Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,509 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#262256 Nov 12, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evidence of thermite zero." Investigation/testing of the presence of thermite also zero. So how was this theory produced?
"Evidence of production of iron rich micro spheres by other means) 35 years worth"
35 years of rusting of iron rich micro spheres created by welding of construction.
Iron of any size will rust in a dry environment as well as a wet one.
http://www.ask.com/question/what-conditions-c...
"The types of conditions that cause iron nails (much larger than micro spheres) to rust faster include damp, dark places. Rust loves areas with no sunshine or air or someplace that will dry up the liquid quickly."
http://www.ask.com/question/what-conditions-c...
You have no case drunkard.
Give it up. I won't call you stupid but you're close and persistent as well.
Anyone who has ever electric arc welded, or seen it, knows iron rich micro spheres are formed and are blasted everywhere around the arc formed during such welding.
There must have been a lot of electric arc welding during the construction of the WTC towers. Oxy-Acetylene cutting yes, which will create iron rich spheres and larger pieces of iron rich slag. I can assure you no Oxy-Acetylene welding was employed during construction of the WTC towers.
Any iron rich spheres found at ground zero were not originally caused by arc welding or oxy-acetylene cutting during construction. These original small (micro) beads or drops of iron will rust easily in any environment and could not last 35 years to be found in the extensive dust left all over Lower Manhattan after the collapse of the buildings.
Huh Eh !
Oxy-Acetylene rigs were extensively used during the cleanup. The Twoofer dust was "discovered" after the clean up. Do you have any point at all here?
P equals MV

Richmond, KY

#262260 Nov 12, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, you're a moron and I'd be happy to help oh elevator boy-sheep-socky!
See dummy, you still have a massive problem with your idiotic claim. That problem is that you haven't supported the premise that free fall can only occur by use of nefarious means.
In the real world any relevant professionals not trying to dumb you down understands fully that the 3.5 seconds of free fall WTC 7 experienced occurred after the east and west mechanical penthouses sunk into the building which only happen if the interior structure beneath them had already failed.
Now given that there was no longer any ability for a portion of the building to withstand the force of gravity and the destruction of load bearing capability, the curtain wall fell.
You've been mainlining D.U.M.B.(Deliberate Uttering of Misinformation and Blatherings) for a long time elevator boy-sheep-socky so it's not like you'll understand a word of this.
Go into your local university and show my post...and your laughably idiotic bleatings to a structural engineering prof.
He'll help you see your folly!
in the real world there is this thing called friction and resistance which has to be accounted for in p=mv, which means that velocity has to DIMINISH which means you cannot have acceleration of the collapse sequence which means that the energy imparted from the initial momentum gradually goes to ZERO since resistance is met with each successive floor...even a high school physics student knows this so there is no need to go to a university on this simple concept. But since you're a welder I can understand your difficulty in comprehending this.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#262261 Nov 12, 2013
P equals MV wrote:
<quoted text>in the real world there is this thing called friction and resistance which has to be accounted for in p=mv, which means that velocity has to DIMINISH which means you cannot have acceleration of the collapse sequence which means that the energy imparted from the initial momentum gradually goes to ZERO since resistance is met with each successive floor...even a high school physics student knows this so there is no need to go to a university on this simple concept. But since you're a welder I can understand your difficulty in comprehending this.
That again is a lot of words to show you haven't for even the slightest clue what you're trying to say.

Reality-twoof claims fire induced structural failure is impossible.

Reality-twoof has done nothing to support that claim.

Reality-all the dancing in the world won't help you prove an unsupportable claim.

Reality-there is no physical law or reason that says fire induced structural failure could not have accounted for the collapse of WTC 7.

Reality-friction CAN be negligible in any collapse scenario if the mass of the moving object and the applies force (g) is sufficient.

Reality-the building interior had already partially collapsed as confirmed by the disappearance of the penthouses.

Reality-the calculation for the coefficient of static friction will be 0.

Reality-the coefficient of kinetic friction will also be 0.

Reality-the coefficient for steel on steel friction is 0.57.

Reality-0.57*0=0

Awww....twoof lost again!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#262262 Nov 12, 2013
Btw oh elevator boy-sheep-socky, where do you get the idea that in the presence of friction, velocity must decrease?

Do you even have a clue how dumb that is?

Do you get that what you're actually saying is that nothing could ever collapse as long as friction is present?

Of course you don't, you're really that dumb!

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#262263 Nov 12, 2013
P equals MV wrote:
<quoted text>
in the real world there is this thing called friction and resistance which has to be accounted for in p=mv, which means that velocity has to DIMINISH which means you cannot have acceleration of the collapse sequence which means that the energy imparted from the initial momentum gradually goes to ZERO since resistance is met with each successive floor...even a high school physics student knows this so there is no need to go to a university on this simple concept. But since you're a welder I can understand your difficulty in comprehending this.
That would be true if the collapsing mass was only the 1 floor above the collapse initiation point.
But it was way beyond design load limits from that point.
Catastrophic failure was eminent because of that.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#262264 Nov 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That would be true if the collapsing mass was only the 1 floor above the collapse initiation point.
But it was way beyond design load limits from that point.
Catastrophic failure was eminent because of that.
You're being far to kind:-)

He's saying that friction always causes a decrease in velocity so in his world of make believe a load of 10kg at rest could never fall since it experiences Fn=Fg=mg.

Since the initial velocity is 0m/s there is no way to move the object in any direction except straight up...

Of course that's ludicrous and velocity can increase regardless of the presence of friction...although acceleration may decrease IF "m" stays constant or if the mass added to the system is insufficient to overcome friction.
onemale

Pana, IL

#262265 Nov 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That would be true if the collapsing mass was only the 1 floor above the collapse initiation point.
But it was way beyond design load limits from that point.
Catastrophic failure was eminent because of that.
Your story is just a repeat of govie BS that makes no sense.
The mass you are referring to was in the form of dust and multi ton beams ejected outward 600 feet away from the towers. There should have been a reduction in the weight above.
In addition to: The 47 core columns were designed to hold 3 times the weight above, and the 240+ perimeter columns were designed to hold 5 times the weight above.
onemale

Pana, IL

#262266 Nov 12, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
That again is a lot of words to show you haven't for even the slightest clue what you're trying to say.
Reality-twoof claims fire induced structural failure is impossible.
Reality-twoof has done nothing to support that claim.
Reality-all the dancing in the world won't help you prove an unsupportable claim.
Reality-there is no physical law or reason that says fire induced structural failure could not have accounted for the collapse of WTC 7.
Reality-friction CAN be negligible in any collapse scenario if the mass of the moving object and the applies force (g) is sufficient.
Reality-the building interior had already partially collapsed as confirmed by the disappearance of the penthouses.
Reality-the calculation for the coefficient of static friction will be 0.
Reality-the coefficient of kinetic friction will also be 0.
Reality-the coefficient for steel on steel friction is 0.57.
Reality-0.57*0=0
Awww....twoof lost again!
How did WTC 7 fall from the bottom up when the fires were on the upper floors? Your claim makes no sense, but then what else is new?
onemale

Pana, IL

#262267 Nov 12, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
Btw oh elevator boy-sheep-socky, where do you get the idea that in the presence of friction, velocity must decrease?
Do you even have a clue how dumb that is?
Do you get that what you're actually saying is that nothing could ever collapse as long as friction is present?
Of course you don't, you're really that dumb!
Now I understand your philosophy... a car running 60 mph hits a parked car and the impact doesn't slow down the moving car.
How dumb is that?
onemale

Pana, IL

#262268 Nov 12, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Show your math on metal vs concrete weakening by strength percentage and temperature.
It should be common knowledge.
Take a concrete block throw it in a brush fire.
When the fire is out see how brittle the block is.
A brick... same story.
onemale

Pana, IL

#262269 Nov 12, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, OK, So a fire from a burning fuel truck weakening an overpass with metal reinforcements is UNBELIEVABLE TO YOU!
But ....
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU, WOW, YOU ARE STUPID!
The metal reinforcements were covered with concrete, the concrete weakened... what part of that can't you understand?
Besides comparing a concrete bridge to a "steel frame building" is comparing apples to oranges.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#262270 Nov 12, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
But RJ Lee isn't a twoof sanctioned source so they'll just ignore reality...again.
They do like to misquote or just plain lie about the source
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor do they want anyone else having samples for independent testing.
Chris Mohr who organized the Millette tests asked for samples of twoofer dust and was told no by TTTB (the twoofers that be).
Twoofers such as Steven E. Jones demand an independent inquiry and yet refuse to have the evidence they claim to have independent tested.

Independent testing would mean that there is no more pay for peer review ,peer reviewed by fellow members as with The Journal of 9/11 Studies and the co-editor of this Journal are none other than Steven Jones.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#262271 Nov 12, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
In addition to: The 47 core columns were designed to hold 3 times the weight above, and the 240+ perimeter columns were designed to hold 5 times the weight above.
yes,a static load
What does it become when its moving,it becomes a (....)load?

What was the(....) weight measured to be
a)3
b)5
c)35 times the static load.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#262272 Nov 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Oxy-Acetylene rigs were extensively used during the cleanup. The Twoofer dust was "discovered" after the clean up. Do you have any point at all here?
The twoofer dust was collected 9 days after the event
onemale

Pana, IL

#262273 Nov 12, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
yes,a static load
What does it become when its moving,it becomes a (....)load?
What was the(....) weight measured to be
a)3
b)5
c)35 times the static load.
Sounds like BS that NIST would put out.
Where is the load during free fall or near free fall?
onemale

Pana, IL

#262274 Nov 12, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
They do like to misquote or just plain lie about the source
<quoted text>
Twoofers such as Steven E. Jones demand an independent inquiry and yet refuse to have the evidence they claim to have independent tested.
Independent testing would mean that there is no more pay for peer review ,peer reviewed by fellow members as with The Journal of 9/11 Studies and the co-editor of this Journal are none other than Steven Jones.
My question is, what is the motive that Steven Jones would lie?

onemale

Pana, IL

#262275 Nov 12, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
yes,a static load
What does it become when its moving,it becomes a (....)load?
What was the(....) weight measured to be
a)3
b)5
c)35 times the static load.
Basically makes no sense.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#262276 Nov 12, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Your story is just a repeat of govie BS that makes no sense.
The mass you are referring to was in the form of dust and multi ton beams ejected outward 600 feet away from the towers. There should have been a reduction in the weight above.
In addition to: The 47 core columns were designed to hold 3 times the weight above, and the 240+ perimeter columns were designed to hold 5 times the weight above.
"A reduction in the weight above?"
How can there be a reduction when it is a collapse progression?
It only gains mass as it collapses.

"The 47 core columns were designed to hold 3 times the weight above."

Actually they were designed to hold 5 times there load, that means 1 floor could support the weight of 5 floors.

The collapse points were at 10+ and 20+ floors above the floor that the collapses started, simple math , one was twice the load limit , the other 4x the load limit. In each case the mass above was beyond design limitation, and collapse eminent.

Kinetic energy in falling objects makes them do strange things, ever drop something and it bounced way farther away than it seemed possible? Took awhile to find it because there was no way it got way over there.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#262277 Nov 12, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like BS that NIST would put out.
Where is the load during free fall or near free fall?
There you go for the tenth time
Dynamic Load


And get your 911 was against physics video or what ever it was called and see if the same results are in that

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#262278 Nov 12, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
My question is, what is the motive that Steven Jones would lie?
Why do twoofers lie?
1)money
2)to fit their delusions

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) 9 min Hidingfromyou 865,888
The Christian Atheist debate 25 min Critical Eye 2,081
pijat pasutri bali (Apr '13) 40 min dheka 54
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 43 min karl44 600,165
Middle aged man prefers wearing women's PANTIES 1 hr licketyslit54 1
Christianity is fading away... 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 12
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 hr Student 40,901
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) Sun Victoria Bologna 7,504
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) Sun andy 45
More from around the web