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

#254671 Apr 5, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
The NIST report says building 7 fell at free fall speed.
63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ck0sF5wnH4QXX
WTC 7 took around 18 seconds to collapse start to finish. The claim of free-fall 6 seconds is false and debunked.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254672 Apr 5, 2013
BibleVideo wrote:
.
NEARING RAPTURE ---- Who goes?...Who stays?
http://youtu.be/LVvXgkOK-84
.
Don't care. Leave me your car keys.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254673 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Free fall is just another meaningless twoofer canard.
Go ask an engineer.
... But don't ask one of those Twoofer engineers with no field experience. They don't know that building demolitions take tons of steel plate to direct the charges inward for steel-framed construction. They don't know that the use of thermite is impractical for sequential blasts required to demolish a tall building. The fact is thermite works very slowly like a cutting torch. They can't watch a video and see huge chunks descending at free fall speed while the rest of the structure falls at a much slower rate of speed.
Kcalberaswejlaer eht

United States

#254674 Apr 5, 2013
BibleVideo wrote:
.
NEARING RAPTURE ---- Who goes?...Who stays?
http://youtu.be/LVvXgkOK-84
.
Rapture is bs. As a matter of fact, the term "rapture" is nowhere found in the bible. But you can feel free to empty your bank account into mine.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254676 Apr 5, 2013
Kcalberaswejlaereht wrote:
<quoted text>
Rapture is bs. As a matter of fact, the term "rapture" is nowhere found in the bible. But you can feel free to empty your bank account into mine.
I agree. Rapture is a group delusion.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#254677 Apr 5, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>Glad all is well with you and yours. Life is good here in cowtown my friend , pretty weather and beautiful women. One of my clients just bought a house 3 miles from Padre Island so I'll be spending a good portion of my summer on the beach. Damn the luck!
No need to ask an engineer . I searched the NIST website there are about 97 references . Not only in the NIST NCSTAR 1-5A papers it's also used in the quantum physics division ,and here in weights and measures division http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/mass.cfm Or if you look here it will save me a lot of typing ... http://www.nist.gov/search-results.cfm... .

Do you consider NIST a "twoofer" organization now ?

peace
Nice! Still haven't made it to the padre Islands, maybe this year!

And what I meant had nothing to do with the term"free fall" but the implication that free fall=controlled demolition.

Simply put, if fire can cause structural failure (and there's no doubt it can), then it can cause free fall and global collapse of a structure given the right conditions.

The fact that fires burned for hours and the design incorporated the need to build over an existing structure were inclusive if those conditions.
Padre Juan

Austin, TX

#254679 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
...
Simply put, if fire can cause structural failure (and there's no doubt it can), then it can cause free fall and global collapse of a structure given the right conditions.
Right conditions? Never before in the history of steel-frame high-rises has such a global failure occurred, never mind symmetric free fall. But let's see if there are any clues to these alleged "right conditions" in the Final NIST WTC-7 Report.
Porkpie Hat wrote:
The fact that fires burned for hours ...
(from page 47 of the final report on WTC7): "Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 ... PERSISTED IN ANY GIVEN LOCATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 MIN to 30 MIN."

(from page 7 of the final report on WTC7): "The instructions to the bidders [of Spray-on Fire Retardant Material - SFRM] for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 hour rating for the columns and a 2 hour rating for the metal deck and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction. These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory(1983), these ratings required a thickness of 22 mm (7/8 in.) of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 48 mm (1 7/8 in.) to be applied to the lighter columns, 13 mm (1/2 in.) to be applied to the beams, and 10 mm (3/8 in.) to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. PRIVATE INSPECTORS FOUND THAT THE APPLIED SFRM THICKNESSES WERE CONSISTENT WITH THESE VALUES."

(from page 16 of the final report on WTC7):"Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7. For instance, damage to the sprayed fire resistive material (SFRM) was limited to the immediate vicinity of the WTC 1 debris impact. There was no superficial or structural damage to the north and east faces."

(NOTE that column 79, from whence "global collapse" allegedly initiated, was located near the north-east corner!)
Porkpie Hat wrote:
...and the design incorporated the need to build over an existing structure were inclusive if those conditions.
(from page xxxvii of final report on WTC7): "The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation DID NOT PLAY a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

__________

Maybe you can describe the right conditions that caused this unprecedented global failure in a building where the fire burned out within 20-30 minutes at any given location, where the steel was insulated with SFRM rated for 2-3 hours, where the insulation was admittedly not damaged throughout most of the structure, and where the design elements regarding the Con Edison substation played no substantial role?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254681 Apr 5, 2013
Padre Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
Right conditions? Never before in the history of steel-frame high-rises has such a global failure occurred, never mind symmetric free fall. But let's see if there are any clues to these alleged "right conditions" in the Final NIST WTC-7 Report.
<quoted text>
(from page 47 of the final report on WTC7): "Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 ... PERSISTED IN ANY GIVEN LOCATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 MIN to 30 MIN."
(from page 7 of the final report on WTC7): "The instructions to the bidders [of Spray-on Fire Retardant Material - SFRM] for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 hour rating for the columns and a 2 hour rating for the metal deck and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction. These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory(1983), these ratings required a thickness of 22 mm (7/8 in.) of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 48 mm (1 7/8 in.) to be applied to the lighter columns, 13 mm (1/2 in.) to be applied to the beams, and 10 mm (3/8 in.) to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. PRIVATE INSPECTORS FOUND THAT THE APPLIED SFRM THICKNESSES WERE CONSISTENT WITH THESE VALUES."
(from page 16 of the final report on WTC7):"Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7. For instance, damage to the sprayed fire resistive material (SFRM) was limited to the immediate vicinity of the WTC 1 debris impact. There was no superficial or structural damage to the north and east faces."
(NOTE that column 79, from whence "global collapse" allegedly initiated, was located near the north-east corner!)
<quoted text>
(from page xxxvii of final report on WTC7): "The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation DID NOT PLAY a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."
__________
Maybe you can describe the right conditions that caused this unprecedented global failure in a building where the fire burned out within 20-30 minutes at any given location, where the steel was insulated with SFRM rated for 2-3 hours, where the insulation was admittedly not damaged throughout most of the structure, and where the design elements regarding the Con Edison substation played no substantial role?
Never in history have fully fueled jet liners been purposely crashed into buildings either? What is your point?

Of course the floor loading came into play. Everything above the seventh floor was supported by exterior columns and three vertical trusses in a cantilever design. The destruction of columns and uneven loading along with the extreme weight of the transformers all contributed to the collapse. It is very obvious.
oh the irony

Charleston, WV

#254682 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, no junkie boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS, I was pointing out the massively hilarious irony of an imbecile who spreads the long debunked myths of twoof calling someone else disinfo.
Go back to sleep now junkie.
Umm, no pustule puckering piehole, I was pointing out the massively hilarious irony of an imbecile who spreads the myths of the official govie fairytale calling someone else disinfo.
Go back to sleep now porkie piehole.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254683 Apr 5, 2013
The Lobby:

Although it is counterintuitive that so much damage to the lobby could be caused by the planes crashing so far above, it is plausible when one considers the nature of the crashes, the properties of jet fuel, and the design of the Towers. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower in a dead-centered blow centered around the 95th floor, most of its fuel was carried into the Tower's interior, and a good deal of it into the core. The core contained the elevator shafts, including several express elevator shafts that ran the height of the Tower. Jet fuel could have descended these elevator shafts without burning if its concentration was above its upper explosive limit (too rich a mixture to burn). By the time the fuel reached the lobby level, it may have been diluted to below the upper explosive limit, where any spark would have caused explosive ignition. Such a fuel-air explosion could have easily produced the reported damage in the North Tower's lobby.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911myster...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254684 Apr 5, 2013
Both Flight 11 and 175 were headed for Los Angeles.

Both flights originated in Boston's Logan International airport. Both carried a large quantity of fuel necessary for completing a transcontinental flight.
Mr Jones

Pittsburgh, PA

#254689 Apr 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Never in history have fully fueled jet liners been purposely crashed into buildings either? What is your point?
Of course the floor loading came into play. Everything above the seventh floor was supported by exterior columns and three vertical trusses in a cantilever design. The destruction of columns and uneven loading along with the extreme weight of the transformers all contributed to the collapse. It is very obvious.
Fully fueled jet liners did not strike WTC-7, either. No plane hit WTC-7.

As a matter of fact, fully fueled jet liners didn't strike either of the Twin Towers. They were both at about 40% capacity, and much of the fuel in the second impact burned instantly in the giant fire ball outside the structure.

It sounds like you are disputing NIST's claim in their WTC-7 Final Report that the cantilever design played NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the destruction of the building. Do you have any evidence, or are you just conjuring pies from your hat?

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254690 Apr 6, 2013
And somehow not a single call to 911 reporting a lobby explosion before the plane impacts .... go figure ??
Gelmand wrote:
<quoted text>
911research.wtc7.net is a very helpful website, thanks for that link!
Interesting to note that this is a speculative explanation that you are quoting, part of a larger point-by-point analysis of the evidence for demolition presented in the documentary "9/11 Mysteries."
I think this speculative answer fails to address the multiple explosions at Lobby level (and some of the the video footage of firefighters describing multiple blast events were only released by NIST well after the "9/11 Mysteries" film and Jim Hoffman's mostly positive critique. It also obviously can't explain a blast before the plane impact, and this was reported by several witnesses.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#254691 Apr 6, 2013
No!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254692 Apr 6, 2013
Gelmand wrote:
<quoted text>
911research.wtc7.net is a very helpful website, thanks for that link!
Interesting to note that this is a speculative explanation that you are quoting, part of a larger point-by-point analysis of the evidence for demolition presented in the documentary "9/11 Mysteries."
I think this speculative answer fails to address the multiple explosions at Lobby level (and some of the the video footage of firefighters describing multiple blast events were only released by NIST well after the "9/11 Mysteries" film and Jim Hoffman's mostly positive critique. It also obviously can't explain a blast before the plane impact, and this was reported by several witnesses.
It doesn't make any difference. The plane hit the building causing what followed. There was no blast before impact.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254693 Apr 6, 2013
Mr Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Fully fueled jet liners did not strike WTC-7, either. No plane hit WTC-7.
As a matter of fact, fully fueled jet liners didn't strike either of the Twin Towers. They were both at about 40% capacity, and much of the fuel in the second impact burned instantly in the giant fire ball outside the structure.
It sounds like you are disputing NIST's claim in their WTC-7 Final Report that the cantilever design played NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the destruction of the building. Do you have any evidence, or are you just conjuring pies from your hat?
Want to buy some beachfront property in Arizon?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canmore, Canada

#254694 Apr 6, 2013
Ah yes, the "never before" fallacy which negates everything from manned flight to sliced bread. The fallacy which completely ignores the fact that steel never was impervious to fire.

Funny.

Now for the obvious. You've never read not do you have a snowballs chance in hell of understanding the the engineering reports on WTC 7.

Quite obvious when all your citations quote page numbers that are either wrong or simply don't exist. But that's ok, no twoofers actually think for themselves so you're the rule, not the exception.

Regarding your mindlessly copy/pasted drivel,

1) Column 79 is stated to be a major part of the reason why the building collapsed.

2) A fire consuming available fuel in a certain area doesn't mean a) the steel automatically returns to its previous state and b) heat stops being input into a system still on fire.

3) A 2 hour fire retardant eating does not negate the fact that there was thermal expansion and cooling at the sight of many connections which contributed to the overall failure of the load bearing capabilities of the building.

Your attempted arguments are nothing but childish drivel that wouldn't stand 2 seconds of scrutiny by relevant professionals.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canmore, Canada

#254695 Apr 6, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>Umm, no pustule puckering piehole, I was pointing out the massively hilarious irony of an imbecile who spreads the myths of the official govie fairytale calling someone else disinfo.
Go back to sleep now porkie piehole.
Careful junkie boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS, you're totally losing your composure.

Did your dealer not show up on time?
oh the irony

Charleston, WV

#254696 Apr 6, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful junkie boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS, you're totally losing your composure.
Did your dealer not show up on time?
Careful pustule puckering piehole, you've totally lost your composure.
Are you feeling lonely that no one wants to debate you anymore, eh canadian?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canmore, Canada

#254697 Apr 6, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>Careful pustule puckering piehole, you've totally lost your composure.
Are you feeling lonely that no one wants to debate you anymore, eh canadian?
O.o a rousing game of "I know you are but what am I" with the resident drug addict.

Shall I play or go do the brakes on my nieces car....decisions, decisions.

Don't forget to turn the lights out before you leave elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS...

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 The 'Fake News' Con: A Case Study 5 min Thesimpletru 39
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min Buck Crick 99,998
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 22 min another viewer 6,141
Is my dollar bill worth more money 2 hr Brice N Livingston 2
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr WildWeirdWillie 184,282
Race, Genocide, OIL 3 hr HiddnNumbrz 1
Cholos and gangsters moving to High Desert. P.S... (Jul '08) 4 hr Brown Out 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 hr Elerby 980,055
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 hr Just Think 670,238
More from around the web