Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aluminum with impurities - what does that even mean?

The windows with aluminum coverings are outside, not inside, if aluminum melts. There is no evidence in the video that this is aluminum.

The steel trusses and box steel columns pictured here are behind that.

Based on the location, there is some melting of steel in the corner of the building.

Although debunkers claim it is aluminum they never do any experiments to show mixing aluminum with materials they suggest can produce the same color. Truthers are unable to produce the same color mixing aluminum with materials they suggest. 

We are seeing people with the name Hani Hanjour show up at an airport in Maryland in August 2001 to rent a Cessna, but he was refused. Demonstrated difficulty controlling the plane in the air and landing it. Based on his skill set, told him no way.

Despite having a commercial pilot's license and years of experience, the experienced Hani wasn't the same person who showed up in August 2001. I don't know if there were two people using the same name or what reports are all over the place about his skills handling a plane.

It's clear that if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that guy was an experienced pilot. He was guiding the plane to edge at very low levels, flying at 400 mph over houses and roads ( official report by the way) then pushing as far it can go to 530 mph near the end.

In the eye view, buildings zip past, and leveling off a plane at this speed requires unique skill. Pilots always slow down when approaching an airport runway to avoid overrunning the tarmac and crash. Considering that the pilot's engines were only twenty feet above the grass, that was pretty crazy-flying. 

Rumsfield says they were unable to track spending, which means the money could have ended up anywhere in a bloated system of private companies and arms dealers already overflowing with money. According to the claim, the office had been tracking it for weeks and months already, but the plane deliberately attacked the accounts office to get people to stop looking for it. 

There's no doubt it can, but what evidence do you have? When you point to alternative theories, you have to test them. Debunkers never do. They throw things out there and then dont experiment. Truthers test the debunker theories more thoroughly.

Despite mixing aluminum and building materials, silver dominates the experiment. The color of the liquids clearly indicates that it has melted steel in it.

Obviously, dismissal is nonsense. It ignores the fact that engineers and architects reported seeing melted girders and that FEMA found some steel melted came from the ground zero site. 

A partial collapse appears to be occurring here, as light is visible through the East end windows.

Unfortunately, we don't have a south viewpoint to see what's really happening. The collapse seems to stop a number of stories down on east side. An opening has taken place there and the Penthouse has dropped down.

This second building on the roof is how we know NIST is lying. If that building were to start to fall to the west and collapse, then the steel supporting the second building would be no longer able to support it.

In the video, there is no indication of structural failure occurring in the rest of the building (NIST says it is happening). windows all unbroken.

During the 10 second mark, the building begins to free fall, its load falling through the 8 floors of structural support steel that has been removed from the bottom. Cracks in the windows finally appear running up the west wall.

NIST claims that there was all kinds of carnage going on inside the area but there is not evidence for it because the building on westside was unaffected for more than 6 to 7 seconds prior to the final collapse. There are 18 stories of unbroken windows at the top displayed here. 

There were 6 to 7 seconds of waiting on 9/11. 

You claim that all the materials, floors, furniture, roof fittings, girders, beams, columns, elevators, and whatever else in the mix crashed to the ground at this point second image. There is no difference in time between the first and second screenshots. 

Neither NIST nor yourself can be right because the roof structure, walls and outer surface of the building remain undamaged. Anything crazy like you described would start crumbling the building and there would be obvious dust plumes emanating from the building. 

What actually happened is shown here number 4 screenshot. After the Penthouse left the roof, the second structure begins to move and drop approximately 6 to 7 seconds later. When the load from the top comes through an 8-floor gap at the end, the building jolts or presses. Something happening at the bottom of the building is responsible for this and the building collapses. 

In response to the internal collapse (your words), cracks have begun to appear in the westside windows!! Until that point, nothing had happened at all at all.

It is only now that the building's internal structures are collapsing. 

Your ideas about the collapse make no sense. Just ignore the fact that the movement of the building only occurred about six seconds after the Penthouse left the roofline.?

Your claim that all buildings internals are collapsing from top to bottom doesn't explain why the second building remains motionless? Will provide an honest answer or simply return to accusations

Is it possible that a single window is not breaking with the decoupling of the steel frame from the walls and collapsing according to your theory?

Your take on building collapse ignores the obvious flaws. 

There is a discrepancy between what you claim and what actually happened on the day. You can't explain why the two are at odds.

With screenshots, I showed that internals (your words) began failing. As I see it, you have nothing but opinions that for 6 to 7 seconds after Penthouse collapsed, everything inside collapsed

By showing actual screenshots of building on 9/11, I proved that my theory was different from Dohnjoe's post 89

The Dohnjoe theory states that for six or seven seconds after the first building on the roof collapsed, the rest of the building inside fully collapsed from top to bottom.

Showed screenshots to illustrate the point. Instead of glossing over the points, take a closer look and see why it doesn't hold up. In order to prove Dohnjoe theory wrong, you only need to see the building.