Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,504 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#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

Martell, NE

#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

Martell, NE

#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

Martell, NE

#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

Edmonton, 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.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#253486 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 !
Btw, the line of most resistance was up and p=mv.

Both "m" and "v" were increasing so an increase in "p" was inevitable.

Oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop, your ignorance seems to be increasing too!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#253487 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<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 !
Refute your ignorance?

Already done oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots glop!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#253488 Feb 19, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<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 !
Oh the delicious irony!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253489 Feb 19, 2013
It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.
.
Nist have ruled out pancaking, but they seem to forget that one part of their story, the "squibs", is dependent on another part, the pancaking. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." In order for a pressure to build up two floors must come together. This can only happen in two ways one of which, involving at least one floor becoming detached, is ruled out by NIST now saying that this pancaking did not occur. The only other possibility is if the columns supporting the floors buckle or fail in some way. Nist are asking us to believe that the air then ejected as squibs some thirty or more storys, some 100 meters below the collapse front, rather than through the very obvious route offered by the failed columns around the entire perimeter of the building. Not only does this defy credibility, the very fact that NIST thought that they could get away with this, defies credibility.
.
Here we see why NIST have decided to ask their own questions. They say,
.
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
.
Whereas the question could be posed as, "Why did the structure offer minimal resistance to the falling upper mass?" In this case NIST's circular answer would be more obvious, when they say,
.
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: "… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone.
.
They do not support this contention with any analysis whatsoever. They don't even provide a single calculation to support the claim that the towers would provide little resistance to a falling mass but instead rely on the potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha
.
That’s A Funny One Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#253490 Feb 19, 2013
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, NIST says 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
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha
.
That’s A Funny One Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#253492 Feb 19, 2013
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think the govt said no to a new investigation?
Wake up and study all the facts and not just what the govt says is all the facts.
Investigate what exactly? Suppose another investigation comes to exactly the same conclusion. Then what?

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) 1 min Buck Crick 865,327
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 6 min Oop 463
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min Truths 612,917
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 29 min kent 599,904
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 32 min Marvinbutdo 6,518
Let's talk masturbation (Apr '08) 37 min Marvinbutdo 16
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr REASHMA 7,503
The Christian Atheist debate 9 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 2,016
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 22 hr Frannie 44
More from around the web