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

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#1044 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.
It was Leslie Robertson who said the design incorporated a possible low velocity impact from a 707 and as Charlie mentioned, it excluded calculations for fire damage.

Frank Demartini was the person who said the towers could withstand multiple air strikes without falling.

Sadly, he passed away in the collapses and twoofers have been abusing his memory ever since.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1045 Feb 5, 2013
well technically the Towers did withstand the plane impacts ..... what they couldn't withstand was the fires that followed
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.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1046 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Well, Porkie, it is true that all that is required for free fall is a loss of structural support -- ALL structural support. But the thing that you purposefully neglect to mention is that the *ENTIRE* roof-line of WTC-7 was suddenly in free-fall. This isn't a claim of the "twoof" movement, it's a fact that anyone can verify by looking at the videos. Watch the roof-line and observe how the corners and the points in between the corners are all falling simultaneously! Physics teacher David Chandler measured the rate of the descent of a corner and he got free-fall acceleration. NIST measured a different point (after the "official investigators" were shamed at the technical briefing of August 2008 into conceding acceleration rather than the "assumed constant speed" that they claimed on page 40 of the draft report), and you know what they got? Free-fall scceleration.


Another angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Another angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

But here's the problem with SYMMETRIC free-fall acceleration of the ENTIRE roofline: WTC-7 is a very large, structurally redundant building. The odds of the having a symmetric, free-fall descent of the roof-line for any reason other than very well planned demolition are virtually zero. But don't take my word for it. Here is Dr. Shyam "can-you-repeat-the-quest ion" Sunder himself, explaining why free-fall in an allegedly "progressive structural failure" is a bit problematic:

Dr. Shyam "Sham" Sunder: "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it ... there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous." (August 26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing, before NIST was forced to admit free-fall)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Watch the whole video, for those of you who aren't clear on these concepts yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch... ;

----

The other thing you neglect to mention is that pyrotechnics and residues **HAVE BEEN FOUND**(!!, although of course NIST hasn't confirmed the find because NIST refused to look, even after independent investigators brought their findings to NIST's attention.

See http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos... for a decent summary of the various findings by various groups.

Here is Dr. Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science and other awards, explaining the scientific method in general and then specifically fraud in the NIST "Report":

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1047 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
well technically the Towers did withstand the plane impacts ..... what they couldn't withstand was the fires that followed
<quoted text>
Yep, the buildings withstood the impacts, as they were designed to. Unfortunately, the buildings weren't designed to withstand well-planned pyrotechnic attack, as is evident here:

North Tower:

South Tower: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

And I believe we are all familiar now with the symmetric, quick demise of WTC-7 (a building that wasn't hit by a plane).
Bill

Austin, TX

#1048 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious about your name, "WasteWater." What motivated that particular choice?(Are you and "YellowPissReality" in the same club?)

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1049 Feb 5, 2013
NIST VERY CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE 2.5 SECONDS OF NEAR FREE FALL

Why don't you read the report and stop sounding like an Ignoramus when you post
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Porkie, it is true that all that is required for free fall is a loss of structural support -- ALL structural support. But the thing that you purposefully neglect to mention is that the *ENTIRE* roof-line of WTC-7 was suddenly in free-fall. This isn't a claim of the "twoof" movement, it's a fact that anyone can verify by looking at the videos. Watch the roof-line and observe how the corners and the points in between the corners are all falling simultaneously! Physics teacher David Chandler measured the rate of the descent of a corner and he got free-fall acceleration. NIST measured a different point (after the "official investigators" were shamed at the technical briefing of August 2008 into conceding acceleration rather than the "assumed constant speed" that they claimed on page 40 of the draft report), and you know what they got? Free-fall scceleration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
Another angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Another angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
But here's the problem with SYMMETRIC free-fall acceleration of the ENTIRE roofline: WTC-7 is a very large, structurally redundant building. The odds of the having a symmetric, free-fall descent of the roof-line for any reason other than very well planned demolition are virtually zero. But don't take my word for it. Here is Dr. Shyam "can-you-repeat-the-quest ion" Sunder himself, explaining why free-fall in an allegedly "progressive structural failure" is a bit problematic:
Dr. Shyam "Sham" Sunder: "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it ... there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous." (August 26, 2008 NIST Technical Briefing, before NIST was forced to admit free-fall)
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Watch the whole video, for those of you who aren't clear on these concepts yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch... ;
----
The other thing you neglect to mention is that pyrotechnics and residues **HAVE BEEN FOUND**(!!, although of course NIST hasn't confirmed the find because NIST refused to look, even after independent investigators brought their findings to NIST's attention.
See http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos... for a decent summary of the various findings by various groups.
Here is Dr. Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science and other awards, explaining the scientific method in general and then specifically fraud in the NIST "Report":
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1051 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Leslie Robertson who said the design incorporated a possible low velocity impact from a 707 and as Charlie mentioned, it excluded calculations for fire damage.
Frank Demartini was the person who said the towers could withstand multiple air strikes without falling.
Sadly, he passed away in the collapses and twoofers have been abusing his memory ever since.
WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini, in his own words:


----------

WTC Lead Structural Engineer John Skilling, in his own words:

SKILLING: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,... The building structure would still be there."

----------

A white paper from February 1964 on the Towers' design parameters:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707óDC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

See http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/design.ht... for more on design parameters.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1052 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
NIST VERY CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE 2.5 SECONDS OF NEAR FREE FALL
Why don't you read the report and stop sounding like an Ignoramus when you post
<quoted text>
Please provide a quote of that "clear explanation," spambot.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1053 Feb 5, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
NIST VERY CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE 2.5 SECONDS OF NEAR FREE FALL
Why don't you read the report and stop sounding like an Ignoramus when you post
<quoted text>
Here is Dr. Sunder, in a rare moment of honesty, in a 2006 interview in New York Magazine:

"We [NIST "investigators"] are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.Ö But truthfully, I donít really know. Weíve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7."

----------

I feel that now is a good time to make it clear that Shyam Sunder, 9/11 co-conspirator and accessory to mass murder, should not be confused with Shyam SundAr, talented musician:



.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1054 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sO1JxpVb2eUXX
----------
Yawn, Hearsay, They are quoting the study and paper Robertson both conducted and wrote.

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 ...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1055 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
But here's the problem with SYMMETRIC free-fall acceleration of the ENTIRE roofline: WTC-7 is a very large, structurally redundant building. The odds of the having a symmetric, free-fall descent of the roof-line for any reason other than very well planned demolition are virtually zero.
Not symmetric, not free-fall.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires.The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

18 Seconds!

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1056 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
WTC-7 (a building that wasn't hit by a plane).
Yawn, No just a huge chunk of the North Tower.

Charlie Sheen

San Anselmo, CA

#1057 Feb 5, 2013
Balderdash, completely preposterous.

Bill

Austin, TX

#1058 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn, Hearsay, They are quoting the study and paper Robertson both conducted and wrote.
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 ...
I find it difficult to believe that anyone as bright as the designers of the World Trade Center Towers, tasked with planning for contingencies (hurricane-force winds, plane impacts, etc.) would neglect to take into account fuel fires in an airplane impact.

In any case, the fact remains that the Towers DID survive the plane impacts and subsequent fires. It was the tens of tons (conservatively) of pyrotechnic material, still evident in dust samples, that destroyed them.

http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos...

And video evidence:


.
Charlie Sheen

San Anselmo, CA

#1059 Feb 5, 2013
Here is what NIST really said

NIST's Explanation of WTC 7's Collapse

In April of 2005, The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) began releasing preliminary reports on WTC 7's collapse. It revealed its theory of the collapse in the form of a slide presentation named: Project 6: WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis. The slides excerpted here are from a revised version of that presentation released in June of 2005.

The earlier official report by FEMA, the World Trade Center Building Performance Study had blamed the collapse entirely on fires, raising the obvious question of how fires could have induced the total collapse of this steel-framed building when fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed building. NIST's WTC 7 inquiry appears to have been motivated by the need to supply additional causative factors to make the collapse of this building without controlled demolition seem more plausible. Hence, it created a scenario of severe structural damage that cannot be easily confirmed or refuted.

NIST would have us believe that the failure of a single column near ground level led, first to a vertical progression of failures, causing the collapse of the East Penthouse, followed by a horizontal progression of failures leading the collapse of all of the building's 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse.

In other words, NIST asserts that WTC 7 collapsed like a house of cards.

http://www.wtc7.net/nistreport.html

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Carstairs, Canada

#1060 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Porkie, it is true that all that is required for free fall is a loss of structural support -- ALL structural support. But the thing that you purposefully neglect to mention is that the *ENTIRE* roof-line of WTC-7 was suddenly in free-fall. This isn't a claim of the "twoof" movement, it's a fact that anyone can verify by looking at the videos. Watch the roof-line and observe how the corners and the points in between the corners are all falling simultaneously! Physics teacher David Chandler measured the rate of the descent of a corner and he got free-fall acceleration. NIST measured a different point (after the "official investigators" were shamed at the technical briefing of August 2008 into conceding acceleration rather than the "assumed constant speed" that they claimed on page 40 of the draft report), and you know what they got? Free-fall scceleration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
Another angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Another angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
<Snipped for brevity>----
The other thing you neglect to mention is that pyrotechnics and residues **HAVE BEEN FOUND**(!!, although of course NIST hasn't confirmed the find because NIST refused to look, even after independent investigators brought their findings to NIST's attention.
See http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos... for a decent summary of the various findings by various groups.
Here is Dr. Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science and other awards, explaining the scientific method in general and then specifically fraud in the NIST "Report":
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
.
Oh "Bill"!

More repitition of the same old stupid twoofer meme's yet still zero qualification for your assertions.

No one's arguing there wasn't a loss of structural support. No minds like yourself claim, without qualification, what the only vehicle for such a thing is the use of bombs and/or incendiaries.

NIST was not "shamed" and to date the only people who accept what twoofers mindlessly believe are other twoofers. The scientific communities ignore you...just like they ignore creationists and Bigfoot researchers.

You still can't present an actual citation for your claim, which is most likely yet another misrepresentation, that NIST claimed constant speed during free fall and given that even a no mind like yourself understands that a positive acceleration will yield increasing velocity, I highly doubt a group of knowledgable and respected (unlike your average twoofer) scientist would make such a claim.

You keep claiming symmetrical is synonymous with controlled demolition but I guess your charlatan masters never told you why since you have yet to qualify it.

The collapse of the penthouses shows that support beneath them had failed and the lapse of time between that and the free fall portion most likely included more structural failures inside the building. Claiming bombs and/or incendiaries are the only explanation for this is absurd and a good part of why your ilk are either ignored or laughed at.

And no residues of pyrotechnics were ever found "Bill". That's just another load of bs you bought into because science and reality are just too hard for you to understand.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Carstairs, Canada

#1061 Feb 5, 2013
BTW "Bill", still waiting for you to present your data (from the many known cd's on video) that proves free fall is intrinsic to controlled demolition.

You know, the scientific method that twoofers ignore when it comes to supporting their hogwash.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Carstairs, Canada

#1062 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, the buildings withstood the impacts, as they were designed to. Unfortunately, the buildings weren't designed to withstand well-planned pyrotechnic attack, as is evident here:
North Tower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =hSApOavkHg8XX
South Tower: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
And I believe we are all familiar now with the symmetric, quick demise of WTC-7 (a building that wasn't hit by a plane).
You keep claiming the collapses were symmetrical yet there was massive damage to all the building around them "Bill".

Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Bill

Austin, TX

#1063 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not symmetric, not free-fall.
This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires.The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
18 Seconds!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =G86yuunRBIwXX
NIST **CONCEDED** free-fall of the *ROOF-LINE* after a bit of public shaming. Why are you still playing your bullsh!t game?

No one is denying that the core was destroyed first. My claim, based on the videos, is that the *ENTIRE PERIMETER* was destroyed simultaneously. The reason why this must be true is because the *PERIMETER* is the "structure" below the *ROOF-LINE*, and the *ROOF-LINE* is very clearly in symmetric free-fall. Therefore, the structure below the *ROOF-LINE*, composed of *PERIMETER* columns all around a very large building, is suddenly providing virtually no resistance!!

But you already knew that, didn't you Strawman Charlie?

As I've stated before, core destruction prior to perimeter destruction is standard when "imploding" a building, and WTC-7's demise is a masterpiece of building implosion, as is quite evident in the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Carstairs, Canada

#1064 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sO1JxpVb2eUXX
----------
WTC Lead Structural Engineer John Skilling, in his own words:
SKILLING: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,... The building structure would still be there."
----------
A white paper from February 1964 on the Towers' design parameters:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707óDC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
See http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/design.ht... for more on design parameters.
Uh huh...and?

DeMartini is dead "Bill".

We don't know what his comment would be today.

And Robertson said fuel was not taken into account...plus there's a massive difference in a 707 travelling slow in the fog and a 757 travelling at over 400mph in terms of energy and momentum.

I know "Bill", physics is hard for you!

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 June VanDerMark 586,032
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Stilgar Fifrawi 830,837
Why do homosexuals enjoy acting like WOMEN??? 11 min andet1987 12
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 18 min ChristineM 442,979
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. (Jul '14) 18 min Ann Bonney 167
Will O.J. Simpson confess to the double murders... 19 min andet1987 2
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 22 min Theswamiji 6,419
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 58 min karl44 99,331
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Porkpie Hat 270,841
More from around the web