Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,787 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1396 Feb 10, 2013
In short NIST itself lied. Indeed it was not a gravity only collapse.

10 seconds or 28 seconds, what does it matter ?

Increasing momentum can not be explained without something removing the resistance of the lower unheated, undamaged sections of any of the three WTC buildings.

Even an end-timer can understand that.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1397 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
The NIST study was supposed to determine why little resistance was provided. Not merely declare that there was little resistance. This must be studied before building recommendations can be made. That is why a budget was allocated.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.
This is simply wrong in so many ways. The towers were designed to support the static weight of the structure multplied by the safety factor. NIST are ignoring the safety factor, asking us to believe that the towers could carry only the static weight. The question must be asked that if NIST's collapse theory relies on there being no safety factor in order to initiate and progress the collapse, what removed that safety factor prior to initiation.
Conservation of Momentum dictates that the upper section must slow in order to accelerate any part of the lower section.
Conservation of Energy dictates that the upper section must slow in order to be able to cause the damage caused to the floors, core and perimeter structure.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
No evidence of devices found during cleanup. The NIST conclusions make perfectly good sense. The 5/8" bolts holding the buildings together failed offering little resistance.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1398 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
The NIST study was supposed to determine why little resistance was provided. Not merely declare that there was little resistance. This must be studied before building recommendations can be made. That is why a budget was allocated.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.
This is simply wrong in so many ways. The towers were designed to support the static weight of the structure multplied by the safety factor. NIST are ignoring the safety factor, asking us to believe that the towers could carry only the static weight. The question must be asked that if NIST's collapse theory relies on there being no safety factor in order to initiate and progress the collapse, what removed that safety factor prior to initiation.
Conservation of Momentum dictates that the upper section must slow in order to accelerate any part of the lower section.
Conservation of Energy dictates that the upper section must slow in order to be able to cause the damage caused to the floors, core and perimeter structure.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
An untested design failure.

So what?
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1399 Feb 10, 2013
The charges could be wirelessly operated anywhere they were placed.

The thousands of devices were not detected because they were not looked for.

Besides what part of blow-up or explode don't you understand?

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1400 Feb 10, 2013
what you can't seem to undertsand is that when 118 milion pounds of building starts moving downward at 100mph ... NOTHING but the ground is going to stop it
Guise Faux wrote:
In short NIST itself lied. Indeed it was not a gravity only collapse.
10 seconds or 28 seconds, what does it matter ?
Increasing momentum can not be explained without something removing the resistance of the lower unheated, undamaged sections of any of the three WTC buildings.
Even an end-timer can understand that.
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1401 Feb 10, 2013
Once a nay-sayer always a nay-sayer.

Nobody cares what you don't understand.

Keep getting your information from the 5 o'clock news and call it good.

Why aren't you in church? Busy schedule at the keyboard today? So little time so many internet forums to work.

Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1402 Feb 10, 2013
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
.. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.

NISTís findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point

AND????

This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1403 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
The charges could be wirelessly operated anywhere they were placed.
The thousands of devices were not detected because they were not looked for.
Besides what part of blow-up or explode don't you understand?
All explosive devices leave something behind. The numbers required would inevitably result is duds. With the huge numbers of workers such devices would have been discovered. Besides, placing such devices into the proper areas of the buildings would have been complicated and invasive which also could not have been done unobtrusively. You have been watching too much television and Hollywood fantasy.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1404 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
.. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.
NISTís findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point
AND????
This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
So what? The opposite is also perfectly valid, that the buildings collapsed due to damage beyond design limitations, which is what all the evidence shows to be true.
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1405 Feb 10, 2013
"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""
NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Perhaps this explains why they found no corroborating evidence. The ability to believe and try to explain away the squibs, and their regular pattern, as being caused by overpressures at the collapse front must have helped.

NIST: Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, did manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds." This logic is remarkable. An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity only collapse would require none.

If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html

How many hundreds of miles an hour was the building traveling ?

Show your math !?!?!?!?!?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1406 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
Once a nay-sayer always a nay-sayer.
Nobody cares what you don't understand.
Keep getting your information from the 5 o'clock news and call it good.
Why aren't you in church? Busy schedule at the keyboard today? So little time so many internet forums to work.
Projection?
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1407 Feb 10, 2013
If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html

Unable to answer this one?!?!?!?!?!

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1408 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
In short NIST itself lied. Indeed it was not a gravity only collapse.
10 seconds or 28 seconds, what does it matter ?
Increasing momentum can not be explained without something removing the resistance of the lower unheated, undamaged sections of any of the three WTC buildings.
Even an end-timer can understand that.
Shit happens. Your claim proves nothing.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1409 Feb 10, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
Once a nay-sayer always a nay-sayer.
Nobody cares what you don't understand.
Keep getting your information from the 5 o'clock news and call it good.
Why aren't you in church? Busy schedule at the keyboard today? So little time so many internet forums to work.
Don't go to church anymore. Can't believe in sky fairies.

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1410 Feb 10, 2013
who did the test to determine it was molten steel and not aluminum !?!?!?!?!?
Guise Faux wrote:
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
.. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.
NISTís findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point
AND????
This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1411 Feb 10, 2013
and lets not forget that there were no siesmic readings of explosions ..... "Hey did we check the guy who died from cancer for a heart attack" !?!?!?!?!?
Guise Faux wrote:
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
.. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement that NIST utters. If there was molten steel in the WTC towers then this is conclusive proof that some other factor was involved other than the aircraft impact, the consequent fire and a gravity only collapse. NIST tell us it doesn't matter.
NISTís findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point
AND????
This means nothing. Neither of these two observations, whether valid or not, rule out an assisted collapse.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
science

Winchester, KY

#1412 Feb 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Shit happens.
shill science at it's best

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#1413 Feb 10, 2013
says the twit who never took a single college level science class
science wrote:
<quoted text>
shill science at it's best

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1414 Feb 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Indeed. They lack any ability to think critically. For example. Consider the 9/11 fires. When the planes hit the two towers, the fires were up in the buildings where the planes exploded. Also a car was set on fire at street level by a piece of one airplane. The exact cause of how the fire started in the car is speculative. When the towers fell, the fire was spread to other structures and vehicles on the street by very large and hot pieces of debris. The morons talk about melted steel and other things. Basic observation shows the upper stories above the impact came down more intact than what was below. It also show us that very large pieces cut into WTC7 damaging the building and setting it on fire. I love the claims that the whole thing was faked which is totally absurd.
The only thing they actually believe is that the official version of events is completely and totally untrue, therefore anything and everything not in the official version of events has to be true. It's only logical, isn't it?

They've been told that flying nearly fully fueled jumbo passenger jets into the confines of a high rise building and the resulting damage from that and from fires, would cause to that structure and potentially cause nearby structures, can cause them to collapse. This is a lie, because anything and everything in the report is completely and totally untrue. SOMETHING (meaning anything and everything) ELSE had to have happened. They just have no idea what they really believe what that SOMETHING ELSE actually is, because they hold anything and everything their imagination can conjure up as being logically included in that SOMETHING ELSE that had to have happened.

Let me tell you something about squirrels. If you drop them on a moving treadmill, most will never grasp the concept that if they stop running, the ride stops, they'll just continue at whatever pace you want them to go until they collapse.
seismic readings

Winchester, KY

#1415 Feb 10, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
and lets not forget that there were no siesmic readings of explosions <quoted text>
yes there were

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Aura Mytha 778,290
Too many Asians in California which makes it suck (Mar '12) 5 min Easton 100
The World Will End On May 21, 2011 (Aug '08) 34 min Protester 16,461
how to lose weight by subway diet 38 min saly ramy 1
skype sex id luv to try it (Aug '13) 40 min shem 81
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 47 min Protester 175,778
Are our soldiers traitors? 1 hr Protester 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr mike 605,330
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Oxbow 560,442
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Rick in Kansas 265,444
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 6 hr Trannyfucker 136
More from around the web