Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

No, it was an analysis of the dust and what was in it. That's what you were presenting the study as before you realised that it disproved your theory.

It didn't detect any of the byproducts of this nanothermite.

Nor did it find any of the nanothermite chips you believe were there.

So either the study is flawed cause they were incompetent or they are part of the conspiracy again.

Oh okay. So you believe that the study is false and incompetent cause they claimed the ironspheres were caused by the fire.

Then the study is invalid and should be dismissed.

Don't come back as anyone else now, mind.

Sounds legit.

Have you seen the video where Larry Silverstein admitted talking to the Fire Department and telling them to go ahead and pull the building?

No. No one has because thats not what happened. He told them to "pull" the firemen out of there. Pull the rescue operation.

The actual full statement is:

"I suggested that they should pull it. And they made the decision to pull."

So if we are to believe that this can only be referring to a controlled demolition and that everything he said is inerrant gospel, then this means that Larry wasn't the mastermind of the plot. It was some FDNY chief.

Weird how conspiracy theorists don't seem to want to chase down this guys identity given how he out ranks even someone like Silverstein.

On the day in question, firefighters were actively engaged in fighting a fire at building 5, which took priority over any other operations. This fact alone casts doubt on the claim of a rescue operation taking place at seven at that specified time. The firefighters' presence at the scene of the fire further supports this argument. It's a false claim I read often.

Moreover, there is video evidence that a CBS reporter was inside building seven at 3 pm. During his time there, the reporter encountered an individual who was behaving strangely. This person identified themselves as a secret service agent and claimed to be clearing out the building of individuals. However, it is important to note that the validity of this person's claims was later called into question.

In the years that followed, this individual was charged with fraud for stealing cars. What makes this story even more peculiar is that the thefts occurred at ground zero, adding an additional layer of intrigue to the situation.

Based on the information presented, it is evident that there was no rescue operation at building seven, as claimed in the false post heree/

However, it is important to note that the term "pull it" can have different meanings in different contexts. In the context of controlled demolition, it refers to the deliberate use of explosives to bring down a building in a controlled manner. Some argue that Silverstein's use of this term suggests his involvement or prior knowledge of the events on 9/11.While the suspicion surrounding Larry Silverstein's role in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers persists, it is important to approach the issue with caution. The lack of concrete evidence linking him to the controlled demolition of Building 7 leaves room for doubt regarding his direct involvement. Until substantial evidence emerges, it is reasonable to consider the possibility of Silverstein's innocence. Either way, some people did it, who exactly did the mystery?

Again you're presenting things with this air of authority and objectivity that no one is going to buy.

There's no mystery or debate about Silverstiens statements. It's simply that conspiracy theorists like yourself are wrong about it. They are inventing a fantastical, nonsensical story about out of context quotes to prove their prefered beliefs. Then of course avoiding any discussion or doubt about that story.

It's ridiculous for you to argue that it's impossible that he's referring to a fire fighting operation real or planned, but then argue that he might be confessing on camera for no reason.

Your rambling about stolen cars is complete distraction and has no bearing on the point brought up.

From the same poster who lied about JFK wounds, it is no surprise that they continue making nonsensical arguments about the event at 9/11 too.

Fact: If there were a fire fighting effort at WTC7 prior to its collapse, there would be evidence of it in the form of pictures and videos.

Additionally, it is known that a CBS reporter was given exclusive access to a street near WTC7 between 2pm and 3pm on 9/11 (video online of it) During this time, there were no fire trucks or firemen actively hosing down the building, further reinforcing the conclusion that there was no fire fighting effort at this location.

Again, I don't care who did it; it's not my job to figure that out. It is clear as day to anyone who looked at the 9/11 event that people in the government back in 2001 covered up a wide range of things related to the event. These cover-ups included various aspects of the financing of the hijackers.

You should start asking questions about why people in Saudi intelligence and ISI used intermediaries to finance an Al-Qaeda attack against an ally.

These questions are completely ignored by some because they are uncomfortable questions on preknowledge and the role of elites in getting some young men to hijack planes. People want to be stuck in the mindset of bin Laden being the mastermind of it all hiding out in deep cave. The media totally ignore the fact that with those with knowledge about Al Qaeda (outside the elite) was arrested, captured, killed, and sent to Guantanamo Bay concentration camp. All the Al Qaeda narratives are solely based on forced confessions.In conclusion, the construct surrounding 9/11 is widely believed to have been influenced by the CIA. 

Where is your friend tonight?

I often support it, but it seems you dismiss the scientific evidence and anomalies as insignificant problems.

You fail to provide a reasonable explanation for the fire's involvement in all the observed phenomena. Moreover, you refuse to engage in a debate regarding controlled demolition.

If you possess an alternative theory that can explain everything through fire, go ahead. I have made claims supported by evidence, but certain posters have dismissed or misinterpreted these statements. 

Scientific evidence of omission and fraud is found in a government investigation into the Building Seven collapse; how is that not credible evidence?

Another aspect that fuels skepticism is the NIST's stance on data release. The agency has faced criticism for withholding certain pieces of information. Critics argue that the lack of transparency in releasing the full dataset hampers independent analysis and further fuels doubts. 

There may be no issue for you here, but it is definitely a very curious way to do things when you claim that everything here is due to the fire.NIST has consistently played up the national security card to justify their actions and deflect criticism. By invoking national security concerns, NIST has been able to shield itself from scrutiny and hinder scientific discourse. This strategy has not only hindered independent analysis but has also contributed to the perpetuation of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

You can call them cranks and fraudsters, but in my view, the AE911 truth community has clearly shown problems with the study that would undermine their entire hypothesis.

Only other studies that I am aware of involved a court case, but we do not have any actual documentation or works available online from that particular case. However, based on the information we have, the collapse is believed to have occurred on the 10th floor.

The NIST hypothesis suggests that the collapse started on the 12th and 13th floors. However, it is important to note that there are several discrepancies among these studies. Each study presents a different version of events, leading to confusion and disagreement among researchers.

----------

Warning applied for ignoring mod instruction

NIST's own statements prove them wrong, yet you continue to be in denial. The NIST Twin tower report maintains that fires in the Twin Towers reached temperatures only around 1,000 degrees Celsius for a short period of time. However, this assertion contradicts the R J Lee group's claim of evaporated lead and finding buckets full of molten iron microspheres in the WTC dust.

Furthermore, NIST asserts that no steel in the Towers melted.Debunkers may dismiss these anomalies, but I provided evidence directly from FEMA that stated steel melted during the 9/11 attacks. Regardless of their working theory on how that occurred, the fact is that it did happen. Why does NIST ignore mainstream scientific reporting?

FEMA even said that melting could have occurred before the collapse, therefore they very much open this phenomenon could have accelerated the collapse on 9/11 at the twin towers.NIST came along two years later and just ignored all the strange anomalies that may explain the collapse?

Remember though, it was only 8 people. One of which must have been Silverstein, one of which must be a fire chief and one must be someone from the BBC.

And that these people did all of the research to know that the planes wouldn't be able to destroy the buildings. They developed this untested method of demolition. They managed to find super secret highly advanced nanothermite. They planted it all in a weekend. And at some point also maybe organised a pair of planes to do the whole thing at the Pentagon.

During 9/11, when the entire area was engulfed in dust and recovery efforts were underway, it made no sense for the Fire Chief to call Silverstein. Phone lines would have been extremely unreliable, making it an unlikely means of communication. Additionally, it raises questions as to why the Fire Chief would reach out to Silverstein, especially considering his absence from work that day. The absence of any mention of how they got Silverstein's number further complicates the situation.

The claim made in the phone call is directly contradicted by numerous videos and photographs that clearly show the absence of firefighting activity in Building 7 during the afternoon. These visual records serve as reliable evidence, corroborating the official narrative that there was no firefighting effort in that building at the time of the collapse.

There are two possible explanations as to why the person in question may have attempted to insert themselves into the story of 9/11. One possibility is that they may have acted out of ego, seeking attention and validation by associating themselves with a tragic and significant event. Alternatively, the person may have inadvertently made a slip of the tongue, revealing their true concerns about the possibility of controlled demolition. This slip may indicate that they had been privately concerned about the events surrounding 9/11 and had inadvertently revealed their thoughts. 

The phone call in question appears to be fabricated based on the available evidence.Where Silverstein got himself in a spot of trouble when he made the claim that the building collapsed and the "pull it" was connected. His own language seemed to link the two events, raising suspicions and causing controversy.