Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Was 911 An Inside Job?


  • Please log in to reply
519 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think 911 was an inside job? (87 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think 911 was an inside job?

  1. Yes (23 votes [26.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.14%

  2. No (65 votes [73.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 73.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#301 SorthNarolina

SorthNarolina

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,407 posts

Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:29 PM

Muslims took over planes with box cutters and flew them into buildings. The WTC design was meant to withstand accidental collisions from smaller passenger jets - it was a danger, during WWII a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in a dense fog.

The bad guys were smart and devious and used our own stuff against us. Bush had nothing to do with it, the Rockefellers had nothing to do with it, and space aliens and Scientologists had nothing to do with it.


to be fair a 707 and a 767 are not that much different in size. And if fully loaded with fuel/people a 707 actually would carry more kinetic energy. I've seen statements saying the building was designed to take a 600mph crash or a much slower crash. I don't know which is true. The 600mph one could be true because the towers did hold up against very high speed impacts. One got hit at 590 but I can't remember the other one I know it was slower.

Where the WTC designers didn't do too much homework was the effects of the fires combined with the structural damage. The towers actually did hold up just fine against the planes it was the fires that did them in. when the steel got weak it couldn't compensate for all of the supports that were destroyed by the impact.

#302 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:53 PM

nice pic of the tower collaping crooked. ill give you credit for that. however, that still doesnt necessarily prove any of this wrong :D

#303 SorthNarolina

SorthNarolina

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,407 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:17 AM

ok way to jump to conclusions. funny thing about it is, i went on youtube trying to find neutral footage of the towers collapse (after reading your claims on the towers not falling as i had described) only to hear him make the demolitions comment. needless to say it made me laugh, but it was not the intentions of the video. watch how that tower falls and tell me that was natural considering the circumstances of the event.


yeah, it looks entirely natural and supports what I was saying. Look at my picture of the south tower(now that the link works), then watch the video and pause at 2:00. Look as the different in the angles of the upper portion and lower portion.

In a controlled demolition the building falls at least at least somewhat plumb and all together.

Watch the clip(of your video) over and over from about 1:56 to 2:04. The whole intact upper portion of the south tower starts a slow buckling in the direction of the impact.

If the fires weren't strong enough to weaken the steel then why did the top portion fall in the direction of the impact?

Around 2:06(in your video) in the video you see a large part of the tower(it looks like the outer structural "skin" of the tower.

If it was controlled demolition wouldn't the towers come down "freely, uniformly, very quickly, and all at once".

They didn't really fall freely, to me freely still means some sort of unrestrained/uninhibited descent and I don't see that. I honestly don't believe you either when you try to say that you didn't mean "freefall" as the speed of gravity. It takes about 55% longer than freefall to touch the ground and that's too large of a difference for me to say they fell freely.

They didn't come down quickly because you have that 5 second lean before the upper portion starts the collapse. Controlled demolition buildings seem too fall with more urgency.



look at this building, it stays at least somewhat level and doesn't get off plumb until very late in the collapse. It takes about 8 seconds to hit the ground from when the larger charges go off. Freefall from 380ft would take 4.8 seconds. This is an actual controlled demolition of one of the tallest buildings ever imploded and it's off by 66% from freefall!!!!!!!!

They didn't come down uniformly because of how crookedly the upper portion became before and during the collapse. Also look at that large part of the tower sticking up at 2:06 in your video. It stays standing for a few more seconds. Seems like if it was controlled demo the charges would all be set and take down everything.

As for coming down all at once just look back to 2:06 again. They didn't come down all at once. Theres also the whole leaning thing too.

Then look at this video of the north tower, theres large parts of it still left.


Edited by SorthNarolina, 07 April 2010 - 12:19 AM.
needed to clarify which video to watch


#304 Awesomeness!!

Awesomeness!!

    BangBang

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,399 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:58 AM

I'll say this, and that will be it.


No Steel Frame buildings in the history of man have EVER collapsed to to fire, before, or after 9/11. However, on September 11, 2001, it happened not once, not twice but THREE times. You have to think about this. In the HISTORY OF MAN! Since we've been building steel buildings man. The third time, it happened for no reason. Buildings directly under the Trade Towers were really messed up, but remained staining, but WTC 7 (Enron, CIA documents etc) falls for no reason in a neat pile and free fall speed. Come on people, I know I know, its hard to fathom, but what they have been telling you is bullshit.

#305 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:59 AM

the bottom line for me is that i'll never buy that two planes striking the near the top of two massive steel structures would take them down in less than 45 min. never. there was still a solid 98 and 92 floors underneath the areas of impact. im sure the propaganda rag known as popular mechanics has crafted an interesting explaination for this, but i'm not buying it. you should watch the youtube clips of jason bermas and dylan avery vs. popular mechanics. there's 6 videos that make up the session. the guys at popular mechanics shouldve felt mortified after that exchange. you can see them for the frauds and lairs that they are.






.

Edited by venom, 07 April 2010 - 01:03 AM.


#306 Awesomeness!!

Awesomeness!!

    BangBang

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,399 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:02 AM

the bottom line for me is that i'll never buy that two planes striking the near the top of two massive steel strucrues would take them down in less than 45 min. never. there was still a solid 98 and 92 floors underneath the areas of impact. im sure the propaganda rag known as popular mechanics has crafted an interesting explaination for this, but i'm not buying it. you should watch the youtube clips of jason bermas and dylan avery vs. popular mechanics. there's 6 videos that make up the session. the guys at popular mechanics shouldve felt mortified after that exchange. you can see them for the frauds and lairs that they are.



Loose Change had a lot of holes in it. The problem with the truther movement is that its been hi jacked (no pun intended) by nuts that think 9-11 was really just a TV fake, and the entire thing loses credibility.

#307 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:05 AM

Loose Change had a lot of holes in it. The problem with the truther movement is that its been hi jacked (no pun intended) by nuts that think 9-11 was really just a TV fake, and the entire thing loses credibility.


what do you mean by "really just a tv fake?"

#308 Awesomeness!!

Awesomeness!!

    BangBang

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,399 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:08 AM

what do you mean by "really just a tv fake?"


I saw a video on Youtube where some idiot tried his best to explain how the towers were really still there. I couldn't tell if it has a satire, or if he was being serious (from his page it looked like he was being serious) but it was a joke, and even I just stopped caring. If I happen to find the video I will post it, but its complete trash.

#309 SorthNarolina

SorthNarolina

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,407 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:31 AM

the bottom line for me is that i'll never buy that two planes striking the near the top of two massive steel structures would take them down in less than 45 min. never. there was still a solid 98 and 92 floors underneath the areas of impact. im sure the propaganda rag known as popular mechanics has crafted an interesting explaination for this, but i'm not buying it. you should watch the youtube clips of jason bermas and dylan avery vs. popular mechanics. there's 6 videos that make up the session. the guys at popular mechanics shouldve felt mortified after that exchange. you can see them for the frauds and lairs that they are.






.


We have already been over this!!!!! You just keep on ignoring me. First you said the fires took 45 mins, now you're saying less than 45 mins.

From an earlier post:

The South Tower was hit at 9:03 and collapsed at 9:59. The fires burned for 56 minutes not 45. The North Tower was hit at 8:46 and collapsed at 10:28. The fires burned for 102 minutes which is over twice as long as 45 minutes. Fires don’t wait 57 minutes to start up. Your claim that the fires burned for 45 minutes is false.


I watched that debate a long time ago and I don't remember the loose change guys handily winning the debate like you said. I don't even remember them winning period. I'll watch it again sometime but not tonight.

#310 SorthNarolina

SorthNarolina

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,407 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 01:40 AM

I'll say this, and that will be it.


No Steel Frame buildings in the history of man have EVER collapsed to to fire, before, or after 9/11. However, on September 11, 2001, it happened not once, not twice but THREE times. You have to think about this. In the HISTORY OF MAN! Since we've been building steel buildings man. The third time, it happened for no reason. Buildings directly under the Trade Towers were really messed up, but remained staining, but WTC 7 (Enron, CIA documents etc) falls for no reason in a neat pile and free fall speed. Come on people, I know I know, its hard to fathom, but what they have been telling you is bullpoo.


No steel frame buildings have ever been slammed into by Airliners going 400 to 600mph either. That's a very big first. I think there is correlation between the towers collapsing and the airliner impacts.

There are interviews with the firemen who at WTC 7 who described the building looking uneven, creaking noises, and a massive 10-20 story gash in it. They abandoned the building and allowed the fires to burn free. The fires didn't cause the collapse though it was the damage from the debris that did it.

#311 STIFFPAWED

STIFFPAWED

    Streakin The Quad

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 02:56 AM

If it works for one then it works for all. History repeats itself.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#312 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 07:20 AM

If it works for one then it works for all. History repeats itself.
Posted Image
Posted Image


hail Caesar!

#313 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,081 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 07 April 2010 - 08:52 AM

If 9/11 was an inside job and an excuse to invade Iraq. Then why wouldn't the government go out of its way to plant WMD in Iraq? They went out of their way to destroy the WTC, but they couldn't plant some Mustard Gas in Iraq?

Please, someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, explain that one to me.


Been asked ... and left unanswered.

#314 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 08:55 AM

We have already been over this!!!!! You just keep on ignoring me. First you said the fires took 45 mins, now you're saying less than 45 mins.

From an earlier post:



I watched that debate a long time ago and I don't remember the loose change guys handily winning the debate like you said. I don't even remember them winning period. I'll watch it again sometime but not tonight.


jesus christ dude. 45 min, 56 min, same difference.

are you kidding me? jason bermas destroyed those liars, who didnt even hardly address any of their claims.

#315 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,906 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 07 April 2010 - 08:57 AM

I saw a video on Youtube where some idiot tried his best to explain how the towers were really still there. I couldn't tell if it has a satire, or if he was being serious (from his page it looked like he was being serious) but it was a joke, and even I just stopped caring. If I happen to find the video I will post it, but its complete trash.


uh, considering there are about a million people in NYC right now that could tell him otherwise, im sure he's joking.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com