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

Adam

Germany

#3364 Mar 26, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of illusion don't you understand?
.
Don't ya just love the way the plane or the cgi of a plane simply melts all the way into the steel box beams of the facade of WTC 1 & 2 right up to the tippy tip of the trailing surfaces without a scratch and explodes in a gigantic fireball?
.
By deception we will do war.
.
Do you have a savings account? Too bad.
.
You Really Should Believe In Magic. It Explains A Lot. Huh Eh !
WasteWater is gay,What a "wondeful" for the deadliest disease called Aids.
Adam

Germany

#3365 Mar 26, 2013
Homosexuals do have a lower IQ than normal ppl. They are irrational, unreasonable and narrow minded. The code word for them is ignorance stupidity and mortal sin.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3366 Mar 26, 2013
Go find another forum you to spread your hate you Sock Puppet Idiot
Adam wrote:
Homosexuals do have a lower IQ than normal ppl. They are irrational, unreasonable and narrow minded. The code word for them is ignorance stupidity and mortal sin.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3368 Mar 26, 2013
Tell us again how explosives are "never used" in demolishing steel framed buildings.
.
You need sumpun ta do today.
Adam

Germany

#3369 Mar 26, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
Go find another forum you to spread your hate you Sock Puppet Idiot
<quoted text>
Are you gay?

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3370 Mar 26, 2013
You should go back to posting as "Adam" you fraud
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Tell us again how explosives are "never used" in demolishing steel framed buildings.
.
You need sumpun ta do today.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#3371 Mar 26, 2013
Mik wrote:
<quoted text>Spectral analysis gives data on composition.

Combustion is simply a rearrangement of original elements, with, in some cases, the addition of oxygen from the environment. In the case of thermite and related compounds, the oxygen is already a component of the original.
Uh huh...and how does measuring energy of burning something in air prove its composition?
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#3372 Mar 26, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you gay?
You are always on the prowl I see, did Steve dump you?
Kev

Coralville, IA

#3373 Mar 26, 2013
The Twin Towers and World trade center builds fell faster than free- fall. This means there was no resistance from the walls when they fell. If you have any sense of how building engineering, structural engineering, and physics, you will know that it is impossible for buildings to fall faster than gravity. Only in one case that can happen. EXPLOSIVES!. You can try to blame this on the jet fuel but most if not all burned up in seconds. Jet fuel burns up at the temp of Jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees. Steel melts at 2750 degrees. you may think that if was the funiture and paper etc.. in the building. It was not. Buildings have codes to follow and most things are fire retardant and design with this in mind. If you look at the dark smoke coming out of the building it proves that these fires were starved of oxygen.

Also, On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#3374 Mar 26, 2013
He's off his meds again!
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Complete destruction of the economy is the only thing that will benefit the real movers and shakers of the NWO as they print more worthless fiat dollars, create hyperinflation, seize our bank accounts and then offer us a way out, which by that time we (you fools also) will be more than willing to accept as a way out.
.
Have you heard of Cypress and what is happening in the EU? It's already started dearie.
.
9/11 was a piece of cake compared to what your bosses have in store for the world.
.
Wag The Dog Magic Show In The Main Tent At 9 PM.
.
Can't Miss It. LOL Huh Eh !
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#3375 Mar 26, 2013
LINK and so what, what does that prove?
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The regions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 that had fireproofing materials reportedly reapplied to their structural steel, are also the same regions within which each building structurally failed and that were struck by American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 on September 11, 2001.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272
.
Another one bites the dust.
.
Wag The Dog Magic Show By US Is Grand Illusion
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#3376 Mar 26, 2013
Adam wrote:
Homosexuals do have a lower IQ than normal ppl. They are irrational, unreasonable and narrow minded. The code word for them is ignorance stupidity and mortal sin.
Not all, just you.
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#3377 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
The Twin Towers and World trade center builds fell faster than free- fall. This means there was no resistance from the walls when they fell.
And ROCKETS STRAPPED TO ALL THE DEBRIS POINTING DOWN?
Kev wrote:
If you have any sense of how building engineering, structural engineering, and physics,
Clearly you don't!
Kev wrote:
You can try to blame this on the jet fuel but most if not all burned up in seconds.
No one every claimed Jet Fuel brought them down, LMAO, NEWBIE!

PS: One picture proves you wrong, debris in free fall is passing the intact portion of the towers!

http://www.debunking911.com/pulledin.jpg
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#3379 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
Also, On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."
"caused no serious structural damage"? That's odd, hold on, was it hit by a huge plane barreling at 500 mph in 1975?
Kev

Coralville, IA

#3380 Mar 26, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
And ROCKETS STRAPPED TO ALL THE DEBRIS POINTING DOWN?
<quoted text>
Clearly you don't!
<quoted text>
No one every claimed Jet Fuel brought them down, LMAO, NEWBIE!
PS: One picture proves you wrong, debris in free fall is passing the intact portion of the towers!
http://www.debunking911.com/pulledin.jpg
I studied engineering at M.I.T. and at A&M. I do know what I am talking about and so do other engineers from top ranking schools and even the military. In the 9/11 commission report they said that the fuel heated up and weakened the steal and collapsed the buildings. Fact there were nano particals of explosives and thermite found in air sample from ground zero. Do I have to explain to you how thermite works? Again buildings cant and never can fall faster than gravity unless there are explosives involved.

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared)=(2 x Distance)/ Gravity

Time(squared)= 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents.(Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.(source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".

In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3382 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
<quoted text>
I studied engineering at M.I.T. and at A&M. I do know what I am talking about and so do other engineers from top ranking schools and even the military. In the 9/11 commission report they said that the fuel heated up and weakened the steal and collapsed the buildings. Fact there were nano particals of explosives and thermite found in air sample from ground zero. Do I have to explain to you how thermite works? Again buildings cant and never can fall faster than gravity unless there are explosives involved.
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared)=(2 x Distance)/ Gravity
Time(squared)= 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents.(Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.(source)
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
Nonsense. The fact we can see it happen proves your theory wrong. Any fool can see that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3383 Mar 26, 2013
You didn't graduate either did you? lmao

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3384 Mar 26, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
And ROCKETS STRAPPED TO ALL THE DEBRIS POINTING DOWN?
<quoted text>
Clearly you don't!
<quoted text>
No one every claimed Jet Fuel brought them down, LMAO, NEWBIE!
PS: One picture proves you wrong, debris in free fall is passing the intact portion of the towers!
http://www.debunking911.com/pulledin.jpg
Precisely BatMan.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3385 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
<quoted text>
I studied engineering at M.I.T. and at A&M. I do know what I am talking about and so do other engineers from top ranking schools and even the military. In the 9/11 commission report they said that the fuel heated up and weakened the steal and collapsed the buildings. Fact there were nano particals of explosives and thermite found in air sample from ground zero. Do I have to explain to you how thermite works? Again buildings cant and never can fall faster than gravity unless there are explosives involved.
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared)=(2 x Distance)/ Gravity
Time(squared)= 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents.(Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.(source)
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
FAIL

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3388 Mar 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. The fact we can see it happen proves your theory wrong. Any fool can see that.
Yeah if it was on TV then it must be real!(sarcasm)
.
No one on this forum saw it live.
.
The govie controlled all video feeds to the major networks and fed them cgi of the planes impacting the towers. That's what was shown on TV. Pure Wag The Dog stuff
.
All electronic gadgets were temporarily disabled much like they jam the enemies radar. Same for all the cameras / cellphones in the vicinity of lower Manhattan. Every video of the planes allegedly melting into the buildings were photoshopped and were released later by the govie.
.
Ho hum haven't we been over this already?
.
You Really Do Believe In Magic Huh Eh !

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Bongo 71,238
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 min Blink 283,049
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 21 min Aura Mytha 974,889
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 36 min truth 659,009
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 1 hr gundee123 5,106
Horny snapchat usernames 1 hr Hardspark 14
Sex for money URGENT--no to scam please 2 hr bella_ 1
More from around the web