I was very surprised when I looked into 9/11 in depth, only 13ish years after the fact, and discovered-- pretty much beyond any conceivable doubt, in my eyes-- that it was an inside job. It's worth noting-- I don't know (or really care) whether Oswald killed Kennedy. I don't believe in UFO/abductions (though I think intelligent life in the universe is overwhelmingly likely). No ghosts. No bigfoots. I believe in scientific, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence/eye-witness testimony (though the latter two don't fully make a case on their own).
This is going to be a bit long, but I'll try to be exhaustive about the main points.
There are a few bits of evidence that, taken together, I think are pretty hard to refute. I think it's useful to start by considering the ample circumstantial evidence, then tying that argument together with the concrete physical evidence, but, so that people aren't predisposed to dismiss the circumstantial evidence, I'll start with the strongest piece of scientific evidence.
1) Nanothermite was discovered in numerous samples of dust from the WTC buildings, collected by unrelated individuals, in different locations, at different lengths of time after the towers collapsed. This is the most important pieces of evidence in 9/11 research. You can read the peer-reviewed paper here (
Active Thermitic Material Discovered In WTC Dust). Clicking that link will download a PDF directly from the journal in which it was published.
Nanothermite is an extremely high-tech explosive/incendiary. For those who are scientifically-inclined, the material they found is what they characterize as "red/grey chips." The red side of these chips is a sol-gel matrix (a gel that they embed with other ingredients and then dry like a plaster). The "ingredients" in it are nanoscopic bits of iron oxide and aluminum-- the two reactants most commonly used in the thermitic reaction-- and they're in uniform geometric shapes (the aluminum is in plates 1 micron long, about 40 nanometers thick, and the iron oxide is in faceted polyhedral grains about 100 nanometers across). For reference, a micron is a thousandth of a millimeter, and a nanometer is a
millionth of a millimeter, so creating uniform geometric particles of this size would require extremely high-tech machines. Anyway, this material was characterized, and tested, and found to be even more acutely reactive (read: explosive) than known samples of nanothermite from Lawrence Livermore National Lab. It, and it's reaction byproduct (microspheres of iron) were also present in quantities that suggest that, prior to reaction, there were many tons of this nanothermite present. Internet "debunkers" have done their best with discrediting this discovery, but I haven't seen a single rebuttal that held water (if you know of any, throw them out there) and their conclusions went remarkably unchallenged during peer-review.
2) Very simply, the buildings could not have collapsed the way they did as a result of fires (with or without jet fuel, which is carbon-based, just like office furnishings) and gravity. The Twin Towers fell all the way to the ground at 60% of free-fall and, more importantly, were reduced to DUST and fractions of steel beams. There are so many holes here that it's hard to know where to start. There wasn't enough potential energy in the building to turn it to this fine dust. Only about 20% of the building's steel was above the crash-site-- because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if the top section was 13 floors, it could only possibly crush 13 floors below, before it would be destroyed itself. There were 47 vertical steel columns in the core of the building, which couldn't "pancake" or otherwise collapse, except for by falling over (it's not like they could telescope into themselves), but they aren't left standing. You can get some idea of what happened to them from this video:
Steel columns seemingly turn to dust (warning: if you're sensitive about revisiting the visuals of the towers' collapse, don't watch). I'm not exactly sure how to explain this phenomenon, because a thermitic reaction doesn't look like this, so there may be other technologies at work (though I think the theories about "directed energy weapons" are absurd). But you get the idea.
3) The neoconservative think-tank Project For a New American Century wrote a manifesto in 1999 called
Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, they outline their desired wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, their intent to expand the US military role in the world, and more. The most significant quote, though, is the following. "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." Many members of PNAC would become leaders in the Bush administration the following year, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, and about 5 other key figures. The year after that, they'd get their new Pearl Harbor, and use it as planned.
4) On September 10th, 2001, Rumsfeld announced to the press that the Pentagon had managed to just
lose $2.3 TRILLION through bad accounting, and because their computers were not networked. The next day, not only was this news overshadowed and forgotten, but the plane that struck the Pentagon crashed into the Office of Naval Intelligence offices, where they were investigating this money. The digital investigation files were destroyed, and almost every budget analyst in the office was killed.
5) Hundreds of witnesses in NYC on 9/11 reported hearing and seeing explosions before and during the collapses of the buildings (including Building 7, which wasn't even hit by a plane and had only modest fires on a few floors).
6) Molten steel was witnessed in large quantities in the rubble piles, even a month after the collapses, and extraordinarily high temperatures were found for months (even several weeks after, the temperatures were higher than what you'd expect in the midst of an office fire).
7) No steel-framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire, before or since, despite MUCH longer and more widespread fires, and three are claimed to have collapsed on 9/11, including one that wasn't struck by a plane (however, the two that were had been expressly designed to survive commercial jet impacts, and the building's designer still claims that they should have each withstood MULTIPLE impacts).
8) Building 7 collapsed symmetrically, completely, and literally
at free-fall speed (the towers were 40% longer than free-fall velocity, but at free-fall
acceleration, which is also impossible in a gravity-driven collapse).
Looking at the collapse, even a layperson who doesn't know science should be bewildered at how this is possible from a few scattered office fires. Note-- in the first clip, you can see the windows break from the bottom floors up, and the penthouse begins falling before the roofline, exactly like you'd expect from a controlled demolition (where the core is severed before the perimeter, so that the walls fall inward, instead of blasting out and damaging other structures).
9) Whistleblowers have called out the government's activities in covering up evidence and attempting to avoid investigating, and other suspicious corporate/state activities. Susan Lindauer was a CIA asset covering Iraq and Libya in the years before 9/11. She was told about the impending attack months beforehand.
Her exposé is very enlightening about foreknowledge (she warned the head of the FBI, among others). Sibel Edmonds, Barry Jennings (RIP), and Richard Andrew Grove have made massive contributions as whistleblowers as well.
10) Just look at this guy:
hahaha. Ignore how hokey that video is (as with many conspiracy theory videos, the user-created content of it can come off very stupid)-- just listen to the witness in the first half of the video. Now, I have never believed in "crisis actors," but come on... No one in the world would witness what he did a few minutes before and have THAT natural reaction. He literally gives the official government narrative on TV, virtually word-for-word, before the government had released that narrative: "And then it collapsed. . .
Probably due to structural damage, because the fires were just too intense."
There's a ton of compelling evidence, but this is a sampler of some of the very significant facts. I haven't even gone into the failure of the air-defense system, the problems with the Pentagon, the rewarding of officials who supposedly failed at their post on 9/11, or many other angles, but I think I've been as thorough as I could hope to be here.
If anyone has questions, I'm glad to address them. For one more statement, I'd like to demonstrate to you the arrogance and attitude of some of these neoconservatives. They would say
THIS in public. If someone would have no qualms about murdering millions of Iraqis, I think that the claim that they "wouldn't kill their own people" is ludicrous.