• Sections
Was 911 an Inside Job

# Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3389 Mar 26, 2013
so what we have is an MIT engineer who is saying that things can fall faster then gravity, they found nano particles of explosives in "air samples", and who copied & pasted his entire rant from Twoofer websites ....... ROFLMAO ... thanks for the laugh "engineer boy"
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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3390 Mar 26, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
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 !
I would say real time video footage and people's voices are as real as it gets. People watched in horror. Those people also described what was happening. Your claims are pure Twoofer drivel.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3391 Mar 26, 2013
so what we have is an MIT engineer who is saying that things can fall faster then gravity, they found nano particles of explosives in "air samples", and who copied & pasted his entire rant from Twoofer websites ....... ROFLMAO ... thanks for the laugh "engineer boy"
<quoted text>
Never mind him. We and see why he flunked out.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3392 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. 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."
No comparison. The outer structure was not punctured and destroyed by impact as in 9/11. There was much less fuel and air feeding to flames coming up the exterior walls of the building.
Kev
#3393 Mar 26, 2013
They also discribed bombs in the building. This was reporters, city officials and fire fighters.

Also said that there was molten steel in the basement. This is evidents of thermite.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Kev
#3394 Mar 26, 2013
You believe what you need to believe. I go by logic and science. I know it hard to accept that the possibility that our own government had a hand in this. That our government could kill over 3000 innocent people. It goes against our beliefs. It is easier to believe that someone else could do this to us or that another governments do this to their people. This is gullible. Our governments have done many things to it own people and to others. Read about Project Northwoods.

It's easier to be in denial than to accept the science and facts.

Here is a Youtube video by Architects and Engineers.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3395 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
They also discribed bombs in the building. This was reporters, city officials and fire fighters.
Also said that there was molten steel in the basement. This is evidents of thermite.
Molten steel is evidence of hot fires, not thermite. Besides it took 800 lbs of explosives and 3 tons of steel plating to blow up a 28 story building. The WTC had an exterior skeleton which means your claim is false. Secondary explosions often happen in massive structural fires. Also structural failures let go with explosive forces. You are making a false assumption based on nothing more than unfounded speculation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3396 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
You believe what you need to believe. I go by logic and science. I know it hard to accept that the possibility that our own government had a hand in this. That our government could kill over 3000 innocent people. It goes against our beliefs. It is easier to believe that someone else could do this to us or that another governments do this to their people. This is gullible. Our governments have done many things to it own people and to others. Read about Project Northwoods.
It's easier to be in denial than to accept the science and facts.
Project Northwoods has nothing to do with anything here.

1. Planes were hijacked. The evidence shows the hijackers boarding the planes and passing through airport security.

2. Phone calls were made from the planes describing the hijacking and one verbal exchange was head by ATC.

3. There is plenty of evidence such as thousands of eye witnesses and video footage of what actually happened.

4. Airplane debris was recovered at the scenes.

5. Other aircraft pilots also witnessed what happened.

6. ATF and FBI forensic teams collected and documented evidence.

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3397 Mar 26, 2013
but hold on .... he's an MIT Engineer !?!?!?!?!?
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Molten steel is evidence of hot fires, not thermite. Besides it took 800 lbs of explosives and 3 tons of steel plating to blow up a 28 story building. The WTC had an exterior skeleton which means your claim is false. Secondary explosions often happen in massive structural fires. Also structural failures let go with explosive forces. You are making a false assumption based on nothing more than unfounded speculation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3398 Mar 26, 2013
but hold on .... he's an MIT Engineer !?!?!?!?!?<quoted text>
So am I. We are all MIT engineers right?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3399 Mar 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say real time video footage and people's voices are as real as it gets. People watched in horror. Those people also described what was happening. Your claims are pure Twoofer drivel.
I would say that you are spouting what you are told to say.
.
All you can muster is what I say is nonsense, and what you saw on TV was "real".
.
THE 45 AMATEUR VIDEOS: A Formidable Fakery Festival

1) CLONED IMAGERY: As we compare the amateur videos, one by one, even the layman will notice their obvious falseness. Many simply turn out to be different versions (cropped/warped/seam-carved) of a single scenery. The shots compared below are purportedly authored by five different cameramen. The sheer goofiness of the 9/11 image fakery crew is, in fact, breathtaking:
.
See for yourself. But then why would you bother? There it is
in color and B/W so it must be real. You also saw it on TV so it really is real, isn't it?
.
http://www.septemberclues.info/
.
Do You Believe In Magic ? Wag The Dog Was Real, 9/11 Was Not.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3400 Mar 26, 2013
hey Idiot boy when will you answer my question ... why use a missile instead of a plane at the Pentagon when it would cause many problems that would have to be covered up !?!?!?!??!
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say that you are spouting what you are told to say.
.
All you can muster is what I say is nonsense, and what you saw on TV was "real".
.
THE 45 AMATEUR VIDEOS: A Formidable Fakery Festival
1) CLONED IMAGERY: As we compare the amateur videos, one by one, even the layman will notice their obvious falseness. Many simply turn out to be different versions (cropped/warped/seam-carved) of a single scenery. The shots compared below are purportedly authored by five different cameramen. The sheer goofiness of the 9/11 image fakery crew is, in fact, breathtaking:
.
See for yourself. But then why would you bother? There it is
in color and B/W so it must be real. You also saw it on TV so it really is real, isn't it?
.
http://www.septemberclues.info/
.
Do You Believe In Magic ? Wag The Dog Was Real, 9/11 Was Not.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3401 Mar 26, 2013
hey Idiot boy when will you answer my question ... why use a missile instead of a plane at the Pentagon when it would cause many problems that would have to be covered up !?!?!?!??!
<quoted text>
They had no problem covering it up obviously. They did a great job of obscuring most of the evidence of what really happened.!?!?!?!?!
What happened to the plane?
.
If the planes nose hit right at ground level how come the engines didn't drag and discolor the lawn? They hang much lower than the fuselage.
.
What happened to the engines, wings, tail section?
.
Where are the seats?
.
All those black tied, white short sleeved pentagon workers lined up on the lawn picking up little pieces of plastic from the missile were removing evidence from a crime scene before it became public knowledge. They were following orders.
.
So many unanswered questions, so much Magic To Wave Them All Away.
!!!!!!!!!!
.
9/11 New York Magic Show.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3402 Mar 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Molten steel is evidence of hot fires, not thermite. Besides it took 800 lbs of explosives and 3 tons of steel plating to blow up a 28 story building. The WTC had an exterior skeleton which means your claim is false. Secondary explosions often happen in massive structural fires. Also structural failures let go with explosive forces. You are making a false assumption based on nothing more than unfounded speculation.
I always use tons of steel plating whenever I blow up tall buildings. LOL
.
What Do You Use ? Really LOL Now
.
Your job is to deny, dismiss, and ridicule if you cannot refute.
Kev
#3404 Mar 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Project Northwoods has nothing to do with anything here.
1. Planes were hijacked. The evidence shows the hijackers boarding the planes and passing through airport security.
2. Phone calls were made from the planes describing the hijacking and one verbal exchange was head by ATC.
3. There is plenty of evidence such as thousands of eye witnesses and video footage of what actually happened.
4. Airplane debris was recovered at the scenes.
5. Other aircraft pilots also witnessed what happened.
6. ATF and FBI forensic teams collected and documented evidence.
Project Northwoods had everything to do with here. Northwoods was a plan proposed by Government officials wanting Kennedy to during the cuban missle crisis, to shoot people on American soil and blame it on Cuba.

1. I don't know where those people are. Collateral damage? There was a news report that said that flight 93 was grounded at one time. Cheney this month has claimed that he shot that plane down. There is video proof during the 9/11 commission where this claim is true. It was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

2. In 2001 you could not make cell phone calls from a plane and make connection. This has been proved also. Plane phones are a different story.

3. Yes, I can show you video after video of news reporters, firemen, police men and city officials saying that ther were bombs going off in the basement.

4. I don't deny that planes hit the building.

5. No, Nist, FEMA and the government was shipped off and sent to China. There are protocals and proceedures ignored on the handling of the buildings.

And you want to blame heat and fire on the outer structure. Then what about building 7? Hardly any fires. and if fell in less than 6 seconds in free fall. Even the building owner on PBS ommitted that this building was "pulled" which is a term in the building and explosive community for bringing down a building with explosives.
Kev
#3405 Mar 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Molten steel is evidence of hot fires, not thermite. Besides it took 800 lbs of explosives and 3 tons of steel plating to blow up a 28 story building. The WTC had an exterior skeleton which means your claim is false. Secondary explosions often happen in massive structural fires. Also structural failures let go with explosive forces. You are making a false assumption based on nothing more than unfounded speculation.
You cant have molten steel when all the fuel burned up at impact. The buildings interior items could not do this. There was molten rivers of steel months after 9/11. this is a result of thermite.

Plus W. Bush's brother Marvin Bush was head of security over all the World Trade centers at the time as with Dullus Airport.

There were reports of a power down the weekend before 9/11. As reported by long standing tenant Mr Forbes.

Plus the famous video of the 9/11 hijackers boarding the places was not taken from Dulles Airport. It looks more like Miami Airport.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3406 Mar 26, 2013
Kev wrote:
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... cut and paste deleted
Where did you study plagiarism?

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3407 Mar 26, 2013
They had no problem covering it up but a bunch of paranoid half wits on the internet managed to uncover it !?!?!?!?!?
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
They had no problem covering it up obviously. They did a great job of obscuring most of the evidence of what really happened.!?!?!?!?!
What happened to the plane?
.
If the planes nose hit right at ground level how come the engines didn't drag and discolor the lawn? They hang much lower than the fuselage.
.
What happened to the engines, wings, tail section?
.
Where are the seats?
.
All those black tied, white short sleeved pentagon workers lined up on the lawn picking up little pieces of plastic from the missile were removing evidence from a crime scene before it became public knowledge. They were following orders.
.
So many unanswered questions, so much Magic To Wave Them All Away.
!!!!!!!!!!
.
9/11 New York Magic Show.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3408 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. 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 700Â°C (1,292Â°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."
Faster than free fall now proxy sock?

Did they have rockets attached to the steel to achieve that?

Oh and you'll have to prove the only way for free fall to occur is by explosives or incendiaries.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3409 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.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.