Was 911 an Inside Job

Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,795 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

Bill Hicks

Sweden

#2871 Mar 10, 2013
A now a message to our "sponsors":

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2872 Mar 10, 2013
Nigel wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how weight would affect the dynamics, Neo-Newton. By the way, the evidence of tons of explosives and incendiary byproducts in the dust has been well documented.
Untrue. The free-fall claim, twoofer dust, and evidence of explosives is all false.

Nice try. No soap. Nothing to take to the grand jury either.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2873 Mar 10, 2013
Waterfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Behold, researchers are now able to photograph "unsubstantiated opinions"!!
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/e...
Pure drivel. No evidence there.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2874 Mar 10, 2013
Wendy wrote:
<quoted text>
Next time, try counting sequentially. You know --'one-missississppi, two-mississippi, three-m... etc.
Like your teacher showed you in class.
Just watch the undoctored footage using your computer timer to count from the time the penthouse moves. It's a little over 18 seconds. You lose. Twoofers lie again.
Odin

Netherlands

#2875 Mar 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure drivel. No evidence there.
Little girl, you will need to repeat this much more frequently or the spell will not hold and your bubble of ignorance will pop
Saint Niklaus

Netherlands

#2876 Mar 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Just watch the undoctored footage using your computer timer to count from the time the penthouse moves. It's a little over 18 seconds. You lose. Twoofers lie again.
Yes! Now repeat again, but with more conviction! MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT MY EYES DECEIVE ME!!

AGAIN!!

AGAIN!!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Chestermere, Canada

#2877 Mar 10, 2013
Jimbob Moffet wrote:
<quoted text>
It's about looking at the evidence, PorkShillAssHat.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AsJQKpnkZ10XX
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
That "rigid shell" you mention is constructed of very strong steel columns that require lots of energy to buckle and deform... or, much more likely, cut. But if the entire perimeter is dropping simultaneously at free fall, as the videos show, then that energy isn't coming from the gravitational potential of the columns themselves.
Again, that's blather, try showing mathematically that any period of free fall or symmetry is impossible without majik twoofer expls'vs.

There's nothing in physics that syas that impossible and your argument is one from ignorance.
Dave

Thornwood, NY

#2878 Mar 10, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Again, that's blather, try showing mathematically that any period of free fall or symmetry is impossible without majik twoofer expls'vs.
There's nothing in physics that syas that impossible and your argument is one from ignorance.
Why show something "mathematically" when it can be easily explained conceptually? Is it because you are trying to engineer doubt in the non-mathematically inclined and build your case on appeals to "authority"?

A period of symmetric free-fall of WTC7 is evident and irrefutable -- the videos clearly show it. NIST now admits free-fall, although they did not admit the fact of free-fall in the draft version of the report.

The only way -- THE ONLY WAY -- this can happen is if the structure that is in free fall is not contributing any energy AT ALL to the failure of the supporting structures. Symmetry indicated simultaneous global failure of the supporting structures.

Therefore, the supporting structures have been compromised in some other way. The mass of the falling perimeter contributed nothing to sudden global failure of the supports.

Demolition is by far the most viable theory, but the government propagandists at NIST admittedly dismissed it out of hand. On the other hand, fire-induced "collapse" is an extraordinary claim that NIST fails to prove and in fact does a fair job of disproving.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Chestermere, Canada

#2879 Mar 10, 2013
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
Why show something "mathematically" when it can be easily explained conceptually? Is it because you are trying to engineer doubt in the non-mathematically inclined and build your case on appeals to "authority"?
A period of symmetric free-fall of WTC7 is evident and irrefutable -- the videos clearly show it. NIST now admits free-fall, although they did not admit the fact of free-fall in the draft version of the report.
The only way -- THE ONLY WAY -- this can happen is if the structure that is in free fall is not contributing any energy AT ALL to the failure of the supporting structures. Symmetry indicated simultaneous global failure of the supporting structures.
Therefore, the supporting structures have been compromised in some other way. The mass of the falling perimeter contributed nothing to sudden global failure of the supports.
Demolition is by far the most viable theory, but the government propagandists at NIST admittedly dismissed it out of hand. On the other hand, fire-induced "collapse" is an extraordinary claim that NIST fails to prove and in fact does a fair job of disproving.
That's a real nice word salad "dave", but it doesn't prove what you're trying to claim.

NIST had no issues with free fall before or after the draft and it was evident in the draft report so that's just an idiotic claim spoon fed to twoofers like yourself looking for an easily repeatable meme along the lines of "free fall speed" that really doesn't mean a bloody thing...because if it did, all the professionals who support twoof would have written an engineering based paper proving such a claim has merit.

But alas poor twoofsheep, there's none.

There's nothing supporting twoof that proves fire alone could cause a series of failures leading to the failure of column 79 which, when lost, caused a loss of structural integrity to the building that led to global collapse.

Twoofers are so stupid they think collapse started the millisecond the roof started to fall, reality is tha wasn't the case and this is easily proven by reports of the building leaning hours before if fell, the collapse of the east and west penthouses, the kink which developed on the east side of the facade before global collapse...and so on.

You fail to support anything you've claimed.

Nice job, twoof is remarkably consistant when to comes to failure.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Chestermere, Canada

#2880 Mar 10, 2013
Correction;

"There's nothing supporting twoof that proves fire alone could cause [not] a series of failures leading to the failure of column 79 which, when lost, caused a loss of structural integrity to the building that led to global collapse."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2882 Mar 10, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>That's a real nice word salad "dave", but it doesn't prove what you're trying to claim.
NIST had no issues with free fall before or after the draft and it was evident in the draft report so that's just an idiotic claim spoon fed to twoofers like yourself looking for an easily repeatable meme along the lines of "free fall speed" that really doesn't mean a bloody thing...because if it did, all the professionals who support twoof would have written an engineering based paper proving such a claim has merit.
But alas poor twoofsheep, there's none.
There's nothing supporting twoof that proves fire alone could cause a series of failures leading to the failure of column 79 which, when lost, caused a loss of structural integrity to the building that led to global collapse.
Twoofers are so stupid they think collapse started the millisecond the roof started to fall, reality is tha wasn't the case and this is easily proven by reports of the building leaning hours before if fell, the collapse of the east and west penthouses, the kink which developed on the east side of the facade before global collapse...and so on.
You fail to support anything you've claimed.
Nice job, twoof is remarkably consistant when to comes to failure.
Exactly.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2883 Mar 10, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>And there's the part that requires qualification.
There's no reasoning that supports it and in fact, it's complete and utter bunk.
The interior of the building collapsed leaving the more rigid shell standing until it could no longer support itself against the forces being imparted on it from the interior collapse...which is witnessed by the collapses of both the penthouses followed by a kink off center to the east then breaking windows followed by global collapse.
Sunder obviously knows worlds more about structures than you do sockie and he does no such thing as debunk himself.
Good explanation.
Paul Verlaine

Netherlands

#2884 Mar 10, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>That's a real nice word salad "dave", but it doesn't prove what you're trying to claim.
NIST had no issues with free fall before or after the draft and it was evident in the draft report so that's just an idiotic claim spoon fed to twoofers like yourself looking for an easily repeatable meme along the lines of "free fall speed" that really doesn't mean a bloody thing...because if it did, all the professionals who support twoof would have written an engineering based paper proving such a claim has merit.
But alas poor twoofsheep, there's none.
There's nothing supporting twoof that proves fire alone could cause a series of failures leading to the failure of column 79 which, when lost, caused a loss of structural integrity to the building that led to global collapse.
Twoofers are so stupid they think collapse started the millisecond the roof started to fall, reality is tha wasn't the case and this is easily proven by reports of the building leaning hours before if fell, the collapse of the east and west penthouses, the kink which developed on the east side of the facade before global collapse...and so on.
You fail to support anything you've claimed.
Nice job, twoof is remarkably consistant when to comes to failure.
Ahh! Column 79! And where is this column 79? Does the NIST have it?

Non?!

And does the NIST have any columns and beams that connected to column 79?

Non again?! Mon dieu!

Did NIST have any metal at all from the WTC7?

NON?! Ce n'est pas possible!

And I understand there was some controversy over whether there were shear studs that connected floors to steel beams at frequent intervals. At one time, the NIST acknowledged presence of shear studs but in the end the studs were removed from the models. Oui? I wonder would the model fail if there were shear studs present?

And I understand that NIST got the cross-section of a critical beam wrong, the beam that caused a cascading failure...

Oh. But perhaps the word "cascading" is not correct, because we can see from the videos that the entire perimeter of the building is dropping at once as a unit. There is no evidence of "cascading" failure in the perimeter, oui? This is clearly what the videos show.

Who is talking about Penthouse? Is the penthouse part of the perimeter structure? Does the failure of the penthouse in anyway rule out the demolition hypothesis?

Non, of course it does not.

And I understand that NIST's model required certain floors to be aflame at certain times, and yet documentary evidence shows that these floors were not on fire at the times that NIST's model predicts.

And the NIST's model looks very different from the documentary evidence. Most importantly, the disintegration is much slower than what we can observe in the videos.

Why do you insist on defending such a sloppy bit of fraud? Are you a paid propagandist? I think you are.

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#2885 Mar 10, 2013
OH, Look another twoofer who can SEE Free Fall on video !?!?!?!?!?
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
Why show something "mathematically" when it can be easily explained conceptually? Is it because you are trying to engineer doubt in the non-mathematically inclined and build your case on appeals to "authority"?
A period of symmetric free-fall of WTC7 is evident and irrefutable -- the videos clearly show it. NIST now admits free-fall, although they did not admit the fact of free-fall in the draft version of the report.
The only way -- THE ONLY WAY -- this can happen is if the structure that is in free fall is not contributing any energy AT ALL to the failure of the supporting structures. Symmetry indicated simultaneous global failure of the supporting structures.
Therefore, the supporting structures have been compromised in some other way. The mass of the falling perimeter contributed nothing to sudden global failure of the supports.
Demolition is by far the most viable theory, but the government propagandists at NIST admittedly dismissed it out of hand. On the other hand, fire-induced "collapse" is an extraordinary claim that NIST fails to prove and in fact does a fair job of disproving.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2886 Mar 10, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
OH, Look another twoofer who can SEE Free Fall on video !?!?!?!?!?<quoted text>
It must be right. It's on YouTube. ROTFLMAO
Petrus Romanus

Sweden

#2887 Mar 10, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
OH, Look another twoofer who can SEE Free Fall on video !?!?!?!?!?<quoted text>
I also can SEE free fall in the videos, with the aid of a simple ruler.

You cannot?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2888 Mar 10, 2013
Petrus Romanus wrote:
<quoted text>
I also can SEE free fall in the videos, with the aid of a simple ruler.
You cannot?
Not really but you are welcome to your delusions.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2889 Mar 10, 2013
The fire-chief monitored WTC7 and knew it would eventually fall. They had a transit trained on it and measured the tilt.
Louis XIV

France

#2891 Mar 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
The fire-chief monitored WTC7 and knew it would eventually fall. They had a transit trained on it and measured the tilt.
Tilt? What tilt? You pulled "tilt" from your derriere! We see the building dropping straight down!

Maybe you are thinking of this building?



Or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#2892 Mar 10, 2013
who cares ..... Free Fall has no significance
Petrus Romanus wrote:
<quoted text>
I also can SEE free fall in the videos, with the aid of a simple ruler.
You cannot?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 18 min NICK 88,568
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 29 min BongoKrap 703,852
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 31 min Choir Loft 996,565
Poll ~ Should 911 have a New Investigation? ~ (Feb '11) 47 min Choir Loft 952
mgtow 3 hr GotIt 15
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr ChromiuMan 6,924
I'm sick of being single and having no one to l... 3 hr Choicerocks 8