What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[catch.me.if.you.can]

CIA did it. Also CIA burns the greek forests every year.

[1714622733]

1714622733

[1714622733]

1714622733

[1714622733]

1714622733

[1714622733]

1714622733

[1714622733]

1714622733

[catch.me.if.you.can]

Nobody claims that US directly did it. American Deep State did it.
Weird, Bush said to Americans after attack "Shop"

Yes it was an inside job done by the bush and zionist lobby just to invade iraq and loot their wealth and kill the innocents thats the reason many veterans have comitted suicide

I WAS WAITING FOR THIS!!!

Here it goes again!  The EVIL JEEWWWSSSSS! 

Yes, the jews. Who else?

[tvbcof]

...

Did you read the Harrit et-al paper?  I've not run across any scientifically compelling challenges to the material, though I've not looked for a while.

For me personally, I never paid any serious attention to this for several reasons.  Maybe because of some work I did decades back I am familiar with thermite, which most people are not.  And with nano-thermite concepts, although I did not work with it.  

First, if thermite was used at one specific point in a huge skyscraper, people are simply not going to be finding evidence of it in dust.  "Evidence" would be parts per billion or trillion in dust at the site.  Translated, it simply would not exist, and that's not even taking into account the issues of the molecular and granular structure of thermite.

Somehow the 911 conspiracy nuts want to assert "nano-thermite," not just thermite.  This is a curiosity, but it has for them a big advantage:  Nano-thermite is a very exotic laboratory creation, therefore it has to be a government deploying it, therefore it must be the US Government.  

The report you mention, I stopped reading after the guy started talking about Fe2O3 being an "unreduced" form of iron.  Hell, it's RUST.  It's fully reduced, but at a certain temperature with Aluminum, aluminum will grab the oxygen, resulting energy release.   Rust is everywhere.  It's a powder.  Powder is "nano."  Powdered metals are used in paint.  Duh....
...

If 'natural', I would have thought that the structures that described in the paper would be reproduced all over the place in a lot of buildings and/or building debris and someone would have popped up demonstrating the phenomenon and discrediting the paper right away.  Never saw that happen.

In fact, and I think that the paper made it quite clear, the material seems to be quite specialized.  Arguments that it is 'natural' seem to be of the same category as arguing against evolution because of a 747, wind storm, junkyard, etc.  To me.

I would also point out that just because something is high tech does not mean it is US Govt.  Just the opposite in our country due to the way we are set up with most technology originating in the 'private sector.'  I don't argue or believe that 'the US government did 9/11', but I do argue that it is a near certainty that the operation included the participation of individuals who had influence at various levels of our government.  'Had influence' because in many cases they were generals, DOD persons, vice presidents, etc.  The same argument applies to various other nations as well.  In particular, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Pakistan who all had nationals playing a role in certain aspects of the operation.

[catch.me.if.you.can]

CIA made many crimes to Greece.

1) CIA created military junta in Greece
2) CIA created the economic crisis in Greece through Goldmann Sacks
3) CIA send Vaourofakis to Greece to create capital controls
4) CIA burns the forests in Greece every summer. Forest fires of CIA killed 84 people in 2007.

[Spendulus]

...

Did you read the Harrit et-al paper?  I've not run across any scientifically compelling challenges to the material, though I've not looked for a while.

For me personally, I never paid any serious attention to this for several reasons.  Maybe because of some work I did decades back I am familiar with thermite, which most people are not.  And with nano-thermite concepts, although I did not work with it.  

First, if thermite was used at one specific point in a huge skyscraper, people are simply not going to be finding evidence of it in dust.  "Evidence" would be parts per billion or trillion in dust at the site.  Translated, it simply would not exist, and that's not even taking into account the issues of the molecular and granular structure of thermite.

Somehow the 911 conspiracy nuts want to assert "nano-thermite," not just thermite.  This is a curiosity, but it has for them a big advantage:  Nano-thermite is a very exotic laboratory creation, therefore it has to be a government deploying it, therefore it must be the US Government.  

The report you mention, I stopped reading after the guy started talking about Fe2O3 being an "unreduced" form of iron.  Hell, it's RUST.  It's fully reduced, but at a certain temperature with Aluminum, aluminum will grab the oxygen, resulting energy release.   Rust is everywhere.  It's a powder.  Powder is "nano."  Powdered metals are used in paint.  Duh....
...

If 'natural', I would have thought that the structures that described in the paper would be reproduced all over the place in a lot of buildings and/or building debris and someone would have popped up demonstrating the phenomenon and discrediting the paper right away.  Never saw that happen.

In fact, and I think that the paper made it quite clear, the material seems to be quite specialized.  Arguments that it is 'natural' seem to be of the same category as arguing against evolution because of a 747, wind storm, junkyard, etc.  To me.

I would also point out that just because something is high tech does not mean it is US Govt.  Just the opposite in our country due to the way we are set up with most technology originating in the 'private sector.'  I don't argue or believe that 'the US government did 9/11', but I do argue that it is a near certainty that the operation included the participation of individuals who had influence at various levels of our government.  'Had influence' because in many cases they were generals, DOD persons, vice presidents, etc.  The same argument applies to various other nations as well.  In particular, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Pakistan who all had nationals playing a role in certain aspects of the operation.

Huh?  What "structures?"  What "Phenomenon?"

Are you talking about these samples of paint/rust?  Please clarify.

I have to laugh at the second issue you raise.  In the other thread, I brought this very point up against the conspiracy believers.  It was basically "There was NANO Thermite so the US GOVERNMENT DID IT!" ... and I would say... "Why?  Why the US government?"

Seemed like a reasonable question, but nobody wants to hear about bad stuff except if by the US.  Oh, or Israel, of course.  Those darned Evil Jews whom somehow are claimed (on Internet forums) to be responsible for everything.  Except global warming.

[tvbcof]

Huh?  What "structures?"  What "Phenomenon?"

Are you talking about these samples of paint/rust?  Please clarify.

By 'structures', I meant as an example the compenents of the red/grey particals and the highly energetic materail which releases it's energy readily.

By 'phenomenon', I meant that such structures are commonly formed by standard building materials.

I have to laugh at the second issue you raise.  In the other thread, I brought this very point up against the conspiracy believers.  It was basically "There was NANO Thermite so the US GOVERNMENT DID IT!" ... and I would say... "Why?  Why the US government?"

Seemed like a reasonable question, but nobody wants to hear about bad stuff except if by the US.  Oh, or Israel, of course.  Those darned Evil Jews whom somehow are claimed (on Internet forums) to be responsible for everything.  Except global warming.

I suspect that a certain amount of the technical expertise was supplied by people of Israeli nationality or dual citizenship, but that's not necessarily the case.  The primary value of the Israeli factor would be make sure that the press shut their pie-holes ASAP and seeked out and stuck to the official narrative.  Some of the early stories involved Israeli's, and I suspect that real or fabricated, the message to the press was 'you don't want to touch this one.'  This and other false flags seem to be characterized by early information which is designed to make sure that people who have a little bit of understanding know for sure that it IS a hoax/false-flag so they don't make a 'career mistake' by fucking things up.

I'm pretty sure that neither Bush nor Bibi knew with any real precision exactly what was going to happen due to the way they acted which is why I do not call it a 'government operation'.

Oh ya, attempting to pass exploration of a 'false conspiracy' off as a 'blame the Jews' nazi exercise which proves antisemitism is also a fairly common strategy.  So common that a lot of people have seen it countless times and see right through it.  Nice try though.  You can give it another shot by attacking my suggestion that the mainstream media here in the U.S. is significantly influenced by people who also care about Israel in a special way.  This again works better on people who have questions about whether they themselves are antisemitic.  I personally do not (and am not.)

[Moloch]

7/11 was a part-time job!

[Betwrong]

More than 15 years passed after 9/11 disaster.
After 9/11 Coalition Forces occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 1,5 million people died. Iraq regime collapsed with Saddam's dicta.
Coalition Forces encashed even every single bullet's price from Iraqi Puppet Government.
If we think today,  who get benefit from 9/11 and who lost, i leave it to your imagination and mind.
It was a terrorist attack?
There are many suspicious points
What about flight number 11, 175 and number 73 passengers hit Pentagon?
There are so many questions
Are you satisfied for explanations?
Actually what, happened there?

There are virtually no "mysteries" or "suspicious points" or "questions" about the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Towers.  There is already an extensive thread on this subject here, by the way.

Yes, and not only here obviously. The subject is covered very well IMO in wiki and on Youtube. I think if it was not a terrorist attack but something else entirely we'd already know it for sure. It's impossible to hide something that's so important in the modern world.

[dread454]

@spendulus, would you be so kind to provide your "math and physics" explanation for wtc building 7? 

[tvbcof]

Yes, and not only here obviously. The subject is covered very well IMO in wiki and on Youtube. I think if it was not a terrorist attack but something else entirely we'd already know it for sure. It's impossible to hide something that's so important in the modern world.

Millions of people 'know' with pretty high precision what 9/11 was all about and how it went down.  Many millions more know that the official story is false to one degree or another.

If your metric for gauging who 'knows what for sure' is based on what Snopes says, you will be forever behind in understanding the world.

Put another way, 'consensus' is an extremely poor substitute for knowledge, and that has probably never been more true than today.  Humans are by nature closer to herd animals than they are to solitary hunters.  People who are competent at social engineering understand this and leverage it to their advantage.

[Spendulus]

Yes, and not only here obviously. The subject is covered very well IMO in wiki and on Youtube. I think if it was not a terrorist attack but something else entirely we'd already know it for sure. It's impossible to hide something that's so important in the modern world.

Millions of people 'know' with pretty high precision what 9/11 was all about and how it went down.  Many millions more know that the official story is false to one degree or another.....

Discussion about math and physics DOES NOT make all conspiracy theories impossible, only the ones that rely on impossible physical realities.

The thermite and nano-thermite theories are total bunko.  Incidentally, to find evidence of thermite you'd look for aluminum compounds (including unburned thermite or that magical nano thermite)  at the exact locations of the thermite "cutting torch."  Nowhere else.  Certainly not all over the city in dust that blew down.   

More interestingly, it makes no sense to envision some guys conspiring saying "Hey, tell ya what.  Let's get some stupid Muslims to fly planes into these towers, but hey, that'll just be a cover.  What we'll really do is have about a couple dozen secret agents dressed in black sneak into those towers a couple days prior, and they'll put this magic nano-thermy stuff on all the steel beams.  I know, it's gonna be hard to cut through all the walls and shit to get to those beams, but where there's a will there's a way.  Oh, - and don't forget, they gotta put this stuff on the exact places those planes are going to hit."

I mean, if you think about it, that's crazy talk.

[catch.me.if.you.can]

According to Russian journalist, Marina Portnaya, 95% of the so-called “domestic terrorist events” investigated by the FBI, were in fact created by the FBI. Watch a video below.

https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/07/false-flags-from-911-to-sandy-hook-and-beyond/

[BADecker]

.....

The buildings were built to withstand airplanes crashing into them. ....

It makes no difference that you say this.  What happened is what happened.

You talk in circles, without really saying anything.

....
The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.

A hope of yours, but not a proof.  The proof says the opposite, as I have shown you previously.  I do not even have to recalculate it, just pull the prior numbers.

Believing something does not make it real.  

Actually, believing is the most important part. However, high school chemistry and physics, when applied properly, shows that the Towers coming down was an inside job. Probably not enough heat in the Towers to even warm the structural steel of the buildings noticeably... not from the jet fuel, that is.

[Spendulus]

Huh?  What "structures?"  What "Phenomenon?"

Are you talking about these samples of paint/rust?  Please clarify.

By 'structures', I meant as an example the compenents of the red/grey particals and the highly energetic materail which releases it's energy readily.

By 'phenomenon', I meant that such structures are commonly formed by standard building materials.

The link I provided does answer the question of the composition of these fragments of paint attached to a layer of rust.  RE "releases energy readily," yea, paint burns.  Not at all like thermite.

[Spendulus]

@spendulus, would you be so kind to provide your "math and physics" explanation for wtc building 7?  

This is an interesting question.  First, here is a summary - Wikipedia on building 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[7] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[8] and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[9]

I think we could all agree about the "uncontrolled fires."   This leaves one with the simple question as to whether it is feasible or not that such fires could bring the building down.  That can be examined by looking at the cross section of the steel at the ground level, and some estimates of the joules of energy softening that steel during the fire.  Only the ground floor or basement needs to be considered for this.

It is interesting because what happened, happened on the inside, so there is no visual evidence.  Remember in the prior post I mentioned the brilliant white of thermite, so bright you can't hardly look at it?  That is one reason why thermite in additional to airliner bombs makes no sense for the twin towers - there was no brilliant white seen anywhere, let alone at the floors where the airliners hit.

To understand this, watch this video.  It is a short example of thermite welding on railroad tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxsFglz2ig

If you can get past the old style voice track, this is a good technical explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TstoubOQImQ


Therefore, one must use deduction to answer the question about bldg 7.

[BADecker]

@spendulus, would you be so kind to provide your "math and physics" explanation for wtc building 7?  

This is an interesting question.  First, here is a summary - Wikipedia on building 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[7] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[8] and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[9]

I think we could all agree about the "uncontrolled fires."   This leaves one with the simple question as to whether it is feasible or not that such fires could bring the building down.  That can be examined by looking at the cross section of the steel at the ground level, and some estimates of the joules of energy softening that steel during the fire.  Only the ground floor or basement needs to be considered for this.

It is interesting because what happened, happened on the inside, so there is no visual evidence.  Remember in the prior post I mentioned the brilliant white of thermite, so bright you can't hardly look at it?  That is one reason why thermite in additional to airliner bombs makes no sense for the twin towers - there was no brilliant white seen anywhere, let alone at the floors where the airliners hit.

To understand this, watch this video.  It is a short example of thermite welding on railroad tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxsFglz2ig

If you can get past the old style voice track, this is a good technical explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TstoubOQImQ


Therefore, one must use deduction to answer the question about bldg 7.

If you want to see how ridiculous this explanation is, simply Google pictures of "burning buildings."

If Building 7 fell because of some minor structural fires, and if it could ever have fallen symmetrically, straight down in a matter of a few-seconds fall, into its own footprint as it did, then it was entirely structurally unsound in the first place, like a literal house of cards.

[Spendulus]

@spendulus, would you be so kind to provide your "math and physics" explanation for wtc building 7?  

This is an interesting question.  First, here is a summary - Wikipedia on building 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[7] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[8] and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[9]

I think we could all agree about the "uncontrolled fires."   This leaves one with the simple question as to whether it is feasible or not that such fires could bring the building down.  That can be examined by looking at the cross section of the steel at the ground level, and some estimates of the joules of energy softening that steel during the fire.  Only the ground floor or basement needs to be considered for this.

It is interesting because what happened, happened on the inside, so there is no visual evidence.  Remember in the prior post I mentioned the brilliant white of thermite, so bright you can't hardly look at it?  That is one reason why thermite in additional to airliner bombs makes no sense for the twin towers - there was no brilliant white seen anywhere, let alone at the floors where the airliners hit.

To understand this, watch this video.  It is a short example of thermite welding on railroad tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxsFglz2ig

If you can get past the old style voice track, this is a good technical explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TstoubOQImQ


Therefore, one must use deduction to answer the question about bldg 7.

If you want to see how ridiculous this explanation is, simply Google pictures of "burning buildings."

If Building 7 fell because of some minor structural fires, and if it could ever have fallen symmetrically, straight down in a matter of a few-seconds fall, into its own footprint as it did, then it was entirely structurally unsound in the first place, like a literal house of cards.

I lean in that direction.  Several of the interior floors were hollowed out to make double high halls stacked on top of each other.  But back then "structurally sound" meant "structurally sound if the fire sprinklers were working." 

Which they obviously were not.

Also, there were curious things about the basement and foundation - you could call these "single point failures."

Building 7 fell after burning uncontrolled for several hours.  Bulges and cracks appeared during that time - external evidence of internal partial structural failures.

[boyptc]

9/11 is a conspiracy made by illuminati

[BADecker]

@spendulus, would you be so kind to provide your "math and physics" explanation for wtc building 7?  

This is an interesting question.  First, here is a summary - Wikipedia on building 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[7] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[8] and the only steel skyscraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire.[9]

I think we could all agree about the "uncontrolled fires."   This leaves one with the simple question as to whether it is feasible or not that such fires could bring the building down.  That can be examined by looking at the cross section of the steel at the ground level, and some estimates of the joules of energy softening that steel during the fire.  Only the ground floor or basement needs to be considered for this.

It is interesting because what happened, happened on the inside, so there is no visual evidence.  Remember in the prior post I mentioned the brilliant white of thermite, so bright you can't hardly look at it?  That is one reason why thermite in additional to airliner bombs makes no sense for the twin towers - there was no brilliant white seen anywhere, let alone at the floors where the airliners hit.

To understand this, watch this video.  It is a short example of thermite welding on railroad tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxsFglz2ig

If you can get past the old style voice track, this is a good technical explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TstoubOQImQ


Therefore, one must use deduction to answer the question about bldg 7.

If you want to see how ridiculous this explanation is, simply Google pictures of "burning buildings."

If Building 7 fell because of some minor structural fires, and if it could ever have fallen symmetrically, straight down in a matter of a few-seconds fall, into its own footprint as it did, then it was entirely structurally unsound in the first place, like a literal house of cards.

I lean in that direction.  Several of the interior floors were hollowed out to make double high halls stacked on top of each other.  But back then "structurally sound" meant "structurally sound if the fire sprinklers were working." 

Which they obviously were not.

Also, there were curious things about the basement and foundation - you could call these "single point failures."

Building 7 fell after burning uncontrolled for several hours.  Bulges and cracks appeared during that time - external evidence of internal partial structural failures.

By "structurally sound" I mean, "not unsound, structurally."

I don't mean that the engineer who built the house out of playing cards didn't use superglue to hold the house together. I meant that he though any kind of house of playing cards was structurally worth anything other than show.

[Spendulus]

By "structurally sound" I mean, "not unsound, structurally."

I don't mean that the engineer who built the house out of playing cards didn't use superglue to hold the house together. I meant that he though any kind of house of playing cards was structurally worth anything other than show.

It doesn't matter that what you have just posted does not make sense.  Phrases like "structurally sound" have very specific meanings. 

Put it this way - If I was an investor and had that kind of money and was looking at Building 7, no to buying it.   It just plain looked kind of shakey.