Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

NIST does not explain why the building is still buckling and providing resistance two seconds into the collapse.The timing is completely off. Only by tracing back can the errors be identified.

Unlike you and others, I believe that anomalies such as the pouring of liquid from the South Tower prior to its collapse, the observation of steel melting by FEMA, the presence of heated induced meteorite rocks in the rubble, and the identification of iron/steel microspheres in the WTC dust are not irrelevant pieces of evidence. It is indeed possible that these investigations did not adequately recognize and address the strangeness of the phenomena when it comes to investigations.

One of the most significant pieces of evidence that supports the reality of what i am saying is the presence of previous melted FE iron in the dust. However, it is not surprising that none of the participants in this thread are willing to discuss this. It is evident that the refusal to acknowledge this evidence contributes to the perpetuation of pseudoscientific explanations that only focus on fire.

It is important to distinguish between evidence and personal opinions or theories. The existence of a liquid flowing out of the South Tower and steel melting during the attacks is supported by numerous reports and testimonies. One of the primary arguments against the evidence presented is that there are too many parties involved. This line of reasoning suggests that the complexity and interconnectedness of the alleged conspiracy make it unreliable.However, history has shown us on multiple occasions that conspiracies can indeed be vast and involve a multitude of individuals and organizations

That is true, I acknowledge the presence of a conspiracy here. However, it is important to acknowledge that the official story suggests that both towers collapsed due to steel weakening and buckling only. This statement is not backed by the physical, forensic, and video evidence. Saying its fact is just a lie.

The official story is a group interpretation of events, it is crucial to recognize that it is a human interpretation. It is influenced by personal biases, assumptions, and preconceived notions. 

I am of the opinion that there is no denying the evidence presented regarding the events that took place during the 9/11 attacks. The testimonies of survivors, witnesses, and video footage all seem to indicate that planes hit the buildings, the buildings caught fire, and the steel weakened inside the towers. These facts have been corroborated by various investigations and reports, making it clear that these events were real and evident.

However, the issue I have is with individuals who solely believe in the official story and decide for themselves what evidence to keep and what evidence to throw out.

Why would the melting of steel, iron, and streams of liquid have nothing to do with a Twin towers collapsing?When looking into suspicious situations, it is important to consider all available evidence, even if it may seem insignificant at first glance. Each piece of data can contribute to the bigger picture and provide valuable insights. Yes, it is like a James Bond movie that buildings on 9/11 would be rigged for demolition or destroyed chemically.

32. 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 NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), 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.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Before coming back and claiming nonsense, it is important to examine the claim made by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 

Stage 1 according to NIST

Stage 2 ( second gif) NIST is writing a whole bunch of gibberish here, and yet their modeling is showing an entirely different collapse scenario to a freefall one. Negligible support is nonsense wording too, freefall means zero support freefall refers to a situation or state where someone or something is falling freely, without any support or resistance. In mathematics, a freefall is often represented by a line dropping straight down without any other forces acting on it.. NIST clearly does not understand what freefall means, as it has claimed the presence of resistance to the collapse, even if it is only a small amount. This lack of understanding is concerning and calls into question the accuracy of NIST's conclusions regarding the 9/11 World Trade Center seven collapse. They appear to be fabricating information as they go, see very obvious to the eye lot of resistance happening on that west side ( right side)

In August 2008, David Chandler, a physics lecturer at University/college in the United States, had the opportunity to question NIST at their own press conference about the seven-building report. He posed several challenging questions to the NIST personnel, highlighting inconsistencies and logical fallacies in their theories.

One of the most significant issues raised by Chandler during his questioning was the NIST's denial of freefall during the collapse. This interaction on this video.

When I watched the video interaction between the Ae911 Truth people and NIST long ago, I was truly stunned by how bad NIST was at answering basic science questions about the collapse. They denied the occurrence of freefall on this video, but after three months, they reversed course after being proven to be stupid. I was no longer on the fence about whether the controlled demolition theory was true or not. The video showed me that people in AE911 truth were correct

This is not an accurate statement. While one can choose to ignore certain aspects, the undeniable fact is that freefall did occur.

This is a measurable and scientifically verified fact that has now been confirmed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

In this context, the claim being made is that when a building collapsed, a significant portion of the structure was not there.

Why is there a 8-floor hole in the building at the bottom?

The presence of an 8-floor hole in the building at the bottom raises suspicions about the cause of the collapse. This detail is one of the main reasons why people look at freefall as scientific evidence for controlled demolition.

The NIST model focuses on the progressive failure of the floors, highlighting how each floor's failure contributed to the overall collapse. However, the report claims that the collapse was primarily due to the fire damage and structural damage sustained to the building.

People have pointed out an issue with the NIST model of progressive collapse, stating that it does not accurately match the sequence of collapse stages depicted in the video. This discrepancy matters greatly, as it directly impacts the timeline and the sequence of failures that should occur.

The problem is not clearly seen by most individuals. Eight floors are in the stage of collapsing before the next stages.

Does NIST think that the second building drops for no reason at all earlier on the roof? Why would it drop there was no collapse there on the right side at the bottom?

Both images are matching timelines of the collapse event.

However, what many people overlook is the presence of approximately half of the eight floors in the NIST model at the bottom that still hold, even if they are weakened. significant pressure as the building pushes down upon itself. How does the upper half of the building come through all that still holding there, at freefall, it cant. It appears that controlled demolition is very likely, based on what we see here.Go ahead got a new explanation of the freefall that matches the video.

Gunfire and bullets evidence was found in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack However, despite the presence of this evidence, it has been determined that the evidence is not compelling enough to support. The evidence against nano-thermite was first challenged by those who preferred to adhere to the official narrative. They dismissed the claims as conspiracy theories and refused to examine the evidence brought forth by the scientists.

Nobody as far as I am aware is claiming people spent weeks inside the Twin Towers preparing a demolition. They claim here is the presence of nanothermite in the tower dust. That might seem like a fantastical theory and story, but in reality, there is a significant amount of evidence to support it.

Evidence for this at Twin Towers, I would say yes.

When nanothermite ignites, it releases a significant amount of heat energy, which can rise rapidly to extreme levels. This extreme heat can cause various materials to melt or deform. Evidence of extreme temperatures can be observed in the aftermath, with melted or distorted objects being a common sight.

Nanothermite has the ability to cause melting of a wide range of materials. Iron and steel, which are commonly used in structural components, are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat. The presence of melted iron or steel in the affected area is a strong indication that temperatures reached extreme levels.

Furniture, clocks, walls, tables, computers, glass, concrete, and other household items can melt or deform under the intense heat generated by nanothermite. The extent of melting may vary depending on the duration and intensity of the heat exposure.

The presence of iron microspheres in the affected area is another indicator of extreme temperatures. Iron microspheres are small particles of iron with a spherical shape. They are formed when molten iron rapidly cools and solidifies. The formation of iron microspheres indicates that temperatures reached extremely high temperatures, 

Chemical reactions are still expected to occur in the rubble resulting from an event involving nanothermite. The release of extreme heat and energy can cause chemical reactions to occur, resulting in the formation of new substances or the transformation of existing ones. These chemical reactions can continue even after the immediate impact of the event has subsided.

There is a murder weapon, Nanothermite, and the bullets that damage the Twin Towers, melting steel components.

The implications of the RJ Lee Group's findings, in conjunction with other evidence gathered during the WTC investigation, have significant implications for our understanding of the events that occurred on 9/11. Unfortunately, the task of presenting these findings to all the relevant groups and convincing them of its significance requires a significant effort.

To effectively convey the rationality and significance of these findings, it is necessary to gather all the relevant parties in one room and present a comprehensive explanation of the reasons why this interpretation makes sense. 

My view on it anyway.

It is clear to me that NIST is not telling the truth about the noises they claim you should have heard if the column 79 was blown up using RDX. They claim that the loudest explosive used to break up this column would be heard many blocks away, but multiple media sources have reported hearing explosive noises. In fact, people even in the media had people on who stated that they witnessed a shockwave run through the building at the bottom. I have firsthand eyewitness testimony to further support this claim. Additionally, both the CBS video and MSNBC video captured a loud bang before the Penthouse dropped, and column 79 is located at the bottom there

Lack of fact checking during the research process. Numerous inconsistencies and misleading statements have been reported, which suggests that due diligence was not exercised in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information presented. 

One of the primary issues that has come to light in the NIST study is the incorrect portrayal of certain evidence. While errors are inevitable in any study, it becomes concerning when errors are intentionally concealed or overlooked. This deliberate distortion of evidence suggests a conscious effort to manipulate the findings of the study. External interests or individuals on the NIST's investigation team who told them to lie?

The repeated line of reasoning centers around the assertion that the fires were the only factor that led to the building's collapse.

When there is a discrepancy in building reports regarding the melting of steel or iron during a fire, it raises valid questions about the credibility of which version is correct.

The failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the melting of steel and iron casts doubt on the accuracy and reliability of these reports.

Mainstream reports such as the RJ Lee Group and FEMA have indeed identified the presence of melted steel and Iron after the Twin Towers collapsed. This conclusion is an undeniable fact. However, it is important to note that these reports do not address the question of how this melting occurred when the Twin Towers were still standing.

Over the past month, I have repeated ask you guys explain the chemical process of 800°C, to 1000°C, fire melting steel and Iron when Twin Towers hadn't collapsed yet and still have not received a response. You can call those scientists wackos and whatever you like, but they seem to be the only ones who can provide answers to what happened here. Moreover, they are the only ones who can offer a clear perspective on the matter. When you cannot provide an answer from your side on the issue, it raises further doubts.