created by: inquiring minds | Jan 4, 2013

Top Stories

17,784 votes

Was 911 an Inside Job

Click on an option to vote

  • YES
  • No
  • Don't know
  • Possibly
Comments
1,001 - 1,020 of 4,996 Comments Last updated Jul 8, 2014

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1065
Feb 5, 2013
 
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
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.
Bill

Austin, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1066
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charlie Sheen wrote:
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
Right. NIST speculates about interior failures (with no physical evidence to support their speculation) and totally neglects to explain the *SIMULTANEOUS DESTRUCTION OF THE PERIMETER* that is necessary for the symmetric drop of the roof-line.

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Carstairs, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1070
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1071
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1072
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1073
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1074
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1079
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1082
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••