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

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#253466 Feb 19, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>I will forever trust the opinons of 1500+ engineers, architects, physicists and other professionals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =X-V1CiuGMJoXX
Good for you!

I'll trust the opinions of the other 99.9% of the worlds engineers, architects, physicists and professionals...including the ones I've personally spoken with about twoof.

Arguments from authority are so fun!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253467 Feb 19, 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 mpact 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 ha aha h
.
That’s Still Funny After All These Years

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253468 Feb 19, 2013
mu shu had a lot of fun being the schoolyard bully. Taunting the other kids, calling them names. His dad must have tortured him to make him so mean.
.
He never outgrew his childhood. What a mean little mu shu piggie porker.
.
Ad Hom much, big brave internet bully?
.
Oops I almost forgot pyschoinfantile, pedophilic, narcissistic, sophist, ideologue, lying bwunker.
.
Jet fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good Joke Huh Eh !

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#253469 Feb 19, 2013
NIST with charged with finding the cause of the collapse. NIST and most engineers also realize that once the collapse initiated nothing but the ground was going to stop it so there was no need to look into the entire collapse
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
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 .
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 mpact 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 ha aha h
.
That’s Still Funny After All These Years

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#253470 Feb 19, 2013
it's good to trust the opinions of electrical and landscape engineers when it comes to a building collapse
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
I will forever trust the opinons of 1500+ engineers, architects, physicists and other professionals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =X-V1CiuGMJoXX
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#253471 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
How The NIST Report Failed To Adequately Investigate 9/11
.
Or The Fox Is Guarding The Henhouse Here Folks
Folks? FOLKS???

Terry, is that you?
Charlie Sheen

Waxhaw, NC

#253472 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
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.
From the NIST report, page xxxvii:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253473 Feb 19, 2013
Question:

Why did the strong steel frame work below the impact and fire areas which were totally undamaged and unheated, give way as completely and quickly as they did?
.
How do you explain away increasing momentum straight down along the line of most resistance?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#253474 Feb 19, 2013
DOWN is the path of gravity Oh CLUELESS ONE .... now of you can't figure out why tens of thousand of tons of building moving at 100MPH was not stopped by the rest of the building then we can't help you
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Question:
Why did the strong steel frame work below the impact and fire areas which were totally undamaged and unheated, give way as completely and quickly as they did?
.
How do you explain away increasing momentum straight down along the line of most resistance?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253475 Feb 19, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
DOWN is the path of gravity Oh CLUELESS ONE .... now of you can't figure out why tens of thousand of tons of building moving at 100MPH was not stopped by the rest of the building then we can't help you
<quoted text>
What video of the collapse were you watching when you measured 100 mph? How many floors at a time was your imaginary speed of 100 mph sustained for?
.
Show your math. You said you were a business major. Don't they use math?
.
About 9/11, no FDNY ever said "explosion". Not once in any early interview and not in any later interviews.
.
If someone tells you the FDNY claim to have seen or heard "explosions", they are lying and the FDNY is lying to keep their jobs!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's No Lie, It's A Joke And It's On Us See Huh Eh !
Charlie Sheen

Manchester, KY

#253476 Feb 19, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
I will forever trust the opinons of 1500+ engineers, architects, physicists and other professionals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =X-V1CiuGMJoXX
Yes, Especial those architects and theologians.
Charlie Sheen

Manchester, KY

#253477 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>

About 9/11, no FDNY ever said "explosion".
There is more than one FDNY or is that the jet fuel huffing speaking?
Charlie Sheen

Manchester, KY

#253478 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Question:
How do you explain away increasing momentum straight down along the line of most resistance?
Because mass increased with each floor failure.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253479 Feb 19, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
DOWN is the path of gravity Oh CLUELESS ONE .... now of you can't figure out why tens of thousand of tons of building moving at 100MPH was not stopped by the rest of the building then we can't help you
<quoted text>
1. No refutation at all
.
2. Dismiss out of hand
.
3. Ad Hom and ridicule
.
How did I know how it would go?
.
Classic paranoid debwunking
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha h ah ah
.
That's A Good Joke Huh eh !

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#253480 Feb 19, 2013
I've read it takes a mass a little more than 4.5 seconds to reach 100 mph
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
What video of the collapse were you watching when you measured 100 mph? How many floors at a time was your imaginary speed of 100 mph sustained for?
.
Show your math. You said you were a business major. Don't they use math?
.
About 9/11, no FDNY ever said "explosion". Not once in any early interview and not in any later interviews.
.
If someone tells you the FDNY claim to have seen or heard "explosions", they are lying and the FDNY is lying to keep their jobs!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's No Lie, It's A Joke And It's On Us See Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253481 Feb 19, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is more than one FDNY or is that the jet fuel huffing speaking?
ALL the FDNY, every one of them.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha
.
Funny But Not For Huffing huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253482 Feb 19, 2013
How did the mass increase?
.
Did you make up some more mass?
.
How much does a million lbs of dust weigh, blowing in the wind?
.
NIST said there was no piledriver.
.
Where's the piledriver?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
That's As Funny As Increasing Mass Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253483 Feb 19, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
I've read it takes a mass a little more than 4.5 seconds to reach 100 mph
<quoted text>
You say you read it but your comprehension is sorely lacking.
.
What kind of book did you see pictures like that in?
.
Name of book. Author. Show your work.
.
Was it a big mass or a little mass?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ah aha ha
.
That's As Funny As A Business Major Trying To Read a Book That Only Has Pictures. Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253484 Feb 19, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
I've read it takes a mass a little more than 4.5 seconds to reach 100 mph
<quoted text>
Would that be regular mass or high mass?
.
Pope ?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Funny Mass Huh Eh !

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#253485 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Question:

Why did the strong steel frame work below the impact and fire areas which were totally undamaged and unheated, give way as completely and quickly as they did?
.
How do you explain away increasing momentum straight down along the line of most resistance?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !
Dynamics dummy.

Yield level stress under thousands of tons of rapidly moving mass.

I know elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop, you don't get it...and at the rate you avoid learning, you never will.

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
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 2 min RiversideRedneck 113
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Clearwater 88,081
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 12 min Peter Ross 531
topic sex forum gone? 15 min Cookie9904 59
How To Download Facebook and YouTube Videos in HD 19 min Hotty7564 2
Royal Holiday Timeshare Fraud 23 min Rose9858 2
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 27 min Tulip298 282
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Just Think 665,281
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr karl44 977,272
More from around the web