Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,791 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

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!
Pesley Wipes

Monroe, LA

#1026 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
lmfao! You mean relevant data, how is molten steel found months latter relevant to evidence of an inside job?
Why don't you stop "cutting" and "editing" people's posts, you POS.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1027 Feb 5, 2013
thats right Numb Skull because 110 stories of compressed office material and debris doesn't create a giagantic blast furnace ..... OH NO, wait it was really thermite that magically burns for months and months

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!
Guise Faux wrote:
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!

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1028 Feb 5, 2013
why don't you stop whining like a little bitch !?!?!?!?
Pesley Wipes wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you stop "cutting" and "editing" people's posts, you POS.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1029 Feb 5, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
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.
Gravity only, Ahh fire, structural damage and gravity.

You folks sure avoid the question, motlen steel months latter is evidence of what, thermite, nukes, space based death stars, Jews, the Easter bunny or have you folks just not thought this through at all.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1030 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".
That's above is an admission, LMFAO, more lies for team twoof!
Guise Faux wrote:
So sorry charlie agrees there was molten steel found months later
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#1031 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
why don't you stop whining like a little bitch !?!?!?!?
<quoted text>
Good use of punctuation marks, shill!!!!!!!!

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1032 Feb 5, 2013
Orginizations that have come out in support of the NIST reports

American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Safety Engineers
Architectural Engineering Institute
Institution of Civil Engineers
Institution of Fire Engineers
ASM International
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Society of Structural Engineers
National Society of Fire Safety Engieers
CTBUH

but we know, THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT !?!?!?!?!?
Bill wrote:
<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/...
.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1033 Feb 5, 2013
poor use of brain neurons, Moron !~!~!~!~!~
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Good use of punctuation marks, shill!!!!!!!!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1034 Feb 5, 2013
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.
You seem to have no problem linking to silly twoofer videos, yet don't provide a citation to support your claim "Bill".

Why is that?

Because someone told you that on a twoofer website and you choose to believe it?

Yup.
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>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...
Uhhh...right "Bill", don't forget your meds k?

Maybe take extra, just ignore the doctors instructions.
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?" (?!?)
Scientifically uninteresting because the reality is that reports of molten steel are quite common in fires "Bill".

Perhaps you could be the very first twoofcultist to present a possible mechanism for molten steel months later "Bill".

Hint: explosives and/or incendiaries aren't the right answer.
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Do you really think the head of a large investigation goes home and watches twoofer videos "Bill"?

Really?

I'd rather he focus on science, not paranoia driven idiocy.

And your claims are unsupported "Bill".
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>I'll give you this, Porkie. You are more creative then your fellow propagandists on this thread.
I can't give you any credit "Bill", you're the same old stupid wrapped in a package under a different name.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1035 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
<quoted text>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
Amazing eh?

And they wonder why people laugh at them!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1036 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Give him a break, he is gazing into his crystal ball again.
And apply his rigid scientific method taught in poker school.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1037 Feb 5, 2013
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...
Funny "Bill", I didn't notice any evidence.

Evidunce yes, evidence no.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1038 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>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."
Another twoofer who, 11+ years after the fact, still doesn't know what NIST's mandate was.

And poor, poor "Bill", the steel was visually inspected by experts. I know, you'd prefer loons chasing ghosts in the machine do such a thing but this is the real world "Bill".

A world where loons with paranoid visions of nefarious deeds aren't in control.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1039 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<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/...

.
Wow, professionals who disagree with each other.

Now where does the fraud part come into play "Bill"?

Oh and Dr. Quintiere thinks twoof is stupid too so ya might wanna find another citation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1040 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
And apply his rigid scientific method taught in poker school.
That's about it. These guys can't even put two and two together. For example, consider the following.

1. False flag fallacy. If the planes were to fly by wire so to speak, how could a nefarious group have access to the planes to make such complicated modifications unnoticed? The other problem is such modifications are impossible to do unobtrusively? That leaves us with substitute aircraft. How could such aircraft fly unnoticed by ATC? If so, where did the actual aircraft and passengers go if not to the targets. The bottom line is both are impossible.

2. Buildings demolition fallacy. It is clear that the towers fell from the top first as evidenced by the toppling tower. If the buildings were to be rigged, how could it be known where the planes would hit? Again, this is impossible.

3. WTC7 fallacy. Who could rig the building in advance unobtrusively? Why would it be necessary? Why would Larry Silvestein destroy his future incomes to the tune of several billion dollars. Does any of this make sense?

Twoofers are fools.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1041 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, professionals who disagree with each other.
Now where does the fraud part come into play "Bill"?
Oh and Dr. Quintiere thinks twoof is stupid too so ya might wanna find another citation.
What about the designer of the Trade Towers who said the Towers could withstand a 707 crashing into them? Looks like he was proven to be wrong and perished in one of the two towers. So much for the opinion of Architects and Engineers.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1042 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the designer of the Trade Towers who said the Towers could withstand a 707 crashing into them? Looks like he was proven to be wrong and perished in one of the two towers. So much for the opinion of Architects and Engineers.
And the one that actually wrote the paper said fire was never taken into account.

There were only two problems.

The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed.''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.

The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

One initial answer to this came from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC. According to his account the assumption was that the collision would be with a relatively slow-moving 707, lost in fog:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.h...

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1043 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>Of course. Besides, you can count the seconds on YouTube to be around 18 seconds start to finish.
Absolutely.

And the claim that any portion of free fall can only be explained by the use of explosives and/or incendiaries is unsupported by nothing other than bare assertion of a scientifically illiterate simpletons like "Bill" and Ignorance is Bliss.

The reality is that all that's required for free fall is a loss of structural support to a point where resistance becomes negligible.

Claiming nefarious means is the only avenue for this loss based solely on...well nothing just won't cut it outside of twooferdumb.

Note too that no twoofer has presented their evidence for known cd's exhibiting periods of free fall.

Yet they fallaciously whine about NIST not adhering to scientific methodology.

Oh the hypocrisy!

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) 1 hr Anthony MN 585,798
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RADEKT 270,837
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Good-Evil 830,421
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. (Jul '14) 1 hr Ricky F 166
Getting even with a former bully 1 hr British women 3
Friends Mom Naked (With Pics) (Jan '13) 1 hr Yes I would 4
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr truthandcommonsense 3,667
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Epiphany2 611,946
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 8 hr Paul Porter1 99,270
More from around the web