Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,787 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4437 May 12, 2013
Zdenek Bazant wrote:
<quoted text>
dazzle them with math (even though it makes no sense), that's why they hired me to support the official fairytale.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#4438 May 12, 2013
To the idiots who still do not know the truth.

Please do not reproduce. Really... I mean it...

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4439 May 12, 2013
D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crush-down differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 &#8722; (z)] dz
dt + &#956;cl 2 [2 &#8722; (z)] dz dt ) &#8722; m(z)g = &#8722;Fc(z, z&#729;)(crush-down)(2) while the crush-up differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 &#8722; (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y&#729;)(crush-up)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crush-up. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, &#956;c = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z)= m0 + &#956;cl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height; Fc(z, z&#729;)= Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, Fb = Wd/(1 &#8722; )h (4) where Wd(z)= total energy dissipation up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Ba&#711;zant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and &#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz = part of the impacted mass per unit height that remains within the tower perimeter. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the Runge-Kutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant &#956; = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz&#729;)&#729; = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005).

Yeah dat's wat i'm talking bout

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4440 May 12, 2013
D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crush-down differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 &#8722; (z)] dz
dt + &#956;cl 2 [2 &#8722; (z)] dz dt ) &#8722; m(z)g = &#8722;Fc(z, z&#729;)(crush-down)(2) while the crush-up differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 &#8722; (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y&#729;)(crush-up)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crush-up. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, &#956;c = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative mass of the tower above level z of the crushing front (m(z)= m0 + &#956;cl); and Fc = resisting force = energy dissipation per unit height; Fc(z, z&#729;)= Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, Fb = Wd/(1 &#8722; )h (4) where Wd(z)= total energy dissipation up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Ba&#711;zant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and &#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. Upon setting v = z&#729;, Eq.(2) or (5) was converted to a system of two nonlinear first-order differential equations for unknowns v(t) and z(t), which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the Runge-Kutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant &#956; = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz&#729;)&#729; = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005).
Dat's wat I'm talking bout

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4441 May 12, 2013
Dat's why dose buildings fell down.
LOL
.
It wern't magik atall !?!?!? LOL

Since: Jan 11

Westbury, NY

#4442 May 12, 2013
maybe you can explian how not a single explosive detonation registered on any seismograph ..... or should we just ignore that little fact
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Since: Jan 11

Westbury, NY

#4443 May 12, 2013
or with another Sock Puppet with a hidden location
Myrandy Cumgrove wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

Since: Jan 11

Westbury, NY

#4444 May 12, 2013
everybody with half a brain knows the buildings fell at free fall Speed
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!

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#4445 May 12, 2013
And with your Face Please do not reproduce. Really... I mean it...
Myrandy Cumgrove wrote:
To the idiots who still do not know the truth.
Please do not reproduce. Really... I mean it...

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4446 May 12, 2013
Timestin wrote:
maybe you can explian how not a single explosive detonation registered on any seismograph ..... or should we just ignore that little fact
<quoted text>
Ignore it cause it ain't true!?!?!?!?!?
.
There was lots of seismograph evidence. The govie interprets the data one way, unbiased scientists interpret it another.
.
Snot Magik either Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Omaha, NE

#4447 May 12, 2013
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nonsense. It would be impossible to do such a demolition. The chunks are expelled by air being squeezed out by the pancaking floors.
pancake farts

Logan, WV

#4448 May 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. It would be impossible to do such a demolition. The chunks are expelled by air being squeezed out by the pancaking floors.
I would have never imagined that pancakes could fart chunks

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4449 May 12, 2013
pancake farts wrote:
I would have never imagined that pancakes could fart chunks
Oh come on, you're telling us that you're the only one who hasn't heard the story of your unplanned birth?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#4450 May 13, 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!
So proxy sock, post the plethora of evidence that must exist which proves free fall=cd.

Oh, you don't have evidence. Just some stupid twoofer meme.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#4451 May 13, 2013
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Jeez, why would a building with multi-floor fires have smoke coming out of it?

HVAC, how the hell does it work!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#4452 May 13, 2013
Zdenek Bazant wrote:
<quoted text>dazzle them with math (even though it makes no sense), that's why they hired me to support the official fairytale.
Math that's accepted by the vast majority of structural experts all over the world...

Math that twoofers can only hope to hand wave away...

Math that goes over the little heads of 99.9999% of all twoofers....

Math, how the hell does it work...eh?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#4453 May 13, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly. With these approximations, the crush-down differential equation of motion becomes: d dt ( m0[1 &#8722; (z)] dz
dt + &#956;cl 2 [2 &#8722; (z)] dz dt ) &#8722; m(z)g = &#8722;Fc(z, z&#729;)(crush-down)(2) while the crush-up differential equation of motion has the same form as Eq. 17 of Bazant and Verdure (2007): m(y)( d dt " [1 &#8722; (y)] dy dt #+ g )= Fc(y, y&#729;)(crush-up)(3) Here Eq.(2) represents a refinement of Eq. 12 of Bazant and Verdure (2007), while Eq.(3) is identical to their Eq. 17 because the compacted layer is stationary during crush-up. Furthermore, l = height of compacted layer B, &#956;c = specific mass of compacted layer B per unit height, which is considered to be constant and equal to the maximum possible density of compacted debris; m(z)= cumulative up to level z, which was assumed by Bazant and Verdure (2007) to consist only of energy Fb (per unit height) consumed by buckling of steel columns. In calculations, the large fluctuations of Fb as a function of z or y (evident in Figs. 3 and 4 of Ba&#711;zant and Verdure, 2007) are neglected, i.e., Fb is smoothly homogenized. As a refinement of previous analysis, we introduce here a generalization in which we add energy Fs (per unit height) consumed by continuated bifurcation of concrete floor slabs, energy Fa required to expel air from the tower, and energy Fe required to accelerate the mass of dust and larger fragments
Ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part; Furthermore, in contrast to previous studies, the compaction ratio will not be assumed as a constant but will be more accurately calculated as (z)=(1&#8722; out)&#9 56;(z)/&#956;c, and out = mass shedding fraction = fraction of mass that escapes outside tower perimeter before the end of crush-down (not afterwards). Note that Eq.(2) may be rewritten as Plethora of Prolific Paid Professionals Parroting Puppetmaster Program Purporting Prepared Pronouncement of Perfunctorily Planted Plane Pieces and Parts Positively Proven Propaganda Paints a Picture of [m0(1&#8722; )+&#956;c l(1&#8722;0.5 )]z¨&#87 22;mg = &#8722;Fm& #8722;Fc, Fm =[m0(1&#8722; )+&#956; cl(1&#8722;0.5 )]&#729 ; z&#729; = &# 956;¯z& #729;2 (5) where Fm = force required to accelerate to velocity z&#729; the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front, and ¯&#956; = d[m0(1 &#8722; )+ &# 956;cl(1 &#8722; 0.5 )]/dz. This force causes a greater difference from free fall than do forces Fb, Fs, Fa and Fe combined. Upon setting v = z&#729;, Eq.(2) or (5) was converted to a system of two nonlinear first-order differential equations for unknowns v(t) and z(t), which were then integrated numerically with high accuracy using the Runge-Kutta algorithm (note that, for the idealized special case of = Fc = out = 0 and constant &#956; = dm/dz, Eq.(2) reduces to the differential equation (zz&#729;)&#729; = gz, which was formulated and solved by finite differences by Kausel, 2001). As the initial conditions, it is considered that the crushing front initiates at the 96th story in the North Tower, and at the 81st story in the South Tower (NIST 2005).
Dat's wat I'm talking bout
No it isn't.

You're so stupid you though sealed elevators sounded good.

THAT'S what you're talking about.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#4454 May 13, 2013
Whatsamatter pig, you trying desperately to catch up?
.
You got some bwunking to do here. Get on it!?!?!?
.
Let's see you explain your acidic persona via mathematics.
.
Maybe getcher buddy Bazant to help you.

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#4455 May 13, 2013
WOW ..... just when you think Twoofer Stupidity has hit rock bottom a post like this comes along !?!??!?!?!
Brian wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#4456 May 13, 2013
LMFAO, One of the new leading intellects is in love with a girl from a Disney show for 13 year old girls.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TPN4BI7...

I think the authorities need to check out his basement and crawlspace.

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 UmakeGLOBALPEACEI... 795,429
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Ink 568,117
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 12 min UmakeGLOBALPEACEI... 5,421
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 13 min Grunt56 221,542
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 18 min RiccardoFire 267,415
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 20 min lovewithin 39,660
Scientific proof for God's existence 43 min thewordofme 562
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 55 min Just Think 120,716
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Antique Annie 607,192
More from around the web