Was 9/11 an inside job?

[SGR]

I hear what you're saying, but Lucem's 'outside job' argument is looking quite convincing.

It is gonna take quite a strong rebuttal to convince everyone of an 'inside job'.

For instance we haven't covered the melting temperature of steel or how any pilot could possibly fly a plane into those buildings, simulator or otherwise (impossible?)

Wait a minute, why are you suggesting it's impossible for a pilot to fly planes into those buildings? I've never heard that before, beyond suggestions about how difficult it would be to fly into the Pentagon (low profile).

Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams for a jet plane impact to ruinously impact the structural integrity of the building. The jet fuel can't melt steel beams point does not seem like a strong argument to me.

[Lucem Ferre]

Okay, but is there anything more concrete? I.e. actual intelligence of the plans at that time/for that time that went ignored? I feel like I've heard that there was before, but there's so much conspiracy bullshit about 9/11 I don't remember what's true and what isn't.

No. Just plans of a big attack coming involving a plane. I remember reading about training scenarios involving a plane crashing into the twin towers but can't remember where either.

I don't have any kind of smoking gun information.

[Saulaac]

A couple of recently retired BA pilots I've spoken to around here have said they would have found it very difficult to calculate and fly the trajectory needed (with the thousands of hours they would have amassed) to pinpoint the towers.

Regarding the Pentagon, I don't have any primary evidence. But why did they consfiscate the video surveillance from the nearby gas station? Did they ever return it to the gas station owner? That would have been the polite thing to do.

[Saulaac]

Okay, but is there anything more concrete? I.e. actual intelligence of the plans at that time/for that time that went ignored? I feel like I've heard that there was before, but there's so much conspiracy bullshit about 9/11 I don't remember what's true and what isn't.

There is the stuff about how American Airlines and United Airlines shares were shorted on the stockmarket a day before the attacks. Researchers spoke about it at the time, and other have posted about it on LinkedIn. Basically, the intellectuals were saying "hello!" and the corporates were saying "nothing to see here".

[Buck_Mulligan]

Anyone familiar with security at EU airports before 9/11 will know that by comparison security at US airports was non-existent.
And now because of that the whole world has to undress before getting on a plane. Thanks US!

[jimmy jazz]

It wouldn't surprise me if they had prior knowledge. I don't believe they let it happen though. They were probably just careless or neglectful in some way and failed to stop it. That probably happens a lot with this shit.

Building 7 seems a bit strange though.

[Lucem Ferre]

It wouldn't surprise me if they had prior knowledge. I don't believe they let it happen though. They were probably just careless or neglectful in some way and failed to stop it. That probably happens a lot with this shit.

Building 7 seems a bit strange though.

It was hit by debris from one of the twin towers.

[jimmy jazz]

It was hit by debris from one of the twin towers.

I know, but to collapse from that seems strange.

[SGR]

There is the stuff about how American Airlines and United Airlines shares were shorted on the stockmarket a day before the attacks. Researchers spoke about it at the time, and other have posted about it on LinkedIn. Basically, the intellectuals were saying "hello!" and the corporates were saying "nothing to see here".

I'm familiar with that claim. Again, it's not a claim that I find to be particularly compelling and there are plenty of innocuous reasons for this kind of trading activity that don't involve foreknowledge of the attacks. I had remembered years ago there was a very useful site called 911myths - and it looks now to exist only in archived form (God bless Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine). They had a good page with many sources explaining the trading activity foreknowledge theory. It's too big to quote or embed here, but for anyone interested, check it out.

My general impression is that most 9/11 'inside job' theories, when isolated individually, are not particularly compelling or convincing. But there is a sense that when you combine these many uncompelling theories together, it's supposed to be more convincing - and while for some it is, I think it's mostly an illusion.

I'm not particularly averse to conspiracy theories in general either. If I had to bet though on which is more likely to have been an inside job between 9/11 and JFK's assassination, I'd bet on the latter all day - but even with that one, seemingly no indisputable smoking gun evidence exists.

[SGR]

I know, but to collapse from that seems strange.

The generally offered explanation is that it wasn't the debris itself that caused the collapse, it was that fact that the debris from the tower started fires in in WTC7. These fires burned for about 7 or 8 hours with no firefighting efforts and eventually, the structural integrity of the building was compromised.

The common 'conspiracy theory' about WTC7 seems to be that it was a controlled demolition - but as you can see in the video, the roof starts caving in before the complete collapse. That's not something you really see with planned building demolitions, e.g.:

[jimmy jazz]

Yeah I've heard mate. Just seems very unusual that debris can land there, start a fire for 7 hours and the building just collapses.

How often do buildings collapse from fires? I know they don't often get left to burn for 7 hours, but still. It was built in the 80s, so presumably it would've had a steel core? Where were the fire safety precautions? I just can't understand how it would collapse like that.

Maybe it happens often and I'm just unaware.

What do you think @SGR?

[SGR]

Yeah I've heard mate. Just seems very unusual that debris can land there, start a fire for 7 hours and the building just collapses.

How often do buildings collapse from fires? I know they don't often get left to burn for 7 hours, but still. It was built in the 80s, so presumably it would've had a steel core? Where were the fire safety precautions? I just can't understand how it would collapse like that.

Maybe it happens often and I'm just unaware.

What do you think @SGR?

It is definitely unusual. Unusual to the point that WTC7 seems to be an exception. I asked the following question to Perplexity AI, and this was the response I got back:

# Has a type 1 fire resistant high rise ever experienced a total building collapse due to fire?

Based on the available information, there has been only one documented case of a Type 1 fire-resistant high-rise experiencing a total building collapse due to fire: World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001[^2][^9].

Type 1 buildings are designed to be highly fire-resistant, with non-combustible materials and fire protection lasting up to four hours[^1][^3]. These structures are considered the safest in case of a fire and are highly unlikely to collapse[^1][^7].

Prior to the collapse of WTC 7, no steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed due to fire alone[^8]. The collapse of WTC 7 was unprecedented and has been the subject of much debate and investigation[^9]. It's important to note that the circumstances surrounding the WTC 7 collapse were extraordinary, as the building had suffered damage from debris from the collapse of the nearby Twin Towers and experienced prolonged, uncontrolled fires[^2].

Other notable high-rise fires, such as the First Interstate fire in Los Angeles (1988), One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia (1991), and Parque Central Tower fire in Caracas (2004), did not result in total building collapse despite extensive damage and long-duration fires[^9].

The unique nature of the WTC 7 collapse has led to ongoing discussions and research in the field of fire safety and building design[^9].


[^1]: https://www.bigrentz.com/blog/building-construction-types

[^2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

[^3]: https://www.firefighternation.com/training/understanding-building-construction-types/

[^4]: https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/accepted/?id=ce6c2ee9-8060-48c3-8dd2-08d1545046d7

[^5]: https://billd.com/blog/type-1-construction/

[^6]: https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/did-world-trade-center-building-7-really-collapse-due-to-an-office-fuel-load-fire/

[^7]: https://www.soncocrowdcontrol.com/blog/construction-types

[^8]: https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

[^9]: https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/built-to-last-or-built-to-fail-could-office-fuel-loads-cause-the-complete-collapse-of-wtc-7/

Of course, WTC7 and its collapse happened in such exceptionally unprecedented circumstances that you almost certainly can't find an event similar enough to really compare, but the official explanation does leave much to be desired. Still, I'd also find it very difficult to believe it was a controlled/planned demolition, based on the evidence we do have. WTC7 has always been a primary part of 9/11 that's left me scratching my head. I'm no architectural engineer/expert of course, so I largely have to rely on the claims and findings of others.

[Lisnaholic]

I don't think there was any 9/11 conspiracy, for 2 main reasons:-

A cover-up is not really a conspiracy:
I think the only government conspiracy regarding 9/11 was a cover-up about the buildings' original construction. This is something that I read about in a UK construction journal about 6 months after 9/11:-

A typical London skyscraper has a central core (staircases+elevators) with steel columns built into fire-rated reinforced-concrete walls. They can stand in a fire for 2 hours or more, allowing people to escape. At the time of construction, the Twin Towers (regardless of what the US regs say on Type 1 buildings) were approved with a comparatively lightweight core construction of steel cols, braces etc which were spray-coated with that fire retardant, solid-type foam or something, they were then "boxed in" with panels/plasterboard walls that weren't loadbearing. So the steel got hot, and lost its strength rapidly: much more rapidly than, for example, an old timber beam, which, in a fire, chars on the outside but will, inside, remain unscathed and rigid for a long time). Anyway, once the steel lost strength, there was nothing else to hold up the cores, or the buildings.


^ This floor plan has an annotation, "R/C CORE WALL" for its reinforced conc core. The Twin Towers, afaik, didn't have this type of construction.

Wot, no whistle-blowers?
As with most conspiracy theories, I think a very telling detail lies in the way they propose elaborate systems of deception: a coordinated effort by numerous people, without a single whistle-blower or leaker among them. For eg, with the full-on Twin Towers conspiracy you need engineers to design where to put explosives, teams to place explosives, Twin Tower maintenance staff to be bribed into looking the other way as the buildings are wired up, then all the guys needed to get the hi-jackers in place, presumably accommodation, tickets etc. How many people would be needed altogether? My wild guess is 100, each contributing their small part. IMO it's just not in human nature that none of them would've come forward anonymously to tell their story.