Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I'm nonsensical, stupid and ignorant. a troll.

You said it buddy!

If you believe your last Youtube link, then you are arguing on the wrong front. You should not be arguing the mechanics of building collapse, but inside knowledge and foreknowledge, together with complicity of some sections of government.
The mechanics of the buildings collapsing is the wrong front to be fighting on, pal.
Your mind needs to be focused on one front, not flapping around everywhere like ENT's.
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

If you believe your last Youtube link, then you are arguing on the wrong front. You should not be arguing the mechanics of building collapse, but inside knowledge and foreknowledge, together with complicity of some sections of government.
The mechanics of the buildings collapsing is the wrong front to be fighting on, pal.
Your mind needs to be focused on one front, not flapping around everywhere like ENT's.
.
.
.

But as for the simple mechanics of building collapse, it really _IS_ Popular Mechanics stuff" latindancer re. WTC 911.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

If you believe your last Youtube link, then you are arguing on the wrong front. You should not be arguing the mechanics of building collapse, but inside knowledge and foreknowledge, together with complicity of some sections of government.
The mechanics of the buildings collapsing is the wrong front to be fighting on, pal.
Your mind needs to be focused on one front, not flapping around everywhere like ENT's.
.
.
.

Look at the title of the thread again.

There is no "only because of the collapse of the towers" involved. The thread says 9/11 was an inside job. There are many many different angles that are questionable.

Look at my previous posts, where I admitted to the possibility of foreknowledge.

There is no credible evidence of building demo. And the Pentagon being anything but a passenger plane ? Get real. You actually discredit your cause by arguing bldg demo & missile. And you have tied up any real progress we could have made exploring other avenues. It's almost like YOU are the government shill, the way you have shot yourself in the foot so many times. ENT too.
Look at foreknowledge. They didn't have to _DO_ a thing like demo bldgs. It would have been a near-perfect crime
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Look at my previous posts, where I admitted to the possibility of foreknowledge.

There is no credible evidence of building demo. And the Pentagon being anything but a passenger plane ? Get real. You actually discredit your cause by arguing bldg demo & missile. And you have tied up any real progress we could have made exploring other avenues. It's almost like YOU are the government shill, the way you have shot yourself in the foot so many times. ENT too.
Look at foreknowledge. They didn't have to _DO_ a thing like demo bldgs. It would have been a near-perfect crime
.

"Complacency not complicity" is all that was needed - and the Bush administration were masters of complacency....

You are quite correct that ENT and his cronies are the perfect shills... In fact, we couldn't have asked for better disinformation agents, could we? And they work for free!

Bwahahahaha!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

"Complacency not complicity" is all that was needed - and the Bush administration were masters of complacency....

Give it a break, eh?

Clinton had numerous chances to take custody of OBL and turned them down or shot Thomahawks into empty camel tents.

Someday, y'all gotta quit blaming Dubya for everything. Makes ya look real stupid...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

"Complacency not complicity" is all that was needed - and the Bush administration were masters of complacency....

Give it a break, eh?

Clinton had numerous chances to take custody of OBL and turned them down or shot Thomahawks into empty camel tents.

Someday, y'all gotta quit blaming Dubya for everything. Makes ya look real stupid...

Your blind devotion to an administration that showed a rare display of incompetence just makes you look stupid, because the only reason you remain their torch-bearer is because Bush happens to be "Republican", and when it comes to that, you're no better than those idiot Aussies to whom everything is okay "as long as he's a mate" (which probably explains all these idiots, including DD, being apologists for that Tinsley criminal).

Clinton was dragged into the same crap-hole that presidents before him got dragged him, and that's the shithole called "Arafat". He spent too much of his time on mid-east peace, having every effort and overture overturned by this Arafat idiot. This took away resources (in terms of the president's attention span) from OBL - which Clinton recognized later on.

It does not excuse the Bush administration having shelved the genuine warning and well-established plans that Clinton left for Bush, nor the continued ignoring of validated and verified warning signs by John Ashcroft (while he was too busy setting up prayer groups).

Say what you will, but the Bush admin set up a perfect storm scenario that allowed an operation like 9/11 to happen, simply based on their complacency and stupidity... no 'master planning' was necessary. The only efforts at a cover-up came after 9/11 when suddenly everyone was trying to cover up their obvious complacency that resulted in this disaster - and THAT should be investigated and the culpable should be tried (but that won't happen, of course).

"complacency, not complicity"

^
No blind devotion just the facts Jack.

Clinton was so involved with the Monica Lewinsky affair he had no attention to other affairs. Fact: Clinton let OBL get away.

You're *only* motivating driving force is a hatred for all things that have the "Democrat" label attached to them. Doesn't matter what the consequences.

Clinton's initial denying of the affair with Lewinsky was a dumb move, so was Kenneth Starr's pointless pursuit of that point - and even more so the fake outrage over "dishonoring the high office" by all the Republican finger-pointers, only to have nearly ALL of them be forced to resign when their own infidelities came to the surface during that period. Funny, huh?

No different than most Republicans' who are the staunchest anti-gay advocates, turning out to all be involved in homosexual affairs that they desperately tried to keep quiet. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM! (which is one reason so many people suspect ENT of being gay, I might add).

... but, I digress...

Tell you what, let's, for the sake of giggles, agree that "Clinton let OBL get away".

Okay, so Clinton let OBL get away.

I think it is safe to add, then, that for the next 8 years, Bush and the Bush administration's concerted "efforts" haven't managed to bring OBL to justice either.

Thus, it's probably safe to say that Bush let OBL get away...

... and here's the part that you will absolute hate to have to agree to, but ...

OBAMA NAILED OBL and had him killed.

So, Obama did the job that Bush failed in 8 years, and that Clinton failed to do as well.

Glad we have that settled.

You're a knunting cnunt dafne mc fuck.

Don't preach your shilling pussy ass goatness to a good brother.

(Attaches spray guard)

yes daffy - be the goat.

You cannot change your destiny.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I've filed a report on HansuMan and his real identity with the IDF... Shouldn't be long, now.

That raises a good question I've been struggling with, Cthulhu, and I wonder if perhaps you can help me out.

The question is with regard to:

Originally Posted by HansuMan

ISRAEL DID 9/11

Thing is, I've been toying with a few presentation ideas WRT ^, in search of the ideal mix of:

1. visual impact
2. psychological impression
3. maximum liklihood that uninitiated readers will voluntarily click the link to further investigate for themselves

What do you think of the idea of having the izzy flag act not only as 'bookends', but also one in between each word?

Like:

ISRAELDID9/11

Too much flag?

If you think so, then I almost hesitate to ask the following; however, I think it scores highly in the 'impact' area.

What about,

ISRAELDID9/11

Too much cowbell?


Or just right?

TIA, Cthulhu

Architects & Engineers:

Solving the Mystery of
World Trade Center Building 7

Originally Posted by HansuMan

Too much cowbell?


Or just right?

Never too much cowbell dude

^ The perimeter wall sections are all falling in cut off three floor lengths.

Notice the almost neat, straight line ends of each falling section.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

They didn't have to _DO_ a thing like demo bldgs. It would have been a near-perfect crime
.
.
.

I would guess that they bought down the towers to make sure enough people died that the public anger would become great enough that they could then focus the rage on the "Agenda". (which is exactly what happened) WTC 7 was what they really wanted destroyed due to all the evidence in it.

Originally Posted by ENT

Notice the almost neat, straight line ends of each falling section.

Yup, cookie cutter.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

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…

[indent] [font=Arial][size=2]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.

You say,"The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds."

In fact, they did.


Greening's calculated the speed of the towers' fall using the value of gravity (G) as 32f/sec/sec measured in a vacuum at sea level.

As the towers' height was nearly half a mile above sea level, the initial collapse passsed through increasingly dense atmosphere (not a vacuum) to ground at approximate sea level, thus fractionally slowing the fall speed.
Also, no account is taken of any resistance to downward force inherent in the structure.

Calculating a hypothetical free fall.

Tower 1's height is given as 1368 ft, the distance D used for this calculation.
Where;
D = 1/2 x G (= 32ft/sec/sec) x t (=time) squared
2 x D = G x ( t x t)
(t x t) = (2 x D)/G
(t x t) = (2 x 1368)/32
(t x t) = 2736/32
(t x t) = 86.125
t = 9.275 seconds (approx) = speed of fall of tower 1 in a vacuum ASL.

This assumes that no resistance at all existed to slow the fall.
The "parachute" effect of large surface areas will cause them to come up against greater atmospheric resistance than smaller surface areas, slowing them down considerably.

Single steel beams can dive like arrows headlong into the ground, while large sections of cladding would have greater mass of air to push against in falling, if in a horizontal plane, thus a greater "parachute" effect, so steel beams will fall at a greater terminal velocity as they have less planar resistance against atmosphere in free fall.

Concrete, vermiculite and other large granular debris would fall with little resistance having smaller planar surfaces relative to mass.
Paper, shards of wood, sawdust, plastics etc would tend to float down.

The main tower structure would create resistance to the upper six or so floors at the onset of collapse, slowing the downward motion of debris until, through increased acceleration at 32ft/sec/sec, the debris would start to reach terminal velocity.

So terminal velocity(V) of the tower's fall must be deduced from the formula;
V = G x t
V = 32 x 9.275
V = 295.8 ft/ second = approx 200 mph, which is within the acceptable limits of an object falling through air at or near sea level.

This would have been the speed at which the larger, more compact debris fell at, while the finer, flakier particles with a greater "parachute" effect would reach the ground last.

The effect described above is what was seen to happen, the billowing dust clouds finally settling below the smoke level of hotter, finer particles of unburnt hydrocarbons from fires.

So, the ideal time of 9.275 seconds is the shortest possible time not the actual time, because neither atmospheric nor structural resistance is taken into account in the calculation. That would be the speed of an airliner diving into the ground.

As a result, the seismic readings show the towers collapse over a greater period of time, real free fall time under the circumstances.
The collapse time shown by the Pallisades report is approx. 3.5 seconds longer than that calculated for a one in a vacuum, which can be accounted for by (a) atmospheric resistance and (b) the amount of time the downward force took to overcome the upward resistance of the structure over 100 floors, which is; 3.5/100 seconds per floor.= 0.035 seconds per floor, well within the paradigms of a freefall event of that size.

The Pallisades readings indicate firstly, the fast moving primary or P wave, followed by the secondary S wave, then the ground waves.
On a seimograph, the P waves show as a concentration of short spikes followed by the larger S waves.




The Greening chart (above) shows the elapsed real times for the tower's' falls relative to his calculation based on falls in a vacuum

Below is the seismograph for the WTC collapse event of 9/11.

Obviously it would have taken a few seconds longer as physics dictates the delay as you say.

^I calculated that in at the end at 0.035 seconds per floor, so it was technically a free fall event, no doubt at all.

The naive interpretation of the words "free fall" is very limited, as there is no such thing as a totally "free fall" event. There is always some resistance in our atmosphere, it's not a vacuum, so a free fall on this planet, in scientific terms, is a misnomer.

A high school demonstration of a free fall is where air is sucked out of a vacuum chamber and a ball bearing and a feather are allowed to fall within that chamber, both fall at the same speed due to lack of resistance to downward motion (the pull of gravity, G =32ft/sec/sec),

Gallileo's law is demonstrated here.