Russia

Disingenuous people will say that's whataboutery, but I hear you.

What you observed will be brushed under the carpet and ignored, just like little Britian "the computer says no"

The media and people in powerful positions think we have the memory and retention of a goldfish. I remember back to the Iran Iraq war all through the gulf war and it sickens me to observe the hypocrisy.

Those who support Joe Biden and his lackeys and supporters find many on this site don't care about the harm the west has done. You are now forbidden from bringing up the criminality of the west or its lies about the war inside Ukraine. There are more banned people on the list than people who post content on the threads. According to them, everything Ukrainians say on Twitter is true and the Ukraine government can't possibly lie about the war situation on the ground. The very same people were in denial about Mariupol and predicted Russia would lose badly. The surrender was all part of the plan by the Ukrainians! It's funny that the same idiots scream from rooftops about how Moscow bans people from having a voice, the opposition, but they support censorship here about this war. Apparently, they don't see the irony. The East War isn't going well for Ukraine, but since they only look at Ukraine tweets, they've been missing the encirclement that's been happening at a steady pace for days now. Tweet a different story when the entire front collapses, just watch!!!

In order to satisfy its own twisted needs, the US never acknowledges that it upsets the balance of countries. Many users do have a hard time justifying American wars for oil and power. Regards Ukraine, a major problem was white nationalists/neo-nazis being in the regular army and a failure to listen to its concerns about Ukraine joining Nato. The United States has basically provided all the weapons to Ukraine without declaring war and waging an economic war across many fronts. Based on the harm they caused here, the Russian government plays very nice with Europe and the US.

 I understand your point of view. It's ridiculous to call posters anti-American, it's common on threads when you have an issue with their foreign policy.

Eisenhower made an impassioned speech about the military-industrial complex before he left office, he basically said it could turn anti-American, and many tragedies happened after he left. It is my opinion that this bad influence led to JFK's assassination in Dallas, the Vietnam war, small conflicts across the globe, the Iraqi war in 2003, and of course 9/11.  

The whole world has been shamed into believing that the picture of Russia we see today is a real one. Under false pretenses like Iraq 2003, the west started the war. There were many false stories about what Saddam was going to do to Europe and the UK as he fired missiles. Fake Iraqi labs and nuclear sites depicted in Pentagon screenshots all turned out to be false. This has lead me to be to question reality as we are told. There is no government on earth that does not have the capability of launching false flag operations, and that includes Russia and China.  

I'm not anti-American or anti-Russian, I consider the reasons for war and consider whether the points made are valid. 

If you do not accept you have upset the balance of power in other countries and caused hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths, you are unlikely to stop making mistakes. Isis would never have arisen had it not been for the Iraq war, which Biden and CO signed into. There is denial the US played no role in that Ukraine revolution, with the overthrow of the elected leader that caused this mess and led to Crimea joining Russia and now 2022 war in other areas of Ukraine.  

I read some books over the last week, maybe that helped. Learning about world stuff helps with discussions. Previously, I would just post without worrying about the language. Now I check to make sure my post is okay. On a bad day, my go **** again.

9/11 WTC 7 collapse theory has never changed and I stand by my controlled demolition hypothesis. 

A few things may have changed about the conspirators here and there. It is a matter of speculating on who has the funds and contacts to carry out such an operation without getting caught.

Probability: Least likely. but I consider it.

They are likely to be post-World War II Nazis who passed on their wealth to their children but saw 9/11 as an opportunity to get richer. 

Probabiity: likely.

Mossad : American news outlets reported Israeli agents bugging government buildings and posing as art students. A few fake moving companies were also operating out of Queens, New York, some doing maintenance. Dancing Israelis caught after 9/11 were hired by one of the moving companies operating out of Queens.

A rogue political/ black ops organization/ CIA/ Neocon.

After 9/11, there were many lies and distortions of the truth that make this one more likely.

To my mind, this speculation is fine since a team planted some devices inside the seven and brought it down. The team's identity is unknown. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the building was brought down. The fact that the NIST theory about the collapse is incorrect proves that yet again.

Ignoring the NIST work on freefall for 7 years!!! There isn't one mention of freefall in their entire draft paper about the collapse of seven. The debunkers do not seem to understand why that would pose a problem with their overall argument about the collapse!!!! NIST even scoffed at the idea of freefall, saying that there would be resistance to slow the fall. Physical impossibility according to them, suddenly became an actual reality when they tried to explain the collapse in three stages in their final report. 

NIST's own computer-generated models show what would happen if the collapse occurred as they predicted!!  The building would collapse, and walls on all floors would be crushed and crumble inwards. A video would show the building falling apart. Despite NIST not watching the actual video, the collapse was straight down, with very little movement of the corners, although there was a lot of pull in on their models and crushing. NIST is not showing the actual collapse, end of the story.  

I do yes and taken a bit of time to reply here.

Skeptics/debunkers claim that controlled demolition isn't possible because we can't hear the sounds that are common to controlled demolition in an industrial/commercial setting. 

In my opinion, the towers and building seven were not brought down in the same way. Using the video footage, I would argue that there is a loud noise that is associated with the controlled explosion before the collapse of the World Trade Center seven. According to NIST, no loud noise was heard on the ground or on video prior to the collapse events at seven ( another myth).

Nobody claimed to have seen molten steel liquid flowing in the rubble of towers (another NIST myth) There is many genuine videos of the clean-up crew, the building engineers, architects, and New York firefighters, many others, all stating they saw a red hot and yellow liquid underneath the rubble, some of the liquid was directly beside the now broken steel core. The fact that NIST is denying this happened despite this mass of evidence and people's statements prove the investigation wasn't genuine and they had an agenda from the beginning. 

Traffic jams, sirens on emergency vehicles- going off, and big crowds created a lot of noise around the towers, making background noise difficult to detect. The towers collapsed from the top-down, unlike building 7, with the top half falling through the bottom at an acceleration of gravity. There is no natural way for this to occur since when the collapse happens, the top half is crushing the lower half. 

There is no natural way for this to occur. There are structural components underneath. It would be physically impossible unless you had something else that pushed structural components out of the way. The only way to achieve freefall is through controlled demolition. In order for the building to fall naturally, the top half has to push away the resistance of the bottom half, so you don't need to know anything about physics or mathematics. All buildings have structural resistance from the top down, so if you buy into the natural collapse theory, the top half has to push away the resistance of the bottom half. As a result, if you are using energy to break up resistance, you won't be in free fall. That's a red flag, debunkers prefer to ignore.

Potentially what brought down the towers. Neils Harrit, a Danish chemist working at a university in Denmark, studied the dust from the towers and conducted research on it. He discovered tiny red and grey chips in the dust that seemed to mimic nanothermite's properties. Harrit reviewed research papers belonging to the US military and compared his chip results with what was observed in laboratory experiments carried out by the US military. Results are very unusual. The chips contained nanoparticles of thermite, which were visible under a microscope. In contrast with standard thermite, this has the unusual property of igniting at very low temperatures, while standard thermite requires a lot of heat to ignite. Having read the paper a while ago, now I forget things, but the conclusion was it was an energetic material manufactured in a sophisticated facility, capable of melting steel and causing instability and eventual collapse. Additional Harrit testing indicated a gas release, which may or may not explain why the tower burst into a mountain cloud of debris. It is most likely that the chips were in solid block form of material and were simply placed on steel columns, and when the planes hit the fire, heat ignited the chips, and then the core steel up top was dismantled.

Since actual papers exist that describe what nanothermite can and cannot do, this theory is not unfounded. Red/ grey chips of nano-thermite can be seen in the dust samples. That's the question that needs answering: how did they end up in the dust? Harrit observed all the properties of thermite in his X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses. This is real science, despite claims to the contrary. On another site, debunkers, have no science background, claim that there is no aluminum in the red layer, but Harrit XEDS has proven this to be false. The claim that no aluminum exists is based on a study by an individual involved with an official government study of tower dust. For the truther community it looks like he was looking at primer red paint instead of red/chip chips. 

Timber this image?

As well, the image is a false memory. As I said, there are probably two firefighters' reflections here or some strange camera effect at play here. 

In the right hand corner, there is a person standing next to the red/yellow liquid. Convinced of it ( i laughed) Since where are his legs? I start laughing. The image is plastered on the side of a broken steel building. (top right corner) laughed even more. 

Once you got convinced that person in between the steel columns was a real person too, you argued endlessly over it. As a result, I started slagging off one user because he believes in little people who are 2 feet tall.

 Rather, it appears to be an oddity and the reflection mimics the firefighter on the left and position. He appears to be holding something in front of him. The little person is mimicking him. Maybe not the one who needs their eyes checked?

After that got worse, you guys argued that it was not a pool of hot liquid, but sparks from cutting tools that were leaving the pool. Sparks don't form on the ground in a pool like this. Despite making lots of mistakes and errors on other things, i dont feel the need to talk about it 

What is important is the NIST denials that anyone saw a red/yellow liquid flowing in the rubble after the collapse. The image alone proves the government version is not accurate.

I'm not the one trying to close this thread, so stop pretending that you are interested in debating the original poster's comments. This thread has already died. I am not sure the original poster wants to back up his arguments. It is up to them to do so and take it from there. 

There were posts sent my way, so I replied, but you often disregard those other posters add other subjects to the mix because they want to, but pretend otherwise later!! 

  The photograph shows three humans ( blue marks). You did not make that argument. According to you and your friends, the images in the red highlighted boxes represented people as well, which I disagree with.

. The photo contains likely camera artifacts or strange reflections of the firefighters, as I mentioned. You told me that there were five people in the picture for a week. It seems odd that you have forgotten these details now.

The fact that there were workers at Ground Zero cutting steel to load into trucks does not prove your point. Image mixing doesn't work here.

You think it sparks coming from a cutting tool, which is obviously not the case.

A closer look reveals a large pool of liquid in a large area near the steel columns. It appears to be the result of sparks according to you. I consider your points of view when you find a pool of sparks flowing in a similar fashion.

What might have caused the twin towers to collapse? I discussed this in post 36. Read the end.