Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,334 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253015 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash.
And they did, but the person that conducted the study and wrote the report, Robertson said fire was never taken into account. So did the building survive the impacts or did they fall as soon as they were hit?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253016 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
Even though I can not start to explain how stupid that statement is perhaps for a start ramming planes into buildings to structurally weaken them then setting them on fire seems .... well, less than practical.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#253017 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
Let the readers decide who is the troll here
.
I'd say you all have proven, by your own words, that you are the forum trolls here...
.
Say the Truth, RADEKT, Abraxas, Pork Pie Hat, TrinstanM .....Are forum trolls and there is no use trying to converse with them, for they are always right and everyone else is wrong....as one poster said it..." they must be gods."
.
Read their profile....
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Real scholars eh?
.
Now compare their rhetoric with this... This will tell it all of who they are
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Their posts tells a lot, that whoever posts on here and isn't pro government, these two with their side kicks buds jump in and start name calling and ranting denials, to try and discourage newcomers from posting... They are so obvious....
Hired trolls, no doubt about it...
http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/israel...
.
http://www.thejidf.org/
.
Every one is wrong, if they say the Official Reports are questionable, according to these few sheeple ranters...
http://www.google.com/images...
.
Professor Say the Truth, opens his speech on 911...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Professor ASSbarax comments on 911 also..
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Professor Porktard wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Professor RADEKT and his thesis on 911
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TJ5J5IP...
.
A bunch of college grads if ever there were... lmaowttty
.
*** Place Your Votes Here***
.
Pork Pie Hat
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TL9HUAC...
.
Say the Truth....
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T7ORUIL...
.
TristanM....
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T7B0A6B...
.
RADEKT...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TJ5J5IP...
.
Abraxas..
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TMTCBTJ...
.
Waste water aka Asbarax/TrinstanM
May the best troll win. I vote yes to all of them.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
Dead links prove what wendy?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#253019 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.
What are your credentials???
Where is the chain of custody? Whre are the "control" samples? Where are the peer (non pay-to-play) reviews?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#253020 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
There are so many idiotic things there that it's not even worth "debunking"
nothing to debunk

Winchester, KY

#253021 Feb 11, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
There are so many idiotic things there that it's not even worth "debunking"
translation: "I'm speechless. There is nothing I can say to refute or debunk anything you just said."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253023 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.
What are your credentials???
Not credible evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253024 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
Looks like their design failed the fire test. Gotta give them credit, the towers stood up for a period of time. Just like the "unsinkable Titanic." She remained afoat for quite a few hours.

No building has ever been hit by a fully fueled commercial airliner flying at top speed. Demolition is an invasive job. Somebody would have noticed and lots of evidence would have been left behind.

Nice try though.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253025 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
The buildings withstood the initial impact. What more do you want?
jet fuel

Winchester, KY

#253026 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The buildings withstood the initial impact. What more do you want?
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
evidence

Winchester, KY

#253027 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Demolition is an invasive job. Somebody would have noticed and lots of evidence would have been left behind.
Nice try though.
not if they wired the building in the wee hours of the night and had control of the security for the building. I'm sure we could have found lots of evidence for the demolition, unfortunately it was all quickly shipped to China and destroyed.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#253028 Feb 11, 2013
jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/978566-3x2-9...
This must be a controlled demolition?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#253029 Feb 11, 2013
nothing to debunk wrote:
<quoted text>
translation: "I'm speechless. There is nothing I can say to refute or debunk anything you just said."
Translation: discussing it would be as pointless as explaining it to a houseplant. Or a twoofer.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#253030 Feb 11, 2013
jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
I rest my case.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253031 Feb 11, 2013
jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
There is plenty of reason for them to have failed. A structure is only as strong as the sum of it's parts. Many horizontal trusses deflected from prolonged heat exposure. These trusses were connected to vertical members by 5/8" bolts with sheared. The jet plane took out many internal structural columns and severed elevator shafts, cables and stairwells. What's more, there has been no credible evidence of a controlled demolition found anywhere in the debris. Such a demolition would certainly leave behind duds and paraphernalia associated with it. It would have required thousands of invasive charges as the whole exterior of the building was the main support and also lacked fire coating. Finally, the placement of charges would need to be below where the aircraft hit which would be impossible to plan. Your opinion of a demolition is a preposterous claim devoid of any factual evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253032 Feb 11, 2013
jet fuel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.
The towers burned for two hours. Watch this video and tell me about a splash of jet fuel.



You must be kidding me.

Surely you jest!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253033 Feb 11, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/978566-3x2-9...
This must be a controlled demolition?
In controlled tests, wooden beams and glue beams remain structurally sound long after an equivalent steel beam fails.

Myth #1: Steel framed buildings are more resistant to fire and easier to get approved for fire code.

Though steel is less flammable than wood and doesn't contribute fuel to a fire, it still performs poorly in fires. Any urban firefighter can tell you that when steel gets hot it expands and twists, which often causes the roof system to fail and fall down - endangering the lives of firefighters and people trying to escape from the building.

In a fire, the hot air collects at the top of the room or building, heating the truss system to 1500F - 2000F. Since steel loses 80% of its strength at 1000F, this often causes the roof and floor systems to collapse much sooner than in a wood structure under the same conditions.

By contrast, wood retains its structural strength even at temperatures above 2000F and while it is burning. When coated with intumescent paint wood structural members can withstand temperatures of 2,000F for up to one hour without failing.

Even without intumescent paint, wood performs better than steel in a fire because it tends to burn at about " per half hour. Therefore the thicker the structural members, the longer they will last in a fire. Large laminated wood beams have the best fire performance of any commercially available product.

http://www.oregontruss.com/truss-info/applica...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253034 Feb 11, 2013
Get info from the people who were there working on the fires. Here is what they say about WTC7. They knew it was going to collapse.

indy

Jacksonville, FL

#253035 Feb 11, 2013
911 was a conspiracy .... terrorists conspired to nail us like they had been doing since the clinton watch ..... i wish he had taken obl when he was offered to billy boy
grill

Winchester, KY

#253037 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
In controlled tests, wooden beams and glue beams remain structurally sound long after an equivalent steel beam fails.
Myth #1: Steel framed buildings are more resistant to fire and easier to get approved for fire code.
Though steel is less flammable than wood and doesn't contribute fuel to a fire, it still performs poorly in fires. Any urban firefighter can tell you that when steel gets hot it expands and twists, which often causes the roof system to fail and fall down - endangering the lives of firefighters and people trying to escape from the building.
In a fire, the hot air collects at the top of the room or building, heating the truss system to 1500F - 2000F. Since steel loses 80% of its strength at 1000F, this often causes the roof and floor systems to collapse much sooner than in a wood structure under the same conditions.
By contrast, wood retains its structural strength even at temperatures above 2000F and while it is burning. When coated with intumescent paint wood structural members can withstand temperatures of 2,000F for up to one hour without failing.
Even without intumescent paint, wood performs better than steel in a fire because it tends to burn at about " per half hour. Therefore the thicker the structural members, the longer they will last in a fire. Large laminated wood beams have the best fire performance of any commercially available product.
http://www.oregontruss.com/truss-info/applica...
Gee, I wonder how my little Weber camping grill holds up so well even when I make the fire real big and hot especially for those all day cookouts from dawn till dusk.

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
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 min MUQ2 40,237
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 min Paul Porter1 830,751
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 22 min seotop 176,579
Bizarre things can happen to everybody everywhe... 41 min uncover 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 51 min oxbow 586,009
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Paul Porter1 99,321
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr Theswamiji 6,406
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Remnant of 144000 611,950
More from around the web