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

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#942 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. 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.
Absolutes hogwash.

p=mv destroys your gibberish.
guise faux

San Anselmo, CA

#943 Feb 4, 2013
Elevators LOOKED like they were on fire. But there was no smoke coming out of them.

Was it a fire or an explosion ? With unreliable testimony like that, we'll never know.
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#944 Feb 4, 2013
guise faux wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad they never positively identified any serial numbered parts of alleged Flight 93 wreckage. Or for that matter any of the alleged aircraft involved in 9/11.
Could easily have been planted.
Sorry Charlie your claim is totally unproven.
Besides Cheney says he gave the order to SHOOT down Flight 93. It never crashed.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#945 Feb 4, 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
Right. And rather than "imploding" WTC 7 at the most opportune time of WTC 1's collapse, they waited until late afternoon when the film crews were set up so the coverage could be scrutinized by scientifically illiterate dolts on the Internet like you and "Bill" who no doubt believed every dumb conspiracy based on mythology before Sept 11 2001 as well.

Logic, how the hell does it work eh Ignorance is Bliss?

Steel plating.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#946 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
PMI

Positive material identification.

Funny how anything you haven't been spoon fed by your charlatan masters is ignored.

If no evidence for explosives or incendiaries is found, there's zero reason to test specifically for it...particularly when nothing was found during PMI testing.

Science is so hard when,

[Your] Ignorance is [Your] Bliss
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#947 Feb 4, 2013
guise faux wrote:
<quoted text>
Could easily have been planted.
Any evidence to prove that or do you just work on mindless speculation?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#948 Feb 4, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides Cheney says he gave the order to SHOOT down Flight 93. It never crashed.
Well, If you think that THEN WE WERE TRYING TO STOP 9/11? Shees, are you debating yourself?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#949 Feb 4, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>You mean your scientific method of determining the twoff through poker skills.
The same scientific method he used to conclude that plated steel has a lower melting point than unplated steel.

Now THAT'S funny!

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#950 Feb 4, 2013
people don't get burned in explosions Stupido
guise faux wrote:
Elevators LOOKED like they were on fire. But there was no smoke coming out of them.
Was it a fire or an explosion ? With unreliable testimony like that, we'll never know.

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#951 Feb 4, 2013
and I though you guys said NORAD stood down on 9/11 .... WTF !?!?!?!?!
Guise Faux wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides Cheney says he gave the order to SHOOT down Flight 93. It never crashed.

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#952 Feb 4, 2013
and of course you ignored FF Blaich's comments

"A guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp"
guise faux wrote:
Elevators LOOKED like they were on fire. But there was no smoke coming out of them.
Was it a fire or an explosion ? With unreliable testimony like that, we'll never know.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#953 Feb 4, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
This video tracks the motion of the NW corner of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001. For a period of ~2.5 seconds.

This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario.

This period of freefall is solid evidence that explosives had to be used to bring the building down.

In the final draft for public comment (August 2008) NIST denied that WTC7 fell at freefall.

In the final report in Nov 2008 they reversed themselves and admitted freefall, but denied its obvious significance.
-----
[The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements.

I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page: http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-F... . I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.]
----------
My new DVD: "9/11 Analysis" is now out. Go to:

http://www.911speakout.org .

This video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rVCDpL4Ax7IXX&feature=you tu.be
So if its an impossibility under any circumstance the building must still be standing right?

Oh elevator boy-sheep 29 pilots glop!

Do you really think you cam discern good science from bad yet not be able to determine sealed shafts would render elevators inoperable?

Now THAT'S funny!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#954 Feb 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Ok "Rick" the chic, you cant tell the difference between a controlled demolition and an accidental collapse, so you will always believe anything.
Sweetie, just because I'm not buying your claim that in looking at the collapse of the towers at the world trade center, I have to be watching a controlled demolition, is not proof that I do not know the differences between a controlled demolition and natural collapse. I have yet to see any credible evidence of a controlled demolition even being necessary under the circumstances, let alone of them being planned and actually executed by ANYONE.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
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.
The only "science" you have offered me is the claim of some dude with a BS degree that he too found the existence of a still only theorized to exist nanothermitic material in dust from the WTC in an unpublished work (which he is all too happy to be raising money on his website to actually "confirm") and x-rays of microscopic iron spheres that you believe to indicate something that you didn't bother to tell me.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
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
Sweetie, I may not have an advanced degree in the physical sciences, but what I do have is an advanced degree in communications and rhetoric, with an emphasis in argument and debate. Don't think that your posts growing more and more devoid of all fact, logic and reason is going by unnoticed.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#955 Feb 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
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.
They don't seem to want to realize just how little sense that individual aspects of this yet to be clearly explained "plot" make when you actually give it some thought. To what end was Tower 7 brought down, if it was? It wasn't really seen as a part of the symbol that was the World Trade Center, it had been known since it was built as the Salomon Brothers building, across the street from the Trade Center. If it was to bury evidence of the supposed plot and put the kibosh on those that might want to uncover their nefarious plans, that theory goes out the window when they didn't kill anybody in the building and if that evidence wasn't located in one of the areas of the building that burst into flame with the initial impact, they had more than enough time to get it out of the building. What other possible reason exists for a controlled demolition of a building that if it hadn't collapsed, wouldn't likely have been salvageable anyways?
Test

Lockhart, TX

#956 Feb 4, 2013
Test
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#957 Feb 4, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, If you think that THEN WE WERE TRYING TO STOP 9/11? Shees, are you debating yourself?
No one seems to know the real purpose of Flight 93. Some theorize it was supposed to crash into WTC 7.

Just like building 7, Cheney had to destroy evidence that would incriminate him.

It's obvious "we" (the USA) never once tried to stop 9/11.

The US military defenses were "ordered" to be so busy with other tasks they seemed to be unable to do the job they train for every day. They were responsible for threats to the entire country coming from any direction, and they failed miserably in every conceivable way.

Gee I wonder why on this particular day. What a stunning coincidence.
Charlie Sheen

Liberty, KY

#958 Feb 4, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
<quoted text>
No one seems to know the real purpose of Flight 93. Some theorize it was supposed to crash into WTC 7.
A high-ranking al Qaeda detainee told investigators the intended target of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, was the White House.

Government sources said Abu Zubaydah, now in U.S. custody, is believed to be the source of the information. He is being interrogated by U.S. officials at an undisclosed location. Investigators have linked Zubaydah directly to hijackers on board Flight 93.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-509535...
Charlie Sheen

Liberty, KY

#959 Feb 4, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like building 7, Cheney had to destroy evidence that would incriminate him.
Any evidence of this? Of course not.
Guise Faux wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious "we" (the USA) never once tried to stop 9/11.
Then why were two F16 scrambled to chase 11 soon after the reported hijacking and why did you say that there was a shoot down order on Flight 93?

Thy to stay constant.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#960 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
The buildings fell down due to the airplanes impacting them. For example, in this video you can clearly see the tower tilt into the hole cut by the aircraft.



This site explains many details nf WTC7 including testimony of firemen who were there.

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#961 Feb 4, 2013
Here you can watch the building tilt into the hole cut by the aircraft in slow motion.

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
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 8 min Paul McCartney is... 162
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 10 min RIP 42,619
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 54 min Robert F 989,942
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 57 min Paul McCartney is... 669
Ford F-150 Illuminated Emblems 57 min jben8589 1
Why it's high time to get rid of billionaires 5 hr Johnny 66
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr KENTUCKY CATHOLIC 690,653
More from around the web