Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

Debunkers will often use cherry-picked data that doesn't support the evidence that was found by independent researchers. They will often point to studies conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which were funded by the neocon administration to downplay the evidence from that day.

Why would there be a huge white flash in the exact area of the melting red/ yellow liquid? What the official explantation for that. If you look at any thermite experiment, you will see that white flash when such materials are ignited

The presence of these iron spheres is not consistent with the hypothesis that the collapse of the WTC towers was caused by an ordinary fire. The temperatures created by a fire, while intense, are not high enough to produce iron spheres. The fact that the spheres are found in such large numbers is further proof that NIST and others are lying. The ejection of pure iron with the dust plumes makes no sense whatsoever

That's a lot of words to say "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams".

A couple of counterpoints:

First of all, I'm struggling to see what you're talking about. What white flash? It's more orangey than anything. Can you repost that last still image with the "white flash" circled, please? Are you talking about the part where there is a white dot to the left of the orange fire? How is that an explosion?

Second of all, you said earlier there were no explosions.....now you're saying there was, and that its duration is consistent with a nanothermite explosion, (which has never been documented as being used in building demolitions before, correct?), despite the fact that there aren't any explosions in any gifs you've posted. There is a point where smoke appears to be moving away from the building, but that could be anything, a fire extinguisher that popped, a gas cylinder or other pressurised container that went pop....hell, even a window shattering or the wind direction shifting might cause a sudden shift in the smoke trails

Thirdly, there are some amount of logical leaps and fallacies in these two short sentences, you cannot just put that out there and expect it to remain unchallenged.........

What liquid pour out?

No liquid appears to be pouring out of the building, what are you talking about?

Do you mean the sparks falling?

Also, why would the location of these sparks support your theory that it was nano-thermite?

Why specifically would it make sense to put it there?

What difference would it make?

Why wouldn't you put TNT or C4 there, for example, instead?

If you were trying to weaken the support structure of a building to bring it down via controlled demolition, why wouldn't you put nano-thermite somewhere around the support structures in the basement or lower depths of the building?

Why have it take place somewhere up in the 20th to 30th floors?

These next three are from my last post which you replied to but never addressed. Instead you just posted two gifs and a screenshot and started talking about other stuff. I'd appreciate if you could answer them now, please:

Lol cheerful the study you provided found no aluminum oxide. It proved that there was no thermite.

Your excuse that it would survive in a fire or "would be more of a spray" is utter unspported nonsense and a desperate attempt to handwave around the issue.

Also vlaiming that the iron spheres are a byproduct of thermite is a complete lie as the study says that they formed due to melting, not reduction.

You aren't even honest or brave enough to address this point directly. You are pretending to ignore it, while knowing it disproves your theory.

If you're going to address my point address me. If your too afraid to address the point go back to plugging your ears.

Also if you are now going to claim that your Magic super thermite doesn't produce aluminum oxide, then you are arguing that it isn't thermite.

How do you know I've been posting here for that long? Only just signed up for this site in the summer? Is this a different account than the one you normally use?

Look i believe the attacks are suspicious because of the evidence I've seen, and I do think it's important that we continue to investigate what really happened that day.

The fact that people like you don't seem to notice all the issues here shows that intelligence isn't really based on grammar or English.

In that window, a very distinctive white light flashes and then vanishes. You have dismissed this. Why is this so important.

Well, let me tell you why. You watch the video again and what you will see is darkness filling up the entire top floors of the Twin Towers. The darkness blocks out all light in the windows, what realistically is the reason behind the white light? The white light right appearing in the corner where yellow/red hot fluid flows out of the window. Think its important based on what i talk about next.

Moving on

Harrit and Basille WTC samples showed that the composition and structure of the nano thermite chips matched almost the composition and structure of nano-thermite, which was developed by Livermore Labs for the defense industry.

Although the gray layer's composition has not been fully identified, its presence indicates that the chips were engineered with an intentional design. The red layer contains nanoparticles of thermite. These nanoparticles are extremely small and have a very high surface area, making them very effective at creating heat when ignited

During the Harrit and Basille tests of WTC nano thermite chips, some sort of gas got released through pockets that were opened up in the ignited chip There might be a reason why all the concrete in the twin towers was pulverized in midair before it touched the ground. Perhaps the release of gas in a closed environment such as the twin towers caused a pressure cooker effect?

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

FEMA Metallurgical study from 2002

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

NIST's explanation of the collapse of the WTC towers was based on the idea that the steel structure was weakened by the heat of the fires, but the FEMA study did not rule out that steel melting could have caused the building to weaken and collapse.

The NIST report found that the steel in the towers was heated to temperatures that weakened its strength, making it more susceptible to buckling and sagging, which eventually caused the towers to collapse.

As noted in the FEMA report, the collapse may have been caused by steel melting.

However, this explanation was ignored subsequently by NIST.

What caused the cutouts on the steel beams?

FEMA examined the steel and found free sulfur, which triggered the melting process. There was clearly a puzzle at FEMA as to why free sulfur was attacking the steel. If this was something that happened naturally, then many other buildings would be in danger of collapsing due to fire.

NIST ignores another important finding.

The nanothermite hypothesis is further supported by the fact that there is free sulfur in the red/grey chips. We know how it happened.

End part of your post

Dr Milette worked for the EPA organization that lied about the effects of WTC dust. As a result, people suffered life-threatening illnesses and litigation was brought against the EPA

. Milette misstated the results of the Basille and Harrit tests, which showed the presence of elemental aluminum. Furthermore, he failed to mention that several other tests, including X-Ray Diffraction and Scanning Electron Microscopy, found evidence of other elements, including sulfur, potassium, and carbon, in the red/grey chips.

In addition to being a liar, Dr Milette has been involved in cover-up already about 9/11, giving the appearance of being an expert on nanothermite on debunker forums is even more suspicious.

The debunkers refuse to recognize the evidence because it does not match the official narrative of what happened. All the eyewitnesses who said they saw molten steel are wrong. They also don't recognize the red/gray chips in the dust as evidence, they call it a con job.

Arguments lack critical thinking, and why that? The FEMA report also noted the melting of steel components, indicating that the presence of molten steel was not impossible.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

This disconnect between both agencies raises questions about the investigation's integrity. It is possible that evidence was deliberately withheld to avoid further investigation and scrutiny? According to NIST, nobody has ever told them about seeing steel melted or finding molten steel. It was hilarious when I got the FEMA report from 2002.

Call its usual event, a phenomenon, couldn't find the source of the free sulfur attacking the steel. Give two options, one supporting the truther argument, and one not supporting it. Again, there is a final summary that doesn't rule out that this strange, unusual phenomenon accelerated the collapse of the steel within the twin towers

Truther's arguments aren't ridiculous at all. That phenomenon is explained by all the weird findings in the dust samples.

Your explanation for this encounter makes no sense. Most are aware, drone technology has evolved dramatically over the past 19 years, and any drone built in 2004, will not have the same upgrades as a modern drone. Why keep an outdated drone in a hangar somewhere?

Would the shape of the object and acceleration not be relevant to your analysis? As the story goes, Favor and Chad Underwood, said this drone had no wings or windows, could fly through the air, and had no sort of visible propulsion system. There are actual signs in the description that you are dealing with an unknown type of flying vehicle.

Feelings are not important. If a drone with the same appearance and flight characteristics doesn't show up after 19 years, it's a reasonable assumption to make that technology is maybe not human. Although I cannot confirm if a pilot was inside this craft, the reported facts are that it can take off on its own, which certainly suggests some intelligence or some technology is involved in moving it. I don't have a clue how it works.

The Navy battleships and AWAC radar locked on to the objects during the exercise, and the F18 Hornet video footage confirms a UAP. This, combined with eyewitness accounts, shows that the objects are really in the sky, messing with the pilot's exercise. The pilots involved in this encounter are all adamant that this object doesn't belong to us. After 80 years of encounters with these objects, if not longer, the human factor does not make sense based on the length of the interaction.

You disagree; your viewpoint entitled to have views outside mine Whatever the intelligence behind the design, it exists, UAPs from a strange place are here.

..................................

Your perceptions of 9/11 are inaccurate. Many American news channels speculated on the use of explosives to bring the buildings down that day. When events took place live, no one censored themselves. Firefighters, police, and civilians who survived the collapse all claimed to have heard an explosion. Some even reported explosions in the WTC Tower lobby. We know firsthand that information was ignored by the NIST collapse investigation team.

Debunkers point to demolitions that make loud bangs and flashes before the building collapses, but these types of explosions are very obvious and easy to spot. I'm ruling out the possibility that this was done in this case. I'm not examining it because it would have been too obvious and easily spotted.

Why do I say explosions? The energy needed to push heavy-built steel sideways from the collapse point would be quite significant. It is likely that the energy needed to produce that force would come from some kind of explosive/gas-type event. Debunkers are clearly aware that gravity works downward, I hope. The fact that steel is moving outward is evidence of something else going on inside the building before it collapsed!!

You are asking me to believe two airliners made of aluminum caused all that to happen? It caused all that meteor-type fusing of metal elements into rock-like objects seen in 9/11 museums and caused the melting and vaporization of steel (a fact reported by engineers on the ground after the attack) ignored by NIST later.

This airliner crash released tons of iron droplets into the air and covered Manhattan. Debunkers jump to improbability reasons why that happened steel wool or bic lighters or flint laughable stuff.

It caused the fires to keep going until Nov 2001,. What a special fire this was.

NIST's new phenomenon for the collapse of Building 7 is not supported by scientific evidence, such as simulations and experiments, that have been conducted to replicate the collapse of Building 7. Debunkers are lying about this, nobody ever got access to their data to replicate their work. Very surprising that we live in a world where you are not allowed to access data on a new model of collapse for a tall steel building to prove its accuracy. Funny that.

Nanothermite does not exist only in conspiracy forums. Experiments have demonstrated that nanothermite has a high energy density. Nanotechnology depending on complexity can be designed with chemical elements that could give it higher energy output than traditional explosives. It is also easier to transport and place in a building, which makes it an attractive option for rogue plotters. Nanothermite even has Wikipedia pages not aware.

Either way, that debate a while ago was about the presence of aluminum spheres. Aluminum spheres are not a byproduct of thermite. Thermite after igniting at high temp leaves behind in an open air environment, iron and a powder of Aluminum oxide.

At very high temperatures inside the building, vaporization of aluminum oxide would occur. Appearance would look more like a white cloud or dissipation like a spray. See this very different white smoke in photographs and video, shown images of it here in other threads.

We know melting occurred due to the early work of FEMA who managed to get a few samples off a engineer at Berkley who got up early in the morning., before all steel got shipped off to the far east. There is nothing to see there either, according to debunkers on this site, yet there is another new phenomenon happening with steel melting due to attack by sulfur. Anyone who is not clueless would notice these are all events outside the range of what is possible during an office fire. Clearly, FEMA did too because of the very unusual event. Unusual fire huh, not suspicious?

It is hard to comprehend that the official explanation of the collapse of the buildings was that the fires caused by the aluminum tube hitting the building caused the steel in the buildings to weaken and the buildings to ultimately collapse

. This explanation does not take into account the heat necessary to melt the steel, the force required to pulverize concrete, and the pulverization of office materials inside the buildings, the force to push steel outward.

This, like most nonsense theories, starts with an ignorant or false claim, and then the whole thing is a house of cards based on that claim.

The structural columns in a building hold up the entire building. They carry entire weight of the building and contents on every floor above. This is basic mechanics and everyone who works in high rise construction understands this. When a steel column fails, they deform sideways. If you don't understand how that can happen and want a practical demonstration. Grab a metal ruler, place it between your vertical palms and press them together. What happens? It ruler deflects sideways. There was no explosion pushing it sideways, there was no sideways force. The only force is vertical - in case you are missing the obvious implication. that's the same direction as gravity.

Taking out a large portion of the columns on a floor (say with a plane) increases the load on the remaining columns. Heat weakens the tensile force of steel, meaning it will fail under a submaximum load. Which means starting a large, instantaneous fireball on a high rise tower floor could absolutely compromise the structural support of the building. The steel does not need to melt to fail.

The weight of 30 floors on compromised columns is definitely enough force to push steel outward. The force to pulverize (non structural) concrete is not than high. The force to pulverize of office materials is close to zero. The collapse of a 110 story tower releases an incredible amount of potential energy, definitely enough for annihilate the contents. This should not be "hard to comprehend".

Complete lie here, as always.

The point has been addressed again and again and again with you. people have gone to lengths explaining to you that this is a nonsense point and many levels. People have repeatedly explained to you that the point is moot now there are examples of such collapses both before and after. (Which is why your cavates have to be so specific.) You never consider these issues when you keep repeating the same debunked point. You simply lie and pretend you don't hear those points. You've never once addressed them.

And of course, you never consider the reverse applies to your silly theory.

Before the events of 9/11, no steel-framed tall high-rise buildings had ever completely collapsed to the ground, due to silent magicnanothermite demolition after being hit by jet liners and being on fire.

You never explain why this isn't an issue with your theory. You just ignore the point because you can't address it.

Also notice how now you're back to accusing the experts at the NIST of either being incompetent or being involved in a conspiracy you claimed was small.

Constant contradictions.

Can the moderator move the thread to the right place?

Prior to 9/11, there had never been a steel-framed building that collapsed due to fire alone. At least we got over that hurdle.

Let's compare.

Twin Towers

The central core was composed of 47 heavy steel columns, each up to 36 inches wide.

These columns were designed to hold up the weight of the building and the floors. The steel spandrels (separate from the core) provided additional support for the facade walls and windows.

To WTC7

Similar to the Twin Towers, but with fewer steel columns located in the center of the building.

The buildings mentioned by you here and others are actually composite steel and concrete buildings. With a central reinforced concrete core in the middle. This core is reinforced with steel support. With the buildings listed here, most of the steel is around the perimeter facade. There is no similarity between them and the twin towers or building seven

Misused by debunkers to deny the conspiracy claims.

The big flaw is that cement and concrete support the main body of the standing structure. No matter how reinforced the concrete core is with steel bracing, there is a high risk of cracking or movement changes in high-temperature fires. The Plasco Building was built in the 1960s, as was the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building. It's strange that debunkers don't mention that squatters occupied Brazil's collapsed building for years before it collapsed. This building was likely structurally unsound and unsafe for habitation, had no maintenance done, and likely did not comply with the building safety codes of Brazil. With squatters and perhaps flammable materials inside, could the building collapse? Iran Plasco read the official report. Iranian violations for the building's unsafe condition before the building collapsed.

Either way, none of the examples matter, as none match the material conditions of the twin towers and Building seven.

The whole jet fuel argument very silly when you look at all the problems about building seven collapse. The third tower that collapsed on 9/11. No jet fuel, no plane, just normal fires that burned out. People take NIST to task over Building Seven because they claim one structural girder failure at column 79 on the east side of the building was the primary factor in causing the collapse of the building. Think rationally about how silly it is that one girder, in some newly created progressive collapse phenomenon, brought the building down like a deck of cards in free fall.

It is a ridiculous theory that a steel-framed building would fully collapse because of a single broken connection. This would put every steel building with columns of this type at risk. Has this new theory resulted in any changes to building codes? As far as I know, no.

Let's not ignore the free-fall stage that took place at the bottom of Building Seven. At the bottom, eight floors would have to be entirely given up in the steel core column resistance for that free fall to occur. NIST modeling of progressive collapse never shows that. The eight floors of columns were all taken out across the entire bottom perimeter of seven, by fire, without explosives, which makes no sense

NIST's report mentions fireproofing as the main contributing factor to the collapse of the Twin Towers. In fact, the report states that the fireproofing on the steel columns would be effective in protecting the steel from the heat of the fires. NIST was trying to come up with an explantation as to why the towers collapsed so fast. They started off by saying that the fireproofing was knocked off by jet airliners, they theorized in their report. It would be helpful if you have a theory about the collapse that took into account what was actually in the building?

You are wrong about the free fall of the Twin Towers. Here are NIST's answers to some conspiracy questions, including the free fall of the Towers, as well as more typical fire-related collapse questions.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

Question 31. Before making any generalizations, I think all the facts need to be gathered first.

It is accepted fact that the twin towers would have fallen in 9 seconds if they had fallen free. In their answer, NIST basically acknowledges that the building was in free fall in the third paragraph of that question. By the way, if the building was in freefall, it would take roughly 9 to 10 seconds.

There is no precise explanation of what happened to the steel hat truss core in your theory. The alleged severed columns caused the entire upper floors to collapse, is that your theory? Why would people even bother with the controlled demolition of buildings when all you have to do is chip away at a few columns to cause a collapse? For building seven, just go ahead and remove one girder, and the entire building will come down. There is a lot of money being wasted by demolition teams for no reason, is that it?

This is obviously an oversimplification of the reality of what happened. The damage the planes could have done here is only local, and in no way does your theory explain why the entire upper floors went airborne.

A natural collapse can be seen in the collapse of Plasco Towers, where the walls pull in and collapse all inward.

First of all, the upper floors are damaged and breaking apart. It is absurd to claim a broken-up lighter mass would have the energy to destroy the lower untouched fire steel sections at will. Even if that happened, there would be a decrease in acceleration. NIST actually claims something entirely different in their report: that upper lower mass, which is actually much smaller mass than the larger portion, meeting no resistance below to stop it.

Due to the fact that they found sulfation damage on the steel days after the attack, this claim looks ridiculous.

A liquid made of iron isn't **** aluminum, folks. Color liquid pouring out of the Twin Tower matches melted iron in foundries: red and yellow. It matches all the descriptions given by eyewitnesses at Ground Zero. What was done with all the evidence ignored.

We were in the dark about how much steel looked like this. We have to thank one engineer who got up one early morning to look inside a parked dump truck to retrieve this piece. The lack of preservation of the crime scene is especially concerning for Building Seven. NIST basically admits in their WTC 7 work that they looked around all dump sites and couldn't find a single member of steel from a building that was 47 stories high,. Imagine thinking there is no conspiracy here when this information is out there in public.

So this hearing was so boring and devoid of anything meaningful people have given up on it in under a week and the thread is now just another dump for cheerful to repeat the same old 9/11 nonsense.

I watched a few videos over the weekend and stumbled upon this footage, and I have contacted a respected member of the truther community about it. I'm not sure if this footage was noticed before.

I captured some of the light in the second screenshot.

For debunkers, be nothing burger; as usual, downplay it.

Office fires do not have this purple haze. As you may not know, nanothermite reactions emit UV light (ultra-violet). The fact that melting is taking place, as well as the flashes of light clearly indicate something that is not normal taking place before the South Tower collapses.

It's better to watch the full video because there's more going on than I can capture with GIF ( frame rate too slow and resolution is poor) See all this purple flashing sparking light beginning at 4 minutes, 29 seconds in the full video below.

"respected member of the truther community" is an oxymoron

I'm also a bit curious who this is supposed to be and why the vaguery.

I suspect it's because "respected member" means some rando youtuber who does not share cheerful's unique version of the conspiracy.