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

    Tearing down buildings the same way commercial demolition does. As a result, the whole purpose of doing so in secret is negated.

    In order to understand what happened, mainstream studies must examine the evidence found after the building collapsed. Moved into this very rare and unusual events and asked others to explain it later isnt good enough.

    When all is said and done, we can see that melted steel indicates that some chemical was used. Then Free Iron was found (for me, this is a smoking gun) because Iron Microspheres were a result of high-temperature ignition. The temperatures here reached beyond what was possible in building fires. The NIST tower fires reaching 800 degrees.not 1500 degrees.

    . A mysterious elemental sulfur was attacking steel in buildings without a clear source, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. What ignores things doesn't add up?. After the event, how can you explain the high temperature in the rubble months later? You throw everything on it, but it doesn't go away. 

    Despite the fact that some buildings can collapse from fire, buildings of this type have withstood all fires up until 9/11. They have never collapsed from pockets of fire inside the building. It's curious how NIST denies what people witnessed and lies outright. NIST finally convinced me that the cover-up of this incident is real. Remove construction from a building and then claim you are trying to solve why it collapsed?. Stuck on the credibility that people are unable to get inside a building and plant stuff.. Personally i think thats nonsense. There is plenty of evidence to indicate it was done. It is only your problem that you do not know exactly who did it and how. Not knowing who did it makes you dismiss instead of looking at what the evidence shows in its entirety. In your view of this topic, that is your frame of reference.  

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Buildings are demolished via controlled demolition all the time.

    Never seen a secret silent one before..

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    In order to understand what happened, mainstream studies must examine how 2 skyscrapers and another 50 stor building were rigged with explosives in secret.

    Actually, they have looked at this and its impossible. So the controlled demoliton theory is invalid. Laughable actually.

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

    The noise given off by explosives at building seven would be 130 db range, which would be heard blocks away, according to NIST.

    NIST in another one of its obvious lies claims no noise was ever heard on video or by any eyewitness on site.

    Hmmm, really want this then here's the actual video of a CBS reporter and his cameraman recording the building collapse.

    Can clearly hear a loud explosion and its echo in the background and then Penthouse drops from the roof. There was clearly a loud noise in the 130db range, so it is interesting why NIST denies that.Lies are astounding since we have actual media video which shows they lied. 

    Listen between 0 and 1 seconds.

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

    Here is their direct quote from their own website in case someone claims they never said that. 

    Does the video match their statement that no noise was captured on any video that day before the collapse? 

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Controlled demolitions produce unmistakable explosive sounds

    The collapse of WTC 7 does not produce these sounds

    This is why the 9/11 truther community has invented "silent explosives". You keep forgetting to stick to that script because you found one video with a faint thud.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭growleaves

    'People turn to these kinds of fringe conspiracy beliefs because they’ve been told that they’re stupid all their lives. In order to get “revenge” on people who’ve told them that they’re stupid'


    'It’s the same emotional need to get revenge on people who have made the believer feel stupid that drives people who embrace Nazism, Stalinism, all kinds of weird fringe conspiracy theories, etc.'

    The thing is though that National Socialism, Stalinism and any variant of socialism are about "levelling up" in a sense. They bring people up into equality with others on the basis that they've been wronged previously. So for instance kulaks in the Soviet Union were vengeful against small landowners who used to lease farm equipment to them. These ideologies are inherently resentment-driven, as there is always a villian ("Jews", "bourgeois", even "white males") who are deliberately holding back progress from perverse motives.

    There no inherent element like this to weird fringe conspiracy theories though. There are malign forces in the shadows, which is strongly suggestive of gnosticism - the belief that special or initiated people have 'secret knowledge' about the world.

    If anything I would say what drives conspriacy theories are different assumptions about the nature of life and especially about how inherently "good" people are(n't).

    So you get pessimists, Manicheans, Christians, conservatives, Muslims, gnostics, isolated and depressed people - basically anyone lacking a sort of 'optimistic' view of human nature and life, anyone who believes evil forces are especially active in the world (supernaturalists, all kinds of religious people).

    I doubt if they've been 'told that they’re stupid all their lives'. If anything they're often highly individuated intelligent outsiders in a Western context. Or if religious they might be part of an insular religious community where secular Western ideas of what opinions smart people hold don't come into it.

    'Now that there are giant, vocal, prominent online communities dedicated to fringe conspiracy beliefs that they can join, people like this don’t feel the need to censor themselves when talking about these subjects now; they don’t fear ostracism from the public and their real life communities because they don’t HAVE to live a lot of their lives in real life meat-space.'

    Yes I agree vulnerable, isolated and depressed people may be attracted to these online "communities". This is also a problem for so-called incels and anyone with fringe beliefs.

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

    Please read NIST's statement. 

    The critical column at 79 was attacked with explosives result in 130db of noise. NIST claims that there is no video with such noise before a collapse. 

    Column 79 was crucial as it aligned with the main core columns in the middle 

    This is all a lie, because there was a noise in the range of 130 dB heard on video which was uploaded here. This is the reality of the day, not some made-up crap. 

    It is claimed by NIST that removing this one column Dohnjoe resulted in the collapse of the whole building, so stay informed about what's being said. 

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

    An investigation of the Twin Towers revealed that nanothermite was used in conjunction with fire to bring them down.

    Building seven evidence that was the implosion of the building and removal of columns to bring it down. Building seven is not a silent event at all. I have shown with the video from CBS 

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    OK how did they rig the buildings with nanothermite? Specifically. Did this investigation explain that? Not much of an investigation if it didnt.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭growleaves

    'Embracing knowledge gained outside the classroom is a form of emotional revenge against academic "elites" who have scorned them. Groups like incels and MGTOWs have been unusually honest about those drives to get revenge against those people who have made them feel bad, sadly; but flat earthers, even more sadly, are rarely honest about that emotional need and their drive to fulfill it. Instead they try to pretend to be scientific experts whose existence nullifies the need for expertise itself. But rest assured, it’s all an elaborate cover for the terror and insecurity and emotional stress they feel about being singled out as stupid. They just frame it as an intellectual belief instead of an unfulfilled emotional need.'

    I don't agree with this and it shows a common bias which is that many people nowadays don't seem to realise that human knowledge has never depended entirely on the universities, which began as religious institutions to study theology. Many great people of the past were educated by private tutors. Many scientists were autodidacts or 'gentlemen amateurs'. The Invisible College worked secretly due to religious orthodoxy Etc., etc.

    The idea that there is 'official' expertise which you can't question is very recent and during early stages of covid it was the Financial Times and The Guardian who told the public and politicians to disregard one set of experts and pay heed to another set. So these experts are not self-selecting, they are singled out by media and the powerful to be listened to.

    Human knowledge just doesn't work that way. It doesn't mean that conpsiracy theorists are right, but what a ridiculous pretence that somehow all the 'official' people with political backing, social status, grant money hold the keys to knowledge and anyone else mustn't challenge them. Lol

    Awkward genuises like Wittgenstein, who held a chair at Cambridge 70 years ago, would lack the slickness and political nous for a successful university career in 2022 imo.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    There are no explosive sounds from the building collapses on 9/11.

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

    After the collapse, different agencies in mainstream not connected at all discovered unique and very rare anomalies. As a result of the deal in different fields, they were not aware of how it would affect the overall event.

    A group led by RJ Lee discovered and commented on the discovery of millions of iron microspheres in dust from the WTC that far exceed all other iron microspheres found elsewhere. Despite the fact that all mainstream studies, including NIST one, only find fires reaching 900 degrees inside the towers before the collapse, this is a smoking gun that heat inside the towers reached 1500 degrees and higher. Because steel is an alloy, the iron couldn't have come from it because it is a mixture of different things.

    There is some concrete evidence that something else was used to bring the towers down. Red/grey chips were discovered in WTC dust, so it can be concluded that the towers were brought down with something else. There is evidence that the truther community is on to something when RJ Lee discovered a unique product of thermite reaction.

    Additionally, a completely different agency, FEMA, discovered steel that had been severely damaged and melted down. This is yet another proof that something other than fire was involved here. You can't melt steel in any building due to the lack of heat produced by burning materials. In addition, the fact that they found this and said that some elementary sulfur was attacking the steel without knowing where it came from is more evidence that something foreign was put in there to cause a collapse.

    In addition, there was some melting taking place before the second tower collapsed, as red/liquid was leaking out of the windows. In light of the video itself, it is evident that there was no buckling of the trusses that caused the collapse, but rather some of the structural steel inside was melting down, causing the building to collapse structurally.

    As a result of all the concrete turning to dust before it reaches the ground, this collapse must have been caused by a lot of heat and pressure. Considering that the red/grey chip released some kind of gas, I think it explains that steel was pushed horizontally and cracked up like a peeled banana when it was finalized?

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

    Turn up your volume, and it's clearly heard by a reporter who is a few blocks away. There is no doubt that the noise occurred, and then the Penthouse collapsed. The noise clearly has significance, in contrast to NIST's claim that no noise exists. 

    It may help you to close your eyes and turn up the volume while you listen.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    How did they rig the buildings with nanothermite?

    Im not asking what happened after the buildings came down. Im asking what happened before they came down. You don't seem to be able to even start answering that question.

    Therefore the controlled explosion theory is invalid. It didnt happen.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    I have, I heard a faint thud, probably something collapsing in the building. Sounds nothing like demolition charges.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    And why rig the building with nanothermite? If there's something inside they wanted to destroy, they could have just simply destroyed it. It's 10,000 times easier to break into an office and shred files than it is to "secretly rig an entire skyscraper for demolition".

    "We need to destroy those secret files now!"

    -"Sir, it's our office, they are right here, I can just shred them n"


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    New York city was scattered with intact office files after aswell. They were all over the city. Millions of pages. No guarantee bringing down the buildings would destroy these secret files.

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

    It made sense that nano-thermite would be used in the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11 since all media attention was focused on it, so there's no way you're going to have bombs going off everywhere while media cameras are too concentrated on it.

    Still, some anomalies point to something else happening. There is no reason for you and others to consider this as serious, as you think it would be impossible to conduct this secretly without anyone knowing.

    You forgot FEMA already mentioned here that steel had melted and that mixture must run off somewhere in the building fire. Seeing liquid pour out of the window shows there was melting going on.

    It seems that debunkers don't have that mindset - oh yeah, there was red/yellow liquid pouring from the second tower's window, and FEMA found steel had melted within this tower - could there possibly be the same red hot yellow hot mixture pouring from that tower?

    If you are looking for evidence of the nanothermite look for certain signatures.

    : All red/grey chips contain nano aluminum and nano iron oxide and other materials. The science behind it is solid.

    :Melting processes and Iron microspheres spheres are all byproducts of thermite reactions.

    Were there byproducts found in the dust?

    As you are aware, a mainstream study conducted by RJ Lee discovered an unusual anomaly of almost 6 percent of the dust covering Manhattan on 9/11 containing iron microspheres. The only conclusion they came to was that it was caused by a high-temperature event. The first byproduct of thermite reaction has been confirmed by mainstream study and not by truthers. 

    In 2001, we were dealing with some revolutionary new materials. Nanothermite super thermite is known more today, but back then it was relatively unknown. I don't think Professor Harrit from Danish university fully knows how it was all made, some things about the mixture he couldn't figure out and would need more study. Regardless, aluminum oxide would blow off anyway if it appeared as if it were a powder or aerosol. Stuff went everywhere after the towers collapsed. Harrit experiments uncovered a gas unexplainable. Could it be some kind of byproduct?

    Lets look at evidence Penthouse collapsed. According to NIST the collapse has moved sideways to the right with red lines.

    How can floors collapsing in that way not break windows? Steel frame basically collapsing. The north face of building seven is undisturbed by all this happening inside the building on the media video?This is all pointing to one thing: truthers are right that the collapse began at the bottom, and that windows cracked when columns were moved out of the way. It is pure fantasy to say that steel frame and floors fell first, and then hollow shell of building fell next in final stage. No evidence of that whatsoever media photographs and video on that day show it. Just like NIST not understanding freefall happened at building seven. 

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

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

    It is only by noticing NIST's tripping over itself that you can get a clear picture of what happened at building seven. I do not know who did this demolition job and why.

    This video was what got me interested in 9/11 and made me discover that NIST was untruthful. As you watch the video, you hear the NIST people talk and dismiss freefall. It's shocking that months later, they claim that freefall happened, but at a slower speed. In about 12 weeks, complete the U-turn.

    NIST's collapse models do not match the U turn claims either, so I always go to this video to prove they lied. It was the original statements about freefall that they believed really happened, but they tried to conceal that from the public and covered it up with another lie. With this truther argument that explosives were used yet they denied freefall, the implications are all there for all to see ( final admission)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

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

    It is impossible for a natural building collapse to result in freefall. NIST knew that from the beginning. Watch this video and listen to them explain why this is not possible. This gives you a better understanding of why people later claim NIST covered up. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    No it isn't. The internals gave way, with no proper support the outer facade then fell. Investigators understood it. The insurers understood it (they even conducted their own multi-year investigations)

    It's "impossible" according to you. Likewise landing on the moon was "impossible" according to that other poster.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    No motives, no suspects and no idea how it could be done.

    Aside from that though, a solid theory......

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

    Have you watched the video?  

    Let me explain it another way. 

    According to NIST, the collapse of 18 stories occurred in 5.4 seconds because movement in the roof was evident early on.

    As David Chandler showed in part 2 of the video, adding 1.5 seconds is a fantasy. 

    Obviously, NIST is adding time here so it matches their collapse model, which shows a slower progression of failure 

    In real time, it took 3.9 seconds to collapse 18 stories, from full support to zero support. Remove the extra 1.5 second time, controlled demolition was basically what happened. 

    In order to conceal the true motion of collapse, NIST insists that an artificial start time appears!!! Time only in the model, not in the video of the actual collapse.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    How many times have you posted that?

    But won't answer basic questions put to you.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    I watched the collapses live. I saw it replayed like a million times on the day and in the days after. It collapsed due to fire.

    The investigations just confirmed what everyone already knew.

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

    The second part is rarely posted. You have to listen to NIST speak to understand how it came to its conclusions. Debunkers never do, which is obvious.

    NIST's dismissal of controlled demolition is entirely based on a fake time they came up with based on model predictions of 5.4 seconds. In the second part, David Chandler demonstrated again that the collapse was not as predicted by the model, since the video shows a 3.9-second collapse time.

    In part 2, we'll see more fakery by NIST. 

    It is clear from the video that controlled demolition occurred over 3.9 seconds, but NIST decided to choose a time when no collapse occurred and match it with its computer model. David broke down how they did it, but debunkers probably never watched him.