Troll post with vulgarity removed along with the downstream comments. @temuFarang

I'm still looking for another instance where steel framed, high-rise buildings collapse in their footprints due to "office fires." I've seen a number of blazing high rises since September 11, 2001, but I've yet to see a fire collapse the steel framed high-rise structure.

"PULL IT!!!"

3 minutes ago, connda said:

I'm still looking for another instance where steel framed, high-rise buildings collapse in their footprints due to "office fires." I've seen a number of blazing high rises since September 11, 2001, but I've yet to see a fire collapse the steel framed high-rise structure.

"PULL IT!!!"

I don't know if it makes any difference but in the case in question the steel frame was on the outside not the inside.

On 9/5/2026 at 2:21 PM, temuFarang said:

Statistical Evidence: A 2009 Public Policy Polling survey found that 27% of self-identified liberals believed President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen to justify a war in the Middle East, compared to just 10% of self-identified conservatives

Well, in 2026, in this thread and at that time, the only 6 posters who support the conspiracy theory are right-wing! 🤣🤣🤣

Edited Sunday at 10:38 AM4 days by candide

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Well, in 2026, in this thread and at that time, the only 6 posters who support the conspiracy theory are right-wing! 🤣🤣🤣

Is this site a representative sample?

7 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

I don't know if it makes any difference but in the case in question the steel frame was on the outside not the inside.

That, and the structures were compromised when they were struck by the aircraft.

Nostradamus predicted it. 😱

18 minutes ago, temuFarang said:

Is this site a representative sample?

No, but it's worth mentioning.

BTW, the poll you mentioned, without any link, is from 2009, so it's quite outdated.

This is the latest one: 😃

https://changeresearch.com/research/2026/2026-09-09-voter-views-on-september-11-25-years-later

17 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That, and the structures were compromised when they were struck by the aircraft.

WTC7 was not struck by an aircraft. I came down due to "office fires." But the normies out there are free to believe whatever nonsense their brainwashing makes them believe. It was a controlled demolition. The other two building as far as I'm concerned? Who knows?

Conspiracy Theory defined: A term coined and used by those who support the status quo to shut down and disparage all alternative analysis and explanations of phenomenon that does not fit the "one and only one acceptable narrative."

Example: The evidence that the WTC destructions were controlled demolition is a "conspiracy theory" so STFU and case closed.

Edited Monday at 04:21 AM3 days by connda

4 hours ago, connda said:

WTC7 was not struck by an aircraft. I came down due to "office fires." But the normies out there are free to believe whatever nonsense their brainwashing makes them believe. It was a controlled demolition. The other two building as far as I'm concerned? Who knows?

Conspiracy Theory defined: A term coined and used by those who support the status quo to shut down and disparage all alternative analysis and explanations of phenomenon that does not fit the "one and only one acceptable narrative."

Example: The evidence that the WTC destructions were controlled demolition is a "conspiracy theory" so STFU and case closed.

That you believe aircraft did not strike the towers explains a lot.

You also believe the JCPOA was working as well, yes?

Here is a good article with which I completely agree regarding who did 9/11:

https://craignelsen.substack.com/p/do-it-for-the-kids

21 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Here is a good article with which I completely agree regarding who did 9/11:

https://craignelsen.substack.com/p/do-it-for-the-kids

It was an Israeli job.

24 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It was an Israeli job.

Explain all the Saudi hijackers then ?

Were they MK Ultra brainwashed by the Mossad ?

2 minutes ago, PhilipHabib said:

Explain all the Saudi hijackers then ?

Were they MK Ultra brainwashed by the Mossad ?

Until 2017, Saudi Arabia was a Zionist playing field. Trump ended that with the 2017 purge. More details available on request.

Edited Monday at 04:57 PM3 days by rattlesnake

Apples fall to earth [gravitational theory]

Current = potential / resistance [electro-magnetic theory]

Disease caused by wee beasties [germ theory]

Steel skyscrapers don't collapse into dust [conspiracy theory]

5 5

On 9/20/2026 at 5:33 PM, VocalNeal said:

I don't know if it makes any difference but in the case in question the steel frame was on the outside not the inside.

Outside and inside.

Double strong.

On 9/5/2026 at 7:21 PM, temuFarang said:

Statistical Evidence: A 2009 Public Policy Polling survey found that 27% of self-identified liberals believed President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen to justify a war in the Middle East, compared to just 10% of self-identified conservatives

I'm a far-far-left liberal, and no one that I know, Democrat or Republican, thinks 9/11 was a US conspiracy. 🙁

On 9/6/2026 at 2:32 PM, Sir Dude said:

My main objection to the "official" explanation is the collapse of WTC 7, as it went down too uniformaly like a controlled demolition as it was not damaged enough through "falling debbris" to cause that.

There are also rumours of construction workers there in the months before it happened too doing lots of work. The other problem is what it contained and housed, lots of government department info on all sorts. This one is the problem for me, and no convincing explanation has been provided... yes, lots of misdirection etc. but not much that is convincing. Guess we will never know, which is what they want.

It wasn't weakened by falling debris. Aircraft fuel fed the fires which weakened the steel frame of the building.

46 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

It wasn't weakened by falling debris. Aircraft fuel fed the fires which weakened the steel frame of the building.

People missed a lot of information. I did 3 years in Pakistan and left there in 99.

A few things that never got mentioned because they seemed insignificant.

A plane was hijacked in Afghanistan by people using box cutters,

Bin Laden had connections in Saudi Arabia, but they were not as prevalent as thought

He had always said something big would happen.

When I saw the first plane go into the tower, I immediately voiced that we had heard from Al-Qaeda and got called up to my bosses' and senior officers' offices to explain.

I still believe to this day that ther are 2 things people miss. The US Embassy has a large intelligence cadre in Pakistan that completely missed this.

The national police organizations completely missed it and/or thought it was a ridiculous theory.

There is no doubt that Al Qaeda was the perpetrator and that it was not just a bad day for people on airplanes, but that it was a real bad day for the US Intelligence community.

53 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

People missed a lot of information. I did 3 years in Pakistan and left there in 99.

A few things that never got mentioned because they seemed insignificant.

A plane was hijacked in Afghanistan by people using box cutters,

Bin Laden had connections in Saudi Arabia, but they were not as prevalent as thought

He had always said something big would happen.

When I saw the first plane go into the tower, I immediately voiced that we had heard from Al-Qaeda and got called up to my bosses' and senior officers' offices to explain.

I still believe to this day that ther are 2 things people miss. The US Embassy has a large intelligence cadre in Pakistan that completely missed this.

The national police organizations completely missed it and/or thought it was a ridiculous theory.

There is no doubt that Al Qaeda was the perpetrator and that it was not just a bad day for people on airplanes, but that it was a real bad day for the US Intelligence community.

I would agree.

Another observation that has relevance is that the terrorists at the controls of the planes had prior flying lessons to enable them steer the planes into the towers. An unusual thing that their instructors noticed was that they paid attention to most aspects of the lessons but weren't particularly bothered about landing technique... It makes sense in hindsight as a piece of the jigsaw but, even as a an intelligent pilot, I doubt I would have imagined any sinister connotations to it at the time.

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I'm a far-far-left liberal, and no one that I know, Democrat or Republican, thinks 9/11 was a US conspiracy. 🙁

Sheep.

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That you believe aircraft did not strike the towers explains a lot.

Building 7 was not struck by an aircraft as @connda stated

correctly.

The 'Twin Towers' were designed to withstand aircraft strikes

among other things.

Remember the previous explosion and fire at the base of one tower ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

On February 26, 1993, Ramzi Yousef and associates carried out a van bomb terrorist attack below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The approximately 1,500-pound (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to make the North Tower collapse onto the South Tower, taking down both skyscrapers and killing tens of thousands of people. While it failed to do so, it was successful in killing six people,[2] including a pregnant mother, and caused over a thousand injuries.[3] About 50,000 people were evacuated from the buildings that day.[4][5]

Street interviews showing current views on 9/11 conspiracies in NYC, "the leftist capital of NY".

Public education and higher education turning out people whose minds had been molded into what Rush Limbaugh saw as the liberal orthodoxy.

5:00 min clip

21 hours ago, papa al said:

I'm a far-far-left liberal, and no one that I know, Democrat or Republican, thinks 9/11 was a US conspiracy. 🙁

Sheep.

Well, at least we are not wolves...

serious?🙄🥱😴