Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

I'm a simple person and ask simple questions, so for those who back the government story, which story do you believe. They have changed it a few times over the years, some of you seem to believe the impact and jet fuel were the cause, yet NIST report says different [that's the main and biggest report] and I quote.

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

They go on to say it was the fires, not the jet fuel that did the damage, WTC 7 no plane or fuel.
OK, if you except that it was normal fire that brought the buildings down and no other building of such design have collapsed due to fire, that would suggest the WTC buildings were not built to other buildings standards and the builders should be in jail.

Here's the link to NIST report, they seem to have looked at the incident with blinkers on.

About the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

Lots of unanswered questions, I don't believe the government story, what the real truth is we will never know. Jim

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Anyway, no, I just read the rules of the forum and try to stick to them, that's all. Resorting to personal attacks is just a bit dull that's all, and there's no point discussing things with people who basically have a tantrum and start chucking out insults. Maybe I will just find a way to but an ignore or what ever on that tony person; he seems very aggressive and quite rude.

Oh fuk me Gilbert,

You're really starting to give me the shits with you're continual fuking moaning about personal insults and naughty words and shit like that.

Its all part of a bit of banter and keeping things moving along like you're in the pub with you're mate discussing the football or something.

Fuking Tony has posted a million pictures on this forum, that's a posters real worth, you have posted fuk all.

Words are worth fuk all, any fuk up can write shit on here. I'm an expert at it.

It's like ENT and his stupid fuking pastes. worth fuk all.

Anyway take that on board or fuk off will ya.

Ta and you have a nice day. Cheers

Don't fucking start crying about this post either, No one gives a fuk.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Lots of unanswered questions, I don't believe the government story, what the real truth is we will never know. Jim

Hopefully we'll find out at least a bit eventually and hang at least a few of the fvckers behind it.

Watch out for the dirty shills like Floridaborn and Tonybkk though.

Terry's alright though - he's just mis-guided

[quote=Gilbert;2591144]

The nice picture he posted saying that they were the terrorists. It was generally agreed, in that most of them are still alive, that their identities were stolen. [quote]

It is only generally agreed by people like you that think it was all made up, the vast majority of the worlds population think you and people like ENT are complete fuking loonies.

Anyway, you say that only a few of them where the real terrorists and there dead, the others where just in those pics for a bit of a giggle.

Fuking hell Gilbert.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

I don't believe the government story, what the real truth is we will never know. Jim

Its not that hard Jim.

Every person in the world who is not blind witnessed the planes hitting the Twin Tower's. Oh sorry, ENT didn't see that he saw a hologram .

The Towers then collapsed because of the intense fires.

WTC 7 collapsed because of collateral damage caused by the collapse of the Twin towers.

Win win situation for the terrorists. That scenario could never have been planned as it was perfect.

The conspirators say the USA Government done this so they could march into the Middle east without backlash from the punters ??

Fuk me EH. Since when has a Super power needed to pull of such a highly complicated plan as to make an excuse for invading a country ?

The yanks don't give a fuk, they just invade countries for a good bit of crack.

Certainly don't need to do shit like that.

Originally Posted by ENT

Just relax, take a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down.

That's foking plagiarism ENT, you are quoting one of my lines.

Foking wanker ENT, how about thinking up you're own shit EH.

Typical off you innit, nothing original, all you're info stolen from another.

[quote=Latindancer;2591261]

Originally Posted by ENT

You are sociopathic in real life, aren't you, ENT ?

Actually the fact of the matter is that when ENT was 15 years old he buggered his neighbors goat, it was a particularly nasty buggering and the poor goat needed to be committed to the nearest goat asylum.

Anyway a short time later the goat gave birth to Socal and that's why ENT and Socal are related.

The Goat was payed off and sworn to secrecy.

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by jamescollister

I don't believe the government story, what the real truth is we will never know. Jim

Its not that hard Jim.

Every person in the world who is not blind witnessed the planes hitting the Twin Tower's. Oh sorry, ENT didn't see that he saw a hologram .

The Towers then collapsed because of the intense fires.

WTC 7 collapsed because of collateral damage caused by the collapse of the Twin towers.

Win win situation for the terrorists. That scenario could never have been planned as it was perfect.

The conspirators say the USA Government done this so they could march into the Middle east without backlash from the punters ??

Fuk me EH. Since when has a Super power needed to pull of such a highly complicated plan as to make an excuse for invading a country ?

The yanks don't give a fuk, they just invade countries for a good bit of crack.

Certainly don't need to do shit like that.

Watched it live on TV, but the planes didn't bring the towers down, if the fires did the buildings were sub standard, or there were other reasons, which I think may have been the reason, posted earlier.

By the way the pancake collapse was dumped years ago, the truth has not been told and is not likely to come out for a long, long time. Jim

Originally Posted by terry57

It is only generally agreed by people like you that think it was all made up, the vast majority of the worlds population think you and people like ENT are complete fuking loonies.

Anyway, you say that only a few of them where the real terrorists and there dead, the others where just in those pics for a bit of a giggle.

Well OK, I will rephrase it in your language and your style, if you are sure it is OK then, dick head, try and read what I fuking wrote, as opposed to what your no doubt booze and inadiquacy fuelled mind thought it read.

The people in the picture were the accused, and yet most have been found to be alive. So, now I assume a thick piece of turd like yourself can work this out if you think about it slowly........IF THE PEOPLE IN THE PICTURE WERE NOT ON THE PLANES..... WHO THE FUK WAS?????

Come on Einstein.... lets hear it. You assume that you know, so lets have it. They have been found to be alive, so clearly not dead. So who was on the planes.



And while we are at it....

Originally Posted by terry57

The Towers then collapsed because of the intense fires.

The commission never proved this, so how are you so sure? Are you a magician? Are you god? Did you build the fricking towers? No of course you didn't. You're just a gobshite.

Originally Posted by terry57

WTC 7 collapsed because of collateral damage caused by the collapse of the Twin towers.

Bollocks. Even he NIST report never said this. they said a fire in the stationary cupboard caused the tower to fall. If you have evidence proving what you say, perhaps pass it to the authorities because they haven't got a fuking clue.

Is that better for you?

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Watched it live on TV, but the planes didn't bring the towers down, if the fires did the buildings were sub standard, or there were other reasons, which I think may have been the reason, posted earlier.
By the way the pancake collapse was dumped years ago Jim

Hey Jim,

The reason the Towers fell because of the fires was because the fire proof coating had corroded over time and the girders where weakened by the heat which in turn lead to the collapse.

Jesus, even Mad Uncle Ent can understand that one.

Physics 101. Intense prolonged heat load on supporting girders = a very dangerous building intent on imminent collapse.

The pan cake effect has been proven over and over again in this situation. Don't try and tell us the towers where rigged with explosives for fuk sakes.

Never before has the world had the opportunity to see what can happen to such a massive structure when effected by fire, doubt it will ever happen again.

^^

Yes, thank you very much. Much better than crying like a fuking little bitch innit.

I'll get back to you.

Originally Posted by terry57

The reason the Towers fell because of the fires was because the fire proof coating had corroded over time and the girders where weakened by the heat which in turn lead to the collapse.

FFS Tel, I'm trying to back you up here

Originally Posted by terry57

The conspirators say the USA Government done this so they could march into the Middle east without backlash from the punters ??

Nope - to pass the PATRIOT act, to open up the cheque book, and to find a replacement for the russians as the boogeyman under the bed to put the fear of god into the public.

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Watched it live on TV, but the planes didn't bring the towers down, if the fires did the buildings were sub standard, or there were other reasons, which I think may have been the reason, posted earlier.
By the way the pancake collapse was dumped years ago Jim

Hey Jim,

The reason the Towers fell because of the fires was because the fire proof coating had corroded over time and the girders where weakened by the heat which in turn lead to the collapse.

Jesus, even Mad Uncle Ent can understand that one.

Physics 101. Intense prolonged heat load on supporting girders = a very dangerous building intent on imminent collapse.

The pan cake effect has been proven over and over again in this situation. Don't try and tell us the towers where rigged with explosives for fuk sakes.

Never before has the world had the opportunity to see what can happen to such a massive structure when effected by fire, doubt it will ever happen again.

Terry been lots of highrise/ skyscraper fires, and even the HIST report says no pancake collapse, but a piston collapse.
Is the US government not telling the truth then.
HIST report, jet fuel spent with in 2 minutes, where did the heat come from.

I never said, or posted that the towers were rigged with explosives. Jim

^ ^
Bull fucking shit Gilbert, the USA Government do what they want to do.

They bombed fuk out of Vietnam and thousands of there own troops died for fuk all before they decided to run away back home and lick there wounds.

Same as Iraq and Afghanistan innit, I mean I'm not getting all political here but I'm just saying that they don't need to pull of such an elaborate complicated plot to go marching off to war.

So you recon they went to all that trouble as to legitimize an invasion.

Fuk me EH.

You guys are totally fuking insane but entertaining so carry on will ya.

I foking love reading this stuff.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Terry been lots of highrise/ skyscraper fires, and even the HIST report says no pancake collapse, but a piston collapse.
HIST report, jet fuel spent with in 2 minutes, where did the heat come from.

Nope, Terry has never been to a high rise fire and either has the vast majority of the worlds firefighters. A very rare event indeed.

But what every firefighter will attest to is the effect of fire on steel and how it weakens and becomes unstable resulting in total collapse.

Add the weight of floors above and the informed ones can see the real story.

Pancake collapse-piston collapse, Who gives a fuk what one calls it, the fact is it collapsed within its self. Same result EH.

The building is fucked because of the effect of heat on steel.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

I'm a simple person and ask simple questions, so for those who back the government story, which story do you believe. They have changed it a few times over the years, some of you seem to believe the impact and jet fuel were the cause, yet NIST report says different [that's the main and biggest report] and I quote

Actually this is not uncommon in complicated investigations like this, but the core understanding and explanations remain in tact.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

They go on to say it was the fires, not the jet fuel that did the damage, WTC 7 no plane or fuel.
OK, if you except that it was normal fire that brought the buildings down and no other building of such design have collapsed due to fire, that would suggest the WTC buildings were not built to other buildings standards and the builders should be in jail.

The buildings were NEVER designed for an airplane impact of this nature, for one, an average passenger airplane at normal speed would not do this much damage ordinarily, most of it would be limited to the outer perimeter but secondly the towers were designed with their center section being their primary support and the outer facade mostly just steel girders to give the building an open feel from inside..

New buildings are designed and constructed from that point on to withstand certain impact forces and fires but it was not a requirement or consideration frankly when the towers were designed and constructed.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

The buildings were NEVER designed for an airplane impact of this nature

you speak such shit with incredible confidence - thai visa may work better for you you sellout cvnt

Originally Posted by jamescollister

By the way the pancake collapse was dumped years ago, the truth has not been told and is not likely to come out for a long, long time. Jim

No it wasn't, link please? Besides, I saw it with my own eyes as did millions of others, no way can it be discredited. I even stated it was going to happen just before it did, (the collapse that is) it was obvious the building structure was compromised and they were leaning more and more as the fires blazed.

^

Hey Albert, I watched that clip and what he said was totally correct.

If the Planes just flew into the buildings it would not of been a problem.

Actually if ten planes flew into them it would not of been a problem but he did not go any where near on breaching the subject of what would happen when the place went up in flames EH.

Its all about the effect of heat on metal my friend and fire load.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Originally Posted by terry57

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Watched it live on TV, but the planes didn't bring the towers down, if the fires did the buildings were sub standard, or there were other reasons, which I think may have been the reason, posted earlier.
By the way the pancake collapse was dumped years ago Jim

Hey Jim,

The reason the Towers fell because of the fires was because the fire proof coating had corroded over time and the girders where weakened by the heat which in turn lead to the collapse.

Jesus, even Mad Uncle Ent can understand that one.

Physics 101. Intense prolonged heat load on supporting girders = a very dangerous building intent on imminent collapse.

The pan cake effect has been proven over and over again in this situation. Don't try and tell us the towers where rigged with explosives for fuk sakes.

Never before has the world had the opportunity to see what can happen to such a massive structure when effected by fire, doubt it will ever happen again.

Terry been lots of highrise/ skyscraper fires, and even the HIST report says no pancake collapse, but a piston collapse.
Is the US government not telling the truth then.
HIST report, jet fuel spent with in 2 minutes, where did the heat come from.

I never said, or posted that the towers were rigged with explosives. Jim

Piston collapse? Do you have any idea what that is? It was no piston collapse, a first year high school architectural drafting student could see the building fell one floor at a time once it began to collapse causing a chain reaction due to weight and structural weakening..

Originally Posted by terry57

Its all about the effect of heat on metal my friend and fire load.

The metal would have slowly failed (if at all) This would have produced a gradual and segmented collapse. What you see is controlled demolitions.

End of.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by jamescollister

I'm a simple person and ask simple questions, so for those who back the government story, which story do you believe. They have changed it a few times over the years, some of you seem to believe the impact and jet fuel were the cause, yet NIST report says different [that's the main and biggest report] and I quote

Actually this is not uncommon in complicated investigations like this, but the core understanding and explanations remain in tact.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

They go on to say it was the fires, not the jet fuel that did the damage, WTC 7 no plane or fuel.
OK, if you except that it was normal fire that brought the buildings down and no other building of such design have collapsed due to fire, that would suggest the WTC buildings were not built to other buildings standards and the builders should be in jail.

The buildings were NEVER designed for an airplane impact of this nature, for one, an average passenger airplane at normal speed would not do this much damage ordinarily, most of it would be limited to the outer perimeter but secondly the towers were designed with their center section being their primary support and the outer facade mostly just steel girders to give the building an open feel from inside..

New buildings are designed and constructed from that point on to withstand certain impact forces and fires but it was not a requirement or consideration frankly when the towers were designed and constructed.

Again the government reports say the towers withstood the impacts and jet fuel, it was the fires.
So why do all the other highrise buildings, with much bigger and longer fires still stand.

3 buildings of this design have collapsed by fire, all in one day in NY, WHY. Jim

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

I see, you post up ONE opposing video and that makes your version legit? Horseshit!..

Man you are a second rate mug too.

One opposing video - FROM THE FVCKERS WHO BUILT THAT SHIT



You're fvcking childs play son - top yerself now cos once the revolution begins you'll get eaten alive for being Judas.