peer reviewed

Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.

debunk unevidenced claims

Are you assuming the points are “unevidenced” without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I’m citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).

I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it’s harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.

It’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).

There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn’t see which was his position, and I don’t have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was “What you really do”, and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it’s at least interesting.

Do not make appeals to authority

When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.

I didn’t know about this one. But this is a very old building and much smaller than the three WTC towers; it’s very understandable that this compromised building fell in the described way. You just adressed one point and proceeded to tell I’m just believing some nonsense. If you read better what I said, you will note I didn’t even say I believe it was a controlled demolition. I said it is much more likely than the official explanations.

As an engineer, I tell you the controlled demolition thing is much more plausible than the theories brought by the official reports. There is footage of incandescent molten steel being spewed from windows. That alone cannot be explained by a fire originated from the combustion of the plane fuel, because of the fusion point of the steal. Besides this, the way the three buildings collapsed, one of them not even being hit by a plane, looks exactly like a controlled demolition (coordinated sequential explosions, symmetrical collapse centered over the base of the building, near free fall acceleration etc.). Note that the only three high-rise buildings in history said to have collapsed by a fire are the buildings collapsed in the 911.

We also can’t simply tell that the dozens of engineers and architects from https://www.ae911truth.org/ are all pseudoscience crackpots. There are two other sites analogous to this, one by firefighters and other by pilots. And then there is the research of Niels Harrit.

It’s hard to explain how they would have mannaged to secretly put the charges in the buildings. But the fact is the evidence for controlled demolition does exist.

About hollogram planes: this is not needed in the controlled demolition explanation. The planes could have hit the towers as part of the false flag, and then after some time they would initiate the controlled demolition.

Did you know Michael Jackson was supposed to be in the WTC durring the 911? He had a scheduled meeting there, but he missed it because he overslept. While this might be a mere coincidence, what if they arranged Michael Jackson to be there just to make the “attack” cause more public commotion? (This part is just speculation, of course).

A nice docummentary on the subject: 9/11 - Decade of Deception.

weCIApedia

Artisanal burgers are much tastier than McDonald’s. In fact, it’s not hard for a real burger to be tastier than a McDonald’s one, at least in my country (I’m not sure if McDonald’s quality is the same in all countries). Here, McDonald’s isn’t very good, and even so it’s quite expensive. Even the most affordable option on the menu is pricey, and it barely has anything inside. Not to mention that these fast food burgers are tiny.

Hambúrgueres artesanais são muito mais gostosos que McDonald’s. Na verdade não é difícil um hambúrguer de verdade ser mais gostoso que um McDonald’s, pelo menos no meu país (não tenho certeza se a qualidade do McDonald’s é a mesma em todos os países). Aqui McDonald’s não é muito bom e ainda é bem caro; a opção mais acessível do menu já é cara, e não têm quase nada dentro. Sem falar que esses hambúrgueres de fast food são bem pequenos.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yep. I made the pic and the fic just for fun. She is most definitely a puppet. She was also silent about the Ohio train derailment disaster (right?). Besides, there is the theory that the green agenda pushed by the USA and its vassals does not aim to mitigate climate change, but instead aims to difficult the industrial growth of big developing countries like India and Brazil.

Their use of nominal GDP while ignoring GDP PPP reminds me of the Tokyo olympics. While China had more gold medals than USA, American news were using the total medal count to sort countries, instead of sorting them by gold medal count. At the final day of the olympics USA surpassed China in gold medals (39 vs 38), and thus the American news returned back to the traditional gold medal count for sorting the countries.