So was 9/11 an inside job or not? (merged)

[beorhthelm]

The truth is that the biggest crime scene ever was dismantled and destroyed as soon as possible, so no steel was tested for thermite or any other incendiary devices. But there is evidence to suggest that thermite was used in the buildings.

as a fan of conspiracy theories, im most intrigued by the mental gymnastics required to commit to a conspiracy in the face of self contradiction. no tests for thermite, yet there is evidence of it? yep, makes sense. (i know, some samples found on the wind, two large aluminium planes have just burnt in a steel building, so there's going to be some metal oxides about.)

and there's the problem, for all the flaws in the official story there are more flaws in the conspiracy. like having to invoke thermite in the first place, as an explaination for no visual or audio evidence of detenations required for controlled demolition. then overlooking that thermite only really works vertically (cut/burns), and would require far more exposed access to superstructure than normal demolition works. most of the CT "evidence" isnt anything of the sort, its people on youtube telling you something is a fact to support their theory, then showing you its true, without corroboration from outside the echo chamber. in the end you have so many layers of theory you end up in batland with ideas such as the planes were holograms.

 

[Yoda]

Science explains why the buildings collapsed as they did:


As for WTC7, that can quite easily be explained too.
When the North Tower collapsed, it caused debris to hit WTC7 and burning materials set fire on a number of floors, most of the damage was to the south side of the building which was rarely visible due to all the smoke & dust.

Here is a rare photo of WTC7 showing a chunk of the south west corner missing due to North Tower collapse:

The resulting damage on this side of the building and fires weakening the steel enough to bend slightly would the building to collapse in a motion similar to below, but also combined with the effects of the video above.

If this had been a controlled demolition, we would not be seeing the scale of damage to surrounding buildings here:

 

[Triggaaar]

Science also tells us that it wasn't possible for the fires to be burning to the temperature required to melt steel.

So what temperature could the fire have been burning?

 

[Mental Lental]

I love these threads. They give me the opportunity to flesh out my ignore list.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

But based on some youtube evidence, by people who say they're engineers etc, you're 100% sure that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sorry but that does seem pretty gullible.

Gullible would be the rejection of all the facts and evidence and believing the official story, which is full of holes, inconsistencies and incomplete in that it doesn't address key points.

I've read the whole thing, and I've read numerous other books as well as watching all of the YouTube videos. Individually, maybe you can attempt to de-bunk the videos but 9/11 isn't about any one thing, it's a collection of all of it. And all of it in context doesn't support the official story, it suggests that the government knew what was coming and chose to allow it to happen for the greater good.

I believe, based on everything I've seen, listened to and read, is that they didn't expect the scale of the disaster and were caught out by how much was reported on and filmed.

But they got their Pearl Harbour. They got their invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan (who had little to do with the planning of or harboring of Bin Laden) to protect their oil interests, which was a long established priority even before Bush came into office. I don't imagine he knew too much about what would happen, hence the look on his face in the classroom, but a lot of people were involved in not stopping the attacks.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Science also tells us that it wasn't possible for the fires to be burning to the temperature required to melt steel. .

Seems you haven't watched the video posted just one page previously

 

[Megazone]

So what temperature could the fire have been burning?

Proper hot.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Science explains why the buildings collapsed as they did:

As for WTC7, that can quite easily be explained too.
When the North Tower collapsed, it caused debris to hit WTC7 and burning materials set fire on a number of floors, most of the damage was to the south side of the building which was rarely visible due to all the smoke & dust.

Here is a rare photo of WTC7 showing a chunk of the south west corner missing due to North Tower collapse:


The resulting damage on this side of the building and fires weakening the steel enough to bend slightly would the building to collapse in a motion similar to below, but also combined with the effects of the video above.

If this had been a controlled demolition, we would not be seeing the scale of damage to surrounding buildings here:

To keep the thread to a reasonable level I've removed the pictures and video. You say "science explains why the buildings collapsed as they did" and then post a video of a computer generated simulation. That isn't science.

Also, "quite easily explained too" is a ridiculous comment. I'm not getting into an argument, I'm very comfortable with my position based on all I've written so far, and I don't believe that anything you posted here goes any way to explaining a global collapse in a building. Three steel framed structures have collapsed in history, all on the same day.

So what temperature could the fire have been burning?

Do the research for yourself, this is an important topic. If you want to be informed, all of the evidence is out there and I encourage you to watch both sides - there's a video on YouTube of a debate between the makers of Loose Change (conspiracists) and Popular Mechanics (debunkers) which is well worth watching because both sides are well researched and speak extremely well in opposition to each other.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The collapses are all wrong, and then the random collapse of building 7 (I say random because there's no reason to think it should collapse - but everyone on the ground knew that it would) later in the day (by the way, it was reported as having collapsed before it actually did. The BBC reporter talking about the collapse has the building in question over her left shoulder throughout the shot) is not explained either. There were fires across a few floors but global collapse? Crazy, and not explained.

Were they even live background shots? or were they standing in front of a screen with a background added to make it look like they were there or nearby and could have been miles away or even in another country when making that report? (adding a background has been done before when reporting from all sorts of places and all sorts of events such as sporting events, parliament, etc which is why you sometimes get a background showing it as still being light when the sun has already set and it's night time

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Seems you haven't watched the video posted just one page previously

I've watched everything. Some things are more reliable than others and when you're talking in theoretics, you're only ever going to end up with arguments and counter arguments being made. Based on everything I've seen and read, and I've looked at evidence from both sides, I don't believe the fires could have been anywhere near hot enough to melt the steel and there had to be other reasons for the collapse. Thermite is the most believable for me, but nobody can speak with any certainty because the steel was destroyed before being tested.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Were they even live background shots? or were they standing in front of a screen with a background added to make it look like they were there or nearby and could have been miles away or even in another country when making that report? (adding a background has been done before when reporting from all sorts of places and all sorts of events such as sporting events, parliament, etc which is why you sometimes get a background showing it as still being light when the sun has already set and it's night time

She was there, it was a live shot and she was in New York. The BBC weren't the only ones reporting on the collapse before it had actually happened, you can find all this on YouTube. It's probable that there was a wire story which is why they were all picking up on it but the point is that the news were reporting on the collapse before it happened. And then it collapsed. If you watch footage from around Building 7 beforehand, all firefighters are expecting it to collapse and they're trying to get people out of the area.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I've watched everything. Some things are more reliable than others and when you're talking in theoretics, you're only ever going to end up with arguments and counter arguments being made. Based on everything I've seen and read, and I've looked at evidence from both sides, I don't believe the fires could have been anywhere near hot enough to melt the steel and there had to be other reasons for the collapse. Thermite is the most believable for me, but nobody can speak with any certainty because the steel was destroyed before being tested.

Watch that video again, learn more about steel. It doesn't need to reach the temperatures to become molten for it to become completely pliable. At the temperature of burning jet fuel it gets very bendy

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I've long since been fascinated by 9/11 because it's the single biggest man caused catastrophe of my life time, there's been nothing on that scale since.

I bet there will be plenty of people who will disagree with you, namely those who have seen their country ruined by man made conflict that has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, made homeless or became refugees who had to travel vast distances looking for safety and seen far more damage in terms to infrastructure and buildings than those inflicted by the 9/11 attacks on the US. - Syria for example.

 

[clapham_gull]

Hillsbrough's victims had to wait more than 20 years to get the full truth and realistically, 9/11 will take a lot more than that but I believe that in my life time (I'm 29 currently), the truth will come out and it will be what has been claimed all along because the facts speak for themselves, whatever the official account may say.

Bad example.

Pretty much all of the events of Hillsborough came out in the initial inquiries. There isn't much debate on what happened, rather than no-one was held accountable and we've learnt about the subsequent attempt at cover up.

Another thing that people don't know is that Saddam Hussein was beginning to sell petrol in the Euro currency,

Who doesn't know ? I remember reading about in the papers at the time and Rob Newman used to do a comedy routine about it. Your research has unearthed nothing there.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Watch that video again, learn more about steel. It doesn't need to reach the temperatures to become molten for it to become completely pliable. At the temperature of burning jet fuel it gets very bendy

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

I bet there will be plenty of people who will disagree with you, namely those who have seen their country ruined by man made conflict that has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, made homeless or became refugees who had to travel vast distances looking for safety and seen far more damage in terms to infrastructure and buildings than those inflicted by the 9/11 attacks on the US. - Syria for example.

Fair.

Bad example.

Pretty much all of the events of Hillsborough came out in the initial inquiries. There isn't much debate on what happened, rather than no-one was held accountable and we've learnt about the subsequent attempt at cover up.



Who doesn't know ? I remember reading about in the papers at the time and Rob Newman used to do a comedy routine about it. Your research has unearthed nothing there.

Well, I think all the events of 9/11 are public as well. But without someone putting them together, it's hard to connect all the points and I know that not everyone has spent the hours I have researching the whole thing and attempting to understand the whole thing. Again, I'm very comfortable that I've done the required reading to speak with confidence on this subject.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's common knowledge Saddam was planning to hurt the US economy by making oil sales in Euro rather than Dollar? Honestly? The economic impact to the US economy would have been the equivalent of what did happen in 2008 with the housing market crash. The point is that it's another fact which supports the suggestion that 9/11 was allowed to happen as a pre-text to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think there is more than enough supporting evidence to add weight to that accusation.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

She was there, it was a live shot and she was in New York. The BBC weren't the only ones reporting on the collapse before it had actually happened, you can find all this on YouTube. It's probable that there was a wire story which is why they were all picking up on it but the point is that the news were reporting on the collapse before it happened. And then it collapsed. If you watch footage from around Building 7 beforehand, all firefighters are expecting it to collapse and they're trying to get people out of the area.

Doesn't prove it wasn't shot in front of a screen with a projected video in the background

Where would they find a suitable site from which to broadcast live shots that offer a view of the incident.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that she could be located in a tv studio somewhere in New York whilst making that report? (has anyone checked to see if the backround footage looks looped at all?) - Conspiracy theorists say that there is no possible explanation but here is one theory to explain it

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. .

Are you taking the piss?

You can believe all the weird crap you want, but don't shit on science mate. You've also obviously not watched that blacksmiths video, so go back and have a look.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Doesn't prove it wasn't shot in front of a screen with a projected video in the background

Where would they find a suitable site from which to broadcast live shots that offer a view of the incident.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that she could be located in a tv studio somewhere in New York whilst making that report? (has anyone checked to see if the backround footage looks looped at all?) - Conspiracy theorists say that there is no possible explanation but here is one theory to explain it

The woman herself doesn't contest that the building was still standing when they were reporting it had fallen. This isn't something which is debatable, you can look it up independently and verify it's true. The woman herself has spoken about it, there's not a debate about whether it was still standing or not - we know what time it fell (17:20pm) and we know what time she reported on it (just after 17:00pm).

Are you taking the piss?

You can believe all the weird crap you want, but don't shit on science mate. You've also obviously not watched that blacksmiths video, so go back and have a look.

I could ask you the same question. Are you basing this on one video? I'm not. I've seen the blacksmiths video, and the Popular Mechanics video and a few others who choose to attempt to support the official theory. I've also seen the evidence to the contrary and I've decided I don't believe the fires could have been hot enough to melt the steel based on the evidence provided.

But again, it all comes back to the fact that the steel was removed from the site which means it wasn't ever tested.

As an aside, I've chosen not to mention the pockets of molten steel found in the days after 9/11 - it's not that I don't know about them, or their relevance to supporting my belief that thermite was used. It's only my belief based on theories and not irrefutable. Personally, I look at the collapses and can't believe what I'm seeing but we'll probably never fully know the full truth behind the reasons for the global collapses.

 

[clapham_gull]

Are you seriously suggesting that it's common knowledge Saddam was planning to hurt the US economy by making oil sales in Euro rather than Dollar? Honestly? The economic impact to the US economy would have been the equivalent of what did happen in 2008 with the housing market crash. The point is that it's another fact which supports the suggestion that 9/11 was allowed to happen as a pre-text to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think there is more than enough supporting evidence to add weight to that accusation.

Ha ha - yes honestly. I can read the internet too. Mate IT WAS IN THE PAPERS.

A whole debate as to whether it would have worked.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspiracy/

Quite easy to dig out newspaper reports.

http://www.edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

And also:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6190865.stm

 

[Triggaaar]

Do the research for yourself, this is an important topic.

I've done some, I want to know what temperature you think the fire reached. You said it wasn't hot enough to melt steel - so how hot are you claiming it was, exactly?