Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

I propose that there are very possible moles within Al-Qaeda, Saudi intelligence, or ISI. may have provided crucial intelligence.

Hannibal Smith is who I am replying to here.

Scenario

Intel of an impending attack passed to handlers associated with Western intelligence agencies. This intelligence could have included information about specific airports being targeted, potential hijackers involved, and even potential targets, such as the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

The leaked plan was both informative and thorough, allowing a second group to intervene and proceed with the demolition. The second group had meticulously planned different versions of the demolition operation, considering various scenarios and potential pitfalls.

While the first group ( hijackers) had carried out a terrorist attack in the country, the second group ( controllers of the demolition crew) must have had some control of the situation and would potentially disrupt things further during the investigation later. It is plausible that the second group, if there was neocon involvement, possessed enough power to shut down the investigation, considering many business leaders and military figures were in control of the country. When examining the situation individually, certain aspects may seem implausible or unlikely. However, when taking into account all the evidence available, a very different picture emerges. This comprehensive collection of information provides a more comprehensive and cohesive understanding of the scenario.

One of the primary reasons why a second group may have decided to use nanothermite instead of explosives in the Twin Towers attack is time. Nanothermite is a type of "super" thermite that reacts extremely quickly when ignited, resulting in the rapid melting and decomposition of materials. This feature would allow the second group to quickly destroy the Twin Towers, potentially minimizing the time required for the entire operation

Another consideration that may have influenced the second group's decision to use nanothermite instead of explosives is the need for a larger team. Nanothermite requires specialized knowledge and expertise in handling and deploying this material. Explosives require a significant amount of effort because they aim to blow up a steel structure, which presents a significant challenge. On the other hand, nanothermite focuses on dismantling the same structure by melting it down. This approach weakens the entire building, ultimately leading to its collapse. However, it is important to note that nano thermite can also be tailored to achieve explosive results ( explain more on this later, don't forget)

Nanothermite was the only method used in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The demolition crew responsible for taking down the buildings was most likely smaller than a traditional explosive demolition crew. Traditional explosives demolition job would have required the drilling of holes and insertion of explosives directly into the columns and then a denotation cord. The nanothermites would be placed on steel with no drilling (heat and chemical reaction) doing the destruction there.

Lastly, the use of explosives instead of nanothermite in the Twin Towers attack may have caused more disruption and operational complexity. The second group may have opted for nanothermite to minimize the risk of detection.In order to become involved and since not a member of any Middle Eastern terrorist group, it is important to employ materials that minimize the risk of exposure.

Nanothermite, once again, is not a material attached to a whole bunch of wiring and detonator cords. It is, in essence, a dormant material until it is ignited by heat and flames. A fire inside the Twin Towers has the ideal conditions for starting the ignition of this material.

Good question.

New York is known for its tall skyscrapers, making it reasonable to assume that a large plane under the control of a hijacker pilot would be aiming for the upper section of these structures. It is important to note again that even if the plane were to hit the building lower, it does not necessarily matter where the impact occurs. The start of the fires would set off the chemical reaction of nano-thermite, regardless of the exact point of impact.

Come on here (skeptics) and say impossible; they did like that. Despite their claims, there is overwhelming physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that contradicts their skepticism.

They say this too. The building was occupied and full of people before the attacks, making it highly improbable that such a daring operation could have taken place without detection. However, the skeptics chose to ignore this physical evidence and the testimony of those who were there before NIST

Scientific theories are formulated based on existing evidence and a logical framework. However, it is crucial for theories to be supported by physical evidence to ensure their validity. Try to do this next

1) There was an extensive amount of iron that melted during the fires. The WTC dust contains vast amounts of iron that were observed to have melted and solidified in different forms. This confirms that the melting took place during the fires, refuting claims by some in the skeptical community that it happened later. The WTC dust itself is a valuable source of evidence, providing valuable information about the chemical reactions that took place during the fires.

Can nanothermite melt iron or even produce iron during a chemical reaction?

Yes, nanothermite can both melt iron and produce iron during a chemical reaction. Nanothermite is a compound that combines nanoscale aluminum and iron oxide particles, resulting in a highly energetic and reactive material. When nanothermite is detonated or ignited, it produces a rapid release of heat and extreme temperatures. These high temperatures enable it to melt iron and even produce iron.

2) ability to generate intense heat. The melting point of Iron is relatively high, around 1,538 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). However, when nanothermite is ignited, it generates temperatures exceeding 4,000 degrees Celsius (7,232 degrees Fahrenheit). These extreme temperatures can easily surpass the melting point of Iron, causing it to melt and transform into a liquid state.

One such study, conducted by R J Lee Group, provides strong evidence that heat was of an extremely high magnitude, resulting in the melting of iron and steel. However, despite this, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has refrained from acknowledging this phenomenon.

4) Is there any evidence of melting inside the building or outside? The presence of melted material suggests that the building experienced a sudden and intense thermal event, resulting in the rapid melting of materials. The color of the melted material, which resembles liquid iron, suggests a possible iron-based compound.

5) Does anyone remember seeing any molten or liquid iron or steel? Another one of NIST's lies that has been repeatedly debunked is the claim that no member of the rescue efforts or clean-up crews described molten or liquid steel at Ground Zero on 9/11. This claim has been thoroughly investigated and proven to be false. You have this corrupt NIST group coming along and claiming that nobody ever made that claim. You can hear them on this video describing like lava flow liquid flowing down the steel channel rails called molten steel. Numerous videos have emerged on the internet, contradicting the official account of the incident.

6) During the television program, the firemen described a liquid material that appeared to be flowing within the rubble. They mentioned that the liquid had a distinct lava-like appearance. The search for the photograph was a prolonged endeavor, as it was posted on an online blog at some point after 9/11. Despite its historical significance, it has since become challenging to locate now online due to the censorship that followed the event. However, I had a saved copy of the original image on my computer.

The most well known skeptics still active on this site have attempted to assert that this is an instance of sparks, but they have missed two key observations. Firstly, sparks do not persist in pools or second last more than a second once in the air. Secondly, the evidence presented does not align with the characteristics of sparks. we had a lengthy debate about the second fireman as well.

The skeptics among us were convinced that the figure located between the columns was another person. However, to me, the second fireman ( middle one and the position of his hands resemble the odd-place image. This could be an artifact of the camera processing or an image processing issue.

7) No documented cases (I am aware of) of office buildings catching fire and subsequent collapse leading to the formation of meteorite looking like rocks? This is extreme heat doing this.

8)Wrap-Up of the Evidence for Nanothermite

Despite what skeptics have said for weeks on here that there is no evidence of any strange material in the dust, that is not true.

Dr James Milette confirmed the presence of all the chemical elements that would make up thermite. Fe is iron oxide. Al is Aluminum

Quoting Millete research here.

One of the key aspects of his argument is the absence of distinct traces of elementary aluminum in the samples he has. Consequently, he posits that the aluminum found in his chips is more likely in the form of aluminum-silicate plates, which would result in a material similar to Kaolin.

The analysis of SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) and XEDS (X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) does provide valuable insights into the chemical composition of a mysterious substance. The results will not reveal any definitive evidence to suggest the separation of aluminum and silicon. To gain a better understanding of the composition of nanothermite and its burning behavior, researchers have employed various analytical techniques.

The aspect that stands out as particularly stunning in this whole situation is that Dr. Milette never did any tests to determine the behavior of his chips when exposed to temperatures of 400 degrees Celsius. While Harrit and mainstream literature indicate that nanothermite ignites at a relatively low temperature, releases heat, and produces molten iron, Dr. Milette did not bother to verify this claim.

As a result, we remain uncertain about whether the Milette is capable of performing this function. Harrit did discover the presence of molten iron after the burning process at 400c, which further emphasizes the need for further investigation

Milette was asked why he never conducted a similar DSC test as the Harrit team did. Initially, he responded that he would not do the test. However, he later changed his mind and stated that he would conduct the test. However, he also mentioned that others would need to review the results. Furthermore, he recommended utilizing other experts, as he believed that he was not qualified to provide the necessary expertise. It is evident that skeptics were hesitant to spend more money on additional experts.

Eleven years since that debate started, the question of whether or not the Millete chips are exothermic and produce iron after burning at 400 degrees Celsius has not been answered. Harrit chips were identified as nanothermite because, when burned, the material released a high flash of heat and was found in the residue had molten iron.

Yes, that sound can be blast, and you only have to be familiar with NIST work to understand why.

NIST highlighted the following events in their finite computer simulation model: Highlight floor 12 and 13 here.

1. Expansion and Slippage of Girder: The girder in the simulation model experienced thermal expansion and slipped off its fixed position.

2. Losing Connections on Beams: The expansion and subsequent slippage of the girder caused beams on this side to lose connections.

3. Stalling Steel Column: The floors that collapsed on the steel column resulted in it bucking.

NIST's analysis indicates that the expansion and subsequent slippage of the girder were the primary factors leading to the observed events later.. 

According to NIST, the destruction of a single column was sufficient to bring about the collapse of the building on 9/11. Therefore, if we consider the evidence presented by NIST, it logically follows that it would only take the column being destroyed by controlled demolition for the same result to occur.

Why do you ignore the fact that a loud thud on video can't be a controlled demolition of the Eastside columns?

I don't argue that collapse didn't begin on the east side; it clearly did, but the NIST investigation stated that there is no noise at all heard before any collapse, which is factually incorrect.

interconnected nature of collapse in steel-core buildings. Skeptics, such as yourself, fail to appreciate the profound impact that the collapse of one column on the eastern side of a structure can have on other floors, as well as those at the bottom could be hearing the demolitions of the eastside columns, which could potentially serve as the final domino for the collapse of the building. However, it is important to note that we do not have hours of video footage of building seven to claim that there were no other thuds similar to this one.

One of the main arguments put forth by critics of the NIST explanation is that thermal expansion was a brand new concept invented by the NIST to explain the failures. They claim that thermal expansion has not been observed or recognized before and was only introduced after the incident

One of the key claims made by the truth community is that NIST failed to acknowledge the existence and vital significance of shear studs, which are specialized reinforcement elements typically used in steel structures to prevent slippage. However, according to blueprints obtained by the truth investigation, the girder in question was indeed supposed to have 32-shear studs.

Furthermore, the truth community asserts that NIST also neglected to include crucial stiffeners and steel plates that would have prevented the girder from sliding and contributed to its stability. More error for time leave it at that.

NIST intentionally left these construction details out of the investigation; the implication is that the organization may have intentionally facilitated the collapse of the girder. The omission of shear studs and stiffeners, as well as the absence of steel plates, suggests a conscious effort by NIST to downplay the role of controlled demolition in the collapse scenario.

Columns 79 and 44 and others were taken out by controlled demolition on the eastside.

Question 11:

In a debate, a particular answer posed by Chris sparked my attention:

"I was reading that debate and Chris posted this before hiring Dr. James Milette. In question 11, it states that an EPA group that conducted an investigation into the dust for the U.S. government found large amounts of iron in the dust as well. However, no one sitting here has asked how that was happening while the Twin Towers were on fire. It makes me wonder if they lack the common sense or if it's because they're too wrapped up in their own bubbles to realize that iron that melted in the dust is an anomaly."

From what I remember, Dr. Milette made a promise to do peer review work and send it to journals, but this specific evidence, including a study on the Iron Microspheres, never materialized. He seemingly disappeared from the scene right after the debate about the burning and energy testing.

Nobody can be 100% certain about something like this, as there is always room for error and correction, the science shows otherwise. You are asking do I think the planes brought down the building absolutely not in my view at this stage.

I understand that if we delve into every error of the 9/11 collapse investigation, this thread will be filled with numerous images and details. However, my intention is to present a brief overview of some basic flaws within the official arguments (a layperson can hopefully understand)

I fully understand your skepticism regarding my claims. If there is evidence that suggests I am mistaken, I am more than willing to look at it and reassess my stance. It is important to approach conversations and discussions with an open mind, allowing for the possibility of growth and learning.

I have never seen a skeptic here explained to me how Twin Tower fires melted iron/steel in a natural way. I believe that the fires alone were insufficient to cause the rapid melting of the iron and steel.

If this evidence was merely produced by a conspiracy blog or forum, it would likely lack any official or mainstream recognition. As a result, many people would likely dismiss it as nonsense. However, it is important to note that we have two bodies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and RJ Lee Group, who both confirm that the fire in question created significant amounts of liquefied iron.

A factor that plays a significant role in understanding the collapse of the Twin Towers is temperature. The temperature inside the buildings at the time of the collapse was critical in determining the fate of the structure.

Yes, I am aware that I am repeating myself. This repetition is intentional and intended to reach the heart of your question. Why I don't believe.

The Twin Towers and Building 7 were the first buildings of their design to experience a complete collapse due to fire. This unprecedented event in history has led to various anomalies being reported at the site of the collapse ( What up with that? Generally, buildings that collapse due to external factors such as accidents, in war zones, or natural disasters exhibit certain patterns or characteristics that can be explained. For instance, in the case of an earthquake, the structural integrity of the building may be compromised, leading to its collapse.

The presence of liquid iron that liquefied during the fires and later solidified, the presence of metorite-looking rocks, and reports of pools of liquid within the rubble indicate that a chemical reaction took place inside the collapsed structure. Moreover, the site's continued heat emission and the long-term nature of the reaction suggest that this chemical reaction was ongoing. These findings provide compelling evidence to suggest that something significant and chemically reactive occurred deep within the rubble, long after the Twin collapse began. It took them four months to put all the heat from fires out.

If presented with a conclusive demonstration that fires within the Twin Towers were the sole cause of all the observed phenomena, I would be prepared to drop this topic without hesitation.

R. J. Lee group team found that the concentration of FE spheres in the WTC dust collected after the event was 150 times higher than the dust collected at Twin Towers prior to the fire ( this breakdown in their report) This finding is noteworthy since there would be FE spheres in the building during construction, repair work, and their presence in concrete. The number of FE spheres in the post- fire dust suggests a highly unusual and abnormal occurrence.

This discrepancy between the findings of the R J Lee group and the NIST report has left many unanswered questions. The absence of a clear explanation of how this extraordinary concentration of FE spheres was achieved has led to speculation and debate among conspiracy theorists and debunkers on various websites.

NIST's report asserts that the fires that engulfed the WTC buildings reached temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius (C) to 1,000 degrees Celsius (C) for a very short period. This temperature range is not within the melting point of steel and iron, which are typically considered to be around 1,538 degrees Celsius (C) for steel, and higher for Iron.

It is indeed challenging to blame conspiracy people for the fact that there are conflicting claims regarding the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11. While both major theories propose that fire played a crucial role, they differ in their interpretations of the temperature.

Why did you thank Nal for a post when he claimed the firefighters were inside the building? The assumption is that, if you thank a post on that topic, you believe it to be true?

Don't believe that claim was true. Fair enough, I retract my statement.

Clarify why you thanked him for his post?

The topic has changed again, and I wonder why it is so difficult for you to provide evidence that you claim to have posted some time ago. You keep shifting the subject, making it difficult to have a productive conversation.

 The collapse started over a distance of approximately 100 feet. This fall occurred over eight floors, which collapsed along with the steel supports that were in place. The collapse of the building was triggered by the failure of these floors at the base. Do you follow that?

Once the floors at the bottom essentially collapsed, a chain reaction ensued. The entire building started to collapse, and everything above started to fall through the space created by the eight fallen floors. This subsequent collapse was characterized by a freefall motion, upper came through that now open gap.

How many of those eight floors were rigged for demolition not sure, could be less than eight to see that effect. NIST model does not show a wide area collapse at the bottom across eight floors.

A statement that "saying fire brought down the building isn't an explanation" is misleading.

The argument that the steel in the green x area is still buckling defies the laws of physics and contradicts the observed behavior of the building.

For the building to collapse as it did on 9/11, all x spots had collapsed red and green ( fact).

One half of the building collapsed and other half still buckling, which makes no sense (remember, it's the eight-floor collapse all sides) that started the final collapse.

 Freefall occurs when an object accelerates downward due to gravity alone, without any external force or support (which means no resistance, no steel supports anywhere there).

However, now it seems that you are fleeing from the Freefall discussion too that you initiated. It appears that you have changed your mind or simply do not want to engage in that conversation any longer.

It is difficult to imagine in your mind exactly what happened here, but I hope this crude image will provide some clarity. The event that occurred was that the entire floor system in that black box collapsed, extending from one end of the building to the other, with all corners affected. Subsequently, the upper portion of the building could no longer support itself, bottom eight floors had collapsed and rest of the building contents began pouring through the open hole at free fall.

Reality

The building scientific measurements show it happened this way, not the way NIST has it in the second image.

The sink begins at 10 seconds of the building. The collapse of the building is underway.The sink in the building can be attributed to the collapse that occurred at the bottom.