Regarding the physical stuff:

...structural engineers state that no building of that caliber has ever been brought down simply by fires...

No building of that caliber has ever had a 767 fly through it. A significant number of structural members were severed by the impact, and multiple floors of open air paper-filled offices instantly ignited from the giant fuckoff jet-fuel fireball. It's very far from any typical fire or structural damage that a building will experience. Like, look at this, there's a Looney Tunes plane shaped hole cutting through half the columns on the side

Also the way the building collapses in near free fall...

Here's a screenshot I put arrows on from some youtube video. I don't have any numbers ready-to-go, but you can clearly see that the main collapse is propagating downward significantly below free fall speeds. That's not to say that it didn't collapse very quickly when compared to other building collapses, because it did, because the building was mostly empty space. Here's a picture from the 70s during construction, before all the floors were rented out and filled with office stuff. People describe the collapse all the time as floors "pancaking" into each other, but it really literally was designed as a stack of concrete rings held apart at the edges by steel toothpicks.

They even at one point bring up original architect’s statement on the building (obviously way before 9/11 happened) where he specifically states the building could withstand commercial airliner collisions.

The impact that the original architects were considering then was a 707 with relatively low fuel coming in at low speed for a landing at one of the nearby airports. The planes that hit the towers were 767s impacting with ~2x the mass, ~2x the speed, and much larger fuel tanks. DRASTICALLY more energy was transferred to the buildings than what the designers could have ever accounted for. Also, of COURSE they're going to say that the new state of the art design is totally unsinkab- I mean, uncollapsible.

Now, I'm not going to claim with 100% certainty that it wasn't a controlled demolition. But. If the buildings WERE secretly rigged with explosives or whatever by the government then it was wasted time and effort, because the planes would have collapsed the towers regardless.

I have never found anything to do with "controlled demolition" convincing tbh

Why then did the powers the be do it? For PNAC? The USA is in worst shape today than it's ever been, not like their goals really worked out. Not discrediting these theories, but the

“chickens coming home to roost”

Is the most plausible imo

The part about the military chain of command being completely broken due to either it being that person’s first day on the job, being in an uninterruptible meeting, or just not knowing their whereabouts and then not canceling the military exercise even after there were confirmed hijacked planes made me go uhhhhhhh

Also a 767 going over 500 knots at sea level is hard to believe

As for the controlled demolition stuff my biggest question is why did the entire buildings need to collapse? Were the 2 airplane strikes not enough to justify all the post 9/11 actions like increased military/NSA budgets, PATRIOT ACT, invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq? I guess that goes back to how WTC were built entirely out of asbestos and it was costing a fortune to renovate the towers

Also like, the entire pentagon strike, why the hell wouldn’t the hijacker fly into the top of the pentagon at like a 30-40 degree dive instead of doing a spiraling 360 descent at over 400 knots and then hit the most reinforced part of the building at a flat angle

I watched that documentary awhile ago on Youtube, and it honestly made me less convinced that it was a controlled demolition:

1. The video claimed that the hijackers' identities were all fake and the passport found at the wreckage being completely planted. But there's one huge problem if you zoom out: if the whole purpose of 9/11 was to be a false flag that galvanizes the US public to want to bomb the Middle East, then why did the US not invade a single country that the hijackers came from? Seriously, why? Dubya wanted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, so he faked a terrorist attack where none of the fake terrorists came from the countries he wanted to invade. Instead, he picked a country that the US has the least intentions of ever invading, until recently an extremely loyal US ally. The other countries (the UAE, Egypt, Lebanon) are also US allies within the region. In the decades since 9/11, the US waged economic, information, and kinetic warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, so you would think that the fake terrorists would come from those 6 countries instead of 4 countries the US is allied with. This would be like if Biden ordered the destruction of the Empire State Building and concocted fake identities of Indonesian and Filipino terrorists in order to convince the US public to invade China.

2. Their discussions on being able to hear cellphone calls was absolutely poorly argued and was the part where the video lost me. Why would they fake cellphone calls when they could just say, "the plane was too high, so we couldn't receive cellphone calls?" It's the perfect cover story (and according to the video, scientifically accurate anyways). If you examine the MO of how the US operates, they tend to destroy evidence of wrongdoing rather than fabricate false evidence. This is an extremely long read of the MS Estonia, but the part I want to emphasize was the part where they sealed off the shipwreck with concrete, literally covering up the wreckage so independent investigators can't conduct their own investigation that goes against the official narrative. This is not getting into the fact that people tend to be poor and unconvincing actors.

3. The idea that every 10 or so floors be rigged with explosives with nobody finding out is absolutely ludicrous. I originally thought controlled demolition involved just rigging the basement with explosives, but every 10 floors? Cmon. We're talking about people stashing multiple floors that face heavy foot traffic daily with tons of explosives. There's that joke among truthers of two planes needing to destroy three buildings, but the collapse of Building 7 doesn't make that much sense from the perspective of controlled demolition. People were stashing explosives in this random building with the public not noticing people were moving around tons of explosives and the conspirators not noticing only 2 planes would be involved. So not only was the public completely stupid in not noticing these weirdos moving around these mystery carts, but the conspirators were stupid as well, but only slightly less stupid than the already stupid public, meaning they could get away carting around tons of explosives. Did they not pay attention in their secret cabal meeting and thought 3 planes would be involved instead of 2? Why couldn't the conspirators, on discovering the fact that there would only be 2 planes, just cancel the controlled demolition of Building 7? Like, they could just fake any reason to quarantine off Building 7 or even just roll with it by blaming the planted explosives on al Qaeda. Kinda of a big oopsy daisy to accidentally rig a building with explosives and blow the building up.

4. To zoom out even more, controlled demolition is actually 3 different parallel conspiracies: the attack on NYC, the attack on the Pentagon, and Flight 93, meaning there's essentially 3 different team of conspirators each planning their own unique conspiracy. Why couldn't the Pentagon also be controlled demolition? At bare minimum, they could reuse the mastermind behind the controlled demolition of NYC instead getting a totally different mastermind who's good at faking a missile attack as a plane crash. And for that matter, why have 3 different conspiracies instead of just one? Was the public not willing to go to war until the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and a random field in Pennsylvania were attacked? Like the whole false flag completely hinged on those exact 3 sites and if any one was missing, the US public would shrug their shoulders and go back to listening to Britney Spears?

Honestly it seems easier to just rope some young guys into an extremist org and get them on the plane with KSA/CIA help. Probably gave them some modafinil cocktail, not totally familiar with the timeline from flight school to hijacking but maybe somebody got them a bunch of hours on MS Flight Sim 2000. It's not like they had to take off or land, just steer, and I can believe someone in that situation would be pretty damn zoned in. Assuming they weren't aware of the levels of complicity, in their mind they're either going to get blown up by NORAD, get there and be a hero, or crash and be a loser.

Darling...touch grass.

What was really convincing though was when they pointed out all the hijackers were absolutely piss poor pilots with no relevant experience to fly commercial airliners. The “they just use autopilot” argument isnt valid either because the way the planes were flown required like extreme skill at the speeds they were going at to even hit the target. They especially talk about how the maneuver on the pentagon hit is like borderline impossible from the perspective of the many professional pilots who have raised this.

Iiiii dunno here, I've played a lot of very realistic flight sims. Airliners are really not that hard to fly. Airplanes are not that hard to fly in general... when I was a kid I got to fly a small plane a couple times, it's really not hard. The only reason they require a lot of training, especially airliners, is because flying correctly only 99.0% of the time means a 1% crash rate which is uh, bad. If the hijackers spent like an hour with a joystick playing X-Plane 5.0 they'd have like an 80% chance of being able to hit a building.

I mean when I was 12, I literally read some instructions for 15 minutes and landed a realistically simulated Space Shuttle from 135,000 feet, and I ended up rolling about 20 feet off the end of the runway into the dirt at 10mph, clearly surviving and only doing light damage to the thing. First try, minutes of training, and I popped the goddamn tires on the Space Shuttle. It's really not that fuckin hard.

Also are you aware that the Pentagon is fucking massive, literally the largest office building in the entire world. They literally just landed the plane at high speed but into a wall. Literally just a "lol whoops" thing you can do in a flight sim and then lift back off and circle around and try to slow down next time.

All this physical shit is bogus. It's JFK bullet trajectory shit - Oswald was a CIA asset and you got people obsessing over whether a second CIA asset also shot a guy - wow, so different. It's a distraction. The only conspiracy you should be looking for is within the communication between Bush and his intelligence services prior to the attacks - was it really extreme incompetence, or was it willing participation, or did they see bin Laden planning the attacks and going "ok, let him cook".

deleted by creator