Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Relax]

So I don't get very many chances to post on this site, and I went back about 5 or 6 pages looking for a poll but I didn't find one. So WAS 9/11 an inside job? I can honestly say without a reasonable doubt that yes, it was an inside job. They not only had knowledge of what was going to happen that day, but they planned it out.

World Trade Center 7 vs an Orange

Thermite COULD have done it. and that guy who made that video is just a regular construction worker from what I hear... not the so called 'experts' hired by the government.

William Cooper predicts an event like 9/11 would happen and that it would be blamed on Osama Bin Laden This video also contains the towers 'collapsing' and the visible clouds of smoke before the 'collapse' ever reach them. Also shows white flashes inside the WTC which are claimed by many of the Thermite theory to be the ignitions. Also has photographs of the plane.

Don't believe that there were explosions? In this video, the only surviving video that I know of, you can actually HEAR the explosions FOR YOURSELVES at around 3:43-4:05 Another thing I find suspicious about that is... how in god's name is jet fuel supposed to shoot out 78 stories below? Also don't even try to say those explosions are exploding cars.

This is an orange, and these are buildings being demolished, not an apple.

I would also like to recently point out that I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job just recently. And now I go to work looking like this

 

[bill smith]

So I don't get very many chances to post on this site, and I went back about 5 or 6 pages looking for a poll but I didn't find one. So WAS 9/11 an inside job? I can honestly say without a reasonable doubt that yes, it was an inside job. They not only had knowledge of what was going to happen that day, but they planned it out.

World Trade Center 7 vs an Orange

Thermite COULD have done it. and that guy who made that video is just a regular construction worker from what I hear... not the so called 'experts' hired by the government.

William Cooper predicts an event like 9/11 would happen and that it would be blamed on Osama Bin Laden This video also contains the towers 'collapsing' and the visible clouds of smoke before the 'collapse' ever reach them. Also shows white flashes inside the WTC which are claimed by many of the Thermite theory to be the ignitions. Also has photographs of the plane.

Don't believe that there were explosions? In this video, the only surviving video that I know of, you can actually HEAR the explosions FOR YOURSELVES at around 3:43-4:05 Another thing I find suspicious about that is... how in god's name is jet fuel supposed to shoot out 78 stories below? Also don't even try to say those explosions are exploding cars.

This is an orange, and these are buildings being demolished, not an apple.

I would also like to recently point out that I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job just recently. And now I go to work looking like this

This is another forum with roughly the same question. About 40,000 responses.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So I don't get very many chances to post on this site

You're averaging three posts per day or so. That's fairly often for a forum that can be pretty slow sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Thermite COULD have done it. and that guy who made that video is just a regular construction worker from what I hear... not the so called 'experts' hired by the government.

He used it against much thinner steel. He didn't protect it against aircraft impacts nor against fires. The same basic reasons why explosives couldn't have been used (aside from the noises) apply to therm*te and using therm*te adds its own separate problems into the mix.

In this video, the only surviving video that I know of, you can actually HEAR the explosions FOR YOURSELVES at around 3:43-4:05 Another thing I find suspicious about that is...

Nobody but the delusional hear explosives in that video. Nobody there was saying anything like "Those were explosions" right after it ended and they were near the escalators.

how in god's name is jet fuel supposed to shoot out 78 stories below?

Elevator shafts that ran from the roof to the basements make for a direct conduit with excellent gravity assist.

 

[Relax]

You're averaging three posts per day or so. That's fairly often for a forum that can be pretty slow sometimes.



He used it against much thinner steel. He didn't protect it against aircraft impacts nor against fires. The same basic reasons why explosives couldn't have been used (aside from the noises) apply to therm*te and using therm*te adds its own separate problems into the mix.

...exactly how much difference do you really think fire resistant steel would make? and how much money do you think this guy had to experiment or use compared to what the government could use? I regress fire resistant is NOT therm*te resistant. He was proving a point, that NIST was obviously lying and did not even conduct proper experimentation.

Nobody but the delusional hear explosives in that video. Nobody there was saying anything like "Those were explosions" right after it ended and they were near the escalators.

Tons of firefighters who were actually there and eyewitnesses would like to disagree with you.

Elevator shafts that ran from the roof to the basements make for a direct conduit with excellent gravity assist.

If that's the case shouldn't the lobby have been set on FIRE? I mean this is jet fuel here, it managed to burn for 48 minutes straight and MELT steel without depleting itself on the floors 70 feet above, and yet only lasted a few seconds on the lobby and set nothing on fire?

 

[Architect]

Okay, your post is so full of debunked material as to make my head hurt this early on a Monday but let's start with one of the simpler ones.

What evidence do you have that structural steel melted in-situ, presumably leading to the collapse?

 

[Oystein]

So I don't get very many chances to post on this site, and I went back about 5 or 6 pages looking for a poll but I didn't find one. So WAS 9/11 an inside job? I can honestly say without a reasonable doubt that yes, it was an inside job. They not only had knowledge of what was going to happen that day, but they planned it out.

World Trade Center 7 vs an Orange

Thermite COULD have done it. and that guy who made that video is just a regular construction worker from what I hear... not the so called 'experts' hired by the government.

William Cooper predicts an event like 9/11 would happen and that it would be blamed on Osama Bin Laden This video also contains the towers 'collapsing' and the visible clouds of smoke before the 'collapse' ever reach them. Also shows white flashes inside the WTC which are claimed by many of the Thermite theory to be the ignitions. Also has photographs of the plane.

Don't believe that there were explosions? In this video, the only surviving video that I know of, you can actually HEAR the explosions FOR YOURSELVES at around 3:43-4:05 Another thing I find suspicious about that is... how in god's name is jet fuel supposed to shoot out 78 stories below? Also don't even try to say those explosions are exploding cars.

This is an orange, and these are buildings being demolished, not an apple.

I would also like to recently point out that I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job just recently. And now I go to work looking like this

Hello Relax, and a belated welcome to the JREF!

You are new here, and probably have not read a whole lot here about the topics you mention.
May I ask you a few questions about how you formed your opinions?

1. You only bring YouTube videos as "evidence". Is Youtube your main source of info?
2. When did you start to believe in inside job? Year will suffice.
3. Do you remember how you first formed that opinion? Who did you listen to?
4. Which sites beside youtube have you researched so far?
5. Have you actively tried to find debunkings of the claims you present here, and what did you find?

Now some remarks about your reasons:

You are really very short on positive evidence. Some of your reasons are not evidence at all. In particular:

• Finding that something could be done does not influence much the probabilty that is has been done. So thermite could be used to cut vertical columns? So what? Midgets with saws could do the same. No doubt you could use lasers, acids or nukes, too. Do you believe that midgets did it, or lasers, or acids? No? Why not? Because you have no evidemce at all for all of that! Then you would be right! And you have absolutely zero evidence for thermite.
• Bill Cooper (a UFO believer - do you believe in UFOs, just because Bill Cooper told you?) predicted "an event like 9/11 ... that ... would be blamed on Osama Bin Laden", because every serious analyst at the time beloeved that OBL planned just that. It was really like someone predicting that "a pedestrian will get run over in New York and they will blam it on a cab driver".
• What you hear in that video from the WTC lobby is the collapse of the south tower! Are you aware that the south tower collapsed at the time? What do you hear in that video that you would not absolutely expect to hear when 110 stories of steel and concrete collapse just a couple of hundred feet away from you? What you DON'T hear but should absolutely expect to hear when there are explosion is - explosions. Explosions that precede the rising noise of the collapse! You shoud first hear incredibly loud BANGs that spike out everything else, and after that the rumbling of rubble. Instead, you first hear the rumbling increase, and then max out the microphone.

Finally:

Do you have a full theory of what happened instead? Like what really happened with the planes, when, how and by whom were the towers rigged with explosives, where did the collapses begin, why was no steel found that showed the effect of explosives to break it, etc.?

I set up a thread a while ago, maybe you want to tell us your full theory of 9/11: Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

...exactly how much difference do you really think fire resistant steel would make? and how much money do you think this guy had to experiment or use compared to what the government could use? I regress fire resistant is NOT therm*te resistant. He was proving a point, that NIST was obviously lying and did not even conduct proper experimentation.

Thinner steel means it required less therm*te and less of a chance of failure. You're the one who brought him into this as an example, I'm simply pointing out the flaws of your example.

Tons of firefighters who were actually there and eyewitnesses would like to disagree with you.

Incorrect. Look up the word simile.

If that's the case shouldn't the lobby have been set on FIRE? I mean this is jet fuel here, it managed to burn for 48 minutes straight and MELT steel without depleting itself on the floors 70 feet above, and yet only lasted a few seconds on the lobby and set nothing on fire?

The lobbies were covered in marble and other non-flammable materials. There was nothing there to set on fire other than the people and their clothes that actually did catch on fire. The film in your post (The Naudet Brothers documentary - 911) discusses this.

It has been estimated that the jet fuel burned off in about 10 minutes (and no steel was melted anyway). The fire were fueled by the office contents in the towers that were there every day of the week.

 

[Relax]

Thinner steel means it required less therm*te and less of a chance of failure. You're the one who brought him into this as an example, I'm simply pointing out the flaws of your example.

Now you're disregarding the entire point. I'm fairly certain that he was making an example and that therm*te can indeed get the job done regardless of steel size.

The lobbies were covered in marble and other non-flammable materials. There was nothing there to set on fire other than the people and their clothes that actually did catch on fire. The film in your post (The Naudet Brothers documentary - 911) discusses this.

I see a green plant in the video, plant = flammable. plant not set on fire. Jet fuel sticks and burns regardless if marble. You could spill gasoline on marble, light a match, watch it burn and you have black spot, no black spots. lobby = devoid of fire except supposedly the people... me thinks there are tons of firefighters here. Why they no put out people on fire?

It has been estimated that the jet fuel burned off in about 10 minutes (and no steel was melted anyway). The fire were fueled by the office contents in the towers that were there every day of the week.

And office contents manages to heat up enough to bend fire resistant steel.

 

[Architect]

What evidence do you have that structural steel melted in-situ, presumably leading to the collapse?

(cough)

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Now you're disregarding the entire point. I'm fairly certain that he was making an example and that therm*te can indeed get the job done regardless of steel size.

Scale matters. What may work on a small scale becomes, at a minimum more difficult, on a larger one. Surely you can understand that right?

I see a green plant in the video, plant = flammable. plant not set on fire. Jet fuel sticks and burns regardless if marble. You could spill gasoline on marble, light a match, watch it burn and you have black spot, no black spots. lobby = devoid of fire except supposedly the people... me thinks there are tons of firefighters here. Why they no put out people on fire?

Green plants typically aren't flammable. They did extinguish the people on fire and were attending to them medically when the filmmakers got there. Watch the documentary that you linked to, it covers all of this. They intentionally chose not to film burned people because it was too disturbing, but they do talk about it. If they didn't point their cameras in that direction then you wouldn't be able to see any damages near the elevators.

And office contents manages to heat up enough to bend fire resistant steel.

I assume that this is a question and not a statement. Yes, office fires burn very hot. That's why office buildings are required to have fireproofing installed in the first place. Fireproofing doesn't work very well when it's just been blown off of the steel by an airplane hitting it at 500 MPH.

 

[Architect]

Relax

You should be aware that I did start a thread some time ago regarding Truther claims that fire was not susceptible to fire-induced failure in normal office loadings, however none of them chose to defend their previously voiced positions on the matter.

If you use the search function, you'll find that quite a detailed technical case was put to them.

 

[Relax]

May I ask you a few questions about how you formed your opinions?

1. You only bring YouTube videos as "evidence". Is Youtube your main source of info?
2. When did you start to believe in inside job? Year will suffice.
3. Do you remember how you first formed that opinion? Who did you listen to?
4. Which sites beside youtube have you researched so far?
5. Have you actively tried to find debunkings of the claims you present here, and what did you find?

1. This is 9/11 seeing, and hearing is believing.
2. about 4 days ago.
3. oranges and apples. (1) nothing but visual and audio identification will suffice in this case. I want to see for my own eyes.
4. I only bothered saving the link to one, but I've been to many. Here is linky
5. Yep, those who support the therm*te theory have stronger evidence than the ones supporting the official story. Evidence is ignored by majority of masses who disregard conspiracy theorists as whackos. I find that majority of people ignore evidence.

Now some remarks about your reasons:

You are really very short on positive evidence. Some of your reasons are not evidence at all. In particular:

• Finding that something could be done does not influence much the probabilty that is has been done. So thermite could be used to cut vertical columns? So what? Midgets with saws could do the same. No doubt you could use lasers, acids or nukes, too. Do you believe that midgets did it, or lasers, or acids? No? Why not? Because you have no evidemce at all for all of that! Then you would be right! And you have absolutely zero evidence for thermite.

• 
  
  Because therm*te fits. Where jet fuel, laser guns, nukes, or acid does not. And sorry for not being able to provide a tour guide of the inside of the WTC on 9/11 to see if bombs were planted... they kind of exploded before we could do that.
  
  

  [*]Bill Cooper (a UFO believer - do you believe in UFOs, just because Bill Cooper told you?) predicted "an event like 9/11 ... that ... would be blamed on Osama Bin Laden", because every serious analyst at the time beloeved that OBL planned just that. It was really like someone predicting that "a pedestrian will get run over in New York and they will blam it on a cab driver"

  
  Bill Cooper payed for it with his life. and he was a former UFO believer, we've all believed in something silly at least once in our lives. I used to believe in a magical fairylike being living in the sky and silently judging people...
  
  

  [*]What you hear in that video from the WTC lobby is the collapse of the south tower! Are you aware that the south tower collapsed at the time? What do you hear in that video that you would not absolutely expect to hear when 110 stories of steel and concrete collapse just a couple of hundred feet away from you? What you DON'T hear but should absolutely expect to hear when there are explosion is - explosions. Explosions that precede the rising noise of the collapse! You shoud first hear incredibly loud BANGs that spike out everything else, and after that the rumbling of rubble. Instead, you first hear the rumbling increase, and then max out the microphone.

I would assume that being 70 stories above when the explosions first started it would be kind of hard to hear them after the collapse started, but as the collapse got lower and the demolition charges got nearer you would be able to hear the bangs over the collapse, and that sir, is what we are able to hear. and a rather loud bang before the firefighter asks if everyone is alright.

Do you have a full theory of what happened instead? Like what really happened with the planes, when, how and by whom were the towers rigged with explosives, where did the collapses begin, why was no steel found that showed the effect of explosives to break it, etc.?

I set up a thread a while ago, maybe you want to tell us your full theory of 9/11: Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

First off I think a full theory is kind of pointless, all I need to know is if they were rigged or not. and they obviously were.

 

[Relax]

Okay, your post is so full of debunked material as to make my head hurt this early on a Monday but let's start with one of the simpler ones.

What evidence do you have that structural steel melted in-situ, presumably leading to the collapse?

Before

Some leaking inside as well.

After days or weeks after to be precise.

 

[Architect]

What evidence do you have that structural steel melted in-situ, presumably leading to the collapse?

Are you claiming that the picture you have posted a link of is molten structural steel, and if so then what evidence fo you have for this?

Likewise why do you believe that an excavator can pick up "molten" metal, and how do you know that's what you're looking at?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

First off I think a full theory is kind of pointless, all I need to know is if they were rigged or not. and they obviously were.

What makes you say "Obviously"? Do you know or at least understand that explosives and similar devices are extremely susceptible to heat and shock? That the methods to mitigate those effects at the scale of being hit by a fueled 757/767 traveling at 500+ mph are not a minor endeavor that can be done overnight nor are they something that you can hide due to the sheer size of the protection required? Have you thought about how someone could initiate those devices exactly as planned when the damage was so extensive that guaranteeing their precise use was so close to impossible that no reasonable person would even bother attempting it? How do you explain the fact that nobody saw, heard or recorded the very characteristic sounds and sights seen in virtually every other explosive demolition done before or since 9/11? How do you explain the people who survived the collapses while inside the buildings? They showed none of the symptoms of being close to the detonation of the amount of explosives that the truthers postulate. No ruptured ear drums or other signs of barometric injuries for example. How do you explain the fact that not one of the thousands of people who worked on ground zero or in Fresh Kills landfill reported seeing anything at all that might have been construed as damages from therm*te or explosives?

In short there is nothing "Obvious" at all regarding the insane theories of explosives being used except that the people who cling to those ideas are insane.

 

[Relax]

Are you claiming that the picture you have posted a link of is molten structural steel, and if so then what evidence fo you have for this?
how do you know that's what you're looking at?

What else would it be?

We even have thermal.

And please don't say aluminum, those probably should've been melted quite some time ago. I'd say 20 minutes into the blaze, having been heated up by the jet fuel would've been more than enough to make puny aluminum melt, not an hour into the fire and conveniently a short time before the towers fell.

 

[Relax]

What makes you say "Obviously"? Do you know or at least understand that explosives and similar devices are extremely susceptible to heat and shock?

I already wondered that myself, and I figured that they probably already had a pre-determined spot about roughly where the plains would hit. In fact I'd find it completely ludicrous if they didn't have that in foresight. And explosives being pre-maturely set off due to shock would perfectly explain the 'dust puffs/pressure points' we see before the pile of rubble reach those levels. Good luck finding those in natural collapses.

How do you explain the fact that nobody saw, heard or recorded the very characteristic sounds and sights seen in virtually every other explosive demolition done before or since 9/11?

If you carefully observe the south tower you can distinguish that it is in fact not a collapse. youtube collapses of natural causes and demolitions for similar comparison. And WTC 7 is demolition to, for further references for that one. watch the first video in the OP.

How do you explain the people who survived the collapses while inside the buildings? They showed none of the symptoms of being close to the detonation of the amount of explosives that the truthers postulate.

I don't proclaim myself as a truther now do I? I have heard that many of the people who survived the collapse/demolitions of the towers are experiencing health issues which could be related to therm*te explosives, I have not taken it upon myself to research into it though. As I personally believe that it would be surprising if they didn't have health issues since there was so much dust and debris. Just thought it may be worth mentioning.

How do you explain the fact that not one of the thousands of people who worked on ground zero or in Fresh Kills landfill reported seeing anything at all that might have been construed as damages from therm*te or explosives?

Probably many of them wouldn't have known the difference between damages done by explosions or collapses if it came up and bit them in the ass. Seriously man, they were firefighters doing their job, which was operations to rescue survivors, not look around at the scenery.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

What else would it be?

We even have thermal.

And please don't say aluminum, those probably should've been melted quite some time ago. I'd say 20 minutes into the blaze, having been heated up by the jet fuel would've been more than enough to make puny aluminum melt, not an hour into the fire and conveniently a short time before the towers fell.

That image was taken days after the fact and shows what are the equivalent of landfill fires with at least 100 acres worth of office contents acting as fuel.

Well convieniently there are plenty of other metals inside an office building. Metals like copper (wiring) and lead (batteries). I'm assuming that none of those web sites that you visited mentioned the huge bank of UPS batteries owned by Fuji Bank were in that very same corner did they? Or that a possible reason for the sudden release of that material (of unknown pedigree) could very well be a result of a partially collapsing floor tilting and funneling any of that material towards an opening created by the impacts. They won't mention these things because, even though they are plausible and have at least some evidence to back them up, they show how dishonest they are in what they say and how they say it.

If, as you say, you are only four days into looking into this then you aren't too far down the rabbit hole to back out and take another look. Simply Googling the topics will unfortunately direct you to some sites that (to be nice about it) are less than honest and that have their own agendas that aren't completely obvious right at first (money and politics usually) to promote and they will use 9/11 as a vehicle to carry that agenda and don't really give a damn if they use outright lies to get their message out.

Don't just read and accept what you read without doing a bit of checking of their claims yourself. Actively seeking out the counter arguments and then weighing them against each other is always a good place to start. Check their sources as well. Remember that video and audio can be (and often is) edited or otherwise manipulated to give the impression of something being exactly the opposite of what it actually is.

Be critical and don't accept anything outright. This includes what I and others here might tell you. It's very rare that you will get the answer "Because I said so" without the evidence or proven expertise to back it up from a debunker and opinions or supposition are usually made clear from the start and the reasons for that are given when they are.

 

[erwinl]

What else would it be?

We even have thermal.

And please don't say aluminum, those probably should've been melted quite some time ago. I'd say 20 minutes into the blaze, having been heated up by the jet fuel would've been more than enough to make puny aluminum melt, not an hour into the fire and conveniently a short time before the towers fell.

What makes you think the metal only melted right before it is seen in the filmshots?
What of the possibility it was molten for a longer time and only moved to the corner when the floor it was on shifted. The shifting of the floor being one of the first stages of the coming collapse?

Do you think that this possibilty can be totally discarded? And if not, what would be the implications in your opinion?

 

[Relax]

That image was taken days after the fact and shows what are the equivalent of landfill fires with at least 100 acres worth of office contents acting as fuel.

capable of melting steel... a feet jet fuel could not accomplish, and now ordinary office supplies can?

Well convieniently there are plenty of other metals inside an office building. Metals like copper (wiring) and lead (batteries). I'm assuming that none of those web sites that you visited mentioned the huge bank of UPS batteries owned by Fuji Bank were in that very same corner did they? Or that a possible reason for the sudden release of that material (of unknown pedigree) could very well be a result of a partially collapsing floor tilting and funneling any of that material towards an opening created by the impacts. They won't mention these things because, even though they are plausible and have at least some evidence to back them up, they show how dishonest they are in what they say and how they say it.

I'm assuming that there was no huge bank of UPS batteries owned by the fuji bank there as the official story states it as melted aluminum... something I already gave a reason for discrediting. first time I've heard of a bank of batteries being stored conveniently next to the open hole the airplane debris left.

If, as you say, you are only four days into looking into this then you aren't too far down the rabbit hole to back out and take another look.

I am looking back, that's why I'm going this way.

Simply Googling the topics will unfortunately direct you to some sites that (to be nice about it) are less than honest and that have their own agendas that aren't completely obvious right at first (money and politics usually) to promote and they will use 9/11 as a vehicle to carry that agenda and don't really give a damn if they use outright lies to get their message out.

sounds like the bush administration.

Don't just read and accept what you read without doing a bit of checking of their claims yourself. Actively seeking out the counter arguments and then weighing them against each other is always a good place to start. Check their sources as well. Remember that video and audio can be (and often is) edited or otherwise manipulated to give the impression of something being exactly the opposite of what it actually is.

If I just read and accepted things, I probably wouldn't believe that planes hit the tower at all by now.

Be critical and don't accept anything outright. This includes what I and others here might tell you. It's very rare that you will get the answer "Because I said so" without the evidence or proven expertise to back it up from a debunker and opinions or supposition are usually made clear from the start and the reasons for that are given when they are.

I'm an atheist, pro-death penalty, and firm supporter that 9/11 was an inside job. I like to think I think critically alot.