Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

No, it can't be a double bluff. If they wanted to keep the conspiracy secret, there'd be no benefit to bringing up the possibility of a conspiracy.

But to pull this off, they'd have to have this fake passport made, dressed up to look like it had been damaged, then planted somewhere and hope that it's found. All for no benefit.

That is not less ridiculous than perishable items surviving a plane crash.

The idea of a fake passport only seems plausible if you don't think about it in too much detail.

The Saudi passport did not come down with the building. According to the official report, the passport was inside the plane somewhere and blew out of the building when the plane impacted the North Tower

If you believe the later report was handed over to an unnamed police officer, as the story goes on Vesey Street, Which is a street adjacent to WTC7. We don't know who handed it over or who the unnamed cop was who received it. All we know is the story that they told.

The lack of any of the black boxes from the planes in the rubble is also odd. Why is there not even a metal piece of the black box anywhere in the rubble? Remember, you guys believe all that is happening here is that the structural steel buckled and collapsed the structure.

So they went to the trouble of faking a passport which is obviously fake and exposes the conspiracy. But they weren't bothered to fake black boxes.

That makes zero sense.

Good video here on the sillyness of the steel

And tens of thousands of documents ended up scattered all over the city anyway

It is important to note this reference, the FEMA report is not the only source of information on the topic. Other reports during and after the event confirm the findings of the FEMA report. The problem with debunkers is that they ignore the rest of the information and pick out only the parts they like.

There is Twin Tower video evidence of hot liquid fluid pouring out of the window before the collapse, Many eyewitnesses on site saw the liquid in the rubble, and FEMA itself said the steel was liquefied based on their limited study done in 2002 before any conspiracy talk was mentioned.

Here is your proof that the steel melted.

The scientists behind this paper are of the theory that a sulfidation attack took place. In theory, sulfur may reduce the melting point of steel. It would melt at temperatures much lower than the normal melting point of steel. How would steel melt without sulfur? That would be a whole new set of questions.

Working with the assumption that sulfur was the major driving force behind the steel melting here. The origin of this cannot be traced. Where did sulfur jump from to appear on the steel? NIST never bothered to investigate it. This is still unknown because NIST never studied the chemical composition of the steel or the sulfur, so there is no evidence of where the sulfur may have come from.

When NIST ignores evidence from people who were present during the clean-up, is that really a conspiracy? When was it obvious they had done so? Why is it a problem for debunkers when people want to know things here?

It is clear that NIST is not being transparent about the events of 9/11 and is ignoring the evidence that has been presented to them. This raises concerns about the integrity of their 9/11 building investigation and the motives behind their refusal to look further into the matter.

 People use the same logic in the UFO thread. They pick and choose what they want to believe. Commander Fravor, a highly decorated fighter pilot, couldn't have seen a craft that did all the things he claimed. Many people in the thread are looking for ways to explain away Commander Fravor's UFO account, rather than considering the possibility that it is true. In the same way, the hot liquid was witnessed by those who were actually there and saw the molten steel, which has been officially confirmed by FEMA since 2002.

It's not what the debunkers believe happened here, so they'll keep denying it's all just a conspiracy. In order to downplay the information from one conspiracy, debunkers here often introduce false conspiracy information into the conversation. A tactic to manipulate the debate and turn people off.

The term eutectic simply means a solid substance turned into a liquid. I'm not sure what you're trying to ask specifically here. 

In case, here referring to the Iron content of the steel and the sulfur.

No, they don't at all. The FEMA study is used to support the accurate version that steel melted, which weakened the steel structure before it collapsed. Nobody claims that all the steel in the Twin Towers melted down.

Those you call conspiracy theorists have a genuine problem with NIST because they claim there is no evidence at all of molten liquid iron in the debris pile, and no video or photographs of this phenomenon were taken before the collapse. In addition, they claimed that eyewitnesses did not mention molten steel, on video or anywhere else.

There is no disputing the evidence that the steel had melted. Photographs, videos, and eyewitness reports support the claim of molten steel at Ground Zero.

Why did they engage in denial when there is a FEMA report?

It was an ill-advised response, as it only served to fuel conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11. NIST should have acknowledged the FEMA evidence and offered an explanation for why it was likely caused by the fires.

The fact that WTC 5 and 6 and others are on fire and none of these anomalies are present makes this discovery even odder. It seems like the phenomenon, is only there for Building 7 and the Twin Towers.

It has already been explained to you that FEMA's working theory is that sulfur reduces steel's melting point by 500 degrees Celsius. The sulfuric chemical compound caused the attack. This theory was crafted because the cooled phased steel showed high concentrations of elementary sulfides. This may have caused it to melt at a significantly lower temperature than usual.

The iron in steel examples did not melt What happened? This is very strong A36-grade steel with holes in it; that liquid slag must go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear into Neverland. There is a fair amount of iron missing from this hole. Claiming there is no Iron missing from this steel example simply doesn't add up. Steel columns and beams are designed with tight-fitting connections to ensure that they stay firmly in place and don't come apart. Without tight-fitting connections, the steel columns and beams won't be able to transfer the load evenly and could fail due to uneven stresses. There would be a lot of stress if the connections melted.

You copied and dumped text without providing a link. Where did you get it? It reads like an interview. To better understand what is being said, please give the link source:

First impressions.

Wrong, I still stand by my point. They don't know if this phenomenon took place after the collapse or before it. Started before the collapse, then clearly not a corrosion attack. Corrosion takes a long time, the South Tower collapsed in 40 minutes.

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. "

Again, what is overlooked and what is so special about building seven fires is that you have a mystery like this.

This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Plastics and rubber have existed in other fires, but steel has not shown up like this before. We wouldn't be calling it a mystery otherwise here.

The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation

All is well and good, but not really answering anything as far as sulfur content is concerned. Theories, not answers.

rubber or plastics, ocean salts,acid rain.