Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by attaboy

Brilliant. Terry some may not agree with me but you are brilliant.

Yes, both composition and lighting are first rate

Thank you so much for finally coming to your senses and agreeing that a commercial plane impact brought the Twin Towers down... this could not have been better explained than with these diagrams, to show how relatively fragile the entire structure was built.

Thanks. Cheers ;-)

^Shill Tosser

This is the umpteenth time ENT has done this kind of thing, though this may be the best example.

There's just no fucking way is there.

^

Fuk me Albert, when I look at those structural drawings it is so easy to see how those steel beams went to shit and collapsed into a screaming pile of crap when those planes flew into them and the resulting fire took away the structural strength.


Jesus, a building made with a pack of cards, the terrorists could not of picked a more perfect target.

^ How in the wonderful world of fuck can you think that 2 planes burning that high totaly vapourised the building Tel?

Collapsed - sure.

Straight down - freefall speed - NOT A FUCKING CHANCE IN HELL

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^ How in the wonderful world of fuck can you think that 2 planes burning that high totally vaporized the building Tel?

Quite simple really. For starters they did not vaporize fuk all.

Oh fuk it, cant be fucked, we've done this a thousand times over.

Good night Albert.

Anyway, I win, you guys are fuked up and ENT still has an unnatural attraction to the cock.

Good night Tel.

You're wrong - but you're salt of the earth.

Yes....we HAVE been through this before....it WASN'T "freefall speed".

^ You're talking semantics.

I'm talking falling, twisting, partially collapsing, losing chunks, falling to the left, falling to the right, etc etc etc.

The collapses should have been like unique fingerprints.

Yet they wer like identical demolitions - because that's what they were.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

I'm talking falling, twisting, partially collapsing, losing chunks, falling to the left, falling to the right, etc etc etc.

They DID. Look at the videos you and ENT posted. And the evidence about how buildings quite some distance away had major damage from falling debris.
You're either not paying attention, or you're trolling and talking shit here.

Are you off your fucking head?

Or are you the troll?

ALL THE VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE OF WTC 1, WTC, 2 AND WTC 7 SHOWS BUILDINGS IN FREEFALL DEMOLITION COLLAPSES.

Nuff said?

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^ How in the wonderful world of fuck can you think that 2 planes burning that high totally vaporized the building Tel?

Quite simple really. For starters they did not vaporize fuk all.

Oh fuk it, cant be fucked, we've done this a thousand times over.

Good night Albert.

Anyway, I win, you guys are fuked up and ENT still has an unnatural attraction to the cock.

Best answer to this thread "I win, good night".

I love the strawmen, when all else fails, pulling the old "buildings weren't vaporized" crap - no one ever claimed they did.

Good night, indeed. Fuck these idiots. They want an audience, let's deprive them of it.

More disinformation from Albert.

Just Google "WTC freefall"

1st result only (but DO take a look at some of the many others) :

The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded



One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.

The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.
Pyroclastic flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.
When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.

Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.
It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.
Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.
What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?
More on the pulverization of concrete
Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.

911myths is a great site, isn't it?

Yeah, once science, math and physics are applied, everything makes sense - except for the kids who flunked science, math and physics. Shoulda listened to your parents, ENT, and "Albert" and pay attention in school.

That's the other common denominator in all of these conspiracy nuts - lack of proper or thorough education. These threads are a good example of the terrible price these kids pay for not paying attention.

^^Now I know you are a shill, rather than a dopey, anal, mis-informed sheep.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^ How in the wonderful world of fuck can you think that 2 planes burning that high totally vaporized the building Tel?

Quite simple really. For starters they did not vaporize fuk all.

Oh fuk it, cant be fucked, we've done this a thousand times over.

Good night Albert.

Anyway, I win, you guys are fuked up and ENT still has an unnatural attraction to the cock.

Best answer to this thread "I win, good night".

I love the strawmen, when all else fails, pulling the old "buildings weren't vaporized" crap - no one ever claimed they did.

Good night, indeed. Fuck these idiots. They want an audience, let's deprive them of it.

Where as I wish Brother Terry a good nights' rest, I wish you a restless sleep with your demons you filthy cheap-ass shill.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

911myths is a great site, isn't it?

Yeah, once science, math and physics are applied, everything makes sense - except for the kids who flunked science, math and physics. Shoulda listened to your parents, ENT, and "Albert" and pay attention in school.

That's the other common denominator in all of these conspiracy nuts - lack of proper or thorough education. These threads are a good example of the terrible price these kids pay for not paying attention.

You wanker!

Are you trying to pretend that you understand the maths behind the blogger's claims quoted in Greening's hypothesis referred to by LD?

You don't know your maths from your mama Scheisskopf.

Neither does Latindancer.

All he's done is cut and paste hoping that he's got the right page.

Both of you haven't a clue what you're trying to present or what you're talking about.

You two and Terry are just three thick stooges.

That math's bogus because it doesn't calculate the resistance nor terminal velocity achieved in the towers' collapse.

I'll explain that in simple terms when I'm ready, once I've posted more visual information about the tower's construction.

Meanwhile, go and bury yourself.

^ & ^^

That's the other common denominator in all of these conspiracy nuts - lack of proper or thorough education. These threads are a good example of the terrible price these kids pay for not paying attention.