• 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

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3865 Apr 5, 2013
Skyscraper Defies Physics during Fire!

http://youtu.be/QKW7386h0JI

Insults Are Easier

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3870 Apr 5, 2013
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:[QUOTE]"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).

Is it worth sacrificing time with my family to re-read a few hundred pages of a draft version of an engineering paper to find various references which you obvious won't understand because they aren't explicit statements written in crayon when the subject of free fall is meaningless to begin with?

Ummm...no.

Particularly when no twoofer has ever shown free fall to be an inherent characteristic of controlled demolition and there's never been a lock of qualification for the oft repeated claim that fire cannot cause structural failure.

Change your socks and try again proxy sockie.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3871 Apr 5, 2013
<quoted text>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 ?!?!?!?!??
Exactly, the proxy sock wants it written in crayon so he understands it.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3872 Apr 5, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Skyscraper Defies Physics during Fire!

http://youtu.be/QKW7386h0JI

Insults Are Easier
Steel plating?
Rupert

#3875 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it worth sacrificing time with my family to re-read a few hundred pages of a draft version of an engineering paper to find various references which you obvious won't understand because they aren't explicit statements written in crayon when the subject of free fall is meaningless to begin with?
Ummm...no.
HA! A man who has posted 26,708 times (and counting) is suddenly concerned with "sacrificing time with my family"?? You are too funny!! It wouldn't take much time, by the way. You could do a word/phrase search. Try "free fall" or "free" or "acceleration" or "gravit"...

Porkpie Hat wrote:
...Particularly when no twoofer has ever shown free fall to be an inherent characteristic of controlled demolition and there's never been a lock of qualification for the oft repeated claim that fire cannot cause structural failure.
Change your socks and try again proxy sockie.
"Free fall" is not an inherent characteristic of demolition... But demolition is an absolute necessity for free-fall when the object in free fall is a structurally redundant 47-story steel-frame building with the foot print roughly the size of a foot ball field!

(Was that a "word salad"? Maybe if I rewrite it in crayon you will gain a better appreciation for my explanation?)

Does your family know how you spend your time away from them? Yes, you should give this shill business up. Your efforts have been determined, but the lie is too obvious. Go explain to your kid now why you have been defending mass murderers and a lie that is destroying his future.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
mztza
#3876 Apr 5, 2013
it's rather interesting
how many people who have so much suspicions of everything
can any imagine, how this person is so convinced of any kind of conspiracies of 911
i wonder, when how far will this paranoia take them
by creating chaos, doubt,
by doing this what is the answer
are you trying, to take the focus off the terrorists and just blame our government
who do you really sympathise with, THE TERRORISTS
any who are sympathetic to the terrorists are TRAITORS or TERRORISTS

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3877 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Steel plating?
You are just a propaganda/slander response program set on a timer.

Insults Are Easier

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#3878 Apr 5, 2013
Oh the IRONY Sock Puppet ..... I think I'm Captain John O Dung too or maybe Say the Truth !?!?!?!?!?
John wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is, Mr. Radekt (or is it "YellowPissRealit y" or "Timeten"?), if YOU bothered to read the NIST report, you could quote me that "clear explanation" that accounts for the 100+ feet of free fall for the entire visible perimeter... if in fact there is a "clear explanation" for this in the NIST report.
Of course, there isn't, is there?
Controlled demolitions don't need to drop at free fall. Why would a demolition company invest in the additional explosives and additional set-up time necessary to take out ALL supports when they can achieve their objectives with less destruction?
The demolition of WTC-7 indicates planning and preparation to destroy this building as quickly as possible. Free-fall indicates the maximum downward acceleration and the minimum collapse time --(barring the propulsion of the structure downward by rockets!)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3879 Apr 5, 2013
Anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a witness to and casualty of the first blast in the lobby ("before the plane hit")
There is no evidence of a blast prior to the plane hitting the building. The guy was shaken and said, "I think....."

He is a most unconvincing witness.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3880 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.
Why was all the glass inside the lobby rather than outside. Your explanation defies the law of physics.

Judged:

4

4

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3882 Apr 6, 2013
Rupert wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! A man who has posted 26,708 times (and counting) is suddenly concerned with "sacrificing time with my family"?? You are too funny!! It wouldn't take much time, by the way. You could do a word/phrase search. Try "free fall" or "free" or "acceleration" or "gravit"...
And therein lies the massive ignorance of twoof and justification for calling them crayon eating window lickers!
You've just totally validated my point that unless a explicit statement is made, you won't understand it. Here's the skinny proxy sock, the paper is written for engineers and not for imbecilic little weenies who can't recognise conditions such as free fall within the tables and terminology of the paper.
And given that you've probably made double or triple the number of posts as myself but you hide that reality behind a proxy is laughable. My family does come first, particularly when I'm working up to 15 hours a day (as I have been for the last couple weeks).
Rupert wrote:
<quoted text>
"Free fall" is not an inherent characteristic of demolition... But demolition is an absolute necessity for free-fall when the object in free fall is a structurally redundant 47-story steel-frame building with the foot print roughly the size of a foot ball field!
(Was that a "word salad"? Maybe if I rewrite it in crayon you will gain a better appreciation for my explanation?)
Yes, just another unsupported word salad of stupid. See proxy sock, in order to make statements like, " But demolition is an absolute necessity", you have to be able to qualify them first...you obviously can't because every time I've asked any twoofer here (most being you by proxy) to do so, they've declined to present supporting data.
Rupert wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your family know how you spend your time away from them? Yes, you should give this shill business up. Your efforts have been determined, but the lie is too obvious. Go explain to your kid now why you have been defending mass murderers and a lie that is destroying his future.
*yawn*

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3883 Apr 6, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just a propaganda/slander response program set on a timer.
Insults Are Easier
Says the idiot with a dozen or so unsupported claims...
murray

France

#3884 Apr 6, 2013

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mch E

United States

#3885 Apr 6, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
..
You've just totally validated my point that unless a explicit statement is made, you won't understand it. Here's the skinny proxy sock, the paper is written for engineers and not for imbecilic little weenies who can't recognise conditions such as free fall within the tables and terminology of the paper.
..
For the benefit of the few engineers who happen upon this thread, can you provide the quotes from the draft report that acknowledge a period of free-fall of the roof line of WTC-7?

Judged:

4

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#3886 Apr 6, 2013
Mch E wrote:
<quoted text>For the benefit of the few engineers who happen upon this thread, can you provide the quotes from the draft report that acknowledge a period of free-fall of the roof line of WTC-7?

They're there, but not written in crayon for you and your inept ilk.

Any progress on proving free fall is anything but just another meaningless twoofer canard?

Didn't think so.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Sally
#3887 Apr 6, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
This sounds like confirmation that you cannot back your claim.(You have the time for meaningless responses, but no time for anything of substance).

Judged:

4

4

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3888 Apr 6, 2013
Mch E wrote:
<quoted text>
For the benefit of the few engineers who happen upon this thread, can you provide the quotes from the draft report that acknowledge a period of free-fall of the roof line of WTC-7?
There is only one peer-reviewed study on the collapses. It is in agreement with the official version of events.

Judged:

4

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!
Peer Reviewed Papper
#3889 Apr 6, 2013
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce....
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce....
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Peer Reviewed Papper
#3890 Apr 6, 2013
oss B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.ht...
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.p...
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.htm...

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Peer Reviewed Papper
#3891 Apr 6, 2013
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospecti...
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_e...
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who...
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_fa...
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi...
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index...
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl...
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?- Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3,(2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

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.