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

Professor

Anonymous Proxy

#3582 Mar 29, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.- Dr Steven Jones,5/19/07 (BNN - May 19, 2007 - New York, NY)
EVEN ONE OF YOUR TWOOFY LEADERS IS SAYING YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE COLLAPSE TIME !!!!
<quoted text>
You picked this out of your nose, well paid govie shill.

The roof line is dropping symmetrically at free-fall acceleration for a significant portion of the drop. That is apparent in the videos. NIST has conceded this. It is fact.

This FACT is evidence of demolition. YOU are ignoring this evidence. And there is a great deal of other evidence to confirm demolition beyond all doubt.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3583 Mar 29, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Buildings do not explode into dust of themselves. Nor does a 47-story skyscraper (WTC 7) implode into its own footprint of itself. 110-story skyscrapers of 485,000 tons each do not plummet through their central structures and paths of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration due to their potential gravitational energy.
.
Nor do they instantly pulverize tens of thousands tons of concrete of themselves--100,000 tons of concrete slabs in each Twin Tower were blown to 100-micron-or-less bits in less than 15 seconds.
.
Nor do truss-failures fling 60-foot-long steel beams 400 lateral feet. 200,000 tons of structural steel in each Tower, including 47 central columns that were as much as 52 inches wide at their bases, along with 236 perimeter columns, were all brought to ground in less than 15 seconds on September 11, 2001.
.
You Have To Believe In Magik To Believe The Official Story Of 19 College Age Muslims Doing This On Their Own.
.
Pure Wag The Dog Magik Huh Eh !
False. WTC 7 neither imploded nor fell in it's own footprint.

False. The pounded parts were pulverized as expected, the rest was a tangled mess of girders, twisted parts and pieces.

The firemen did not expect the Towers to collapse but they did. So what. Your speculations mean nothing.

Why is any of this important to you?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3584 Mar 29, 2013
Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You picked this out of your nose, well paid govie shill.
The roof line is dropping symmetrically at free-fall acceleration for a significant portion of the drop. That is apparent in the videos. NIST has conceded this. It is fact.
This FACT is evidence of demolition. YOU are ignoring this evidence. And there is a great deal of other evidence to confirm demolition beyond all doubt.
\
False. The building collapsed in over 14 seconds which is much slower than free-fall. The firemen never mentioned anything about demolition. They were there; you were not.
Kev

Coralville, IA

#3585 Mar 29, 2013
all the buildings fell in there footprint. photo proof... http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/implosion...

World Trade Center power down


Buildings coming down. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

BBC reporting that building 7 came down before it did. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Bush and EPA covering up toxic air quality of 9/11 site and NYC. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Explosions in the basements. reported by police, city officals, firemen and media. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3586 Mar 29, 2013
Wrong Proxy Sox Fraud, the roofline dropped in free fall for 2.5 seconds, an isignificant amount of time in the the overall collapse time .... now we are still waiting for you Bozos to show us what significance free fall has
Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You picked this out of your nose, well paid govie shill.
The roof line is dropping symmetrically at free-fall acceleration for a significant portion of the drop. That is apparent in the videos. NIST has conceded this. It is fact.
This FACT is evidence of demolition. YOU are ignoring this evidence. And there is a great deal of other evidence to confirm demolition beyond all doubt.
uranazzwhole

Chico, CA

#3587 Mar 29, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Wrong Proxy Sox Fraud, the roofline dropped in free fall for 2.5 seconds, an isignificant amount of time in the the overall collapse time .... now we are still waiting for you Bozos to show us what significance free fall has
<quoted text>
You picked this out of your nose, well paid govie shill.
The roof line is dropping symmetrically at free-fall acceleration for a significant portion of the drop. That is apparent in the videos. NIST has conceded this. It is fact.
This FACT is evidence of demolition. YOU are ignoring this evidence. And there is a great deal of other evidence to confirm demolition beyond all doubt.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3588 Mar 29, 2013
who ever said free fall is a by product of cd ??????
was it A Twoofer Azzhole ???
uranazzwhole wrote:
<quoted text>You picked this out of your nose, well paid govie shill.
The roof line is dropping symmetrically at free-fall acceleration for a significant portion of the drop. That is apparent in the videos. NIST has conceded this. It is fact.
This FACT is evidence of demolition. YOU are ignoring this evidence. And there is a great deal of other evidence to confirm demolition beyond all doubt.
Riddick

Netherlands

#3589 Mar 29, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
And yet you can't find a single CD that came down in free fall acceleration .... go figure !?!?!?!?!?
<quoted text>
Here is a comparison of the destruction of WTC-7 with three controlled demolitions.



See any similarities?

Now it's your turn. Show me a steel-frame building that collapsed completely from fire.

.

.

.

.

.

(So.... not even one, huh?)
Riddick

Netherlands

#3590 Mar 29, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
who ever said free fall is a by product of cd ??????
was it A Twoofer Azzhole ???
<quoted text>
Who ever said free fall is a product of fire-induced failure?

was it a yellow pizz ratdick ??

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3591 Mar 29, 2013
NIST very clearly explained how those 2.5 seconds happened try reading the report Clueless Dumb Ass
Riddick wrote:
<quoted text>
Who ever said free fall is a product of fire-induced failure?
was it a yellow pizz ratdick ??

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3592 Mar 29, 2013
This is the implosion of the LandMark Tower .... how is it different from WTC7 ...hint 180db explosions and bright explosive flashes ..... and guess what Stupid ???.... NO FREE FALL ??

Riddick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a comparison of the destruction of WTC-7 with three controlled demolitions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
See any similarities?
Now it's your turn. Show me a steel-frame building that collapsed completely from fire.
.
.
.
.
.
(So.... not even one, huh?)
Antoine

Netherlands

#3594 Mar 29, 2013
Riddick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a comparison of the destruction of WTC-7 with three controlled demolitions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =D7Rm6ZFROmcXX
See any similarities?
Now it's your turn. Show me a steel-frame building that collapsed completely from fire.
.
.
.
.
.
(So.... not even one, huh?)
I have found one!!

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

Oh wait. No. Never mind

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3595 Mar 29, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
This is the implosion of the LandMark Tower .... how is it different from WTC7 ...hint 180db explosions and bright explosive flashes ..... and guess what Stupid ???.... NO FREE FALL ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =79sJ1bMR6VQXX
<quoted text>
Exactly. Free fall fallacy. Already debunked long ago.
Gertrude

Germany

#3596 Mar 29, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
NIST very clearly explained how those 2.5 seconds happened try reading the report Clueless Dumb Ass
<quoted text>
Could you please quote that passage from the NIST report where free-fall is explained?

Thanks in advance.
Sally

New York, NY

#3597 Mar 29, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
This is the implosion of the LandMark Tower .... how is it different from WTC7 ...hint 180db explosions and bright explosive flashes ..... and guess what Stupid ???.... NO FREE FALL ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =79sJ1bMR6VQXX
<quoted text>
It appears that the team that demolished the Landmark Tower wasn't involved in a covert military operation. Is that your point?

Do you have a point? Are you even capable of rational debate?
John Gross

New York, NY

#3598 Mar 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Free fall fallacy. Already debunked long ago.
Are you saying that NIST was in error when it agreed that WTC was in free fall for over two seconds? Did you debunk NIST?
Expert in All Things

Redding, CA

#3599 Mar 29, 2013
The ignorance of some people...

Ok, just a couple things so your head won't explode,

Where did the initial collapse start? It did not start at the bottom of the structure.

If the intent was mass caualties, then you would not what the structure to implode.

Do you have any idea of how many explosive charges it would take and the locations required to compromise the entire structure?

Do you need the formula from the demolition handbook?

I can provide it for ya...or do you prefer wearing your helmut and sitting in a corner with a ball of string?
The Professor

France

#3600 Mar 29, 2013
Expert in All Things wrote:
The ignorance of some people...
Ok, just a couple things so your head won't explode,
Where did the initial collapse start? It did not start at the bottom of the structure.
If the intent was mass caualties, then you would not what the structure to implode.
Do you have any idea of how many explosive charges it would take and the locations required to compromise the entire structure?
Do you need the formula from the demolition handbook?
I can provide it for ya...or do you prefer wearing your helmut and sitting in a corner with a ball of string?
You are an expert in one thing.

B.S.

In a "controlled" demolition, a building can be destroyed in any number of ways. That is the meaning of the word "controlled." You should look it up.

c-o-n-t-r-o-l

Who says the intent was mass casualties? Why would you not want the structure to implode if you want mass casualties?

Do you have any idea how many fires, how hot, and at which locations it would take to cause a fire-induced collapse of a 47-story steel-frame building? If you figure out a solution to that unprecedented challenge, then throw in the additional bonus of solving for fire-induced symmetric free-fall of the roof line.

The four-corner drop of WTC7 is pretty much confirmation of demolition, and demolition means inside job.
Expert in All things

Redding, CA

#3601 Mar 29, 2013
The Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an expert in one thing.
B.S.
In a "controlled" demolition, a building can be destroyed in any number of ways. That is the meaning of the word "controlled." You should look it up.
c-o-n-t-r-o-l
Who says the intent was mass casualties? Why would you not want the structure to implode if you want mass casualties?
Do you have any idea how many fires, how hot, and at which locations it would take to cause a fire-induced collapse of a 47-story steel-frame building? If you figure out a solution to that unprecedented challenge, then throw in the additional bonus of solving for fire-induced symmetric free-fall of the roof line.
The four-corner drop of WTC7 is pretty much confirmation of demolition, and demolition means inside job.
So you won't provide an answer to any part of my argument, typical.

Ok, scooter here is your free lesson for today, pay attention, I'll go real slooooooooooooow...

You make the claim,

"In a "controlled" demolition, a building can be destroyed in any number of ways. That is the meaning of the word "controlled." You should look it up."

Really? A number of ways, huh? Then name the 3 standard methods used in structual demolition, or just 1 for that matter....

Since I know what your reply will be before you even post it, if you do reply, I already have a copy of what it will say.

I own you!! Get back on the porch with the puppies...cause I bite!

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3602 Mar 29, 2013
it's page 45 of the final report
Gertrude wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you please quote that passage from the NIST report where free-fall is explained?
Thanks in advance.

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
Anybody wanna be dirty on FaceTime? (Feb '12) 10 min Avery 29
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 13 min Uncle Jack 72,965
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 31 min Gabriel 995,177
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 59 min Johnny 447,505
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Michael 699,664
James Comey's conflicted TWO FACES 3 hr Johnny 158
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 4 hr Wisdom of Ages 6,841