Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,084 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Olds, Canada

#254645 Apr 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Of course I can but I'll do it from my laptop at home since opening PDF docs is too cumbersome on a phone.
2) Simply repeating the same stupidity over and over with dozens of socks won't make your delusions true.
Your charlatan masters have never presented any argument that proves the only way for structural support to fail is by explosives or incendiaries.
Fire has been a known threat to steel structures for as long as steel structures have existed.
3) Any organic compound will combust in air and things like paper and peanut butter release more energy. The test was a joke that had one purpose, to feed the flock of fools gullible enough to believe it had any relevance.
And I'll post a video later of a guy melting melting steel wool with a bic lighter and creating the same iron spherules.
Steel wool is actually thicker than the grey layer, which is just metal scale, found on these chips.
1) Table 3-1 pg. 39 of the draft shows a table which includes the free fall portion of the collapse.
R Feynman

Absecon, NJ

#254647 Apr 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>1) Table 3-1 pg. 39 of the draft shows a table which includes the free fall portion of the collapse.
I am certain that the "9.8" that appears in the Table is not a measure of acceleration. The words "free fall" or "gravitational acceleration" do not appear in the Table you indicate. There is no data showing acceleration, period. You are pretending to have accomplished something with this effort?

Here is the claim that you promised to refute:

Don:
There was a period of free-fall for the entire visible perimeter of WTC-7. This can be easily verified by anyone who understands how to determine free-fall acceleration in a video (and physics teacher David Chandler provides lessons to anyone who needs schooling -- including the NIST "investigators"!) Yes, even NIST has conceded a period of free fall for WTC-7.
Porkpie:
NIST never "conceded" anything. Free fall was evident in the draft report
Sierra:
Can you quote the passage(s) from the draft report that acknowledge a period of free fall for the roof line of WTC 7?
Here is a link to the draft document:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...
Porkpie:
Of course I can but I'll do it from my laptop at home since opening PDF docs is too cumbersome on a phone.
Porkpie:
Table 3-1 pg. 39 of the draft shows a table which includes the free fall portion of the collapse.
The word "includes" is not properly used. There is no acknowledgement in that Table on page 39 of the period free fall acceleration.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#254648 Apr 4, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
LMAO .... at what engineering school did you learn this ??
<quoted text>
Google-Twoofer Institute of Technology, School of Advanced YouTube.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#254649 Apr 4, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Can anybody explain why the 32 story land Mark Tower in Texas, the tallest building ever brought down by a CD, did not fall in free fall accleration ????
Did the CD company do something wrong ???
It took them over 4 months to wire the building???
Did the laws of physics take a day off ???
Why no free fall ???
Exactly. Free fall is pure nonsense.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#254650 Apr 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>1) Table 3-1 pg. 39 of the draft shows a table which includes the free fall portion of the collapse.
But the Twoofer claim is unconditional free-fall which is false.
Kcalberaswejlaer eht

Oklahoma City, OK

#254651 Apr 4, 2013
Nigel wrote:
Attention Timestin/YellowPiss/etc.:
I, too, could give you an answer to your query regarding the relationship of freefall to demolition, but first I'd have to invent a time machine and go back in time and persuade your mother not to indulge in so much alcohol and drugs while she was pregnant with you. Otherwise my answer, like those already posted, would be meaningless to you.
Hey, good luck there, kid!
Lmao!!! Timestin/yellowpissreality is Radekt. Yet he accuses others of being sock puppets. Go figure.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#254653 Apr 4, 2013
the 180 wrote:
<quoted text>you did a complete 180 turnaround on your position, that is plainly obvious. Why? Because you like 'messing with people'? Nigguh puleeze, you are a disinfo agent plain and simple, pretending to be a truther only to turn around and say you are completely wrong. Yeah right, we believe that. Your tactics are old and well known to everyone here, try not to be so obvious next time.
http://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg

Hypocrisy and

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#254654 Apr 4, 2013
I just found out where Insults, Doc and Fontaine use for their "academic research".

http://www.theonion.com/video/popular-childre...
oh the irony

Logan, WV

#254655 Apr 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the irony from a proxy wearing sock!
it's become pretty obvious that every time you can't come up with a clever comeback you respond with your old worn out "oh the irony" retort...you're like a broken record pork. You suck at this, can't you think of anything else to say, eh witless canadian?
onemale

Pana, IL

#254657 Apr 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Free fall is pure nonsense.
The NIST report says building 7 fell at free fall speed.

63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#254658 Apr 5, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Can anybody explain why the 32 story land Mark Tower in Texas, the tallest building ever brought down by a CD, did not fall in free fall accleration ????
Did the CD company do something wrong ???
It took them over 4 months to wire the building???
Did the laws of physics take a day off ???
Why no free fall ???
The reason the tower in texas didn't fall @ "free fall" velocity is because before sept 11 buildings met resistance as each floor collapsed onto the next floor , this of course is explained in the next answer.
Yes the cd co. was wrong by using outdated equipment . Probably Did not use thermite, laser beam, terrorist flatulence, jet fuel with an office furniture accelerant,etc.... You know they didn't have access to the governments explosive supply..
Surely you're not as slow as the demolition co., are you? A demo co has to remove any harmful materials(asbestos , windows ,office equipment,etc...) Safety is an issue when you are responsible for American lives . That is Unless you are a member of a govt alphabet agency , they don't give a shit . Also the Demolition co in texas probably only had a couple of guys wiring the tower for its demise where as the govt. has lots of expendables for planting any destructive devices they see fit to use
The laws of physics were defiantly on vacation sept 11 2001 because three buildings were destroyed by jet fuel and office furniture from the top down. I do admit though whomever caused these buildings to collapse knew exactly what they were doing to bring three sky scrapers down so beautifully . Who would've thought stacks of papers , desks and chairs,and file cabinets , with a little jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel.

I guess you are as slow as the c.d. crew in texas , please refer to the first answer for the last question about "free fall" . Please ask your questions only once per post ,most people only need the answer one time .Unless your just an idiot and reading comprehension is not available .

Hope this helped .:p

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254659 Apr 5, 2013
Why Yes, this did help ... it helped prove that you are a complete Imbecile .... Thank You
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason the tower in texas didn't fall @ "free fall" velocity is because before sept 11 buildings met resistance as each floor collapsed onto the next floor , this of course is explained in the next answer.
Yes the cd co. was wrong by using outdated equipment . Probably Did not use thermite, laser beam, terrorist flatulence, jet fuel with an office furniture accelerant,etc.... You know they didn't have access to the governments explosive supply..
Surely you're not as slow as the demolition co., are you? A demo co has to remove any harmful materials(asbestos , windows ,office equipment,etc...) Safety is an issue when you are responsible for American lives . That is Unless you are a member of a govt alphabet agency , they don't give a shit . Also the Demolition co in texas probably only had a couple of guys wiring the tower for its demise where as the govt. has lots of expendables for planting any destructive devices they see fit to use
The laws of physics were defiantly on vacation sept 11 2001 because three buildings were destroyed by jet fuel and office furniture from the top down. I do admit though whomever caused these buildings to collapse knew exactly what they were doing to bring three sky scrapers down so beautifully . Who would've thought stacks of papers , desks and chairs,and file cabinets , with a little jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel.
I guess you are as slow as the c.d. crew in texas , please refer to the first answer for the last question about "free fall" . Please ask your questions only once per post ,most people only need the answer one time .Unless your just an idiot and reading comprehension is not available .
Hope this helped .:p

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254660 Apr 5, 2013
You are shockingly stupid, old creep- but I'm sure you've been told that many times
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>
it's become pretty obvious that every time you can't come up with a clever comeback you respond with your old worn out "oh the irony" retort...you're like a broken record pork. You suck at this, can't you think of anything else to say, eh witless canadian?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#254661 Apr 5, 2013
R Feynman wrote:
I am certain that the "9.8" that appears in the Table is not a measure of acceleration. The words "free fall" or "gravitational acceleration" do not appear in the Table you indicate. There is no data showing acceleration, period. You are pretending to have accomplished something with this effort?

Here is the claim that you promised to refute:

Don:[QUOTE]There was a period of free-fall for the entire visible perimeter of WTC-7. This can be easily verified by anyone who understands how to determine free-fall acceleration in a video (and physics teacher David Chandler provides lessons to anyone who needs schooling -- including the NIST "investigators"!) Yes, even NIST has conceded a period of free fall for WTC-7."

Porkpie:[QUOTE]NIST never "conceded" anything. Free fall was evident in the draft report"

Sierra:[QUOTE]Can you quote the passage(s) from the draft report that acknowledge a period of free fall for the roof line of WTC 7?
Here is a link to the draft document:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm... "

Porkpie:[QUOTE] Of course I can but I'll do it from my laptop at home since opening PDF docs is too cumbersome on a phone."

Porkpie:[QUOTE] Table 3-1 pg. 39 of the draft shows a table which includes the free fall portion of the collapse."

The word "includes" is not properly used. There is no acknowledgement in that Table on page 39 of the period free fall acceleration.
The reality is there's multiple indirect mentions to free fall in the NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1&2 drafts for public comment.

Are they written in such a way that window licking crayon eaters such as yourself understand?

No, it's an engineering report.
Is it worth me wasting my time digging up and referencing them just so you can change the subject and fling more twoof sanctioned sh$t at the wall?

No.

Does free fall imply anything?

No, it's yet another twoofer myth with no qualification or meaning and just another of why,

[Your] Ignorance is [Your] Bliss

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#254662 Apr 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>But the Twoofer claim is unconditional free-fall which is false.
I'm sure they're busily working on proving free fall is an inherent characteristic of all controlled demolitions....right;-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#254663 Apr 5, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>it's become pretty obvious that every time you can't come up with a clever comeback you respond with your old worn out "oh the irony" retort...you're like a broken record pork. You suck at this, can't you think of anything else to say, eh witless canadian?
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.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#254664 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
No, it says the total collapse time shows it fell 40% longer than free fall but there was a 2.6 second period of free fall.

But you just keep clinging to easily debunked lies.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#254665 Apr 5, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>The reason the tower in texas didn't fall @ "free fall" velocity is because before sept 11 buildings met resistance as each floor collapsed onto the next floor , this of course is explained in the next answer.
Yes the cd co. was wrong by using outdated equipment . Probably Did not use thermite, laser beam, terrorist flatulence, jet fuel with an office furniture accelerant,etc.... You know they didn't have access to the governments explosive supply..
Surely you're not as slow as the demolition co., are you? A demo co has to remove any harmful materials(asbestos , windows ,office equipment,etc...) Safety is an issue when you are responsible for American lives . That is Unless you are a member of a govt alphabet agency , they don't give a shit . Also the Demolition co in texas probably only had a couple of guys wiring the tower for its demise where as the govt. has lots of expendables for planting any destructive devices they see fit to use
The laws of physics were defiantly on vacation sept 11 2001 because three buildings were destroyed by jet fuel and office furniture from the top down. I do admit though whomever caused these buildings to collapse knew exactly what they were doing to bring three sky scrapers down so beautifully . Who would've thought stacks of papers , desks and chairs,and file cabinets , with a little jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel.

I guess you are as slow as the c.d. crew in texas , please refer to the first answer for the last question about "free fall" . Please ask your questions only once per post ,most people only need the answer one time .Unless your just an idiot and reading comprehension is not available .

Hope this helped .:p
Free fall is just another meaningless twoofer canard.

Go ask an engineer.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#254666 Apr 5, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Free fall is just another meaningless twoofer canard.
Go ask an engineer.
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

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#254667 Apr 5, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Why Yes, this did help ... it helped prove that you are a complete Imbecile .... Thank You
<quoted text>
Ouch that really hurt . Please feel free to call me anything you like as I understand your a little slow . Asking the same question twice in the same post is evidence of this . Please be more creative next time , imbecile is such an old word. My IQ is probably close to an imbecile though , I responded to you didn't I?

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
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 5 min mamma-san 221,536
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Aura Mytha 795,125
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 10 min AntiqueAnnie 607,179
Thousands march in Holocaust memorial (Apr '06) 15 min Clear Dharma 488
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 18 min Liam 567,963
I'm 13 F from the UK looking for an online Mast... (Mar '14) 1 hr Xxx 12
What's app 1 hr Beth 1
Scientific proof for God's existence 4 hr lightbeamrider 545
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 21 hr Rashes 177
More from around the web