Who believes 9/11 was an inside job

https://www.unz.com/article/9-11-was-a-straussian-coup/

I would have been one of the millions of saps who thought these events were genuine back in 2001.    Now I am not convinced.
The idea that the 767 could penetrate the building (as proven in the video and even the quote from Peter Jennings) in real time
as if it flew through it is total nonsense.   People quibble about the "free fall" speed of the tower collapse which is not really free
fall and rather plausible for this type of building, but this video is a show stopper.   Even if you throw them a bone and say that
this is not the nose of the plane but the plume of debris, it is exactly the same physics problem.   Any debris generated by the
impact on one side would not conserve momentum and "continue to fly" out the other side.  

The 767 is not a solid unphysical object with zero elasticity that just penetrates the target with a tiny slow down.   It is an
egg shell husk that disintegrates on impact.   If you doubt this, then consider the debris field from the alleged crash of one of
the hijacked jets a farmer's field.   That some jet crashes have intact chunks on the ground reflects the landing effort of the pilots
which managed to slow the aircraft enough.   An uncontrolled crash from high altitude leaves little pieces of aluminum and seating
everywhere.   So the alleged impact of a 767 into one of the twin towers would have produced a plume of debris that would undergo
rapid deceleration.   The igniting jet fuel would just contribute to the formation of such a plume.   Any rapidly flying debris would
simply not have the coherence to produce a clump coming out the other side that looks like the nose of a jet.  

Also, the twin towers had a design that used the outer wall as a load bearing structure.   So it was not a glass shell but a steel
beam and reinforced concrete structure with small narrow windows.   The 767 would not slice through this like a hot knife through butter.  
It would not survive going through.   Sure, the empty floor space aside from the inner load bearing elevator shaft core, would offer little
resistance to the debris.   But there would be no reason why the debris would fly like a clump to make the illusion of a nose coming out
the other side with negligible delay.

Since we are dealing with real time video hacking, the fire plume ejection out the other side of the tower would overlap the nose
that was not masked off properly.   This fire debris ejection would have been anchored on the tower.   I think that in the video
at the above link, the mask did not move because the helicopter shifted.   It was just a feck up.   The fire debris ejection was
supposed to cover up the nose but didn't because the timing was wrong.   There is no reason to make the mask static, it could
have been generated based on the contrast in luminosity at the opposing side of the tower.   I think the video hacker must have
given this fraud some thought and accounted for the helicopter drift.  If you can insert video layers in real time, you can generate
a dynamic mask as well.   It seems that the mask algorithm glitched.   So the screen blanking at this critical moment is a critical
piece of evidence that fraud was involved.

The mass of the entire aircraft would be enormous, while buildings are traditionally designed to withstand downward forces... ie gravity... they are really not ideal to withstand sidewards forces... which is why earthquakes are so dangerous.

The nose of an aircraft going right through a building I would believe because a building is a mesh of load supporting structures that resist vertical forces but not horizontal ones.

Some of those load bearing structures would cut through an aluminium aircraft like a hot knife through butter but equally even with vertical cuts through its structure the rear end and entire mass of the plane is still pushing it into the building at what... 500km/h plus.

It would take the width of most buildings to stop that sort of energy.

The amount of fuel still on board the aircraft spread around 2-3 floors vertically of a sky scraper would immediately start a very intense fire and if it burned for a period of time then the heat will weaken the load bearing structures... when those load bearing structures gave way most buildings will collapse in on themselves... that is how buildings are demolished... small explosive charges are distributed around all the load bearing structures to destroy them all at once so that the weight of the building above it collapses down and crushes the building below it... as it crushes down it builds momentum and accelerates to speeds it was never designed to move at and when it reaches a point where it suddenly cannot crush what is below it it suddenly stops which causes the upper section to collapse upwards too like a car in a collision.

Essentially you separate the top of the building and you use it as a hammer to crush the lower part of the building but the upper part... the hammer isn't some special designed hardened metal hammer so when the energy is applied to it it will of course collapse like the floors below collapsed under its weight and force.

There is no reason to need explosives at all... the flammable material from each aircraft is easily enough to create this sort of situation.

The mass of a 767 is not enormous. The jet fuel accounts for a substantial part of it. The 200 variant has an MTOW of
143 tons of which 51 tons is fuel and 33 tons is payload. With 51 tons of fuel the impact would be like a fuel-air bomb
as the fuel disperses and ignites. This detonating plume would be spreading out inside the building in the set of floors
that it intersects, here over three of them. Such a detonating plume would be expanding in every direction and not just
moving forward at the initial speed before impact. This expansion would dilute the concentration of mass coming out
along the forward moving conic by at least a factor of 10.

The jet can weigh 1000 tons and it still would not matter because it is not a solid clump of metal but a thin husk. Mass
is not equivalent to mechanical integrity. The jet would break up into a plume of small debris even without the jet fuel
detonation pushing this plume's rapid expansion. No way in this universe would a jet fly through a building of this size.

The video of one of the jets entering one of the towers is a clear spliced image fake. It just goes into the building
geometrically intact with no backscatter of any debris (from either the building or the jet) and its wings remain
attached and unaffected like it is entering a cloud. I repeat, it is not plowing into a glass sheet, it is impacting a
steel beam and concrete structure designed to carry the huge load of a building. It does not slice through such
structures like a hot knife through butter.

As for the "designed only for vertical loading", that is simply not true. Skyscrapers are designed to bend like reeds in the
wind since horizontal wind forces are substantial. So such structures need to survive resultant load vectors that deviate
10 or 15 degrees from the vertical. Some aluminum husk is not going to penetrate them unaffected.

The video evidence is fake.

Sure, it is plausible for real jet impacts to bring down such buildings. Actually more likely than old style steel beam lattice buildings such
as the Chrysler tower. But the video of the jet flying smoothly into one of the towers is complete nonsense. Physics requires debris
to be flying away from the impact towards the direction the impacting object came from. This video has absolutely zero such debris.
It does not have "a little". There is none. And frame by frame the jet retains its geometry as it fully enters the building.

This is complete rubbish and a hoax. If this event happened as claimed, then there is no need for such fakery. The fact that the
twin towers debris was disposed of in a high security operation as opposed to being removed as part of the reconstruction effort
just adds to the likely fraud. While we had fully intact passports conveniently being found on street, which is physically impossible
if the video of total entry and subsequent internal detonation is to be accepted as fact, we had no verification of actual aluminum
jet parts in the towers debris. Aside from evidence of explosives.

The US regime and its imperial ambitions cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. False flags are a key tool in the tool chest and
suckers fall for it every time with inane plausibility arguments that they would not stage such false flags because people will talk or
some other such shite. It does not take thousands of thousands of planners and a few executions on the street do wonders to
keep people silent.

Anyway, Russia gets accused of every tin foil that crime, but the US is all about honesty. BS.

Why would the Soviet Union want to commit terrorist attacks on the US?

Most of the cold war consisted of the CIA trying to do the exact opposite... faulty computer chips sold to the Soviets in the hopes they would use them in nuclear reactors or on critical systems to allow the west to sabotage their use.

All this talk of nano explosives... by people who clearly don't understand what nano means...

Osama was responsible for at least three other attempted attacks on the world trade centre... it is no great surprise he could be blamed for this attack, and considering the death and destruction the US inflicts on the world is it a huge surprise when it comes back to bite them in the arse?

I mean I am seriously surprised that the really rich people in the US don't get shot on a regular basis... I mean Bezos makes people work for minimum wage during a pandemic and if they call in sick they get fired, which will mean they would lose their health insurance too... he is the richest man in the world and he treats his workers like cattle... you would think one or two of them would have taken a shot at him by now... and most of the other obscenely rich people in America who made their money on wars and the suffering and hard work of others.... why do Americans shoot bullies in high schools instead of the real monsters?