Thermite is more likely to cause the conditions recorded than jet fuel. Traces of by-products expected from Thermite use have been found in samples of the site. Thermite use would indicate a controlled, pre-planned demolition.

I'm pretty sure this is the most common theory, and I'm definitely behind it. The only question I always get hung up on is how did they place thermite in the towers? I assume it would have to be making contact with the steel frame which would mean in the contruction as opposed to (quite a few) "misplaced suitcases" around the office. Just curious about that, seems like there would be something to trace back to, regarding the placement of the thermite.

Ok, so that's hard to pin down.

There were often work crews in one or both buildings doing some sort of maintenance or upgrade work, especially after the 1993 bombing, which damaged numerous sublevels of the North Tower, and the 1998 Bank of America robbery, when a mafia affiliated crew were able to gain maintenance access again to the North Tower. In 1998 the Port Authority began seeking bids to privatize the World Trade Center so that NYC could add the complex to its tax base, and that agreement was finalized between the PA and Silverstein Properties on July 24 of 2001 after being accepted and publicly announced on April 26 of that same year.

Just like with the 9/11 attacks, informants had given the FBI information about the probability of a terrorist bombing attempt on the North Tower a year prior to the February '93 attack in February of '92. Allegedly there was enough information for the FBI to know who the conspirators were after the fact, however no actions were taken to prevent the bombing from taking place. That's just an aside, something to think about.

One prominent aftermath of the '93 bombing was the need to completely replace the Fire Alarm system for not just the North Tower, but the entire World Trade Center complex itself. That work took years, in fact it was still underway on the morning of the September 11 attacks. So there would have been work crews in that building week in, week out, for potentially 101 consecutive months after the '93 bombing.

There were a few prominent tenants in WTC-6 and especially WTC-7 that are often overlooked in the media and people have generally forgotten or never been made aware of them. They include but are not limited to the Beureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Secret Service (SS); Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS); Department of Defense (DOD); United States Customs Service; Department of Labor (DOL); Department of Agraculture (DOA); Department of Commerce (DOC); the U.S. Commodities Exchange; and the New York City Office of Emergency Management. Other tenants included major banking, insurance, and finance companies like Salomon, Smith, Barney; the ITT Hartford Insurance Group; American Express Bank International; Standard Chartered Bank; and others.

Not many people were or are aware of this, but there were vast chambers underneath the buildings of the former World Trade Center. Quite literally there were caches of weapons, confiscated or other drugs, armored cars, dummy taxis, precious metals, documents, you name it.

So we have a confluence of events. There's a bombing in '93 that requires crews to work in all of the on-site buildings for about 8.5 years, there is a robbery in '98 that proves that it's still possible to infiltrate the building through maintenance access, there is a shift in responsibility for managing the properties from the public to the private sector, there is a questionable sharing of space between entities like the SEC and major financial institutions it is supposed to regulate, and then there is also their coexistance with some of our nation's immigration, customs, defense, and clandestine agencies.

Take from all of that what you will.

edit for grammar and wording

Thank you for all of that. Wow, so who did the basement belong to? Or just a combined storage space, seeing as Bank of Nova Scotia claimed the gold and silver. But all the fake taxis, assault weapons, etc. sounds like CIA/ATF, who don't seem like organizations that share space very well. And 16 acres for a basement? I get it's a tall building, thus must have a deep base, but 16 acres? That's insane. So now, instead of a rogue team of maintenance workers, there's 5+ gov't agencies, plus innumerous maintenance workers who would have had the access necessary to level the WTCs

Also:

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

-Newsday

Not to be an asshole, but I think the most common theory is that middle eastern terrorists hijacked two planes and flew them into the towers.

That made me chuckle. I forgot that there's a world outside of /r/conspiracy for a second haha

Poll in the german magazine "Welt der Wunder" conducted by the well known Emnid Institute results in astonishing 89% of the german respondents not believing the official line 9/11.

http://war-is-illegal.livejournal.com/117639.html

Skepticism about the official account has increased since 2001. In 2006, a New York Times/CBS News poll revealed only 16% of Americans thought the government was telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks.

That poll wasn't asking whether people thought the collapse was caused by the planes, just whether they trusted that the Bush administration was being completely truthful about what it knew before the attacks. Like 70% said they believed the administration or mostly believed but thought the administration was "hiding something." Keep in mind that half the country would basically never admit to completely trusting George W. Bush on anything (and the Germans were never fans of his either).

In other polls, like 10% of people answer that they thought the government was involved in the attacks or let it happen.

Right, only 16% of Americans believe that there was not a cover up.

No, only 16% believe the Bush administration was completely truthful. That's not the same as a "cover-up." Polls are always super-sensitive to the exact language used. When you ask people if they think there was a "cover-up," using that term, a plurality of people answers "no."

Right, only 16% believe the Bush administration was truthful.

Only 16% of people believe the Bush administration was completely truthful. 70% believe the administration was more truthful than untruthful.

If you're trying to imply that 84% of people have doubts that the towers were brought down by jihadists in planes, and are entertaining the notion that it was caused by thermite bombs -- that is entirely unsupported.

Correct, 84% say the Bush administration lied.

The common theory is that compromised workers were part of a verified powerdown shortly before the attacks.

Yeah in the few weeks leading up to the attacks theres a lot of reports of late-night/overnight work crews coming in and fixing elevators(?) maybe.

Look at the floor map on this link. Mighty coincidental that "fireproofing" was being done on the floors where both planes hit. Also, the pentagon had "fireproofing" done in months prior in the spot where the plane hit there

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread443374/pg1

Great, this is what I was looking for! Is there any more info to back this up? Highly doubt any security footage wasn't "lost in the wreckage" but any work documents/manifests?

Check into the Israeli "art students" who lived in the towers illegally for months before.

Investigate into Larry Silverstein (and his "weekly" phone calls with Netanyahu):

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/304f2p/haaretz_reported_shortly_after_911_that_netanyahu/

DRIVE TO THE TOP 2001

"ACE Elevator undertook what was perhaps, one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history. This "towering" achievement took place at New York City's prestigious World Trade Center"

Here's what I don't understand about the thermite thing. If you're going to take the towers down with bombs or thermite, why bother flying two planes into the towers? If your plan was to convince people middle eastern terrorists were responsible, the bomb story would work just fine, in fact middle eastern terrorists had already tried to destroy the towers with a bomb back in the 90s. So why the planes? Why the pointless complication?

The FBI tried to blow up the WTC in 93, not terrorists.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtcbomb.html

The reason why you fly planes into it is simple, this was a ritual, it had to induce panic and fear on a gigantic scale, everyone on this planet had to be in front of their TV to watch it.

If you just blow up 2 buildings in 20 seconds, it would be over before anyone had noticed. The whole purpose of 9/11 was for it to be a spectacle, a trauma, and for that to be the case, you have to "be" there.

They also needed to be able to pin it on terrorists, you can't blame 2 rigged towers on 19 people from the middle East with zero access to the tower.

in fact middle eastern terrorists had already tried to destroy the towers with a bomb back in the 90s.

My opinion is that the bomb didn't work. If they were to try to level the towers, a bomb would leave a lot of people with questions, seeing as the last attempt failed. But fly a Boeing 767, not many people would question that could level a building. Only the people who had questions about our gov't to begin with started digging deeper.

With that being said, there's sooo many other areas that beg the question "How could a plane do that?" such as, multiple eye-witnesses say they heard an explosion when the planes hit the tower. If you think about it, the initial impact should've sounded like a gigantic car crash, not explosive, but lots of glass breaking and loud crunching noises at ground level. The explosion would've happened ~10 seconds in, once the jet fuel had actually ignited.

Anyone want to poke holes? I'm all for it and well aware my theories probably aren't spot-on.

Here we have the same problem as other posters talking about the collapse of the towers not looking / behaving the way such collapse should happen (ie how they expect it would happen). First of all, what does a gigantic car crash sound like? If you're talking about a car crash involving a car weighing as much as a 767 colliding with a building, I've never heard that before, or anything like it. And why should it sound like a car crash at all? Just because it involves a vehicle? How many plane crashes have you heard in person? I've never heard one. How do we know what a 767 hitting a skyscraper should sound like? Maybe a 767 hitting a skyscraper sounds like an explosion. In fact, I bet a 767 hitting a skyscraper does sound like an explosion, since that's what people reported hearing when a 767 hit a skyscraper.

If you wanna run some tests, I'm all for it. Truth is, I also have never heard a plane crash into a building so I have no other option than taking an educated guess. If you can get your hands on a couple 767's, I'll start looking for some skyscrapers and we can get an accurate reading on what it really sounds like.

In fact, I bet a 767 hitting a skyscraper does sound like an explosion, since that's what people reported hearing when a 767 hit a skyscraper.

I bet thermite, in the volume required to level a 100+ story building, sounds like an explosion too.

Why do we need to run any tests? As you pointed out, people that heard a 767 hitting a building described hearing an explosion. So that's probably what it sounds like.

Oh right! I almost forgot this sub is about taking everything at face value and not asking any questions. Forget the tests, I'm moving to Oceania!

Can you think of a way to test a 767 hitting a building that would give us information we couldn't get from eyewitnesses (earwitnesses?) to a 767 hitting a building?

And chill with the taking things at face value and not asking questions spiel. According to your post, you just assumed a 767 would sound like a big car crash. Did you ever bother to question that (props for inviting hole poking though)? Did you ever run any tests? Come on buddy.

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. Here's some quick points.

1) Eye-witnesses say it sounded like an explosion

2) I think the explosion sound resulted from thermite (maybe coupled with something else to scatter across the floor(s)

3) I guess a plane crash would sound similar to a car crash, but on a much larger scale, and have never heard a car crash sound like an explosion. It's always more of a crunch sound, so I assume that even with something much larger, it wouldn't make an explosion sound by itself. Especially considering they were ~70 floors away from point of impact.

4) It sounds like you're ridiculing the idea of testing this, but then end your comment with "Did you ever run any tests? Come on buddy." Which makes me really confused.

1) Yes

2) Why? They timed the thermite to go off at the exact instant the planes hit the tower? Or really not the thermite though, because thermite doesn't explode (although I don't know what a shit ton of thermite burning would sound like, so maybe it does sound like an explosion!)

3) Exactly, you're assuming all of this. But why should a 767 slamming into a building sound like a big car crash? Why make that assumption. I never would have thought a whirling column of air would sound like a freight train, but that's how people commonly describe the sound of a tornado.

Edit: It's not that it's an inherently unreasonable assumption, but I don't think it gives us reason to think that the planes hitting the buildings wouldn't or couldn't sound like explosions.

4) I'm taking issue with your assumption that I just don't bother to think critically. Apologies if I misinterpreted you, but I got the sense you were essentially throwing the ol sheeple card at me. If that were the case, it would be a rather silly accusation for you to make given all the assumptions you're going with.

Not insulting you or your critical thinking, and I do appreciate the thought you're putting into this.

Most of the points are solved, but on my plane crash explosion assumption, I just have nothing factual to base it off of, so I'm taking my best guess. It could be the plane crash, but I'm skeptical, especially since we know the jet fuel (well, the plane in general) couldn't have brought the building down by itself.

On thermite "exploding," there wouldn't be much noise, so it was either coupled with some explosive, or (god dammit) it was the plane.

For reference, here's Jamie and Adam lighting up a half ton of thermite. that's a mobile link, I apologize.

Who knows, maybe enough thermite could make the sound of an explosion. Maybe a lot of thermite could superheat air and create immense pressure inside a closed space (like a building) that could suddenly and violently burst through the side of a building- producing a pressure wave that sounds like an explosion (afterall, the sound of an explosion is basically one big wave of high pressure air). But, I saw planes hit a building, people who were there heard a noise like an explosion when the planes hit, so I'm pretty comfortable assuming that a plane hitting a building can be described as sounding like an explosion.

By the way, that video was neat.

The pressure inside the building makes a lot of sense. Even in that video, it popped the car windows. And I know this had gotten me in trouble before, but I assume it would have the same pressure-and-release effect on a much larger scale in the WTC, whose windows would stand a lot more pressure before breaking, than a tempted glass car window. Hmm. Very interesting.

Fun fact, the whole reason the air pressure thing sprang to mind is because this is one of several likely causes of multiple explosions being heard and "puffs" being seen shooting out of the sides of the buildings as they collapsed. As the building collapsed, the immense weight of the falling floors would have compressed the air below- analogous to a piston in a sealed cylinder. All that air has to go somewhere, and it did so by violently bursting through relative weak points in the exterior of the building, such as windows.

I like the way you think. Damn, I've learned (or theorized, depending on how you look at it) a lot today!

Always a good day when you learn something new :)

Why do you accept what he says without evidence? This air pressure theory does not hold up under scrutiny:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/585-faq-8-squibs.html

I would bet that it doesn't.

Thermite burns really slow so no, it wouldn't sound like an explosion at all.

They wired up little tubular thermite cutters at each crucial joint of the building's frame. When the 'plane' hit they set them off and the cutters went to work. That's why you saw welder sparks dropping down and its why the delay took place between the hit and the fall. The people (israelis) who set them up had after hours access to the building and access behind the walls where the frame is. There's nothing to trace back to because Jewliani ordered all evidence to be shipped off immediately.

I'm going to have to be a pedantic ass and say that thermate is a far more likely culprit. A measure of Barium Nitrate is added to a standard thermite mix, increases the temperature of the reaction significantly. Its the standard filling in production incendiary devices. There is also the supposed nanothermite, which I know next to nothing about.

Okay, thermate was 100%, in no way, ever a respectable theory. The two by products of a thermate reaction are aluminium oxide and barium nitrate (a particuarly nasty chemical). Neither were found at the site. If the 3000(?) pounds of thermate that would be nessesary, was used, you would have been hearing about a shit ton of people being poisoned by the stuff. Or at least trace substances of either.

There is also the supposed nanothermite, which I know next to nothing about.

I think you're in the majority there, since my understanding is that if nanothermite was used, this was the first time the public was aware of it?

nanothermite

I've always thought that nanothermite would have been unduly expensive and difficult to manufacture in the quantities required (tonnes) pre-2001.

It probably is/was, but you think cost matters when you have an unlimited budget?

As soon as the aircraft impacted, all thermite ingredients were present. It would literally be impossible for such residue to have not been found. Furthermore, it's very likely some type of thermite reaction was present given the nature of the impact. Additionally, aluminum and iron are commonly found in such structures.

There is a scientifically measurable difference between the aluminum and iron used in construction and the aluminum and iron compounds left over from a thermite chemical reaction.

You're ignoring the nature of the impact.

Explain what that means in context.

Wasn't there something said about the pressure of the collapse itself causing the high temperatures? Anyway it's a moot point as there's video of molten metal pouring out of the side of the tower.

Thermite definitely poured out the sides. That footage is what forced me to entertain the thought that the original story wasn't the whole story.

I'm gonna point out again that I still don't give a shit who did 9/11

But I watched live as the towers came down on CBS? with Dan Rather and I recall seeing the 'squibs' before the collapse and it has always stuck with me.

I remember a really close framed shot zoomed into squibs coming off the sides that then zoomed out to fuller frame as the tower collapsed.

I don't recall ever seeing that footage again (if someone knows what I'm talking about and could link it I would appreciate it)

I can't remember if it was the first tower or the second, but I do remember Dan Rather not noticing the second tower collapse for about half a minute as it happened behind him.

I'm not sure if you'd find it, but I think you'd have the best chance looking here:

https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Who the fuck cares who did 9/11?

Have you not been paying attention to what it has been used to justify? That's the more important thing to be concerned with IMO. It doesn't require speculative conspiracy theories to get outraged at government.

The known facts are damning enough as it is

Now to actually address the point of this post.....

The WTC towers were massive buildings and it is exceedingly unlikely that jet fuel was the only combustable material that they contained that day.

Not saying that disproves your theory, and I still don't care. But there it is.

So the best outcome of 9/11 was to give the people something with just enough information for the believers to believe the government and the disbelievers enough to disbelieve further, thus paving the way for the last 15 years of military industrial powerhousing and bankster financial fuckery...

The patriots parroting the story and the justification for so much security over liberty is just cream icing on the shit cake, isn't it...?

Damn.

The identity of the perpetrators of 9/11 is important because it was an act of premeditated mass murder, and the guilty parties need to be held to account.

I am sorry, but 9/11 was a conspiracy in every sense of the word. You had a group of men covertly plot to bring down the world trade center. They were all citizens of one of our middle eastern ally and likely got funding from that particular nation. This nation has continued to back all sorts of groups that are active against the US, having early on funded ISIS and extremists groups in Syria. Yet in response to 9/11 the US attacked this country's main opponent in the middle east and continues to sanction their other middle eastern competitor.

Basically the conspiracy is our continued support of Saudi Arabia, our doing their dirty work for them, and the closeness of the Saudi Royal family to America's ruling political class from 2001 to 2009.

People keep perseverating on stories of thermite, secret missiles etc. when the attack makes no sense as a false flag. If they wanted to frame someone why not have made the hijackers Iraqi? Would have made more sense given that they used it to justify Iraq. The fact that they were Saudi just complicated the story.

This sub is so obsessed with the truth that they missed that the Saudi's have been fucking us over at every corner because of our crack like addiction to cheap oil... meanwhile the same party that bought you the Iraq war is against global warming and developing alternative energy or new efficiency standards... furthering our dependence on oil.

People in this sub rail against zionists, Israelies, and Jews running the world Agenda and disproportionately wielding power to their numbers when the Saudi royal family, the emirates, etc truly have been the one's holding the world by its balls and literally conspiring against the US and the West...

The conspiracy is there, you just have to lift your head above the small minded muck of you imagination.

People keep perseverating on stories peer reviewed paper of thermite...

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

My point clearly sailed over your head like a 767

I would say Israel and Saudi and the gulf states are extremely close. There's a good chance Israel knew 9/11 was going to happen. Saudi Arabia was created by England. Mi5 gave the thumbs up for 9/11. Israel has every single radical Islamic terrorist group infiltrated. We deported 200 Israelis spys for a reason. Our "allies" attacked us so we take out their enemies while everybody wonders why sunnis are crazy were donating billions to the people who fund radical sunnies.

edit: lol Israel is allowed to fly over Saudi territory to bomb Iran. And get refueled and search helicopters incase they eject. Keep the downvotes coming

That's a valid point, and it's probably wrong of me to assume that anyone trying to draw the line from 9/11 to government actors is not doing so for political reasons.

Not trying to troll, I honestly do feel that way.

I don't particularly care much about the outcomes of individual murder cases either; even though I would agree that those murderers should be brought to justice.

Hope that clarifies things?

The only response to this that I have heard is that the heat weakened the steel, which completely ignores the point about where did the melted steel come from then?

Because thermal expansion melted steel beams caused by fires due to hijacked planes with passports found that identified the culprits as terrorists, that's why. Now does it make sense?

Well, the main thing they wanted us to know was that it was a bunch of Muslims. Names, dead or alive... not really that important in the scheme of things.

Free fall.

The Muslims were just the scapegoats.

Thermite is not necessary to produce molten steel. Channels of air in the pile, plus carbon fuel (paper from drywall, desk wood, etc), plus insulation of the pile, plus fragmented metal equals natural cupolas; long, hot, enduring chimneys to melt materials.

Yes, it must have been the paper...

It's kind of the definition of a cupola furnace; long draft channel/chimney, mixed fuel and metal, insulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupola_furnace

The pile was on fire; so, there was fuel and air. Larger debris creating air pockets and channels. The depth of the pile provided the length of channel for air and fire to form burning chimneys, natural cupolas which would melt the zinc, brass, crumbled iron, steel fragments, aluminum and concrete dust into molten slag heaps. Once again; I am addressing the collapsed pile and not the collapse.

My posts in this thread address your posted query about molten metal in the pile. Since you wish that I address the pre-collapse fires and molten metal, my position is that the jet fuel and pulverised fuels (icluding carbon, magnesiums, aluminums), the cheap casting metals of doorknobs, sconces, pencil sharpeners, furniture hardware, staples, etc. ; could be more than explanation enough for the molten slag seen on the side of the building.

I assume that people read my posted references, but if not then a reader unfamiliar with my repeated naming of a cupola to explain the molten material found in the pile, may have a strawman in mind. A cupola furnace does not have a single point source of heat at the "bottom" and a chimney for the smoke; it is more kin to a chimney fire, in that the entire length of the "chimney" is burning, conserving and building heat from below. Any fire in the pile would have to have fuel, air source and venting in order to persist, I wrote about "natural cupola" as a descriptor of whatever random channels formed in the collapse to fulfill the system

Does this look like the result of fire? I can't speak for what your eyes see, but mine see thousands of pounds of concrete pulverized to DUST. Granted I'm not a mathematician, but I'd imagine the amount of energy required to pulverize that much concrete to dust is orders of magnitude higher than the potential generated by the entire upper half of the tower falling on the lower half.

Yeah, but this was the first time in history a building of that size and construction collapsed. We have no frame of reference for what the collapse of a 110-story tube-frame skyscraper due to impact by a fully-loaded 757 is "supposed" to look like.

You've reversed my statement. I said that the collapse created the conditions that produced molten steel from a combo of air channels, fuels and insulation in the jumbled pile. And yes, apparently the towers fell as a result of impact and fire damage.

There was molten concrete found as well... With steel and concrete melting and pooling at the bottom of the rubble, it becomes very obvious it wasn't just jet fuel that caused the collapses.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Why the buildings fell

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/tower.html

You used the WPI as a source I don't understand why I can't. Confirmation bias much?

I didn't use a logical fallacy. If i used one you can say which one specifically or I'm just going to assume you don't know what a logical fallacy is. Here's a list knock yourself out or don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

My first source was very specific. I just found it hilarious one of your sources contradicted your claims and showed and an obvious confirmation bias.

What's the difference? You cited information in your post, he just gave the link.

Do you really believe these lies?

I do. Despite almost 15 years now of hearing a litany of conspiracy theories I have never seen anything that provides a better explanation of what happened than some butt hurt Saudis turning passenger planes into cruise missiles.

[deleted]

That's not evidence, that's a guy saying a thing

[deleted]

Still not evidence though. And "cover-up" is a bit silly. He said the white house wants to cover up the investigation, not that the US did 9/11. Very different but I can see how you really want to believe it.

The last thing I'm going to base my facts on is the opinion of a US Senator. Why don't we just ask Jon Boehner what he thinks about Benghazi while we're at it?

Call it whatever you want.

[deleted]

NIST has released their model to review to many, many different engineering groups, who all verified their findings. They don't release it to you because why would they? You'd just move to another out-of-context quote or talking point you got from youtube.

[deleted]

Verified in a peer reviewed paper published in the flagship journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

And as I was looking for this journal article I stumbled across this exellent reddit thread that provides a link to this paper as well as to a large volume of sworn testimony of experts verifying NIST's report as well as what appears to be several dozen additional peer reviewed papers endorsing NISTs methodology and verifying it's conclusions. Lots of reading if you're so inclined.

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

A Discussion of "Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse"

the paper lacks references to public sources of information sufficient to verify the authors' assumptions and conclusions. For example, structural calculations demonstrating the "walk-off" failure mechanism that hypothetically triggered the progressive collapse are unavailable.

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

You mean like how they totally didn't get the journal of structural engineering to peer review it?

Like they did in this link?

You need to stop getting your talking points from people who have no actual knowledge of structural engineering.

Some more people who peer-reviewed it:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Najib_Abboud/publications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Baker_(engineer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Gene_Corley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Dunn

http://www.asce.org/sei/FellowBios.aspx?id=23622324596

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm

http://www.ctbuh.org/People/RShankarNair/tabid/1581/language/en-US/Default.aspx

2nd link.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Najib_Abboud/publications
Conference Paper: Anatomy of a Disaster: A structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collpases Najib Nadim Abboud

From the abstract. >In each case (WTC1&2), once collapse was initiated, gravity propelled a downward pancaking of the structure.

Pancaking?? NIST said pancaking didn't happen.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

Hence the purpose of peer-review. How are you getting from "NIST doesn't support the pancaking theory" to "it must've been an inside job and this somehow proves it"?

What was "peer reviewed"? Where is the paper?

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

That doesn't appear to be a "peer review".
Discussion paper

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted]

I just listed a bunch of people they released it to, who peer reviewed it.

You are simply lying.

Really? 15 years of listening to stories, watching video, hearing expert testimony and all it did was make you believe that what really happened was a dozen untrained men with box cutters did this? All the while the Airforce, Marines, and Army are all practicing a simulation of that exact scenario on that exact day. That alone is enough for a lot of people. But then building 7? The pentagon? C'mon, look at the first images of the pentagon. There was no jumbo jet that slammed into it. Then add to the fact that in the history of humanity, more importantly since the iron ages forward has there ever been a total collapse of a steel framed building due to fire. NOT ONE TIME. And check it out, there's some buildings in South America that burned for 14 days straight (something like that) and never collapsed. Yet in one day 3 of the most engineered, structurally designed with over redundancies, and drafted and tested so many times before they even broke ground shows that the twin towers were not only capable of being hit with a jumbo jet, but that they were actually designed, on purpose, to withstand such an attack.

Then the molten steel, the thermite dust everywhere, the horrible inconsistencies with new coverage, the missing frames of video from the impact of the second plane and the most damning piece of all.

We went to war over it and ended up in a Country next door instead. If this was Bin Laden, then we should be in Afganistan. But nope, we were right over into Iraq nearly the same day we invaded.

And that is why I'm pissed off and will argue this with a stranger. People are dying all over the world. Some from old age, disease, accidents, fires, and more. And yet we have no problem coming in and taking lives for nothing more than to see a number in a bank account grow (or lot's of bank accounts). Fight all you want if that's what you want. But don't destroy entire cultures because you can and want their resources.

So many amazing and beautiful and unique lives lost to us forever. I feel for them all. I'm not defending the actions of terrorism, I'm a stanch opponent to any violence.

But I'll be damned if an educated person actually spent 15 years hearing as many sides as possible and came to the conclusion that it was really a handful of miscreants armed with razor blades that were able to take over those planes and successfully maneuver them to hit their targets. I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope one day you'll realize that there is no way that happened on its own.

I think that you highlighted the very issue that /u/Velvet_Llama was alluding to: the odd observations are just that. They don't string together in any cogent narrative in the same way the official story does.

Okay, there was training operations that day.... What does that mean? The government perpetrated the attack and also planned for an operation to stop their own operation and did so on the very day of the attack to cast suspicion on themselves?

Okay, the collapse of WTC7 is a bit unique... what does that mean? Did the planners of this operation think that taking down four planes, two towers, and partially destroying the Pentagon wasn't enough to justify a war so they felt they needed to take down a building, not bother to hit it with another plane, kill exactly zero people doing so, and then make such a small deal of its destruction that most New Yorkers don't even know that it was part of the attack?

Your point about invading the wrong country also doesn't quite make sense. Okay, we invaded two countries from which none of the attackers originated... how does this fit with your narrative? If it was an attack planned and perpetrated by our government why wouldn't they just draw up a list of Iraqis and Afghanis instead of hoping that they could later make a tenuous case they these countries were somehow involved?

Tell me narrative that makes more sense than this: A group of fanatical Saudis highjacked a group of planes and crashed them into buildings, causing massive destruction of them. Some of the occurrences of that day were unique in history (like buildings collapsing due to fire) but it was a day full of unique occurrences (fully loaded passenger jets crashing into sky scrapers). Retrospective models have accounted for most if not all of these strange occurrences. The immediate response was to invade an easy target country as a near gut reaction to being attacked (the perpetrators were Saudi but we couldn't attack them because they are our ally so we instead attacked Afghanistan because the mastermind behind the attacks was purported to live there). During the year or two following the attack politicians who long wanted to invade Iraq for its oil wealth were able to take advantage of American anger and drum a case for war with Iraq. I would also like to add that I believe there were some major intelligence failures that could largely explain odd behavior both before (such as hints that government might have known something was in the works but failed to take it serious enough to act on) and after the attack (lack of transparency in the investigations of the attack).

Tell me a story that makes as much sense as that and explains as many of the observations and you may very well convince me. Also tell me which observations don't fit with my version of the events.

You have an excellent point and one I can agree with. I did actually spend about 20 minutes typing out a full detailed response to this and then fat fingered the wrong key and lost my entire response.

Like I said, I agree with your points and perspective, you've made a great argument that was very well articulated. I still have my own thoughts on it and can't really fathom how 4 commercial passenger jets were all hijacked with nothing more than a few guys and boxcutters. Even pre-911 if I was on a flight where that happen I would find something to wrap my arms up, use a laptop case or something and go after these fuckers. It would take a long time to take me down using a box cutter unless you got lucky and hit an artery. But I know I wouldn't be alone and by that point they would have been easily subdued.

The only thing that is incontrovertible truth is that Building 7 was intentionally collapsed. If you read the specs or can get copies of the blue prints for that building you will see that it was an ultra-reinforced building designed to protect those inside and withstand just about any attack possible. It was a key headquarter location for CIA, FBI, NSA, Dick the VP even had an office in there. I think all the planning and strategizing for this took place in that building. So I theorize that building 7 was collapsed by controlled demolition as a way to wipe the slate clean. There had to be so many people and so much information to coordinate this so well that I bet dropping the building was much easier than formatting hard disks and shredding documents.

If building 7 was intentionally demolished then that should be more than enough evidence for a new investigation. That's all I want. I don't want to know our gov. had anything to do with this. I want to believe it was Osama and 12 hired goons with plane tickets and the skill to fly a plane that normally takes a few thousand hours of practice before knowing how to control it effectively. But there are too many coincidence, to many inconsistencies, tons of proof on video manipulation of the "live feeds" which actually consisted of one camera mostly that was masked live and elements added to make it appear it was a different angle. But more than anything, it's all about building 7.

This group is also a good point to bring up. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

All I want is a real investigation so we can know the truth and bring those responsible to justice. I know it won't happen, but that's all I want.

Sorry you didn't get my whole point but I gottat get back to work.

Hey thanks for the well thought out and cordial reply. I have a few thoughts though:

I still have my own thoughts on it and can't really fathom how 4 commercial passenger jets were all hijacked with nothing more than a few guys and boxcutters. Even pre-911 if I was on a flight where that happen I would find something to wrap my arms up, use a laptop case or something and go after these fuckers

I think two things should be kept in mind. First is to look at the history of airplane hijacking. Here's a list. One thing you'll notice about most of these highjackings is that rarely was anyone hurt. If you look at the 10 highjackings preceding 9/11 a grand total of two people were killed. Its very likely that most people would have figured if they stay calm, keep their head down, and just wait that they would probably survive. They had no idea that they were going to be crashed into a tower.

The other thing to keep in mind is that some people did not take. United 93 is thought to have crashed when passengers decided to fight back. So one out of the four planes did have people doing what you said people should have been doing.

The only thing that is incontrovertible truth is that Building 7 was intentionally collapsed.

I think this is an overstatement. Many lay people disagree with the findings of the NIST model but the experts overwhelmingly support the findings. I think one difficulty is that most people don't know how to read scientific findings and tend to present a bastardized version. The OP's post is a case in point because while he/she highlights the "deep mystery" of eutectic reactions, he/she fails to recognize that the article is actually discussing the lower of melting temperatures would require sulfur which would have been present from the gypsum used in the walling. There are numerous examples of people selectively reading and/or misreading scientific publications to support their arguments. I'm a neuroscientist and I'm often shocked at the degree to which findings are misunderstood by the public at large when they make it to press.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

I would be careful about this group. They use an appeal to authority yet ignore the vast body of the authorities that either don't necessarily agree with them or actively disagree with them. They provide evidence but not counterpoints well accepted by their communities. I'll be curious to see the voting about WTC7 at the upcoming conference of architects and engineers. If even 5-10% voted that they thought the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious I would really honestly rethink my stance on this.

I agree that another investigation would be great. I would expect to find that there would be signs of huge intelligence lapses (many of these are already known and if you want hear about some of the major issues that resulted from a poor working relationship between the CIA and FBI I recommend the book Looming Towers). You would expect to find evidence of complicity. I don't think either of us will get the chance to find out who is right

Thanks for your well thought out reply. I'll start by saying that building 7 is a complicated situation at best and not something that can be solved or understood in this type of setting.

The group I mentioned, like I've said before I take everything with a grain of salt. But they have spiked my curiosity due to the notoriety of some of their members and that they make no real claims and are only asking for a fair and unbiased new investigation.

It's a shame that another point I use to explain my belief that this had inside help is that on that day the largest crime scene America has ever had was not treated as one. Most of the steel girders and other debris just happened to be around 14' in length, the same length required for barges who ship recycled steel to china. Combine that with the fact we were already loading barges the next day is just another red flag. Any other disaster like this would have had a hard perimeter set after determining there are no survivors. Then we would send in teams and teams of specialists for a long time to gather as much evidence as possible in order to create a real and accurate report. Why didn't we do that? We do that when there's a minor fender bender. My only reasoning is that they wanted to get rid of the evidence fast.

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of dudes hijacked some planes and turned them into cruise missiles? And if you find that hard to believe, why are you so willing to believe an explanation that is vastly more complex?

Finally, I absolutely agree that the Bush administration used 9/11 as part of their bullshit justification for going to war in Iraq and it's still shameful that Americans (and I am American) let them do that. But that is extremely filmsy circumstantial evidence to point to the US government being behind 9/11. It doesn't even make sense as a false flag if your goal is to invade Iraq. Why use Al-Quieda as a patsy when Iraqi regime was seen as an enemy of Islam by Al_Quieda? It's pretty clear that the Bush administration cynically tried to manufacture some link between Iraq and al-Quieda (note the Bush administration did not to my knowledge blame Iraq for being behind 9/11) to get people to support an invasion- but that is not evidence that 9/11 was planned by the government.

Edit: Also remember, we didn't go into Iraq on practically the same day as we invaded Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq took place two years after Afghanistan.

Thank you for your reply. I'm aware that my dates and numbers are not accurate in their exact meaning, but they paint the picture alright.

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of dudes hijacked some planes and turned them into cruise missiles? And if you find that hard to believe, why are you so willing to believe an explanation that is vastly more complex?

For one, I have a lot of training flying airplanes and helicopters. I am twin rated and usually fly a Citation 501 for a client. That's a small private jet, it's engines are powerful and it can easily cruise at 41,000 feet at around 400 knots. I've been privileged enough to get to play around in this and a few others like it. We've actually done barrel rolls, vertical climb to stall and recover, low altitude fly bys and more.

Watch the flight paths of the 911 planes. Some are plausible, some are downright ridiculous to think a Blue Angel Pilot could pull that off. These are big heavy planes full of fuel. They do not turn easy, their engines can't speed them or slow them quickly, and a slight down pitch in the nose wheel would easily cause airspeed to increase to a point they no longer had control. I honestly doubt that I would be able to do it, especially the pentagon.

Then there's this: we seem to know everything about these guys and everything I've heard says that they were, at most, beginner pilots, and only a few of them.

So it's plausible that they did this, but likely I would say not. I suggest you go out to Wichita, KS and book an hour or two on a 747 simulator. They can get ya wherever you want and then you can take over. I'd like to see how many times you can hit that building while going 700knots. Then try the pentagon using the same course we have on record. Then come back and tell me a dozen idiots were able to pull it off.

I agree with you about the rest and have no argument to why use Al-Quieda as our means to enter Iraq. I do know this though. If I see a pretty girl at a party and I'd like to get to know her, but she's surrounded, I'll do what I can to get as close as possible so I can have a chance at talking with her.

For one, I have a lot of training flying airplanes and helicopters.

That wraps it up guys we got an anecdote from random internet dude. Case closed.

So it's plausible that they did this, but likely I would say not. I suggest you go out to Wichita, KS and book an hour or two on a 747 simulator. They can get ya wherever you want and then you can take over. I'd like to see how many times you can hit that building while going 700knots. Then try the pentagon using the same course we have on record. Then come back and tell me a dozen idiots were able to pull it off.

Is this a real argument? You too can create your own anecdote... "I know for a fact because this one time I tried on a simulator in Kansas for like almost 30 minutes"

"I know for a fact because this one time I tried on a simulator in Kansas for like almost 30 minutes"

Those guys didn't have 30 mins in a simulator, they had 1 chance. I was saying that if you want to see how easy or hard it is go pay for time in a simulator which I happen to know is in Wichita, KS because I've had to train there for weeks. And I said spend an hour trying to do it where you'll get to reset every 2 minutes or so. That's all, just try it.

I feel sorry for you and I'll try and send some intellectual energy your way because you obviously need it. Just the fact you used anecdote two times where you did (those aren't anecdotes), just quotes or paraphrases... nuff said.

Well now that you clarified your personal experience and sent me intellectual energy I'd guess you're about 2 weeks and dozen or so reddit posts away from convincing the whole world it was a hoax. Keep up the good work.

So are you saying planes didn't hit the towers, or they were flown by someone else?

From what I saw it looked like a plane hitting the 2nd tower. I didn't see the first one, so I can't speculate. But my main point is these were not just amateurs. Whoever flew those planes had thousands of hours in a cockpit. That's my main point. That or it was a combo of technology and humans, it just wasn't some monkeys with razor blades and 10 hours in a 152.

Well we know they trained for a long time, but yeah, I'd imagine it would be difficult to hit their targets but given long enough to properly line up the approach if you're familiar with the instrumentation and navigation, I absolutely believe amateurs with nothing more than flight lessons and time with a simulator could pull it off. Also remember the guys who tried to hit the Pentagon came up a bit short.

Also remember the guys who tried to hit the Pentagon came up a bit short.

How's that? There's a perfect hole in the side of the pentagon. Granted, it's a hole and resembles nothing of an jumbo jet impact, but there is indeed a perfectly lined up hole with an almost perfect circular radius.

I agree, with some training and taking over control of a plane once it's cruising and all necessary circuit breakers are on or off, pitch wheel set, auto pilot engaged, etc. Even then it would be difficult. AFAIK the only training they had was on a 152.

You can go up to Witchita Kansas and pay a lot of money to sit in a simulator that is identicle to those planes used. Since it's not for any special license I'm sure the simulator instructors can get you right where these guys were when they took over. See how easy it is. You'll find that without any real knowledge that you will instantly start increasing airspeed as you push in on the yoke and then frantically pull back the throttles, but by this time it's too late, you have already lost control.

If you have spent lots of time with a simulator and knew how to properly navigate and use the on board instruments, I really don't think it would be very hard to hit your mark. Once you've lined up the shot you're really just changing altitudes. Not the most complicated of flight maneuvers. The sudden course changes they made when departing the filed flight plan would probably have been the hardest part.

By the way, who do you think was flying those planes?

I agree, it wouldn't take much sim time to hit your mark, but they didn't have sim time. They had a few hours in a 152. I don't have the answers, I only have the questions. I can speculate a number of things. Governemnt mind control used on the actual pilots. Vector flight modules placed inside the building and autopilot taking care of the rest. Crazy dudes with razor blades pulling off a remarkably difficult task 3 times in one day. Complete remote operation of the planes from a ground based installation (like what we use for drones). Who knows? I would like to know and I do believe that what we've been told is not the truth and that's what really pisses me off. We deserve to know. Those gov. officials are only there because of us, yet they no longer see it that way.

Times have changed, and will continue to. But we're climbing harder and faster than ever before in the history of human kind towards a precipice that will determine our fate and we'll likely all fall into it or stop just in time and climb back down as one and the world will forever be changed. I bet that if you're 45 or younger you will witness something never before seen. Either the end of the earth and our lives, or an incredible change towards something we can't even fathom. Either way, I'd bet my right leg on it that we will witness this in our lifetimes.

I think it's much more likely that religious lunatics did it. Suicide bombing is common in the middle east and people with similar beliefs will also do things like throw acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning and throw gay people off of buildings for the crime of being gay.

This sub is stupid. I can only post once every ten minutes.

I agree that religious lunatics had a hand behind this. I just don't think they were practitioners of Islam. More like super right winged Texas born Christians.

Your point about suicide bombing in the middle east being so common I agree with. But that just adds even more evidence to a cover up of 911. If they hated us so much then why aren't the suicide bombing us. It would be easy to do, all they need is a boat or plane ride over and a little money. But they're not, and there's a reason.

America is despised by many parts of the world, but these parts also despise with greater amplitude their own neighbors and country men. It's not worth it for them to make the effort, time, money, and energy to fly over here and set off a suicide bomb. To be honest, the middle east is a big ally to America and has been for a long time. Saudi Arabia for instance. Proven to have family ties to Bin Laden. Yet they would fight for us as we would for them.

TL;DR: Most of the world despises America in the same way we despise a sports team we don't like.

I just don't think they were practitioners of Islam. More like super right winged Texas born Christians.

If you want to find similar behaviour on a large scale in Christianity you have to go back to the Dark Ages. Christianity went through the enlightenment period in Europe and Islam is still in the dark ages so to speak. Try looking at some polling data.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

Your point about suicide bombing in the middle east being so common I agree with. But that just adds even more evidence to a cover up of 911.

No it doesn't. That's like saying Ku Klux Klan members hanging a bunch of black people only adds even more evidence of a government coverup.

If they hated us so much then why aren't the suicide bombing us. It would be easy to do, all they need is a boat or plane ride over and a little money. But they're not, and there's a reason.

If you are looking for rationality in the behaviour of an irrational group of people, just stop.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing - why? Provide some clear cut evidence that either muslims had the entire event orchestrated or provide some proof that we didn't have ties to it. You can't, so you'll just regurgitate some nonsense that has no point whatsoever. You think these people are irrational? They think we're irrational too, and to be honest I would agree with most of their thoughts on the matter. Look how caught up into what phone we have and how much money we make and look at every square footage of land either covered with housing or retail.

Obviously, after re-reading your comment I'm going to stop here. Next time you want to make a point, actually make it.

And to say we have to look at the dark ages for Christian led large scale events you have got to be the most retarded person on this multiverse. The largest Christian movement to ever take place is happening now, and each and every day it gets smaller and smaller because people are starting to think and realize that some actual human like deity exists in the sky and listens to dozens of languages and interprets them all perfectly, yet does nothing about it.

I'd like to thank Jesus who is God's son, but who is also God. Thank you GoJesus

If you are implying that throwing gay people off buildings for the crime of being gay, throwing acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning or suicide bombing is somehow less bad or equal too morally as general materialism then you're pretty fucking stupid.

When and where did I imply that I feel okay with any of that? I am fully against violence. My life's purpose is to be of service, be kind, not expect, and truly accept. I would never condone the pain of anyone, unless of course I happened to catch some motherfucker raping my niece, then things would change.

This is the culture in Islamic countries. The polling data shows support for things like suicide bombing. I'm sure it's a wonderful place to live unless you're gay, Jewish, a woman or all three. These people actually think murder is an appropriate response to burning a holy book or drawing pictures of Muhammad. Somehow you think people with this mindset are incapable of crashing planes into buildings. That it was done by the government for oil, military spending or some other nonsense.

Prove me wrong. I know there's radical Christians in Texas that will let their child die as they pray instead of seeking medical treatment. There's a religious prelude to some act of violence with almost any belief system. I also know that there are more people against this violence in Islamic countries than for it. I know that the great majority of humans on this planet want peace. I know that the ones who start wars are those seeking power and money over anything else.

Point being, it's not Islam that is making these few people murder over a drawing, it's their interpretation of it or more importantly the interpretation of someone they look up to as a leader.

People are killed in America many times each day. What's the difference?

The difference is quantity.

Quantity of people dying? I don't know what the numbers are, but I do know that a lot of people die every day in the US and that an ungodly amount are dying every minute in Mexico.

It's much more pervasive. Islam prevented the eradication of polio. Suicide bombing is much more common by many magnitudes. Bombing in general is much more common. I don't see Christians rioting or murdering people in mass over cartoons of Jesus or the Piss Christ. Some get angry over it and they bitch and moan but the response in mass isn't the assumption that capital punishment should be enforced over insulting the religion. There was the huge worry over that pastor in Florida that wanted to burn a Koran in protest. The government went and talked him out of it because they were worried about people in the Iraq responding to it violently and it leading to the deaths of soldiers or other American civilians living in Iraq. Christians generally don't supports laws like, for one example, banning women from driving cars. If you dig you might be able to find an outlier but in Islamic countries it's law and the norm. Christians don't think women should get 200 lashes for accepting a ride from a man who wasn't her husband or one of his brothers after getting raped by the man who offered her a ride. This is law in Saudi Arabia. You should probably google Ayaan Hirsi Ali, read her book, some of her articles or watch some of her speeches on YouTube because you seem completely ignorant of the differences in culture. Christopher Hitchens is another good source, he has written a ton of books and he's all over YouTube.

You're trying to argue that's it's similar or the same to the culture here which I suspected earlier and it's still fucking stupid. Islamic countries in general are very anti science. It's similar to Christianity in the Dark Ages. Aparently ignorance of the differences in culture is a prerequisite to accepting the 9/11 conspiracy just based on your comments and others I skimmed over in here. I don't expect everyone to know the very obvious differences but if you're ignorant you shouldn't pretend to know. There is no shame in not knowing something.

I appreciate your comment and appears to have some valid citations backing up your statement. You're right, we are a much less oppressive country than the middle east. But history has shown us time and time again that almost all large scale acts of violence are religiously motivated. I am ignorant of much of Islam, I have no regret in admitting that. Shit, I'm ignorant on almost everything. But I do know this, people are dying every day, and those that die from violence need to stop. We have got to learn how to stop killing eachother, how to see eachother as equals; as humans. That's all I want. I don't want to argue about who killed more people or used more suicide bombs. I want us to come together and unite as a singular, as people. We could achieve so much if we could make that happen.

So I'm sorry if I offended you with my lack of knowledge. Accepting 911 conspiracy is just your wording for it. To me it's accepting that the truth we were told about 911 is indeed false on many levels and it would be nice to know the truth.

Just ask yourself, "Who benefitted?" It sure as hell was not Muslims.
If this sub is so stupid, why do you come here?

Well terrorists, insurgents, and guerrillas commonly ignore the blow-back their attacks have for the very people they claim to fight for.

Good point, but I can say the same about the neo cons and the CIA.

Yeah, people can be short sighted.

Yes they can. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Power has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. If you can not understand that, then you will continue to regurgitate the same lines fed to you by TPTB.

I don't think people need to have power to be short sighted.

And something else that just occurred to me: don't most of the conspiracies talked about here require actors that are able to very carefully consider and predict the future outcomes of their actions?

No we are all short sighted. Our consumerism has made us greedy, selfish and myopic.
Yes, the conspirators must plan for their plots but I do not think they always work as intended. The coup in Iran proves this. They thought it would work out better for the U.S.

I didn't realize it limits your responses. I've never posted here much before.

Nobody benefited.

The military-industrial complex and Israel benefitted.
I think it limits your responses when you have negative karma. It is in place to limit trolling which used to be common place. I had a hard time when I first joined reddit. I had negative karma for the first month. My opinions are not welcome in the defaults. I found this out and only comment where people appreciate my comments and will actually have a discussion. /r/conspiracy is good but if you have a differing opinion you need to state it respectfully. There is a long history of trolls and shills disrupting this sub so there is little tolerance for perceived trolls/shills. But, it is like every sub, there are good redditors and bad redditors and there is no control over who can subscribe and comment, so you will have both good and bad experiences. P.S. Read the rules. Number 10 is a big one.

This is doesn't make any sense. If you wanted to use this as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq why say the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia? You can literally pick any country in the world because you are making it up. Why Saudi Arabia? Are these supposed planners simultaneously criminal masterminds and stupid rubes who picked the wrong country? This is what you would have to believe.

Well, Saudi Arabia was not implicated unless you have clearance for classified documents. Osama Bin Laden was, who lived in the opium capital of the world, Afghanistan. Who, by the way, was trained and financed by the CIA to fight the Soviets. They were blaming Osama bin Laden before the dust even settled. The royal family of Saudi Arabia was never implicated.

You totally missed the point. Put yourself in the shoes of a person making up the cover up story. Why say the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia if the goal is to get into Iraq and Afghanistan? If it's made up you can pick any country you want. Why not pick the country/countries you actually want to invade?

Osama was a Saudi. They needed someone to blame, specifically a Muslim extremist with ties to Afghanistan. It didn't matter want country they were from as long as they can be connected to Osama. Some Saudis were perfect.

They had no ties to Osama Bin Laden. Thanks for playing.

Then why was he blamed? If you think you won an argument or something, then you are delusional. And now you are just being rude. I figured you would go there. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

The news media is stupid, that's why. The initial speculation was that he was in on it, but nobody ever provided any evidence for it.

Dick Cheney said Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. Of course if he's in on it why would he say that? Is he a criminal mastermind and a rube?

Dick Cheney? He is an evil genius. I don't care about anything that sociopath says.
So, who executed 911? Why did we go into Iraq and Afghanistan?
Doesn't matter because you admit that there was no reason to go into Afghanistan or Iraq. Our government lied to us, just like you say. That's the first step, to realize the lies. There is hope for you yet. I don't know who did it, I just know it was used to start wars and take away my rights.

Still missing the point. If Dick Cheney is an evil mastermind that made up the list of hijackers why would he say they had no ties to Bin Laden if this is the pretext for invasion?

I get your point but it is moot. It was used as a pretext for invasion. This is a fact. Cheney is just covering for himself so he is not charged for war crimes. Anyways you are obviously downvoting my replies . You are not here for discussion. Good day to you.

I haven't upvoted or downvoted anything.

So, let me get this right....Dick Cheney was the evil genius who at least helped to mastermind 9/11. He wanted to tie the hijackers to Bin Laden, but makes public statements saying that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11.

I don't think you thought this through very well. Or at least you had no idea Cheney didn't publically support the idea that Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11.

It's not a moot point because you would make a bulletproof pretext for invasion if you could plan it out ahead of time. It's not bullet proof because it wasn't planned out ahead of time. You are still left having to think somebody is simultaneously a genius and a rube. You can't have it both ways.

I said, Good Day to you sir.
Hit me up later, trying to watch the walking dead season finale.

America stopped having freedom after 9/11, collapsed the economy and are still afraid of terrorists. The terrorists indeed won.

That is a bit myopic. You are right the American people lost, but Muslims also lost. No American should be afraid of terrorists unless you are talking about the FBI, the MOSSAD and the CIA, the real terrorists. The military-industrial complex and Israel won.
The sad part is, we were warned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

There's nothing wrong with the sub, there might be something wrong with you.

Good one! Did you come up with that all by yourself?

An actual source! Whoa! This is the ont worthwhile comment in this thread.

There's always some random hivemind-enforcer with no post history that comes in to immediately exclaim the validity of a debunking attempt, happens like clockwork.

It's also hilariously ironic that OP's post is extremely well sourced.

If jet fuel can't melt steel or iron, why was there molten steel found at the WTC collapse sites on 9/11

"Because I said so!!!" - NIST

Damn, dude. Really? All of this text because of your ignorance of super thermite? I can feel your confusion from here. Take a breath and do some research.

The Great Thermate Debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

I thought it was funny how National Geographic and Mythbusters had a big production on how thermite couldn't melt steal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXlC2TlNgEU

So what they are saying was, thermite couldn't melt steal, when you need a source hotter than your standard fuse to ignite it.

Even though it produces molten iron as a bi product, than isn't going to do it.

Then that leaves their arguement that jet fuel burns hot enough to?

When the steal wasn't hot enough to burn this lady http://imgur.com/AMN4qAL evident by the way she is leaning up against it. That also means that since steal is an excellent conductor of heat, that the steal around her was no where close to the melting point. So where did the heat come from?

I remember reading once that bush's brother had a security company that weeks/months before became the main security contractor and they helped maintenance that was going on inside the building on the skeleton of the building.

But o can never find the source.

They claim that there was a company that was cut up the steel to make it more manageable to take away in pieces. The only that is really questionable about the molten steal is the traces of military grade thermite found everywhere. Which is supposedly a top secret formula and shouldn't have been found at the site. I really think that people that bring up the molten steel without pointing this out, are really just shills trying to discredit the questioning of 9/11, because this has already been addressed publicly by both sides of believers and non-believers on many an occasion.

you discredit yourself because you don't know what your talking about, i cut steel beams all day and i would never expect there to be molten steel on the ground ,and if there was it would be in small globs, your theory of molten steel coming from cutting torches is ridiculous.

Fuel air bombs have a lot of similarities with fuel-laden planes crashing into structures.

And fuel-air bombs will certainly take down a structure without issues. My own personal theory is that something of this sort happened on 9/11.

Greg_ Roberts_0985 You are correct.

/u/Greg_Roberts_0985

Correction noted.

Good one! Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Can you think of a way to test a 767 hitting a building that would give us information we couldn't get from eyewitnesses (earwitnesses?) to a 767 hitting a building?

And chill with the taking things at face value and not asking questions spiel. According to your post, you just assumed a 767 would sound like a big car crash. Did you ever bother to question that (props for inviting hole poking though)? Did you ever run any tests? Come on buddy.

Verified in a peer reviewed paper published in the flagship journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

And as I was looking for this journal article I stumbled across this exellent reddit thread that provides a link to this paper as well as to a large volume of sworn testimony of experts verifying NIST's report as well as what appears to be several dozen additional peer reviewed papers endorsing NISTs methodology and verifying it's conclusions. Lots of reading if you're so inclined.

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

You mean like how they totally didn't get the journal of structural engineering to peer review it?

Like they did in this link?

You need to stop getting your talking points from people who have no actual knowledge of structural engineering.

Some more people who peer-reviewed it:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Najib_Abboud/publications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Baker_(engineer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Gene_Corley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Dunn

http://www.asce.org/sei/FellowBios.aspx?id=23622324596

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm

http://www.ctbuh.org/People/RShankarNair/tabid/1581/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Always a good day when you learn something new :)

Why do you accept what he says without evidence? This air pressure theory does not hold up under scrutiny:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/585-faq-8-squibs.html

Really? 15 years of listening to stories, watching video, hearing expert testimony and all it did was make you believe that what really happened was a dozen untrained men with box cutters did this? All the while the Airforce, Marines, and Army are all practicing a simulation of that exact scenario on that exact day. That alone is enough for a lot of people. But then building 7? The pentagon? C'mon, look at the first images of the pentagon. There was no jumbo jet that slammed into it. Then add to the fact that in the history of humanity, more importantly since the iron ages forward has there ever been a total collapse of a steel framed building due to fire. NOT ONE TIME. And check it out, there's some buildings in South America that burned for 14 days straight (something like that) and never collapsed. Yet in one day 3 of the most engineered, structurally designed with over redundancies, and drafted and tested so many times before they even broke ground shows that the twin towers were not only capable of being hit with a jumbo jet, but that they were actually designed, on purpose, to withstand such an attack.

Then the molten steel, the thermite dust everywhere, the horrible inconsistencies with new coverage, the missing frames of video from the impact of the second plane and the most damning piece of all.

We went to war over it and ended up in a Country next door instead. If this was Bin Laden, then we should be in Afganistan. But nope, we were right over into Iraq nearly the same day we invaded.

And that is why I'm pissed off and will argue this with a stranger. People are dying all over the world. Some from old age, disease, accidents, fires, and more. And yet we have no problem coming in and taking lives for nothing more than to see a number in a bank account grow (or lot's of bank accounts). Fight all you want if that's what you want. But don't destroy entire cultures because you can and want their resources.

So many amazing and beautiful and unique lives lost to us forever. I feel for them all. I'm not defending the actions of terrorism, I'm a stanch opponent to any violence.

But I'll be damned if an educated person actually spent 15 years hearing as many sides as possible and came to the conclusion that it was really a handful of miscreants armed with razor blades that were able to take over those planes and successfully maneuver them to hit their targets. I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope one day you'll realize that there is no way that happened on its own.

This is the culture in Islamic countries. The polling data shows support for things like suicide bombing. I'm sure it's a wonderful place to live unless you're gay, Jewish, a woman or all three. These people actually think murder is an appropriate response to burning a holy book or drawing pictures of Muhammad. Somehow you think people with this mindset are incapable of crashing planes into buildings. That it was done by the government for oil, military spending or some other nonsense.

Prove me wrong. I know there's radical Christians in Texas that will let their child die as they pray instead of seeking medical treatment. There's a religious prelude to some act of violence with almost any belief system. I also know that there are more people against this violence in Islamic countries than for it. I know that the great majority of humans on this planet want peace. I know that the ones who start wars are those seeking power and money over anything else.

Point being, it's not Islam that is making these few people murder over a drawing, it's their interpretation of it or more importantly the interpretation of someone they look up to as a leader.

People are killed in America many times each day. What's the difference?