Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Moonraker

She was stood in front of a blue screen with a backdrop of earlier footage being broadcast. It's that fucking simple.

And what now, the BBC are in on it as well? Even more people that are complicit and need to be kept quiet. Think about it.......

You even stupider fuck. So you reckon they recorded footage live then half way (live) through the situation they replayed earlier footage while broadcasting live ?

YOU FUCKING THINK ABOUT IT.

Do I think the BBC was in on it? Do I fuck.

I've never had any other answers than what we were all told was a load of shit.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

You stupid stupid fuck.

Why do you guys all have to recite from the same Disinformation instructions?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

You stupid stupid fuck.

What has an announcer STANDING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHILE SAYING IT HAS ALREADY COME DOWN have to do with time difference?

Geez, seriously, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you folks? Do you completely lack any and all understanding of physics?

You do know that there is a vast distance between NYC and the UK, right? The BBC is in the UK. The WTC is in NYC. On average, there are 4-5 hours of time difference between the two locations. Thus, when something happens in one place, it is accepted that it is *A DIFFERENT TIME* in another location (for example, when it is noon in NYC, it might be 5PM in London). Thus, if a building were to collapse at 12:00noon NYC time, the BBC would report it as collapsing at 5:00pm.

Thus, they already received the news report that the building had collapsed, but the video images are lagging behind, due to the time difference. This is abundantly obvious. If it were a news report from, say, Australia, the chronology of time and description would be inverted (ie they would be standing in front of a crumbled building, talking about it as if it were still intact).

It's no different than messages from Mars taking 15 minutes to reach us, or you seeing lightning before you hear the thunder. Seriously, I would expect you loons to at least know how regular physics works.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by Moonraker

She was stood in front of a blue screen with a backdrop of earlier footage being broadcast. It's that fucking simple.

And what now, the BBC are in on it as well? Even more people that are complicit and need to be kept quiet. Think about it.......

You even stupider fuck. So you reckon they recorded footage live then half way (live) through the situation they replayed earlier footage while broadcasting live ?

YOU FUCKING THINK ABOUT IT.

Do I think the BBC was in on it? Do I fuck.

I've never had any other answers than what we were all told was a load of shit.

Errr yeah, that's exactly what happened. It's not a new thing, they do it all the time. Even the weatherman is not stood in front of a weatherboard nowadays.

Do you really think they would have somebody reporting on the building's collapse when it was still standing behind them? Do you really think that not a single member of the crew would have noticed and said something?

And if you do think they reported it having collapsed before it did, of course they would have to be on it.

It really isn't rocket science. Really, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

You even stupider fuck. So you reckon they recorded footage live then half way (live) through the situation they replayed earlier footage while broadcasting live ?

You really don't quite know what "LIVE" means, do you?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Do I think the BBC was in on it? Do I fuck.

Yeah, that's why there's the time difference effect.

Moonraker, Latindancer -- do you think that Albert, ENT et al know that we are all in on it?

We're going to do a report now
What report?
A report that that building has collapsed
What, that building over there that's still standing?
Yeah
We're doing a report saying that the building we can all see clearly still standing behind us has collapsed?
Yep
OK then

CHRIST ON A FUCKING BIKE

Originally Posted by ENT

That was a live news feed, ya dumb-quack!

You really think that was live? Do you really think that if the BBC was in on it, that they would actually use a "live" newsfeed?

Besides, it was "live" - just delayed and distorted by the time difference between the US and the UK.

Your explanation is total bollocks, as if the BBC was in on a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

CHRIST ON A FUCKING BIKE

Originally Posted by ENT

Your explanation is total bollocks, as if the BBC was in on a conspiracy.

Exactly - they are not. It's just the time difference. I guess you guys don't travel much.

OH you make me laugh!!!

How long d'ya reckon it take for a signal to ping across the Atlantic?

Go on, tell us, smart arse.

Hey, I suppose you'e gonna tell us that the plane that hit the second WTC tower was white, or silver coloured too, that it really, really was Flt 175, when the thing was obviously not a commercial jetliner.

C'mon, let's see ya make a fool of yourself again quack-quack.

The film footage of passenger jets flying into the WTC was faked in a studio, and the people on the ground who saw it were hypnotized by drugs in the New York drinking water.
This film shows conclusively that it was a military fighter jet which flew into the building.

What a load of blatant dis-information you totally brainless Ocker!

It's true. You slimy little section of warthog rectum !

Originally Posted by ENT

The black plane.

This is what people saw at WTC on 9/11.

Originally Posted by ENT

Hey, I suppose you'e gonna tell us that the plane that hit the second WTC tower was white, or silver coloured too,

It certainly looks it, it certainly looks like a comercial jet too.

There's a very simple explanation as to why it looks dark in some photos.

Just goes to show how so many people are unreliable witnesses, eh ? A fact well-known in legal circles.

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by ENT

Hey, I suppose you'e gonna tell us that the plane that hit the second WTC tower was white, or silver coloured too,

It certainly looks it, it certainly looks like a comercial jet too.

There's a very simple explanation as to why it looks dark in some photos.

It's amazing to me, how in light of such blatant evidence, these guys continue spouting their non-sense.

It's all due to time difference.

^ What time difference? What are you talking about?

Each tower was hit by a Boeing 767. The impact on the North tower was near the center of the North face at around the 95th story, with the plane hitting the side of the building square on and flying level. The impact on the South tower

was some 15 stories lower, with the plane hitting the South face near the South East corner and impacting at an angle to the face of the tower. Fig 2 shows the impact directions and Fig 8 shows the plane about to hit the South Tower.



Fig. 8 Plane About to Hit South Tower (Photo from CNN)

The potential force of the impact from each plane can be approximately calculated and the figures are very large. The weight of each plane would

have been approximately 150 tons, according to the media reports and Boeing data on this type of plane. The plane would have been traveling at around 800 kms/hour at impact. This gives a momentum of 150x800/3.6=33,333 tons.m/sec. If the plane was arrested by the building in effectively 0.6 seconds, which is a reasonable estimate based on a linear deceleration over the 63.5 m width of the building, then the force exerted on the building is the momentum/effective time to arrest, i.e. Force=33,333/0.6=55,555kN. To put that in perspective, the ultimate limit state design wind pressure over the entire height of the building is 220 kg/m 2 . This gives a ULS wind force on one face of the building of 58, 400 kN. Thus the potential force of impact from the plane is 95% of the design ultimate limit state wind load on the building! Especially in the case of the North Tower, not much of the plane was ejected from the building, so it is reasonable to assume the most of that potential force was absorbed by the building. Also the above calculation also does not take into account any additional force generated inside the building from blast loading due to, for example, exploding jet fuel.



Having done this calculation it is more easy to understand what our eyes showed us – namely the planes slicing through the perimeter frames “like a knife through butter” as one reporter has stated. I contend that, having penetrated the perimeter frames the planes would have done much more that just stripping the fire protection off the columns as has been surmised by some commentators. The effect would have been to completely shatter and eliminate large areas of floor slab and many of the internal supporting columns, thereby immediately destroying much of the vertical load carrying system and leaving the rest vulnerable to any subsequent fire attack. This impact damage - not the severity of the fire – I contend is the principal cause of the ultimate collapse. However the nature and position of impact was different in each case and this led to different effects on each tower, with different collapse mechanisms. These effects are now discussed in as much detail as is possible based on the known information.

continued...

Related Articles

This is what I said a long time ago in this thread....it's surprising the impacts alone did not cause immediate collapse of at least parts of the buildings. The forces involved were enormous.

Shhhh.... Now shut up with all those pesky facts, will you!?!?