Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

Due to its systematic starvation and slaughter of Gazans, Israel has lost all sympathy privileges forever. Strange to say, I just arrived to talk about 9/11

Regardless of what you want to say, there is no solid proof that Israel was responsible for the demolition. The only argument I have is that someone else got involved and destroyed the buildings. Who that is is a mystery even to me. I just speculate on suspects. 

Physical evidence provides tangible and concrete proof that can be objectively examined and evaluated. It serves as a reliable source of information that is not influenced by our psychological biases ( you have them)

Physical evidence can include things like documents, photographs, videos, or any other form of material evidence that supports or contradicts a particular claim or official narrative.

Unlike debunkers, who may rely solely on subjective opinions or anecdotal evidence, I use physical evidence to support my case.

The steel columns play a critical role in distributing the weight and loads of the building evenly. The columns on the east side and west side are strategically placed to provide maximum support and balance.

Here is the layout of building seven steel structure..

In the second screenshot, it is demonstrated why freefall is an important feature of this collapse. Freefall occurs when the entire steel core, spanning from east to west, collapses fully. There is no resistance from steel columns. This absence of steel columns is crucial for the occurrence of freefall.n order for freefall to occur, it is crucial that all the steel cores marked with a green "x" are removed to create a clear path for the upper section to pass through. This ensures a smooth and unobstructed descent. 

It is important to reiterate that this account is not an opinion or view, but a factual representation of what actually happened to Building Seven on September 11, 2001. 

In conclusion, the NIST modeling reveals the presence of internal collapse on the east side of the building, while stages of collapse continue to occur on the west side. This finding highlights the omission of freefall in the original analysis. If the x columns in the blue area are not fully collapsed, then it is impossible for the NIST version to be true.

The concept of freefall for steel columns can be understood through scientific principles and physical conditions. You are in denial, not me.

If you are skeptical about a particular theory or claim, a recommended course of action would be to approach an actual building engineer and present them with my last post. A significant number of engineers may not have paid close attention to the study on Building Seven, missing the glaring problems it presents.

Dr. Hulsey's modeling, if the collapse were to occur as NIST stated, the building would have toppled over to the left. This finding, although met with skepticism by idiots at Metabunk. It was earlier reproduced by another independent group, lending further credibility to Dr. Hulsey's finite modeling

The removal of support at the upper portions would result in significant window breakage and wall deformation before the start of the final collapse..

What actually happened is

 eight floors fully collapsed below what not visible on the video, leading to the upper section coming through the now-open space at the bottom at freefall acceleration. The video here does not provide any evidence or support for a progressive collapse occurring in various directions over a prolonged period of time.

NIST denied the existence of any noise from inside building seven ( another lie)

The presence of a loud bang ( 1 second of video) raises questions about the official narrative. While critics argue that this noise supports the theory of a structural collapse, alternative explanations and further investigation are necessary to reach a conclusive understanding of the events captured in the video

Isnt Waffle the Real Actuial Video" has been regarded as significant physical evidence of a particular incident. In the past, both Dohnjoe and Kingmob have made claims about the occurrence, suggesting that the entire interior was gutted out before the end collapse occurred. The question arises: where exactly did this event take place on the west side? It is crucial to pinpoint the location in order to further investigate and verify the claims made.

This separation between the columns and the walls is a critical event that often precedes the ultimate collapse of a building. The penthouse has fallen, and there should be no excuses. It is necessary to determine the location of the gutting happening in the upper section. Of course, I know you guys will ignore that issue here.

 The lack of clarity, inconsistent explanations, and contradictory findings within their published works raise doubts about their comprehension of the underlying principles. 

Like i said.

One of the claims made by NIST suggests that the entire interior of the building collapsed before the actual collapse occurred. Theory debunkers like Dohnjoe and Kingmob support.However, many find it difficult to comprehend how the interior of the building could collapse entirely before the overall collapse took place. Never discussed on here why the west side looks intact if so?

Final claim. Another claim put forward by NIST is that the collapse of the building happened in stages, starting from the bottom. This theory suggests that the lower levels of the building gave way first over longer period of time, leading to a cascading effect that ultimately caused the entire structure to collapse.

Right in the final one, but there deliberately hiding the fact that didnt happen in a slower stage at all.  NIST model is not a faithful depiction of the events that occurred. This alignment between the model and the real-life footage lends credibility to the accuracy and reliability 

The building in the second screenshot is clearly in the process of collapsing. It is important to note that the concept of freefall does not apply in this situation due to the presence of a significant amount of steel obstructing the path in the NIST model. The black area represents the area where the steel is still intact and preventing a complete freefall. Therefore, it can be concluded that the building in the NIST model is not experiencing freefall as there are structural elements in place that hinder such a scenario.

Physical evidence holds more weight than any psychological interpretation in this context.  I am not the FBI or the police. When conducting historical investigations, the examination of security footage, if available, can be an excellent starting point.

Years ago, I saw this on video. It's a story.

During a conversation with her superior, a CIA operative named Linda, whose second name I forgot, revealed a disturbing piece of information on video. Linda's boss had informed her about the existence of security video footage capturing a white van entering the Twin Towers late at night and departing in the early hours of the morning. Higher-ups in the government, he warned Linda, had advised him to steer clear of this particular investigation into the white van and men there. The potential consequences for his career were made clear, implying that this matter was not to be delved into further. 

It's a story I can't verify, but I think it's happening like this.

Wrong.When an object is in freefall, it is only subject to the force of gravity and does not encounter any resistance or external forces (no steel here).

In their final paper, NIST was forced to answer this question.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

"In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

In analyzing their response, it becomes apparent how they arrived at their final determination. It was observed that they intentionally introduced an artificial delay time, which included an additional 1.5 seconds. Interestingly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges that a freefall over a distance of 18 stories would typically take approximately 3.9 seconds (controlled demolition). that's what happened. When the building descended, an actual clock count was performed by David Chandler, and it took approximately close to 4 seconds to complete 18 stories down not 5.4 seconds

The inclusion of an extra 1.5 seconds in the delay time because of some camera angle pixel and appears to have distorted the results in their model.

The delay time in the building's collapse raises questions and lacks logical reasoning. Despite the descent of the building in their own model, the delay time seems to disregard the underlying cause of the collapse. It is important to highlight that this delay time does not match with a sudden and complete failure of the steel columns at the bottom of the structure!!!!

NIST's discrediting of the controlled demolition theory is based on their analysis of a pixel in footage from one camera angle. Think how silly that is!!

Busy today don't have time for further replies today.

The physical evidence supporting the theory of controlled demolition cannot be overlooked

.The psychological reasons you have for denying the theory of controlled demolition here are irrelevant.

NIST ruled out controlled demolition theory based on a pixel from a distorted camera that created the illusion of slower building descent.  Despite the undeniable proof presented everywhere else, they continue to turn a blind eye to the truth. It is important to note that all clocks show a descent time of exactly 4 seconds, further supporting the validity of the evidence for controlled demolition.NIST are fools, and anyone who believes this nonsense is too.

The specific time frame in which the building is visible ( 18 stories) in the camera footage is between 10 seconds and 14 seconds.

During this period starts at 10 seconds, the building gradually disappears from view. This controlled demolition process lasts for a total of 4 seconds, which is shorter than the 5.4 seconds claimed by NIST. For those interested in witnessing this event, I would recommend watching the video to observe the lie being referred to here.

Just watch 10 second up to 14 second mark all you need to watch here. Just keep eye on the roofline and the corners!!

Forgot another sign the Truthers are rights windows only break at the 10 to 11-second mark on the west side ( right side of the video)

While concerns regarding the mental aspects surrounding the collapse of Building Seven may exist, it is essential to prioritize the examination of the physical anomalies that have been observed. The rapid and symmetrical collapse, free-fall acceleration, minimal damage and fire, and vertical symmetry all point towards the presence of controlled demolition rather than natural collapse.

While the idea of secretive behavior may initially sound absurd.  It is important to approach any investigation into a terrorist attack with an open mind, acknowledging the possibility that multiple parties may have had a hand in the event. 

When examining the events surrounding the Twin Towers, it is crucial to explore the possible methods employed to introduce nano-thermite into the buildings. In this particular context, there is a lack of evidence indicating the use of conventional explosives here.

Building 7, also known as WTC 7, was a highly peculiar structure that stood out among the other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. What sets it apart is the fact that it appears to have been demolished using explosives, making it the only building to have collapsed in such a manner on 9/11.

What makes the collapse of Building 7 even more intriguing is its alleged association with the CIA. It is believed that the building housed the largest CIA base outside of Langley. This information adds another layer of complexity to the events that unfolded on that fateful day.

Nanothermite, only potential suspect material used for the collapse of the Twin Towers. May not have required a large team to transport chemicals to the building due to its small size. When observed under a microscope, it appears to be nanometer-sized. It is difficult to determine what nanothermite looked like before it was discovered in the dust after the collapse. However, the nanometer size of these chips provides revealing insights into its engineering.

The presence of a large fluid leak of material found in the rubble, as well as another fluid leak caught on video, has baffled investigators and researchers alike. However, the discovery of nanothermite offers a compelling explanation. One of the most perplexing anomalies encountered at Ground Zero was the melting of steel, which was identified by FEMA and witnessed by several engineers. Traditional structural fires cannot reach temperatures high enough to cause steel to melt. However, the discovery of nanothermite sheds new light on this enigma. 

The presence of residue containing elements associated with nanothermite, such as iron-rich spheres and aluminum flakes, further strengthens the argument for its significance. These findings provide a cohesive narrative that connects the observed anomalies to the use of nanothermite.

As far as I can tell, nanothermite has never been used in such building collapses before. However, there are anomalies that cannot be explained by fire alone. Therefore, the discovery of nanothermite, which some consider to be a legitimate find, could potentially offer an explanation for these anomalies.

The issue that debunkers often refuse to address is related to the official explanation surrounding the events of 9/11. It is important to note that the official explanation does not explicitly claim that any steel melted; rather, it states that the steel weakened. However, individuals who were not involved in conspiracy theories but were part of the investigation discovered melted steel, which they found to be highly unusual.

It is crucial to acknowledge the distinction between the official explanation and the observations made by those involved in the investigation. While the official explanation emphasizes the weakening of the steel, these non-conspiratorial individuals encountered melted steel during their examination. This discrepancy raises questions and warrants further analysis.he presence of melted steel, as reported by unbiased investigators, points towards a deviation from the official explanation. 

Embracing conspiracy theories in the political and work spheres can lead to a myriad of problems, including eroded trust, polarization, and damaged reputation. I understand in some ways why NIST and others didn't want to go conspiratorial but you avoid getting to the truth doing that.

The study I provided states that it is unclear whether the melting occurred during the collapse or after. Therefore, the exact cause of the melting remains unknown. This uncertainty does not rule out the possibility of nanothermite being involved. It is worth noting that the red/grey chips involved in the study did contain sulfur. However, it is possible that the sulfur found could have originated from these red/grey chips.

FEMA has observed the presence of sulfur, which they believe may be a contributing factor to the lower melting point of steel. However, it is important to note that this hypothesis remains untested as no laboratory experiments have been conducted on steel with just sulfur at the recommended temperature. It is necessary to verify whether sulfur would indeed cause the same corrosive effect on steel witnessed here. Without conclusive evidence from controlled experiments, it is premature to draw a definitive conclusion regarding the impact of sulfur on the steel melting point.

The belief is that fire caused the collapses of the Twin Towers is not is a subject of debate for you guys. However, proponents of the theory argue that the combination of fire and nanothermite could not have caused the same collapses? Notice how silly that is??

I cannot provide a minute-by-minute breakdown of how nano-thermite was planted in the Twin Towers, Dont have knowledge of those specific personnel names involved in this operation as its not within the scope of the available information.

The presence of certain anomalies strongly suggests that the explanation for the phenomenon in question cannot simply be attributed to fire.The hypothesis that melting is caused by nanothermite and that molten iron and steel melting was also caused by nanothermite raises several implications that might be unsettling for some individuals who find comfort in the explanation that fire is the sole cause of these phenomena.It suggests the existence of a sophisticated and covert operation involving the use of advanced chemical materials and techniques.

R J Lee's statement, it is important to clarify the study only mentioned that iron microspheres were a distinctive characteristic of the collapse, and that they were formed in an extremely high-temperature environment during the collapse, not after it.

It is worth noting that the presence of iron microspheres in the debris of the collapse can be attributed to various factors, including the presence of iron-rich materials in the buildings, such as steel beams and other structural components.

However, there is an interesting point that is rarely discussed or acknowledged. It is worth noting that NIST has never encountered fires that exceeded a temperature of 1000 degrees Celsius. Could not be caused by fires.

Furthermore, they have even claimed that any fires at this tempature, they only lasted for a maximum of ten minutes .Given the omission of this anomaly from NIST reports, independent researchers ( call cranks) have taken it upon themselves to investigate and analyze this. The presence of nanothermite in the dust provides a clear explanation for the abundance of solidified molten iron found in the dust.

Nanothermite is a unique material that is often misunderstood. It is important to clarify that nanothermite is not thermite in the traditional sense. Instead, it consists of tiny pieces of thermite on a nanoscale level. This distinction is crucial in understanding the specific properties and applications of nanothermite. The extent of oxide that would remain after a burn test is uncertain. This uncertainty arises from the fact that we are dealing with exclusively engineered materials, which cannot be purchased in a store. The presence of perfectly uniformed nanochemicals in solidified matrices within the dust samples collected from the 9/11 events has presented scientists with an unprecedented mystery.

Is crucial to highlight the remarkable ignition temperature of the red/grey chips. Contrary to common expectations, these chips do not ignite at the conventional temperature for thermite, which is 1000 degrees Celsius. Instead, they display an exceptional property of igniting at a significantly lower temperature of 430 degrees Celsius. This deviation from the expected ignition temperature raises questions about the nature of these chips and their potential applications.To ascertain whether aluminum oxide was present, additional tests and analysis would be necessary.

In the report on page 12, after reading it again, there is a brief mention of Aluminum particles that are said to contain a layer of aluminum oxide. However, the explantation ends there and requires further clarification. To gain a better understanding, it would be necessary to reach out to the author of the report. Specifically, it is important to inquire whether this observation was made on the chips after they were burned or if it was observed prior to the burning process. Further clarification on this matter would greatly contribute to a comprehensive analysis of the report's findings.