I have pointed this out before, and I will point it out again. First I would like to say that I have no official stance to what actually did or didn't happen on 9/11, but I am very open-minded.

I worked for a company, and one of our customers was in the WTC. I was working for them on site on various occasions, a year or so before 9/11. The WTC at that time was undergoing some heavy...maintenance. They had contractors working all over the building with open access. They could have brought anything in with them, and they did, I saw this.

While I was at security signing in, and they had checked my bag and emptied my pockets, these general contractors (who by the way didn't look like any general contractors I had ever seen before, they were sharp, clean cut, I worked in Bell Atlantic, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, JP Morgan, never saw guys working at the most upscale places that looked like these guys) just walked right in, flashed a badge and in. The employees who worked there couldn't even do this.

I had to be escorted by the company I was seeing everywhere I was in the building. They themselves only had access to their own floor and no where else. These contractors literally had 24/7 access to everywhere. I mean everywhere. The guys who were escorting me told me this. If you see them around, they're just doing maintenance, checking the building out, they can go anywhere at anytime.

I was being escorted in a hallway, and my escort left me outside while he went to get something quickly, and one of these contractors was right there on a ladder, working up into the ceiling. I leaned over and looked up to see what he was doing, he was working directly on the steel joints of the building. As I leaned, he got upset, and immediately gave me a look and came down the ladder.

So do I think that over a period of a few years, that some general contractors smuggled in explosives and planted them all over the WTC? I don't know. Is it possible? Fuck yes it is.

In addition, I would like to point out, that it is bothersome that I never, ever heard anyone, a former employee, and investigator, anyone, even mention that this was going on in the WTC for a few years running before 9/11. As far as I know, I am the only person who has witnessed this and speaks of it publicly.

In or around 2003, I watched watching all the 911 documentaries I could find. In one of them -- can't recall the name, but worth tracking down -- a British guy who worked in one of the WTC buildings spoke of exactly this: contractors coming and going at all hours, all over the building. This British guy worked below a floor that was known to be an empty maintenance floor -- a place where equipment for maintaining the building was kept so it wouldn't always have to be lugged up from the basement. This guy worked very late on a few occasions and heard what sounded like dumpsters being moved around above him. It was a very compelling interview and your observations really reminded me of it.

Interview - Scott Forbes:
"...Let me put it this way, I am British working in US on 9/11. I was contacted by Police from London to interview me..., but none of my American colleagues were contacted by police or FBI or any agency. Kind of weird."

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
“I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work.” Scott Forbes

Holy shit, that is it! I've been trying to find this for quite a long time (I'm not the most proficient Googler, I guess). Many thanks!

EDIT: I must have criss-crossed Scott Forbes' story with someone else's because I vividly remember a person reporting working off-hours at WTC and hearing a lot of noise on the maintenance floor above. Anyhow, this was an amazing read. Thanks for sharing!

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

Check this out:

Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer:

https://youtu.be/gJy7lhVK2xE

• Mr. Humenn gives us quite a unique perspective inside the elevator shafts in the twin towers and how access to the core columns could have been gained considering his role in engineering the electrical systems of the WTC complex.

Remember it too, it was Rodriguez the janitor.

http://911blogger.com/node/19439

i remember that story, the part about the empty maintenance floor you told correctly almost word for word. i can't remember what documentary it was though. but i'm 99% sure i watched it on the history channel (or h2 or the other channels that show those on/around 9/11) when they show all that stuff in early september every year.

Thank u for your work

You are the wind beneath truther wings ;)

Fuck that smirk

And Marvin Bush...another son of a bush, the presidents brother, was in charge of security of the towers. What a coincidence.

He also had a security contact for one of the airports used as well.

And one of the airlines.

Do you have a source for this? I've just never heard that before and it would be pretty telling (at least in my opinion) if true.

Just type this into your search engine:

marvin bush ran security for world trade center

marvin bush ran security for world trade center

Yeah i looked it up. It appears "Marvin Bush, son of US president George H.W. Bush, and brother to US president George W. Bush, served on the board of directors from 1993- 2001. "

And "At IPO in 1997, Securacom listed among its clients Washington Dulles International Airport, Hewlett-Packard, EDS, United Airlines, Gillette, MCI, the World Trade Center"

I however could not find when Stratsec's contract with WTC or United started or expired, which is lame :C

But WOW, thanks for the info.

O'Neill had recently retired from the FBI and had just taken over security for the World Trade Center, said New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.

What a load of horseshit you've been spewing. If you actually did the research, you would see that Marvin Bush is indeed linked to a security contract with WTC. However, saying that Marvin Bush was "in charge of security of the towers" is a complete lie.

Wirt Walker also owned one of the airplane hangers and flight schools used by the highjackers to train. Walker has a long history with the CIA and George Bush Sr. Running drugs and arms during Iran/Contra and Phillip Marshall, 9/11 researcher and author who was "suicided" along with his 2 kids and wife. was one of their pilots.

Do you have a source? It's not that I am trying to discredit you, I am just finding it difficult to confirm what you're saying via Google

Well, here's an interesting article. http://digwithin.net/2014/04/07/the-cia-in-kuwait-parallels-to-a-911-suspect/

I don't think anyone thought Marvin Bush himself was in charge of security at the towers.

But don't you realize saying "bush ran security at the World Trade Center" means that exactly? Why don't people clarify or at least present the information without spinning it.

I have no idea. I had a mental picture of Marvin literally trying to be the sole "security", waving a badge, checking IDs. With no one listening to him. It made me laugh.

Go ahead and continue to live in your fantasy land. The President's brother was responsible for the company responsible for security. End of story.

All I want is for you guys to present your evidence honestly. The 911 truth movement has zero credibility as it is, and spinning facts doesn't help the cause.

All I want, is for you...not you guys to open your eyes. The 9/11 truth movement has just as much support as you and your fellow deniers.

Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure "World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?" Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure "Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?" Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure

One poll that came close to asking that question was the Scripps Howard poll of July 2006, which asked how likely it was that the following sentence was true: "Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." 59% said it was "not likely," 20% said "somewhat likely," and 16% said "very likely." Presumably the other 5% weren't sure or refused to answer. That's similar to saying that 16% of the US population are confident it was an inside job, 59% are confident it was not, and the remaining 25% are unsure.

As Romney would say 40+% is hardly zero my friend.

Hey dude. Maybe you could actually link your sources instead of putting them in quotes. It's a good habit to get into. I could just look it up on google, but you should be the one who finds the links if you are presenting the evidence. Once you've done that I will actually read your post.

A quick google of "Scripps Howard poll of July 2006" led to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#Scripps_Howard_polls which had a citation leading to this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20060806155022/http://www.newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=716

You could probably go deeper into it if you were willing to click a few times. You don't even have to take your hand off the mouse to search for things these days.

I'll miss you.

As far as majority opinions in America go, this tells me all I need to know.

In general, 58 percent say the torture of suspected terrorists can be justified “often” or “sometimes.”

lemmings on the way to a cliff.

Your spinning of facts doesn't change those facts.

Here's a good thread on ATS about Bush's connections

I post a lot of shitty off the wall stuff a lot of the time. I love sci-fi, I love spooky stories, I love conspiracies. I've read probably every single one out there. It bothers me that when people suggested that demolitions had been planted over time that so many nonchalantly say, "Impossible". I have always wondered about what weaknesses we have, and where they are. How major capers or attacks happened, how they could happen again. It pisses me off that this is thought of as impossible. It took me a long time reading 9/11 conspiracy theories, and they didn't bother me. Reptilians don't bother me, and all that nonsense. But the reactions people gave to 9/11, are the same exact reactions I've seen given about Reptilians. The 2 should not be grouped together. Is it possible there are Reptilians? Yeah. That's probably down around 0.0001%. Is it possible to have snuck into the WTC and done that? A far hell of a lot more than there are Reptilians. I think people need to keep questioning things. A democracy is based on a well-informed public that questions authority. We are not doing this. It is our duty to do so to keep our freedoms. People are afraid to question things, that means something is seriously fucking wrong.

It bothers me that when people suggested that demolitions had been planted over time that so many nonchalantly say, "Impossible".

We are trained to respct and believe people in positions of authority from a young age. Check out youtube for tons of videos of people putting on an orange vest and hardhat and ordering random standgers around as if they had some authority. Almost everyone does what they say just because they're conditioned to do that.

All it would take to get access to the building like you said is a few confident people with the right badges and a call or two from a higher up and no one asks any questions. Hell, I remember in high school we had our entire computer lab stolen during broad daylight because the thiefs put on official looking clothes and acted like they were there to repair the computers. The staff literally let them walk out with the stuff.

Thea idea that thousands of people would have to be in on it or it would be some huge scam is not believable. How many people know enough about engineering or architecture to question what some guys are doing to the building?

Nailed the last point. I know that speaking the truth on these forums must really irritate them. So I keep doing it, knowing that my effort is not in vain.

It's not just speaking the truth, but speaking directly to each other. Because of the internet, literally thousands of people can scour the world for all kinds of information and then bring it all together in places like this.

Remember that, back in 2001, when this was being planned (and it must surely have been planned well in advance) the internet was nowhere near the phenomenon it is today. Something tells me that the orchestraitors of 9/11 were caught off guard by a few things.

One, that people would have doubts about the official story. Two, that so much evidence would come to light. Three, that regular people would be able to coordinate (via the internet) efforts to analyse that evidence: stuff like video, news reports, forensic data, conflicting official statements, laws of physics etc.

So what are we seeing right now? Efforts to gradually increase control over what can and can't be said online and continued efforts to discredit 9/11 truth seekers as "conspiracy theorists".

Someone, somewhere is hoping to JFK the whole thing. Discredit everything and put out so many conflicting theories and false leads that nobody will ever be able to figure exactly out who did what.

Also the dumbing down of people. I'm really shocked how dumb our current society actually is. Nobody looks more than two steps ahead.

jesus man you couldn't be more right. It's like the whole objective of our government is to raise us to be god-fearing, beer drinking, loyal 'mericans and it has worked so well

Yeah and have this superiority complex that screams "Our way is right". Why can't we live and let live. There is beauty in diversity and we must strive for that. Anyway, i'm glad to see comments like yours, I hope you spread the word in whatever way you can. Peace.

I don't disagree, but people have a tendency to let people do their job and defer to their judgement. For the hard hat guy people trust he's there for their protection and don't want something to fall on them or the sidewalk to sink into the sewer as they walk over it, so they listen.

For a personal anecdote of people acquiescing to me in a position of non-authority:

When I was young I accidentally "infiltrated" a well-secured Halliburton campus (barbed wire, multiple checkpoints before entering building, roaming security).

How? I was delivering pizza. To the wrong address. Despite the fact that multiple security guards couldn't find the recipient in the directory they continued to usher me through their security post and wander around on my own. At some point in my adventure the customer finally returned my call and I realized I was in the wrong place the whole time.

Just another anecdote to go along with your high-school story. If you look the part, people will let you do your "job" with very little hassle: authority or not.

People are afraid to question things, that means something is seriously fucking wrong.

It is bred into us from the start. Parental / educational / institutional. My gf is a student at a horticulture college, and every single student there is very unhappy with the program and constantly complains. But no one would speak up about it, or say anything, just complain. So she took their complaints, put them in a list and submitted it as a suggestion for improvement in the course. Still, everyone but her remains silent and a couple have even chastised her for submitting it in the first place.

Unless we can overcome our fears and start looking at things as they are, rather than as we would hope they would be or as they have been presented to us by authority, we will remain a slave species, that's my opinion. I think we will, it is a growing process, but these manipulative events could not be run on a free people, they could only be run on those who have been enslaved body, and more importantly, mind.

Do you have any proof at all of what you do without revealing identity? Fascinating story, but anyone can claim to see the stuff too

I don't think I have to as other users have posted a documentary of English workers who say the exact same thing. But it's funny, because what would be "proof"? I mean, do I need a selfie with an employee and the newspaper of the day? Much of what I said is verifiable through various sources and already has been. I don't feel the need to verify a damned thing, my point being you should keep an open mind, ask questions and research for yourself. That if you do you can find out all of this, and even more that I witnessed alone. I don't think I have any "proof" unless we all got together and called my previous employer, pretending to be a new employer that put them on my resume, and that still wouldn't necessarily prove that I was at the WTC. They wouldn't answer such questions even if asked. All it would prove was that I was employed as a service technician and that I serviced various customers of theirs all throughout the tri-state area. Any evidence of me logging in when I arrived at the WTC is probably gone with the rubble, no trace or history besides a work order from my own company, which at this point and time is likely in the trash as well given they likely aren't a customer anymore.

[deleted]

This is really interesting. What do you think about this. I read that I believe it was Germany's Finance Minister not too long ago say publicly that their gold (across the street from the WTC in a bank) was gone on or before 9/11 they believed, because we weren't letting all these European countries withdraw any of it. Then we lent the Ukraine recently (a few years after Germany said this) $100 Billion USD for $85 Billion of their gold reserve. A week later we started sending European countries "their" gold back. I mean is it really unrealistic to say that Die Hard 3 couldn't have happened? They could have caused 9/11 specifically for this, or just saw the opportunity, anyone could have if they had the right equipment and access. I had friends and friends of friends who helped clean up (and a few got various forms of cancer years later) and they said when they were there, there wasn't any real organization. No one was in charge. Again I don't necessarily believe this happened, but I understand it very well may have happened. That a organization of people used 9/11 to steal gold from all the banks directly around the WTC, and I heard supposedly there was gold in the basement of the WTC itself.

[deleted]

It's sad and I agree. I really feel this will be our downfall.

What group do you mean?

There are after all factions where in there are factions inside factions. Not all are "bad".

I wasn't contradicting you, I was only suggesting insurance fraud.

The company that insured the WTC had recently changed hands before the attack.

It's not just the oil. It's about the currency used to trade for it. The petrodollar.

*In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar, Richard Nixon negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for arms and protection they would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars.[2] Subsequently, the other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation.[citation needed] Since these dollars did not circulate within the country and thus were not part of the normal money supply, economists felt another term was necessary to describe the dollars received by petroleum exporting countries (OPEC) in exchange for oil, so the term petrodollar was coined by Georgetown University economics professor, Ibrahim Oweiss.

Because the United States was the largest producer and consumer of oil in the world, the world oil market had been priced in United States dollars since the end of World War II.[3] International oil prices were based on discounts or premiums relative to that for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.[4] But, although oil sales prior to 1973 were denominated in U.S. dollars, nothing precluded settlement in local currency.

In October 1973, OPEC declared an oil embargo in response to the United States' and Western Europe's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and this tension (and the new power of OPEC) led to fear that the dollar would become insignificant in the oil trade.*

It's also the Central Bank and the IMF. Libya, Syria, Iran all have their own banking system and the banking cartel doesn't like that. The Economic Sanctions against Iran are designed to collapse their Central Bank. It's economic warfare and when that doesn't do the job, send in the drones. We murdered Gadaffi because he wanted to unify Africa and Africa's Resources and only trade using the Gold Dinar, not the Petrodollar. That would have devastated the US Economy because of that whole outsourcing our inflation. If nation's stop using the Petrodollar, all of that inflation is going to be coming back this way. The BRIC nations are trying to get an alternative to the Petrodollar and the SWIFT processing system used by the West. Any nation that defies the Rothchild owned Central Bank/IMF can expect economic sanctions, false flag attacks, drone attacks, flyovers, at this point, even if they do give in, we might just kill them anyways because these are some cold ass mother fuckers. Gaddafi was shanked in the ass with a knife in the streets and murdered like a dog. People still in our Government were good friends with him for years. Same with Saddam. One day, shaking hands with Ronald Reagan, the next, our military is digging you out of a shit, hidey hole and then he gets a mug shot, live on tv medical exam for shaming and then Hung by the Neck til' Dead. Photo Ops. After Gaddafi was taken out, the 120 lbs of Gold in Libya was gone and the American backed Rebels immediately opened a Central Bank of Libya, allied with the IMF. Iraq was totally looted while we were there and after we left. Afghanistan, we took over the Oil Trade and the Opium Trade and made Billions.

interesting. If you read the FBI Report on the "dancing Isreali's" you find that a trace ammount of explosives was found in the back of the truck they were pulled over in. They were also connected to a moving company (iirc) who was run by a Chechnyian (iirc) who was known to hire gentleman on visa from eastern europeans as well as other middle eastern countries. Also, IIRC, they were seen parking in that same spot in or around the WTC for months per witnesses whom recalled seeing the moving truck on multiple ocassions.

Interview with the police officer who stopped the van with the Israelis in it:

https://youtu.be/0-B2J7tp8eg

It was extremely suspect and worrying to see their reaction. They were cheering and dancing in the streets of Islamabad as well.

Great post, mate. Thing is, you're not wrong.

So do I think that over a period of a few years, that some general contractors smuggled in explosives and planted them all over the WTC? I don't know. Is it possible? Fuck yes it is.

Fuck yes indeed.

My only question is: where are these contractors now? How in the world do you keep that many people quiet? Do the breaks on their cars stop working on the way into the job site one day?

If the lives of your family depend on your silence you'll probably keep quiet.

How in the world do you keep that many people quiet?

Without being sarcastic, how often do you hear of people confessing to high level crimes that could be viewed as treason and quite possibly punishable with either the death penalty or life imprionment without hope of parole? Never.

Also, these people are zealots. Richard Helms went to his death saying nothing of what he knew about MK Ultra, the JFK assassination, etc.

Also, as pointed out, threats against one's own life or the lives of their family can be persuasive.

Like the JFK assassination, 9/11 tore at the heart of the United States. How many people want to stand up and say, "I was a part of that . . . but I'm sorry now"? Nobody. Read about how David Atlee Philips, E. Howard Hunt, Ruth Paine and others who were villified and shunned by their families due to the mere whiff that they were involved in the assassination conspiracy.

All of this said, there ARE people who are talking: William Rodriguez is a very important witness, Barry Jennings was before he died, as are many others who worked in WTC, witnessed things and lived to tell their stories.

It's unrealistic to think one of these contractors will come forward and confess. And it's intellectually lazy (not accusing you, but some people do think like this) to believe, "Well, someone would have come forward and confessed. Since no one has, I guess there was no conspiracy."

EDIT: It's worth remembering that even the Watergate scandal, to this day nobody knows why the Republicans sought to plan listening devices in the Democratic National Committee's offices. Theories abound, of course, but this is no conclusive explanation behind Watergate. And it's shit definitely hit the fan of public consciousness and revealed more secret workings of the government than many ever wanted. And still its purpose remains secret.

Without really knowing how long one had access, we can't even say that it was that many people involved. Most controlled demolitions are done with a team of 10-15 in about a month. Give 4 or 5 guys half a year to set-up, then an island to retire on.

That's exactly what I thought. Black ops group. Everything they do is redacted. No one even knows they exist. Which is why they're used in the first place.

who exactly is going to own up to killing 3000 people and why?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/people-could-have-planted-bombs-in-the-world-trade-center-without-anyone-noticing.html

I was being escorted in a hallway, and my escort left me outside while he went to get something quickly, and one of these contractors was right there on a ladder, working up into the ceiling. I leaned over and looked up to see what he was doing, he was working directly on the steel joints of the building. As I leaned, he got upset, and immediately gave me a look and came down the ladder.

I know 3 civil engineers who have worked on massive projects in large cities here and abroad, working with the biggest names in engineering for the construction and petroleum industries. Engineers generally love talking about what they are doing, because they go home and they're work is so boring to their wives they don't get any attention otherwise. These clean-cut people flashing badges were clearly not specialty civil engineers, but could have been forensic metallurgists.

Some documentary I saw over a decade ago had me thinking that when they updated the fire retardant sprayed onto the beams in the late 90s, that they had mixed in something like a stable relative of thermite or other incendiary thing. It would be perfect--a readymade disaster kept safe in the least likely place!

You have at least in part pushed this theory towards the validation side of the spectrum with your observations. Thank you for that.

That completely makes sense, as I said it is possible, that doesn't mean it actually happened. I don't know though, I took some fire essentials in college as an elective which is actually a great learning tool as an elective. I was a volunteer for a few years, and we learned a little bit about sprinklers and whatnot, our Professor was actually a FDNY retired Captain, so he covered highrises as well. I didn't see anything unusual when I looked up, a lot of networking wires I think and the sort, but that's not where I think they would have or put fire retardation, or sprinklers. I would expect a civil engineer working with these general contractors to be dressed differently. It was like they were all in uniforms. A civil engineer would almost be a supervisor I would expect. I don't know though, but that is interesting and possible.

I feel like the number of jumpers that day directly correlates with thermite cutters (or even what you suggested) inside the walls. Think about how fucking hot it would be in there. Meanwhile, People were somehow able to stand directly in the "crash" damage in the building to wave to everyone. That alone tells me that that area was not really hot at all. But possible evidence suggests that the rest of the building was.

Check this out:

Richard Humenn P.E. - WTC Chief Electrical Design Engineer:

https://youtu.be/gJy7lhVK2xE

• Mr. Humenn gives us quite a unique perspective inside the elevator shafts in the twin towers and how access to the core columns could have been gained considering his role in engineering the electrical systems of the WTC complex.

The '93 bombing allegedly knocked out the fire alarm systems for the entire WTC complex. The work to repair / replace those systems was still ongoing the morning of 9/11/01.

Coming from a background in commercial building, I can tell you that this is false. Any core safety event such as this, is not allowed to take as long as that. It is a legal requirement to have such a vital safety feature working at 100% or no occupation is allowed.

Coming from a background in EMS, I agree with you. Even so, the fact remains that the fire alarm system suffered damage in the bombing. Rather than just repair the damage, they began a complete overhaul of the system throughout the complex, deciding that the opportunity was there to replace and upgrade the pre-93 system that had been in place since a fire in the mid-70s.

The work was done in phases. Phase one was replacing the master fire alarm panel (Cerberus Pyrotronics MXL-V, Cerberus Pyrotronics MXL-VR remote transponder panels, and amplifier cabinets) between 1995-97. Phase two was transfering monitoring and control of the existing system over to the new one, and this work happened alongside the install of Phase 1.

Phase 3 was the replacement of all fire detection devices throughout WTC complex. None of this work in each individual building was any better than 80% complete on 9/11, and this is the ongoing work which I refer to in my earlier post. The system in place was opperational, it was a mix of older equipment with newer equipment gradually being installed and integrated.

There were work crews in and out of every nook, cranny, closet, and cubby hole of that complex between Feb '93 and Sep '01. This was taken advantage of a couple of years after the bombing when a mafia crew posed as a work crew on their way in to rob the Bank of America that was in the North Tower.

Sauce

So do you have any actual evidence for this?

This question is constantly popping up. First I'd like to point out, what would be "evidence"? But anyways, a few people have already all throughout posted various links and documentaries of people claiming much of what I have already. Like I said, that doesn't mean explosives were actually placed, but it definitely could have happened.

Well, to start with: Evidence that these men you talk about actually exist. Evidence that they had access everywhere 24/7. To begin with. Even if these men exist we have the following problems(among others) with the demolition-theory:

The sheer amount of explosives required to bring down such a massive structure, the sheer amount of planning, the sheer amount of thread required etc without one single witness to account for any of this just makes it very hard to believe. I mean, of course you can say it "could" have happened, but you could also say that the holocaust never happened and is all made up by jews, since it's in their interest for some reason. The evidence is all that matters.

And The fact that explosives off that multitude would be hard miles away yet there wasn't a massive bang before the collapse.

This comment links and indexes a documentary that addresses many of the issues that you raise.

0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives" In the video, the two points are that 1) A renovation of the elevators took place, and 2) Some heard sounds of things being lifted on empty floors.

None of this proves in any way that actual explosives were placed there. In fact, it doesn't even suggest it, and when put together with my other problems, it just makes it all the more unlikely. Again, maybe the jews orchestrated the holocaust to gain power over white people, or maybe not. The burden of proof remains on the ones doing the claims.

Let's assume that hundreds/thousands of secret "workers" managed to smuggle in tons of explosives, 10-100 kilometers of electronic wire without even a single witness finding out. It's a stupid idea that defies all evidence, but let's go with it for the sake of the argument. Even then, my second problem with this remains. You simply didn't hear any massive Bang before the collapse. An explosive of that multitude would be heard many miles away. We are talking about sounds in the league of the first atomic bombs.

The fact that the link talks about molten steel tells me it's not really worth looking through every point.

An explosive of that multitude would be heard many miles away. We are talking about sounds in the league of the first atomic bombs.

No. That's not how controlled demolition works. There was a series of detonations, all of which were in fact documented by First Responders, civilian witnesses, audio recordings, and video recordings.

The fact that the link talks about molten steel tells me it's not really worth looking through every point.

The molten steel, and the temperatures in excessive of 2,800F are well known and documented. If you reject the entirety of the video based on a confirmation bias that you won't discuss then you are clearly closed-minded. That's your right, but that doesn't mean everyone should also be closed-minded.

No. That's not how controlled demolition works.

You're saying that you wouldn't need a massive amount of explosives to take down arguably the biggest demolition project in history?

Here, I googled a video for you. It's a video of a demolition of a tall building(not as big or tall as WTC was, mind you): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U Notice the distinct BANG-sounds BEFORE the collapse? Yeah, that's the sound of explosives. I'll let you figure out the rest.

There was a series of detonations, all of which were in fact documented by First Responders, civilian witnesses, audio recordings, and video recordings.

You claim there was a series of detonations(Mute detonations apparently?)... would you like to provide some evidence? Just claiming things doesn't make them true.

The molten steel, and the temperatures in excessive of 2,800F are well known and documented.

Really? I didn't know that. Could you provide some evidence/source for this? I've looked for evidence that there was molten steel in 9/11, but I haven't found any evidence for it. If it's just my googling skills that are lacking, could you help me out?

If you reject the entirety of the video based on a confirmation bias that you won't discuss then you are clearly closed-minded. That's your right, but that doesn't mean everyone should also be closed-minded. For me, it's the same thing as a creationist linking to a full 2 hour video, and him/her mentioning that the points in the video includes things like "Why are there still apes" or "just look at the trees"... But by all means, if there is something in that video you'd like to discuss, go for it.

So Ill start by saying I dont know what happened.

But there is a theory of nano super thermite which would not make loud explosive noises.

Also for molten steel here is a good link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY

I've heard about the thermite-theory. Neil Harrit right? Not convinced by that theory, which has many holes of it's own.

As for the videos, at which part can I see molten steel? There is a pretty big difference between molten steel and molten metal. As I've said, I've looked for evidence of molten steel for a while. Haven't been lucky yet.

In the videos I linked, there is molten metal falling from the windows of the towers, and red hot semi-molten metal lifted from ground zero by excavators.

Some of that is molten steel.

For an example of 100% pure molten steel, in the first video a linked there is a section of i-beam that literally has holes burned through it. It was half inch steel. Also it is clear the edges of the i-beam had melted.

Neil harrit is one man who endorses the termite theory but in my opinion there are more credible sources than him.

Again, I dont know what happened. But all the ingredients for nano thermite have been found at ground zero, and molten metal was pouring out of the windows of the south tower for minutes right before the towers collapsed.

In the videos I linked, there is molten metal falling from the windows of the towers, and red hot semi-molten metal lifted from ground zero by excavators. Some of that is molten steel.

Which of the videos, and about at which time can I see this? Or are you talking about the third video?

If you can prove to me that it is in fact molten steel, that would help a lot. Just seeing a video of some molten metal doesn't help me.

For an example of 100% pure molten steel, in the first video a linked there is a section of i-beam that literally has holes burned through it. It was half inch steel. Also it is clear the edges of the i-beam had melted.

Not really sure where in the video to look. Could you name the time?

Again, I dont know what happened. But all the ingredients for nano thermite have been found at ground zero,

Have they? Now that there is something I don't really believe. As far as I know, it's quite the opposite... but if you can link me your source, I may be convinced otherwise.

and molten metal was pouring out of the windows of the south tower for minutes right before the towers collapsed.

I don't see what is so weird about that. A massive plane had just crashed in to the building, creating fire and explosions everywhere. The temperatures can easily reach 1000 C, more than enough to melt certain metals. Not sure what you're on about here. And what does it have to do with thermite?

To answer you question about where you can see the steel i-beam that had melted holes through it just watch the first minute minute of the first video. Did you watch any of the videos?

Watch the third video for evidence of nanothermite at ground zero, its relatively short.

The second video is relatively short as well, but you can see so much melted material metal coming out of the windows, right around the corner of the south tower directly before it collapses. In this third video I dont know how I can prove that its melted steel, but as far as I know there isnt proof that it isnt steel.

To answer you question about where you can see the steel i-beam that had melted holes through it just watch the first minute minute of the first video. Did you watch any of the videos?

Found it... but don't they explain this in the video?They atleast mention liquid metal(aluminium, most likely), which combined with oxygen or water can result in exothermic reactions way exceeding the required temperature.

Watch the third video for evidence of nanothermite at ground zero, its relatively short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY This video? I didn't really find any evidence for Nano Thermite despite watching the entire video. All I could see was a guy claiming the only explanation for molten metal is thermite. That's his base premise which he bases his evidence on. It's a false premise... which leads me to your final point:

The second video is relatively short as well, but you can see so much melted material metal coming out of the windows, right around the corner of the south tower directly before it collapses. In this third video I dont know how I can prove that its melted steel, but as far as I know there isnt proof that it isnt steel.

First of all, it's not anyone elses job to disprove that it is steel, it is you(or anyone else who claims it's steel) that have to prove that it is steel.

It COULD be steel (just like there COULD exist a God or something), but it probably isn't, simply because of the meltingpoint of steel and aluminium. Steel melts at around 1400-1500 degrees Celcuis, while Aluminium melts at around 660 degrees Celcius. Big office-fires like the one in WTC can reach temperatures around 1000 degrees(even higher if the circumstances are favorable). Thus it is very likely it is molten aluminium and not molten steel.

But if you can prove it is steel and not some other metal, go ahead. If not, would you then agree that based on my facts above it is more likely aluminium or a similar metal dripping down?

Anyone can say it otherwise.

Sure, but the burden of proof is on the OP.

This isn't a court of law.

It isn't, but when you make a claim and want others to believe you, it's up to you to provide the evidence for that claim. Logic 101. I seems OP wants others to believe him, but he hasn't (yet) fulfilled his burden of proof. He is no better than holocaust deniers or creationists in that regard. If he wants us to believe him on faith, he's gonna have a bad time.

It seems to me you are one who has faith. To those of us who actually know the subject his testimony is similar to at least 2 other witnesses. Could he be lying or trolling? Sure. Does it matter? Not really.

It doesn't matter if he could be lying or trolling? Are you taking the piss or something?

His testimony on it's own isn't nearly enough evidence to prove that he is telling the truth, and neither would the two other witnesses, unless they can provide some evidence that OP clearly can't. But as I said, for the sake of the argument, even if he actually is telling the truth... That in no way proves that explosives were planted in the WTCs. Once you prove that these men exist and confirm OPs story, you have all work ahead of you, trying to prove that they planted the explosives.

Who again is it who has faith?

To dust.

This guys testimony, real or troll, is a very very tiny sideshow to the 911 event.

That's what I wrote. What are we arguing about?

It doesn't matter if he could be lying or trolling? Are you taking the piss or something?

Yeah I misunderstood your view on lying, is all.

That's my point.

Got it. Then I misunderstood you.

Keep in mind the floor that were being working on in the WTC AND the pentagon where the areas hit by the planes. I think "fireproofing" was the excuse in all 3 locations

Any proof you actually worked there during that time?

Not going to happen. I'm not going to name my company. I was only there a handful of times for the same customer. There is no need to even do so unless and until what I said actually has some actual need to be told due to investigation. In other words there is no point to prove anything, to anyone, unless there is a specific investigation that believes this actually did happen, in which I wouldn't be proving it on reddit, just to the authorities for their investigation. And as I have pointed out, I don't necessarily think these guys were bringing in explosives, just that it is in fact very possible they could have if they so chose.

Fair enough, thanks for sharing. Do you know of any other reports of people that worked in the WTC's reporting similar things?

Up above users posted a documentary of some Englismen, or an Englishman claiming very much, and even more of what was going on. I don't know. I'm surprised not one person as far as I know never spoke publicly of this as well and that it never reached an outlet where more people were exposed to it like reddit or the news or whatever. I think the reasoning could be, that the theory of explosives being planted isn't mainstream. People in America know there are Conspiracy Theorists who believe something else caused 9/11, but not many people know what exactly they believe happened. I think they were traumatized in a way that is similar to so many other things, a good portion of the whole country was, and I'll explain why.

I left my job that brought me to the WTC, not soon after I visited the WTC. (They sent me there for servers because they wanted to keep me, they planned on sending me to get some SUN Microsystems training, which would have been amazing, except I didn't want to do it.) I told me job after about a year, that eventually I planned on leaving for the Marine Corps, that I would give them notice, but I wasn't staying. I was a dumb young kid, always wanted to join the military, family thing and all, go and fight the bad guys.

Fast forward a few years, I'm coming back from my second deployment in 2005, I was at Camp Fallujah. I was a Reservist in Brooklyn at a Communications Battalion.

So anyways, this is why I feel like everyone is traumatized and brainwashed because of 9/11. Tunnels to Towers run, we went as a unit 20 or so Marines. The former co-creator or creator of the Guardian Angels came up after all these politicians who spoke, he was the creator of that street vigilante group that used to fight crime. He had the longest speech, he went on and on. I've never seen such a hate-filled speech in reality in my life, except on documentaries and tv. This guy called for the extermination of Muslims worldwide. He said we need to kill women and children in their homes, Muslim women and children. He spoke the longest out of anyone, easily 10-15 minutes. And you know what? They applauded, they applauded like I've never seen. I just came back from Fallujah, and fighting against and for these people, and I was disgusted with what he said. And here are all the crowd, all the politicians cheering for the extermination of all Muslims. Never in all my life. So as soon as they were done applauding I went on about how they were all fucking brainwashed, and it was horrible, and I was fucking loud about it. I wanted everyone to hear, I just came back from Iraq and I wasn't as hateful as they were, and fuck them as Americans for being so. It was literally like Nazi-Germany hit America.

People are outraged, they want revenge. If you want another example of this, the black community is outraged right now over 1 person attacking them. They're angry at everyone who isn't them, for the actions of one person. It's the same exact thing. Muslims as a whole are not responsible for the actions of a few. No one group is responsible for the actions of 1 individual or a few individuals.

Rodriguez was the WTC employee of 20 years who reported "heavy maintenance." Steve Forbes was the private employee who reported "heavy maintenance"

Anybody knows what happened to the building maintenance crew? Were they replaced the year before or did the people conveniently vanish in the rubble?

Another story floating around is that there was a lot of cabling being run too. Don't remember where it was posted.

this comment links and indexes a video which deals with this question.

The question is, why do this when you could just bribe some terrorists to fly some planes into the towers. I don't think it was an inside job. I think it could have possibly been allowed to happen by the goverment.

Perhaps they even ordered the terrorists to carry out the attack, who knows. But spending years planting explosives in the building when they could just arrange for a few more planes to be hijacked to complete the job?

what if those contractors were actually terrorists, not planting bombs. but thermite that would ignite so the building would for sure be destroyed. i'm not a 9/11 theorist nor am i a conspiracy theorist of most sorts. it just makes sense, everyone thinks terrorists are really dumb but sometimes the enemy can have an upperhand and faking credentials is a very possible thing when you have money. i am just theorizing so im not really stating shit as facts so if someone would like to give me some more info that'd be great

Thank you for that info and i will read it when i wake up. But I forgot to add something. With enough money who knows what an organization could get. I'm a military guy (not serving), but i do not know about how hard it would be to get military grade thermite. So Israel was using pakistan/iraq as a huge scapegoat for a coverup?

fair point, you are kinda making my mind change quite a bit on all of this. this shit goes very deep

Did you notice anything else unusual in the weeks leading up to 9/11? I've heard claims that men in black suits and sunglasses drove up to the building and went inside before 9/11 happened (multiple times).

I wasn't even in the state when it happened. I think the main reason I might have been chosen wasn't just a fellow employee that didn't want to work it, as much as they wanted to keep me and train me in high-end networking, they offered to send me to some training for SUN Microsystems and their gear. I was out in California at the time at my MOS school, I left shortly after my visit to the WTC from my employer to join the Marine Corps dumb enough :)

[deleted]

Check out Kevin Ryan, Another 19 Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. Youtube.com https://youtu.be/C-OUY5UHxPU

dude WTF

It's been said that the core columns could have been easily accessed for rigging the cutter charges that chopped them up from the elevator shafts.

RIP op, be safe.

You know that what you've said is purely fantastical and reads out of a movie. I'm not denying your story's validity but I'm telling you without evidence or some sources your story will be washed away as anecdotal plausibility.

Looks like my story has already been confirmed actually, so I feel no need to validate anything to you or anyone. WTCMolybdenum4753 posted a link to a documentary that clowncar said existed supporting what I witnessed.

For that many people to be involved it's hard to imagine they'd all keep their traps shut.

This is a small list of some of the 9/11 whistleblowers. Granted, none of these people were "in on it." but they saw evidence of an "inside job" or Government complicity in the attacks. Sibol Edmunds, Susan Lindauer, Sgt. Lauro Chavez, Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, The Washington DC Madame, Kurt Sonnenfeld, and Barry Jennings. If this had been an actual attack by Terrorists, why would the Government lock these people up for trying to warn their superiors that something was going on? And getting locked up wasn't the only thing they had to worry about. The DC Madame hung herself in a shed behind her house after just appearing on Alex Jones where she was specifically asked if she was planning on killing herself to which she replied, "Absolutely not. If they find me dead, they murdered me." Barry Jennings was in WTC7 when the explosions started going off as he was trying to escape the building in the stairwell, there was a massive explosion that demolished the stairwell landing trapping him in the building. This happened before the Twin Towers came down. Barry was interviewed as soon as he escaped the building by a news crew and he talked about explosives in the building and then later gave the producers of Loose Change an interview, describing in detail the explosives and the damage. He then tried to rescind his permission for the interview before going into hiding and then winding up dead.

Also, the 9/11 Commission Members themselves, all stated that the Commission were not allowed to see evidence or interview certain witnesses such as Kalid Shiek Mohammed, who was the supposed "Architect of 9/11" and that the Commission was set up to fail.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

http://www.infowars.com/the-911-whistleblowers/

Don't forget https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_officer)

Again, I completely agree. I'm not saying the WTC was definitely bombed, I'm saying that people rule it out as if it is impossible, and that is hardly the case, it was very possible, and I witnessed why. But seriously, that many people to keep their traps shut? How many people are we talking about, 200 workers? I'd say maybe as high as 500, but likely only about 300. Who says they were all in on it? What if it was just a team of say 15 guys in the group of 300, that worked the night shift. Anything is possible, explosives over a plane is possible.

You can't possibly believe that this story you've painted would work in real life right? You're telling me all of these contractors worked all those days planting explosives and all of these people have stayed quiet for over a decade with not one single person coming forward? Come on. It's insane. Literally insane. Not one person?!

Do you have any idea how many top secret projects and programs there are in the United States? Not to mention all of the secret military operations that are conducted by the CIA, the Military and companies like Blackwater and Craft International. These operations carry on all day, every day and the people they have working on these projects and operations are highly trained and conditioned operatives that know how to keep a secret. Especially one this big. They don't hire people like us that have a conscious. They hire true believers that are executing a long term plan by the Shadow Government, the Banking Cartel, The Intelligence Agencies and the Military Industrial Complex. I'm sure they look at the deaths of the innocent people on 9/11 the same way they look at collateral damage on the battlefield. They have no problem firing missiles into a wedding party filled with innocent men, women and children just to kill one guy. And then when the medics arrive to try and help the survivors, they fire another missile just in case any of the people helping them are part of their "terrorist group".

Senator Paul Wellstone was one of Bush's biggest critics of the Iraq War and he was assassinated along with his wife and kids in a plane crash. 11 people died. Has anyone come forward due to their guilty conscious or some other reason? Nope. Has anyone come forward on JFK, RFK, MLK Jr.? Nope. Oklahoma City was another Inside Job. Watch Noble Lie https://youtu.be/UpNIMSDwvOw. The news was reporting additonal bombs inside the building. The Bomb Squad removed some of these bombs but has anyone else besides the patsies come forward? 168 innocent men, women and children died that day and hundreds more were injured. What kind of people could carry out an operation like that murdering their own fellow Americans and never speak about it? The same kind of people that would plant explosives in the WTC.

On 9/11, 2 vans full of Israeli "Students", several of whom worked for the Massad were stopped by the police and arrested. They were seen recording the WTC Attacks and dancing around on the roof of a parking garage and someone called the police. When they were pulled over on the George Washington Bridge, the police found explosives in the van, the videos of the attacks and lots of other incriminating evidence. All of it disappeared and the Israeli's were sent back to Israel and they appeared on Israeli TV talking about the arrest and the attacks. They obviously had foreknowledge and participated in some way. Did anyone come forward and talk? Nope.

I think you're in denial that truly evil people exist. And these people know that if they open their mouth, they'll be killed. Their families will be killed. Their lives would be destroyed if they weren't murdered or they might end up in prison for the rest of their lives for being a whistleblower just like Susan Lindauer or Sibol Edmunds.

Here's a great article that discusses whistle blowers and why science trumps arm chair psychology. If the science proves beyond a doubt that the towers were demolished by explosives, it isn't thrown out because "it's impossible because someone would have talked."

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/758-faq-12-where-are-the-911-whistleblowers.html

On the heels of your comment (which is great btw) the government likes to sub contract out very sensitive projects because private companies don't fall under the same FOIA requirements that government agencies do. It's pretty scary when you think about it.

I'm not saying anything, you said it. All I said is that it was certainly possible.

Yeah. Winning the lottery is also possible. But it's incredibly unlikely.

But not everyone buys lottery tickets.

I am pointing out that I firsthand witnessed that this actually can be very likely.

if this were going on for years, you don't even need that many people, a dozen engineers would suffice.

and if they killed a whole family with children because a guy wrote a book, you think they can't keep 12 people quiet?

not saying it happened, but it is very plausible.

we know they did it, we don't know how

Enjoy living in your paranoid fantasy world.

You seriously believe the government or someone in the U.S. systematically planted explosives in the WTC over a period of time using how ever many construction workers it allegedly took. Only to then keep them there until two planes crashed into them and then blowing them. Oh and that the hundreds if not thousands of people that would have to be involved in this cover up would have stayed quiet for over a decade. Not one of these hundreds of people told a single soul anything. Give me a break! That is the most convoluted and insane plan. That literally is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm not trying to be funny but you need to see a doctor if you're this paranoid. How do you function in real life like that?

Yes.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/758-faq-12-where-are-the-911-whistleblowers.html

why do you need thousands of people to plant some explosives over the course of years as OP said ... you only need a handful of people.

With all the evidence it's stupid NOT to see it was an inside job. You are in denial and under mind control.

I truly feel sorry for you. I'm not trying to be condescending at all. But it's actually really sad how many people there are like you. It makes me sad. It can't be a very good life to live in this paranoid world where everyone is out to get you. I hope one day you feel better and get to enjoy life.

It's what is given up to embrace the truth of the world today. It is easier to remain in ignorance but the truth seeker can not rest there.

We don't know if someone decided to come forward. As soon as someone decided too the story would be squashed and the threat eliminated.

I worked for a company, and one of our customers was in the WTC.

Lmao. What kind of company could you possibly work for where you had to repeatedly visit a customer at his work. Your customer only had access to one floor of the building but for some reason you had knowledge of these contractors access of being throughout the entire building 24/7? This is so obviously bullshit yet it gets upvoted in this sub. It reads like a 4th grader writing a short story for class. It's sad.

I was in hardware, we did on site repairs and installs, laptops, desktops, servers. I was actually there for my first server, and I literally had no experience with servers. It was nerve-racking, I remember because I had no clue what I was doing. Truth is I shouldn't have been out there, and the only reason I was was because the guy with the experience either got in a tissy fit with them or just didn't want to do it himself. But, I was constantly driving from Long Island to as far as New Jersey, the Bronx, and everything inbetween. My customer had access to his floor. He was an IT admin, it was a few different guys of the same business showing me around, and they had a whole 1/3rd or 1/4th of the floor they were on. It was open knowledge between everyone that these men had access 24/7 to the entire building, which is what bothers me that I have never heard someone point this out before. To get into any business there, you needed a key card. These guys had the master key cards. They literally would just walk into businesses. I'm sorry in the end of disputing the truth of what I did or did not see or witness that you had to resort to insulting me, that's the really sad part.

Oh yah that IT admin who oversees an entire IT department chose to pick some random guy with zero experience to work on one of the most important government buildings instead of picking any one of the dozens of people working under him. I insulted you because you are so obviously lying for attention. Feel free to walk off a cliff.

Uhmmm any IT guy has customers, cyber security, third party accounting firms, legal teams, think tanks, PR firms, ad agencies, etc..

Any company at WTC could have had hired another company to do something they don't do in house. And that company would be a customer. Why is that weird?

My favorite part was every single person who entered the towers had to stop at security, "empty their pockets" and have their bags checked.

Those buildings employed thousands of people and likely had thousands more visitors coming and going on a daily basis...and they ALL had to stop for a lengthy security screening before entering?

Yeah, that's not realistic at all.

After the FBI attempted to bomb it years prior. Yeah, totally unbelievable. Of the times I visited the WTC, security was extremely tight and controlled.

Yeah I appreciate it, everyone forgets so quickly. Security was pretty tight specifically because of the bombings, while they searched me they said this. I just couldn't believe that these guys were just coming in and out like they owned the place. They would bring in these huge bags sometimes with their tools, I mean my bag was somewhat small, I just needed a few screwdrivers and bits mostly, some software. But these guys had bags and tools like I've never seen. Freaky they just let them waltz in and out. But a user up above posted how an English guy in a documentary said the same thing and how he was surprised he was never contacted about anything.

They did. Everyone had to walk up to security, realize there are several rows of elevators. So what they had was a few security personnel at each row of elevators. They would walk up, and security would quickly search inside bags, they recognized a lot of these people, so they let many go, especially if you were coming back and forth constantly. During the rush hour in the mornings around 8-9am they had far more security working during these times checking. They made all visitors empty their pockets and get a further search, just bags for everyone else. The contractors literally would come in with these huge tool bags, in and out constantly. They even had metal detectors, because maybe you remember the WTC bombing just a few years earlier? Yeah, you sound like you're either a shill, or completely ignorant.

I've been a contractor professionally for 17 years, I've probably been through a hundred different buildings. I have never had to empty my pockets or my bag a single time. I've had to check in for a handful of places, mostly government buildings.

Your story reads like shitty wtc fan fiction.

If you watch documentaries (and not necessarily the conspiracy ones) you'll see that security was very tight because of the past bombing. Everyone knows this. There were regular threats to bomb the WTC again, everyone knows this too. You just seem like you personally have a problem with this and you're ignoring all the facts. NYC and where you've contracted at, completely different places. I've been all of the country and there isn't any place like NYC. I don't think you have a fair comparison. I worked in the government as well, not as a contractor, but all around contractors. And even there they check bags and empty pockets, in a ton of places. I really think you're just making that up. I had a Security Clearance, because I left my job to join the Marine Corps. Realize that also because of what I was specifically dealing with, theft was common as well. We were dealing with expensive equipment, as well as sensitive data. That's why I'm pretty sure you're making up your whole story, because I've been checked a few times, and to say it never happens... I mean what did you contract for, farm equipment?

I contracted out to dozens of different businesses and government agencies in the downtown core of my city. I worked in every building you can imagine.

I did VIP support for my local provincial government at the legislature building, and even they didn't ask people to empty their pockets and bags. Check in at the security desk, call ahead to your destination office to make sure they are expecting you, give you a visitors pass and you're on your way.

Hell, I work for law enforcement now and we still don't empty the pockets and bags of contractors. I have vendors from HP, Cisco, Microsoft and a bunch of other places come to our data center on a regular basis and they are never subjected to the kind of checks you're talking about.

Those places aren't targets for these types of things that you've been to, so there is no reason. The WTC was regularly receiving threats of bombings for years before the bombings, and the years leading up to 9/11. Every single facility I've been to, government or otherwise, that receives these types of threats has this amount of security. If they receive regular threats this security is constant, because if you don't you can't afford insurance to cover anything. Being law enforcement, you should know this, my brother knows this being in ESU, we both learned this being Marines. My brother used his own money to get security training specifically in this field to give him an edge to become ESU.

Even when I went to low-level government buildings, they had security screening.

The World Trade Center was not a government building... Come on, you have to try harder than this.

It was more important than most government buildings.

And? So only government buildings have security screenings? These were Fortune 500 companies people, this is the cream of the crop all gathered together in one building, international organizations, the World Bank, other banks. You really don't know what you're talking about. Go take a list of all the companies that owned space in the WTC. I don't think you're being realistic.

edit: *all gathered together in 2 buildings

We need to be careful when using phrases like "inside job"

The rogue elements operating within the US that facilitated 9/11 are not beholden to any government or constituency. They get their orders from a shadowy global network of military intelligence, drug traffickers, organized crime and elite financiers.

These people have no allegiance to any one country or government. Their sole purpose is to grow and perpetuate their control by any means necessary. 9/11 was not an inside job insomuch as there is no more "inside" or "outside" anymore, their influence permeates all.

Yup, i hate "inside job" it's borderline disinfo. Call it what it was, a false flag operation.

What exactly is the difference? Wouldn't your "false flag operation" also be an inside job? Or was it a false flag operation by someone other than the government?

Mossad, Pakistani ISI, Saudi Intelligence, CIA, etc

It was a false flag operation + inside job.

Some of them were in on it and some of them were participating in the cover attack. For example, the Saudi's were providing support to the highjackers but it's highly unlikely that the planes were highjacked and flown into the buildings by the 19 terrorists as the Official Story claims. Same with the Pakistani ISI who wired $100k to Mohammed Atta the day before 9/11. The Mossad on the other hand were probably in on the real operation, which included explosive demolition of the WTC and the Pentagon. It's called Compartmentalization. That's how you can have thousands of people working on the atomic bomb but 99% of them have no idea what they are making because they are only allowed to work on their piece of the bigger project and they are not allowed to discuss their job with anyone, including their families. Then you have a certain percentage of the remaining 1% who have some idea of the bigger picture because their job is to take the work of the other 99% and put it all together. And then you have the planners at the top that know everything.

I agree with a lot of this. I was going to write about Compartmentalization, it's the biggest piece to operations conducted by intelligence agencies and DoD/government. Your summary is on point.

Source on Saudis supplying "support to the hijackers"? Or do fake passports and stolen identities count as support?

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/618017

http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/saudi-role-in-911-being-whitewashed-by-fbi/

So did all of these organizations somehow conspire to do this at the same time or is it one of them?

A false flag may or may not have had inside help. In the case of 911 we clearly see that it did. Either allowed to happen and covered up or actively assisted and covered up. The players are multi and trans national, the concept of inside or outside is kinda irrelevant really. Calling it an 'Inside Job' suggests an operation wholly of the US or US government and as anyone who has spent the time investigating it knows, that is very far from the truth.

Agreed

Can you put a name to the group?

That's tough because any time you put a name to them it becomes a loaded term (like "Illuminati") that is used to discredit. I prefer the term "cabal"

Smart. You think like me.

This is such a hilariously silly thread. I thought people only did this in parody.

Bilderberg Group. Look into it, it's a real thing.

Zionists of all stripes, plus the network of secret societies they control.

Jews, right?

Nah, not really. The Jews are another easy scapegoat. They have allowed themselves to become the global punching bag for some reason and indeed seem to revel in their condition. The question as to why is a topic for another discussion.

No doubt there are some people within the cabal who are Jewish but their ethnic heritage is largely irrelevant.

Whatever you say, dude.

Glad you see it my way.

Alright, I'll take a stab.

1) "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

The mission of the FEMA study was not to provide such a source. However, since then there have studies which have looked into this, and come up with a number of possible sources, including the burning diesel oil in WTC7, or gypsum-based wallboard, heavily used in the main towers, which is close to 20% sulfur by weight. The analysis certainly does NOT "proves that it was attacked by some form of munition."

2) The hijackers’ VISA applications.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." For this to be any kind of evidence, you would need to show all other applications were processed correctly, and that similarly defective application submitted at the same time were rejected.

3) "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

I recommend Damian Cave's detailed investigation into this claim, which found plausible, if unproven, grounds for doubting Naik's recollection.

4) Professor Niels Harrit published a peer-reviewed paper in 2009 proving the existence of high-energy thermite residue in four out of four WTC samples.

The "peer-reviewed" Open Chemical Physics Journal has a pretty dubious reputation. It's part of Bentham Science Publishers, which was one of the targets of the Who's Afraid of Peer Review sting, in which papers which were literal nonsense got accepted. Another red-flag: no-one else has been able to reproduce Harrit's findings, an essential requirement in science.

5) He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers.

I'm curious how he can tell metallic composition from a video. Also, note there are plenty of other pics showing OBL wearing a ring.

6) Israeli intelligence were literally caught “dancing in celebration”.

If "dancing" proves guilt, then plenty of Arabs were also guilty that day. There was never anything to tie these people to 9/11 and initial reports of explosives were subsequently retracted as false.

7) British university study confirms that 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists" are the sane ones.

TIL that frequency of posting on internet forums = a measure of sanity. And, moving RAPIDLY on...

8) Cheney likely gave a direct order not to shoot down flight 77.

Hmmm... The question quoted says, "When you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there?" If Cheney said, "the orders still stand," doesn't that mean he is CONFIRMING the ability to shoot down commercial aircraft, per the president's authorization? Am I missing where it says that "the orders" are NOT to shoot?

9) Who really gained?

I completely agree that the government exploited the events of 9/11 enormously, including to ends that had nothing to do with it, such as the invasion of Iraq. But exploiting events for your own agenda in no way proves that you staged them: it's just political business as usual. If, as many contend, 9/11 was staged to invade Iraq, why was it apparently carried out by 19 Saudis? It would make much more sense to have evidence pointing at Iraq.

10) The bodies of Phillip Marshall, his two children, and the family dog were found on February 2, and officials quickly determined it was a murder-suicide. But the Washington, D.C.-based Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) has found evidence that contradicts the official finding.

Marshall doesn't appear to have said anything particularly about 9/11 that many others haven't said. While the murder-suicide certainly appears suspicious, Marshall appears to have moved in a number of other circles, including drug-related ones, which might equally well have had an interest in silencing him.

The "peer-reviewed" Open Chemical Physics Journal has a pretty dubious reputation...

---

Open Chemical Physics Journal, indexed by six services, among them Chemical Abstracts, the premiere world service for chemistry; also Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open J-Gate, Genamics JournalSeek, MediaFinder®-Standard Periodical Directory, Astrophysics Data System (ADS).

---

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

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

Seems less than dubious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

According to wikipedia they use fake peer reviews and thier editor in chief resigned over the thermite paper being published.

Stop lying. Wikipedia has accused Bentham of academic fraud, has it?

It has, Its pretty well referenced too. I honestly just wanted to see what you had to say about the wiki, as like most people I've never heard of bentham.

Tool.

So it seems like you just didnt expect anyone to do any basic research on this topic? There is nothing positive about them outside of thier own site. Otherwise its a ton of negative shit. Heres 2 out of a bunch.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090615/full/news.2009.571.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers#cite_note-poynder-0

mad cultist

Get a mirror.

It must be so refreshing when you can simply poison the well of anyone who disagrees with you as 'Hasbara toobags.'

Or did you miss the part where the paper in question a) doesn't have reproducible results and b) its editor resigned in protest over the paper's publication?

It's entirely a red herring to try and defend the journal's overall reputation--this paper is a bad paper.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Your (...). You are just slinging as many false allegations as you can, backing them up with nothing. You are (...), and it honestly makes me sick to my very stomach. You are (...). At least animals are honest

You dont make yourself creadible this way... The more research i do, the more I see conspiricys are pointing at shadows.

The owners of the Open Chemical Physics Journal, Bentham Science Publishing, are a "pay for play" service, who in 2009 - the same year the 9/11 paper was "accepted" - accepted a paper for their Open Information Science Journal, consisting of random, computer-generated sentences, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP).

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

"Dubious" is being kinda kind.

accepted a paper

"Accepted" is not "Published".

The journal is indexed and your rather dubious claims fall flat.

Read the article.

The pair submitted their paper, Deconstructing Access Points, under false names. Four months later, they were told it had been accepted and the fee to have it published was $800 (almost £500).

Every indication is, if they had written a check, it would have been published. That's Bentham's business model. Being "indexed" is meaningless, and is no guarantee of quality at all.

Every indication is, if they had written a check, it would have been published.

"Would have", "could have". If the authors had not chickened out, they would have had something in hand - against a different journal than the Open Chemical Physics Journal; for a hoax that far more "reputable" journals have fallen for before.

And posts like this is why this subreddit has the reputation it does. Someone presents evidence that shows something isn't a conspiracy and they are insulted and dismissed. This response should be at the very top of this post, not an unverified account of what someone says happened that people want to believe.

You attack this one point (and don't acknowledge the editor-in-chief resigned over the article being published), but what about the other 9, extremely valid points brought up? Your Wikipedia point is fair, but I would think no one would claim something as fact without verifying it first with other sources. The poster's point against the article wasn't that it was just hosted in that particular journal, but also no one else has had similar findings. Why has no one else had these findings? Why did the EIC resign? Lemme guess, fear of being killed by the government?

Would love a response, /u/Quantumhead

What I see is you very angrily responding to one portion of one of the ten rebuttals he posted. I think it is fair to say that the ball is very much in your court. Time to respond to the other nine and a half points he made.

Lol, I wish I could believe that you wrote that last paragraph ironically.

In all seriousness - if his arguments are as weak and frivolous as you say they are, why not just respond to them? Don't you realize how foolish and hypocritical it makes you look when you bash your opponents for not being able to respond to your points, then promptly bash (and refuse to respond to) someone who does just that?

Lol. You are truly unhinged my friend. I sincerely wish you the best of luck, and hope you are able to sort through your delusions some day. Let me know if you are ever able to respond to any of the points that you have been consistently ignoring.

I never made that claim. All I did was ask for you to respond to the arguments that you ignored. Your continued refusal to do so, and your consistent appeal to ad hominem arguments is telling.

You seem like a deeply delusional and angry person, and for that I pity you. I beg of you to take a more objective, fact based perspective when thinking about this issue and others.

TIL misspelling a word = mental retardation.

You literally said "if you think I'm wasting my time sifting through that bullshit then you're gravely mistaken."

Like... On what level of reality does your mind operate? It's honestly a little bizarre to read your comments. You straight up said that you were refusing to sift through and respond to his post, but then also said you already proved him wrong? Again, I'm sorry that debate frightens and angers you as much as it does, but I think it is something that you open yourself up to with your stance on 9/11.

I'm not trying to troll, and I'm not trying to make small-talk. I'm just trying to get you to discuss your 9/11 conspiracy theories with someone that isn't participating in the groupthink circlejerk that is this subreddit. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then that's fine. Just don't delude yourself into pretending that you have a logical or rhetorical high ground the next time you word vomit another one of your 9/11 manifestos.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11

I know you won't read this either, because it doesn't gel with the reality distortion field that you operate within, but a man can dream.

Look. I know exactly how you feel. I can put myself in your shoes. I know that you know with utter certainty that the official 9/11 narrative is a complete fabrication. That people like me are at best idiots, and at worst paid government shills.

The problem is that I also know with utter certainty that everything you think about 9/11 is wrong, stupid, and ignorant. I know that your narcissistic belief that you are smarter than society and are thus able to see a truth that the rest of us are blind to is motivating your stupid 9/11 conspiracy.

We both KNOW we're right, despite having mutually exclusive views. One of us is wrong. Your refusal to debate the evidence presented in opposition to your views is an implicit concession that your argument is weak and not borne out by the facts. It's not enough to dismiss an argument out of hand when they present you with perfectly valid points that you have yet to refute with any facts or evidence of your own.

If Harrit's paper was wrong then why did she not simply refuse to publish it?

She didn't even know it existed. Bentham Open published it without going through her first. As soon as she was made aware of them publishing a paper she never had any input in vetting, she promptly resigned.

She claims she hasn't read the paper,

Correct...

and cites political reasons for her resignation

Incorrect. She never said that.

But you seem to be saying it's all a big coincidence that every single academic who comes forward with evidence the government lied is either fired, forced into retirement, or resigns. Kevin Ryan? Steven Jones?

All of these scientists are mad are they? And they all suddenly went mad after 9/11?

No, they are all shitty scientists.

Lmao. Credibility zero. She claimed publicly that she had not read the paper. How could she claim to have not read it without knowing it existed?

One constant with you truther bozos is piss poor reading comprehension.

She was unaware that the paper existed until someone made her aware that it had been published in her journal. She had never read it.

Got it so far?

You're saying the editor of an academic journal doesn't know what is going to be in her own publication?

Yes, and she resigned because of it.

After her resignation, not one of the authors of the paper ever claimed they had dealt with Pileni when the paper was published, which is a virtual impossibility if the peer review process is properly followed. She dragged their work through the mud publicly, and yet not a single one of them stepped up and said "wait a second, you approved reviewers and accepted our paper! And I have email correspondence that proves it!"

Neither, for that matter, did Bentham publishing. She basically squatted over the company letterhead and publicly took a giant steaming dump on their credibility, yet not once did the publication ever say "wait a second, you were in charge of the journal and approved the paper!"

You have shown no evidence of this and have not refuted a single point contained within Professor Harrit's paper. Basically, all you've done is call them names you nasty little Israeli wanker.

http://i.imgur.com/p0lAjx0.jpg

Boy, it must piss you off that nearly the entire scientific community thinks you guys are fucking clowns. The American Institute of Architects just pissed all over the truth movement last month to the tune of 3892-160.

Doesn't that piss you off? I bet you think they are all "nasty Israeli wankers" or paid off "Hasbara trolls", right?

You clown. Enjoy being the butt of everyone's jokes.

http://imgur.com/oZeiffq

it's an absolutely fantastical claim that an editor, whose entire job it is to manage the content of a journal, has no idea what the content of that journal is

"Bambang Parmanto, a University of Pittsburgh information scientist, resigned from his editorship at The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) after reading a story on The Scientist's website [on June 10] that described a hoax paper submission to the journal. Editors at the journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."

"I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ."

Seems like Bentham has a habit of doing this kind of shit.

Let's see what the editor in chief that replaced Pileni said about the paper in question:

"1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me"

"What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).

To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship."

Yup, that's a real reputable organization.

She said she resigned because the paper wasn't chemical physics and because the political implications were unsettling.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”

It isn't the editor's job to peer-review scientific work. The papers are peer-reviewed before they get to her. Do you even have an iota of an idea how the scientific process works, you complete rent-a-muppet?

http://i.imgur.com/p0lAjx0.jpg

Let's check Bentham's own website to see if we can figure out the role the editor in chief plays in the review process:

http://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php

"All submitted articles/eBook chapters are subjected to an extensive peer review in consultation with members of the journal’s editorial board and independent external referees (usually three reviewers). All manuscripts/chapters are assessed rapidly and the decision based on all the peer reviewers' comments, taken by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief/eBook Editor, is then conveyed to the author(s)."

The review is done IN CONSULTATION WITH THE JOURNAL'S EDITORIAL BOARD.

I gotta be honest, It's a lot of fun making antisemitic retards like you look stupid.

So 2 different editors in chief resign over the same piece of trash paper, and you think that's kosher?

You're a first class schmuck.

Why do you suppose the 9 authors of that paper are the only ones that have seen their supposed thermite laden dust sample? Why have they not sent it out to an independent lab for verification? Mark Basile started soliciting quotes from labs to examine the dust in 2009. He raised $5000 from idiot truthers like you by January of 2014 and promised to have an independent study completed within months.

Where is it? Does it take 18 months to shlep a dust sample to a fucking lab?

Oy vey! You've got to be a major league shmendrik to believe in this nonsense.

Nicely done.

Not sure if you posted it already or not, but here's another peer reviewed, published paper that provides evidence for thermite that the faithers can't seem to debunk.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

Exactly. I think Jones said it best:

"Bentham Science publishes a large number of journals, a quick google search gives this info:

"Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page "A major STM journal publisher of 92 online and print journals, 200 plus open accessjournals, and related print/online book series, "

Each journal has an a different editorial board, as far as I can see. So an error by someone on ONE of 200-plus journals has very close to zero bearing on what is published in the other 200 journals. The problem was not in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Further, our Active Thermitic Material paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU -- and he approved it for publication after his suggested changes were made by the authors (including myself). His peer-review was NOT under the auspices of Bentham. (This "extra" peer-review was done because two of the authors are from this dept. at BYU... and Dr. Farrer requested the review.)

I think debunkers will look for any way to criticize the Active Thermitic Material paper without actually dealing with doing experiments or papers themselves. Our results are based on experiment, not on who published the results." - Dr. Steven Jones

By the way, what does BYU think of the paper(s)?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

"Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty)"

Yea it really makes you wonder why they're so obsessed with begging people to believe the official story. Pretty sad.

“They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them.”

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

Marie Paul Pileni

Former Editor in Chief

Open Chemical Physics Journal

Hmm... Close. You only got a few things wrong. The paper, the journal, the publisher, the authors, the editor and the topic. So.... Everything. Nice attempt at topic shift.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/392m65/inside_job/cs57tzu

No one has had access to their sample.

What has Basile done with the 5K he raised 18 months ago from halfwits like you? Is he hoping everyone will forget about it?

The truther movement is dead bozo. The only place worms like you lurk anymore is on reddit and a couple of forums. The AIA vote was the final nail in your miserable coffin.

3892 - 160

If it is a crap journal, there really is no sign of quality to publish in it. This argument falls both ways.

"Look, it is published after "peer review", therefore true quality."

"The paper is horrible, no proof of quality."

Both arguments neglect actual quality of said paper. Which honestly is a bad paper.

Damn, there's so much misinformation in your responses, I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll just go down the list.

• 1) "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." The mission of the FEMA study was not to provide such a source. However, since then there have studies which have looked into this, and come up with a number of possible sources, including the burning diesel oil in WTC7, or gypsum-based wallboard, heavily used in the main towers, which is close to 20% sulfur by weight. The analysis certainly does NOT "proves that it was attacked by some form of munition."*

It wasn't just the sulfur, it was also the condition of the steel that was the reason for the conclusion that it was attacked by some form of munition.

Also, the diesel fuel in the storage tanks did not burn or contribute to the fires in any way. In fact, all of it spilled out and had to be cleaned up.

> 2) The hijackers’ VISA applications. Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." For this to be any kind of evidence, you would need to show all other applications were processed correctly, and that similarly defective application submitted at the same time were rejected.

An extensive investigation has been conducted on the Express Visa Program and the US Embassy that processed all of the Visas for the alleged 9/11 Highjackers. It had nothing to do with stupidity.

Richard Armitage, Frank Carlucci, Marc Grossman and Grant S. Green were in charge of the Embassy and approval of the Express Visa Program. They also have ties to Government Contracters including the Carlyle Group. Their activities on 9/11 are also highly suspicious of complicity in the attacks. Here is an excellent article that goes into great detail of their involvement in the program and the program itself.

http://digwithin.net/2012/04/08/911-as-a-sequel-to-iran-contra/

> 4) Professor Niels Harrit published a peer-reviewed paper in 2009 proving the existence of high-energy thermite residue in four out of four WTC samples. The "peer-reviewed" Open Chemical Physics Journal has a pretty dubious reputation. It's part of Bentham Science Publishers, which was one of the targets of the Who's Afraid of Peer Review sting, in which papers which were literal nonsense got accepted. Another red-flag: no-one else has been able to reproduce Harrit's findings, an essential requirement in science.

First of all, the NIST Report was not peer reviewed and they refuse to release the computer models used to arrive at their conclusion for the collapse of Building 7. They have no explanation for the free fall speed of the collapse and they have never been able to reproduce jet fuel melting steel beams in a lab. No one has and several independent tests have been conducted attempting to reproduce the effect to no avail.

Anyone that has tried to dispute the Government Version of events is fired. Kevin Ryan at UL, Steven Jones

>5) He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers. I'm curious how he can tell metallic composition from a video. Also, note there are plenty of other pics showing OBL wearing a ring.

There are dozens of reasons to believe that the Bin Laden Confession Video was fake.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-osama-bin-laden-confess-to-the-9-11-attacks-and-did-he-die-in-2001/18923

6) Israeli intelligence were literally caught “dancing in celebration”. If "dancing" proves guilt, then plenty of Arabs were also guilty that day. There was never anything to tie these people to 9/11 and initial reports of explosives were subsequently retracted as false.

It wasn't the dancing that proved guilt so much as the arrest of these Israeli's on the George Washington Bridge in a van full of explosives. There were actually two vans, one of them had explosives and the other one was blown up by the occupants of the van as they were escaping. The Vans were from a company called Urban Moving Systems and they had a mural painted on the side showing the Twin Towers with a plane flying into them on fire. The Israeli's that were arrested were Mossad Agents and not only did the vans and all of the evidence disappear but the Israeli's were not charged and were sent back to Israel. They later appeared on Israeli TV where they told the interviewer that they were there to document the event. That means they had foreknowledge of the attacks and considering the fact that the vans were full of explosives, they were obviously not just there to document, they were there to participate. I believe this is one of the biggest smoking guns of 9/11.

8) Cheney likely gave a direct order not to shoot down flight 77. Hmmm... The question quoted says, "When you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there?" If Cheney said, "the orders still stand," doesn't that mean he is CONFIRMING the ability to shoot down commercial aircraft, per the president's authorization? Am I missing where it says that "the orders" are NOT to shoot?

If the order was to shoot down the plane, then why was it not carried out? They had plenty of time, they knew exactly where the plane was and they had the assets to do it. But judging by the way the question was worded by the assistant, you have to assume that the order was NOT to shoot the plane down. This one is pretty much speculation so there is no way to prove anything one way or the other without an admission of guilt from someone.

9) Who really gained? I completely agree that the government exploited the events of 9/11 enormously, including to ends that had nothing to do with it, such as the invasion of Iraq. But exploiting events for your own agenda in no way proves that you staged them: it's just political business as usual. If, as many contend, 9/11 was staged to invade Iraq, why was it apparently carried out by 19 Saudis? It would make much more sense to have evidence pointing at Iraq.

Why did we invade Afghanistan if the highjackers were all Saudi?

10) The bodies of Phillip Marshall, his two children, and the family dog were found on February 2, and officials quickly determined it was a murder-suicide. But the Washington, D.C.-based Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) has found evidence that contradicts the official finding. Marshall doesn't appear to have said anything particularly about 9/11 that many others haven't said. While the murder-suicide certainly appears suspicious, Marshall appears to have moved in a number of other circles, including drug-related ones, which might equally well have had an interest in silencing him.

Well atleast you aren't denying that he was murdered. Again, more speculation. We have no idea who murdered him but if it wasn't the Government and it was suspected that he was murdered, why would the cops call it a murder/suicide? Also, shortly after his death, FBI Agents showed up at his house and removed all of his computers and boxes of other evidence. Who gave them permission to do that? Why were they taken if it was in fact a murder/suicide? Case closed so there should be no reason to take his stuff. They obviously wanted whatever information he had.

[deleted]

The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.

Or, you know, bin Laden was no longer practicing Wahhabism at that point. He joined them as a teen, but later in life, he was showing much more influence of Qutbism in his actions. There are quite a few papers on the influence of Qutbism on these radical Muslim groups. As far as I am aware, they don't share this same restriction with the Wahhabis, so that point would be moot. You should read a bit more about bin Laden before you start telling people they are wrong.

Also, awesome job of accusing someone of being a Zionist because they don't agree with you. That makes you look so much more credible. /s

Or, you know, bin Laden was no longer practicing Wahhabism at that point. He joined them as a teen, but later in life, he was showing much more influence of Qutbism in his actions.

You have not got a clue what you're talking about. He was a Wahhabi. I think I'll trust the word of the "world's foremost bin Laden expert" over some chump inventing stories on the internet. But thanks for the input.

Resorting to making stuff up? I have found zero references to Roger Hardy being the "world's foremost bin Laden expert", not even in your own link. As far as I can see, he is just a Middle East correspondent. As well, this was 19 days after the attack and we now know a hell of a lot more about him than we did at that moment.

And as far as your assertion that I am making up stories, it is a little funny that you would make that expert claim and accuse me of making shit up, but let's just walk through this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

Just going over the basics of this branch of Islam, It shares a shocking amount of similarities to how al Qaeda actually behave especially with regards to jihad, because Wahhabism needs the leader to call for jihad instead of just anyone. It is also very interesting to note that bin Laden regularly attended lectures from Mohammed Qutb, brother of Sayyid.

Here is Karen Armstrong, who has wrote several books about Islam and would know a bit about the different sects, claiming that bin Laden was more influenced by Qutb than Wahhabi ideology. She also goes into why it's important that we actually look into the true influences behind this type of thinking, so there is also stuff about the IRA that isn't important to this particular point.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/11/northernireland.july7

https://sinningslave.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/is-osama-bin-laden-really-a-wahhabi/

This is also a pretty good essay on the roots of bin Laden's faith. It is a good read, but I will admit not terribly well sourced. It does fit in line with other pieces of evidence.

Lastly, even the beliefs and ideology section on Wiki, which is heavily sourced in this case, makes no mention of him being Wahhabi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Beliefs_and_ideology

The full article also explains his differences from Wahhabi ideology. He wasn't exactly the most loyal to the Saudi royalty, which is one pretty big difference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Granted these are Wikipedia articles, but both of them are sourced appropriately. He may have been within Wahhabism early on so you are technically right in saying he was Wahhabi, but Qutbism was a larger influence in his thoughts and actions later in life, especially with al Qaeda.

These people are either true believer denialists, shills, or dumb as a box of rocks. The entire Bin Laden Fable is just too fantastic to be believed. Rebel Leader from a rich family. He could sit home and enjoy his wealth and drive a Mercedes Benz but he gave all of that up to Kill Americans (well, Kill FOR Americans first and then Kill Americans. You just can't trust these guys.) Using his vast spy network (and a few calls to his buddies at the CIA), He got wind of the War Games happening on 9/11 so he planned his operation for when the military would be unprepared. Then he would recruit 19 Saudis who just happened to get their Visa Fast Tracked even though most of them should have not been allowed to fly to the US. The 19 Saudis would train at a variety of flight schools, including US military Bases without anyone catching on. (Except for all of the FBI Agents who reported it to the superiors only to be told to mind your own business.) Then on 9/11, they successfully highjack 4 airliners without incident. They swept into the cockpit so fast. Not a single pilot squawked the highjack code. And then 3 of the planes hit their targets and the 4th wouldn't have been stopped by the military either but luckily that plane was full of Patriots who took back the plane and crashed it into a field. (Wouldn't that make a great Die Hard Movie? McClain is on a plane that gets highjacked so he kills the terrorists, takes back the plane and crashes it into the side of a mountain killing everyone. The End.). With 2 of the planes, they leveled the entire World Trade Center Complex, mostly targeting Insurance Brokers and Auditors at both the WTC and the Pentagon. And then for over 10 years, he managed to elude the most powerful nation on the planet while sending out videos and audio messages on CNN and suffering from complete kidney failure and a variety of other serious health issues. That is until we tortured the fuck out of some Muslim who gave up Bin Laden's hideout and then it was on like Donkey Kong. Seal Team 6 swooped down from Stealth Helicopters. Bin Laden saw them coming and threw one of his shoes into the Helicopters rotors, taking out one of the Helicopters. Seal Team 6 stormed the compound, killing everyone as they leveled up to Bin Laden's Level. They busted into his room where he was jacking off one last time to his American Porn Stash. They shot him 1500 times before he could bust a bit, which is a shame because they needed a DNA sample because no one is going to believe they really killed him. They took the body and flew it out to sea where he was buried according to Islamic Tradition because we're righteous crusaders. You may be our enemy but we still respect your religious ceremonies. What a load of Hollywood Bullshit.

He probably called in a few favors for his work in Bosnia, you know, asked Rummy and the Military to look the other way while he highjacked a couple of planes and in return, the US gets a boogie man to use to ask for more money in the military budget so they can hire some contractors to come in and make some money for Cheney and Bush Sr.'s companies, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group. And while they're at it, they can settle some scores in the Middle East while they make even more money! Sounds like a win-win.

OR......Maybe it was the neocons colluding with the bankers, the military industrial complex, Mossad and MI6 to launch a coup and overthrow the Government and if anyone tries anything they just might end up with some Anthrax in the mail. Follow the money and it doesn't take you to Afghanistan.

These are great rebuttals but can you provide a site for answers 6 and 10?

Are you aware that the NIST Building 7 review was itself peer reviewed and published by the American Society of Civil Engineers?

I'm not sure what you're referring to but prior to NIST's report, several members of ASCE volunteered to investigate the collapse of the 3 WTC towers along with FEMA. They produced the World Trade Center Building Performance Study which was based on their investigation however, they lacked subpoena power and were not allowed access to Ground Zero or all of the evidence. What makes their report standout though was their analysis of the steel beams, which they said showed signs of being exposed to some kind of munitions due to the condition of the steel beams and they were severly corroded by sulfidative attack. This evidence was not included in the NIST report. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

You stated:

First of all, the NIST Report was not peer reviewed

It's not clear which report you're referring to, but you mention building 7 in the same sentence so as far as that report goes, this is materially false. http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

The Twin Towers report isn't suited for a normal peer reviewed journal as it is far too extensive for publication within one. But its publication actually far exceeded the rigor of a typical peer review anyway.

Unlike a normal journal article, the NIST report was created, validated, and certified by dozens of independent experts. Here are just the banner names (there were also dozens of support staff): Main NIST leadership team:

https://cee.mit.edu/cee-in-focus/2009/spring/shyam-sunder

http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/training/SpeakerBios4.pdf

http://www.cce.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/node/202

http://www.asce.org/sei/FellowBios.aspx?id=23622324630

http://www.ctbuh.org/AboutCTBUH/OrganizationPeople/PeopleAZ/B/RichardWBukowski/tabid/1114/language/en-US/Default.aspx

http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/fsadek.cfm

http://www.nist.gov/mml/msed/frank_gayle.cfm

http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/jgross.cfm

http://www.asce.org/sei/FellowBios.aspx?id=23622325218

http://www.ctbuh.org/Information/Committees/ScientificPeerReview/JasonAverill/tabid/3039/language/en-US/Default.aspx

https://archive.org/details/historyoffiretes1628laws (not his bio, just the book he wrote on fire testing)

http://www.fairfaxmemorialfuneralhome.com/obituary/Harold-E.-Nelson/Fairfax-VA/954614

http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/scauffman.cfm

Outside Experts:

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

Additionally, the NIST reports all underwent lengthy public comment periods.

The final work, being tested and certified by so many preeminent experts and incorporating into it the feedback of others in the field in such a thorough and open way, has far surpassed the review necessary for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Also, I note with interest that you linked to a site which contains obvious lies.

The Report is illustrated with many colorful cartoon-like drawings, such as one explaining FEMA's postulated floor collapse mechanism. It seems crafted to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the Towers had no core structures.

No, one side of that illustration is labeled "Exterior column" and the other side "core column." They don't link in the actual image used on the original page, they link in an extremely low-resolution copy designed to make the very clear labeling illegible.

It's this kind of dishonesty that really points out how desperate the truther side is to attack the scientific consensus, and to obfuscate the hollowness of their own side.

He's referring to this

Still no model data? Nope. Still no model data.

the arrest of these Israeli's on the George Washington Bridge in a van full of explosives

And that lie is where I stopped reading. IT NEVER HAPPENED. These initial reports were later retracted, actually being just one of many inaccurate media reports to take place that day. Those who still pretend it happened are part of the problem as far as getting to any truth regarding 9/11, not the solution.

Otherwise, if you want to bring up entirely separate reasons "why 9/11 was demonstrably an inside job", we can discuss them there. I was limiting myself to the specific points brought up by OP, none of which actually mean very much.

Total, utter bullsh!t. It was reported by multiple agencies, and then the story was retracted completely. Why would any news agency make that up?

I'm surprise I have to explain that, in the current media environment, there is, sadly, a greater demand to be first than to be right. There were many, many other false reports on the day:

http://hypervocal.com/news/2012/media-wrong-columbine-911-newtown/

• At 8:45 am, the Ottawa Citizen reported that a “Cessna-type” aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center (they weren’t alone.)

• At 9:42am, NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski told viewers that “it appears that a bomb was detonated at the [Pentagon] heliport.” Six minutes later, Tom Brokaw said there was a report on Dubai television that Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility.

• 10:12am — CNN reported, “There’s a report of an explosion on Capitol Hill.” Five minutes later, a congressional correspondent said there was no explosion, but that “the Speaker and other leaders have been evacuated to a secure location.”

• Three times, according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, CBS’ Dan Rather told viewers of a car bomb at the State Department.

NONE OF THIS HAPPENED. Nor was there any "van full of explosives." Those who cling to this, despite the lack of actual evidence for it, say rather more about their own agenda than the events of the day. But your agenda is already extremely clear.

What part of "later retracted" is in any way unclear?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGUzfvi6qqw

New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik: "There was no explosives in the van."

THERE WAS NO VAN "PACKED WITH EXPLOSIVES".

Oh, look: nothing but ad hominem.

That would be because, yet again, you have no facts to back up your discredited allegation about a van "packed with explosives".

This is awesome! Do you realize how much of a "sheeple" this sounds? "DIT MUS B TRUE, I SAWS DIT ON DUH NEWZ HERP DERP!". Let's list other things quantumhead must believe, because "I SAWS DIT ON DUH NEWZ"

• Dewey Defeats Truman
• Kerry’s Choice: Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate
• Air Battle Rages Over Los Angeles
• Passengers Safely Moved and Steamer Titanic Taken in Tow
• George Bush dead
• And the always popular one where WTC 7 flew back through time and collapsed 20 mins before it did.

I love how some troofers refuse to accept mainstream media - except when it says something they desperately want to believe. Then, suddenly, the MSM is a bastion of infallibility, who never get anything wrong. Guess we can file your belief in time-traveling buildings and Dewey's victory alongside the demolitions being carried out with magic pixie-dust, a.k.a. "nano-thermite", a substance never used before or since for a building demolition.

You, sir, have nothing. I'm done.

skeptic is code for faither

The Hanlons razor thing always bugs me.... People who always disagree with conspiracy use it a lot and it is true...they took the easiest route for many things involving 911, could even say stupid, that's why the evidence is so obvious. For example the drills the same day, The way they let the buildings collapse, the cell phone calls. So much stuff from 911 is straight up stupid....Unfortunately the public is even more stupid I suppose.

Another red-flag: no-one else has been able to reproduce Harrit's findings, an essential requirement in science.

Another red flag: no-one has been able to experimentally reproduce Bazants and NISTs guesses that global progressive collapse is inevitable if the top fourth of a slender, free-standing, slender structure falls on the bottom three fourth from a height of 0.5 meters - an essential requirement in science.

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

• Matthew 7:2

And it isn't true. Steven Jones also conducted the same research and found the same materials. The peer reviewed excuse is bullshit, the same as the attacks on Jones and Harritt themselves. The same as the explanation that those are paint chips and not nano-thermite. Nano-Thermite is clearly distinguishable from paint chips under an electron microscope. nano-Thermite is precisely designed into a mesh that can be seen under a microscope.

found the same materials? apparently the material they tested was stored in private homes for years and years.. hardly scientific

Another red flag. No-one has ever voluntarily demolished even a 50-story building, by any method - let alone using explosives. Yet three - two of which were over 100 floors - were supposedly demolished on the same day.

Another red flag: "never before" suddenly and magically becomes a valid argument after "never before has a steel-framed high-rise totally collapsed due to fires" has been dismissed because "never before" is never ever a valid argument.

That would be why I used it, because it's an argument very frequently heard from the truth movement. Sorry, maybe I should have added an explicit /s tag?

You skipped over this part. Do you have an explanation for it?

"Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the only one who read the actual article, not just OP's carefully edited version of it. Because the article clearly states a precise explanation:

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

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.

That's the explanation. The only actual question is where the sulfur came from, which I addressed. Well, that and the question of whether the erosion took place before or after the collapse; the latter would obviously completely negate the munitions theory.

Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson.

4). Bentham publishes approximately 350 journals. The journal in question was not compromised. Making that association is academically dishonest.

You might want to look into this a bit further, and see how credible the journal in question is:

http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/editor-in-chief-resigned-over-harrit-et.html

You should also ask why not one scientist has been able to reproduce Harrit's findings.

Thank you for the link.

I did not see that the experiment was attempted but unable to be replicated. In fact: 'there is no reason to repeat experiments because there is no credible evidence for nanothermite.'

In science experiment leads to conclusion. It seems in this case, an experiment was published then justification was given to not replicate. This is not how science is done.

[deleted]

Claim: CNN used old footage to fake images of 'Palestinians dancing in the street' after the terrorist attack on the USA.

Status: False.

So your link actually supports my statement, that the footage was legitimate?

If "dancing" proves guilt, then plenty of Arabs were also guilty that day.

Long ago proven as staged. Says it all about your knowledge of the event and your agenda.

"Dancing" doesn't prove guilt and no one said it did.

Three Mossad agents celebrating the destruction of the towers, driving around in a van full of explosive residue, and foreknowledge of the attacks - that's what people are concerned about.

Not "dancing" - you see how they do it? It takes more energy to debunk bullshit than it does to make up bullshit. So you patiently engage them, and then they ignore everything and make up more bullshit.

It's a game to them - and notice how much time they have on their hands!

driving around in a van full of explosive residue,

Do you have data showing this? All I've been able to find on the topic is a positive reaction from a bomb-sniffing dog - which tests have shown can lead to an 85% false positive rate. Swabs were taken, I believe, for lab analysis. Is there documentation showing these came back positive too?

and foreknowledge of the attacks

Again, if you can show me how these men had "foreknowledge", I'd appreciate it.

It wasn't just explosive residue. One van was blown up by the occupants when they tried to run away, they were arrested. The other van still had the explosives inside and both vans had a mural on the side that showed a plane flying into the Twin Towers.

https://youtu.be/qkhMwID-IYQ

The Israeli's, the vans, the explosives and all of the rest of the evidence disappeared and the Israeli's were sent back to Israel where they appeared on tv saying that their purpose for being there was to document the event which means they had foreknowledge of the attacks. But considering the vans were full of explosives, I doubt they were just there to film the attacks. It is suspected that their plan was to blow up the George Washington Bridge

Long ago proven as staged.

Often alleged, but please, show me the "proof" of this.

Got any proof the Dancing Israeli's were staged? Oh nevermind.

Never said they were. Just that no connection between them and the events 9/11 has ever been shown.

So: no proof the Palestinians were staged? Glad we cleared that up.

Yes, there was a connection between the dancing Israeli's and 9/11. https://youtu.be/qkhMwID-IYQ

I don't feed trolls. The proof is out there, maybe someone else will waste the time to feed you.

I don't recall mentioning steel melting. I was responding purely to your point, quoting the report that "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." That may have been the case at the time of the original report, but is no longer true: explanations for the sulfur are now available.

I would ask you to stop lying, but I really don't think you're going to.

Just a tip: If you expect to be taken seriously you should change your attitude. I read through the whole thread and the way you react to people who criticize you is laughable. If you want to convince people of your theories it takes more than "For God's sake what kind of drugs are you on, man?". If you know so much about 9/11 it should be easy to you to disprove any of /u/SkeptiConspiracist1 points with a few sentences. But instead of doing this you behave like a child.

I don't know anything about 9/11 but just based on the stuff other people wrote here in the thread I tend to believe them. Half the arguments that you listed are just not convincing to me. Especially the rings of OBL. Really? Some rings? Come on, you can do better than this.

You don't want that people think that you are a crackpot conspiracy theorist? Then stop behaving like one.

I don't think you understand how rude and obnoxious you sound when you are think you are being pleasant either. It reads kind of like /r/iamverysmart. No one will take you seriously even if you are correct

lol, just read your answers throughout the thread. You are the one which acts like an idiot every single time.

This comment is so ignorant it's fantastic.

I would ask you to stop lying, but I really don't think you're going to.

If you want to discuss facts, I'm happy to do so. If your reaction to facts is to engage in personal attacks, you are on your own. And the fact is, there are alternative explanations for the sulfur which do not involve explosives.

Govt doesn't say steel melted. And no one has proved steel melted.

Govt says steel weakened, not melted. See item 15 of http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

I thought Barnett was saying "severe corrosion and subsequent erosion".

Govt says steel weakened, not melted...

WTC "Molten Steel Beams"
Kathy Dawkins, NYC Department of Sanitation

World Trade Center Molten Steel Hotspots Thermal Progression on 911

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.
JamesM.Williams, SEAU President

A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel column New York Times

I thought Barnett was saying "severe corrosion and subsequent erosion".

"intergranular melting" FEMA

Did you read the NIST link I gave ? See item 15 of it.

Did you read the NIST link I gave ? See item 15 of it.

Yes. Thanks for the link.

Can we rectify that with FEMA's statement?

"It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Sounds to me like they found some pre-existing corrosion in the steel. Someone should sue the builder.

You want to take a guess where this piece of steel was located (and as you say corroding) in a building before 9/11? Seems difficult to imagine how it would hold anything?

The building was standing. I don't see your point.

Sounds to me like they found some pre-existing corrosion in the steel.

That's it ? One casual reference to melting on one piece of steel in WTC7 ? Melting only in some "grain boundary regions", not "hey we found a melted beam" ?

Useful idiots arguing from ignorance.

What about how 3 steel high rise buildings collapsed symmetrically straight down due to fire? Would fire (including plane impact) melt and weaken the structure so uniformly to produce this result, let alone 3 times?!

This is just like the kennedy assassination, focus on everything but the glaringly obvious.

Hence, without explosives, you're left with the argument that those 17 floors suddenly and somehow gained enough weight to crush the undamaged 93 floor section beneath themselves.

In other words, you're left with a physically impossible argument.

As a structural engineer all I can do is shake my head. Please do not talk about something you know nothing about.

You clearly have no idea of how buildings are designed.

As a structural engineer myself, I can confidently and without concern for contradiction say that you have no evidence whatsoever to explain the collapse of building 7 short of controlled demolition.

Are you aware that much of the tower was cantilevered over a Comed Diesel power station?

Yes, and that red herring doesn't explain anything that happened to WTC 7.

Understanding the structure of the building is integral to understanding what happened to WTC7. I'm curious as to why you'd consider that a red herring.

Thank you.

but like, he probably is a structural engineer and has no reason to lie about it. taking all points here as fair but 17 floors of steel and weight is pretty heavy, falling over weakened steel is also a factor. but i understand your point

again, i wasn't making facts up. i was speculating.

well, he wouldn't have a reason, but i understand what you mean. if he was one (he still could be), he would've responded with something that would prove his knowledge

The problem here is that this isn't a basic mechanical issue. There's a lot going on. But to explain why they fell mostly downwards, think of it as a domino effect. Near the impact, we've already lost tons of support beams, etc etc. However, the weight that the remaining beams needs to support remains, and thus, is redistributed among these remaining beams, adding to their stress. Overloaded, they begin to fail, and would pretty much fail simultaneously--a chain reaction. Thus, suddenly a tremendous weight collapses all at once, and the floors beneath pancake downwards.

Are there other anomalies surrounding 9/11? Perhaps. But the way the buildings fell is not one of them.

I studied physics and work as an aerospace engineer, just so I'm not entirely talking out of my ass here. You're not inclined to believe any of that, and that's fine. But for what it's worth, there it is.

First, I'm trying to have a calm discussion, and you come off cursing and attacking me. What does that accomplish, exactly? Being a skeptic doesn't mean you find a group of people who share your beliefs and circle jerk.

Secondly, how else would you expect the building to fall? What other force is acting on it that would pull it sideways? Gravity pulls towards the earth (see: downwards), and any torque on the building is negligible at that scale and is heavily out weighed by the force of gravity pulling the building down.

Thirdly, the bottom floors of the building aren't designed to take the full weight of the, what, 17 floors above it, all falling a story downwards at once? Not even in the best of conditions would the building survive. That's a huge downwards force. And so begins the domino effect.

Lastly, it didn't collapse at free fall speed. Time it.

Again, I'm only saying that for all the reasons to be skeptical, the way the building fell, to me, and most other engineering professionals I've spoken with, makes sense.

As I said, you're not required to believe me. I'm still not a specialist in building design, rather, astrophysics. However, I can lend my knowledge of general physics to the subject.

You still haven't substantiated your claim that it should fall off to the side. What's pushing it to the side? There's no applied force strong enough to do so. Wind wouldn't blow over the top of a building. So, since you haven't offered an explanation, allow me to do so with a little more depth.

The plane struck the building, immediately destroying/weakening several load bearing beams. Now, the load is redistributed to the remaining beams, and for awhile, they do the job, though they are now operating above capacity, and the continual application of heat is reducing the aforementioned maximum load capacity.

Eventually the stress becomes too much for one of the beams, and it snaps. This causes a chain reaction of sorts. The weight of the floors--exactly as it happened when the plane first struck the building--is immediately redistributed to the remaining beams. Already over capacity, these beams would fail almost simultaneously. Now, we have the entire upper 17 floors falling approximately one story down onto the rest of the tower.

Now, let's do some extremely simplified math to get an idea of the force these 17 floors are coming down with. I'm not going to bother working out stress tensors or any nonsense like that because one, it's an Internet discussion, and two, I don't have all of the necessary information available to me to do so and I'm not about to simulate the madness of 9/11 on one of my work desktops.

I'm going to make a few assumptions to make the math easier. Let's assume a uniform distribution of mass. A little research tells me that the buildings weigh 1.5 million tons. So, the top 17 floors we'll estimate to weigh ~232,000 tons, or about ~464 million pounds, or about ~210 million kg.

Now, let's assume that these 17 floors accelerated at some fraction of the acceleration of gravity. There will be some resistance here, so rather than 9.8, let's cut that down by a quarter and go ~7.5. It may be less, may be more, this is all just an exercise. So, a very simple, NEWTONIAN formula, since you're fond of such simple physical quantities, is F = ma. We have our approximate mass, and we've estimated an acceleration. The force coming down is approximately F = 210,000,000x7.5 = ~1.58 billion (kgm/s² ) newtons (1.58 giganewtons, gN) of force coming down on the remaining sections of the building.

I realize newtons is a bit of an archaic unit of measurement. To draw a comparison, the force in newtons to propel the Saturn 5 rocket at liftoff was about 35 meganewtons, or 35 million newtons, or about 2% the force the top 17 floors of the building may have fallen with, simply because of the sheer mass of the object. The structural support on the floor this weight fell upon hadn't a chance at surviving the force of that impact. Those beams fail, and now it's 18 floors coming down, then 19, then 20, and our domino effect begins.

Again, this is a rough estimate and a basic mathematical model to express the force coming down onto the rest of the building, but it serves the purpose of quantifying the event.

Now, quell your hostility in your next rebuttal, please. I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you. You're only perpetuating the stereotype most, uh, "sheeple" have of conspiracy theorists.

Edit: formatting

You're right. The buildings were in equilibrium. Then some planes flew into them.

As soon as the plane severed key structural support beams the load of the top floors HAD to be redistributed to the remaining, surrounding beams. You see, that's why buildings have a skeleton throughout the structure and not just at the bottom. The weight of the building is supported by beams throughout. When key beams are severed, the weight doesn't redistribute to ALL the other bones in the building uniformly. Think of it this way: stack some blocks and make a tall, table-shaped platform. Now, place a bunch of heavy objects on only one side of the structure. That will be the side to give way, because it's bearing most of the weight. If you try to lift one side of the table, then the other, one side will be heavier than the other because gravity is pulling down, not diagonally, not sideways, towards a common center (Earth).

Luckily, skyscrapers aren't built with the same simplicity. But the physics remains the same.

So, while the acceleration of gravity didn't change (much, technically... never mind), and the total weight of the building also hasn't changed, the support within the building has. It's lessened. The same weight is coming down onto less support. That's like you suddenly losing 20% muscle mass in your legs, and constantly ebbing more away (fire). Fire doesn't help. The load capacity decreases at high heat. Beams begin to bow, reach their breaking point, and snap, and it would only take one, because as soon as that one snaps, the remaining weight is, again, redistributed, then another snaps, then another, rapidly. Then, these top 17 floors FALL onto the remaining floors beneath them because gravity is still pulling them towards the earth. There's some resistance as the remaining beams give way, but the result is the same. See previous comment for a refresher of the rest.

You still haven't told me what force should push it sideways. Your insults detracting from the actual argument are all you have. You're leaving out key points and failing to comment on ones you'd rather ignore (the whole plane crashing into the building thing, for instance). Seriously, if you decide to reply again, there's no need for insults. It only weakens your argument. I've been civil. And you're attacking me with a similar blind zeal as an ISIS soldier might for Islam.

I'm not trying to turn you into a government-loving, unquestioning jerk-off. I'm trying to explain to you, as someone who studied physics and works as an engineer with other engineers, what most of us believe given our knowledge base. I don't claim to have supreme authority over the subject. But I certainly consider my opinion on the events weightier than someone untrained in the subject in physics. Just the same way as I wouldn't be trusted in a pharmaceutical laboratory over, say, a biochemist.

You were correct on the weight, however. Though a rough exercise, I thought my number seemed high. The New York state museum had listed 1.5 million tons as their total weight and I glossed over this in my haste. So we half our original weight instead. Since our equation is only multiplicative, it halves our force value. It's only 25 Saturn V rockets launching off the top of the skyscraper. Even if we use your weight instead, we're still launching ~17 rockets.

When the load became too much for the stressed and over capacity support surrounding the impact site, the building left its unstable equilibrium after a critical failure. I really thought this was an obvious thing, but apparently it was not.

Any other points you don't understand? Feel free to pm me. But if you're more versed in physics than the 2 million US engineers that agree with me, or know something we don't, please, enlighten us.

Also, I'm not an astronaut. I'm too tall.

What force is pushing it to the side? When the structural support snaps the path of least resistance is DOWN because it is no longer being supported as it succumbs to gravity. It collapses under its own weight. There's no perpendicular force!

Uh... gravity pulls down. Towards the earth. It doesn't pull sideways. Try again.

It falls down. Onto itself. Because it can no longer support the weight of the above 17 floors. There is nothing pushing it sideways. What universe do you live in where gravity is pulling everything sideways? You're grasping at straws now.

No wonder you're so pissed, you're constantly in orbit in whatever fairy tale land you live in.

I've tried to have a reasonable discussion with you, and all I get in return are insults. But I see now you've nothing left to offer, and yet remain so steadfast in your beliefs, so I'll offer you one last wall of text. Goodbye, friend.

You're delusional, and you're denying basic science even when it's thrown in your face. You have no argument, but that doesn't matter, because you're so invested into your conspiracy circle-jerk that, when presented with evidence to the contrary, from either knowledgeable persons or credible source, you so venomously lash out at them and flail your arms, calling them liars and crooks and blabbering other nonsense because they chose to challenge your worldview.

You've wasted so much time on this wild conspiracy ride that to suddenly have your views challenged creates a cognitive dissonance, because if you're wrong, and you are, then all this time has been wasted.

I'm done. You're backed into a corner, anyway, and are asking that I leave in mercy that you might go on living in ignorance. So I'll grant you that. Live in ignorance, have the last word if you wish and pretend this doesn't resonate. Tell all your friends that you told off an engineer, or someone who claimed to be one, at least, and totally proved him wrong, and how great and smart you guys all are for not buying into the story like all the other sheeple, and as you do so, know that pit in your stomach while you boast is doubt.

And that's a good thing.

Building 7 friend.

Listen pal, structural engineers understand rudimentary mechanics. It's part of their job.

You're clearly not an engineer or even a STEM student (not saying they're superior) of any kind.

So far, 2353 Structural Engineers and Architects disagree with these clowns.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

they're all purposefully vague ad hominem attacks

You're a bit of an idiot really

Top. Kek.

speaking of ad hominem attacks...

So much unfounded speculation. I'm a structural engineer, and clearly you're trivializing how much interaction can go between materials and heat flow mechanisms.

how much interaction can go between materials and heat flow mechanisms.

That is gibberish, plain and simple. You have exposed your lack of knowledge, lack of education, and lack of scientific background. Give it up.

[deleted]

The classic 'I have no evidence. I just know.'

I guess we should base all future decisions on your intuitions.

In this subreddit, that'd be a good assumption to make of most people.

It's amazing what some of these people think they can get away with. They literally think everybody is an idiot.

Your whole post is the epitomic example of this comment.

boring, stupid, idiot

I'm more and more convinced you're in middle school.

Who said anything about being outwitted. This whole post and your comments are barely anything substantial. Pay attention in school and polish that tinfoil hat, instead of throwing around words like stupid, idiot and boring.

Best retort: That is gibberish. Try harder, my friend.

you're left with the argument that those 17 floors suddenly and somehow gained enough weight to crush the undamaged 93 floor section beneath themselves.

17 floors of building are not exactly weightless. If they suddenly start dropping due to some structural damage and fall down a few feet that is quite a lot of kinetic energy. I don't think the rest of the building was prepared to take this sudden and massive increase in load.

The thing is though, if you have any knowledge in physics, you'd know that every time one of the floors "fell" on top of another floor, the speed of the moving mass would slow down a considerable amount. I've seen calculations that show it could have taken as long as 50 seconds for the building to collapse like that under its own weight if it was floor by floor pancaking. Not to mention that so much of the buildings turned into dust.

If you want sources for the physics claims let me know and I'll dig them up for you. It's been a while since I've bothered with 9/11 because at this point 14 years later, you've convinced yourself you agree, or you don't agree.

I agreed with the official story for a long time and always used to give my friends shit, then I got really into math and science and shit didn't add up so well for me.

instead of slowing down, it fucking well accelerated.

If the resistance encountered during the fall is less then the kinetic energy (simply spoken) it still accelerates. That is also a fact of classical mechanics. Just imaging a skydiver falling through boards of styrofoam and a skydiver falling through slabs of concrete. In the first case you can be 100% sure that he still accelerates. That's what gravity is usually doing to stuff that falls.

You don't seem to realize just how much energy 17 floors of concrete and steel have once they start moving.

It seems like a single tower weighs about 600000 tons. Assuming even distribution of weight the upper 17 floors weigh close to 80000-100000 tons. Do you really thing that anything can stop them as soon as they start moving?

Erm if a skydiver fell through boards of styrofoam he would be falling slower than the same skydiver falling through air.

You don't seem to acknowledge that every floor that collapses adds to the falling mass, which makes every subsequent floor collapse happen faster as there's more load.

But it is you who does not acknowledge that each subsequent floor has been designed to hold up the floors above it with a factor of at least 3-5 times.

Not only that, but there was only ever local damage and small fires, then why did the building collapse through itself, which is what is claimed, but then watching the actual collapse, what we see is the building exploded outwards, thus voiding your argument.

Additionally, NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse like your theory seems to rely on, they claim a "failure of the floor systems" but then provide zero evidence to validate this claim.

It was more than 5 floors that pushed downward though, no?

Right, but each floor is designed by a redundancy factor of 3-5 times, to hold ALL the floors above it, per floor, this is basic engineering 101, so for a very basic example, 3-5 times redundancy floor one vs floor two, 6-10 times redundancy floor one vs floor three, 9-15 times redundancy floor one vs floor three etc

This is why skyscrapers get lighter as they get taller, the WTC 1&2 blueprints clearly show this.

You don't have to keep saying basic engineering 101, both sides are using that in this argument here and it means nothing. I also have no idea what you are saying since 1 floors ddidn't lead to the collapse but multiple floors, someone here said floors 93-99 or something thats 7 floors. The building is designed to hold that redundancy factor or whatever, based upon the building keeping its structure. Its not designed to keep 7 floors of rubble from pounding into the one below it, and so on.

both sides are using that in this argument here and it means nothing

It means something to me, an engineer who works in the construction industry

I also have no idea what you are saying

You not only have no idea of the engineer principles i am expressing to you, you also have no idea of how baseless your very own claims are.

The building is designed to hold that redundancy factor or whatever, based upon the building keeping its structure

Source this wild, unsubstantiated, baseless claim

Its not designed to keep 7 floors of rubble from pounding into the one below it

Yes it was, otherwise why do you think it stood up right for so long? You are trying to suggest a pancake collapse THE OFFICIAL REPORTS DO NOT EVEN THINK THIS

So /u/sabbathrules

YOU ARE MAKING UP YOUR OWN CONSPIRACY THEORY'S

You are a truther, you no longer believe the "official US government conspiracy theory"

You have now put yourself in a impossible corner which you can not argue yourself out of.

You're right that the floors were designed with a safety factor of 3-5 (this is actually quite high, I'm in aerospace engineering and we usually use 2). However you need to understand that buildings are designed for static loads, meaning that it can hold that much more weight if it is not moving at all. Once that first floor collapsed you now have a dynamic load. Dynamic loads are much harder to support as you not only have to work against the force of gravity, but also to counteract the incredibly amount of momentum that it gains during the fall before too much deformation happens. In the right conditions, no floor will be able to withstand the falling load on top of it. If the plane had hit the top floors of the building, it probably wouldn't have fallen completely as there just wasn't enough mass up there. But the portion above the impact site was massive enough that nothing could stop it once it started moving.

And I'm not sure about your exploding outwards claim. From all the videos I've seen it seems to fall pretty much straight down, with rubble going out at the bottom which is to be expected from every collapse.

The failure of the floor systems if I'm not misunderstanding you does explain the collapse. From the sources I've seen about the layout of the building, there is a central core which held most of the weight. The floors were all anchored to this core and the outer shell was then attached to the floors with some support of their own coming from below.

I do not claim to know how much this central core was damaged and how it broke, but once the thing started to fall the floors would bend in the middle due to the upward loads at the center and perimeter and the downward load (from the falling mass) at mid-span. Due to steel being very resistant to elongation, this would then pull the outer walls that were attached to the floors inwards. This would compress the falling mass into the center allowing for more of this mid-span loading to take place and allowing the building to fall straight down. This is what the videos show to me.

Your scenario would have left a gigantic core column up the height of the tower. That didn't happen.

The floors were also connected to the inner core. They would have helped to pull it down too as well as pulling it outwards which would lower its structural integrity greatly as concrete shatters with very small amounts of tension. Also the inner core of the above floors would also be falling on top of what core remained which would also have structural damage due to the floors buckling. I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened as I was not the one doing the investigation. I'm simply pointing out that there are ways that the buildings could have collapsed without needing explosives like you all suggest is the only way.

This isn't about pancaking floors. Pancaking concrete floors are a red herring. They were attached to steel columns. Just because concrete starts falling through the floor doesn't mean you get steel column collapse. Pancaking floors can only occur as a result of symmetrical collapse of the steel column supports. The pancaking floor can only occur after total collapse. Otherwise, we would find a dangling empty metal frame a thousand feet high.

I don't quite know what you mean by pancaking, but I don't see how floor dynamics can be considered a red herring. When the floors bend (and it's really easy to bend a material) they would have pulled in the sides and every other column would have been pulled in some way. These columns would have bent, even just slightly by this proceeding. Once a column begins to bend any vertical load will cause it to buckle immediately (technically it's not called buckling but it amounts to the same thing), especially when this load is dozens of stories of building falling at speed. In my scenario (which isn't perfect) the columns would have all been compromised and failed because of the floors. How is that a red herring?

The columns penetrate multiple floors. These columns aren't stacked on each other one floor at a time. One column could go through a hundred floors. Some types of columns collapsing doesn't mean all columns would collapse. What amount of force does it take to bend a hundred foot column vs a thirty foot column? This video shows all columns coming down, but some columns should have been sheered away and remained standing. Columns on the middle, left, right, forward, back. Support columns of concrete, support columns of steel...Columns that support ten floors, columns that support fifty. The columns were blown from the inside for special effect to create the ejecting debris. Your theory relies on symmetrical column collapse for a non symmetrical building with elevator support columns and the core columns were not all th same length or extending to the top floors. Central core column density varies as you go up the building.

9/11 was a controlled demolition, Larry Silverstein blew up his own buildings, and is guilty of terrorism fraud. He did it for misguided Israeli nationalist delusions

I'm not really sure why having columns span multiple floors would matter. It's actually easier to bend longer columns than it is short ones, especially if the floors acting as separators between them were compromised.

You do have to realize that this was just a theory I made off the top of my head to try to explain how floors losing their integrity could help cause the collapse to continue. Even the building layout I described wasn't exactly accurate, I was just going off of what some people were claiming in their demolition theories. Many posters were saying that the central core of this building would have stopped the floors collapsing, no it wouldn't have.

This all started when someone said it should have slowed down when it actually sped up, an argument which I attempted to dissolve as it's not how momentum works.

Either way. I'm choosing to drop this argument, and don't deny that this is any more than that at this point. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence which allows me morally to accuse a potentially innocent person of terrorism, especially when it caused the death of so many people. When I say conclusive I mean evidence that CANNOT be explained by more rational physical explanations. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt. This has not happened even in the slightest.

This is just an argument now because in your post you evidently state that you are absolutely convinced that it was a controlled demolition and will not change your stance on that no matter what. I am in the opposite field and we will never get to common ground. So let's drop this.

this is actually quite high, I'm in aerospace engineering and we usually use 2

Can you source this claim please? i have heard from others the factor to be near 10+ minimum in the aerospace industry, a factor of two seems outlandish to me.

However you need to understand that buildings are designed for static loads

I do understand, i am a fully qualified and licensed engineer, that works in the construction industry, that even lives, lobbies and works in NYC. I will admit

Dynamic loads are much harder to support as you not only have to work against the force of gravity, but also to counteract the incredibly amount of momentum

You have immediately made a massive claim without any evidence, i know for a fact you can not back this claim up with any hard science.

You have illogically taken the position that the aircraft impacts would "drop" the top (above the impact zone) of the structure, this is obviously idiotic thinking, at best.

Each floor of the WTC towers were designed with a redundancy factor of 3-5 times, to hold ALL the floors above it, per floor, example, 3-5 times redundancy floor one vs floor two, 6-10 times redundancy floor one vs floor three, 9-15 times redundancy floor one vs floor three etc This is why skyscrapers get lighter as they get taller, the WTC 1&2 blueprints clearly show this

You can not and will not make any mathematical sense from the NIST report that you are defending

And I'm not sure about your exploding outwards claim. From all the videos I've seen it seems to fall pretty much straight down, with rubble going out at the bottom which is to be expected from every collapse.

WTC1&2 were explosively demolished from top to bottom, WTC7 was demolished from the bottom, working up, have you mixed up what structures we are talking about?

From the sources I've seen about the layout of the building, there is a central core which held most of the weight

Source this massive claim then, i have the blue prints of the building in front of me btw

I do not claim to know how much this central core was damaged

I know, controlled demolition.

but once the thing started to fall the floors would bend in the middle due to the upward loads at the center and perimeter and the downward load (from the falling mass) at mid-span

Source, do not waste you time looking to NIST or ANY other official source, they do not know, YOU HAVE MADE UP YOUR OWN PERSONAL CONSPIRACY THEORY

You mad tin foil hat wearer hahhahaha

Due to steel being very resistant to elongation, this would then pull the outer walls that were attached to the floors inwards

More CONSPIRACY!!!

This would compress the falling mass into the center allowing for more of this mid-span loading to take place and allowing the building to fall straight down

EVEN MOAR Conspiracy!!!

This is what the videos show to me.

K, i do not agree with your personal conspiracy theory, i do like the fact you disagree with the US government "official " conspiracy theory though.

Top kek

Okay I'll explain what I did with my theory. I took arguments of people claiming it was controlled. People kept saying in this and many other threads that "there was this incredible inner core which could not have been destroyed and the floors were attached to that" (paraphrased). I took this and ran with it to show that their explanation using their claimed building layout was not the only plausible option.

For the dynamic loads, that just how momentum works. In the case of part of a building falling, you have to apply a large amount of upwards force to decelerate it for it to stop. When everything is stationary then all you need to do is to counteract the forces of gravity. When slowing down a dynamic load you have to exert a greater force for this deceleration, and this has to happen before the structure has deformed enough for it to be compromised. This building was falling at quite a speed. Due to the relation of impulse and momentum, in order for the fall to stop in an incredibly short time span (before things buckle and break) the force applied would have to be massive. I'm also not claiming about how the fall could have started. This discussion began when someone said that it should not have accelerated downwards.

For your curiosity about the aerospace factors of safety, it's mostly a standard. However I was able to find FAA safety recommendations for astronautical vehicles. Not aviation, but its the same industry anyway. For most components, the recommended values are between 1 and 2. Occasionally there's one at 4 but these are for small components. In aerospace, mass is king. You lower it as much as you can while still having an aura of safety. Here's the link if you were wondering.

For the dynamic loads, that just how momentum works.

Please just source this claim in regards steal framed skyscrapers, what evidence are you referring to, it has never happen before and the official sources are proven incorrect in their basic premise

When everything is stationary then all you need to do is to counteract the forces of gravity

You fucking what? This is the most outright idiotic engineering claim ever made.

Don't matter about loading, no?

HAHAHAH

For your curiosity about the aerospace factors of safety, it's mostly a standard

Directly source me, your original claim was 2:1 right? i have asked you twice already.

I did you source you the factor of safety. Here it is again.

I also don't quite get what you're getting on about. Dynamic loads are harder to support than static loads as you need to decelerate something which requires extra force. That's a fact of classical physics.

When I say counteract forces of gravity, that is the loading. The loading due to gravity of all the weight it needs to support, for which it was designed on a static basis. The only other loading is from wind forces.

This is like carrying a bowling ball in your hand (static problem, quite easy to do), versus stopping the ball after it has dropped ten feet. Oh and if your hand moved down by more an inch or two, the support (your hand) breaks and it keeps falling.

If you just state what parts don't make sense instead of saying something is "outright idiotic" without saying why then I can explain myself.

I... did source you the factor of safety. Here it is again.

Can you quote the relevant part and then explain to how this applies to your specific area of engineering (and your original claim, do understand that i have read it, cross checked it and have a different source)

Dynamic loads are harder to support than static loads as you need to decelerate something which requires extra force. That's a fact of classical physics.

Source this wild claim, i have already asked you this.

When other than WTC1&2 has a structure needed to decelerate a static force? Where is you science or rational logic, as i already said, you have no argument, i have prooved you wrong by logical deduction and rational.

This is like carrying a bowling ball in your hand (static problem, quite easy to do), versus stopping the ball after it has dropped ten feet

Illogical, nothing dropped anything on either the WTCs

then I can explain myself.

Nope, you have failed, you lost this argument so bad it hurts

You're right.

Yes, but he would still accelerate which was deemed impossible by op.

, and 17 floors can't move when they're at rest on top of 93 floors of undamaged concrete and steel.

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you. 17 floors are very heavy. If some structure below the 17 floors break (by fire, by explosion, by whatever) then they will crush down if the structure is damaged enough.

And the other part of your answer is equally easy to answer. If you stop being a sheeple and you start using your brain you might understand it.

Ok, so 80000 to 100000 tons are "not heavy"?

Not compared the mostly undamaged floors below, made with the same structure and about 3 times the size.

If you have any knowledge in physics

But, do you actually have any knowledge of physics? Like... do you even have a science degree?

This is what people what people with real "knowledge of physics" seem to think of this issue...

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.

Yeah, well the /r/AskEngineers post you linked to and the top comments seem to very well disagree with this post. Don't know why you're being upvoted, I guess it goes with the sentiment in this subreddit.

Some evidence is too strong for even conspiracy theorists to ignore.

I decided to go to school for accounting, as continuing on a science related career meant I'd essentially be getting funding from the government to do work. I'd make a hell of a lot more, but it's not worth it to me.

So while no I don't have a science degree, the laws in play here are so basic, that they were covered in my high school physics class. And yes I did go on to take relatively challenging(for most) science classes for my first 2 years of college.

well thats awfully nice of all the engineers to participate!

frankly im afraid that 911 truth is going to have to accept that jet fuel can indeed melt wtc towers and stick to the saudi/cia/mossad part of the conspiracy

dunno tho im just another random on the internet

http://np.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/33tl74/how_did_the_wtc_north_tower_top_section_fall_and/

Seriously? Your argument is that I'm mossad? Don't make me dig up that /r/askengineers thread where they debunk every point /u/lookingfortruths makes..

We both want to find the truth behind 9/11, I'm just a bit sticker on research apparently..

Don't make me dig up that /r/askengineers[1] thread where they debunk every point /u/lookingfortruths[2] makes..

They didn't really debunk anything I said though.. they just spouted common insults and pushed the official line

They completely ignored my arguments where I showed that buildings do have a jolt, even in a controlled demolition. For some reason they chose to ignore this..

I didn't read all of this but the more the floors fall the more debris they pick up. So it doesn't really matter if it slows down. It's not the kinetic energy but the weight.

The building didn't get any heavier, mate.

Have you ever seen a billard ball? Put one on your head. Can your head support that ball? Yes?! Now put that ball a few feet above your head and let it fall. Can your head still support it? No? Oh my god, how is that even possible? Why can your skull suddenly no support it anymore? I don't understand... it clearly has the same weight as before.

Stop pissing over the laws of physics, mate.

Wow, that's crazy! I tried your experiment to see if there was anything to it, and you'll never guess what happened. The pool ball fell straight through my skull, shattered every single vertebra in my spinal column, liquefied my whole body and sent it exploding in every direction, and then hit the ground, faster than it would've if I had dropped the ball in water. What the fuck!

Lmao, great reply.

Thank you for posting this!

I was about to try that billiard ball experiment on myself.

YOU SAVED MY LIFE!

no kidding. Luckily, though, before I tried the experiment, myself, I made sure to insure my body against pool balls for billions of dollars. So hey. Good as new! Tell you what though, I don't care if he's hiding in a cave fortress in Pakistan, yo, whoever dropped that ball is getting fucked up! Hell, even the people next to him are getting fucked up! God bless America.

no kidding. Luckily, though, before I tried the experiment, myself, I made sure to insure my body against pool balls for billions of dollars. So hey. Good as new!

Your name isn't Larry, per chance, is it?

Tell you what though, I don't care if he's hiding in a cave fortress in Pakistan, yo, whoever dropped that ball is getting fucked up!

Whenever something like that happens to me, I always attack Iraq.

It may not make any sense, but it sure FEELS GOOD!

This is actually what I was pointing out as well.

If the point of the airplane impact did buckle dropping the 20 something, or whatever, top stories onto the rest; how did the top part not encounter at least enough resistance to slow down a bit more and possibly topple over sideways?

Either the bottoms of those skyscrapers were made of balsa wood, or something's fucky...

Not to mention building 7 which completely lacked a "billiard ball".

That fire must have weakened all the supports perfectly even throughout the entire building, because in no way would fire most likely burn unevenly causing an asymmetric collapse /S.

Sure it's possible, just not very probable; especially happening in the same style 3 times in a row.

To dust.

You asshole! I was standing by you when you tried your stupid experiment and you just caused my spine to suffer the exact same damage!

hey, it wasn't me, bro. It was those brown people. Don't you even watch the TV?

Now put that ball a few feet above your head and let it fall.

Again... Are you saying that the top 17 floors were picked up and dropped on the building? Idiot. You are just a fucking idiot. This is what happens when people who don't know what the actual fuck they're talking about try to one-up people who do.

If a wall breaks everything above this wall starts to fall down...

In your example, you exerted energy to raise the billiard ball above your head, giving it additional gravitational potential energy.

Did those 17 floors get lifted up into the air, then released, smashing into the floors below and causing the collapse? Not in any of the footage I've seen

What about this: the ball is suspended by a very fragile block of styrofoam 1 meter above your head. The block barely supports tbe weight of the ball but then you have to sneeze slightly, the styrofoam block breaks and the ball falls down unto your head.

Nice work. You've proven our points.

What turned the steel into "styrofoam"?

That is not what my example is about. In one of the parents posts it was written that

What increase in load? The load was the same as it always was. The building didn't get any heavier, mate.

And I just pointed out that if something suddenly falls down there actually is an increase of load. I just used this simple example to point out a flaw in his argument.

Repost to r\science if you want the guts picked out of it. Rest assured though, your example is flawed and you are incorrect.

A resting ball puts a certain amount of pressure to a surface. If the same ball falls onto the same surface there is most certainly more pressure on the surface. Or do you want to say that this very simple fact of classical physics is not true?

The same for a building. The upper 17 floors put some amount of pressure onto the levels below. If you know remove the inner walls (by explosion, by structural failure, by whatever...) so that the upper 17 floors starts moving downwards there is an increase of pressure on the lower floor.

Please tell me exactly where I am wrong in this very simple example.

But in order for it to fall down upon itself, the supports need to be removed simultaneously, or it topples over the edge if anything. In my opinion, where you are wrong in this example is the walls are not the support. A crapload of thick metal bars are and a plane is not going to take them all out simultaneously, nor is a fire.

To the previous example, of a pool ball over a head. This is not the best analogy because every single column was not wiped out at once. If the floors hit just disappeared like the girl in Bewitched, perhaps. A better test would be a pool ball above the head, held up by a crapload of sticks. You remove some of those sticks and either the ball does nothing or it topples over the edge. It doesn't continue trying to go straight down when there's a lot less resistance just over the edge. In all likelihood it does nothing when those sticks are steel and bent or knicked rather than removed.

Again, this just explains to Op that in fact there is an increase in load if somehow magically all walls are removed simultaniously. How that happened is a completely different question which is not adressed by my examples.

Yes. They used one of their black helicopters to lift up the top of the building...

Oops, time to distract the conversation?

You're cut.

The Architects and Engineers disagree with you uneducated assumption.

All of them or some of them?

In the history of our grand world only three buildings have fallen in their own footprint without controlled demolition. WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 which by the way was hit by nothing.

Thousands of them is enough for me.

Even NIST ruled out the pancake theory. I don't understand why people make up their own alternative conspiracy theories.

I have often wondered, and I just want to put this out there to this sub, is there any good comparative data on the mass of the World Trade Center building, the size of the plane, and the amount of fuel that it carried in proportion to something of much smaller size? This would make for a great talking point. I think the average person is probably convinced that if a plane smashes into something, it is going to be destroyed. However, if you put it in proportion and take a much smaller building and imagine a motorcycle crashing into it, of course it won't fall down. Many people have no concept of just how gigantic the World Trade Center buildings were, and actually how small and how little fuel in proportion to the building supposedly did all of this damage.

You mean like the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building?

It didn't collapse.

But there are people who will immediately say "But a B-25 is smaller than a 757/767"

Yes, and the Empire State Building is smaller than the Twin Towers. It didn't turn into a raging inferno and collapse within hours.

The ESB is wider than the WTC, over-structured, clad in limestone, and a B25 is much smaller and slower than a 757 or 767. Not a comparison.

It's the only comparison we have.

Yes, look at this comment with links and indexes. Specifically, look at index 4, at 15:00 mark of the linked video.

Who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and the motive? You just kind of look at these basic things...Hunter S. Thompson on 9/11

Who stands to benefit?

Haaretz - April 16, 2008

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.

"Who benefits" is always the FIRST question that any decent investigator asks.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Rahm Emanuel

[deleted]

Never let a good quote about never letting a good crisis go to waste.

Ya, I know I've heard it said before but when I searched for the quote, Rahm Emanuel came up as having said it and I remember someone else saying it.

Mhm...it's definitely a quick way to sum up what kind of things/thinking go on behind "the curtain" of politics.

They don't give a fuck about the rest of the planet. I suspect with this latest announcement about the Earth entering the 6th Great Mass Extinction Event, they're going to move their plans for eliminating all but 500,000 people, "to keep the population in balance with the Earth." Remember Margaret Thatcher's response when asked if it was worth it, with over a million dead children in Iraq due to the sanctions? Yes, "It" was worth it. Fuck those kids, they aren't mine.

Thought it was Madeline Albright that said that?

Right! Sorry. Got their names mixed up. Clinton's Secretary of State.

Winston Churchill originally, IIRC.

paging

/u/mylespower

come debunk this~

Good luck "debunking" the Lavon Affair or the King David Hotel bombing.

Lavon Affair

Operation Susannah and the Lavon Affair turned out to be disastrous for Israel in several ways:

• Israel lost significant standing and credibility in its relations with the United Kingdom and the United States that took years to repair.[11]

• The political aftermath caused considerable political turmoil in Israel that affected the influence of its government.[12]

On March 30, 2005 Israel publicly honored the surviving operatives, and President Moshe Katsav presented each with a certificate of appreciation for their efforts on behalf of the state, ending decades of official denial by Israel.

The King David Hotel Bombing was the deadliest terror attack ever carried out in Israel/Palestine.

Planning

The leaders of Haganah opposed the idea initially.[12] On July 1, 1946, Moshe Sneh, chief of the Haganah General Headquarters, sent a letter to the then leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, which instructed him to "carry out the operation at the 'chick'", code for the King David Hotel**

[...]

60th anniversary controversy

In July 2006, the Menachem Begin Heritage Center organized a conference to mark the 60th anniversary of the bombing. The conference was attended by past and future Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun.[40]

Menachem Begin was the mastermind behind this vicious and deadliest terrorist attack.

Israel "punished" him for his crime by electing him Prime Minister of the Zionist State.

No one needs to "debunk" these crimes, Israel is proud to throw them in your face.

based on quantumhead 's posts here yesterday: Jews. It's going to be the Jews.

Not "Zionists" not "Israel" but Jews. At least he's honest about what he believes though.

believe you're a Hasbara troll here to make false personal attacks against me to derail the topic and elicit an emotional response from me.

lol

You seem to have missed the part yesterday where I pointed out I have absolutely no problem with Jews.

no I just read what else you wrote

This is a post of yours

Right. You're allowed to tell lies, but not react to people telling lies. Spoken like a true Jew. In Jewland, the "rules" only apply to the things they want deleted/removed. Everything else is fine.

that's the entire post. And it was directed at an /r/conspiracy mod!

So what you are saying now is "I don't hate Jews I just use it as an insult to imply someone is lying.

Trying to paint someone as antisemitic is sad.

read that post of his again

Right. You're allowed to tell lies, but not react to people telling lies. Spoken like a true Jew. In Jewland, the "rules" only apply to the things they want deleted/removed. Everything else is fine.

He IS ANTI-SEMETIC I don't need to paint him as anything.

could you either stay on topic or fuck off, please?

I am on topic.

I just asked you to stop smear attacking me, and you responded by smear attacking me.

I like how quoting your entire posts in context is smear attack. It wasn't a smear attack though IT WAS TO POINT OUT YOU ARE LYING

I also just told you I have no problem with Jews.

And I showed YOU WERE LYING

zionists do not represent all jews. jews are broader and more sophisticated and diverse. but on the other hand, all zionists are jews.

aren't some of them evangelical christians though?

false. they only support it on an entirely different scriptures and misconception about what zionism is. like a coalition. zionism believers tell a different story.

Alas not all zionists are jews, some retarded christians are also zionists. And then there are the third type of zionists...

dude look at his posts he's not talking about "Zionists" or "Israel"

Right. You're allowed to tell lies, but not react to people telling lies. Spoken like a true Jew. In Jewland, the "rules" only apply to the things they want deleted/removed. Everything else is fine.

That's a post of his. Directed at a /r/conspiracy mod. He may hate Israel, he may hate Zionists, but he primarily hates Jews

He may hate Israel, he may hate Zionists, but he primarily hates Jews

I don't know whether that is true, but if it is, he has plenty of company.

According to the Jewish Anti Defamation League, 1.09 Billion people on planet Earth "harbor anti-Semitic attitudes". - and that according to their own survey of 100 countries.

There are only 14 million Jews in the whole world, and (if the ADL is to be believed) 1.09 billion people who supposedly "hate" them. So, for every Jewish man, woman or child, there are 77 "haters".

WTF is up wit that?

The ADL Global 100 Survey is full of clickable maps and interesting information that breaks things down by age, race, sex, geographic locations of the "haters", etc... but one thing they don't address is why. Why do so many people supposedly "hate" Jews?

If you were Jewish, wouldn't that be the first question you'd be asking?

I have asked folks that question several times, and I bever get a straight, plausible answer - it's always an angry, indignant response such as BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU, or ANTI-SEMITES CAUSE ANTI-SEMITISM, YOU ANTI-SEMITE!!!, which really isn't a very constructive answer, especially if this is a problem that they are genuinely interested in resolving.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: That should be Seventy-Seven "haters" for every Jewish person - not 7.7.

Wow, talk about being the "unpopular kid in class". Either the ADL is full of shit, or... what could it be?

Please tell us, what possible reasons would anyone have for HATING jews?

You have to be politically correct about it. You can't say "jews did it." Rather, you must say, "Most of the suspects happen to be Jewish."

Well yes, if you dig into it, their motives are racist, as they are linked to the endgame of a Jewish state occupying Greater Israel.

But it's not really beneficial to point this out, because it lets a lot of greedy, domestic, gentiles off the hook. It is more important to address our crooked leadership that allowed this to happen, as they are our biggest problem.

Even if Mossad rigged the towers and the planes and faked the UA phone calls... So what? OUR people permitted it. We need less corrupt leaders, because if it weren't the zionists working our politicians, it would be someone else.

The only reason you need.

Fucking exactly! Has everyone just turned into a dumb fuck? Building 7 should have not have collapsed like that. But yet, everyone accepts the bullshit.

I've participated in 9/11 awareness meetings at ground zero (still ongoing today, every Saturday). One guy brings his iPad and exclusively shows that video.

You'd be surprised how many people are shocked when they see it for the first time. It really does have the potential to make people reconsider 9/11.

I hope so, all I see is more and more dumb people. Their plan is Woking perfectly - people seem to have lost their ability to engage their brain cells. But then this is the country that actually believe JFK was killed by one lone crazy gunman.

The thing is, people don't talk about building 7 at all. I swear to god, I didn't even know what it was until I heard it mentioned online as proof for a conspiracy. The media won't speak about it, and it's obvious why. It's so obvious that it's impressive.

if i may ask, whats the reason it even collapsed, like in the news,

is that why all the videos i've seen have muted audio

no i mean the videos that were linked were all silent in audio. can you not call me stupid please i am trying to get information from you that i actually appreciate. what i was addressing was a drunk question about the videos having no audio. Of course the collapse was completely suspicious and I believe what you are quoting.

i had like 30 mgs of temazepam in me and 5 beers lol so don't worry i understand if what i said was stupid.

alright thank you mate :)

Can anyone point me to a video with actual demolition sounds during this event? From all of the Controlled Demolition videos I've seen there tends to be a good amount of demolition noise going on, huge concurrent and consecutive booms. Even in videos from blocks away these things should still be audible.

I don't care about eyewitness testimony as it is just not as concrete as video/audio, and it would be hard to discern whether or not what those people heard or described as being sounds from a demolition or something else entirely.

Most of the eyewitnesses' reports were of secondary explosions unrelated to the actual collapse or plane impact. Also keep in mind that we can only speculate as to what technology was actually used to bring the towers down. It wouldn't necessarily have to make the same noise as you hear in controlled demolition videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U-u4_iPD0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A

Pretty sure the government already acknowledged building 7 was demolished. It had been damaged with debris during the attacks, so they demolished it to control its collapse. And it's not like the government says building 7 was hit by planes, haha.

You literally just copy pasted that from your last comment.

No, they have not acknowledged it was demolished. The official explanation is that it collapsed due to office fires. It takes days if not weeks to rig a building to take it down like that.

You sir, are out of your element.

1) Yes, I literally did. Good observation. Must be a conspiracy.

2) Oh, then I'm wrong.

3) Don't say "you sir" as if it's original and witty. It's not. And if you are going to say it, punctuate it properly. "You [comma] sir [comma] are an idiot." Otherwise it just looks like you're copying others. Which you are. "Literally"!!!!

Grammar lessons on Reddit is the first sign you dont know what your talking about. And I left out an apostrophe just for you :)

You missed more than an apostrophe. ;-)

11)

Physics.

12)

Jet-fuel can't melt steel.

How come there aren't any physicists who support the 9/11 Truth movement? Thousands and thousands of physicists, with more graduating every year, and none of them side with the 9/11 Truth movement? None of them back Chandler or Gage? Can you think of why that might be?

Look what happens when a so-called "expert scientist" actually does have a way of publishing his findings and scientific evidence for the "exotic accelerants" (the official investigation by its own admission failed to look for (in violation of all applying codes, protocols, procedures and laws BTW (NFPA 921))): the Editor-in-Chief (who worked for French military pyrotechnics and is an expert in nano-assembly) resigns because of the paper's "political views" or so.

That is where the physicists are who support the 9/11 Truth movement, the thousands and thousands of physicists, with more graduating every year, the ones not backing Chandler, Gage, Szamboti, Ross, Ryan, Szuladzinski, Jones, Griscom, and two dozens of hundreds of other experts and all the laypeople with enough knowledge of the scientific method to know the difference between "inevitable" [sic! Bazant/NIST!] and "impossible without some form of additional energy that absolutely doesn't belong into a healthy tower" (and lots of it, not a measly plane gone Molotov cocktail, not the 'dynamic load of the heavy top on the fragile structure underneath' that it could carry alright for thirty years in storms, office fires, and truck bombs in the basement) when in 14 years, there has been no experiment.

Now you know why that might be.

You literally answered nothing with that.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

• Richard Feynman

2 for 2 with useless responses. Keep it up.

How about you ask a useful question?

;)

The Association for Nine Eleven Truth Awareness (ANETA.org) sponsored a "Physics Olympics" debate between two top physicists in the spirit of the winter athletic events in Sochi, Russia.

Nice, inclusive, unbiased debate there. Doesn't encompass even a minority of physicists in a neutral forum.

"Evidence"

maybe because they want to stay alive.

Hahahaha yeah I'm sure that's it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e_ImZYzNLs

here's an MIT scientist, took all of 3 seconds to find.

http://www.projectcensored.org/18-physicist-challenges-official-9-11-story/ Brigham Young Physics Professor

I'll clock that at 5 additional seconds.

additional edit: you're faced with a scenario. you have become an expert in your field, have spent years in school, paid ridiculous amounts of money, and have finally reached your destination. you could join hundreds of thousands/millions of people that are getting no results from going on and on about something, using basic laws of physics as your evidence, or you could shut the fuck up and live your life to the extent possible under given circumstance. the choice is pretty simple.

3rd edit: down vote instead of speaking up. thought so.

3rd edit: down vote instead of speaking up. thought so.

Lol you added that before I even read your comment. Persecution complex, much?

Also, did you know that not everyone who in knowledgable in physics works as a high-paid physicist?

why make asides, state your case

Here's one: Dr. David Griscom.

That has got to be the stupidest comment in the thread. Congrats!

Questions that make you think are stupid? You need to keep an open mind, kid.

Engineer here. I'm also quite convinced myself about the 9/11 being an inside thing, and maybe even the start of the collapse was done using explosives/thermite/etc, but those 2 points that you linked are quite wrong imho.

The physics part

There is one thing in physics called pressure. It's by definition force by unit of surface (more force and less surface make a lot of pressure). Now, keep in mind that most, if not all, the explosions you see are in the lower parts of the tower, just below the falling part. And that makes a lot of sense:

The building falling weights a lot (a lot of force), and is pressing the lower part making each floor collapse (very small surface in comparison with the force). Everything inside that floor (air, walls, furniture, people, and even debris) just gained a lot of pressure there and the most fragile part of the floor are the lateral walls (they are not designed to hold almost any force at all, while the floor and the ceiling are really a lot stronger). That means that all that pressure can only go to the sides exploding like a can with too much pressure inside.

Also, as other experts say you have the "spring effect" that pushes stuff to the sides. That's quite normal, specially in a building made of steel. Nothing falls straight down if there is other stuff below, it just collapses floor by floor, and each floor is different, the forces are different and not all the floor collapses at the exactly same time making that some debris goes to one direction and other goes to other direction.

Keep in mind that this horizontal forces never break any physics rule at all. And remember that a building collapsing is not a solid rigid (something that all those equations you study in physics assume).

Also, a building is not a free falling object so you can't compare the timing with a ball falling from a building. It's not a rigid body, and it's not "falling", it's collapsing, an extremely different term and very difficult to study and predict because there are lot's of different variables unknown in play.

Is it normal for big building parts to fall far to the sides? Yes. Obviously. Just play jenga and you'll see if part's can fall to the sides even if the only apparent force is gravity. It's an effect of something called moment. Things tend to turn if they are not stable, and that can make something fall to the sides, and if that collapses with something lower it can send it to the side even further.

Jet-fuel can't melt steel

And neither needs to. Steel loses lot's of it's load capacity with high temperature and time (creep, physical deformations, changes in the weights supported). Also the buildings were quite old and lot has changed in the fire regulations since. I'm not sure about it but afaik the building used only steel beams as support, and steel behavior is really bad with high temperatures (doesn't need to be even near the melting point) in comparison with other elements such as reinforced concrete. Do you know what a forge is? Do they melt the steel? No right? It's not even near melting point in fact, and just a man with a hammer can bend the steel.

Now imagine an extremely big building with some structural damage (did some beams got cut because of the plane crashing? If they did the force that those beams were doing to support the building is now in the beams that are still intact). Add that extra weight that the beams have to support to the much higher temperatures and give it some time... boom they loose most of it's strength and just bend. One bends, the building doesn't fall but the tension the other beams has to support increases, boom, another beam less... and suddenly all the floor collapses.

I'm not saying it might be not a thermite ignition at first, but once one of the floors collapsed, the building was already condemned. Floors are not designed to support half building falling on top of them (percussion).

I feel I'm going to get downvoted to hell, but this is what I can tell you from what I have studied in these last 7 years at college. Some parts might be wrong but I'm sure that what you linked doesn't prove anything at all.

When the evidence refutes it, what evidence convinces you, especially as an engineer, that it was an inside job?

There are some points said in this thread that I do believe are true and some that I don't. Those two I pointed for example seem to me something that someone that hasn't studied structural analysis would say.

Why do I think it's an inside job? First I have to warn you that I'm not from the USA, and I really don't like at all their government so my view could be quite biased.

First point: It's not the first time that the USA attacks himself to start a war because of interests. Here the war with Spain comes to my mind, remember? The USS Maine: http://www.falseflag.info/uss-maine/

There are also other similar cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods This one didn't happen in the end but was planned. Who know what they have done before and after for their interests?

Second point: It's usually said "look for the first beneficiary and you'll have your first suspect". As most have pointed out, the USA government, specially Bush and his friends, big corporations (weapons-making, war mercenaries, oil multinationals, ...), and Israel, big friend of the USA, had a lot of interest in that war as pointed out in this thread.

Third point: The buildings collapse almost vertically. If a plane hits a side I expect the beams in that side to suffer more than the ones on the other side. And that means that the buildings should have bent to the side the plane crashed before falling to the ground. To me it seems that at least the first (and maybe the rest) of the floors were detonated to avoid destroying half of the city. Now someone will say "but you saaid". I know what I said. I never said it wasn't detonations, I said that those stated points were not true. Those explosions could have been produced by the building falling naturally. And beams could have lost their structural power without the need of explosives. What I want to point out is that even if the towers could have fell by themselves I think that they were detonated so that they don't kill even more people. That way is a tragedy big enough to start a war, but you don't have to rebuild all the city.

Forth point: There are lots of points in the official version that don't stand up. The visa, the training of the terrorists, the videos, them not knowing... stuff like that. Just read the rest of the comments and see for yourself.

War creates a lot of money for the usa. And they have one of the governments I trust the less of all the world, they do what it's good for their private economic interests only, even if that means killing, starting wars, or controlling the population. Remember that it is by far the government that expends more money to the military, and not just that, it's the country with more private military companies in the world. No war = no money, and there are a lot of big people there wanting that money and they don't care about a few deaths.

So, I might not have specific evidences about 9/11, but those points I stated are enough to make me know that something is wrong. I don't discard things like the planes being a decoy to detonate inside bombs, but they might have also been real planes too. Physically both options are plausible.

That's just my opinion tho.

Edit: some misspells and such. Edit2: I'm starting to change my mind in some of those points following this https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3a67mc/10_reasons_why_911_was_demonstrably_an_inside_job/cs9zjzr

That was overly complicated. Engineers are like Economists.. "On the other hand"....I'll make it simple.

If it failed at one point and collapsed floor by floor it would take longer than it did.

What? Please explain yourself. What do you mean by 93x1 floors and 1x93 floors?

And are you talking about the first floor to fail or the following ones?

If you mean the first one: I didn't say the weight changed at all. I said the structure changed because of the heat and possibly by the crash and explosion itself. If a few beams stop working because they lost their properties because of the heat then the rest of the beams have to support what they were designed for + the weight of the ones that stopped working. Is that clear? If you have, let's say, 4 steel beams supporting the building and one stops being able to support anything, the rest 3 have to support more. Keep removing beams and at one point the rest of the beams fail and the floor collapses.

If you were talking about the rest of the floors that were collapsing later, it doesn't matter at all that those beams are in perfect shape because they no longer have to support the weight of the building. They have to support the weight + the impact generated from the upper floor collapsing. That impact is more than enough to destroy the floor.

See it this way: imagine I have a bowling ball and a wooden table. I put the bowling ball on top and the table doesn't have any problem supporting it. Now imagine I let the bowling ball fall from a height of say, 5m or so. The ball hits the table and it breaks. Ow! But it was able to support the ball just before! And the ball doesn't weight more! But it broke nonetheless. Is it clearer now?

I'm just trying to point flaws in some of the points made here. I thought we were all open minded in this subreddit. ;) As I said I do believe in lot's of the things said here, but there are some other things that are just impossible and I think it's a good thing to point out them out and try to figure out what really happened, right?

Yes, that's how it starts. First only one floor collapses, then the one below and so one. But that's only the first few floors because beams transmit force over a few floors so in the end forces are so big that lot's of floors collapse at the same time.

Anyway that's what you can also see in the videos. One floor collapses and then the ones directly below.

There is a distance between one floor and the next one. The one between the ceiling of the room and the floor. When I say that a floor collapses I mean that the beams fail and the ceiling falls to the floor. There are easily 5m there, more than enough to gain enough speed to crush the next floor. That's how it starts and how it propagates downwards until the forces are too big and all the building just collapses.

Oh man. I really don't care what you think about me, but it's not that hard to understand what I said.

Yes, you are right, a falling object doesn't have more "weight", but you seem to understand physics too so we can talk about energy, right? Is it better if I tell you that beams have to support the weight of the building (constant) + have to dissipate the energy of the impact (extra because it's falling so it had a potential energy).

You know, you can see it this way too: F = m * a. Now the building is falling, say 5m at 9.81m/s² and then suddenly stops because it hits the lower floor. The top building was falling (velocity > 0), and now is stop because it hit the lower floor, so there is an acceleration (derivative of velocity over time is acceleration), so there is a force. Who eats that force? The lower floor. Are there more forces in play? Yes, the weight. So we have that the lower floor has to support weight + impact force, that's why I said that it weighed more, but anyway, I shouldn't have said it that way. Is that enough to make the next floor collapse? No doubt. That's how buildings are demolished anyway, they don't put explosives in all floors.

Pressure is something that can push objects to the sides. There are more forces in a building collapsing than gravity, I just pointed out that because in those links they talked about that and it's just wrong. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be pressure alone, there are more horizontal forces there: Take a glass and throw it to the ground. Where do the pieces go? Oh! To the sides you say? All over the floor? So there are horizontal forces somehow! And it was just the gravity actuating!!

Feel free to ignore me or point out more things I said wrong instead of attacking me personally. Have a good night, sir.

Uhh.. that physics link doesn't come close to proving anything.

Fun fact: A substance does not need to be in liquid form in order to lose its structural integrity.

EDIT: Ah yes, a wordpress website is "physics". The man has no background in any physics or engineering field, but his wordpress is enough to, by itself, prove 9/11 was an inside job. Fucking listen to yourselves.

A substance does not need to be in liquid form in order to lose its structural integrity

Ahh yes, but it was. Ask all the firefighters who saw it with their own eyes. "Molten steel flowed like in a foundry." These were not just red glowing soft beams, they were liquified. An impossibility with only jet-fuel. Jet-fuel cannot liquify steel. Never.

You should go in your backyard and pour a bunch of gasoline on some small steel beams. Do it for hours. Do it for days. They still won't liquify.

Oh hey! A clip with absolutely zero context to the interview. Nothing about that clip mentions 9/11 or the twin towers.

Great thread, OP, great thread.

Thank you. Discussions like this always ignite my passion for the truth.

I was 18 when 9/11 happened. At that point in my life I was interested in girls and cars, I paid no attention to the world around me. Point is, I've known 9/11 was fishy from the minute I first heard about it live on the radio. When they blamed OBL I knew that was a farce.

Been a wild ride since then and I don't think we're done.

I just watched the first 30 minutes of this documentary - 9-11 Exposed - and it is VERY well done, I think this is a good one to pass along to anyone who isn't aware of the WTC 7 stuff and all the evidence pointing towards controlled demo. I'm not sure who is behind it, but it's brilliantly put together, it avoids a lot of the emotional pandering and goes straight to the evidence and eye witness testimony.

very good. its nice to see people still updating in 2015 the theories and videos.

The thing that I wasn't aware of was that the explosions were timed with the impact of the plane, about 10 seconds before. The lobby was blown out before the plane hit.

how do thousands of people not corroborate this... seriously it says a great fucking deal about an apathetic/ignorant and easily manipulated population to just react purely emotionally with zero logic or belief in their own eyes and ears to think for themself what is going on.

how many fucking coincidences and unanswered questions do people need to actually start questioning something.... mind blowing.

so many people are plugged into the matrix. if you unplug them they would die.

Why did you intentionally misrepresent the wpi.edu article, which goes on to theorize about how the damage to the steel occurred?

Why does the story end with a theory?

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment."

We're still waiting.

Agreed.

Come on, they clearly stated that they did not test for explosives because there weren't any. Just because explosives are part of a terrorists MO and in fact explosives had been used on the very same towers before should in no way influence the decision to test for explosives if there aren't any.

You forget your /s ?

Because the article was published in 2002 as part of a magazine and probably wouldn't be updated either way?

The theory doesn't need a magazine it needs testing.

You keep quoting around the part where they posit an explanation. Are you incapable of intellectual honesty?

Or acid rain? That's about as dishonest a comparison as you can get, given that you clearly read an article that explained how it worked.

The biggest question is that did "anyone" have any early intelligence that this was going to happen? Was it a failure up and down the chain and proves that the US government is not in control of its sub three letter agencies!

The FBI Before The 9/11 Attacks - Link

Explain me one thing: Apparently jet fuel can't melt steel beams. But can it weaken them?

The WTC were built with 3-5 times structural redundancy, there were stiffeners between the columns and beams, there were shear studs, the columns had footers.

In other words, engineers account for various stresses that a building can experience.

In NIST's report, they took out the studs, the stiffeners, changed the beam sizes, took away the column footings and took away the concrete.

Once this has been done, then your weakening point starts to mean something, ie in an alternate universe.

Yes there were footers - at the foundation...

There were no shear studs in the WTC - there was some bracing at the roof.

You sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

So what? Molten steel was found in the rubble for weeks afterwards. This whole "jet fuel weakened the beams" is a big fat red herring.

Also, nano-thermite was found in the dust. Jet fuel really has little to do with it.

When we aren't trying to be melodramatic, we don't say "jet fuel" we say "kerosene."

Don't forget about the steel beams pictured at the base of the building with nice 45 degree cuts on them just like they do for controlled demolitions.

"wtc beams cut"

Google image that ^ you'll have to scroll down a little, but you'll find pictures taken on 9/11/2001 of beams with the perfect cuts.

Everyone who uses that meme is ignorning WTC7 http://imgur.com/a/w5iuG

Those were clearly cut during clean up...

False, made up claim.

I told you to scroll down, there are pictures taken on 9/11/2001 before the cleanup started while they were still trying to rescue people with those beams cut like that.

Edit: also, what would possess the cleanup workers to make precise cuts like that on all those beams if they're just trying to clean it up. Why would that matter, why wouldn't they just cut them flat across? Cutting them flat across would be quicker since you'd be cutting through less steel.

Yah. No there isn't. What there is, is multiple pictures of beams being cut with thermal lances during clean-up.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2002-03-06-wtc2.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2011/07/27/li-wtc-steel-cut-201109.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eBXZOGc-DOg/hqdefault.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5AFcEeYQCaY/TVkVW9PZjGI/AAAAAAAAA1s/gOhey6SF-BY/s1600/welders.png

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/15/article-1266155-09234532000005DC-954_306x423.jpg

Don't be a fucking idiot.

Edit: to make them fall at a certain angle. Holy fuck, you are an idiot. Like things that come as common sense to people don't come to you at all.

You're showing pictures of steel already on the ground being cut. And the ONE picture of a beam that isn't already on the ground is being cut perfectly flat.

As I said, there are pictures with dust still in the air that have the beams with those cuts on them before the cleanup started.

No shit it's to make them fall a certain way, they wanted the building to fall flat on itself, not topple over on its side like it logically should have.

There is no way someone is as fucking retarded as you without having a learning disability. You were called stupid all your life haven't you?

http://911blogger.com/sites/911blogger.com/files/Cut%20beam_0.jpg

By dust you mean smoke while le also being surround by thermal flat cuts.

Angle cut for you, Capt. Tard.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

There is no way someone is as fucking retarded as you without having a learning disability

Absolutely disgusting behavior

You were called stupid all your life haven't you?

This was the bit that made me laugh.

When your reality bubble is under threat: Ad Hominem to the rescue!

Would you like to talk about the physics of a building falling at free fall speed now?

Would you like to copy and paste what conspiracy sites tell you about physics word for word, you fucking tool?

I wouldn't need to copy paste or do any google searches to talk science with you, I'm actually quite smart in math and the sciences.

What kind of insecure tool needs to lie about himself on the Internet Torrey and make people think he's not an idiot?

What kind of insecure fool needs to call other people on the internet idiots when they know nothing about them.

I would consider myself above average in intelligence and so would most of the people who know me if you ask them.

If you'd like, I can spend some time this weekend writing a nice paper for you with academic sources of physics laws, and correlate them into something a basic mouth breather like you could understand.

Actually not even if you like, I'm going to do it just to piss you off and because it will be a fun little project over the weekend. I'd love to start now, but I'm taking quite a few classes this summer, so my schedule is pretty tight.

Check back in this thread Sunday night/Monday morning. I'm assuming college textbooks are going to be legit enough sources for you.

Nice half ass cut job you found.

I haven't made a B in college in the last 5 semesters, all As. I must be a retard.

Pretty easy to make As in finger painting. We all know that you aren't taking any engineering classes if you still believe this gish gallop

You must go to an amazing school if they offer finger painting.

I'm sure your liberal arts degree is going to pay off well.

Sadly I am a graduated civil engineer who works in the transportation industry. College was fun, but I never got to dick around in an art class. See we were too busy building steel structures and testing their failure mechanisms. Unlike you, this is my feild and I can smell the bullshit you are trying to spread. You won't be successful in engineering if you don't understand basic physics! Have fun in your art classes man, maybe flipping burgers will allow you to make a difference!

There was no fucking jetfuel, it burned off on impact in that giant hollywood shockandawe fireball (outside the building).

Apparently jet fuel can't melt steel beams. But can it weaken them?

No aircraft hit WTC7, yet there was molten metal at this demolition site.

I never heard that there was molten steel at WTC 7.

It is actually well known, google it.

It is evidently "well known," you jackass. I have researched it and have never heard specific claims about molten steel under WTC 7.

Well, you might want to get better at doing research, it seems like you suck ass at the minute, maybe go back to school for a few years and get an education?

As i said, there are hundreds of sources that document melted steel at the WTC 7 demolition site.

Give me one credible report that specifically says there was molten steel under WTC 7.

Quick question here sorry if this has been brought up I don't have time to go through 500+ comments.

First a bit about my stance. I really believe more that its a conspiracy than what were told there's just too many things that fail to add up.

The only thing that I can't figure and this is my question. How do you pull off what would be an enormous operation without someone at least saying hang on this isn't right?

I mean take to rig the buildings with explosives is I imagine a pretty big job and how do you convince people to fly planes to their death.

I'm not trying to be clever and pick holes, I'm genuinely a skeptic just trying to figure things out.

A couple of points that may be relevant; Jeb Bush was a principal for the security company in the WTC complexes, whatever that means. Their were entire floors left vacant; people claimed they could hear jackhammering on those floors. And security was lightened up days before the attack, such as the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs.

...I mean take to rig the buildings with explosives is I imagine a pretty big job

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One - Tenants

I have stumbled on the works of a former FBI agent who's works provide some of the most credible evidence of this, as Kennedy said, "Monolithic conspiracy." Its a long lecture, and he made plenty before his death. However please watch and share it. He doesn't have near enough views on his videos. Check this out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqgdiy7yX_U

We need to find the reddit thread on this sub where Phillip marshals publisher posted here. Anyone recall the thread and have a link, I can't find it.

EDIT: I FOUND IT

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/17x0kj/former_pilot_and_911_conspiracy_theorist_shoots/c89no7a -- however, delted his comments...

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/17x0kj/former_pilot_and_911_conspiracy_theorist_shoots/

Undelete doesnt seem to be working

Here is my comment: http://i.imgur.com/aWJlZ84.png

Yeah they posted a thread just days after and said they thought it was odd as they had just spoken with him days prior. He mentioned some other things that showed he was legit.

Then, I asked him questions about if he could verify that he knew he had a gun/would have had access to ammo or something, I cant recall exactly what we asked -- but I think I asked if he would have any way to view his credit card/banking transactions to confirm if he had really went and purchased ammo.

What other reddit archive as opposed to /r/undelete can be used to hunt for this?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3a67mc/10_reasons_why_911_was_demonstrably_an_inside_job/csabt0r

An Interesting 9/11 Plot Hole

How would the Boeing 757 that apparently "crashed" into the side of the pentagon leave no discernible wreckage and a hole that is only 14-16 feet wide. Also, the fuel from the plane would have burned for a few days and would've prompted a soil cleanup, yet none of those things ever happened. That just seems strange to me.

Here is a picture of the hole

Don't know about you, but that looks like a tad bit more than 14-16 feet wide.

As for the fuel, it most likely burnt up within minutes. I don't see why it would/should've burned for days?

Type this into Google:

"9/11 pentagon plane pieces"

Then talk more about how there wasn't any "descernable wreckage"...

yup, there was a website that was dedicated to parodying that fact, something about selling indestructible lawns or something like that

Everyone who uses the meme "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is ignoring building 7 http://imgur.com/a/w5iuG

Why do I get the feeling every last one of those pictures is demonstrating at least some kind of insurance fraud.

Everyone besides WTC7? You can look up each individual event here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

For me it comes down to this: Which of the events of that day was not utterly surreal? Not one single thing that happened with any of those aircraft (or whatever) has happened that way before nor indeed since. I don't see any point in even wondering about it. The only thing that I do wonder about is how anyone could even believe for a moment that it was a real and natural event? It was anything but that.

I don't think anyone believes it to be a "natural" event(whatever you mean by that).

Have it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons airplanes don't get hijacked and flown into sky-scrapers might be because of 9/11? After the attacks airport security was increased massively across the globe.

Have you considered that it never happened before? Any aircraft that flew into buildings never did even a fraction of the damage that occurred in those events that day. Not a single pilot on this planet nor any other would be able to do the things those alleged hijackers did.

The only thing that has happened worldwide due to those events was the utter loss of our freedom and sovereignty as human beings.

Have you considered that it never happened before?

It's not the first time a plane has flown into the building, but perhaps it was the first time a plane of that size had flown into a building...

Is that suppose to mean something though? The fact that planes flying into buildings is uncommon somehow proves something?

Any aircraft that flew into buildings never did even a fraction of the damage that occurred in those events that day

Why is this weird, considering no other plane of that size has been flown into a building? I don't think the damage is unproportional at all, considering the speed and size of the planes.

Not a single pilot on this planet nor any other would be able to do the things those alleged hijackers did.

Care to elaborate? What "things" were so amazing no single pilot would be able to do?

Also, are you then suggesting there weren't any pilots, or maybe that there weren't even any planes?

Have you read this or anything about this? Why in the world are you specifically here, asking these questions when this thread is presenting those very answers to you?

There is a name for people who do that.

Is this thread presenting the answers? Not in the OP, and not from you, apparently.

As for the claims, of course I've seen them. They have all been thoroughly debunked. I could just ignore them, but I'm instead giving you a chance to convince me these are actual problems.

Now, instead of arguing about why I'm here or questioning my person like you are now, let's discuss the topic, shall we?

First of all, you mentioned the fact that a plane this size had newer flewn into a building of this size, as if to say it means something. What does it mean, exactly? You do mention:

Any aircraft that flew into buildings never did even a fraction of the damage that occurred in those events that day

Does that fact have any worth in itself? Not really, unless you take into consideration the speed the plane was flying in, the mass of the plane, the fuel, how it hit the building etc.

Taking all the factors into consideration leaves us with a very proportional amount of damage.

Not a single pilot on this planet nor any other would be able to do the things those alleged hijackers did.

This claim is weird in many ways. The first obvious thing this insinuates is that the planes weren't flown by a person at all. What then, I ask?

What was so very special about what the hijackers did, that not a single pilot would be able to do?

Feel free to actually respond to my questions and concerns. It won't hurt, I promise.

I didn't make an offer of further info. Although you find the issues utterly debunked, they are anything but that to me and to a lot of others.

You're going to have to open your own mind, heart, and eyes. It's not for others to convince you. If you feel it's all good then go on about your business and leave others to their spooky conspiracy theories. But if your heart has a nagging doubt, it's yours to pursue. Use your own mind and your own reasoning to work it out. I'm content with my own observations and have put the issue to rest -- as my comment reflected.

They only rule until we decide otherwise. No one should rule us in any event. When a society has no respect for the personal sovereignty of its people and the people themselves defer their free will to any other body, things have gone badly wrong. If anything, this is what the events of 9/11 demonstrate. That there are still people who so badly need to believe that it was anything less than surreal shows just how weak we have become in registering our own observations over the official story. It's all right there in front of us, but so many still can't or won't see.

The worst lie of all is the one you tell yourself. At this point in time, human civilization worldwide is built on lies. It still doesn't mean we have to go along with it. We owe it to ourselves not to.

Your vague claims of victory are purposefully so because they are founded upon literally nothing. The moment you get specific about anything at all you'll be destroyed by the evidence.

Quite the contrary actually... I responded to the lad posing questions/concerns with his claims. He declined answering them. That's not my problem.

Are you thinking about anything in particular? It helps to be specific, you know.

Are you pretending you don't know what a remote-controlled plane is?

It may have been a hologram you know. Or aliens. You need an open mind.

Jokes aside, I believe what can be proven to a certain extent, not some idiots fantasies.

Yes, I'm thinking that the OP specifically proves that 9/11 was an inside job.

You genuinely do, don't you?

The WTC was actually designed for a plane of that size to fly into the building.

Is there a reason why WTC 7 is not in the top 10?

Or that the buildings fell into their own footprint.

Or that debris was immediately shipped overseas at the rate of 400 truckloads/day.

Or even the early announcement on LIVE television that WTC 7 had collapsed while it was clearly still in the background.

Or, that Larry Silverstein said "pull it," which would imply explosives were already in place.

Or that the Enron, Worldcom and Tyco investigation records were in WTC 7, and all the records were destroyed as result of the implosion(s).

Not one of these is worth mentioning?

No WTC 7?

To me, it's not even so much 9/11 itself that's so important... it's the implications.

If you figure out 9/11 was an inside job, it logically follows that the western press is willing to lie, in concert, to conceal the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people AND to lie to promote wars that killed more than a million. Which implies that our news is not really news, but mere propaganda. And that implies that nearly all TV and movies, which support the original lie in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, are part of the propaganda network. And public education, which supports it, is part of it. As are many, if not most churches.

This calls into question not only current events, but indeed our entire "known" history.

It implies that the majority of the western world is living in a schizophrenic bubble, an artificial reality if you will, controlled by criminal oligarchs. (Indeed, most likely the whole world is kept within bubbles of various sorts... but I don't speak enough languages to be able to confirm.)

To me, that's the real mindfuck of 9/11:

We're living in an fake reality.

Whoa.

Once you know what really happened on 9/11, the whole deception just logically unravels.

I suppose you could get there from Sandy Hook or Boston Bombing or even Alex Jones... but 9/11 is just such a straight shot.

I'm a big fan of this documentary; it's reasonably short, well-made, and gives you a good push down the rabbithole of implications:

• 9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version

very well briefed.

Five-eyes is the only big organization we know about for cross-country cooperation to subvert human rights. Imagine if a similar agreement was made for false flag attacks.

Your link for 4) is dead. Did you save the file or do you have another link? I would be very interested to read it. Thanks for this neat aggregation of relevant information!

There is more than enough evidence to convict Larry Silverstein of "terrorism fraud," to go after his co-conspirators and other obstructors of justice who tried to cover it up.

Great job OP. I'm not trying to be a dick, but...when it comes 9/11, all anyone really needs to say about an inside job or undeniable proof is...Building 7. Absolutely ENOUGH said.

:-)

Israel did 9/11

So much evidence damn. This isn't your ordinary FUD.

Its getting really obvious now.

To be honest, I've always laughed at 9/11 conspiracies. Dismissed them, disregarded and even mocked them.

What's opening my eyes isn't these posts, not at all. They were always here. More so watching our government is convincing me something may have happened here.

NSA, TPP, Snowden, The Media, SOPA, Censorship on Reddit and the news media, countless other things has shown me these are people that have absolutely no problem screwing over millions of people for their own gain. Heck, even killing people to make a buck.

I'm not entirely convinced this was an inside job. Heck, I'd say I'm about 80% sure we were attacked that day and 20% thinking it was an inside job, but that's a lot more than could be said awhile ago.

I'll more than likely never know the real answer to that, but my mind is definitely open to anything being possible.

Have you watched A New Pearl Harbor?

This is probably here all the time but one of the most obvious ones is that the burning temperature of jet fuel is less than the melting temperature of steel beams.

I am sorry my English is not first language.

Can you summarize post for me to read?

C'mon, man. Dick Cheney's Jewish? Rumsfeld?

Finding a singular scapegoat in this matter is a significant mistake. This is a vast network.

Zionists is a better and fairer description of the culprits, along with their secret society useful idiots and mind control victims.

Indeed, its a shield they hide behind, just like "jews".

https://youtu.be/D0kWAqZxJVE

Again, I will concur that there is a Zionist element...but does that make Cheney a Zionist? Or is he a "useful idiot"? He sure doesn't seem like any kind of idiot to me, fucking evil as he is. The Bush Family? Was Aleister Crowley a Zionist? Seems like a lot of this stems from his studies and beliefs. How much of Skull & Bones is "Zionist"?

I don't dispute the Zionist element here, but it still seem like a focus on a singular element inside a much larger network.

I guess you missed the part where i mentioned secret societies huh? That link to 911 should not and must not be overlooked or downplayed.

What Jews did it?

Sure. The Jews did it

Stop being racist.

Not a race...

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

[deleted]

Yeah, 9/11 was probably an inside job. However, for the whole steel beam argument, a few hundred tons of metal going a few hundred to a thousand miles per hour rammed into it. That couldn't have helped the beams stay stable.

The planes were at rest? I'm pretty sure that he is referring to them, and not the building...

As for the steel beams, they were most likely weakened by the fire, which made the towers collapse under its own mass.

It really doesn't matter that most of the mass was below the weakened steel. Or are you suggesting that the towers were designed to withstand pressure equal to 10-20 floors crashing down upon it?

Just wow. And how much distance did this 10-20 floors have to "crash down" on the massively (over 6 times) heavier bottom section? Oh yes, that's right: ZERO. Lulzies.

The distance doesn't really matter either. If a tower loses its structural integrity, it collapses.

Could you prove that it is physically impossible for the tower to collapse even if its structural integrity is weakened by fire? Because it seems to me that's what you're claiming.

Yeah, I'm sure it is, Mr Kruger. Good luck.

I don't have to prove it, NIST already did.

reasons?

This is the one thing that leaves me unconvinced though.

You listed several sources that are government controlled (FEMA) and mainstream media (ABC, BBC)

So how is it that a government is able to pull of the the greatest caper of all time, fool everyone and effectively convince everyone to mock and belittle anyone who questions it, but miss erasing all doubt on their official website (FEMA) and have contradicting reports on their controlled media (ABC, BBC)

Not mocking, not discounting, only seeking answers .

Heck, your sources lose more and more credibility as you go on, as if you were hoping people would stop reading when they got to a certain point. You start off with FEMA, BBC, ABC and then go to Urban Dictionary. A website anyone can add anything to, and upon clicking for "Magic Video Tape" no videos, no articles, no pictures, literally a definition that you could have written five minutes beforehand.

Why is it so hard for you numbskulls to see that sometimes, things do happen for real, not as part of a conspiracy. Fucking delusional.

What are you even trying to say here hahaha. "Things do happen for real" Oh very interesting, you're a genius congrats.

Literally at the bottom of the metallurgy report.

. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

It never points to munitions. Blatant lie that idiots fall for.

Literal quotes from the metallurgy report is disinfo? Lmao. Don't be a nutjob. I pointed out a blatant falsehood. Grow up and admit it. It's literally in the report. I didn't twist words(like you have). I literally copy and pasted the exact words from the report that you linked.

No I literally quoted the first link in your post. How about you actual read your own source, dumbass. Go ahead.

At what point does being "prior to collapse" imply munitions. It doesn't. You're filling in a blank with your own fucking words because you're a dumbass pushing an agenda. Next time you bitch about the world not taking you idiots serious, stop and think if it's you causing that with dumbass fallacy like this.

Munitions isn't the only possible cause for that. So no it doesn't imply that whatsoever. Here's an example of your delusional logic. If I say I have something green in my pocket you'd go " hurt durr it must be a leaf because leaves are green!" Leafs aren't the only things that are green, dumbass. Me saying its green doesn't imply leaves it implies its fucking green. You made the connection to leaves that was in no way implied and then stated it as fact to push your agenda.

And Barnett didn't come to that conclusion what so ever. His exact words.

A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

He very plainly said severe long burning fires. Not munitions. Literally. In his own words. There's nothing left to do but ridicule you. There is no arguing his plainly written words. But continue to reply with bigotry, shill.

You know what existed prior to the collapse? Severe and long burning fires. Lmao

Not according to your own link, shill. Also, nice editing your comments. Lmao.

Read your own link, shill.

Question. When was the last time you've had human contact in real life?

No need to get offended. Genuinely curious if someone as deluded as you has the ability to function in society or not.

Seriously have you ever felt the touch of a women? It's fascinating how people end up like yourself.

Trolling? I'm honestly curious about your state of mind. It's like those shows that interview serial killers except it's just a different kind of crazy.

Did your obsession with blaming the government on everything stem from an overly strict father and low self esteem issues?

How was your relationship with teachers in highschool?

Well guess youre gunna have to have a conversation with my counting bot then. Have fun.

1

You know what existed prior to the collapse? Severe and long burning fires. Lmao

So what wasted the steel away before collapse?

For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin... Source

Building 7 "The beam,... had clearly endured searing temps. Parts of the flat top... once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. ...charred after the collapse, or... engulfed in the fire... The answer... ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

Whatever ate away that steel did it quickly.

Nothing in that source is scientific.

Astaneh was in nyc on sept 19 looking at beams and stated parts of the ends of the steel had disappeared before the collapse. What was the actual chemical mechanism by which you believe the observed sulfidation and any subsequent formation of a eutectic could be caused in that time frame.

He stated the end of literally one beam had vaporized. And nothing in either of your links implies munitions and clearly implies fire damage. Try reading your links with looking for something to cherry pick and your question is answered.

fire damage Steel wastage

I tried reading a paper too!

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of WTC buildings. "These analyses enhance our understanding of the evidence that proves the use of incendiary devices in demolition of the WTC.."

Don't worry, you can't argue with people that don't value logic or people who are purposefully misinforming others. This thread is filled wih so much unprovable bullshit. Thanks for sharing your two cents.

I think you are referring to the official conspiracy theory?

Well I think the 'official' story is bullshit along with 99.9 percent of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. I'm very much into conspiracy theories yet I'm always questioning my beliefs whether conspiratorial or not. It blows my mind the stupid shit I used to believe and that people do believe right now. I live with someone right now that's trying to get me to believe that the earth is flat but he has no proof or even decent ideas as to why the earth would be flat. It's mainly because some random guy on youtube says so. I know how sick and twisted our government is, their incredulous actions know no bounds. I wish people had the veracity to realize that they're wrong sometimes and accept it. I've fallen prey to so many people who dispersed information that turned out to be verifiably wrong, and I think those people knew all along that they were full of shit.

Inside job, jew job, Saudi job, cave job, or hand job... there is no point drawing any conclusion other than you don't know, and will never know details of 9/11.

Don't waste your time focusing on one day, zoom out.. think of history as a sports almanac and governments are NFL teams...the totality of 9/11 starts to look like a game plan out of the play book.

Why the fuck are you here ?

9/11 is a multiple murder, there's not supposed to be a statue of limitations for murder. New credible evidence & leads normally taken seriously & investigated by law enforcement, are summarily dismissed as silly conspiracy by morally bankrupt politicians, and a corporate cacophony of pathetic media clowns.

Cut off from professionally investigated leads and denied vetted evidence, politicians have reduced a multiple homicide into a circular jerk clown circus...truth seekers pollute with what they cant know.

Exactly you are just a sad troll.

I asked a question you couldn't answer you stupid troll.

Sorry mate, I really don't have time for the village idiot. Please go away. I'm not playing silly troll games.

You people are fucking mental.

division and tension.

Is that some sort of catch phrase? Like If you smell the the Rock is cooking, for the tinfoil hatters?

it's the M.O. of JTRIG. how do you not know that?

My money is on this user /u/billdietrich1 will come here to say give me more "concrete" evidence. He needs more then 10 reasons. I'm betting he is on his government lunch break now!

Quantity is not equal to quality. This is a "Gish gallop", an attempt to overwhelm with quantity.

But I'll take a quick shot at it:

1- Metal corrosion: a "question", not evidence of anything particular.

2- Hijackers visa applications: if this was deliberate conspiracy, wouldn't the govt have made sure their visa applications were convincing, worth approving ?

3- Predicted action against Afghanistan: could mean anything. More missile strikes, as Clinton did in the 90's ?

4- Thermite: refuted by http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm CT's say "but those aren't the same red/gray chips !" Who knows ? Seems unproven to me.

5- Bin Laden tape is a fraud: critiquing OBL's language and the rings he's wearing seems pretty thin to me.

6- Israelis dancing: see http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

7- Psychological study of CT's: irrelevant.

8- Cheney ordered no shoot down of Pentagon plane: seems to be an isolated statement by one witness, Mineta. He says it was some time after the shoot-down order was given, which was 9:50 according to http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-when-did-cheney-authorize-the-shoot-down-of-civilian-planes/5425959 Flight 77 hit Pentagon at 9:37 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

9- Who gained: not evidence of any conspiracy; just speculation.

10- Pilot who wrote 9/11 book is dead: not evidence of any conspiracy; just speculation. And why would anyone kill him AFTER the book comes out, instead of BEFORE ?

Only item 4 has any potential to be evidence of a conspiracy, and it seems to be refuted. If someone can duplicate the positive-for-thermite tests and establish a clear chain of evidence from the 9/11 site to the lab, that would be good evidence. I think that has not been done.

• Metal corrosion: a "question", not evidence of anything particular.

Except legitimate scientific intrigue and of course the owners of existing high rise structures and insurers understanding the risk of sudden fire induced collapses. After all the "event" (severe corrosion) could have happened before the buildings collapsed.

not evidence of anything particular.

The lack of following up on this important call for action and the fact that insurance premiums, design parameters and building constriction codes have not been modified indicates the insurance companies do not accept the PC hypothesis and the powers that be don't want to know what happened to the WTC steel.

4- Thermite: refuted by http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/paper/index.htm CT's say "but those aren't the same red/gray chips !" Who knows ? Seems unproven to me.

Seems conclusive to many.

Harriet et al wrote and published a paper on active thermitic multilayered chips. It's more similar to this than it is to Millette's unpublished primer paint study.

Jim Millette, a long-time government scientist

It's Harrit, not Harriet. From http://nielsharrit.org/ : "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later." That seems a bit dubious to me; would be nice to have a clear chain of evidence from the 9/11 site to a lab. Where were the samples collected from ? Who collected them ? Was any debris collected from the landfill or something and analyzed ?

The Millette study contradicts Harrit, but also I don't see any exact specification of where Millette got his/her samples: http://www.nmsr.org/millette.pdf

Moving on to the chain of custody I see.

Here's one story.

“The dust seemed to have an emotional impact on me.” That feeling led her to create All That Remains... a round, see-through container filled with the dust collected from her loft and adorned with fallen petals at the base. Janette also passed a sample of the dust to physicist Dr. Steven Jones,

Maybe a better question is what were Red Gray Chips that react similar to Nanothermite doing in the dust of the wtc at all?

The Millette study contradicts Harrit, but also I don't see any exact specification of where Millette got his/her samples: http://www.nmsr.org/millette.pdf

How's that? It's clear he didn't study a multilayered chip from the dust of the WTC.

Yes, it seems to come down to multiple people getting their chips from multiple places and getting different results. Which is why I'd like to see something that clearly came from the buildings, tested and clearly found to contain thermite or whatever. And other stuff from the general area but definitely not coming from the WTC, tested and found NOT to contain the thermite or whatever.

So you're Pro-Evil Corporate Government?

Yeah, that must be it, the only reason I could possibly disagree with these claims is because I must be in favor of everything the govt does.

Well it looks like it. Its a question, i just wanted an answer.

If you want a serious answer, I was against just about everything done by the Bush administration, and I'm against all of the military/security/spying/whistleblower policies of the Obama administration. I do agree with Obama on healthcare, immigration, renewable energy, climate change.

If you want to read more of my thinking and ideas on policies, see http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/Rants.html

None of that affects my evaluation of 9/11, which is: the govt explanation has evidence and makes sense; the conspiracy theories have NO evidence and often make no sense.

Lol. It has absolutely no evidence. The conspiracy theory you're touting on their behalf is contradicted by the most fundamental laws of physics. Show us some evidence, and watch it get laughed out of the thread.

Kind of like how ae911truth got laughed out of the American Institute of Architects conference?

This is not true. I highly doubt the average person would risk their career to make a statement.

This is not true.

Oh it most certainly is. Did you see the vote count?

I highly doubt the average person would risk their career to make a statement.