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

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1067 Feb 5, 2013
of course it's providing virtually no resistance the interior framing had mostly collapsed by the time the exterior started moving downward .... there was no resistance for 18 stories or 2.5 seconds
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
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?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1068 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
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?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Nonsense. The building failed because a number of structural supports were knocked out, fire and other damage caused uneven loading upon the three vertical trusses which were left supporting the pile of heavy transformers and the entire building above the seventh floor. It is preposterous to say explosives were planted in the building. How would such a job be done unseen?

Surely you jest!!!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Didsbury, Canada

#1069 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
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?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
NIST did not concede anything "Bill", the period of free fall was evident in tables included in the draft report. This is an old argument that was debunked years ago.

Perhaps you should try something more remedial, like basket weaving.

And you still haven't qualified how symmetrical=thermite...
Bill

Austin, TX

#1070 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
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.
Dr. Lynn Margulis, whose comments I linked to in the post you are responding to, is a respected member of the scientific community, and I don't see how you could characterize her devastating critique of the NIST report as "ignoring twoofers."

Again:
Porkpie Hat wrote:
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.
The citation is specified in the NIST technical briefing of August 2008 (the public NIST shaming that is on view at YouTube, and I've linked to the videos multiple times. I'll start the video with the screenshot of the document, but feel free to rewind and watch the entire flick... and part II and III):

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

Here is a link to the actual NIST document:

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...

And here is the actual quote:
NIST bullsht wrote:
NIST was interested in estimating how closely the time for WTC 7 took to fall compared to the descent time if the building were falling freely under the force of gravity (NIST NCSTAR1-9, Chapter 12).**Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant**[!!], the two quantities needed for the determinations were (1) a length that some feature of the building descended and (2) the time it took to fall that distance. The chosen feature was the top of the parapet wall on the roofline of the north face. The length was was the difference between the position of the roofline prior to the collapse and the last position the roofline could be observed before it was obstructed by a building in the foreground.
(Does that hat taste good, Porkie?)
Porkpie Hat wrote:
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.
Go back and read my posts. Watch for words like "LARGE" and "REDUNDANT" and "FOOTBALL FIELD." So once again, for the shills, for the *roof-line* of WTC-7 to drop symmetrically at free-fall acceleration (as can be observed in the videos), ALL SUPPORTING STRUCTURES (THE PERIMETER COLUMNS) MUST FAIL VIRTUALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY AND COMPLETELY. Otherwise, the roof-line will experience resistance and will not drop symmetrically at free-fall. And simultaneous perimeter failure in a very *LARGE*, structurally *REDUNDANT* steel-frame building with a footprint the size of a *FOOTBALL FIELD* requires very careful planning.

NIST's computer simulation, the very best they could do, looks nothing like the perfect building implosion that is evident in the videos of WTC-7's demise.
Porkpie Hat wrote:
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.
How many lies are you up to now?
http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos...
.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#1071 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.
Yea, Well the head structural engineer WHO WROTE THE REPORT AND CONDUCTED THE STUDY disagrees.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1072 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
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.
Class, this is an example of a straw man argument.

Free-fall acceleration isn't intrinsic to controlled demolition. That was never a claim. There are many controlled demolitions where remaining building components provide significant structural resistance, so that the target is dropping significantly slower. Free-fall is the absolute upper-bound in a gravity-assisted demolition.

When you have upper floors in a structurally redundant building dropping symmetrically through lower floors as if the lower floors didn't exist (a free-fall condition), you can be sure that you are witnessing a very carefully planned demolition, not a "progressive failure."
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#1073 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
My claim, based on the videos, is that the *ENTIRE PERIMETER* was destroyed simultaneously.
Yea, but that is because you are a youtube detective looking at one side. Once again here is your *ENTIRE PERIMETER* which clearly did not fall simultaneously.

Not symmetric, not simultaneously, 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!
Bill

Austin, TX

#1074 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>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?
I claim WTC-7 was symmetric, and my claim can be verified in the various videos that I've posted.

Here is a bird's eye view of the WTC complex, showing the formet 47-story Building 7 in a very tight pile between very near neighbors:

http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploa...

Note that WTC-7 was further from the Towers than Buildings 5 and 6, and yet these buildings didn't disintegrate completely. Large portions of the structures remain, despite areas of severe damage. That's a consequence of structural redundance!
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#1075 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. The airliner would have much less fuel on board too. How did they have any way to calculate what an airliner would do running into such a structure? Isn't that what crash tests are for?
Of course now we know. These tall structures fail when the structural integrity is compromised sufficiently.
True, And even beyond that, it was a test, a model, even if Robertson, the person who did the modeling and wrote the report said what people claim he did which he says if false.

Models are not the event themselves, they are often flawed, it seems in much more modern computer modeling times certain O rings on a space shuttle were supposed to remain functional at low temperatures, I think we all know how that worked out.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#1076 Feb 5, 2013
Hey fake Sheen, when did I move?
Charlie Sheen wrote:
Here is what NIST really said
NIST's Explanation of WTC 7's Collapse
Bill

Austin, TX

#1077 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>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!
First of all, the Towers survived the plane impacts, so this debate is moot.

If you follow the link that I provided that describes design parameters, you will find that the B-707 traveling at top speed, the contingency described in the 1964 tests, will actually impart more kinetic energy than the B-767s that hit the towers.

Again, here's the link, although again your bickering over this point neglects the fact that both Towers survived the plane impacts:

http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/design.ht...

Even NIST concedes that the impacts were NOT the ultimate cause for global failure. The TOWERS had plenty of reserve capacity.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1079 Feb 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. The building failed because a number of structural supports were knocked out, fire and other damage caused uneven loading upon the three vertical trusses which were left supporting the pile of heavy transformers and the entire building above the seventh floor. It is preposterous to say explosives were planted in the building. How would such a job be done unseen?
Surely you jest!!!
The fact that tens of tons of advanced pyrotechnic materials and high-temperature residues have been found in the WTC dust is evidence that the buildings were demolished.

The fact that tenants of the building included security-conscious federal agencies (CIA, DoD, SEC) suggests government involvement.

The fact that federal agencies (NIST, FBI), among others, were involved in the criminal destruction of evidence and cover-up *confirms* government involvement.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1080 Feb 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>NIST did not concede anything "Bill", the period of free fall was evident in tables included in the draft report. This is an old argument that was debunked years ago.
Perhaps you should try something more remedial, like basket weaving.
And you still haven't qualified how symmetrical=thermite...
Really? can you link to those tables that describe free-fall conditions in the draft?

I didn't think so.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1081 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, Well the head structural engineer WHO WROTE THE REPORT AND CONDUCTED THE STUDY disagrees.
The Towers survived the impacts! Even NIST concedes this.
Charlie Sheen

Fairbury, NE

#1082 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I claim WTC-7 was symmetric, and my claim can be verified in the various videos that I've posted.
Here is a bird's eye view of the WTC complex, showing the formet 47-story Building 7 in a very tight pile between very near neighbors:
http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploa...
That's odd!

When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fiterman_ha...

The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/0831-f...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1083 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I claim WTC-7 was symmetric, and my claim can be verified in the various videos that I've posted.
Here is a bird's eye view of the WTC complex, showing the formet 47-story Building 7 in a very tight pile between very near neighbors:
http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploa...
Note that WTC-7 was further from the Towers than Buildings 5 and 6, and yet these buildings didn't disintegrate completely. Large portions of the structures remain, despite areas of severe damage. That's a consequence of structural redundance!
Buildings 5 and 6 were of a vastly different construction and load factors. No comparison can be made.
Bill

Austin, TX

#1084 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, but that is because you are a youtube detective looking at one side. Once again here is your *ENTIRE PERIMETER* which clearly did not fall simultaneously.
Not symmetric, not simultaneously, 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!
I provided multiple views of WTC-7 dropping, none of which look remotely like the computer-generated cartoon that NIST concocted, based on ZERO physical evidence and an erroneous time-line of active fires.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1085 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that tens of tons of advanced pyrotechnic materials and high-temperature residues have been found in the WTC dust is evidence that the buildings were demolished.
The fact that tenants of the building included security-conscious federal agencies (CIA, DoD, SEC) suggests government involvement.
The fact that federal agencies (NIST, FBI), among others, were involved in the criminal destruction of evidence and cover-up *confirms* government involvement.
More unsubstantiated claims. Why would the leaseholder, Larry Silverstein allow such activity when is would result is substantial losses as well as severe criminal liability to himself and other share-holders? Besides, you have no verifiable evidence to back your nonsensical claim.
Charlie Sheen

Lansing, MI

#1087 Feb 5, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
Hey fake Sheen, when did I move?
<quoted text>
Who you calling a fake? I'm all over the place.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1088 Feb 5, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, the Towers survived the plane impacts, so this debate is moot.
If you follow the link that I provided that describes design parameters, you will find that the B-707 traveling at top speed, the contingency described in the 1964 tests, will actually impart more kinetic energy than the B-767s that hit the towers.
Again, here's the link, although again your bickering over this point neglects the fact that both Towers survived the plane impacts:
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/design.ht...
Even NIST concedes that the impacts were NOT the ultimate cause for global failure. The TOWERS had plenty of reserve capacity.
I wouldn't call total collapse survival.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Buck Crick 56,353
how long after taking the Vivitrol shot can i f... (Nov '12) 3 min Mila 172
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 29 min MUQ2 45,004
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 36 min Peace_Warrior 618,577
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr ChristineM 445,937
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr ImFree2Choose 2,359
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Steve III 650,730
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 hr X Pendable 182,982
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 hr Hangman 971,894
More from around the web