Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#252312 Jan 26, 2013
YAWN
Bill

Austin, TX

#252314 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
WTC was heavily damaged by falling debris. Go take a look at the aerial photos and the other side of the building. Take a look at how the building was supported by three trusses up to the seventh floor. You are correct, demolition takes time and planning. It would be a criminal act to allow buildings to be occupied with explosives. It would also be against the law to demolish a building without the proper permits. Nobody would do that.
Do you understand the significance of the free-fall acceleration of the roof-line? That takes planning. NIST did not demonstrate how asymmetric damage and randomly progressing office fires could possibly cause the entire perimeter, with its redundant structural supports, to fail simultaneously and completely in a HUGE building.

And then when you look at all the evidence of extremely high temperatures and incendiary arson, the demolition hypothesis is clenched.

(And to demonstrate fraud on the part of government investigators, the steel and residue evidence is essentially destroyed and/or ignored. NIST's extremely limited metallurgical examination doesn't even support its conclusions).
Bill

Austin, TX

#252315 Jan 26, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared.
.
A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block.
.
Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight.
.
Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building.
.
Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.
.
So how do you explain downward acceleration in the direction of the MOST resistance?
.
This cannot have been a gravity only collapse.
.
Where's the piledriver?
.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/201...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
.
That's A Good One Huh eh
Not only is the roof-line of the North Tower accelerating pretty smoothly, but the upper block appears to lose all structural integrity very early in the destruction of the tower. As we can see in the video, there is no "pile driver."
Bill

Austin, TX

#252316 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? That doesn't contradict all the evidence of what actually happened. It does explain why Bush rushed into invading Iraq.
The evidence of demolition contradicts the government's narrative. In fact, it completely undermines it. And that raises the question: why is our own government clearly lying to us and, in effect, shielding the perpetrators?

The PNAC document, authored by our own policy-makers, provides us with a motive for the staging of a spectacular "attack."

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#252317 Jan 26, 2013
after reading your post all I can say is YOU ARE CLUELESS AND NEVER BOTHERED TO READ THE NIST REPORT
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the significance of the free-fall acceleration of the roof-line? That takes planning. NIST did not demonstrate how asymmetric damage and randomly progressing office fires could possibly cause the entire perimeter, with its redundant structural supports, to fail simultaneously and completely in a HUGE building.
And then when you look at all the evidence of extremely high temperatures and incendiary arson, the demolition hypothesis is clenched.
(And to demonstrate fraud on the part of government investigators, the steel and residue evidence is essentially destroyed and/or ignored. NIST's extremely limited metallurgical examination doesn't even support its conclusions).
Bill

Austin, TX

#252318 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even understand how 5/8" bolts failed, yet you want us to believe your worthless opinions about how buildings fall?
Get outta town!!!!
Are you suggesting that the failure of 5/8" bolts is what caused the disintegration of the Towers? What about all the evidence of extremely high temperatures at Ground Zero? Iron- and silicate-rich microspheres as documented in the USGS dust atlases and in the RJ Lee Report? The "unusual" high-temperature corrosion of steel members as documented in the FEMA Report Appendix C? Reports by crews working the site? Thermal imaging?
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252319 Jan 26, 2013
MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 .
Bill

Austin, TX

#252320 Jan 26, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
after reading your post all I can say is YOU ARE CLUELESS AND NEVER BOTHERED TO READ THE NIST REPORT<quoted text>
I read it, and I looked at the little cartoons that they generated with their fancy computer programs... You know, the cartoons that looked nothing like the actual demise of the building?

Have you read the NIST report?

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#252321 Jan 26, 2013
once agagin , the fact that you don't know WHY cartoons looked nothing like the actual demise of the building shows you are CLUELESS or DID NOT PAY ATTENETION WHILE READING
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it, and I looked at the little cartoons that they generated with their fancy computer programs... You know, the cartoons that looked nothing like the actual demise of the building?
Have you read the NIST report?
Bill

Austin, TX

#252322 Jan 26, 2013
Oh.

Well, okay, maybe at least you saw the NIST cartoons of WTC-7? Looks like "roadrunner" physics is making a comeback.
Bill

Austin, TX

#252323 Jan 26, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
once agagin , the fact that you don't know WHY cartoons looked nothing like the actual demise of the building shows you are CLUELESS or DID NOT PAY ATTENETION WHILE READING
<quoted text>
Given your apparent struggle with the English language, I assumed that you would have focused more on the cartoons. So tell me, in your expert opinion, WHY indeed do the cartoons look nothing like the actual demise of WTC-7? And why were the NIST fellas so reluctant to admit free-fall of the roof-line, even though we can all clearly see that in the videos (but not the cartoons!!)?
Bill

Austin, TX

#252324 Jan 26, 2013
rider wrote:
MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =z8W-t57xnZgXX
What happened to that very robust core in each of the Towers?

Hmm....

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#252326 Jan 27, 2013
The reason the "cartoon" looked nothing like the collapse of WTC 7 is because it was ONLY showing the collapse of the interior support structure that fell while the outside shell remained standing ..... it also very clearly explains the brief period of free fall ..... try paying attention when you read next time
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Given your apparent struggle with the English language, I assumed that you would have focused more on the cartoons. So tell me, in your expert opinion, WHY indeed do the cartoons look nothing like the actual demise of WTC-7? And why were the NIST fellas so reluctant to admit free-fall of the roof-line, even though we can all clearly see that in the videos (but not the cartoons!!)?

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#252327 Jan 27, 2013
what would happen to your spine if I dropped a 50,000lb block on your head !?!?!?!?
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
What happened to that very robust core in each of the Towers?
Hmm....
Bill

Austin, TX

#252328 Jan 27, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
The reason the "cartoon" looked nothing like the collapse of WTC 7 is because it was ONLY showing the collapse of the interior support structure that fell while the outside shell remained standing ..... it also very clearly explains the brief period of free fall ..... try paying attention when you read next time
<quoted text>
WOW! I didn't know that the facade of a structure like WTC-7 could just detach from its failing interior supports like that and then just hang poised in mid-air like Wile E. Coyote until gravity kicked in. All at once. Around this enormous perimeter.

Tell me about the "outside shell" of the building. How did the top of the "shell" (the roof-line) simultaneously lose ALL of the support from the lower part of the shell (because, after all, isn't the "shell" itself structural material that resists free-fall drops?).

Can you quote me the part of the report that "very clearly explains the brief period of free fall?"

It's funny... I seem to recall one of the report's lead authors very clearly explaining why there COULD NOT be free-fall in a progressive, gravity-driven failure. I'll look for that while you are working on your response...
Bill

Austin, TX

#252329 Jan 27, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
what would happen to your spine if I dropped a 50,000lb block on your head !?!?!?!?
<quoted text>
Is that what happened to the WTC-7? Well, let's see, if I rely on you and NIST to help me with this hypothetical situation -- it is hypothetical, right?-- I might guess that my skeleton would suffer progressive catastrophic failure while my skin "detached" and waited until it could just drop at free-fall, unencumbered by internal resistance.

Is that close?

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#252330 Jan 27, 2013
Fat, Drunk, and Stupid is no way to go through life son
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what happened to the WTC-7? Well, let's see, if I rely on you and NIST to help me with this hypothetical situation -- it is hypothetical, right?-- I might guess that my skeleton would suffer progressive catastrophic failure while my skin "detached" and waited until it could just drop at free-fall, unencumbered by internal resistance.
Is that close?
Bill

Austin, TX

#252331 Jan 27, 2013
Bill wrote:
...

It's funny... I seem to recall one of the report's lead authors very clearly explaining why there COULD NOT be free-fall in a progressive, gravity-driven failure. I'll look for that while you are working on your response...
Ah. Here it is.

Here is NIST's lead "investigator" Shyam Sunder, responding to the question during a technical briefing on the final draft of the WTC-7 report, August 26, 2008:

Question:"Any number of measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point."
SUNDER wrote:
"Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies
to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."
See
&t= 3m39s

So if I understand that correctly, Mr. Shyam Sunder is denying that the roof-line underwent free fall, explaining that this would require ZERO structural support. His explanation as to why free-fall is problematic is accurate, but his denial isn't, and NIST was finally forced to admit a period of symmetric free-fall.

--------

Later in the same technical briefing, we had this:

Male Speaker, summarizing a question: The question was, "Why did we [NIST] report descent speed rather than acceleration?" The statement in the report has to do with assuming that the descent speed is constant.

NIST "investigator" John Gross:
GROSS wrote:
Well, the descent speed is not constant. Obviously, it goes from zero at the initial to a later speed. We didn't - we computed the time that it takes to drop the roughly 18 stories that were in view. And we also provided
the calculation based on the distance from the top of the parapet to the lowest point visible to compare that with the free-fall speed.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch...

(Wow, did John Gross just say "free-fall speed"?!?)

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

(Yep. John Gross, one of the government's lead "experts," just used the phrase "free fall speed").

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#252333 Jan 27, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. Here it is.
Here is NIST's lead "investigator" Shyam Sunder, responding to the question during a technical briefing on the final draft of the WTC-7 report, August 26, 2008:
Question:"Any number of measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point."
<quoted text>
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mtRlOVymmz8XX&t=3m39s
So if I understand that correctly, Mr. Shyam Sunder is denying that the roof-line underwent free fall, explaining that this would require ZERO structural support. His explanation as to why free-fall is problematic is accurate, but his denial isn't, and NIST was finally forced to admit a period of symmetric free-fall.
--------
Later in the same technical briefing, we had this:
Male Speaker, summarizing a question: The question was, "Why did we [NIST] report descent speed rather than acceleration?" The statement in the report has to do with assuming that the descent speed is constant.
NIST "investigator" John Gross:
<quoted text>
See http://www.youtube.com/watch...
(Wow, did John Gross just say "free-fall speed"?!?)
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
(Yep. John Gross, one of the government's lead "experts," just used the phrase "free fall speed").
What an idiot he must be Huh !
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha h
.
That's As Funny As A Govie Expert Huh eh !
Bill

Austin, TX

#252334 Jan 27, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot he must be Huh !
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha h
.
That's As Funny As A Govie Expert Huh eh !
The kindest thing we can say about NIST's lead investigators is that John Gross and Shyam Sunder are "idiots," because the other possibility is that they are accessories to mass-murder, engaging in ham-fisted cover-up and obstruction.

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min arrr 25,079
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 52 min pusherman_ 985,610
Got any good jokes?? (Mar '07) 1 hr Ricky F 1,832
iMFifa Supply of Cheap FIFA 18 Coins 3 hr sheryyli 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr Sklly 445,848
News Can Americans trust the daily news? (Feb '15) 5 hr C Kersey 4
Anyone know any good deals from NoKeys? 6 hr NOKEYS 2
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 hr Michael 685,540
More from around the web