Was Sept 11 an inside job?

Was 9/11 an inside job?


  • Total voters
    13
LOL
So, you honestly believe there was enough time for experts to ascertain the condition of a building which they never entered and would know for certain the building would collapse far enough in the future to alert the BBC which then had enough time to create a "live report" 20 minutes before the building collapsed and had the building in question still in the shot?

And you calll me crazy

Yes. There were engineers all over the place. You don't need to be inside a building to know what's happening. The collapse has been discussed among professionals like myself and there is no doubt. Do you know what 6000 gallons of fuel oil on fire can do to steel?
 
Yeah, there's no doubt that people knew the building was going to fall. That's fucking obvious, you geniuses

I am not subscribing to any conspiracy theory but I still find hard to believe that a building could just collapse on its own footprint inside seven seconds. The final report from NIST said that it was the structural failure of just one column that caused the whole building to collapse. If that's the case then the building must of been designed on the cheap.

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm
 
Last edited:
You would think Wikileaks alone would teach you even small secrets are hard to keep secret, you really think a secret as big as 9/11 would be able to be hidden? There is little to no proof except speculations. A act like 9/11 would take a lot of people, impossible to keep secret.
 
You would think Wikileaks alone would teach you even small secrets are hard to keep secret, you really think a secret as big as 9/11 would be able to be hidden? There is little to no proof except speculations. A act like 9/11 would take a lot of people, impossible to keep secret.

I take it you got the same letter that I did, where it said we were to keep it secret!! :good4u:
:)
 
Yes. There were engineers all over the place. You don't need to be inside a building to know what's happening. The collapse has been discussed among professionals like myself and there is no doubt. Do you know what 6000 gallons of fuel oil on fire can do to steel?
You know how i know you're a fucking idiot? We aren't talking about the WTC towers which had jet fuel spill into them, we're talking about building 7. You are are an idiot. Try to keep up
 
Fuck you. You don't need a degree in mechanical engineering to see that a building fell into its own footprint EXACTLY how a controlled demolition would cause it to do.

You guys believe a single column collapse allowed a uniform collapse of an entire building. I'll gladly be called stupid rather than believ such a ridiculous scenario. You need to learn some physics. You need to read some history about your beloved government. They are not very trustworthy. You are a fool to trust them.

Now go ahead click the bad old button so you can feel like you made a point.
 
You know how i know you're a fucking idiot? We aren't talking about the WTC towers which had jet fuel spill into them, we're talking about building 7. You are are an idiot. Try to keep up

This a report about Building 7:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

See table 5.2 on page 5-14. There was a 6000 gallon "day tank" located between the second and third floors. This is in addition to 24,000 gallons of storage located under the loading dock at the ground level.
 
Sure. I already admitted that I should have said 45,000. But that didn't negate my argument, was that Tom was wrong when he said a rocket would destroy the jet that carried it.
 
So, Stirfry, what are the real unemployment and inflation numbers, since I can't trust the known liers in the federal government to give me accurate data?
 
the bottom line is you guys believe the stories from known liars. You're idiots

No, the bottom line is that all three building failures were entirely predictable based on the events that occurred. That's why the news media was able to plan for the collapse of Bulding 7.

You, as a relative layman, seem to think that because a building is large, made of conrete and steel, that it will stand up to anything. But the properties of steel change dramatically with temperature. These buildings were designed to resist a certain degree of fire for at least four hours. If the temperature of the 'design fire" is exceeded, or a fire is allowed to burn unchecked, the steel gets hot and weakens. At that point the weight of the structure cause it to collapse.

Now if you have a specific question then by all means ask. But your typical responses so far have done nothing but make you look like the libtards around here: devoid of logic and reason.
 
Still doesn't explain how the entire building collapsed so quickly and so neatly.

Neatly? All you see is a building fall down. Did you see the bricks neatly stacked up after the dust settle or something?

Why are we still arguing over this? This entire argument is over building 7. Do you really think people in the government were like. "Guys....guys, I have a idea, after we take out the twin towers let's destroy building 7 with no casualties. It will me the perfect crime! We just have to figure out how to fool the police, the civilians, the fire department and a few billion people of the world. We will take out building 7 with no purpose!"

Get the fuck over it.
 
Back
Top