9-11 was NOT an inside job

[Dave Ridley]

i'm in the debunker camp myself but always open minded.

does seem to be a waste ful discussion sometimes....

we all know the government is evil regardless of who did what on 9/11

[Dave Ridley]

oh and welcome to nhfree debunker

[maxxoccupancy]

Four possibilities exist: al-Queada brought explosives on the plane which took too long to go off (except with the Pentagon attack); demolitions had been left in the building negligently, set off as a result of the fire/damage; inside job; aircraft aluminum vaporized, then recondenced on exposed steal, finally igniting and melting the core structure.

The first is highly unlikely, though some have suggested that al-Queada took advantage of the confusion to bring explosives in before or after the attack.  This explanation is unlikely and doesn't explain the demolition of Building 7.

In the second case, the owners of the building had had multiple permits rejected on the grounds that asbestos and other toxins in the buildings would contaminate the area.  Demolitions brought in prematurely may have been negligently left behind, only to be set off by the effects of the fire.

The issue of the inside job has been examined in great detail elsewhere, but seems to fit the facts available better than any other theory.  Our government (not just this administration) have been exploiting every tragedy and crisis to justify further expansions of federal power.  Some were beyond their control, but were used anyway to further the big government agenda.  The problem with other theories is that the energy in each collapase was measured at 1.5 million kwh, whereas the weight of the building alone at its height represents only 110,000 kwh.  The remaining 1.4 million kwh cannot be explained by the remaining fuel alone.

The high quantities of Aluminum and sulfur found in the debris could have other explanations.  For example, when the planes (made of aircraft aluminum) vaporized on impact, releasing aluminum oxide gas.  The incediary and demolition material thermite combines Fe with AlO2 to form Fe2O3 + Al, releasing temperatures of about 4500 F.  Either could be responsible for the release of heat weakening the insulated core structure, starting the collapse.

Unfortunately, there are too many problems to be explained by simple collapse:
-thousands of bone fragments were found smaller than one inch, suggesting explosion
-over 1,000 victims bodies were never found
-nearly all of the concrete and steel were pulverized
-bodies were blown to smitherines, not crushed
-heavy steel supports were thrown over 100 yards away
-there was no "pancaking" of floors at ground zero
-squibs were seen during the explosion, indicating demolitions
-explosions can be seen running down the building BEFORE the weight reaches them, at ten floors per second
-the top 20 floors seem to encounter absolutely no resistance as they fall through the building
-temperatures inside the building are never shown to exceed 452 F, according to damage to the paint
-contractor ACE was called in one month before the attack to account for each elevator, working right next to the steel supports that collapsed first
-WTC was losing money, and owners had demolition permits repeatedly rejected
-Prez was seen being told about the attacks while reading goat story, did nothing and showed no surprise
-shoddy investigation conducted by FEMA, NIST, ASCE, and groups with clear conflicts of interest; facts had to be tweaked to deliver desired results in computer modeling
-firing of numerous whistle blowers
-blocking of public comment on various Web sites regarding the attack
-refusal of some networks to discuss the issue
-118 first responders stating that they saw, felt, and heard flashes and explosions right before the collapse
-witnesses on the ground reporting flashes and explosions before collapse
-simultaneous failure of supports in twin towers, not consistent with damage due to fire
-Larry Silverstein purchases remainder of buildings two months before the attack, then takes out $7 billion insurance policy on the buildings
-WTC lease terms changed right before attacks to let owner off the hook in the event of a terrorist attack
-NORAD ordered to stand down 90 minutes before hijacking
-military planes ordered to keep speed below 350 knots that morning
-occupants ordered to stay inside the buildings before the attack
-appearance of thermite-like sparks falling from building right before collapse
-seizmic record shows concussions right before collapse
-appearance of white smoke coming from top and basement, signs of thermite use
-building did not hold together during collapse
-countless experts coming forward declaring the appearance of controlled demolition

The weight of evidence is overwhelming.  There are too many things that are consistant with controlled demolitions, that seem to disprove fire.  That is to say, that it appears to be impossible that the official explanation could be true.

[JustUs]

For example, there is a stellar article in a credible source (Popular Mechanics) which finally puts to rest all of these ridiculous claims
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I can't believe you'd trot out this tripe as a credible source for 9/11. Where'd you get your degree? From a cereal box?

[ConspiracyDebunker]

oh and welcome to nhfree debunker

Thanks, DadaOrwell--

I figured that with the furious debate over on that "truther" thread it would be a good idea to have a respectful place to discuss the overwhelming evidence against their loony theories, without their interruptions. Seems like any thread is likely to be hijacked, though 

[ConspiracyDebunker]

For example, there is a stellar article in a credible source (Popular Mechanics) which finally puts to rest all of these ridiculous claims
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I can't believe you'd trot out this tripe as a credible source for 9/11. Where'd you get your degree? From a cereal box?

What tripe? Why would you think that a respected source like Popular Mechanics would print tripe? They'd go out of business if that were the case.

No, I don't have a degree but that's irrelevant--it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those buildings were going to come down. It's so obvious, if a commercial airliner smashes into a building and burns out of control that it's going to come down. I don't know why this is even an issue for debate.

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not sure where I land on the conspiracy spectrum, however I would not necessarily except Popular Mechanics as an unbiased source. They are not the same magazine I remember from years ago, they are a PR outlet for the governments latest "defense" toys. Much like Dragnet was a PR outlet for the LAPD.

[ThePug]

It matters who did it if you're going to place your trust in the US government or not.

It doesn't matter at all. There are plenty of people here who don't buy into the Truther theories that have no love of the Federal government, myself included. Not buying the CTs has nothing to do with trusting the government or not, it has to do with trusting/believing the people pushing the theories.

[J’raxis 270145]

It matters who did it if you're going to place your trust in the US government or not.

A government that capitalizes on terrorism and kills millions is trustworthy, but if they killed an additional 3000 or so, that would the the tipping-point to "untrustworthy?"

Indeed. I think the argument goes something like, "Surely this will convince the ordinary American to turn against their government." From a perception standpoint, it is true that a government directly killing three thousand of their own people, especially in such a manner, is a lot more shocking to most people than the same government getting 30,000 killed in a war, or killing 300,000 foreigners.

The problem is that most people just can't get their head around the idea that their government could do that. Call it a perversion of loyalty. The average American can blithely accept that Hitler killed 6 million, or that Stalin and Mao killed 50 million, but he'll balk at the idea that his own government could even hurt a few dozen, let alone 3,000.

[JustUs]

For example, there is a stellar article in a credible source (Popular Mechanics) which finally puts to rest all of these ridiculous claims
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I can't believe you'd trot out this tripe as a credible source for 9/11. Where'd you get your degree? From a cereal box?

What tripe? Why would you think that a respected source like Popular Mechanics would print tripe? They'd go out of business if that were the case.

No, I don't have a degree but that's irrelevant--it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that those buildings were going to come down. It's so obvious, if a commercial airliner smashes into a building and burns out of control that it's going to come down. I don't know why this is even an issue for debate.

So you're an expert on structural mechanics eh? and you're clairvoyant on top of that! - you can tell when buildings are going to collapse just by looking? That's really believable.

Have a gander at this if you think Popular Mechanics is the pinnacle of scientific wisdom: http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/7399

[maxxoccupancy]

I just viewed that popular mechanics threads "debunking" theories.  This is a typical, sloppy cover up.  Only stupid people are expected to buy in to it.  Intelligent people are being told by the coverage, "this is a sloppy coverup."  Take a close look at the "wreckage" from Page 3 and tell me that you buy into this.  An I Beam that was supposed to have been broken off and dropped from the collapsing building looks like it was purchased brand new and carefully placed with the "wreckage." This is not even wreckage from the building, which was almost completely pulverized by the explosions.

You can see video of those at www.911truth.org

When the government and the media collude to call skeptics "extremists" or say that you're aiding terrorists, they are obviously trying to prevent people from listening to you.  No one can be a sheep and call themselves libertarians.

[Russell Kanning]

You "9-11 truthers" already have a thread going; this thread was started for people to post their findings which supports the official story and contradicts all the nonsense and pseudo-science that the "9-11 truth movement" is propagating.

I was hoping to get the discussion going for the official story.
What do you think happened on 9/11?

[Russell Kanning]

we all know the government is evil regardless of who did what on 9/11

I have found that most people who believe the government did it .... regard them as more evil than those that accept the government story.

[Russell Kanning]

I figured that with the furious debate over on that "truther" thread it would be a good idea to have a respectful place to discuss the overwhelming evidence against their loony theories, without their interruptions.

Kat started the other thread to let people post all of their findings that lead to an inside job conclusion.
What would you like to do with this thread? Is it mostly for debunking the 9/11 "truther" stuff ... or is it for expaining what did happen?
Is the government following up leads or is it just the truthers that keep digging. I am curious.

Obviously the people who think the government did it have very few answers .... because they don't have access to info. For those of you who think some outside terrorists did it ... what do you know?

[Russell Kanning]

I'm not sure where I land on the conspiracy spectrum

I shy away from conspiracy theories. I only started questioning the 9/11 story a couple of years ago.
It will be interesting to see if this thread is filled with as much info as the inside job thread has.