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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1006 Feb 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The illusions of 9/11 are still with us today, being perpetrated by these "honorable" people who claim to believe the official story and are willing to debate it.
Well, perhaps not.
What we see are ideologs intent on smearing anyone they can't reasonably disagree with. People who lack character who label people as crazy when they themselves are the ones who act mental by endlessly repeating themselves.
Can't explain why steel was melted and NIST ignored it? Repeat your own mischaracterization of steel plating and falsely claim others lie.
Can't explain why the building fell at free fall? Say free fall isn't speed, or compare it to a tree falling after it's cut, which isn't free fall at all. Then laugh as you ignorantly claim controlled demolition is impossible, because nobody applied for a permit.
Then when you cant smear anymore and your insults are even starting to bore yourself, ask for proof knowing the evidence was quickly destroyed, forgetting in your own feeble mind that the cover-up itself is the evidence of the crime.
Because for those who operate outside of truth,
Insults Are Easier
There was no free falling.

NEXT

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Didsbury, Canada

#1007 Feb 5, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The illusions of 9/11 are still with us today, being perpetrated by these "honorable" people who claim to believe the official story and are willing to debate it.
Well, perhaps not.
What we see are ideologs intent on smearing anyone they can't reasonably disagree with. People who lack character who label people as crazy when they themselves are the ones who act mental by endlessly repeating themselves.
Can't explain why steel was melted and NIST ignored it? Repeat your own mischaracterization of steel plating and falsely claim others lie.
Can't explain why the building fell at free fall? Say free fall isn't speed, or compare it to a tree falling after it's cut, which isn't free fall at all. Then laugh as you ignorantly claim controlled demolition is impossible, because nobody applied for a permit.
Then when you cant smear anymore and your insults are even starting to bore yourself, ask for proof knowing the evidence was quickly destroyed, forgetting in your own feeble mind that the cover-up itself is the evidence of the crime.
Because for those who operate outside of truth,
Insults Are Easier
You'd almost think you'd be smart enough to not repeat lies and mistruths....particularly when those lies you told are still available for quotation.
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, go back and address my posts about "molten steel".
Particularly the ones citing past news stories covering other fires which also mentioned molten steel.
Funny how you refuse to address on topic posts which destroy your delusions then whine about people being off topic eh vulgar-tommy?
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Except those stories reference steel that is plated and an office fire melted the plating.
And those building didn't symmetrically completely collapse and at no point did they free fall.
And NIST didn't provide a cover up for those investigations as it did for 9/11.
But debunking is hard and
Insults Are Easier
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...

Here's a couple of the news items I posted,

http://news.google.com/newspapers...

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...

That was among many others that prove reports of molten steel in fires is quite common. It's simply scientifically uninteresting.

I know you were never given a meme to mindlessly repeat in this situation, so falling back on your tired old lies is really all you have...poor lil fella!

And free fall has been discussed to death and explained. Your inability to carry the conversation beyond your monk like chants spoon fed to you by charlatans on the internet isn't my problem.

The collapse of the east and west penthouses is proof that the load bearing assemblies inside wtc 7 had been compromised to such a extent that there was no longer any support for them. Free fall of about 80'-100' followed but was then met with resistance resulting in a fall time about 40% longer than free fall.

Asserting and re-asserting this is impossible with absolutely zero qualification other than your own confirmation bias pretty much proves who the real ideologue is lil fella.

And no one that I've seen has stated cd is impossible, that's justr another lie you choose to tell in your inept efforts to squirm out of supporting your ignorant beliefs.

And of course you do this solely because,

[Your] Ignorance is [Your] Bliss

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Didsbury, Canada

#1008 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no free falling.
NEXT
WTC 7 did free fall for about 2.5 seconds.

What the idiots don't bother to point out is that it didn't free fall for the entire collapse and that the collapse time was around 40% longer than free fall.

They continuously try to misrepresent by implying the entire collapse was at free fall.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#1009 Feb 5, 2013
and what Twoofer ever came up with the formula that CD = Free Fall?
they should go time the collapse of the Land Mark Tower it's nowhere near free fall
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>WTC 7 did free fall for about 2.5 seconds.
What the idiots don't bother to point out is that it didn't free fall for the entire collapse and that the collapse time was around 40% longer than free fall.
They continuously try to misrepresent by implying the entire collapse was at free fall.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1010 Feb 5, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The illusions of 9/11 are still with us today
... in the form of plate steel and 20 pilots who can't pilot.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#1011 Feb 5, 2013
every troll here but you wrote:
NO! You are an idiot for even asking!
Deluded Americans. Dumbed down with your tap water :p

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#1012 Feb 5, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
<quoted text>and what Twoofer ever came up with the formula that CD = Free Fall?
they should go time the collapse of the Land Mark Tower it's nowhere near free fall
Exactly!

And precisely what I was getting at in a previous post when I challenged Ignorance and "Bill" to support their delusions with science in order to meet their own half baked standard.

The assertion that NIST didn't follow scientific methodology when their report is based on generations of fire scientists and materials engineers accumulated data and knowledge is fallacious at best.

It's hard to not laugh at their misrepresentations of testing done by NIST as well. The fire tests done on truss assemblies were done not to simulate conditions at the time of failure, since so many variables were unknown, but to accumulate KNOWN variables in order to solve for unknown variables.

Now, here twoof stands with their collective thumb up their collective azz, making assertions that if true, could be easily supported via the scientific method they fallaciously claim NIST failed to adhere to.

Their masters won't do so it so I guess it's up to the sheep.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1013 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
And precisely what I was getting at in a previous post when I challenged Ignorance and "Bill" to support their delusions with science in order to meet their own half baked standard.
The assertion that NIST didn't follow scientific methodology when their report is based on generations of fire scientists and materials engineers accumulated data and knowledge is fallacious at best.
It's hard to not laugh at their misrepresentations of testing done by NIST as well. The fire tests done on truss assemblies were done not to simulate conditions at the time of failure, since so many variables were unknown, but to accumulate KNOWN variables in order to solve for unknown variables.
Now, here twoof stands with their collective thumb up their collective azz, making assertions that if true, could be easily supported via the scientific method they fallaciously claim NIST failed to adhere to.
Their masters won't do so it so I guess it's up to the sheep.
Somebody call me?

Child, when NIST can submit a draft report on WTC-7 with such an egregious "error" as assumed constant speed of a collapsing building, and then feign "ignorance" (see Dr. Shyam "can-you-repeat-the-quest ion" Sunder), you know that there is something amiss.

Here is Exhibit A - the "investigators" squirming under the light of rare public scrutiny:


Exhibit B - more of the same:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Speaking of molten metal, Porkie, did I just read in one of your recent posts that the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero was "scientifically uninteresting?" (?!?)

Well, that's an interesting assessment, and I'm curious as to why Dr. John "pissed-his-pants" Gross wouldn't just say that, rather than flatly denying the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero -- and witnesses of molten metal, or abundant evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC dust.

I'll give you this, Porkie. You are more creative then your fellow propagandists on this thread.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1014 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of molten metal, Porkie, did I just read in one of your recent posts that the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero was "scientifically uninteresting?" (?!?)
What would it prove? Explain how even if it existed it would point to an "inside job".

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1015 Feb 5, 2013
so basically your evidence of an inisde job is PhD Engineers who are not comfortable with public speaking !?!?!?!?

I'll give you this Bill, You are just as stupid as your fellow Twoofers on this thread
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody call me?
Child, when NIST can submit a draft report on WTC-7 with such an egregious "error" as assumed constant speed of a collapsing building, and then feign "ignorance" (see Dr. Shyam "can-you-repeat-the-quest ion" Sunder), you know that there is something amiss.
Here is Exhibit A - the "investigators" squirming under the light of rare public scrutiny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mtRlOVymmz8XX
Exhibit B - more of the same:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Speaking of molten metal, Porkie, did I just read in one of your recent posts that the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero was "scientifically uninteresting?" (?!?)
Well, that's an interesting assessment, and I'm curious as to why Dr. John "pissed-his-pants" Gross wouldn't just say that, rather than flatly denying the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero -- and witnesses of molten metal, or abundant evidence of extremely high temperatures in the WTC dust.
I'll give you this, Porkie. You are more creative then your fellow propagandists on this thread.

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1016 Feb 5, 2013
why are you hiding your location Sock Puppet !?!???!!?
Anya and the cobra wrote:
<quoted text>
Deluded Americans. Dumbed down with your tap water :p
Bill

Austin, TX

#1017 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
so basically your evidence of an inisde job is PhD Engineers who are not comfortable with public speaking !?!?!?!?
I'll give you this Bill, You are just as stupid as your fellow Twoofers on this thread
<quoted text>
You are a tedious spambot, Radekt.

My evidence of blatant FRAUD on the part of government "investigators" is, among other things, these PhD engineers who are feigning alarming "ignorance" about basic concepts in physics and making claims that clearly aren't true. Their discomfort isn't so much the public speaking as the public *lying*. Transparent *lying*. And they should be prosecuted for fraud, because no PhD engineer is that stupid...

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1018 Feb 5, 2013
and YET, every engineering orginization in the US supports thier findings !?!?!?!?!?
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a tedious spambot, Radekt.
My evidence of blatant FRAUD on the part of government "investigators" is, among other things, these PhD engineers who are feigning alarming "ignorance" about basic concepts in physics and making claims that clearly aren't true. Their discomfort isn't so much the public speaking as the public *lying*. Transparent *lying*. And they should be prosecuted for fraud, because no PhD engineer is that stupid...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1019 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of molten metal, Porkie, did I just read in one of your recent posts that the presence of molten metal at Ground Zero was "scientifically uninteresting?" (?!?)
What would it prove? Explain how even if it existed it would point to an "inside job".
Bill

Austin, TX

#1020 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
What would it prove? Explain how even if it existed it would point to an "inside job".
The scientific method involves COLLECTING DATA FIRST. We can talk about analysis and conclusions later.

NIST can't know what something will "prove" or not until it chooses to look at it. The fact that they chose to ignore all kinds of very relevant data (molten metal, dust and residues, steel and other actual building components, videos, witness testimony, etc.) is evidence of pervasive fraud. And fraud on the part of this government agency indicates involvement in the cover-up of a false-flag operation -- which is quite evident when one takes into consideration all the data that NIST purposefully ignored and settled on computer-generated fictions and narrowly focused "investigations."
Bill

Austin, TX

#1021 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
and YET, every engineering orginization in the US supports thier findings !?!?!?!?!?
<quoted text>
First of all, this is false, and even if it was true, an organization's "endorsement" of a fraudulent investigation doesn't make it okay.

The fraud is clear as day, bud. Cat's out of the bag!

And here is Dr. James Quintiere, former Fire Science Division Chief of NIST, pointing out some of the critical flaws in the NIST report in Congressional testimony.(Does this sound like an endorsement to you)?

DR. QUINTIERE: "Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?"

Once more for the back row....

"A CAREFUL READIN OF THE NIST REPORT SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TEMPERATURES THEY PREDICT AS NECESSARY FOR FAILURE ARE CORROBORATED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE LITTLE STEEL DEBRIS THEY HAVE."

-----

Dr. Quintiere has more damning testimony at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/...

.
Charlie Sheen

Science Hill, KY

#1022 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific method involves COLLECTING DATA FIRST. We can talk about analysis and conclusions later.
lmfao! You mean relevant data, how is molten steel found months latter relevant to evidence of an inside job?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1023 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>WTC 7 did free fall for about 2.5 seconds.
What the idiots don't bother to point out is that it didn't free fall for the entire collapse and that the collapse time was around 40% longer than free fall.
They continuously try to misrepresent by implying the entire collapse was at free fall.
Of course. Besides, you can count the seconds on YouTube to be around 18 seconds start to finish.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1024 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
What would it prove? Explain how even if it existed it would point to an "inside job".
Give him a break, he is gazing into his crystal ball again.
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1025 Feb 5, 2013
So sorry charlie agrees there was molten steel found months later but doesn't find it relevant as evidence of temps higher than could be generated by a gravity only collapse.

Did you ever work for NIST as an advisor perhaps?

You probably COULD get a job there, what with the way you think and all!

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min Squirrel Pot Pie 15,659
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Gabriel 983,079
gay guys for fun on skype (Jan '13) 7 min Dave Matthews 4
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Anthony MN 683,628
USA Today, says Jehovah's Witnesses is the fast... (Feb '08) 45 min BORN AGAIN PAST JW 63
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 55 min REBUKING EVIL 19
Play "End of the Word" ..... Part 2 (Dec '16) 1 hr andet1987 85
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr harsh rebukes evi... 619,688
More from around the web