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

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#1786 Feb 16, 2013
We first frame the issue by noting that the answer to this question does not negate the evidence that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition.
.
The massive amount of evidence gathered by AE911Truth and countless others demonstrates that the combined effects of the impacts and the ensuing fires do not account for the complete and explosive destruction of the WTC skyscrapers.
.
The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers actually began at floors with minimal damage from the planes.
.
In the North Tower, the collapse began at the 98th floor, which in fact had minimal structural damage.
.
Only the tip of the right wing cut through that floor.
Damage relative to a Boeing 767. Note that only the tip of the starboard (right) wing cut through the 98th floor.
.
According to the NIST report (NCSTAR 1, pg. 87), the collapse of the North Tower began at this floor. Though the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this as the case.
.
The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 indicates that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.
.
If the demolition was started at the 98th floor, where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then the plane's impact would not have had any serious effect on well-designed devices placed on this floor
.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha hah ah ah ha ha ha ah
.
That's Still Funny Folks
dust

Winchester, KY

#1787 Feb 16, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
You are the only IDIOT who says dust was the piledriver so you are laughing at yourself ..... but don't worry, we laugh at you all the time too
<quoted text>
it's called sarcasm, I know you don't get it so don't worry about it, keep on laughing 'cause the joke's on you.

“Google Operation Northwoods”

Since: Aug 10

** 9-11 was an inside job **

#1788 Feb 16, 2013
engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
dust as piledriver...now that's funny
That's what is called a heavy pile driving dust buildup.
Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Dust in the wind. All we are is dust in the wind
Guise Faux

San Anselmo, CA

#1789 Feb 16, 2013
How much does one million lbs of dust blowing in the wind weigh?

Where's the piledriver? Even NIST can't find one.

Right up to the onslaught of inevitability.

That's where they end their so-called investigation.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1790 Feb 16, 2013
repartee wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks, I figure speaking at your level would be much easier for you to understand.
*YAWN*

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1791 Feb 16, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
How much does one million lbs of dust blowing in the wind weigh?
Where's the piledriver? Even NIST can't find one.
Right up to the onslaught of inevitability.
That's where they end their so-called investigation.
The whole upper part of the building weighed many tons. They investigated already. They came to a different conclusion than you. Suppose there is another investigation with comes to an identical conclusion? Would that make you happy?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#1792 Feb 16, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
We first frame the issue by noting that the answer to this question does not negate the evidence that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition.
.
The massive amount of evidence gathered by AE911Truth and countless others demonstrates that the combined effects of the impacts and the ensuing fires do not account for the complete and explosive destruction of the WTC skyscrapers.
.
The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers actually began at floors with minimal damage from the planes.
.
In the North Tower, the collapse began at the 98th floor, which in fact had minimal structural damage.
.
Only the tip of the right wing cut through that floor.
Damage relative to a Boeing 767. Note that only the tip of the starboard (right) wing cut through the 98th floor.
.
According to the NIST report (NCSTAR 1, pg. 87), the collapse of the North Tower began at this floor. Though the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this as the case.
.
The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 indicates that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.
.
If the demolition was started at the 98th floor, where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then the plane's impact would not have had any serious effect on well-designed devices placed on this floor
.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha hah ah ah ha ha ha ah
.
That's Still Funny Folks
The upper part tilts into the hole made by the aircraft. How would the imaginary demolitions know exactly which floors the aircraft would hit? The top floors moved first prior to the total collapse which is inconsistent with your bogus theory. Besides, building demolition is highly invasive and complex. It could not be done undetected.

“Google Operation Northwoods”

Since: Aug 10

** 9-11 was an inside job **

#1793 Feb 17, 2013
Michael Meacher Says 9/11 = Inside Job
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dhw5_micha...
.
The War on Terror is a Fraud
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5x9e6_the-w...
.
Bush Caught Lying About Iran Supplying Weapons to Insurgents
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6j1dl_bush-...
.
911 Inside Job
https://www.google.com/search...
.
https://www.google.com/search...

“Google Operation Northwoods”

Since: Aug 10

** 9-11 was an inside job **

#1794 Feb 17, 2013

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#1796 Feb 17, 2013
What has Michael Meacher done since 2005 ??
when will he present his evidence to a court of law ??

Timesten wrote:
Michael Meacher Says 9/11 = Inside Job
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dhw5_micha...
.
The War on Terror is a Fraud
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5x9e6_the-w...
.
Bush Caught Lying About Iran Supplying Weapons to Insurgents
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6j1dl_bush-...
.
911 Inside Job
https://www.google.com/search...
.
https://www.google.com/search...
I smell Farts

Edmonton, Canada

#1797 Feb 17, 2013
KaBOOOOM
I smell Farts

Edmonton, Canada

#1798 Feb 17, 2013
If both towers were hit by planes why did they crumble the exact same way???
I don't see how all this physics and freefall stuff can explain the odds of that!
There's no way it would happen twice the same way.
2 different planes hit them didn't it?

And didn't a 3 building collapse also?
And didn't it look just the same as the towers?

Hey WTF do I know....

KaBOOOOOM
I smell Farts

Edmonton, Canada

#1799 Feb 17, 2013
The Booooosh interview about this BS is on tonight.....

Dunh Dunh Dunh.....

Oh how wuv booooosh. He's a funny azz fcuker!!!
He just wuvs his MERICAh!!! Ugh huh.... Dah.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1800 Feb 18, 2013
Guise Faux wrote:
How much does one million lbs of dust blowing in the wind weigh?
Where's the piledriver? Even NIST can't find one.
One who comments on the report clearly has not read it, it was the floors above the impact areas.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1801 Feb 18, 2013
I smell Farts wrote:
If both towers were hit by planes why did they crumble the exact same way???
I don't see how all this physics and freefall stuff can explain the odds of that!
Shocking, you are saying that two identical buildings that suffer very similar damage should react in totally different ways.

Hows that work?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1802 Feb 18, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
In the North Tower, the collapse began at the 98th floor, which in fact had minimal structural damage.
Minimal?

Wow, Look at that bowing?

http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebu...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1803 Feb 18, 2013
Ahh, MOOBS, You more or less linked to your whole site, what did you want debunked, your claim of employment?
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>
And everything on video is just as they say it is right?
Explain these then...
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
.
But you won't, you can't. I've asked you a dozen times and you just ignore the matter. But you will rant on and on we are all wrong.
Hint.... you are the ones that are wrong for baaaalieving the govts disinfo.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1804 Feb 18, 2013
Timesten wrote:
KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?
SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems.
here are problems with this account.

#1, it's sourced by one person only, Scott Forbes, and corroboration seems limited. In an interview he said, for instance:

SF: Many, many people have talked to me about the power down and one person was contacted by a journalist as a backup source for my information.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-fo...

But why only one? And where is this backup? The WTC held the offices of many large, important companies, and to have their central computers turned off would have been extremely inconvenient. To put it mildly. Thousands of people would have known about this, from local employees to staff in other parts of the company. So where are they?

Actually there may be a clue in a subsequent Forbes interview:

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#1805 Feb 18, 2013
Timesten wrote:
KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?
SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems.
#2, why would such a lengthy "power down" be necessary for a cable upgrade? This plainly didn't have anything to do with the main power lines into the building, as it only affected the floors from 50 upwards. What work could possibly be done on the floor below, that required turning off the power for 50+ floors (or whatever it reall was) for 36 hours? If there were rewiring to be done, isn’t it more likely that this would be carried out in parallel, and companies would be switched from the old system to the new in a few minutes?

#3, are we supposed to believe that security systems fed off the same power system as everything else? So a power cut meant no security at all? Look at the affected tenants, if the “floor 50 upwards” version is true -- First Commercial Bank (floor 78), Fuji Bank (79-82), Fiduciary Trust, Atlantic Bank of New York... Do you really think these companies would live with a situation like that, or not object that all security for their offices has been disabled?

#4, even if all this were true, it still only provided access to half of one tower. What about the North Tower? WTC7? No mention of "power downs" there.

#5, the power down time was initially reported as 36 hours, and a subsequent interview cut this to 26:

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/...

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#1806 Feb 18, 2013
"How The NIST Report Failed To Adequately Investigate 9/11"
.
"Or The Fox Is Guarding The Henhouse Here Folks"
.
“Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life.” Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
.
Any serious investigation into the reasons why the Twin Towers were completely destroyed would attempt to find out why the strong steel frames below the impact and fire areas lost their strength and gave way.
.
But NIST deliberately decided not to do this. NIST excluded – quite systematically and based on the explicit argument that only the few columns with a known asbuilt location in the impact and fire areas were of interest for the investigation – the columns from the parts that failed and gave way so unexpectedly, i.e., the columns with as-built locations below the impact and fire areas, from being adequately examined for their damage and failure modes.
.
Scientists and engineers in relevant fields should know that those parts of the structure that gave way need to be included in the investigation of a building failure. There are many indications that NIST’s scientists and engineers have been actually well aware that the failure of the load bearing structures of the Twin Towers cannot be investigated by focusing exclusively on the collection of data concerning the impact and fire areas.
.
For example, NIST developed a "structural database" that included the data for the structural members from bottom to top (and not just for the structural members in the impact and fire areas).
.
They developed "global structural models" for both Towers that stretched over their full heights (based on the named structural database, blueprints and other documents). And they analyzed the performance of the undamaged structures (using its global structural models) for three loading cases, and checked the demand/capacity ratio for the structural components.
.
NIST examined (as part of the same “Project 3: "Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel,” which systematically excluded steel from outside the impact and fire areas from being adequately examined) samples of all steel qualities used throughout the buildings to check if they complied with the demanded quality standards.
.
NIST cannot justify the exclusion of the steel from being adequately examined for damage and failure modes by its published result of the investigation, i.e., the “how the point of collapse initiation was reached” models and the few lines with suggestions why “global collapse ensued.” The named models and suggestions were presented by NIST as results of the investigation, so they should not have influenced decisions at the beginning of the investigation. Examining the evidence and collecting data based on the evidence was a task that NIST needed to perform before any hypotheses were formulated.
.
But NIST excluded identified core columns and perimeter columns that were built-in outside the impact and fire areas, and columns with an unknown as-built location, from being adequately examined for their damage and failure modes at the very beginning of the investigation.
.
Thus, by a process of circular reasoning NIST avoided an adequate analysis of the physical evidence of the steel for data that might have answered the question why the strong steel frames below the impact and fire areas gave way as completely and quickly as they did; by proceeding on the basis of a preconceived premise, NIST compromised the validity of the investigation.
.
http://www.ae911truth.org/documents/How_NIST_...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah aha ha ha aha h
.
That’s Still A Funny Joke After All These Years

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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
Can REAL PEACE be REALIZED without Jesus Christ?? 2 min The Terminator 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min June VanDerMark 560,118
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min atheist girl 605,256
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Insults Are Easier 777,320
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 18 min feces for jesus 96,832
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 53 min Clearwater 175,773
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr _Bad Company 1,920
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr YellowPissreality 265,362
More from around the web