Was 911 an Inside Job

Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,792 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

Charlie Sheen

Plattsmouth, NE

#4394 May 11, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
No man, you don't seem to get it. Its me Charlie Sheen who's gonna be out of a job.
No more free chili cheeseburgers & all the fries I can steal.
Very sad to hear that, thank your lucky stars Mom does not charge rent.
Charlie Sheen

Lansing, MI

#4395 May 11, 2013
My mom does too charge rent!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4397 May 11, 2013
What happened to the bwunkers ?
.
Magikally disappeared !

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4398 May 11, 2013
You've given us nothing to be debwunking, bunky. Govie shill is more of a hobby than a profession. I have an extensive life not connected to the internet, you might try it some time. Mine's pretty enjoyable, that's why I'm here nowhere near 24/7 as you seem to be. When I do come here, if there really isn't anything in need of debwunking, why post for free? We only get paid for the posts which meet our evil overseers approval for furthering the official myth. Posts like this however, you get for free. None of your tax dollars will be paid in exchange for this comment, as it contains no actual debwunking of the true story of 9/11. Oops, did I say that out loud?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4400 May 12, 2013
You're not in Kansas anymore Ricky.
.
I think you meant to say that you CAN NOT debwunk the information I have posted concerning the alleged passengers on the alleged flights of 9/11.
.
You have nothing at all to add except if you did it would be that the whole idea is preposterous and should be totally dismissed.
.
Followed by a declaration of "and that's the end of the story."
.
Well that don't cut it anymore. Never did.
.
I guess we can leave it at "there's nothing to debwunk"
.
That says it all Huh Eh !
Brian

Dover, PA

#4401 May 12, 2013
You don't have to be an Einstein to know that 2 steel buildings can't physically collapse at free fall speed and leave behind a city covered in smoke if there's no explosions to produce that much smoke. People are so blind!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4402 May 12, 2013
Brian wrote:
You don't have to be an Einstein to know that 2 steel buildings can't physically collapse at free fall speed and leave behind a city covered in smoke if there's no explosions to produce that much smoke. People are so blind!
They did. It is also obvious that no explosives were used and that free fall speed is false.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#4403 May 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
They did. It is also obvious that no explosives were used and that free fall speed is false.
Of course. The big chunks being dispelled descend at a faster rate of speed. Tons of steel plate is required for directing charges in the demolition of steel framed buildings.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4406 May 12, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
You're not in Kansas anymore Ricky.
.
Actually, I am dear. The only time I bother to access this site is when I'm home, here in Kansas.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
I think you meant to say that you CAN NOT debwunk the information I have posted concerning the alleged passengers on the alleged flights of 9/11.
You have nothing at all to add except if you did it would be that the whole idea is preposterous and should be totally dismissed.
.
Followed by a declaration of "and that's the end of the story."
.
Well that don't cut it anymore. Never did.
.
I guess we can leave it at "there's nothing to debwunk"
.
That says it all Huh Eh !
I can debwunk any nonsense you want to toss out here, buttercup, that is, after all, my job here and I'm darn good at it. Would you like to try again with your alleged passenger notion? I haven't read your thoughts on that subject and don't want to go looking for them and they certainly aren't clear here.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4407 May 12, 2013
Brian wrote:
You don't have to be an Einstein to know that 2 steel buildings can't physically collapse at free fall speed and leave behind a city covered in smoke if there's no explosions to produce that much smoke. People are so blind!
You are right, you don't have to be an Einstein to "know" what you claim to "know", that's the territory of easily confused and misled sheep. I'm no Einstein, but I'm no sheep either and what you claim to "know" has no real basis in actual fact.
Brian

Dover, PA

#4408 May 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
They did. It is also obvious that no explosives were used and that free fall speed is false.
Actually there's plenty of evidence for explosives. Demolition light flashes are visible before and during the collapse of both towers. Separate pockets of smoke are visible coming out of both towers as they're collapsing. These pockets of smoke are actually exiting the buildings below where the collapse is occurring. Also, explain something to me. If there were no explosives in those buildings, and only the floors impacted by the airplanes were on fire, why is there smoke coming out of the buildings as they are falling? If it was only a collapsing buildings, you would have no smoke coming out of the buildings.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4409 May 12, 2013
Brian wrote:
Actually there's plenty of evidence for explosives. Demolition light flashes are visible before and during the collapse of both towers. Separate pockets of smoke are visible coming out of both towers as they're collapsing. These pockets of smoke are actually exiting the buildings below where the collapse is occurring. Also, explain something to me. If there were no explosives in those buildings, and only the floors impacted by the airplanes were on fire, why is there smoke coming out of the buildings as they are falling? If it was only a collapsing buildings, you would have no smoke coming out of the buildings.
You seem to be unaware that when the aircraft impacted the structures, the resulting explosions, venting through elevator, air and other shafts in the building. caused fires on multiple floors, not directly impacted. The flashes of light and puffs of smoke you claim can only be explained by the use of the explosives, can also be explained by the fact that the power was still on to much of the building below the impact when it collapsed and parts of the collapse naturally fell faster than others. Those same shafts that the had fire spread through, would have zero resistance within them when the collapse occurred for debris falling through them and those puffs of smoke, that debris venting out on its way down.
Bjork

Iceland

#4410 May 12, 2013
WTC7 was not hit by a plane and fell all at once at free fall rate. A controlled building implosion, very hard to do!
Bjork

Iceland

#4411 May 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to be unaware that when the aircraft impacted the structures, the resulting explosions, venting through elevator, air and other shafts in the building. caused fires on multiple floors, not directly impacted. The flashes of light and puffs of smoke you claim can only be explained by the use of the explosives, can also be explained by the fact that the power was still on to much of the building below the impact when it collapsed and parts of the collapse naturally fell faster than others. Those same shafts that the had fire spread through, would have zero resistance within them when the collapse occurred for debris falling through them and those puffs of smoke, that debris venting out on its way down.
This is a smelly turd from your butt

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4413 May 12, 2013
Bjork wrote:
WTC7 was not hit by a plane and fell all at once at free fall rate. A controlled building implosion, very hard to do!
It was not struck by an aircraft, it was however struck by the explosion of an aircraft into a building directly across the street from it and by debris from that building when it collapsed. The building neither fell "all at once", nor at a "free fall rate", to believe that they did, defies observable fact.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4414 May 12, 2013
Bjork wrote:
...
The adults are talking again dear. If your mommy and daddy need a baby sitter for you, have them get in touch with us, they shouldn't just drop you off here unattended.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#4415 May 12, 2013
Bjork wrote:
WTC7 was not hit by a plane and fell all at once at free fall rate. A controlled building implosion, very hard to do!
YAWN, Not freefall!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#4416 May 12, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
You're not in Kansas anymore Ricky.
.
I think you meant to say that you CAN NOT debwunk the information I have posted concerning the alleged passengers on the alleged flights of 9/11.
I Totally debunk your claim that 20 pilots could not hit the WTC, prove me wrong!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#4417 May 12, 2013
Werner wrote:
<quoted text>
They were obvious demolitions. You are right, big chunks were being expelled. Horizontally. The powerful horizontal forces necessary to propel multi-ton steel assemblies were provided by explosives.
WRONG!

In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g)= around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 +(5.9 * 20)= 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg.(There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column.(So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d /(Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2)= 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4418 May 12, 2013
What a bunch of bwunk!?!?!? LOL

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Catcher1 866,034
White Lives MATTER 9 min RFD 116
The Christian Atheist debate 15 min spocko 2,122
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 23 min Michael 600,205
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 39 min Charlie Sheen 272,467
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 50 min RainbowLength 47
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 54 min curtjester1 40,914
More from around the web