure built over an inadequate foundation (meant for a 25 story building; Building 7 was 40+ stories) and tell me this building didn’t collapse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center_(1987%E2%80%932001)#/media/File:FEMA_403_-_Ch5_WTC7_-_(Fig_5-5)_3D_diagram_showing_relation_of_trusses_and_transfer_girders.svg
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · -29 pts · 1d
Alright now try justifying the Epstein conspiracy
breadsmasher@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 1d
“conspiracy”? it was a full blown criminal enterprise.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
You should look up the meaning of conspiracy on a dictionary
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 34 pts · 1d
never forgetti september eletti
Soulphite@reddthat.com · 12 pts · 1d
Moms spaghetti
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Ass is sweaty
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Friend's name? Eddy.
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
She's pregnant? No way! Vasectomy!
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Ed?
CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1d
The first attack didn't cause enough chaos to be remembered.
LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de · 18 pts · 1d
maybe I overlooked it, but the FBI article conveniently "forgot" to mention that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
The FBI is a terrorist organisation?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1d
The CIA definitely is, with how many military coups they've backed against democratic South American countries that were considering universal healthcare
SirLeToet@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
Yeah, it was the universal health care threat to US hegemony, not the US projecting their power at any cost.
decolo@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
Not only that, 'higher up' rejected the request to use a fake explosive
lime@feddit.nu · 2 pts · 1d
🤌
MumboJumbo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21h
non dimenticare mai l'undici settembre
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 20h
sorry i don't speak cantonese
MamaLuigi@thelemmy.club · 34 pts · 21h
kinda odd that there was a shadow commision, and that Ghislaine Maxwell was invited to it huh...
gastroglizzy@piefed.social · 33 pts · 23h
Also, forget about the massive amount of puts that were purchased against the only two airlines involved in the hijackings just days before the attack.
Oh, and forget about the fact that the building owner profited $300 million by purchasing an exorbitant insurance package after buying the building only nine months before.
Also, definitely forget that Building 7 and the section of the Pentagon that was targeted were housing all the personnel and evidence involved in the biggest financial crimes investigation of the century.
fake@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 21h
Oh come on, even if that were true we've had the panama papers and literally nothing happened.
Amarlune@lemmy.zip · 29 pts · 18h
That's blatantly not true. One of the journalists involved with the Panama Papers died in a car bombing shortly after the Panama Papers were released. That happened.
BussyCat@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 10h
To be fair if you just bought a building that was a target of a terror attacker just a few years earlier it does make sense to purchase an insurance policy
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4h
Oh and don't forget to forget that a large number of agencies that were the ones to deal with that emergency just so happened to be wargaming something very close to the unprecedented event that actually happened that same day: dealing with a terrorist attack that uses airplanes as missiles and flies them into buildings.
NORAD was one of them. Iirc NY firefighters were another.
58008@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 1d
It's both hilarious and disturbing that, 25 years later, we still have a significant number of people believing controlled demolition took down the WTC towers and building 7. But then again, it's been nearly 70 years since the JFK assassination and most people still think Oswald was a patsy 🤷
Conspiracism is like gossip, but on a national level. It's pure poison. It can lead to anything ranging from destroyed personal relationship and reputations, to the Holocaust (think of the shit said about Jews for centuries leading up to it). We shouldn't be so blasé about that shit.
And the Epstein case had something 9/11 truth doesn't: evidence, court-worthy and verifiable evidence. Prosecutable evidence. Undeniable evidence. Show me a bomb-planter who did 9/11 and the paycheque he received for his work from Dubya, and then we can talk. Otherwise, all you have is gossip.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
I mean is it a coincidence that prior his assassination, Kennedy was trying to derail Israel’s nuclear program? A case could be made to suggest that Israel helped plot the assassination.
MumboJumbo@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 21h
Yes
Kobibi@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 10h
You could pick any day in the last 200 years and say that [US President] was trying to [do something to foreign nation]. It means nothing
wowwoweowza@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
Dubya wasn’t behind it. Who in the heck ever said that?
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 9h
Thousands of conspiracy theories for 25 years
wowwoweowza@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4h
Being in on it and being behind it are two different things.
brownsugga@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22h
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 1d
The official story has a few questionable things...
The Pentagon is definitely sus.. not only the destruction doesn't look like a plane hit it... But also how rumsfeld a few days prior talked about missing trillions of dollars
Building 7... Larry Silverstein talking about "pulling" the building..(never mind his incredible timing on insuring the towers against a terrorist attack.
George Bush talked about how he watched the first plane hit the building on TV and he thought what a terrible pilot... But he didn't have much time to think about it as he had to go talk to some kids in grade school
There's a lot more I could go on but I won't
Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 23h
Yeah I dont subscribe to the whole controlled demolition thing but there was 100% some very dodgy stuff going on around it.
NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 11h
Why is the George W quote (which is new to me, but believable) suspicious? That guy was full of dumb hottakes.
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10h
He said he watched the first plane hit the building because the TV was on.
The first plane impact wasn't televisied until much later
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 11h
The pentagon doesn't need any excuse for missing money, they aren't audited, the missing money is out in the open
masterclass@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1d
Just follow the money, there's documented evidence of unusual pre-9/11 trading that profited from short bets.
Allen Poteshman's peer-reviewed study in The Journal of Business (2006) concluded: "there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks."
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 10 pts · 16h
ugh. that language does not actually say anything. the question is: is it inconsistent with investors trading without advance knowledge of the attacks? i.e. could they also have behaved that way if they had not known of the attacks
Poxlox@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23h
You cant post anything that slightly resembles 9/11 conspiracy on this site without a slew of downvotes. I made a post just asking if people believed the official story and got verbatim some of the same comments and a slew of downvotes. Presuming they're not with other malicious motives, I think they're just close minded dicks
fake@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 23h
You'll have to forgive us close minded fucks, we've been listening to people spew uninformed shit about jet fuel and steel beams for 25 years and we're kinda tired.
Poxlox@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 13h
Go ahead and keep believing everything the government tells you, I'm sure that will work out great.
fake@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 13h
Like listening to you is going to serve me any better...
KatakiY@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
I don't believe most of what the government said. I also don't think that tower 7 was some sort of inside job. I simply don't believe the finance bros and the government are capable of keeping these things secret
SirLeToet@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 11h
People here started again about building 7.
Which had the roof of the north tower fall right on top of it, that piece of tower was a about the same size as building 7.
Weird how it "collapsed and burned to the ground". Must be a conspiracy.
It's still entertaining to read tho.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 11h
Orrrrr... They and everyone else have had twenty-five years to consider your nonsense and it's boring and distracting from important things
Siegfried@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
What happened with wtc 7? I dont have the deep lore
philipp_@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 10h
It had a burning skyscraper fall on top of it. That is generally bad for most buildings.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · -34 pts · 1d
It was "pulled" (audio recording of him calling it) by Zionist WTC owner Larry Silverstein, with announcement of its destruction press release read on TV with WTC 7 visibly still standing in background image. Most experts believe the operation would need several days of preparation instead of the few hours that took place until a bit past 5pm the same day, and because of this, Silverstein's $1B asbestos problem that 9/11 solved, could have provided a "backup solution" for the 2 main towers melting beams from jet fuel.
breadsmasher@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 1d
sigh. is there any point to even engage with this comment.
Birch@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 1d
For the lulz
NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 11h
This thread is impossible. The amount of people posting sarcastically without denoting it and the amount of people sincerely posting conspiracy theories (believable theories and dumb theories that belie a lack of understanding physics) appear in almost equal measure.
beejboytyson@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 8h
Harry lutnick is connected to 9/11
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 19h
According the an accountant, Building 7 was collecting information about black ops budget items, and it was doing so when it got demo'd during the WTC incidences.
AppleTea@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 22h
Since we're all fighting about it, the version of WTC 7 I heard:
Buildings above a certain height tend to have magnesium charges installed, so that in the even of catastrophe (like say two hijacked airplanes), they can be brought down in a controlled manner with as little collateral as possible. I've heard WTC 7 was accidentally wired up alongside the twin towers, so when the call was made, it came down as well.
Is that true? No fucking clue.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10h
No, it's not true. You wouldn't ever use magnesium for that anyways, you'd use an actual demolition charge if you were dumb enough to rig every tall building with explosives. But no, nobody is that dumb - the kernel of truth at the heart of that one is that some large buildings have demolition plans drawn up when they're constructed (important note: the WTC didn't have that, it's both very rare to do and a much more modern practice than the WTC buildings), which are just a reference for if/when the building is demo'd in the future. They're not rigged to blow, though. Hell, aside from all the obvious reasons you wouldn't do that, chemically most explosives would become uselessly unpredictable after being strapped onto a building for that long. Just an absurd idea.
tazeycrazy@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 10h
Like a system like the swiss bridges? They have marked points but don't just leave the charges on the bridge. It flies in the face of conventional engineering to plan a failure point on something that should never fail. So all building are wired to go at any moment? You would think there would be a few more accidents and this would require a large and obvious agency to manage and monitor in secret. Considering how much demolition work costs it is not "easy" to bring a building down.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10h
No, Building 7 was just poorly designed. I used to find it a compelling point, then I actually read about how poorly thought out it was. They built a 40+ story building on a foundation meant for 25 stories, it’s surprising it lasted as long as it did.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -27 pts · 1d
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 1d
I don’t think you’re reading into this joke correctly. I take it as “people only ever talk about the two towers, but other shit was destroyed too and nobody cares”
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
At the risk of repeating the deleted comments (be gentle if I am, please), I read it as the US government telling us to remember the twin towers, then not telling us to remember wtc7 (FBI involvement and rule of threes for the joke), and to totally forget the Epstein files.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -11 pts · 1d
LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 1d
This comentard is dumb.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -3 pts · 1d
TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca · 16 pts · 1d
....
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -12 pts · 1d
crispbacon99@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
No we're just waiting for you to elaborate or get downvoted to oblivion.
Trolls/bots too often post vague and broad statements without providing details so here we are again. Asking for details
chewypoops@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
Are you an Epstein Files denier or something?
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
Next thing he's going to say Obama didn't do 9/11 or something!
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
What, so we're supposed to believe Harambe killed himself?!
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
I mean... he was in the white house at the time. Why didn't he go to help at ground zero like Trump?
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Because he was busy praying towards Mecca and defiling everything that is holy about America, duh!
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Oh, right... in Hawaii, not his REAL birthplace, Kenya
jdr@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
Are you a Biden Assassination denier?
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -6 pts · 1d
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
It's hilarious how all you do is complain about Lemmy but you still use it enough for me to recognize your username.
It's like you live to be miserable.
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 1d
Are you not miserable? Is that not why we are here?
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Are you not entertained? Lol
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -3 pts · 1d
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
What was the conspiracy?
TheRealKuni@piefed.social · 19 pts · 1d
That 9/11 was a false flag attack and the buildings were demolished by the government. It was a meme even. “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” etc.
WTC-7 was seen by these people as proof of the conspiracy because it fell without being hit by a plane.
village604@adultswim.fan · 13 pts · 1d
Because we all know planes are the only thing that can cause a building to fall.
weimaraner_of_doom@piefed.social · 18 pts · 1d
Every time a high rise is demolished, someone has to fly a plane into it. It's pretty much what the Boeing 737 Max was designed for.
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
And pool noodles. Never hit a building with a pool noodle!
disorderly@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
I always found that particular angle to be hilarious. Like, if you didn't know the towers were sorta built like a bundle of wires on end and that deforming even the tip of the bundle with heat could cause the roof to fall in and split the whole thing open, then the argument from the conspiracy theorist that it was a controlled demolition sounds plausible. How could that tiny plane hitting so high on the tower knock it down, twice?
Suddenly the WTC-7 guy appears. He's wearing a literal tinfoil hat and he hasn't showered in a week. He hijacks the entire conversation to explain how a building that was slapped by the (burning) tallest building in the world couldn't have possibly collapsed after 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.
By now you're probably realizing you have somewhere else to be, and that's fine, because the two crazies are now shouting over each other about why the Pentagon didn't collapse, how the entire attack was cover for UA 93 to flee for South America, or whether it was the CIA or aliens who orchestrated the whole thing.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 1d
Yeah... The wtc was basically supported by a center frame tube support structure tied together with a couple hundred perimeter support beams by giant hat truss. If the hat truss is damaged the whole thing collapses under its own weight.
But but, no sky scraper had ever been brought down by fire before...... They always forget the part where a giant chunk of building fell on it doing a ton of structural damage before a multi floor uncontrolled fire burnt for 7 hours straight. Plus, there have been several buildings of similar size that have collapsed due to fire since 2001.
People who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition simply do not not know enough about engineering to have an educated opinion. There are only a few demolition companies in the world large enough to take on a project that size, and it would have taken months of hundreds if not thousands of civilian workers and engineers working onsite around the clock to execute.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I don't know. If you're not worried about casualties or collateral damage then it gets a lot easier.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 12h
And where do you suppose the government is going to find hundreds/thousands of civilian bluecollar workers willing to murder thousands of their fellow citizens?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Do you have a source? Not doubting, just curious to see the schematics myself since I didn't know it had that kind of structure
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 11h
I don't have the schematics or as-built on hand. If you read through the development tab on the buildings wiki I'm sure you could parce it out. The towers were built to be almost transparent, so the architect wanted the minimal internal support and a lattice work of perimeter support. It really was a uniquely designed building for the time, but the actual construction was a bit sloppy to say the least.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · -1 pts · 1d
Eh... I'm no 9/11 conspiracy theorist* but there's one little hole in that logic: There are only a few demolition companies in the world that could do it safely, and it would have taken hundreds of workers and engineers to do it safely. But if you don't care about killing a few thousand people in the process and causing major damage to other nearby buildings, maybe then the job gets a lot easier.
But yeah, let me reiterate, it was not a controlled demolition, and the buildings collapsed due to steel supports being weakened by fire and airplane impact.
*The one 9/11 conspiracy I am kind of on board with is that various US intelligence agencies were aware of the impending attack and failed to do anything about it. Either because they were grossly incompetent ... or in the more sinister version, they were deliberately ordered to ignore it, allowing the attack to happen, because the people in charge (Bush administration) wanted it to happen: that way they could have excuses to justify new wars in the Middle East, the Patriot Act, forming the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE), etc.
*Oh, and a further 9/11 conspiracy I could get on board with: Flight 93 (the hijacked plane that didn't hit anything) was supposedly taken down because the passengers on board had heard of the other attacks and decided to fight back, and the plane lost control in the struggle and crashed. But I suspect that might be a cover story. I suspect that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile, and the story of heroic passengers fighting back was invented in order to absolve the US government of the guilt of shooting down a civilian plane full of innocent passengers. With that cover story, the passengers are self-sacrificing heroes, rather than victims of collateral damage who'd been sacrificed by their own government.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 11h
Not really, successful planned demolitions are definitely a legitimate engineering feat. Safety of course requires a ton of planning and work, but that's mainly because you have to issue temporary evictions to anyone living in the surrounding area.
Even planned demolitions where you don't really have to worry about collateral damage go tits up all the time. Which ends up being an expensive mess to clean up afterwards. You really have to know what you are doing to make sure there just isn't a partial collapse, and as I said there aren't many companies that specialize in it.
I mean, there's been plenty of evidence of just how incompetent us intelligence agencies were behaving before 9/11. It's one of the reasons they created the department of homeland security afterwards. The agencies were to busy fighting for funding and getting caught up in dick measuring contest to actually do there jobs.
I think it's just a case of a politician "not letting any good tragedy going to waste" rather than someone allowing something to happen. The risk vs reward of that scenario is just too unpredictable for someone like Cheney or Bush to be on board.
Shindo66@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1d
Free fall speed? Into its own footprint? There have been hundreds of structual engineers who have come forward calling it a controlled demolition.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 11h
The wtc never achieved free fall speed. Parts of building 7 achieved free fall speed, but that was just the facade falling in after the internal structure had already collapsed.
Kinda to be expected when the building's floors falling on top of each other was what initiated the vertical collapse.
The list of "engineers and architects" for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have never been verified, nor does it differentiate between what kind of engineering specialty they claim to belong to. At the time anyone could join that group and claim they were an engineer or architect and be counted.
How exactly do you suppose the proposed demolition team laid miles of det chord and thousands of pounds of explosives without being seen? Why wasnt there any evidence of explosives witnessed or collected at the scene? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition......? They aren't exactly hard to miss.
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I don't think the person you replied to believes the conspiracy, they're just answering the question about what the conspiracy is.
TheRealKuni@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1d
You’re correct, but I don’t think disorderly thought I believed it.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 8h
The US government is the one spreading the most unhinged theories to discredit the more credible ones, change my mind.
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Don't even mention the Pentagon
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Isn't that where the missile hit on that fateful day?
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Oooh. Yeah. There's insane people on every point of the political spectrum.