[0:00]I was talking with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist once. Going through the usual points. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. It was a missile that hit the Pentagon, etc. I debuked everything he brought up and could actually see his opinion start to change, so I made sure to tell him, I don't hold it against anyone for believing in these conspiracies. I can see how one would come to believe the jet fuel missile theories, as they're the most commonly believed 9/11 conspiracies, next to the fourth plane being shot down. He took a long confused pause and said, what fourth plane?
[0:44]So, this guy believed 9/11 was an inside job, but he didn't even know about United 93 and the passenger takeover. What do you think about that one that got shot down? They they've shot that let's roll one. Yeah, they shot that they shot that down. Yeah. This goes to prove a commonly accepted point about conspiracy theories. A lot of people just believe them because they're fun to believe. I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turned the freaking frogs gay. What's more interesting that some crazy dude killed JFK, or that it was a government conspiracy orchestrated by the CIA to gain control of the growing conflict in Vietnam? I'm not saying that all conspiracies are false, but you do have to enter into them with the mindset of am I believing this because it makes sense or because it's more fun, because it makes me feel like I'm in a movie. Something interesting to do here is ask a friend for a random movie. Then ask another friend for a random conspiracy theory. Watch that movie with a conspiracy in mind and you'll find connections you can't believe. I did this once with the Princess Bride and Ken trails, and I was hooked when I found the connection between the con trail crystals and actor Billy Crystal. In any major event, someone is going to come forward and throw out a conspiracy. You know, that's the date of Sandy Hook, right? I don't know. The ones that stick the best are the catchiest. Epstein didn't kill himself, Plan Demick, and of course, Jet Fuel doesn't melt steel beams. These catchphrase conspiracy theories don't go into specifics and that's why they catch on. You and a buddy may both believe Epstein didn't kill himself, but have widely different ideas on how he met his fate. So that brings us to 9/11, the biggest event for conspiracy theorists since JFK. Do you believe? Do you believe that Osama bin Laden is dead? I don't know. What would it take for you to believe that he's dead? I don't know. When I say I'm going to disprove every 9/11 conspiracy theory, you know I don't mean everyone. I won't be giving theories like the planes being holograms or Israel being behind the attacks, the courtesy of even being taken seriously. I went into this project fully expecting Islamophobic emails and it's been insane to me how many anti-Semitic emails I've gotten. People who honestly believe that no Jewish people died in the towers or that Israeli Mossad agents planted explosives in the buildings. The conspiracies I'll be disproving are the ones I can look at and say, I get it. And that narrows it down to just five major theories. One, jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Two, a missile hit the Pentagon. Three, World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition. Four, United 93 was shot down. And five, Bush did 9/11. I'm saving that one for last because all the theories build off of it. I'm also going to do something risky here. I'm going to disprove these theories without ever showing you an image of 9/11. You all know what it looks like and I think conspiracy videos are so effective because they shock you even if they don't have solid evidence. When you watch a 9/11 conspiracy video, you watch 3,000 people die over and over again and that's going to make any viewer emotional. When you're more emotional, you're more inclined to believe the unbelievable. I'm going to be presenting this as if I was talking to you one-on-one. I only have my words and that's just what I'm going to use. Can fire melt steel beams? No, it can't. It can't melt steel beams. So they're right. It can soften them enough to let them bend. One, Jet Fuel doesn't melt steel beams. I remember my seventh grade science teacher storming into the classroom one day, drawing the Twin Towers on the marker board and near yelling. Jet Fuel doesn't melt steel beams, but it does weaken it. I want y'all to understand this. This was around the time the conspiracy film Loose Change was a popular internet download, so obviously some student had brought it up and being an educator of science, Miss Brown had to make sure every kid that room was set straight. This is one of the most popular theories because it's both catchy and it makes a base level of sense. You could ignite some jet fuel over a steel beam right now and you'd be able to see it isn't melting. The issue with that experiment is that you're not adding tons and tons of steel to that equation. Despite being hit around 17 minutes later, this is the major reason why the South Tower fell before the North Tower did. It was hit lower and rather than being hit dead center like the North Tower, an exterior support of the frame was hit. This more devastating impact zone made the weight upon the weakened steel structure greater. The towers were a frame tube design, meaning that the building's support came from the exterior frame and a central core. This design left wide open floors that utilized office space, but also led to the building's eventual collapse. The fires weakened these floors and when they collapsed, the core lost its connection to the exterior. You can actually see each portion of the towers above the impact zones start to lean during collapse because of this. The structure is buckling in towards the weakness. It's also difficult to see through the dust cloud, but the core for both buildings remained standing for about 25 seconds after the primary collapse. The conspiracy theory of how the towers actually came down is that it was a controlled demolition. And that's because people have seen controlled demolitions before. When they look at the towers coming down, they say, hey, I've seen them do that in Vegas with explosives. A building collapsing is going to look like a building collapsing. I don't know how else to put it to you. How on earth would they have pulled off a controlled demolition anyway? The explosives would need to be close to the impact site. And if they're that close, then a plane explosion is going to set them off. The collapse would have happened the moment the plane hits. Even if the explosives were somehow spared from the initial impact, the hijackers would have had to hit the floors exactly to match up with the proposed controlled demolition zone. Did Bush call them the night before and say, hey, aim for floors 77 through 85 because we're going to try and blow the South Tower first. I suppose you could argue that explosives were placed to correspond with every possible impact zone, but the amount of covert work that would take and the evidence it would leave behind makes your theory even more unbelievable. Think beyond catchphrase conspiracies here, and you'll see this theory doesn't hold water. In conclusion, my middle school science teacher was right. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but it sure as hell can weaken them, and that's what happened. Each collapse begins at the impact level, and the first collapse comes from a tower that was hit with a lower, more devastating impact zone. What do you think it could be a missile? I don't know, but I just want to know why we just it's no one video. We gotta see a video. Isn't that crazy? Why am I crazy for saying, can I just see one video of the thing happening that you said happened? Well, did you know that maybe this is not true. Two, a missile hit the Pentagon. I didn't think this was a popular theory until I launched this project and people began to tell me, I'm not a truther, but all I can say is that hole in the Pentagon didn't come from a plane. I really dislike this theory because it implies American Airlines Flight 77 didn't exist. And that its passengers were either fictitious inventions or killed elsewhere. What an incredible disservice you're doing to the lives of those who died on that flight by pushing forward this theory. Children died on Flight 77. This is like when the Sandy Hook shooting happened and people said it was just a false flag to push gun control. And so there definitely has been a very there's been a cover-up of the events. The parents of those real children who were murdered sued conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for pushing this theory. But the damage was done. People still believe the government created a false flag to take away their guns because that makes them feel like they're in a movie. People believe this missile theory for two reasons. One, no clear footage of the planes impact with the Pentagon exists. There are security frames of the impact, but you can't see the plane. It's just an explosion. The obvious truth or response is, it's pretty amazing that the most secure building in the planet has no footage of the plane hitting. Why do you think the Pentagon would have a high quality camera pointed at a random side of the building? The interior of the Pentagon has to be nuts with cameras, but the exterior isn't as important with exception to the entrances. The camera that captured the explosion was a low frame rate camera for that reason. There was no apparent reason to have a camera recording constant movement in an area where nothing's expected to happen. Even if the government ensured no security camera would capture the missile, they'd have to make sure no random tourists with the camcord didn't capture it. This is DC after all, and had a tourist been in the right place at the right time, we'd have clear footage of Flight 77's impact. Second reason behind this theory is the hole in the Pentagon. People see that impact zone in the Trade Center and say, okay, that's clearly a plane, as opposed to the Pentagon, which is just a big hole and it looks like a missile blast. Remember how people came up with the control demolition theory based off of what they're already familiar with? It's the same thing here. People know what missiles hit on buildings look like and that's what the Pentagon looked like. So, American 77 was flying low and it actually clipped several streetlights and a generator before it made impact. It was leaning to the left and its right wing was hanging up when it hit. It is pointless to compare the impact zones here to the Trade Center because the Twin Towers were glass and steel, whereas the Pentagon is solid concrete with small windows. If a missile hit the Pentagon, the impact result we saw is probably what it would have looked like, but it's also been confirmed this is what it looks like when a plane hits. Okay, imagine Mike Tyson and a normal guy punching you with the same speed. Think of Tyson as the fuselage and the normal guy as the wings. One of those punches is stronger and larger than the other one, despite them both moving at the same speed. So it's going to do more damage. There are photos of plane debris all around the site and do you think government agents were planting plane shrapnel randomly throughout the Pentagon grounds to push this theory? When would they have done this while everyone was evacuating? The entry point I see for how a lot of people start to believe the Pentagon theory is this clip. According to some estimates, we cannot track 2.3 trillion in transactions. 2.3 trillion with a T. And they'll tell you it's pretty crazy how the part of the Pentagon that got hit was in charge of accounting. I don't think they tell you what. Just see if you see if you can Google the area of the Pentagon that was hit, contained the accounting offices. I don't think they tell you that. The doc bub will have it. I feel like I read that though. The part that got hit was actually being renovated, so in terms of casualties, the plane's impact did the least damage it could have by hitting that side. Okay, now let's go into that missing 2.3 trillion, which isn't actually missing, it's just not accounted for. That means Congress allocated funds for the government to spend, but it isn't clear what those funds were spent on. When you hear that 2.3 trillion went missing the day before 9/11, it makes it sound like Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld went to the bank and took out 2.3 trillion to walk off with. What it really means is that someone at the Department of Defense bought a coffee maker for the break room and didn't keep the receipt. I know that's simplifying trillions of dollars, but you get the point. It's not shocking to say the United States government isn't good with managing funds. I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work. As for the accounting section getting hit, it's the Pentagon. Something important was going to be hit. Imagine if the plane had hit the section with Rumsfeld in it. You would have had all new theories about how Rumsfeld was killed because he knew about the 2.3 trillion dollar coffee machine receipts. There is a lot wrong with this theory, but the biggest flaw to me is that real people died on that plane and it is so terribly offensive to pretend they didn't because you can't see a Looney Tune shaped plane hole on a building. I I don't know if that's possible. See, I again, I'm not an architect, but maybe it's just such a crappy design that when it catches on fire, it just collapses like that. But fire has never turned concrete into rubble in the history of the world, right? It does seem ridiculous, but I'm not smart enough to I mean, I don't, you know what I mean? Three, World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition. First off, to immediately prove Rosie O'Donnell wrong, this is the Plasco building in Tehran, Iran, which collapsed after an accidental fire. Do not use her argument because not only will you have to prove Building 7 was an inside job, but also that all these unrelated buildings like Plasco were controlled demolitions as well. Every single thing you can't explain isn't going to be explained by nanothermite, I'm sorry. The World Trade Center 7 theory is popular because there's no death guilt associated with it like the missile theory for the Pentagon. No one died in Building 7 when it collapsed. You also get to feel smart when you talk about it because while your average Joe may have a rebuttal for the structural integrity of a building after a plane explodes inside of it, they most likely won't when asked how to explain why a third building, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed. And that is correct. Around 7 hours after the North Tower fell, the building known as World Trade Center 7 came down as well. I'm breaking my rule and showing you 9/11 footage here because I don't know how many of you have actually seen 7 come down or even know that it existed. The World Trade Center wasn't just the two towers. It was an entire complex with a Marriott Hotel and other financial buildings. I'll play that worn record here and say this footage immediately drew the same controlled demolition comparison that the twin towers did. Unlike the towers, though, there's no obvious damage. This building looks even more like the Vegas demolitions. The apparent damage street picture you see of 7 is from the north away from the destruction. If you were to look at the building from the side of ground zero, you'd see a structure that just had to combine 220 floors collapse right next to it. The same principle used to disprove the steel beam theory comes into play here. That's why it took 7 hours for Building 7 to come down. There was no direct impact zone, and therefore the steel took much longer to weaken. As the windows were destroyed in the Ground Zero side, it became very easy for fires to spread throughout the building. You've seen the BBC reporter who was speaking on camera and World Trade Center 7 is behind her, and she says World Trade Center 7 has just fallen. It has fallen. It is the third building, and it's still standing. And 10 minutes later, Joe, the building fell. One popular supporting point to the WTC 7 theory is that the BBC announced it had collapsed before it actually had. The reason why this happened is because everyone expected 7 to collapse. Rescue workers actually had to leave the Ground Zero area because NYFD told them 7 was going to come down. As a result, BBC had their report ready to go and just jumped the gun. This isn't even that bad considering how massive the spread of disinformation was that day. Every single major news agency reports something false. Also, why would people believe the British broadcasting company was in on the 9/11 attacks? How massive is this conspiracy that media guys in London had advanced knowledge? Okay, let's talk about your BBC. I have a tape of a BBC reporter broadcasting directly back to England, talking about a third building has collapsed. World Trade Center Building 7, talks for 27 minutes. All the while she's talking, World Trade Center Building 7 is still standing right behind her.
[14:03]You're trying to make out the British Broadcasting Company, one of the most respected news organizations in the world, was inventing huge buildings falling over. You need to have a little you need to have a break, Jesse. We'll come back after the break and we'll talk about Israel. The more parties that are added to your conspiracy, the harder it is to believe. Anybody saying they have proof that 7 couldn't have collapsed, doesn't know what they're talking about because all I have to go on is basically this video. NYFD did a structural assessment of the building 3 hours before it came down and saw the warped and weakened steel themselves. They made the call that it was coming down. Your conspiracy now involves the U.S. government, Al-Qaeda, the BBC, the New York Fire Department and many other organizations. Were they all in the same email list? How do you organize this? In the end you had to ask yourself, why? Why take down seven when you already took down the main towers and seven would most certainly have to be raised anyway, even if it survived. I heard that building seven had a lot of financial records in. That's what I heard. That's what I heard. And I don't know.
[15:03]Of course, seven contain financial records. It's a building in the financial district. That's an even weaker argument than the Pentagon accounting theory. I've read lots of theories on this, some again anti-Semitic for some reason, and none of them convinced me of why the supposed conspirators would want to take this risk and possibly blow the entire operation with this additional building. World Trade Center 7 came down for the same reason as the towers, the weight of the building pushing down upon weak and steel. This steel was not weakened by a plane, but by the destruction of two 110-story buildings. This is why 7 took much longer to come down and it's why rescue workers continue to fear that other buildings in the area were coming down as well. That BBC theory actually brings down the credibility of anyone who believes 7 was a control demolition because it shows that everyone was ready for 7 to come down, not that it was some surprise demolition. Yeah, they said that thing the the flight the the uh rubbish the wreckage was scattered for miles. Yeah, I mean there's there's no way they didn't shot that. But there's a lot of things about that day where you look back at it and you go, this is just weird. Four, Flight United 93 was shot down. For me, believing that United 93 was shot down is a disservice to those who died, similar to believing that a missile hit the Pentagon. By believing this, you're saying that those brave men and women that revolted on Flight 93 actually did nothing. This theory does come from a place of reality, as Dick Cheney did authorize the use of force to shoot down hijacked aircraft. Had United 93 been confirmed hijacked and in the sights of armed F-16s, it would have certainly been shot down. Any track of interest that's heading towards a major city, you will ID, if you cannot divert them away from a major city, you are to confirm with me first. Most likely, you will get clearance to shoot. And tell me, I have to tell them that in the clear? You can tell them exactly in those words. Okay. There were actually two F-16s sent up to find United 93, but they were both unarmed. And to take down the flight, the pilots would have had to kamikaze their own jets into United 93. The first would attempt to take out the tail and if that failed, the second would try for the cockpit. These F-16s were still too far out at the time and Flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania before anyone could take action. Evidence of the passenger revolt exists from numerous phone calls, and can be definitively proven to have taken place. The reason people believe this theory is because Cheney gave that order, and in their minds they think, well, he gave the order. So what would he have done if they did shoot down United 93? Would they have covered it up? The answer to that is that they would have not covered it up. A major criticism of the United States government during 9/11 is that they didn't do anything. That Bush just read my pet goat and waited for things to pass. Horrible as it may be, the administration would be able to point shooting down flight 93 and say, Look, we gave that order and in the end, it saved lives. Had the government done this, however, there would be an entirely different alternate timeline of theories where people would say, Flight 93 was not a hijacked flight and was in fact, just shot down so the government could pretend that they actually did something. The cockpit recording the passengers trying to take back the plane exists. If you believe that 93 was shot down, I want you to imagine telling one of the loved ones of those passengers that they're recording of those final brave moments is fake. It's recorded by actors. Those men and women were heroes, and you want to pretend that they weren't just because your narrative has to always have the government be the bad guy. It seems like something they would do, so I'm going to say that they did it. You know, when you have someone in your lifetime in a in a period of 10 years that tells you a half a dozen major lies, uh it becomes difficult then when they do tell you the truth, how do you know you're getting the truth? Conspiracy theorists have no room for heroes when it goes against their agenda. The Flight 93 theory has a mountain of evidence disproving it. And if you want to say the debris field is too wide, then by all means go crash a plane in your own backyard and see what it looks like. And that's what made me question 9/11 because when I found out Bush was going to go into Iraq, I sat back and thought, wait a minute. These 19 hijackers that they claim, uh, hit the World Trade Center, there wasn't one Iraqi among them. Well, to me that's like Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese attack us at Pearl Harbor, well then let's go get Korea after all they're Asian too. All of a sudden we're attacked by Al-Qaeda and the government is like, oh, we need to go into Iraq. So again, the government, I feel like fuels this conspiracy by I mean, it doesn't make any sense. What is what did Iraq do? Yeah, it was exploited. They exploited the event.
[19:16]Now, they, you know, essentially benefited from it and that it furthered their, you know, geopolitical goals in some ways. But, uh, just because that happened, it doesn't mean that they actually did it. Sure. It just means they took advantage of it. Oh, great. Yeah, I mean if you find a wallet on the street, it doesn't mean that you stole the wallet from somebody. It just means you just found it and you've taken it. It doesn't mean you, yeah, if there was a murder and there's something lying around and you take it, it doesn't mean you killed the guy. You're just exploiting the situation and that's what happened with the government. Five, Bush did 9/11. There's a real paradox to this one because the people that believe it also believe that George W. Bush is one of the most incompetent men to ever hold public office. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so were we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. It's no secret W wanted to go back to Iraq and finish what his father started, to take out Saddam Hussein. Bush did 9/11 believers think that 9/11 was either plotted by or allowed to happen by the Bush administration so that they could justify involvement in the Middle East for oil and war profits. Let's go ahead and throw that plotted by theory out because hijacker preparation, such as pilot training, were already happening during the Clinton administration. The hijackers were real, and they crashed the planes on orders from Al-Qaeda. Humoring any alternative is almost as bad as acknowledging the hologram theories for me. As for the allowed to happen theory, why is Dick Cheney in the White House on 9/11 if they knew it was coming? The White House is a potential target, and they're going to put Cheney out in the open? Vice President Cheney is the mastermind of America's involvement in the Middle East, after all. So, if anyone played a hand in the inside job, it would definitely be him. People who believe it was allowed to happen can't seem to comprehend how dysfunctional the intelligence agencies were leading up to the attacks.
[21:05]For them, it's more believable to think that high-level people knew this was coming and chose to do nothing, than it is to believe that the CIA was not sharing information with the FBI because they didn't want the FBI to take the credit. Incompetence is never a popular conspiracy theory because it's not fun. You want the bond villain to be smart and calculating, not bumbling and childish. There are also historical precedents for this kind of thing. Operation Northwoods was a false flag operation proposed by the Department of Defense to justify war with Cuba. These proposed fake terrorist attacks included the U.S. government sinking Cuban refugee boats, shooting down planes, and blowing up a U.S. ship. President Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods. And that's the thing, something this massive doesn't just appear overnight. If we're comparing Bush did 9/11 to Northwoods, we can already say it's different because Northwoods would have used U.S. resources and manpower to execute the attacks. And as previously mentioned, the terrorists were in the States preparing Al-Qaeda orders. If Bush allowed it to happen, that means he knew it was coming, and if he knew it was coming, how did he figure it out in the first place? Another intelligence agency would have had to have known, and then told Bush. And that means they all knew it was coming and had to go along with it even though their entire job description is to stop Bin Laden. There would also be a paper trail for this discovery. All we have is a memo from the month before stating, Bin Laden determined to strike U.S. And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB. I believe the title was Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States. Thank you. Now the, uh, the PDB. In retrospect, the administration doing nothing about that memo has aged poorly, but at the time, everyone read it and said, Well, of course he wants to attack us. That guy hates us. Remember how COVID-19 didn't seem serious in February and we were making memes about how poorly Italy was handling it? And then a couple weeks later, the United States was shut down. It's kind of like that. You can look back and say the start of the pandemic should have been handled differently. Well, it's important for folks to know that face masks are not recommended for the general public. Many more people will likely die from the flu in this country this year, than we'll even get sick from coronavirus. But at the time, you probably didn't think that because you hadn't experienced anything close to the scale of the coming storm. You can read tweets from Democratic politicians in February encouraging people to go out and eat. And now those same politicians are saying, we should have locked down in February. Retrospect isn't a good argument. Sounding smart now doesn't help after the house burned down. When someone says, Bush did 9/11, ask them to explain how. They'll most likely pause and say, I don't know, man, but I'm sure he was happy he had a reason to invade Iraq. There's a what aboutism that drives conspiracy theories. Donald Trump claims Joe Biden only beat him in the 2020 election because of fake ballots and ballot purging. When it is proven this isn't the case, some supporters will still say, well, it's still something I can see the Democrats doing. They'd do anything to win. Look for consistencies in the inconsistencies. Donald Trump doesn't like losing. And in the 2016 Iowa caucus, he lost to Ted Cruz. Guess why he said he lost. Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, Trump tweeted, he stole it, adding either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. I think distrust of the government is actually a healthy part of democracy. While shot down by President Kennedy, Operation Northwoods was a real plan that several high-ranking government officials supported. As much as this video exists to disprove 9/11 conspiracies, I also want you to realize there are people in every government, in every state or nation, that will lie to you for their own gain. This does not mean everything is a lie, though, just that it's not unpatriotic to question things, and that's why I hold nothing against people who want to know more about 9/11, why it happened, how it happened. The things they can't explain. I hope that by having conversations like this, they are willing to understand reality. Even if that means joining the majority. Mark Twain said, whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. And I fully live by that statement.
[24:43]The issue is that some people never want to be on the side of the majority because their entire personality is from being in the minority. The majority is oppression, those living in the Matrix. The minority is freedom, those who can think for themselves instead of what the machine tells them to believe. Never believe someone who sacrifices reality for personality. Regardless of how much of an individual you think you are, you are in the majority more than you realize and that's okay. Just so long as you reflect on how you got there. You've got to think for yourself. You're all individuals. Yes, we're all individuals. The majority of people don't believe Bush did 9/11, but they do believe he exploited the situation to further his goal in Iraq. Okay, let's shift to something lighter. 9/11. Definitely does not seem to have been what we're told it was. I don't even think they were planes. I thought about ending this video by contrasting the 9/11 theories with real proven conspiracies like MK Ultra or the Tuskegee Experiment. But the fact that we know about those disqualifies them. Whistleblowers came forward and journalists uncovered the truth. While the facts of these cases are horrifying, you don't feel like you're in the X-Files when you bring up African-Americans being lied to and used as guinea pigs in syphilis tests. There's no catchphrase there, there's no excitement, just horror and valid reasoning to distrust the government. French director François Truffaut famously said there is no such thing as an anti-war film. What he meant is that despite the guns, the blood, the carnage, war films are always made to be exciting. That's why the audience sees them. That same philosophy can be carried to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You pretend to be interested because you want to uncover the truth. Because you distrust the government that has lied to you before. But aren't you actually interested because it's exciting? Because you want to feel like you're in a movie. You know, wait a minute. I do. Well, I know a little bit about. How can they fall at the rate of gravity? Where were you on 9/11? American September is a documentary film project collecting September 11th memories from all 50 States and around the world. If you would like to share your story or view the ones collected so far, visit the web page in the video description. It was obviously not possible to go into every theory or detail in this video such as the speed building 7 fell at or Saudi Arabia's involvement in the attacks. That last one's complicated and maybe it'll get its own video eventually. If you're a skeptic who disagree with my points or felt there were counter points to can disprove me, feel free to share your views. If enough people respond to this video, I'll make a follow-up answering your questions. A good deal of my research was done on Metbunk.com, which is operated by Mick West, who you saw in the H3 podcast video. He is probably the most knowledgeable debunker of 9/11 conspiracies. And if you want to do a deep dive into the subject, please check out his work.
