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

Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#901 Feb 3, 2013
Will your shift be over soon ricky ?

Since: Feb 13

London

#902 Feb 3, 2013
who cares , just a bunch of dead yanks!

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#903 Feb 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, the clown is offering me a nine second long view of the collapse of WTC 7 as "proof" of its controlled demolition. It's hard NOT to be condescending to that level of nonsense passing as reasoned thought.
Insults Are Easier wrote, "Im sure Wastewater and Charlie think you're brilliant."

Maybe I should start a fan club? Hon, I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, I'm just here to question idiocy and brainless sheep.
Insults Are Easier wrote, "For those who can think, here's what was missed by NIST.
A&E911 free fall proof of building 7
http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I
NIST admitting their free fall mistake
http://youtu.be/mtRlOVymmz8
Why NIST's investigation was unscientific.
http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg
But if you believe free fall is a natural by product of accidental structural failure of a building, nothing will convince you otherwise.
Condescension is easy, but
Insults Are Easier"

Dumpling, your little video montage proves nothing. You offer no proof whatsoever of ANYONE either planning or executing a controlled demolition at the Trade Center or anywhere else. Evidently insults are easier than reason too, huh?
Ok "Rick" the chic, you cant tell the difference between a controlled demolition and an accidental collapse, so you will always believe anything.

Conversing any issue with some ditz in Kansas is pointless, as science and logic isn't for everyone, as you have so abundantly displayed in every waste of time post to bore the forum with.

So honey, don't worry your pretty little head, Im sure your right, its all just crazy talk. Your government loves you... Hey, Oprah's on, you better go, wouldn't want you to miss anything important.

And never forget sunshine, that

Insults Are Easier
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#904 Feb 3, 2013
My short analysis of 9-11

I'm not an architect or a structural engineer or a physicist but as a machinist I have machined various types of metal for 25 years, I feel I know something about metals.

In my opinion it is totally impossible for a plane (made out of aluminum sheeting) to KNIFE through massive steel beams in-cased in concrete. Certainly not in the fashion that it was shown on television; it looked like it was knifing through butter... impossible! Even if the nose could penetrate the building, the wings should have been sheared off. They doctored up the video and we saw what they wanted us to see, and they can do anything with computer simulations. You don't have to be a physicist to know that it is impossible for aluminum to cut through metal, let alone massive pieces of metal and concrete.

Furthermore, I find it strange that so much fire shot out on the opposite side of the building. Why didn't more fire shoot out the back because that's where the least amount of resistance should have been.

The only thing that makes sense is that a drone hit the building, and bombs were planted inside the building to get the effects they wanted. After all, how did so much of the fire shoot out the side of the building that was undamaged? Sure the explosion from jet fuel could have blown it out but more of it should've come out of the hole that was made by the plane.

The towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 757 is bigger, it is about 16% longer (it is more advanced in several areas) for one it is more energy efficient; one of reasons is that it is made out of thinner metal and carbon fiber. Therefore a 757 should have caused less damage than a 707. One architect said, the towers should have withstood multiple jet crashes.

Airplanes have crashed into high-rise building in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? These building were up to code which means the sprinkle system should have extinguished any fires. And these building are constructed with fire resistant materials.

To cut metal you have to use something that is harder than the metal you are cutting. I mostly used carbide which is the hardest metal known to mankind, we even used diamonds in certain applications. Without this tough material, metal could never be machined. Hacksaw blades are made from high carbon steel, drills are made from a metal called high speed tooling or drill rod.

Like the old saying: you can fool some of the people of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#905 Feb 3, 2013
I'm not an architect or a structural engineer or a physicist .... and that pretty much says it all .... Thanks for playing
onemale wrote:
My short analysis of 9-11
I'm not an architect or a structural engineer or a physicist but as a machinist I have machined various types of metal for 25 years, I feel I know something about metals.
In my opinion it is totally impossible for a plane (made out of aluminum sheeting) to KNIFE through massive steel beams in-cased in concrete. Certainly not in the fashion that it was shown on television; it looked like it was knifing through butter... impossible! Even if the nose could penetrate the building, the wings should have been sheared off. They doctored up the video and we saw what they wanted us to see, and they can do anything with computer simulations. You don't have to be a physicist to know that it is impossible for aluminum to cut through metal, let alone massive pieces of metal and concrete.
Furthermore, I find it strange that so much fire shot out on the opposite side of the building. Why didn't more fire shoot out the back because that's where the least amount of resistance should have been.
The only thing that makes sense is that a drone hit the building, and bombs were planted inside the building to get the effects they wanted. After all, how did so much of the fire shoot out the side of the building that was undamaged? Sure the explosion from jet fuel could have blown it out but more of it should've come out of the hole that was made by the plane.
The towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 757 is bigger, it is about 16% longer (it is more advanced in several areas) for one it is more energy efficient; one of reasons is that it is made out of thinner metal and carbon fiber. Therefore a 757 should have caused less damage than a 707. One architect said, the towers should have withstood multiple jet crashes.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise building in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? These building were up to code which means the sprinkle system should have extinguished any fires. And these building are constructed with fire resistant materials.
To cut metal you have to use something that is harder than the metal you are cutting. I mostly used carbide which is the hardest metal known to mankind, we even used diamonds in certain applications. Without this tough material, metal could never be machined. Hacksaw blades are made from high carbon steel, drills are made from a metal called high speed tooling or drill rod.
Like the old saying: you can fool some of the people of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#906 Feb 3, 2013
....... go to bed Dick Weed and don't forget being a clueless dope is so much easier for you
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok "Rick" the chic, you cant tell the difference between a controlled demolition and an accidental collapse, so you will always believe anything.
Conversing any issue with some ditz in Kansas is pointless, as science and logic isn't for everyone, as you have so abundantly displayed in every waste of time post to bore the forum with.
So honey, don't worry your pretty little head, Im sure your right, its all just crazy talk. Your government loves you... Hey, Oprah's on, you better go, wouldn't want you to miss anything important.
And never forget sunshine, that
Insults Are Easier

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#907 Feb 3, 2013
when will your pimp let you get off the corner and go home ??
Guise Faux wrote:
Will your shift be over soon ricky ?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#908 Feb 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, one does not need a degree in physics to understand the concept of a controlled demolition and how they function. You have yet to prove the one or more you seem to believe in to even be necessary on 9/11, let alone to have actually occurred. You give us traces of theoretically existing explosives that no one else can seem to find and an ambiguous unproven plot involving a cast and crew bigger than Ben Hur as "proof" and yet you wonder why I question your sanity? I'm just being honest hon, you come off like a kook in a tin foil hat, passing eccentric and camping in downtown crazy with computer access and an inability to discern fact from fantasy.
One of the greatest problems with the notion of controlled demolition is the personal liability of the owner or leaseholder, in this case, Larry Silverstein. To demolish buildings requires many permits which would never be issued. Furthermore allowing people to occupy buildings containing explosives would be a criminal act. Finally, to demolish buildings requires the elevator shafts and stairwells to be cut first which could not have been done. It is a total fantasy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#909 Feb 3, 2013
onemale wrote:
My short analysis of 9-11
I'm not an architect or a structural engineer or a physicist but as a machinist I have machined various types of metal for 25 years, I feel I know something about metals.
In my opinion it is totally impossible for a plane (made out of aluminum sheeting) to KNIFE through massive steel beams in-cased in concrete. Certainly not in the fashion that it was shown on television; it looked like it was knifing through butter... impossible! Even if the nose could penetrate the building, the wings should have been sheared off. They doctored up the video and we saw what they wanted us to see, and they can do anything with computer simulations. You don't have to be a physicist to know that it is impossible for aluminum to cut through metal, let alone massive pieces of metal and concrete.
Furthermore, I find it strange that so much fire shot out on the opposite side of the building. Why didn't more fire shoot out the back because that's where the least amount of resistance should have been.
The only thing that makes sense is that a drone hit the building, and bombs were planted inside the building to get the effects they wanted. After all, how did so much of the fire shoot out the side of the building that was undamaged? Sure the explosion from jet fuel could have blown it out but more of it should've come out of the hole that was made by the plane.
The towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 757 is bigger, it is about 16% longer (it is more advanced in several areas) for one it is more energy efficient; one of reasons is that it is made out of thinner metal and carbon fiber. Therefore a 757 should have caused less damage than a 707. One architect said, the towers should have withstood multiple jet crashes.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise building in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? These building were up to code which means the sprinkle system should have extinguished any fires. And these building are constructed with fire resistant materials.
To cut metal you have to use something that is harder than the metal you are cutting. I mostly used carbide which is the hardest metal known to mankind, we even used diamonds in certain applications. Without this tough material, metal could never be machined. Hacksaw blades are made from high carbon steel, drills are made from a metal called high speed tooling or drill rod.
Like the old saying: you can fool some of the people of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Massive steel beams encased in concrete is a fantasy. The fact is the outer walls had no protective coating and were far from massive. Obviously the planes did substantial damage cutting through several floors. I doubt the buildings were designed to be hit by passenger planes. Such a claim is pure propaganda or a very ignorant opinion.
Klink

Lawson, MO

#910 Feb 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Massive steel beams encased in concrete is a fantasy. The fact is the outer walls had no protective coating and were far from massive. Obviously the planes did substantial damage cutting through several floors. I doubt the buildings were designed to be hit by passenger planes. Such a claim is pure propaganda or a very ignorant opinion.

WTC designer speaks

www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_sp...

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#911 Feb 3, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>One of the greatest problems with the notion of controlled demolition is the personal liability of the owner or leaseholder, in this case, Larry Silverstein. To demolish buildings requires many permits which would never be issued. Furthermore allowing people to occupy buildings containing explosives would be a criminal act. Finally, to demolish buildings requires the elevator shafts and stairwells to be cut first which could not have been done. It is a total fantasy.
Im sure the criminals abandoned their plan when the illegal controlled demolition permits were rejected.

Hey, Oprah is on, you better go too!

Insults Are Easier

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#912 Feb 3, 2013
Klink wrote:
<quoted text>
WTC designer speaks
www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_sp...
He was lost on 9/11. Looks like he goofed, the planes destroyed the buildings.

Take a look at this video. Watch how the upper part of the tower tilts over into the damaged part of the structure just like a tree falling when undercut. Then the structure below collapses. In the end, there are huge parts of the upper structure above where the plane hit which remained somewhat intact. Would you like me to explain what this means?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#913 Feb 3, 2013
BTW, here the link to the video.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#914 Feb 3, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Im sure the criminals abandoned their plan when the illegal controlled demolition permits were rejected.
Hey, Oprah is on, you better go too!
Insults Are Easier
What criminals are you talking about? The imaginary ones who planted your imaginary explosives?

ROTFLMAO

The Gloop

Since: Sep 08

.

#915 Feb 3, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
when will your pimp let you get off the corner and go home ??
<quoted text>
Gloop!

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#916 Feb 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>What criminals are you talking about? The imaginary ones who planted your imaginary explosives?

ROTFLMAO
Oh yes, I just imagined them the same way I imagined NIST didn't follow the scientific method and check for any explosive residue in its fraudulent investigation that started after most of the evidence had already been destroyed that NIST officials themselves testified before congress that they actually needed to keep.

My imagination also has concocted evidence of firefighters stating they saw molten steel, heard explosions, and NIST disregarded this completely because they claim to have visually inspected it at various landfills before it was destroyed without being documented. I only imagine thats called destruction of a crime scene.

http://youtu.be/nwgkA5rlwKI

I just imagined NIST did not follow the guidelines of NFPA 921, that states any investigation should investigate accelerants and incendiaries if the results were global collapse. But I only imagined NIST disregarded this completely and I must be paranoid for wanting them to adhere to it.

Boy, that imagination of mine sure does play tricks on scientists that generate peer reviewed papers such as this that found thermate in the recovered dust from WTC that NIST itself refused to even check for.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/arti...

Yes, Im just a crazy guy who imagines this research found energetic material that did not dissolve in solvents the way paint would.

I only imagined Building 7 falling at free fall acceleration during it's initial collapse by trusting my own eyes when watching the roof fall straight down.

http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I

Yep, my mind just imagines these things and cant be as sane and smart as you who thinks regardless of what evidence is found it can't be true because your ideology and religion of state superiority indoctrinates you to believe it's impossible, regardless of facts.

But I imagine you'll keep worshipping your "State God" by believing with blind faith while hypocritically condemning others "religions".

Im only imagining that claiming illegal
controlled demolitions require permits is the most ignorant thing ever claimed.

I am only imagining idiots laugh a lot, as I imagine you will always prescribe to the notion that

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#917 Feb 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, I just imagined them the same way I imagined NIST didn't follow the scientific method
You mean your scientific method of determining the twoff through poker skills.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#918 Feb 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
My short analysis of 9-11
I'm not an architect or a structural engineer or a physicist but as a machinist I have machined various types of metal for 25 years, I feel I know something about metals.
In my opinion it is totally impossible for a plane (made out of aluminum sheeting) to KNIFE through massive steel beams in-cased in concrete.
WOW, So a guy that uses a grinder and drill is a physics expert?
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#919 Feb 4, 2013
9/11 Commission + NIST + science = mutually exclusive
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#920 Feb 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, I just imagined them the same way I imagined NIST didn't follow the scientific method and check for any explosive residue in its fraudulent investigation that started after most of the evidence had already been destroyed that NIST officials themselves testified before congress that they actually needed to keep.
My imagination also has concocted evidence of firefighters stating they saw molten steel, heard explosions, and NIST disregarded this completely because they claim to have visually inspected it at various landfills before it was destroyed without being documented. I only imagine thats called destruction of a crime scene.
http://youtu.be/nwgkA5rlwKI
I just imagined NIST did not follow the guidelines of NFPA 921, that states any investigation should investigate accelerants and incendiaries if the results were global collapse. But I only imagined NIST disregarded this completely and I must be paranoid for wanting them to adhere to it.
Boy, that imagination of mine sure does play tricks on scientists that generate peer reviewed papers such as this that found thermate in the recovered dust from WTC that NIST itself refused to even check for.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/arti...
Yes, Im just a crazy guy who imagines this research found energetic material that did not dissolve in solvents the way paint would.
I only imagined Building 7 falling at free fall acceleration during it's initial collapse by trusting my own eyes when watching the roof fall straight down.
http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I
Yep, my mind just imagines these things and cant be as sane and smart as you who thinks regardless of what evidence is found it can't be true because your ideology and religion of state superiority indoctrinates you to believe it's impossible, regardless of facts.
But I imagine you'll keep worshipping your "State God" by believing with blind faith while hypocritically condemning others "religions".
Im only imagining that claiming illegal
controlled demolitions require permits is the most ignorant thing ever claimed.
I am only imagining idiots laugh a lot, as I imagine you will always prescribe to the notion that
Insults Are Easier
My my Insults, you have a Very active imagination !

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Gods r Delusions ... 653,740
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Peter Ross 63,502
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 10 min Peter Ross 445,462
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 38 min Classic 3,799
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 51 min RiccardoFire 45,230
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr ffj 973,686
Just chatt 1 hr Alone 17
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Pegasus 281,845
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Steve III 618,728
More from around the web