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

    There is irony in the fact that Mick West insists that AE911 truth work on column 79 is comprehensive, yet his own user base insists the same? And you claim otherwise?

    What was the cause of the collapse, Nal? Do you understand NIST's claim is that the first steel structure to fail inside the building was column 79's girder?

    Fact Mick's admission that truth community was right there calls into question the rest of the work. Mick trying to move goalposts and claim a collapse elsewhere. Tony called Mick out on that. Where how that happen?

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,664 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    Why would I answer anything you ask when you refuse to answer so many questions?

    You claimed Mick said something that he didnt and you proved your own lie.

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

    It is finally acknowledged by a leading 9/11 debunker on the internet that NIST work is shoddy.

    What the problem with that connection?

    There are no shear studs, web plates, or stiffener plates on NIST A2001 isteel girder.

    Left image : NIST

    Right image is the actual reality of connections along the girder.

    There is something wrong with the NIST girder and Mick West knows that too. What mainstream engineers should ask is why did it remove so much construction and for what reason did not comment on it later?

    Take off 36 shear steel studs there, take off the plate and stiffeners and move the girder the wrong way, you might get a local collapse, but that's not science. You're stressing the girders without connections, but they're there to prevent collapse during a fire. This is a twisted attempt by NIST to pass this off as legitimate work of engineering. You model the girder with the connections on and then stress them during a fire. As far as I can tell, its pseudoscience that has been passed off as legitimate. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Interesting report I don't think I've seen before summarising the investigations into WTC 7.

    There are differences over exactly where the failure points started, but all investigations and studies reached the same conclusion: Fire.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,664 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    Thats because it was due to fire. A controlled demolition is impossible. As Cheerful has repeatedly and inadvertently proven.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,934 ✭✭✭silliussoddius

    When he’s typing in bold you know he really really believes it.

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

    Do you expect anything else from them other than fire? If so, disregard all the anomalies surrounding this event?

    There is no satisfactory mainstream explanation as to why some of the steel inside the buildings underwent a melting process, or why millions of pure iron droplets were found in dust samples from the World Trade Center.

    Twin towers orthe WTC7 fire cannot produce such large amounts of iron. Iron droplets are produced only in fires or above 1500°C and higher. There no mainstream explanation how building made of steel is producing millions of Pure Irons droplets in particles of WTC dust.

    It is not mixed with anything in these buildings where the pure iron coming off? Since mainstream reports of fire intensity were 900 C based on air jet fuel and burning materials, there is an unknown heat source unaccounted for in mainstream reporting of the event. The iron is the evidence of that conclusion.

    Modeling is minimal in the investigations; they dont show how the building collapsed in freefall. NIST is the only mainstream group to have actual models of progressive collapse. You can claim anything on paper, but you must show that the parameters actually occur with modeling. 

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

    The only improbable aspect is your mindset. Debunkers look for low probabilities, such as steel wool, bic lighter, and bunane flame producing millions of spheres/droplets of elemental iron in steel frames. This steel alloy is mixed with carbon and other elements. Separation of iron and other elements is impossible.

    There is even an inconsistency between the heat to produce Iron and heat involved here that allegedly brought the buildings down.

    It is not surprising that most mainstream engineers are unaware that NIST eliminated the construction at the point where the claim first failed. Mick West has looked into this and knows it actually happened, but 99.9 percent of the engineering community is unaware of it; they think everything is okay, and no conspiracy exists.

    The reason you know that is because no engineer, has ever discussed the idea that removing construction would be insignificant. Every engineer should be interested in mechanisms explaining why this type of building collapses for the first time in history to a new phenomenon? However, there is no engineering debate whatsoever outside of conspiracy forums. I find that very interesting there no blogs or forums or building science forums exist discuss the NIST collapse report.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,664 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    No blogs or forums or building science forums exist because everyone knows it would've been impossible to plant the explosives needed into the 3 buildings. You cant even begin to explain how it could have been done.

    Its a stupid theory.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Conclusions of multiple investigations vs your personal opinion

    Hmm, tough choice.

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

    There were recently released George Bush and Dick Cheney's secret testimony notes regarding 9/11, now exposed finally part of the official narrative is clearly false.

    According to intelligence given to media sources, the White House learned of Al Qeada members inside the United States in August 2001, but was unable to track them down.

    In Bush's view, he did not receive any intelligence that he could act on that Al Qeada was present in the country. Why did they give a fake narrative? Who is behind it? 

    Jimmy Dore went over this.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Does this Jimmy Dore fellow share your view that the whole thing was organised by secret Nazis using silent explosives?

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,664 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    Jimmy Dore. We really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

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

    Too much for you I guess.

    As Bush told the 9/11 commission, he was unaware of any Al Qaeda personnel in the United States and would have taken action if he knew.

    We know the CIA had taken a keen interest in two guys who traveled to Malaysia in 1999 for a meeting with Al Qaeda. This meeting was filmed and was part of CIA operations against AL Qaeda.


    According to reports, two of the men at the meeting boarded flight 77. The CIA flagged them in 2000 when they entered the United States through Los Angeles and followed them and began a surveillance operation. All this classified what they learned.,

    There is a real disconnect between what political figures in the U.S. are saying about Al Qaeda and what the CIA knows. It is possible that Bush was not aware of what happened due to an operation being carried out to prevent him from becoming aware. Why would the CIA fail to inform him that Al Qaeda operatives reside in the U.S.? There are memos coming out saying Bin Laden would attack American targets. Yet Al Qaeda members in the country known to CIA., 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    All of this is complete gobbledygook because you think that Bush and the CIA and the FBI were directly involved in 9/11

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

    After years of hearing about this, the media seems to have forgotten about 9/11. TMZ now has done a ground investigation into a 5th plane set to be hijacked on 9/11. He believes it was an inside job after talking to pilots, cabin crew, and others. Interview here about the investigation's details.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    A boxcutter was found on another aircraft at the time, as was reported at the time. Likewise two small knives were found on another.

    Maybe they were pre-planted, or maybe an extensive search of aircraft on 9/11 found stuff that's still being found on planes today.

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

    Upon getting grounded, the plane had to return to its gate area. People on the ground noticed two uniformed individuals running around inside the plane twenty minutes later. They evacuated the gate passengers and crews, locked everything earlier.

    While everything was unfolding, FAA grounding planes, and nobody knew what was going on. Security officers got alerted and then went to the plane and noticed a hatch had been opened at the belly so someone could get in. Those hatches were never opened, so it seems conspirators had access to the airport area and entered the plane to remove stuff before the real authorities arrived. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    On 911 thousands of planes were searched. They found 1 cardboard box opener and 2 small knives. I am very sure that if 1000's of planes were searched even now, certain implements would be found, a screwdriver under a hatch here, a penknife somewhere else.

    As for security people running around, everyone was running around on 9/11.

    I suspect some people are trying to make a very ordinary story a little bit more exciting.

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

    This is important story because it shows that there was a heightened sense of security after that hatch was found to be open. Ignoring the details.

    As soon as they arrived, the FBI questioned everyone about why the hatch was open.

    . This suggests unknown hijackers had a specific target in mind for the fifth plane and were not able to gain access to the plane and take control of it (since it returned to the departure gate)

    indicates that the people responsible for removing items from the plane were well-prepared, suggesting an organized and calculated operation. Something went wrong here with the inside job at this airport that's what it looks like. 

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    I thought that your argument was that the explosives were planted in the buildings, not the planes.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,664 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    It was both. Planes and explosives.

    A simultaneous attack perpetrated by Bush and thousands of people from the government and the CIA, Larry Silverstein, Al Qaeda, and some "Secret" Nazis. They just happened to all do it on the same day.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Nope. It was 16 guys over a weekend according to cheerful. Guess they were also busy loading up planes with more of the super secret silent explosives.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    And Joe Biden. And Mossad. And the Saudi royals.

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

    In some ways you are on the right track but in some places you are mistaken. Demolitions on 9/11 was done by same network you referring to here in parts of your post.

  • Registered Users Posts: 555 ✭✭✭Yeah Right

    What demolitions?

    The whole world was watching live, where are the recordings of these demolitions?

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

    Nanothermite, a military-grade substance, was placed here in addition to the fire caused the collapse of the Twin Towers, not explosions, as I have maintained for years.

    The presence of these iron-rich microspheres found in WTC dust samples ( official studies) show that a high-temperature thermite reaction occurred inside the Twin Towers. Debunkers will give silly reasons why there are millions of iron molten droplets with the WTC dust particles. Finding millions not just a handful or few hundred that clearly can only come from foreign substances that were not internal to the towers. Someone externally came in and planted chemical substances to do what was seen on 9/11. Additionally, we can see red/ yellow hot liquid pouring out of the collapse point before the second tower collapsed.The collapse was likely due to the intense heat generated by the nanothermite rather than any structural strain on the steel trusses. The nano thermite heat caused the steel to weaken and eventually melt in some spots, causing the towers to collapse. 

    It appears that Building seven was the only one to actually control demolition on 9/11, and there are plenty of signs that it was not a natural collapse. Evidence of explosion can be heard on video.

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

    Yeahright. This is building seven. 

    The freefall of Building 7 is a key factor in determining that the collapse was caused by a controlled demolition, rather than a structural failure. This is because freefall means that the building had to have all of its supporting structures removed at the lower end.

    To have freefall, all of that area in black would have to fully collapse on all sides without exception. That's not what NIST progressive collapse modeling shows.

    Almost two seconds have passed since the building started falling, but NIST persists in insisting that the western side is still collapsing. freefall will only be possible if that area in black crumbles completely ( use you brain)

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Round and round you go again.

    Nanothermite cannot produce explosions. No explosion means that it cannot produce the instant simulations failure needed for your scenario. You've failed to show that nanothermite can do this. So theory debunked.

    You are also now changing your story. You claim now it's "iron rich microspheres" where previously they were "pure iron". You cannot keep your story straight.

    And as before these sphere were shown to be caused by melting according to the study you are clinging to, so they are not the byproduct of a thermite reaction. You are lying, so theory debunked again.

    You yet again ignore and refuse to address the complete absence of the other byproduct of a thermite reaction.

    Thermite doesn't produce pools of molten metal that stay molten for hours. Nor does it explode.

    These facts don't vanish if you just keep repeating the same debunked nonsense over and over again.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 555 ✭✭✭Yeah Right

    "It appears that Building seven was the only one to actually control demolition on 9/11, and there are plenty of signs that it was not a natural collapse. Evidence of explosion can be heard on video."

    If there weren't any explosions, how can the explosion be heard on video?

    What video is this that the explosion can be heard on?

    If Building 7 was "the only one to to actually control demolition on 9/11", why did you say "Demolitions on 9/11 was done by same network you referring to here"? Why would you say demolitions (plural) if there was only one demolition (singular)?