If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    R J Lee quote them above. WTC event produced

    Mick West has dedicated a significant amount of time examining this topic 

    However, despite this dedication, he failed to acknowledge a crucial piece of evidence that undermines his stance. R J Lee, a prominent figure in the field, made the claim that the fires were hot and that they produced combustion-modified products during the fire event.

    Mick, from what I have observed, has not conducted an experiment that demonstrates conclusively how all the melted material occurred before the collapse. Instead, his focus has been on alternative explanations, such as sparks, flint, bic lighters, and torches cutting steel slabs, which are all considered low probability events or showing findings that occurred after the collapse started or were found in the debris pile.

    Again any Fire that would be Melting Steel and Iron would be more hotter than what official narratives says.I question the official narrative because it does not make any sense at all. The NIST theories on it raise even more doubts.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    But as has been shown by the study and stated by RJ Lee himself, no thermite reaction took place, so the materials found can't have been produced by thermite. RJ Lee says it was due to the fire.

    You yourself had said that there was no reason to question the study. But this has seemed to have changed since you have actually read part of it.

    Now you seem to falling back to the false assertion that RJ Lee is part of the conspiracy, or is completely and utterly incompetent. If that is the case then the study is invalid and should be rejected wholesale.

    You however don't want to do this as you mistakenly believe that it's one of the few straws to clutch at to support your ridiculous thermite theory.

    However since you will refuse to accept or acknowledge this there's little point in continuing attempts to get you to discuss it.

    But another issue that you will most likely avoid is how the study fits into your larger narrative. As always there's endless contradictions and plot holes.

    If RJ Lee isn't part of the conspiracy then it makes no sense that the report would have been allowed to come out. You believe this is the case for conspiracy scam papers like Hulsey's report. You claim that any study that disagrees with the narrative or shows its false is blocked from publication.

    Likewise it raises the problem of why Lee would be allowed to conduct his study at all given that he wasn't under the conspiracy's control.

    And the problem of why the study and RJ Lee have not received any kind of push back or attempts at discrediting like you believe happens with fraudsters like Husley.

    So if we are to accept your interpretation of this report, then it means it disproves all of your silly accusations about studies being suppressed.

    Yet another corner you've painted yourself into.

    Also if you have an issue with Mick Wests position, maybe you should take that up with Mick West. From what I see he's very active over at his own forum and more than willing to discuss things. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to argue against his position here where he can't see it and can't reply.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,844 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    The investigations concluded the buildings fell due to fire.

    You claim they were "blown up", but have never properly supported that. Instead you go round and round this hamster wheel rehashing old truther talking points that have been explained to death, resurrecting them from the dead like 4 or 5 or more times as part of a pattern. The photograph with the "liquid steel" is next, where you see things that no one else can.

    Note how it's always the same circus with this conspiracy stuff. It's not a coincidence.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,844 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Step 1. Never detail the conspiracy

    Step 2. Deflect onto obscure technical details luring someone to "prove" these details to you

    Step 3. Reject all explanations/evidence

    Step 4. There must be a conspiracy

    Repeat steps 1 to 4.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭brokenbad

    Jim Corr is gone very quiet these days....

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Cheerful keeps showing how shallow and based on ignorance all conspiracy theories ultimately are.

    Every point he's brought up has been debunked and disproven many times over. Every single time he's avoided defending or detailing any of his theories. Half the time he contradicts his previous claims. The other half he gaslights like above and pretends that he never argued what he did.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    I do not accuse the R. J. Lee Group of fraud or being part of the conspiracy, as I believe that their assessments of 9/11 are based on logical reasoning and what they saw on television, just like everyone else. It is important to acknowledge that individuals may have different perspectives and interpretations based on their own experiences and observations.

    R J Lee group theory states that the extreme heat generated by the fires, coupled with the prolonged exposure to the extreme temperatures, caused the creation of iron microspheres.

     Why is this important?

    The importance of the R J Lee assumption lies in its contradiction to the findings of the NIST study. While the NIST investigation ruled out any melting of Iron or Steel during the WTC fires, Lee argues that these fires reached temperatures significantly hotter than 1000 degrees Celsius and of melting happened when the buildings were on fire.

    If Lee's theory is correct, it means that the fires could have reached higher temperatures than previously believed, potentially altering the structural integrity of the WTC buildings. The problem that no one has so far approached is the clear differences in how view the fires at the World Trade Center. Both R J Lee group and NIST have their own perspectives on the events that took place that day, and the discrepancies between those views have not gone unnoticed. It is worth noting that debunkers, who typically approach this topic from a non-conspiratorial point of view, are the ideal candidates for addressing this issue. 

    Instead. Debunkers have been arguing over nonsense for years on forums and YouTube. Their goal seems to be trying to find ways to create iron microspheres by other means that are considered legitimate, but they have completely ignored the fact that a mainstream group investigating the Dust phenomenon has stated that the iron was melted during the time the towers were standing.

    Debunkers of the 9/11 conspiracy theory often dismiss the conspiracy version due to the lack of a play-by-play account of how the it was done However, they ignore significant clues shown on the day of the attacks, such as the red/yellow liquid pouring out of the South Tower 60 seconds before its collapse.

    I am still amazed that twenty years later, people still have not grasped the fact that they are witnessing a melting event on video.

    The footage shows a liquid pouring out of the window, a clear indication that something is amiss. Yet, instead of taking this obvious evidence into account, many continue to argue about steel losing strength causing the collapses and other issues.

    South tower. Liquid is pouring out.

    For the past two decades, there has been a growing movement in the debunking community that seeks to dismiss various anomalies that have been witnessed. This behavior can be attributed to the fact that the reality behind these anomalies is actually quite scary for them. These anomalies include contradictory evidence, witness testimonies, and scientific evidence that suggest alternative narratives to the widely accepted version of events. Instead of embracing these anomalies and seeking a deeper understanding of them, many debunkers have dismissed them as false or exaggerated.

    The reluctance to accept these anomalies can be attributed to the fear of what is really going on.

    Another myth that is often perpetuated is that multiple investigations have shown fire to be the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers. However, this is incorrect. The only investigation that has ever been conducted was carried out by the mainstream NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) with some help from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). Outside of that, nobody else has touched it since.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    That's a lot of waffle.

    However you must be accusing them of fraud now as you believe they did their scientific analysis based on what they saw on TV.

    That's not how you do chemical analysis.

    Or you are accusing them of incompetence as they missed all of the evidence that you think is obvious despite your complete lack of any scientific knowledge or understanding. If you believe that these people are less expert than you, then they are engaging in fraud by pretending to be qualified or knowledgeable.

    And of course in your hamster wheel waffle you completely avoid my previous point that shows the study is incompatible with the rest of your theory.

    This is why "debunkers" and normal people and other conspiracy theorists aren't convinced by your theories.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    In recent days, a purported conference in Germany featured a guest speaker who was a renowned engineer and controlled demolition expert. The topic at hand was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, but rather the engineer was invited to share his expertise on controlled demolition 9/11 theory.

    I wonder how many more people like this have not spoken in twenty years about it.

    German with subtitles.

    Professor at this university

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    It's easy enough to find experts who believe silly stuff.

    Like for instance Dr Judy Wood. She is a highly qualified person who believes that the towers were destroyed by a space laser.

    What's funny is that her theory is far more reasonable and consistent than yours.

    I also suspect that this new expert your have latched onto doesn't actually agree with your personal theory involving magic thermite and silent explosives.

    Additionally given the quality of video on rumble, I wouldn't at all trust the accuracy of any subtitles it gives.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,654 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    "Ruppert explained that it is not easy to bring down such towers. It takes years of preparation."

    But you think "a few guys" did it over a weekend.

    So now you have a huge problem dont you. You now need to explain how "they" could've rigged the buildings over the course of "years" without being detected.

    Go on then....

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    I believe there is a contention by some people at AE9/11 that there were secret demolition charges built into the towers when they were constructed.

    Cheerful constantly uses these fraudsters as unquestionable experts. He must also agree with this as it's not permissible for him to contradict them.

    It remains to be seen how he rationalises this with his incompatible personal theory that the demolition charges used advanced explosives that were experimental in the 2000s.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,654 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    Secret nano thermite demolition charges I assume?

    Actually I think I can spot them from here

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    For two or three days, some of you have been claiming that there has been a firefighting effort at Building 7, despite evidence to the contrary being presented. Despite this fact, you continue to write posts about the "waffling" of the truth. It is a direct upload from the NIST website, and it has not been altered or edited by any third-party sources. Highlighted quote in red)The false claims surrounding the Silverstein story have been thoroughly debunked 

    You say a lot of stuff makes no sense I said that the R.J. Lee Group mainstream view is that fires brought down the building. Once again, you have exhibited a penchant for fabricating information and distorting facts to suit your narrative.

    In your recent response, you engaged in a pattern of circular deflection and twisting of words. It is difficult to determine why you are engaging in such behavior. I clearly stated that the RJ Lee study is relevant because they believe that the WTC fires were hot enough to melt steel and iron, while NIST does not. Instead of acknowledging this fact, you accused me of saying RJ Lee based their analysis solely on TV footage. It is unfortunate that you chose to engage in such tactics rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue.

    Gave the links to let anyone read and refute them, but instead, they prefer to engage in postings that claim that I said this or that. This behavior goes beyond a mere difference of opinion and enters the realm of "crazy person" level.

    I am not accusing R. J. Lee of anything, as their study focuses on certain particles found in the dust of the Liberty building in New York following the collapse of 9/11. Their research does not delve into the mechanism that caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

    Missing evidence in criminal investigations often depends on various factors, such as the level of extra scope given to investigators to bother even looking into a particular event. RJ Lee Group is a respected and prominent material forensic consulting firm. It is not known whether the company has investigated conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks. In order to gain a genuine understanding of R J Lee's groupthink, it is essential to engage in a direct conversation with individual members of the group. This approach involves presenting evidence, such as what I have presented here to them, and opening a dialogue that encourages individuals to share their thoughts and perspectives.

    The aftermath of 9/11 saw a backlash against those who expressed skepticism or alternative narratives about the events. Many individuals, particularly those in the teaching profession, have been subjected to various forms of retribution for voicing their support or alternative perspectives. Engaging in an online discussion to challenge the NIST views is not a straightforward endeavor. The prospect of an R. J. Lee Group online discussion challenging NIST views may seem appealing, but it is important to recognize the challenges that such a discussion may face.  Contracts may involve collaborations with government agencies or organizations that align with NIST's views. Engaging in discussions that challenge these established perspectives may jeopardize the group's access to contracts and funding sources. The world is not as simple as everyone is willing to openly discuss their inner thoughts. There are valid reasons why individuals may be reluctant to share their thoughts openly online.

    Judy Wood is the only individual on this planet to claim that the World Trade Center towers were demolished by space laser weapons. Despite the lack of evidence to support her theory, there are an estimated 4,000 architects and engineers who read the Nist report, primarily from the United States, who signed a petition expressing their belief that the buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition.

    We have substantial forensic evidence indicating a controlled demolition at Building 7 and some kind of partial chemical-type substance was used in the demolition of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. This evidence is based on eyewitness accounts of seeing liquid steel that turned molten, meteor-looking rocks that fused from the heat, the pulverization of concrete and office furnishings, the freefall at Building 7, the liquid of material pouring out through a broken gap in the south tower, and we also have an audio tracks that could be an explosion. Additionally, the building reports, which were commissioned by the US government authorities, are clearly incomplete and full of omissions and lies.

    Furthermore, the fact that the entire building was destroyed (building 7) and disappeared after the event adds further fuel to the controversy. This scenario is unprecedented in the history of steel-framed buildings. No previous steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and none of them have ever completely vanished after the event. The absence of physical evidence ( NIST got there in 2002 to investigate) and the unique circumstances surrounding the collapse call into question the official narrative

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Cheerful, it's very hypocritical for you to whinge about people lying, then lie about what they are arguing in the first line of your post.

    I never argued that. Stop telling lies.

    Dr Judy Wood is a highly qualified expert, who is more qualified than many of the "4000 architects" you claim support your theory.

    Her theory has as much evidence as yours does (ie. None at all). But her theory is far far more consistent and plausible than yours.

    It's also strange for you to dismiss her theory because you claim falsely that she's the only one to express it. Your complex and fantastical theory involving super magic nanothermite planted by 8 people under the orders of a coalition of Jews, Nazis, CIA guys and Larry Silverstien is entirely unique to yourself.

    Not once have I seen anyone agree with your version of events.

    And you are far far less qualified than Dr Judy Wood.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Ruppert's teaching methodology is based on the principle that he uses known materials from commercial demolitions. To postulate that chemical explosives were utilized in the WTC 1 and 2 destruction, it is essential to acknowledge the extensive planning and organization that must have taken place. It is evident that the Twin Towers were not simply brought down by a few individuals acting spontaneously.

    I believe they used experimental RD-level-grade nanothermite explosives and placed them on the steel would result in a vastly different work process than what is typically observed on a commercial demolition site. If this was also they utilized, it should not have taken two years to be in the Twin Towers planting it. Nano-thermite explosives rely on a chemical reaction.

    There are squibs, or small explosions, emitting from below the Twin Towers as it collapsed. What we actually show from that? Again, I am basing my analysis solely on what is currently known, and there is no evidence of explosive material in the dust, to the best of my knowledge. However, there is evidence of chemicals present here when liquid iron was discovered, which indicates that something inside the building was altering the steel and Iron.

    What people rarely discuss is the reason behind the increasing intensity of the fires at the Twin Towers, what caused this change, and why it is higher than the reported temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius claimed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

    Paper on it from 2000 (not conspiracy but mainstream)

    A Chemical professor in Denmark discovered a similar nano scale type thermite in WTC dust, is extremely interesting despite denials on its authenticity

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Your contradicting yourself her on several points.

    You are claiming that the towers were demolished by 8 people over a weekend.

    Also you're lying again as it's been proven that there was no thermite reaction. So not sure why you are claiming that "chemicals were found."

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Debunkers come in various shapes and forms, but regardless of their background or motivations, they often share a common trait: a tendency to dismiss or ignore evidence contrary to their beliefs or agendas.

    NIST clearly has not a clue because this actual WTC steel on the back of the lorry on 9/11 clearly shows signs of melting.

    The Red underlined part shows they is lying again.

    Upload from R j Lee group report

    Despite highlighting the problem, debunkers still can't seem to grasp its significance. It's evident that they lack the necessary comprehension to address the underlying issue effectively. 

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith

    Cheerful S can I ask you....are you saying the two planes didn't fly into the WTC? Or they flew into the towers, but didn't cause them to collapse? What are you saying caused them to collapse?

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Doing a whole lot of projection here cheerful.

    The only fellow who is ignoring and dismissing is yourself.

    All of your points have been addressed and debunked over and over and over. You just ignore, dismiss and repeat.

    The presence of iron microspheres has been explained to you many many times. You ignored that and are now lying about it.

    The issues with the RJ Lee study have been explained to you over and over again. You just keep lying about it.

    I'm not sure who you think is being convinced by this.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    I argue that engineered nanothermite was used to melt key steel columns and trusses supporting the Twin Towers. With a chemical nano thermite that potentially has explosive properties and can release heat that can melt Iron and Steel, there are going to be a whole slew of structural problems for both towers on 9/11.

    Planes crashed into the buildings, igniting fires that reached temperatures of 1000 degrees Celsius, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These fires had a relatively short peak of 5 to 10 minutes, reaching temperatures ranging from approximately 800 degrees Celsius. most of the time.

    In the process of smelting iron, it is a well-known fact that furnaces need to reach extremely high temperatures in order to initiate the melting process. The melting point of iron is approximately 1539 degrees Celsius.

    The R J Lee group has made a statement that the Twin Towers were subjected to such intense heat during the fires that iron and steel began to melt. The exact quantity of melted iron/steel is uncertain, but it took place. The collapse of the Twin Towers brought with it iron microparticles, which mixed with the dust and dispersed in the air.

    There exist no mainstream collapse experts who claim that steel and iron melted during the tragic events of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Instead, these experts argue that steel in the Twin Towers softened, which is different from melting.

    Melting refers to the process of a substance changing its physical form from a solid to a liquid state.The R J Lee group has explicitly stated that this change occurred during when the fire was seen and when the building stood.

     The Twin towers building in question does not contain any combustible materials that could potentially contribute to the observed heat. This lack of flammable substances suggests that the heat increase may have originated from another source.

    In my post, I link--- post 420, I have delved into the subject of nanoscale explosives and their potential role in the WTC tower collapse.Whether nanoscale explosives were involved in the WTC collapse or not remains a subject of ongoing debate, as you see here on this thread.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Nope. There isn't really any debate as the RJ Lee study showed that there was no evidence of a thermite reaction.

    So even if your arguments about melting steel was true and weren't addressed by the myriad of methods shown that could produce the microspheres, we can conclude that they weren't caused by thermite.

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith

    Fires of 8 to 10 minutes? But we saw the buildings burn? I watched it and saw the smoke continuously billowing and we saw the people jump to escape the fires. Or do you mean the fires that were 1000 degrees didn't last? The planes crashed in at what...8 or 9am and within an hour or two they had collapsed.

    The impact of the planes hitting the building knocked all the fireproofing, the floors buckled and pulled everything downwards.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,654 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    OK so you actually completely disagree with Ruppert.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,230 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Like with all experts, if they say something that cheerful agrees with, then they are unerring and unimpeachable.

    If they say something that Cheerful disagrees with, then they are either in on the conspiracy or incompetent.

    If, like in this case, the expert says one thing he agrees with, then another, we get the contradiction.

    The expert is unquestionable, but also somehow uninformed and/or unable to see the obvious clues a non-expert with zero training has.

    The vast majority of experts who do actually subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies, don't actually agree with Cheerful's extreme and ridiculous claims.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Television footage, with its visual content, has the potential to significantly influence our beliefs. When individuals view television footage of planes hitting buildings and causing flames and fire, it triggers a series of cognitive processes in the brain. The visual information is processed, interpreted, and stored in memory. On that fateful day, news channels broadcast extensive coverage of the events, providing viewers with real-time updates and analysis. It is understandable that individuals may have formed their perspectives on what happened based on the information they witnessed through these channels.

    Yet, by carefully examining the available evidence, we can identify discrepancies, inconsistencies, or gaps in the official story. Pointing out flaws in the official narrative is not a conspiracy or extreme act. Rather, it is a necessary and valid exercise in critical thinking.

    The melting inside the buildings during the 9/11 attacks raises important questions about the official hypothesis that planes knocked off fireproofing and caused the floor trusses to sag and pull at the box columns, ultimately leading to the collapse. This alternative hypothesis paints an entirely different picture of what caused the towers to collapse.

    However, the presence of melting inside the buildings undermines this theory.

    This report presents an analysis of the background of iron microspheres in the World Trade Center towers and other buildings prior to the 9/11 attacks. The analysis focuses on the detection of newly formed iron microspheres in the dust samples collected after the attack. The findings suggest a significant increase in the formation of iron microspheres, with levels approximately 150 times greater than those found in previous studies.

    R J Lee explains here

    The iron microspheres before and after the Twin Towers fires were examined to determine the percentage difference between the two samples. The background Iron Microspheres were present when the building was constructed, resulting from the welding and construction of the materials

    TP-01 refers to the percentage ratio of iron microspheres in the WTC dust after the collapse. The percentage ratio of iron microspheres was determined by analyzing the WTC dust samples collected before the 9/11 attacks. The background WTC dust/FE Sphere before the attack was 0.04.

    .The significance of the finding of a 150-fold increase in iron microsphere formation during the fires at the World Trade Center (WTC) is undeniable. This anomaly suggests that there was something present that caused the iron and steel to melt. The presence of iron microspheres in the debris suggests that the towers were not completely destroyed by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires, but rather by an additional mechanism.

    The argument that this finding is insignificant or irrelevant is unconvincing. It is indeed a significant forensic clue that points towards a potential cause of the towers' collapse. The formation of iron microspheres indicates that there was molten material present, which contradicts the official narrative that the towers were brought down solely by the structural damage caused by the impact and fire.

    The extreme temperatures required to melt steel and Iron far exceed the temperatures that can be generated by conventional combustion processes in buildings that predominately deal with banks and financial institutions.

    Mick West's ( popular 9/11 guy debunker who owns meta bunk) experiment in replicating the Iron microspheres in his garage has garnered attention, yet it is lacking in scientific rigor and fails to accurately represent the actual process of creating these particles during the fire at the Twin Towers.

    The floor truss slabbing is made of concrete and is designed to hold the weight of the building and provide a stable foundation. If the steel and iron in the Twin Towers melted, it would exert intense heat on the concrete slabbing too. Without the concrete slabs, the floor trusses would no longer be supported, and the building would collapse. load-bearing component, melting, is actually very bad. The sagging of exterior walls due to melting steel floor trusses can have serious consequences.


    According to NIST, the maximum heat reached in the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks was approximately 1,000 degrees Celsius. However, this statement has raised concerns about the accuracy of the findings.

    The heat within the towers actually melted iron and steel, which suggests that the temperatures were much higher than what NIST reported. It is evident that there is an error or discrepancy in the data. Regarding the temperature, it is important to note that a 500-degree fire can appear hot to human perception, but it does not automatically equate to extreme heat.

    Fireproofing is said to have been knocked off as a theory by the official collapse people, claiming that the ASTM-grade 36 steel should not sag or soften for at least 2 to 4 hours. However, the theory is deemed untestable due to the fact that much of the fireproofing was dislodged during the collapse itself."Even if the fireproofing was knocked off, the heat from jet fuel wouldn't melt steel or iron."

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

     I have attached, demonstrate of apparent melting phenomena on various structural elements within the towers. I kindly invite you to examine this evidence and propose a hypothetical scenario that could explain this phenomenon in the context of controlled demolition.

    If he were to speak English and were interested in making contact online, those are certain steps I would take. He may completely disagree with me that impossible done by nanothermite alone, or he could respond in a positive way indicating that it is feasible.

    Ruppert's video is informative because he is an expert in the field and believes that all three buildings were brought down. He admitted that he has spoken with military officers and other experts around the world, and they all claim that the same thing. Ruppert also mentioned that there is a price for speaking about this topic in public.Had twenty years of silence says now time to talk.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,654 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    He mentioned it would take years to rig the buildings. You claim he is an expert.

    Yet you think a few people did it over the weekend.

    Can you not see the hilarity here?

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    You must not know that NIST proposed that one column failure allegedly led to the total collapse of building seven at freefall. Conspirators could have rigged one column at Building 7, triggering a cascading failure that led to the building's collapse.

    So it took two years to do that? Notice how your own theory falls apart?

    I would speak with Ruppert to discuss alternative methods to bring down the building.The demolition process that he envies in his mind involves the utilization of contractual explosives that are commonly used for commercial purposes. Preparing the necessary columns and stuff for such an endeavor requires a significant amount of time

    Explosives used in the demolition at the twin towers had to have caused this melting to happen. Process of debate that you want to ignore here.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,654 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    Its not my theory its your theory and you have no idea how to even begin to explain it.

    So lets ask (again)

    How did conspirators rig one column at Building 7?