O bus kaip bus .....

They collapsed. Watch the video.

Down, and out, as anyone who has even the beginning of a comprehension would know.

@@UKpostsSucks_1 they dissolved into dust and most of it floated away. From two 110 storey buildings there should be a minimum of 20 storeys equivalent of rubble. Have another look. There were 30 foot holes in the ground too.

@@mooneyes2k478 no, apparently they just "evaporated" ukposts.info/have/v-deo/bmB8hJ9_ppV1y5s.htmlsi=WlDYjaL5LMvSnsUH

@@munkypark2560 - I'm not interested in cherry farming. If the Twin Towers _turned to dust_ why didn't all of Lower Manhattan turn orange by the next day?

Why? It's 5 hours of being bukake'd with stupid. All of the typical conspiracist propaganda tricks are there. It is a film intended for an audience that knows very little about the 9/11 attacks and is not inclined to ask any questions even if they knew what to ask. Which they usually don't. Literally nothing in that film holds water and yes, I am absolutely willing to put that to the test as I have done hundreds of times before.

I highly recommend you learn basic science and a bit of discernment.

@mooneyes2k478 bwahahaha!!! Are you saying that to me?? Ok, scientifically, why don't you explain to me how many steel high-rise buildings have EVER collapsed due to fire? Only 3 huh?????? Weird, right? But, I'm sure you're right that common office supplies and furniture can get hot enough to weaken steel. And then come down at free fall speeds. Science. You dolt.

@UKpostsSucks_1 let's go then. How many high-rise steel buildings have completely collapsed due to uncontrolled fires. 3. There were 2 buildings that partially collapsed, but NOTHING like the WTC's at FREE FALL SPEED. Use your brain. Pancake effect? Cmon. How did the planes reach catastrophic speeds and still hold together before the impacts? Why are we only shown 2 pictures of the same 2 ppl out of the 15-18 highjackers in airports? What? Airports don't have cameras? Same question about the Pentagon? Do you think the Pentagon only has that one camera for the spliced images we were shown?? I can go on and on. It doesn't make sense. But, I guess you don't need it to make sense when you have a government entity telling you what to think and don't bother to think critically about it for yourself. Do you know how many pilots and engineers are publicly against the NIST conclusions? It's not just me with a tin foil hat here. I know I'm not going to convince you, so I'll leave it be. I'm just curious, so you're ok with the NIST explanations of WTC 7, as well?? Buildings don't just fall at free fall speeds unless they are being dismantled with controlled demolition. "It was beyond our imagination!" even though the CIA had already created operations to do the exact same thing in the late 60's/early 70's. Go on, be blissful knowing that 2 buildings designed to take a collision with a big airliner could fall at free fall speeds, the magic bullet theory is correct, we (US) didn't know about the imminent strike on Pearl Harbor, and that Covid came from a wet market and not WuHan lab. I mean, they've never lied to us before, right?? Wake up. And the incompetence theory.... please. I fought 10 long years against what in saying now. Until the evidence got piled so high against me I had to no other conclusions to come to. Thank God I'm not willfully ignorant like you talk to be.

@@ryanhopkins6090 - I make it a point to address only one issue at a time until that issue is resolved, to maintain clarity and avoid the (inevitable) evasive off-topic derails and Gish Gallop. So, to answer your first question: Irrelevant. You are invoking the obvious _first time in history_ logical fallacy. Not a good plan. I guarantee that's not a winner. But really I have a better idea. Let's play a round of _stump the chumps_ . Since _you_ decided to make this about the film "9/11 A New Pearl Harbor" I will issue the same challenge I have issued hundreds of times before and only one person has ever taken up. Find one claim or argument in NPH which you believe is particularly robust or irrefutable. Indicate the timestamp it can be found at and at least summarize what that argument is. Let's see if it stands up to even a small amount of scrutiny. I eagerly await your excuses for not taking me up on that reasonable offer. I've seen this movie plenty of times.