Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

11516171820

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,540 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    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"

    Post edited by The Nal on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,540 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


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



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,350 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    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?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,540 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,350 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    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. 



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,540 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


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


    Hahahahaha



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭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 ...



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,643 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    ...

    Post edited by Kermit.de.frog on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Very interesting footage here. Not sure which building this was: https://www.bitchute.com/video/eODCXLVDisNF



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It's an old, comically fake video with explosions inserted (badly). Bonus: can you find the UFO they inserted.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-3UvZjyQzA



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Please.. You look at clear harnesses on astronauts, CGI glitches, bubbles floating in space, literally a man in scuba gear in space and say it's real. Yet somehow you see this as fake instantly.

    Not sure what you mean about UFO. That is clearly some kind of maintainance area at the top that caves in as the building starts to collapse:

    2025-10-05 00_20_33-Window.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,738 ✭✭✭windy shepard henderson


    thats basically my interpetition on it , the fact that there had been several inside jobs in American politics previous to this makes the conspiracy theory available to this argument

    when you see the inquest to things like the omagh bombing and how the ruc or british government turned a blind eye hoping it would make the ira look worse than what it was , is something that was at play here for sure



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Look closer.

    It's a zoomed in and flipped version of this particular video (at the youtube timestamp)

    Keyword: flipped. The position of the Penthouse means that in this video, it would have been filmed from the downwind side

    The downwind side (the side of the building hit by WTC 1) looked like this

    image.png

    Zoomed in, , flipped view, "shaky" camera and "explosions" added in. If you look closely you'll also see something else that was added.

    I also know for a fact it's fake

    Post edited by Dohnjoe on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    So you acknowledge that the video was not edited to add a UFO in, and that it is in fact some kind of maintenance area at the top? This would show your inability to debunk real vs fake images/videos.

    Secondly, I watched that video and there is no way any of them could be cropped/rotated to recreate the angle/distance from the tower that the first video was taken. Also if you listen to the account of the witness at 5:55 he says "we were looking at the building because the ground floors were on fire. Then we could hear claps of thunder and windows blowing out in the upper floors before the building collapsed"

    This gives added credibility to the sound of the explosions in the first video I linked. They simply do not look edited in. To use your own flawed argument - there is no way they had the technology to fake a video like this in 2001 XD



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The video wasn't created in 2001, it was made around 10 years later.

    It's completely fake looking, I have no idea why you think this is real.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,035 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    I miss King Mob.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Ah ok, so this 100% real:

    Screenshot_20251005-134520.png

    But this 100% fake:

    Screenshot_20251005-135325.png

    At least you are extremely binary about it but at the cost of having zero credibility on judging what is real and what is fake.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You genuinely cannot tell the difference?

    Look at WTC 7. That angle of the building is flipped for the video - that's your first clue

    The second clue is that the explosions are ridiculously fake.

    The third clue is that you can find the footage yourself online and see where they took it from.

    The fourth clue is the UFO inserted in the video by the guy who made it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    You have zero evidence for any of the above claims. The fact that you still maintain that there is a UFO edited in just proves how dedicated you are to standing over the most baffling, far-fetched arguments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It's a fake video made by a debunker to demonstrate how gullible people can be when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies.

    And yes there is a UFO edited in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Firstly, there is no UFO in the original video. Unless you can show me a timestamped video from 2011 with the UFO as he shows it in his video then he is clearly a fraud and you have been duped.

    Also, his arguments around structural collapse are flawed as well, his whole argument revolves around a "dynamic model" created by NIST, which shows fancy graphic simulation of building 7 collapse. The crux of his argument being that the NIST model was more reliable than the structural expert's model because it was "dynamic". What a clown. It is well known within engineering that computational simulations are only as reliable as the person who created it and should always be taken with a grain of salt unless verified experimentally. Also, the fact that he uses a can to explain his argument around structure collapse and paints it as "indisputable evidence" makes it clear he's a charlatan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,214 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    To sum up

    1. The video you stumbled upon on Bitchute is a known fake video. You didn't check any sources, nothing, just blindly believed it without question
    2. When all the discrepancies were explained in the video, you baselessly dismissed them all and still believed the video
    3. When it was revealed to be a fake video created on purpose - you still can't handle it
    4. Now you're repeating generic 9/11 conspiracy incredulity and selective expert trashing

    Play either video again, the original or the Bitchute one, on both the edited in UFO is visible. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

    Again his video was created to expose individuals who don't question conspiracy stuff, in fact will even defend it, even when it's shown it's fake. Low critical thinking, high on belief/faith based.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    To sum up

    1. You came out claiming the video was fake, had a UFO in it and didn't provide any evidence of either of these
    2. Repeatedly in the past you have sneered and berated anyone who uses youtube as the source, yet you link a video of an unhinged conspiracy theory hating youtuber who did not provide any references in his own spurious "debunk" video in which he vilifies actual structural engineering experts and peddles his own pseudoscience
    3. You continue to ignore clearly CGI space footage that I post because it exposes your credibility to recognise fake footage and your sheer dedication to siding with anything communicated by the government/media (even if a clear embarrassing gaffe).

    So business as usual in the conspiracy forum. No wonder there hasn't been a post here in months.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 54,177 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    When I first saw that video, I was wondering why someone who would want to take down a building with explosives would put small ones near windows at the top of the building?

    Presumably the conclusion to be drawn would be that that is a building being deliberately demolished.



Advertisement