Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

but you keep ignoring the elephant in the room,

the Pentagon missile,

This one is the best explanation of the WTC7 collapse that I have heard. (Sorry I stuffed up the page...I forgot to delete the "s" and when I edited, it was too late).

It is simple, logical and rational, based on evidence.

^ Yes, that's a reasoned explanation.
What it doesn't explain, and in fact makes more incredible, is how, even though there was a 3 storey bulge in the SW corner halfway up the building, how the building didn't topple down towards the weakest point (SW corner, halfway up) but collapsed squarely down on itself... at freefall speed. Actually, freefall is a bit misleading. We've heard from NISTA that the fall accelerated at the acceleration due to gravity.
That implies absolutely no resistance from lower structure.

This has to be the best in-depth explanation about WTC7 collapse.

Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports

Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

No, i expect buildings collapsing due to fire to fall at less than the speed of gravity, as they do.
Several architects have stressed the WTC was built to withstand the impact of airliners crashing into it. Even several airliners.
And hey! Building 7 didn't have one airliner crash into it, yet down it went like a sack of potatoes at the speed of gravity.
Try to watch the following video in between runs of The Titanic.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that the WTC was actually hit by planes (or for that matter not the Titanic that several engineers stated was unsinkable).

Your reticence on the subject makes me think that you're trying to hide or cover-up something. *Suspicious Face*

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

This has to be the best in-depth explanation about WTC7 collapse

Translated: 'This matches most closely to what I already thought so I'll go with that to the exclusion of, well, everything else'.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

at freefall speed

LMAO, what is with you guys and this "freefall speed" thing.

Just replace that phrase with "Jesus HIS HOLINESS" and you can pretty well sum up your guys feelings for what is apparently the holy grail of whatever

The thing is : the firefighters who were present there at the time strongly suspected it was going to collapse.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

^ Yes, that's a reasoned explanation.
What it doesn't explain, and in fact makes more incredible, is how, even though there was a 3 storey bulge in the SW corner halfway up the building, how the building didn't topple down towards the weakest point (SW corner, halfway up) but collapsed squarely down on itself... at freefall speed. Actually, freefall is a bit misleading. We've heard from NISTA that the fall accelerated at the acceleration due to gravity.
That implies absolutely no resistance from lower structure.

It is ALL explained in the NIST report if you take the time to read it.

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

And it was not a "symmetrical collapse", another load of bollocks trotted out by idiots who read whackjob websites.



The trouble is that the whackjobs would rather listen to the ramblings of unqualified hacks than experienced structural engineers.

Again, this is known as "Confirmation Bias", better known as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Ner Ner ne Ner Ner" because you can't handle the truth.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

The thing is : the firefighters who were present there at the time strongly suspected it was going to collapse.

right because you were there, listening to every words on their radio

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by Latindancer

The thing is : the firefighters who were present there at the time strongly suspected it was going to collapse.

right because you were there, listening to every words on their radio

Shut up you fat queer troll.

Their testimony is well documented, you idiot.

right because you were there too and you can attest that those testimonies were accurately documented

for deniers, you surely seem gullible and into theories yourself

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

right because you were there too and you can attest that those testimonies were accurately documented

for deniers, you surely seem gullible and into theories yourself

As usual, Buttplug demonstrates what a fucking idiot he is.

Is there a single subject about which you know *anything*, other than getting your arse fucked by skanky ladyboys?


Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times

right, because a NYT article is all the evidence you need for the accurate documentation of those testimonies,

like when the NYT was publishing all those articles on the WMD evidence in Iraq, you believed them too

now tell us again, independent thinking not being your strong, who is the gullible believer again Harry

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

right, because a NYT article is all the evidence you need for the accurate documentation of those testimonies,

like when the NYT was publishing all those articles on the WMD evidence in Iraq, you believed them too

now tell us again, independent thinking not being your strong, who is the gullible believer again Harry

The NYT were not the source, you cretin.

Perhaps if you had a basic grasp of English you would have seen the source.

You really are a stupid fat queer troll. You should stick to your ladyboy threads.

Buttplug is obviously in the category below.

The trouble is that the whackjobs would rather listen to the ramblings of unqualified hacks than experienced structural engineers.

Again, this is known as "Confirmation Bias", better known as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Ner Ner ne Ner Ner" because you can't handle the truth.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

right, because a NYT article is all the evidence you need for the accurate documentation of those testimonies,

like when the NYT was publishing all those articles on the WMD evidence in Iraq, you believed them too

now tell us again, independent thinking not being your strong, who is the gullible believer again Harry

The NYT were not the source, you cretin.

Perhaps if you had a basic grasp of English you would have seen the source.

You really are a stupid fat queer troll. You should stick to your ladyboy threads.

right, so nobody knows the source except the NYT, a bit like we had in 2003 for articles about Iraq WMD, and yet you still believe blindly in that article without further evidence ?

so again harry, tell me who is the blind believer ?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Buttplug is obviously in the category below.

The trouble is that the whackjobs would rather listen to the ramblings of unqualified hacks than experienced structural engineers.

Again, this is known as "Confirmation Bias", better known as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Ner Ner ne Ner Ner" because you can't handle the truth.

you mean like reading a NYT article that is simply claiming that their source confirms some "testimonies" or "allegations" of WMD in Iraq

indeed, confirmation bias, don't want to see anything else that would contradict your narrow and scared view of the world, harry

Yes OK Buttplug, you fat queer troll.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

you mean like reading a NYT article that is simply claiming that their source confirms some "testimonies" or "allegations" of WMD in Iraq

It's in English you idiot.

What the fuck does it have to do with Iraq?

Christ on a bike, you take stupidity to a new nadir.

Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The oral histories

is that oral as reported by a third party ? or are they any tapes ? and can we listen to the tapes directly instead ?

of course not, harry tardette

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

right because you were there too and you can attest that those testimonies were accurately documented

for deniers, you surely seem gullible and into theories yourself

I don't believe Abraham Lincoln existed. No one on earth has seen him, and those testimonies...what were they written on, fucking parchment?

Prove Abraham Lincoln existed

Originally Posted by redhaze

Prove Abraham Lincoln existed

This video clearly proves that Lincoln existed:



And if you pause it at exactly 0:33 and tilt your head to the left and squint your eyes a little what do you see? Yep, a burning building that was hit by be Titanic. Because 9/11.

Also: Hollywood; Jews; cover-up; other stuff.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

right because you were there too and you can attest that those testimonies were accurately documented

for deniers, you surely seem gullible and into theories yourself

I don't believe Abraham Lincoln existed. No one on earth has seen him, and those testimonies...what were they written on, fucking parchment?

Prove Abraham Lincoln existed

Buttplug has a very bad case of Confirmation Bias.

Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true.

Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it.

As a result, he denies the existence of testimony reported many times in many forms where firefighters concurred that the fires in Building 7 were likely to lead to its collapse, and instead slavishly adheres to some whackjob's feeble claim that the building was deliberately blown up because of some batshit crazy conspiracy theory he read on said whackjob's website.

Then again, he is a bit of a fucking idiot, so in his case it's hardly surprising.