I’ve heard some pretty stupid arguments from the skeptics. Here’s some of them I’ve heard that I can remember off the top of my head.
>The United States is number one in defense spending. We spend more than the next 25 countries combined. How would 19 Muslims beat our best defense systems with only boxcutters and knives? That could never happen.
That’s exactly what they said before Pearl Harbor, too. That’s also what they said before the sinking of the Titanic, the RMS Lusitania, and several other ships that sunk too. The more complicated it is that you make something, the more easy it is for something to go wrong with it. The people who were in control of those defense systems thought just like you that nothing could go wrong with it.
>How would the terrorists plan this out and train for it without the CIA knowing about it? There isn’t a single thing in the world that the CIA doesn’t know.
You’re giving them more credit than they deserve. There’s many things that happened that the CIA didn’t anticipate: the fall of the Berlin Wall, dissolution of the USSR, Russian incursions into Georgia and now Crimea. The CIA failed to see all of these and more.
>the plane was in the air too long for them to not know anything about and shoot down
How do you expect them to shoot down a plane that they didn’t know about? Air traffic control lost track of American Airlines 77 in an area of poor radar coverage and no one figured out where it was until it was almost out to Washington. The military was not notified until after it crashed.
Any good arguments? They’re all stupid. It sounds like controlled opposition, honestly. If Rosie O’Donnell can say that WTC7 fell at a “free fall speed” (which it didn’t) I think it’s probably safe to say that these theories are bullshit Alex Jones stuff. My main theory is exactly what got shutdown during the 9/11 commission because it was “too sensitive” in that it was because of US support for Israel. It was a revenge attack.
Oh yes, and *coincidentally* enough, this attack happened at the same time during the Second Intifada (early to mid 00s). The Arab world was pissed at that time.
Although I will admit that the argument that the US government staged it to declare the war on terror and strip liberties away from us is actually a decent argument, and in fact, I could see a huge motive for why they would want to lie about this. While there are some holes in it (at least for the Israel part), however I do think it is a legitimate argument. And you have the evidence of the faked video of Bin Laden and the dancing Israelis, but most of the arguments for 9/11 are very dumb for the most part, even the ones that people on here still believe, like the WTC7 one, and many others. Will we ever know the truth? Maybe, maybe not. But there’s no telling that we ever will.
Here’s this one channel I’d recommend you try to debunk, right here — RKOwens4. I’m no demolition expert, nor am I a pilot, but I can tell you that the whole story makes sense, given the time it happened. I just think the main arguments against it are stupid. For example, the main argument that has become so iconic now is the “jet fuel melts steel beams” argument. To demonstrate why this is bullshit, we must first examine the structure of the World Trade Center. Most high-rises have a concrete inner core or concrete-encased outer columns, or both. The world Trade Center had neither. Instead, the World Trade Center’s steel columns or trusses were protected by a layer of foam fireproofing, which was blown off during the plane impacts. See pic related.
For the north tower, 15% of the perimeter columns and 13% of the core columns were severed, with many more damaged. For the South Tower, 14% of the perimeter columns and 21% of the core columns were severed, with many more damaged. Unlike most other office fires, the crashes piped debris against the furthest walls and corners, providing fuel for persistent right at the most vulnerable points in the buildings. Although steel doesn’t melt until it reaches 2750 F, it loses 50% of it’s strength at 1100 F. The worst of the WTC fires were burning at 1800 F. As the weakened floor trusses sagged, they pulled on both the core columns and perimeter columns. Because the perimeter columns provided only 40% of the building’s support and were weakened the most by fire, the sagging caused the perimeter columns to bow inward. The bowing continued until the perimeter columns finally reached their breaking point and snapped, thus facilitating the collapse of the building.
If you think the most powerful country in the history of the world had such shit security and defensive and intelligence capabilities, I don’t know what to tell you.
Kayden Sullivan
can't you just get a normal job? lying to people for a living? really? there are so many professions that i bet you'd be suited for that would provide an actual benefit to society just... stop.
The fact that the worst fires took place where the debris was concentrated is why the South Tower collapsed to the east and the North Tower to the south. The North Tower had half as many floors of weight on its weakened columns, which is one reason it stood twice as long as the South Tower, but its own collapse was inevitable. Critics seem unable to discredit the bowing theory in the face of the photo/video evidence confirming it as fact, so tey fabricate strawman claims such as the fire-doesn’t-melt-steel, and then go on to attack this instead. Of course it didn’t melt. So ultimately, it was the fires and the sagging floor trusses that bowed the columns and led to the collapse of both towers of the World Trade Center. Not a controlled demolition. Pic related, it shows bowing of 20 inches along the east face of the South Tower.
