That the buildings fell at the speed of gravity,

Several of the alleged hijackers are alive and well

Isolated explosive ejections 20-40 stories below demolition front

That the buildings fell at the speed of gravity The fuck does this have to do with anything, especially the American government's complicity in the attacks?

It's proof of a controlled demolition responsible for the buildings falling.

Inside job does not necessarily mean American government. I think it means criminal elements other than the hijackers and Al-Qaida.

There are MANY records of CIA officials, and other numerous government agencies that had warned of an impending attack in the fall of 2001. All were ignored, or simply suppressed. If it wasn't an inside job, why did the government do all in their power to LET THE ATTACK HAPPEN.

So there was only one warning they received that year and they ignored it?

Or do they in fact receive hundreds if not thousands of warning constantly?

Clearly you don't understand the psychology of warfare. Shooting down the planes would only hurt their cause. Causing massive loss of life is the way to do it.

Remember the mass patriotic feeling and Bush's administration approval after 9/11? That's how you create an enemy.

Forget about Pearl Harbor. Remember the Pentagon Papers. There was no Iraqi national involved in 9/11, so why invading Iraq? WMDs? Which ones? The ruler is a dictator? What a coincidence that his country has oil....many countries have dictators and worst ones...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIB6z4fkINs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

Story about just one of the hijackers

The fact that they "found" one of the hijackers passports in the rubble is evidence that they're making shit up. It's not circumstantial, but it's not enough evidence to convict of X. Just enough to warrant further study and questioning of their official story. Plus they had the crime scene broken down into scrap metal and shipped off to various parts of the world for industrial re-use. It's not like there's a lot of evidence that they left us with, given that they also didn't release multiple security camera shots of the "plane" hitting the pentagon. So what you're demanding isn't easy to do necessarily, we do have to be wary of unwarranted speculation...for sure...but c'mon dude. wake up sheeple?

Building 7.

To be clear, even NIST's analysis of the Building 7 collapse is unconvincing because it was never peer reviewed, nor was the raw data allowed to be independently analyzed. Models can be used to produced anything when you don't have to show anyone what's under the hood. I don't know why they just don't publish the files on a website to end the debate.

Additionally, the NIST report on the other two towers was rather lazy. There are too many unsourced claims of mass when they should have provided architectural drawings of cross sections and materials. Anyone who has performed peer reviews in science would laugh at the sourceless claims the report makes to support their conclusions.

A good example of what a government investigative report should look like is the CAIB report of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. I don't see people claiming "conspiracy!" in that disaster because NASA provided a compelling scientific explanation that was supported by data from several directions, all converging on one source (the damage to the leading edge).

Conspiracies grow when there is a vacuum of convincing information. And unconvincing information is noticed by people who pay close attention. Not many people do. But when both lay people and skeptics alike agree on something, it's usually because it's true. Unfortunately the government has presented too many opportunities/gaps in the story/weak arguments in this case, and hence the number of skeptics grows.

What about it?

Did you follow the link?

Yes. A retread of the usual BS claims and easily disproven lies: "free-fall", "no other steel-framed building in history", etc. All of which are covered in my link.

What are you talking about? Building 7 was a controlled demolition, but the 9/11 Commission report cited fire damage as the cause.

Forget about the two trade towers, that can be argued about, Building 7 is glaring.

Building 7 was a controlled demolition

Massive structural damage plus raging fires collapsed the building.

They pulled the firefighters out because of the danger. That's the only thing "controlled" about it.

Are you kidding? Have you seen the videos of it fall? They weren't even fighting fires in WTC 7.

Even if one accepts all of NIST's claims about extensive structural damage to WTC 7, and its claims about fires on several different floors, its collapse scenario is not remotely plausible. The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.

"Truther" videos of the collapse often start the video from the north AFTER the penthouses disappear, giving a false impression of when the collapse started. (The far side of the building is already falling, before it pulls down the visible near side. Final position of the rubble - the north face of the building covering the rubble like a shroud - backs the up.)

They also tend to stop the video when the buiding disappears behind the nearer buildings, with several stories to go.

The collapse took 18 seconds. Unedited video and even a seismograph trace backs this up. It was not free-fall.

It was not free-fall

Your lies don't pass the smell test here anymore. Even NIST admitted to freefall in their final report (after many complaints from the truth movement following the preliminary report).

NIST observed that the building's exterior facade fell at free fall acceleration through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet).

Or you could go straight to the actual report:

NIST NCSTAR1-A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (PDF)

The north face hit free fall speed briefly as it started to fall. But then the north face was the last part to collapse - you can see the penthouses at the center of the building disappear seconds before the north face goes - so it met little resistance. "In State 2, the north face descended at gravitational accelleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face."

But that was very brief. As the report notes - and does the math to prove it - "the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of decent."

"The three stages of collapse progression are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discudeed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."

You're grasping at straws to try to make your lies look credible.

Interesting site, but the argument seems kind of flat. I never thought of there being such a thing as biased video evidence, at least when said video is uncut footage of the building collapsing. Yes, the video I linked to was from the north side, but even when you examine the damage on the south side, it still does not innately necessitate a collapse.

As for the the seismograph information, here is another take on it:

Although the seismic records from the Doherty Earth Observatory and other recording stations don't support the theory of controlled demolition put forth by Christopher Bollyn and other proponents of basement bomb scenarios, they nonetheless do support the case for controlled demolition, albeit in an indirect sense.

Edit: Oops, sorry. I replied to the wrong comment.

There are over 100 security cameras watching the exterior of the pentagon. All they released was 5 frames from ONE camera. If the government was not complicit in the attacks, why would they REFUSE to release the rest of the camera footage from all of the cameras watching the wing of the pentagon that was hit? National security reasons...of course.

When you come right down to it, probably the only evidence of it being an inside job is truly circumstantial. However, there is so damn much of it that it's next to impossible to come to any other conclusion without claiming there were umpteen million coincidences, lapses of judgement or cases of irresponsibility. All the way from visas being improperly approved on orders from highly placed officials to the hijackers being trained and living near US bases and other government installations. From $2.3 trillion unaccounted for announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10 and the investigative unit and all of their documentation about that investigation being destroyed at the Pentagon to Bush and Cheney stonewalling an investigation into the attacks. From FBI investigations of the hijackers prior to 9/11 being shut down by highly placed officials to Mossad agents being there "to document the event". From the ISI wiring $100k to Mohammed Atta to the US Military continually changing their story during the 9/11 Commission investigation.

I could go on and on but hopefully you get the idea. If a suspect were on trial in a US court they would easily be convicted on a whole lot less circumstantial evidence than exists for a 9/11 inside job. Highly placed individuals in the US government had the means, motive and opportunity to plan and execute those attacks.

There were millions of dollars in put options (betting AGAINST the stocks) of airlines in the weeks and days leading up to 9/11. If it wasn't an inside job, how would all of these well connected investors know to short the market?

Airlines were in trouble back then. Don't you remember TWA went out of business that year or the year before, and there were a couple of bankruptcies?

Non-circumstantial evidence would be physical evidence. Nobody but government officials are or were allowed to be in possession of any of the physical evidence (other than dust samples containing active thermitic materials). It is not possible for any unauthorized person to provide physical evidence to you. To even ask is quite troll-like.

The Open Chemical Physics Journal - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Another journal submission:

Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials

Edit: Content, added links.

Also, this: http://jenningsmystery.com/

Nano-thermite was found in the rubble...thats a fact. Only a highly advanced (western) military would be capable of manufacturing such an explosive (albiet technically thermite isn't an explosive, you get the point).

See my earlier comment which was edited with citations for nano-thermite added.

Edit: Also, in the past in this subreddit links have been provided to actual patent applications submitted by a US military contractor that match what was found in the dust at the WTC. I can't find it at the moment and don't have the time or the inclination to find it for you. Do a web search.

Oh yeah, here we go again. Bentham's journals are regarded as disreputable only because they're open. As such, it and other open journals pose a threat to the economic well-being of costly for-profit journals. Providing scientific knowledge freely is a no-no in the academics-for-profit world.

implicates the government

I've addressed that in another comment here.

Bed time. Good night.

Apparently you haven't read Bentham's explanation for sending a notice of acceptance. Their intention was to be able to get the real identity of the person that submitted so they could expose the author. Note that Davis never did go through with the process and Bentham never did actually publish it. Then Davis tried to claim that they actually accepted it. In other words, the whole issue was that he tried to hoax them and they caught it. His hoax wasn't even ever intended to "expose" Bentham. It was intended to hoax anyone that might support Bentham.

This has all been discussed on many occasions here. I'm not going over it for the umpteenth time. You need to do some research on the real reason that particular editor stepped down rather than blindly accept a one-sided story.

My mistake. I shouldn't have said "here". Look in r/911truth. Go back through at least to the publish date of the paper.

Edit:

it seems like this is just another case of "I have evidence but I'm not going to tell you,"

That's because, as I said, this kind of stuff has been gone over so many times with answers yet you people keep asking the same questions over and over again without even trying to find the answers yourselves.

One more time:

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

History Commons - Complete 9/11 Timeline

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Come back when you've read and seen everything there.

Heres a video of some random guy able to jury rig a few contraptions to blow apart steel with regular thermite, which is less powerful than the residue on the wtc buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

Thats THERMITE. Not NANO...KEY WORD...NANO...thermite.

EDIT: Which is actually known as Thermate.

Exactly how would any unauthorized person be able to show you physical evidence of someone's plan?

As I said. Much too troll-like.

I already answered most of this in another comment here.

why not invent better evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved

They tried to. US forces were caught trying to smuggle WMDs into Iraq after the invasion.

The reason they needed 911 is because it is part of their " shock treatment" . They believe that if u shock a whole population to a certain point they lose there ability to think critically and more willing to comply with any policy. Just like when a person recieves shock therepy its a way to " program" the persons thinking and behavior. This is shock treatment on a large scale and still really hasn't worn off ( please see "the shock doctrine" by Naomi Klein )

There was a video somewhere on youtube (I believe the video was deleted from youtube) showing that the black box data that was released as being from the two planes that hit the world trade center showed that in both cases:

1. The cockpit doors had not been opened (thus hijacking was impossible). and perhaps more importantly
2. Given the airspeed and angle of the planes, it was physically impossible for them to fly at the speeds that the supposed black box data had recorded.

That information can be found at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. They get into every little detail of the data.

No response to building 7, ad hominem attacks ya this isn't a troll or anything.

It's not one thing but a series of things that make people skeptical.

You can't claim something as evidence without an investigation that determines which elements are relevent to each case.

For me, I think the most suggestive tell would be the evidence of thermitic material, in the debris. You can only make that stuff in a lab and if there is residue, then where did it come from?

There's also the completely obliterated vehicles that were melted and scorched quite badly. These were on the street between the closest tower and building 7. These look more like the remains of a street level 'car bomb', as suggested by a reporter on the scene.

If one was going to do a thing like 911, they'd create a lot of damage around the base just to keep people confused and out of the area.

[deleted]

What are you talking about? Building 7 was a controlled demolition, but the 9/11 Commission report cited fire damage as the cause.

Forget about the two trade towers, that can be argued about, Building 7 is glaring.