Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485355#Comment_121485355

You've posted that maybe 50 times.

A controlled demolition cant occur without explosives in the building. So you now have to explain how the buildings (the towers aswell btw) were rigged with explosives.

Its like saying that someone was shot but there was no gunfire or bullets.

Edited to say "without"

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485730#Comment_121485730

Silent explosives*

*that only CS can hear

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485730#Comment_121485730

This is another massive issue with the conspiracy theories. We keep getting told contradictory things.

We get told that the collapses look exactly like typical controlled demolitions. The we're told that they were demolished in ways that aren't anything like a typical demolition.

We're told that they have all these features of demolitions, but then we are told that they have features no present in any demolition (eg freefall, molten metal etc.)

We are told that the conspiracy was to make it look like the buildings were destroyed by the fires, but that it was done in a way that makes it obvious to even untrained people that the collapses can't possibly be due to the fires.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121486665#Comment_121486665

its a conspiracy theory without a theory. Just something Cheerful wants to be true. which is very childish.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121486857#Comment_121486857

With most conspiracy theories, there isn't an actual theory. It's just "I don't understand something, therefore it must be a conspiracy." They repeatedly trying to poke holes in the real explanation regardless of how little sense any alternative would make.

It's super easy to provide a reasonable version of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theorists aren't interested in that because it doesn't leave them with the fun holes to poke in reality.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485730#Comment_121485730

Gunfire and bullets evidence was found in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack However, despite the presence of this evidence, it has been determined that the evidence is not compelling enough to support. The evidence against nano-thermite was first challenged by those who preferred to adhere to the official narrative. They dismissed the claims as conspiracy theories and refused to examine the evidence brought forth by the scientists.

Nobody as far as I am aware is claiming people spent weeks inside the Twin Towers preparing a demolition. They claim here is the presence of nanothermite in the tower dust. That might seem like a fantastical theory and story, but in reality, there is a significant amount of evidence to support it.

Evidence for this at Twin Towers, I would say yes.

When nanothermite ignites, it releases a significant amount of heat energy, which can rise rapidly to extreme levels. This extreme heat can cause various materials to melt or deform. Evidence of extreme temperatures can be observed in the aftermath, with melted or distorted objects being a common sight.

Nanothermite has the ability to cause melting of a wide range of materials. Iron and steel, which are commonly used in structural components, are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat. The presence of melted iron or steel in the affected area is a strong indication that temperatures reached extreme levels.

Furniture, clocks, walls, tables, computers, glass, concrete, and other household items can melt or deform under the intense heat generated by nanothermite. The extent of melting may vary depending on the duration and intensity of the heat exposure.

The presence of iron microspheres in the affected area is another indicator of extreme temperatures. Iron microspheres are small particles of iron with a spherical shape. They are formed when molten iron rapidly cools and solidifies. The formation of iron microspheres indicates that temperatures reached extremely high temperatures, 

Chemical reactions are still expected to occur in the rubble resulting from an event involving nanothermite. The release of extreme heat and energy can cause chemical reactions to occur, resulting in the formation of new substances or the transformation of existing ones. These chemical reactions can continue even after the immediate impact of the event has subsided.

There is a murder weapon, Nanothermite, and the bullets that damage the Twin Towers, melting steel components.

The implications of the RJ Lee Group's findings, in conjunction with other evidence gathered during the WTC investigation, have significant implications for our understanding of the events that occurred on 9/11. Unfortunately, the task of presenting these findings to all the relevant groups and convincing them of its significance requires a significant effort.

To effectively convey the rationality and significance of these findings, it is necessary to gather all the relevant parties in one room and present a comprehensive explanation of the reasons why this interpretation makes sense. 

My view on it anyway.

It is clear to me that NIST is not telling the truth about the noises they claim you should have heard if the column 79 was blown up using RDX. They claim that the loudest explosive used to break up this column would be heard many blocks away, but multiple media sources have reported hearing explosive noises. In fact, people even in the media had people on who stated that they witnessed a shockwave run through the building at the bottom. I have firsthand eyewitness testimony to further support this claim. Additionally, both the CBS video and MSNBC video captured a loud bang before the Penthouse dropped, and column 79 is located at the bottom there

Lack of fact checking during the research process. Numerous inconsistencies and misleading statements have been reported, which suggests that due diligence was not exercised in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information presented. 

One of the primary issues that has come to light in the NIST study is the incorrect portrayal of certain evidence. While errors are inevitable in any study, it becomes concerning when errors are intentionally concealed or overlooked. This deliberate distortion of evidence suggests a conscious effort to manipulate the findings of the study. External interests or individuals on the NIST's investigation team who told them to lie?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489261#Comment_121489261

No investigations produced any evidence of "nanothermite" or "controlled demolition" or "holograms" or "mini-nukes".

On the opposite side of the coin an internet cast of individuals engaged in a mountain of pseudo-scientific quackery to hint at conspiracy, snuck their woo into journals and publications (resulting in an editor having to resign), took in random samples sent by anonymous people on the internet to further hint at conspiracy, suggested another building that fell due to fire was in actually an "inside job" (with no access to the evidence or site). Their head once suggested that explosives were planted in the skyscrapers when they were built and was barred by his association from holding his "meetings" on their premises.

A group that makes literally makes money from conspiracy, who hosted Alex Jones, on the topic, a grifter who makes money from lying about conspiracies..

A sea of red flags and you don't question them, quite the opposite, you latch on and evangelise their denial and conspiracy-mongering

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489388#Comment_121489388

It's a continuous false equivalence we see.

Conspiracy theorists keep pretending that their theories, regardless of how impossible or ridiculous should be treated as equally as valid and supported as the actual explanation.

Even if the arguments poking holes in the real explanation actually stood up and the real explanation was shown to be false, that wouldn't make all the false and ridiculous theories like space lasers and holo planes were therefore true.

It's the same stuff we see with flat earthers and creationists pretending that they are just the other side of a valid competition of views.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489261#Comment_121489261

Yet again, dodging the question that was asked of you.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121489388#Comment_121489388

The repeated line of reasoning centers around the assertion that the fires were the only factor that led to the building's collapse.

When there is a discrepancy in building reports regarding the melting of steel or iron during a fire, it raises valid questions about the credibility of which version is correct.

The failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the melting of steel and iron casts doubt on the accuracy and reliability of these reports.

Mainstream reports such as the RJ Lee Group and FEMA have indeed identified the presence of melted steel and Iron after the Twin Towers collapsed. This conclusion is an undeniable fact. However, it is important to note that these reports do not address the question of how this melting occurred when the Twin Towers were still standing.

Over the past month, I have repeated ask you guys explain the chemical process of 800°C, to 1000°C, fire melting steel and Iron when Twin Towers hadn't collapsed yet and still have not received a response. You can call those scientists wackos and whatever you like, but they seem to be the only ones who can provide answers to what happened here. Moreover, they are the only ones who can offer a clear perspective on the matter. When you cannot provide an answer from your side on the issue, it raises further doubts. 

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121498938#Comment_121498938

"When you cannot provide an answer from your side on the issue, it raises further doubts."

Hahahahaha

lumphammer2

I don't believe it is an inside job ... but I would have serious questions on why it actually proceeded to happen ... and was not stopped ... that leads to 2 conclusions ...

1 .... incompetence in the secret service .... eye off the ball ....

2 .... deliberately let happen for ulterior motives ....

For certain agents on the ground knew 100% this was coming .... those higher up did not act when told for either reason 1 or 2 ...

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121504951#Comment_121504951

Option 2 is an actual reasonable theory that is entirely in the realms of possibility.

But I've never seen any conspiracy theorist, and certainly no conspiracy theorist organisation ever promote anything like Option 2.

I think this is because that theory is simply too boring and doesn't involve things like sci-fi technology and secret clues that you can get from youtube videos.