Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

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.

"Linda" is the evidence.

lol

Like there'd be no innocent reason a van visited the WTC complex at night. Cleaning crews, deliveries, ...

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.

Again, waffle and technobabble you don't understand. You do not address my points.

The study proves no nanothermite was present. RJ Lee believes that the buildings collapsed due to the fires. He did not claim that thermite was present.

There's a reason you don't keep spamming the link like you did before.

I don't take your word for anything. You have been caught out lying many many times and often read and see things that are not there.

But again, rather than just address a simple point, you link dump and run away.

But funnily, you prove my point by not link dumping to the study I was referring to. It's clear you don't want people reading it.

Study you are talking about.

This document is a damage assessment report for the Liberty Building, located in New York. The purpose of this report was to catalog all the World Trade Center (WTC) dust signatures found in the building and compare them to the findings taken in 2000, as well as other background buildings. The objective was to evaluate the extent of damage caused by the WTC dust and its impact on the Liberty Building.

Another aspect that should be emphasized is that there was no collaboration or exchange of information between NIST and the R J Lee Group regarding their respective investigation into the high strangeness observed in the melting of iron. This lack of coordination and comparison of notes between the two organizations might have hindered a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.

The findings of the R J Lee group, although they do not explicitly mention thermite or other potential causes for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC), do provide significant evidence regarding the presence of iron spheres in the aftermath. These iron spheres were a result of melting, as indicated throughout the report. In fact, the report even includes a page dedicated to presenting the ratios of iron in the WTC dust, highlighting the vast quantity and substantial mass of iron present.

See here.

It is important to note that the presence of iron spheres was not limited to a few scattered microspheres. On the contrary, the R J Lee group's analysis reveals that there were literally hundreds of thousands of iron spheres, based on their percentages in the WTC dust samples. The vaporization of various materials, including lead, suggests that the temperatures reached during this event were beyond what is typically observed. This finding highlights the exceptional nature of the circumstances surrounding the collapse.

In the discourse surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, it is often stated that R J Lee only attributed the cause of the collapse to fire ( true). However, it is essential to analyze this viewpoint within the larger context of the building study conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and other researchers. Their investigation ( NIST) revealed no evidence of temperatures reaching the melting point of steel and iron within the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. This finding presents an intriguing anomaly, as evidence of the melting of iron and steel was discovered in the WTC dust analyzed by a separate group, the J Lee group.

Here is the evidence I actually provided. Critics argue that NIST's dismissal of the possibility of melted steel and iron undermines their credibility. They contend that the evidence, such as the presence of liquid steel in the rubble and the observation of flowing, glowing liquid steel, supports the idea that the fires were much hotter than what NIST claims.

In conclusion, the R J Lee Group study provides compelling evidence for this anomaly and therefore the presence and possible utilization of a nanothermite substance has to be considered. The melting of iron and steel, as well as the production of iron spheres, point towards the involvement of this energetic material in the event.

One of the primary concerns with the official narrative is the fragmented approach taken by different agencies and groups. Instead of working together as a cohesive unit, these entities often operate independently, which resulted in a disorganized and disjointed investigation process later. .With each entity working in isolation, important findings, data, and insights can easily go unnoticed.

NIST, a federal agency tasked with investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, has refuted the claim made by R J Lee Group. NIST asserts that there is no evidence to support the notion that steel or iron melted prior to the buildings' collapse. What do you do with that information but question it?

There is no lie in what I claimed. Posters saying otherwise is irrelevant. It is clear as day in the Q and A section what NIST thinks and feels happened here.

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-towers-investigation

Wrong iron microspheres are indeed a byproduct of a thermatic reaction, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise to posters.

While the R J Lee group is steadfast in their conviction that steel and iron melted before the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) takes a different stance.

This omission raises questions about the thoroughness of the investigations conducted by NIST into the causes of the collapse.

The R J Lee Group, believe that the fires were indeed hot enough to melt steel and iron.

Why do debunkers not have information on why this significant factor is not addressed in the NIST reports?

When it comes to the behavior and properties of steel, two distinct processes hold significant importance - melting and losing strength.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), even with jet fuel fires, temperatures do not reach the necessary level to melt iron and steel. This finding challenges the traditional explanation for the collapse and raises concerns about the accuracy of the mainstream account.

The presence of conflicting information regarding the melting of iron and steel, coupled with the unaddressed signature anomaly, creates a complex and intriguing situation

Thermite, when ignited, produces an intense amount of heat that can surpass the melting point of steel and iron. Misleading again thermite can cause melting

Molten iron is a substance that can solidify under specific conditions. The process of solidification occurs when iron transitions from a liquid state to a solid state. This transformation can be achieved through various methods, including melting, heating, and even through the use of thermite.

Given the contrasting viewpoints and evidence, a pertinent question arises: Is NIST deliberately misleading the public? This question stems from the contradiction between the findings of NIST and the physical evidence presented by R.J. Lee group.

You always ask others for evidence, never do the same. Why would NIST deny that steel and iron melted during the WTC fire? At least attempt to provide an answer for honest debate.

Corbett? Pass.