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: 3,973 ✭✭✭silliussoddius

    I agree with the hologram part, but not the rockets. The three towers were brought down by illuminati lasers. It was the only way to destroy the Epstein files that included the major buyers of adrenochrome

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,877 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Here's the list of all those you claim were in on the conspiracy:

    Larry Silverstein

    His insurers

    Saudi Princes and officials





    CIA Mujahedeen

    NIST investigators

    Mossad (possibly)

    US military (unspecified generals)

    Various unspecified businessmen

    Pakistani ISI

    Secret Nazi's

    Joe Biden

    Al Qaeda

    According to you, these co-conspirators were split into two groups, one wasn't aware of the other, yet they planned 9/11. Not just 9/11, they managed to secretly rig two of the world's largest skyscrapers, and a 47 story building, and some sort of David Copperfield disappearing plane at the Pentagon, blow up the lot and pull the whole thing off perfectly, in broad daylight, in front of the world's media (and foreign intelligence agencies)

    And the only one to spot it was you.

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

    Yes, that sound can be blast, and you only have to be familiar with NIST work to understand why.

    NIST highlighted the following events in their finite computer simulation model: Highlight floor 12 and 13 here.

    1. Expansion and Slippage of Girder: The girder in the simulation model experienced thermal expansion and slipped off its fixed position.

    2. Losing Connections on Beams: The expansion and subsequent slippage of the girder caused beams on this side to lose connections.

    3. Stalling Steel Column: The floors that collapsed on the steel column resulted in it bucking.

    NIST's analysis indicates that the expansion and subsequent slippage of the girder were the primary factors leading to the observed events later.. 

    According to NIST, the destruction of a single column was sufficient to bring about the collapse of the building on 9/11. Therefore, if we consider the evidence presented by NIST, it logically follows that it would only take the column being destroyed by controlled demolition for the same result to occur.

    Why do you ignore the fact that a loud thud on video can't be a controlled demolition of the Eastside columns?

    I don't argue that collapse didn't begin on the east side; it clearly did, but the NIST investigation stated that there is no noise at all heard before any collapse, which is factually incorrect.

    interconnected nature of collapse in steel-core buildings. Skeptics, such as yourself, fail to appreciate the profound impact that the collapse of one column on the eastern side of a structure can have on other floors, as well as those at the bottom could be hearing the demolitions of the eastside columns, which could potentially serve as the final domino for the collapse of the building. However, it is important to note that we do not have hours of video footage of building seven to claim that there were no other thuds similar to this one.

    One of the main arguments put forth by critics of the NIST explanation is that thermal expansion was a brand new concept invented by the NIST to explain the failures. They claim that thermal expansion has not been observed or recognized before and was only introduced after the incident

    One of the key claims made by the truth community is that NIST failed to acknowledge the existence and vital significance of shear studs, which are specialized reinforcement elements typically used in steel structures to prevent slippage. However, according to blueprints obtained by the truth investigation, the girder in question was indeed supposed to have 32-shear studs.

    Furthermore, the truth community asserts that NIST also neglected to include crucial stiffeners and steel plates that would have prevented the girder from sliding and contributed to its stability. More error for time leave it at that.

    NIST intentionally left these construction details out of the investigation; the implication is that the organization may have intentionally facilitated the collapse of the girder. The omission of shear studs and stiffeners, as well as the absence of steel plates, suggests a conscious effort by NIST to downplay the role of controlled demolition in the collapse scenario.

    Columns 79 and 44 and others were taken out by controlled demolition on the eastside.

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

    Throughout this evidence, it has been evident that all it requires is to open one's eyes to realize that the presented narrative may not be the full truth. You could do it too, chosen to stay where you are.

    I have no special powers, the question I am raising pertains to the evidence that has been ignored. One specific aspect that warrants scrutiny is the resemblance between the description provided by the firemen and the actual photograph. Yet, it seems that you are uninterested in exploring the truth on that.

    You doubting the firemen of New York testimony, why, have you spoken with them? Why say these things if they're not true. Why would they say there was lava flow of molten steel in the rubble of the Twin Towers. You in the skeptic community ignore it, and hope goes away.

    Their testimonies are firsthand accounts of the chaos and devastation they witnessed on 9/11. To cast doubt on their statements not only undermines them but also trivializes the immense sacrifices they made that day.

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

    Question 11:

    In a debate, a particular answer posed by Chris sparked my attention:

    "I was reading that debate and Chris posted this before hiring Dr. James Milette. In question 11, it states that an EPA group that conducted an investigation into the dust for the U.S. government found large amounts of iron in the dust as well. However, no one sitting here has asked how that was happening while the Twin Towers were on fire. It makes me wonder if they lack the common sense or if it's because they're too wrapped up in their own bubbles to realize that iron that melted in the dust is an anomaly."

    From what I remember, Dr. Milette made a promise to do peer review work and send it to journals, but this specific evidence, including a study on the Iron Microspheres, never materialized. He seemingly disappeared from the scene right after the debate about the burning and energy testing.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    This waffle is not compatible with your previous theory.

    You have argued to death about free fall and no resistance.

    The only way for this to happen is for all supports in the building to be removed at the same time.

    If you are arguing now that there were only a few supports removed then your arguments about free fall are all invalid.

    Again you've painted yourself into a corner cause your theory is so incoherent.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Don't forget the people at the local BBC office who were told to report the collapse of wtc 7 early for some reason.

    Something about predictive programming I think.

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

    I am tired now final post. The skeptic on here again does not notice the flaws.

    The hypothesis suggests that the removal of columns and floors on the east side of the building resulted in instability, leading to the collapse of the columns and floors there. The collapse of the columns on the east side triggered the collapse of the west side of the building too. at the bottom.

    West side of the building, with a larger number of columns and a larger floor area, was in the early stage of collapse as well. 

    How do we know this?

    The explanation of how the building descended over eight stories at freefall at the bottom can be attributed to the collapse of the eight floors. It is often overlooked that the collapse of the eight floors is what causes the building to freefall into a large open hole that has opened up at the bottom during the final collapse.

    When there is no steel resistance on those eight floors, the rest of the building essentially collapses into the resulting void, causing it to descend rapidly.

    There appear to be no collapsed columns or floors on the west side of the building, as observed on the east side of the building

    What you see here in the NIST model upper section crushing the west side as it collapses.This event is not characterized by freefall, but rather by a typical collapse where the upper section is the driving force that crushes the bottom section.

    Freefall means upper section of the building simply "drove" through the empty space over eight floors without any exertion of energy.  NIST model shows that energy is being used to crush the bottom half of the building on the west side.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    More waffle. And again refusing to address people and their posts directly.

    If you are claiming that there was free fall for 8 floors or whatever, then this requires that all supports on those 8 floors were rigged to explode. That's at least hundreds of explosions. We don't hear hundreds of explosions. So that idea is debunked.

    If you are arguing that they didn't need to rig all of those supports and that free fall is possible even if there are supports still in place, then you negate your own argument. So the free fall thing is debunked.

    You attempted to explain away the lack of explosive sound with your fantastical nanothermite idea. You've since abandoned this as you argued yourself into a corner there too. So the nanothermite nonsense is also debunked.

    I also notice that there's another revision going on.

    Previously you were claiming that the penthouse collapse of WTC had nothing to do with the rest of the collapse and wasn't the start of the buildings fall. You are now saying that this was the cause of the collapse. Very strange reversal.

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith

    But you see this is the crux. You're also so certain it was an inside job that you won't consider anything else.

    I remember before the attack happened some people (including myself!) were unconvinced by Bush as president because of the Florida elections. He was pretty much the butt of every joke. Then 9/11 happened, all of that was forgotten and his image changed. A lot of people did think it was an inside job and I was one of them!

    But at the end of the day, do I actually believe the US government deliberately laid explosives so that it would lead to more deaths and injuries? No.

    The problem with clips and Internet sleuthing is that it is not independent or objective. In the same way as you're saying those who don't accept the conspiracy theory are chosing to stay where they are, you're doing the same. It's right to ask questions but not to cling to them. In the same way as you're asking people to open their minds to the possibility that it could have been an inside job, equally you could be asked to do the same regarding the possibility that what happened that day is - two planes flew into two buildings causing such catastrophic damage they collapsed. It could be that simple.

    It's unfair to say people are trivialising or undermining the work of firefighters that day. I don't think anyone is under any doubt about the enormous heroic work they did that day.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,389 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose

    "It's unfair to say people are trivialising or undermining the work of firefighters that day. I don't think anyone is under any doubt about the enormous heroic work they did that day."

    Herself's cousin was a great hero that day, the captain of Ladder Company 3, who went back into the towers and all died when Tower 1 collapsed. "Conspiracies theorists" really are odious, real living people's lives were ended that day and families wrecked. Oh, a former coworker was on United 33 as well.

    Only truly sick losers would continue this 'conspiracy' charade, along with other disgusting lies they post like Holocaust denial. I really don't get why the Mods keep these threads open, there's no benefit except to the Conspiracy Theorists who get an audience. I guess they need it along with whatever they're taking to get through the day. Imagine if their friends, employers and families knew about their behaviours - they'd have a lot less of each.

    But, they'd still be better off than herself's cousin, who we can only honour with our memories.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Herself's cousin was a great hero that day, the captain of Ladder Company 3, who went back into the towers and all died when Tower 1 collapsed. "Conspiracies theorists" really are odious, real living people's lives were ended that day and families wrecked. Oh, a former coworker was on United 33 as well.

    There is a sizable contingent of conspiracy theorists, many of whom are part of AE9/11 and other such organisations who contest that the planes that crashed that day didn't ever really exist. That they were drones or holograms or planes set on autopilot.

    Originally Cheerful came into this forum claiming that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but rather flew over it and vanished. So I find this new angle of trying to frame people who aren't convinced of his theory of "disrespecting victims" very hypocritical and silly. (Doubly so given his holocaust denial.)

    It also bares pointing out, for his theories to work, many firefighters and first responders have to be involved in the conspiracy on some level, as no firefighters at the site ever seem to report things like thermite or demolition explosives. It was only a few pages ago that Larry Silverstien was accused of confessing that he ordered the FDNY to demolish building 7.

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,389 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose

    Much like anti-vaxxers, especially the conspiratorial ones, my experience in RL with these folks is that they aren't good or reasonable people in their ordinary lives. IMO it's mental illness and character defects that drive them to these reality-denying beliefs. Perhaps humans are prone to being duped, I don't know, but there's certainly an organic component - the CT'ers are wired this way.

    An otherwise reasonable lad who lives locally out here in rural West Kerry who has helped me with odd jobs, is convinced JFK was killed because he was about to devalue US currency and that airplanes are spraying something over us for mind control.

    Another I know, with a degree from NUI Galway, won't vaccinate because microchips and, in fact, took it as far as to not vaccinate his lovely dog, who sadly succumbed to, guess what, a vaccine-preventable dog disease. He's absolutely miserable over the dog, but still doesn't believe his inactions could have even contributed to the problem. His life has actually been a pretty chaotic one and has started to circle the toilet for other reasons, too.

    These are just a few samples out of many I've found in Ireland; my US contacts feature the same behaviours and generally, the full dive CT'ers are dreadful people outside their beliefs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    I disagree. I believe that most people who fall into conspiracy theory rabbit holes are sane rational people who just lack good critical thinking in some areas.

    I think that there are industries out there that just exploit these folks and make money by appealing to them and getting them deeper into the rabbit hole. I've found over the years these grifters have just gotten better at convincing their victims into closing their minds and blocking out any doubt in their beliefs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,973 ✭✭✭silliussoddius

    Yeah, but I think a small percentage are odious c***s. Either bitter, miserable people not content not spreading it around or else playing the just asking questions card and trying to rope in other people.

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

    The Warren Commission's report faced criticism from those who believed there was a larger conspiracy behind Kennedy's assassination. Similarly, investigations into the World Trade Center collapse have been subject to conspiracy theories, questioning the official narrative and raising questions about the role of government agencies.

    How Can I Consider Anything Else When Skeptics Here Can't Even Post Correct Information?

    It is frustrating to encounter skeptics who consistently post incorrect or misleading information on online platforms. This behavior undermines the credibility of the subject matter and makes it more difficult to engage with them nicely. One example of incorrect information that was posted by a skeptic on this forum is the claim that the 47 floors were rigged according to conspiracy theorists. However, this was a lie, nobody ever said that on here.

    Additionally, another post made by a skeptic stated that building seven had 52 floors. Well actually has 47 floors. This discrepancy demonstrates a lack of attention to detail and undermines the credibility of the individual making the claim.

    During days of debate on this forum, the same skeptics made claims about the New York firemen inside building 7 fighting the fires and the Silverstein nonsense and all that. However, these claims are not supported by the official investigation. The official report does not corroborate these Skeptic assertions, and there is no evidence to support it I posted the evidence, so its a fact.

     Have a new claim today. It has been alleged that firemen never mentioned anything about explosions or anything related to oddities at the scene of the WTC attacks on 9/11. However, this claim is misleading and inaccurate again. Testimony from dozens of firefighters can be found online, indicating that the Twin Towers were brought down through controlled demolition. One fire department in New Jersey even went on record two years ago stating that they will support a new investigation, as they believe that the conspiracy theory is a more accurate portrayal of the events. 

    When considering the credibility of the firemen's statements, it is essential to distinguish between hearsay evidence and actual evidence. Hearsay evidence refers to second-hand information or testimony. The official investigation did not explicitly address this evidence, which NIST denied. The testimonies of firemen who were filmed saying they saw liquid steel in the rubble of the Twin Towers are they liars. The official record does not acknowledge witness testimony about this odd phenomenon, which raises the question of whether anyone should take the investigation seriously. Firemen, architects, engineers, and clean-up crews all claim to have witnessed the alleged event, yet there is no mention of it in the official record. 

    If the NIST official investigation asserts that no steel or iron melted, how can there be large quantities of melted iron in the dust? If there is indeed a new investigation and all the aforementioned allegations I made are adequately explained, I could shift in my opinion. This revision would depend on the thoroughness, credibility, and rationality of the presented evidence.

    The skeptics not me are not recognizing the inherent flaws in the NIST computer model that they believe to be true. In this particular case, we have two images that capture the same period of time during the collapse of an object.The video presents a detailed comparison of the two images, highlighting the remarkable similarity in their collapse patterns

    One of the main criticisms is that physical evidence contradicts the official narrative.

    What Skeptics never talk about is that freefall began once that north point of the wall dropped and second building collapsed.

    .The timestamps will play a crucial role in making it easier for people to track and analyze the problem. By using timestamps, viewers can conveniently pinpoint the exact moments when certain events occur

    At exactly 10 seconds into the freefall collapse, the building began to rapidly descend at the bottom, support now removed. This sudden loss of structural integrity is evident in the video footage,

    NIST model no freefall, 12 seconds in. Watch the video all there can see for yourself. Watch the windows on the westside.

    In August 2008, NIST released its draft report on the collapse of Building 7, a skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed later in the day. The report initially stated that freefall did not occur during the collapse. However, a few months later, NIST retracted this claim, acknowledging that freefall did occur.

    Slowed the the event down to hide that freefall was done by controlled demolition. Its impossible for the building to descend at 10 seconds at freefall if one side of the building steel resistance is there at 12 seconds.

    Identical: 12 seconds of the video

    Identical: 12 seconds of the video.

    I am not perfect, and I often make mistakes. However, the skeptics never seem to correct anything they say or admit to the possibility that they may have got something wrong. When I make a statement , it is often subjected to various interpretations and manipulations by those who choose to act upon it. These individuals may latch onto certain words or phrases, take the information out of context, and spin the narrative in their own favor.

    My position regarding the 9/11 conspiracy is not that the government was directly responsible for the attacks. Rather, I contend that this was a decentralized faction attack that was carried out through a combination of individuals with varying motivations and backgrounds

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith

    With all due respect, all of that does not answer my post. Its just repeating what you already said and posting the same clips again. I've seen the clips you've posted.

    Do you really think that there's no possible way, the impact of the two planes crashing into the buildings and the damage they caused, could not solely have been responsible for the buildings collapsing?

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    Hes posted that same post maybe 50 times. No joke.

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

    Nobody can be 100% certain about something like this, as there is always room for error and correction, the science shows otherwise. You are asking do I think the planes brought down the building absolutely not in my view at this stage.

    I understand that if we delve into every error of the 9/11 collapse investigation, this thread will be filled with numerous images and details. However, my intention is to present a brief overview of some basic flaws within the official arguments (a layperson can hopefully understand)

    I fully understand your skepticism regarding my claims. If there is evidence that suggests I am mistaken, I am more than willing to look at it and reassess my stance. It is important to approach conversations and discussions with an open mind, allowing for the possibility of growth and learning.

    I have never seen a skeptic here explained to me how Twin Tower fires melted iron/steel in a natural way. I believe that the fires alone were insufficient to cause the rapid melting of the iron and steel.

    If this evidence was merely produced by a conspiracy blog or forum, it would likely lack any official or mainstream recognition. As a result, many people would likely dismiss it as nonsense. However, it is important to note that we have two bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and RJ Lee Group, who both confirm that the fire in question created significant amounts of liquefied iron.

    A factor that plays a significant role in understanding the collapse of the Twin Towers is temperature. The temperature inside the buildings at the time of the collapse was critical in determining the fate of the structure.

    Yes, I am aware that I am repeating myself. This repetition is intentional and intended to reach the heart of your question. Why I don't believe.

    The Twin Towers and Building 7 were the first buildings of their design to experience a complete collapse due to fire. This unprecedented event in history has led to various anomalies being reported at the site of the collapse ( What up with that? Generally, buildings that collapse due to external factors such as accidents, in war zones, or natural disasters exhibit certain patterns or characteristics that can be explained. For instance, in the case of an earthquake, the structural integrity of the building may be compromised, leading to its collapse.

    The presence of liquid iron that liquefied during the fires and later solidified, the presence of metorite-looking rocks, and reports of pools of liquid within the rubble indicate that a chemical reaction took place inside the collapsed structure. Moreover, the site's continued heat emission and the long-term nature of the reaction suggest that this chemical reaction was ongoing. These findings provide compelling evidence to suggest that something significant and chemically reactive occurred deep within the rubble, long after the Twin collapse began. It took them four months to put all the heat from fires out.

    If presented with a conclusive demonstration that fires within the Twin Towers were the sole cause of all the observed phenomena, I would be prepared to drop this topic without hesitation.

  • Registered Users Posts: 355 ✭✭chelloveks

    To get back on track, the reason some people think the 9/11 attack was an inside job is the same reason that scumbag, convicted sex offender and failed real estate “developer” from Queens NY was elected President of the US.

    Some people are **** jackasses and imbeciles.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,333 ✭✭✭✭greenspurs

    Debunkers question.

    @King Mob @Dohnjoe

    Do you believe that an Airline striking a tower at 710kmph between floors 93 -99 (nth tower) would cause the whole tower to collapse 1hr 42mins later?

    Steel melts at a temp of 2500-2800 F , Jet fuel burns at 1500-2000 F.

    What do you think caused the two towers to fall then, if you are totally discounting anything else other than the airlines causing it?

    "Bright lights and Thunder .................... " #NoPopcorn

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

    You asked some very good questions. Several mainstream groups have reported strange chemical anomalies in the aftermath of the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks.

    Dohnjoe, asserts that there have been multiple collapse investigations that have examined how the Twin Towers fell. In reality, there is only one major investigation conducted by NIST.

    The 9/11 truth community acknowledges the fact that steel can indeed soften and weaken under certain conditions. However, there is one significant aspect of the debate within the community that is worth highlighting. While steel can be affected by factors such as heat, stress, and corrosion, the truth community argues that there is a substantial amount of iron in the dust that cannot be explained by a hydrocarbon fire alone.

    The presence of iron in the dust raises questions about alternative sources of combustion inside the towers. The origin of the iron spheres in the RJ Lee Group's report is not a subject of speculation or controversy. The report clearly states that the spheres were remnants of the Twin Towers' structural components. The spheres were produced by the intense heat of the fire, which melted and distorted the steel framework of the towers.

    NIST's official report on the WTC collapse states that fires did not produce temperatures high enough to melt steel and Iron. The allegation is if NIST does not believe that fires reached high enough temperatures to melt iron and steel, how does one explain the presence of melted iron anomalies in the dust samples? It is one of the main conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

    The discovery by FEMA of weird melted steel items during a building fire was indeed shocking. The agency had never seen anything like it before, and they were left stunned by the appearance of the steel. The steel had melted to a highly unusual extent, leaving experts puzzled.

    In their investigation, FEMA gave a theory that the strange melting of steel could be related to the presence of sulfur. However, they were puzzled by the question of how all the free sulfur was ending up in the steel.

    The presence of melting before the towers collapsed is evidenced by photographs and video that capture this phenomenon

    Eyewitness accounts describe seeing strange hot liquid in the aftermath of the collapse. The identification of a chemical process occurring during the fires by the RJ Lee Group adds further complexity to the event. The lack of action taken by NIST with respect to the FEMA report calls into question their commitment to a thorough and transparent investigation

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,877 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    There isn't any investigation which discovered any "inside job" or "explosives" or anything else. The 9/11 commission, FEMA, NIST, Weidlinger

    Linked Bush to the demolition. Where?

    You claim he "probably" knew about the inside job

    Also in your conspiracy:

    • NORAD
    • "Various businessmen"
    • The BBC (you claim they were told that the collapse would happen, then lied about it after)
    • The airline involved (coverup)
    • Larry Silverstein's relatives (indirectly claiming they skipped work to avoid the attacks)

    There's more..

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

    No matter what they claim or not, the fact is that none of them has ever released a report on how all the Iron in the dust was produced."

    Forensic evidence plays a crucial role in criminal investigations and cannot be ignored.

    Noticed we weeks later here, there is still not one explanation for how this 1000-degree fire was breaking down a steel alloy (removing its carbon content in the process) or doing the same to iron components and transforming it to a liquid state non-chemically."

    It is disappointing that you have been unable to recognize any flaws in your argument that there was no inside job. While it may be convenient to dismiss the notion of an inside job, it is concerning that you refuse to even acknowledge that such a possibility exists. If your beliefs are so firm that there was no inside job, why do you take such a long time to address my complaints here?

    In my previous response, I thoroughly debunked your false claims and exposed the inconsistencies in your allegations. However, it seems that you have continued to generate additional content filled with nonsensical statements. Look, man, if you want me to come across to your viewpoint, the least you could do is attempt to provide some answers using reasoning and be constructive.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,877 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    So just to confirm, after all these years, according to you:

    World Trade Center 1 and 2 were melted by "nanothermite" placed by people you can't name, at undisclosed times, in a conspiracy involving two large groups that didn't know of each other


    World Trade Center Building 7 was rigged up with conventional explosives, the explosive charges of which only you can hear, placed by people you can't name, at undisclosed times, in the same conspiracy, for reasons you can't yet explain (no answer on why these unknown people with full access to rig the building didn't just destroy whatever they needed to inside the building)


    Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon, wasn't flown by the accused hijacker, but something else happened that you haven't figured out yet.


    The terrorists also hijacked the planes and conducted the full attacks


    It was also an insurance scam by Larry Silverstein

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

    More of the same stuff again, never bothering to address the anomalies at all. The lack of a mainstream explanation has led to a never-ending cycle of going around in circles for years.

    There compelling reasons why I believe the Towers collapsed other than fire. The presence of liquid in the rubble, corroborated by photographs and eyewitness accounts, is one piece of evidence that suggests an alternative theory. The FEMA report also highlights melted steel, indicating a higher temperature than could have been achieved through a fire alone. Additionally, the presence of iron in the dust that has completely melted during the fire adds further support to this claim. Furthermore, the existence of ongoing fires for months in the rubble and a video of liquid pouring from one of the Towers minutes before its collapse further strengthen the alternative hypothesis. While it may be argued that weakened steel was responsible for some of the collapse, the evidence presented suggests that other factors played a significant role.

    Is there another building in the world that experienced a fire that led to the discovery of melted steel and iron, as well as the presence of tons of iron spheres in the dust? Sure, you recommended experts would know?

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    But as we've explained before, there's no example of a building destroyed by demolition that has melted steel and iron in it.

    There's no example of those in a building demolished by any kind of thermite.

    There's no example of skyscrapers like that being demolished in secret.

    There's no example of skyscrapers being demolished after being hit by jetliners.

    Also your claim of "tons iron spheres" is simply false.

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

    We have video of the stream of liquid pouring out of the South Tower minutes before its collapse. Despite the existence of video evidence of this phenomenon, there are people who believe that it has absolutely nothing to do with why the building fell down? Prove it?. Only in the debunker thinking would video evidence be considered unimportant.

    Despite the claims made by the R J Lee group, there are skeptics who doubt the credibility of the video evidence. You a skeptic, Dohnjoe, questions the authenticity of the liquid being portrayed in the video. Dohnjoe suggests that the liquid being depicted may not resemble melted Iron and steel, but rather a liquid resulting from a different process. Is that what your saying here? How do you explain the Iron in the WTC dust. Are you just forgetting that is science claim made by R J Lee group.

    Firefighters, worker crews, and engineers on site all claim to have witnessed molten steel during the 9/11 attacks, while only one organization, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), holds an opposing viewpoint. NIST disconnected from reality. There are literally videos online of people claiming they saw melted girders and somehow their voice is silenced

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

    R. J. Lee group team found that the concentration of FE spheres in the WTC dust collected after the event was 150 times higher than the dust collected at Twin Towers prior to the fire ( this breakdown in their report) This finding is noteworthy since there would be FE spheres in the building during construction, repair work, and their presence in concrete. The number of FE spheres in the post- fire dust suggests a highly unusual and abnormal occurrence.

    This discrepancy between the findings of the R J Lee group and the NIST report has left many unanswered questions. The absence of a clear explanation of how this extraordinary concentration of FE spheres was achieved has led to speculation and debate among conspiracy theorists and debunkers on various websites.

    NIST's report asserts that the fires that engulfed the WTC buildings reached temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius (C) to 1,000 degrees Celsius (C) for a very short period. This temperature range is not within the melting point of steel and iron, which are typically considered to be around 1,538 degrees Celsius (C) for steel, and higher for Iron.

    It is indeed challenging to blame conspiracy people for the fact that there are conflicting claims regarding the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. While both major theories propose that fire played a crucial role, they differ in their interpretations of the temperature.

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

    iron and steel are heavy materials even in their spherical form after melting.

    They see a 150 times increase of Fe spheres compared to what was there in the building before.

    Let's say there were 1000 Fe spheres in the building before the fires, that seems low considering all the construction, but let's stay with it.

    The jump is massive once you multiply it by 150 times.