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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3843 Apr 4, 2013
Jessica wrote:
<quoted text>
You agree that the video is authentic? In what context would the words mean anything other than "people don't understand! There may be more! Any one of these fkn buildings can blow up! This ain't done yet!" (said a dust-covered, bloody fireman who just escaped from an explosion in a Tower lobby)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =IO1ps1mzU8oXX
It meant secondary explosions which could be caused by many things, especially gas buildup. Fuel vapors sink.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3844 Apr 4, 2013
Ricardo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm especially impressed with the construction techniques of the east Europeans during the communist period. Take a look at the Usce Tower in Belgrade, in the former Yugoslavia (now Serbia). It was built in 1964, about the same time as the WTC towers. It's only a quarter as tall as the Towers (imagine the top quarter, since it doesn't need to be strong enough to hold 75 floors above it).
During the NATO bombing of Belgrade in April 1999, the USCE Tower withstood twelve (12) Tomahawk cruise missile strikes!! The Serbs went on to repair the damage and even added two floors to the existing structure!
Who would have thought that "Made in Yugoslavia" could have as much (or more?) market place value as "Made in the USA"?
No comparison can be made due to entirely different construction techniques as well as different circumstances. Looks like fully fueled passenger airliners could be more effective than Tomahawk missiles, but again, no comparison can be made unless tested in controlled environments.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3845 Apr 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Did you watch his video? I haven't seen anything go up in flames that fast since I went to Burning Man. That fire moved up that amazingly flammable plastic trim so fast, that I doubt that the steel underneath even had the chance to get warm to the touch, let alone heated to the point of weakening.
Buring Man huh? Been there, done that.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3846 Apr 4, 2013
All the fuhking idiots go to burning man. Without water or sleeping bags.

Yeah the steel never had a chance to get warm even.

Good bwunking shill but it doesn't fly.

Neither do you. LOL

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3847 Apr 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
All the fuhking idiots go to burning man. Without water or sleeping bags.
Yeah the steel never had a chance to get warm even.
Good bwunking shill but it doesn't fly.
Neither do you. LOL
Try going to Burning Man and get back too us. We already can see you know nothing of the 9/11 events; you know even less about Burning Man.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3848 Apr 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Buring Man huh? Been there, done that.
I even kind of sort of remember most of it.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3849 Apr 4, 2013
You're not supposed to eat the glow sticks moron. They fry your brain cells.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3850 Apr 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I even kind of sort of remember most of it.
We know how to Burn and the power of fire art. I was there in 2006 and 2007. In 2007 some dude burned the man early. Somehow they scrambled and came up with a replacement.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3851 Apr 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
We know how to Burn and the power of fire art. I was there in 2006 and 2007. In 2007 some dude burned the man early. Somehow they scrambled and came up with a replacement.
I'm suddenly feeling old, I went back in 94.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#3852 Apr 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm suddenly feeling old, I went back in 94.
Wow! The really good old days huh? I heard it was pretty wild and dirt cheap too. I believe they are over 50,000 people now.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3853 Apr 4, 2013
1994
Height of Man: 40 feet
Location: Black Rock Desert
Participants: 2,000

Burning Man acquires an online presence with a website on the WeLL, a Sausalito-based Internet provider.
A documentary is filmed by Australian TV. The event is covered by print media from France, Germany and Great Britain.
Larry Harvey and Pepe Ozan found Burning Man's annual San Francisco performance art show.
Distinctive art installations at event include Chris De Monterey's Camera Obscura, Pepe Ozan's 30-foot lingam fire tower, Greg Schlanger's interactive shower, and Ric Louchard's musical installation, "Four Directions."
A performance by San Francisco percussion group Sharkbait highlights the night of the burn.
The Man is lit by Crimson Rose and Will Roger.

When I went it was up to around 35,000 people but entrance fee was under $300.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3854 Apr 4, 2013

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3855 Apr 4, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
Wow! The really good old days huh? I heard it was pretty wild and dirt cheap too. I believe they are over 50,000 people now.
Like I said, I kind of sort of remember most of it. Back then it was less of an organized event and more of a scattered gathering with different events just kind of happening. I can't imagine 50,000 people actually finding their way out there and they certainly wouldn't have been prepared for them the year I went.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#3856 Apr 5, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Think of it as building a house from the top of the chimney down, everything is theoretically possible until they have to actually prove they can build it. So until they actually get there in the construction, it's possible to have three mutually exclusive speculations for the same space. After all, they are absolutely convinced that it HAS to be one of them, it's just us not seeing their keen eye, sharp mind and absolute cleverness to reveal the most ingenious blueprint ever conceived.
Excellent analogy.

One of my more enjoyable tasks at work is being the liaison between the trades and engineering.

Every once in a while a fitter or millwright will saunter into my office wearing coveralls and a mile wide smirk while carrying a general arrangement drawing and say, "how the hell am I suppose to build this?".

A quick review exposes a feature which can only be described as impossible so we call the engineer who signed off the drawing and meet on the shop floor.

With arms crossed and the pained look of realization on his/her face the next comment is invariably, "well it works on paper!".

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#3857 Apr 5, 2013
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>The draft report does no such thing. There is no mention of acceleration of any kind, free fall or otherwise, in Table 3-1, page 39.

The draft goes on to describe a meaningless analysis in which the "average acceleration" of the roof line (over a time interval that begins at a time of no actual significance - since the roof line is not in motion) is "40% longer than computed free fall time."

Your charlatan masters gave you obvious lies and pseudo-scientific "analysis," not a complete or even partial investigation rooted in sound logic or scientific fact.

Sorry.
They didn't write it in crayon so most twoofers are oblivious to the fact that it's there. Sorry for your luck.

Meanwhile, the "free fall" canard has absolutely no meaning or relevance to what caused the buildings to collapse.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3859 Apr 5, 2013
Freakin Hippies !!!
WasteWater wrote:
Vaclav

Prague, Czech Republic

#3860 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't write it in crayon so most twoofers are oblivious to the fact that it's there. Sorry for your luck.
Meanwhile, the "free fall" canard has absolutely no meaning or relevance to what caused the buildings to collapse.
Is that why you can't quote the part where NIST admits a period of free fall in the draft report? Is that why you've been fighting the "free fall canard" tooth-and-nail until, confronted repeatedly with empirical evidence in the videos, you are forced into a fall-back position that "it has absolutely no meaning or relevance"?

Is this why Shyam Sunder fumbled at the August 2008 technical briefing when confronted with the fact of free-fall?

Here's Sunder:
"The analysis showed there is a
difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural
components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the
17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video,
below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the
structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural
model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's
about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all
unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a
sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."
That's right, Sunder. A "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." The problem is, Sunder, that even a perimeter of buckling columns HAS structural components below it -- buckling columns, and the buckling doesn't happen suddenly and instantaneously. And yet the visible perimeter of WTC-7 were dropping suddenly AS A UNIT, AT FREE FALL.



What could cause sudden free-fall? The simultaneous destruction of supporting structures by a carefully synchronized demolition.

What couldn't cause sudden free-fall? A gradual weakening of steel structures (insulated steel!!) as a result of fires (that admittedly consume all fuel in any given location in at most 20-30 minutes).

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3861 Apr 5, 2013
Pablito wrote:
<quoted text>
"Could be"? Do I detect uninformed speculation (or desperate floundering)?
The windows of the Tower lobbies were blown out before firefighters arrived. How could "gas build up" in the fully ventilated lobby? What "gas" are you speculating about? Does this gas have an odor, and do you suppose that firefighters would set up a staging area at a location where such an odor is strong?
When a firefighter says,"people don't understand! There may be more! Any one of these fkn buildings can blow up! This ain't done yet!", does it sound like he's limiting the danger to just the damaged Towers? Remember, this video was shot prior to the collapse of the Towers and WTC7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =1IYlEVCpG_0XX
No you don't. Firemen enter an dangerous and unpredictable environment fighting fires. They speculate until they have a reasonable grasp of what is happening and the consequences. An explosion is often caused by buildup of gasses and back drafts. The fact is, the windows of the lobby were sucked in by such drafting. You are simply speculating upon something which is inconclusive.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3862 Apr 5, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Freakin Hippies !!!<quoted text>
Not really. It's about art. Fire art and performance art. The hippies brought nothing too it but simply used the event contributing little or nothing.

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3863 Apr 5, 2013
And if you ever bothered to read NIST's report it very clearly explains that there was an internal collpase of 12 floors before the exterior facade began to move downward and this accounts for the very brief period of free fall ... by the way have you guys found any CD that drops in free fall yet ?!?!?!?!??
Vaclav wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why you can't quote the part where NIST admits a period of free fall in the draft report? Is that why you've been fighting the "free fall canard" tooth-and-nail until, confronted repeatedly with empirical evidence in the videos, you are forced into a fall-back position that "it has absolutely no meaning or relevance"?
Is this why Shyam Sunder fumbled at the August 2008 technical briefing when confronted with the fact of free-fall?
Here's Sunder: <quoted text>
That's right, Sunder. A "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." The problem is, Sunder, that even a perimeter of buckling columns HAS structural components below it -- buckling columns, and the buckling doesn't happen suddenly and instantaneously. And yet the visible perimeter of WTC-7 were dropping suddenly AS A UNIT, AT FREE FALL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
What could cause sudden free-fall? The simultaneous destruction of supporting structures by a carefully synchronized demolition.
What couldn't cause sudden free-fall? A gradual weakening of steel structures (insulated steel!!) as a result of fires (that admittedly consume all fuel in any given location in at most 20-30 minutes).

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
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 12 min RiccardoFire 46,194
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 min RiccardoFire 184,746
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 42 min Catcher1 110,267
snapchat dirty pics shemale (May '14) 1 hr Cali4real12 30
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr Bongo 12
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr President DonJ Trump 675,587
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 hr waaasssuuup 982,210
More from around the web