I don't know what the plan was or who the people were behind it. But I know the effectual cause behind it.
I have a very unpopular personal opinion. My opinion is unpopular with people who hold to the "official conspiracy" (911 Commision) as well as most Truthers.
I believe that the buildings (Towers 1 & 2) were knocked down by planes hijacked by third world terrorists who conspired together in a cave in the desert. After they schemed for years to carry out their plan on the right day at the right time they got around "the most sophisticated security system in the world."
This is the part that hardly anyone agrees with: it doesn't matter if any part of the US government knew about it and didn't act or took part in the conspiracy themselves, because it all that happened as judgment on the USA from God for the nation turning it's back on Him. Just like He sent famines, droughts, and conquering nations as judgments on nations in the past, He sent terrorists to judge the USA. Whether all the terrorists had their origins from outside the US or some of them were part of the US government is a moot point to me.
God put His signature on the entire thing by using people from a pagan nation (like many times in biblical history) and SUSPENDING the laws of physics. Not just in Towers 1 & 2, but a big fat John Hancock on building 7 which also fell at freefall speed.
Whether rubble from the falling Towers hit B7 doesn't matter because physics says buildings don't fall at freefall speed on their own. I don't believe thermite was used to assist in the collapse. I believe it was the hand of God judging an apostate nation.
Do you like 9/11 documentaries? Sycamore by Elliot Nesch is "truther" documentary from a biblical Christian perspective.
I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11 and I don't claim to. But the "official story" has numerous things in it. That just don't add up to me. Building 7 is one of those things.
Another is the claim that an amateur pilot supposedly descended rapidly towards the Pentagon, leveled off just above the ground, and hit the building perfectly, even though the surveillance footage they released to the public shows nothing discernible, just a blur then a fireball.
Why yes, it did. You know it can still be a false flag operation even if it was done only with planes. I guess rigging explosives in secret sounds more conspiratorial. I guess what I'm saying is that you can believe the experts about why the buildings fell and still think "the gubermint done it".
You are the one mentioning "false flag operations," "rigging explosives," "conspiracies," and "the gubermint." Do you believe any of that? I don't.
But I have never heard or read a satisfying answer as to how a tower which was not hit by a plane and only burned for a few hours fell at free-fall speed. The structural damage from the falling debris and subsequent fire (lasting only a few hours) should not have caused that collapse.
The fact that it did and the fact that type of collapse from fire and structural damage (especially at free-fall speed) has never been recorded in the history of recorded engineering is why the "expert" answers are unsatisfactory.
There was more at play on this day 17 years ago than "coincidence," "an anomaly in physics," and "conspiracies" can explain.
I would also add that if anyone had actually worked around structural steel , you would see that it is completely impossible for it to fall from the causes that were given. It’s completely obvious to anyone who actually knows a thing or two about construction , that those buildings were brought down with charges.
Gotcha. Maybe take the event as experimental evidence itself? Yes, towers like that do fall they way they do when crashed into the way they were. Engineers thought that interesting too and I'm sure you can check out the analysis in published papers if you want. There could have been something else going on in those buildings I guess. The bottom line is that it seems reasonable that they could fall that way. Have to pay attention to evidence even if it is puzzling, I say.
Facts don't bother me at all but "elephant hurling" surely does.
Throwing a large amount of "evidence" which supposedly supports your position, only gives the impression of weighty evidence in your favor, but without demonstrating that all this "evidence" does indeed support your argument, all you have is an assumption that accumulating large amounts of "evidence" equals facts.
If you would have went one at the time I would have considered it.
Arguing just ONE aspect of the debate in order to support the conclusion that all suspicions of conspiracy are unfounded is pure foolishness! That is enough to reveal what sort we are dealing with here. To begin with denying the reality of what happened is our first real clue. We then continue to see attempts to discredit relevant facts with ridicule alone which does not bear the true scientific method. Then, with the true nature of a troll, the argument is repeated, while denial of any possible falsehood of the narrative is also reaffirmed based upon the same irrational denial of real science and for a garnish...included are baseless assumptions of what kind of deviant personality types we are, flawed by sound reasoning. Let us not waste our time with these who are dedicated to the flawed system of slavery, but attend to those who have the real potential to create a better world...those who will open their minds to see behind the illusion. Best wishes James.
You are not changing anyones mind with your opinion. The laws of physics disagree with you. Many of the factions you refer to present solid science which you are apparently willing to dismiss. That is your option. Don't waste your time assigning little pet names to those who disagree with you. Nothing is much closer to futility than that.
Sorry, but none of the factions you worship use solid science. In fact they use pseudo-science and scientific sounding jargon, while the rest of the scientific community does everything they can not only to dismiss them, but denounce their delusions. The law of physics do not disagree with me, the government, or anyone else who knows better than to believe the crap you advocate.
Those who wish to deny science often label it pseudoscience. You comments are rife with assumptions about me which only indicates your compromised sense of logic. It is a complete waste of time to entertain a dialogue with those who insist upon monologue. You are no scientist. Neither can you navigate creative discourse with any level of success. Continue to waste your time if you like. I will not entertain you because you are not entertaining.
"Those who wish to deny science often label it pseudoscience."
Like the majority of scientists who dismiss the claims of those small minority who are spokesmembers of the so-called "9/11 truth" cults. You're right about one thing; I'm not a scientist. But I do pay attention to what's going on, and when people like Richard Gage, Stephen Jones, David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit, Judy Wood, David Chandler, etcetera use their status as scientists of one kind or another to perpetuate blatantly obvious lies, it's a safe bet that anyone can dismiss them.