Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job and why?

Discussion in '9/11' started by LiberalHypocrisy, Apr 22, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

?

Was 9/11 an inside job?

  1. Yes

    24 vote(s)
    28.9%
  2. No

    60 vote(s)
    72.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Iraqi Liberation Act was passed in 1998....Duh.
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    May I point out that the Donkey & Elephant are but
    two heads of the same monster, when AMERICA
    wakes up to the fact that the monster is two faced
    and both faces spew lies & fraud 24/7.
    then and only then can we see some progress
    some real change, change you can believe in,
    the change you want is NOT going to come from
    the Government, its going to come from the people.
     
  3. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So you can provide a link to a computer simulation of the north tower that you accept?

    Let's see it.

    psik
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You first......provide any computer simulation that was used AT ALL
     
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

    That was SO DIFFICULT! It took less than 10 seconds to locate.

    But Purdue admits they only simulated the top 20 stories so it is not a collapse simulation. I merely find it amusing that they contradict the NIST's south tower data by not having horizontal deflection but then they could not do that if they only simulated the top 20 stories. It is a really stupid simulation.

    But you did say "any computer simulation".

    psik
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So,it really didn't matter to you.....
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lets put it this way, computer simulations aside,
    Think about this please, an action that takes weeks of careful
    planning & preparation, achieves the result of total destruction
    of the building by CD. OK, now an action that involves chaotic
    damage & random fires, achieves the exact same result. go figure?
    what are the odds? and for all three structures WTC1, 2 & 7
    somebody rolled snake eyes 1,000 times in a row.......
     
  8. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Surprise, surprise! Talk some more BS and don't come up with a collapse simulation yourself when you asked for ANY.

    psik
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll admit you showed me the simulation.


    And it STILL doesn't matter to you.
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So where is yours? I told you what was wrong with it. They don't even agree with the NIST. A simulation with obvious defects can't explain anything. But in 5 years no other engineering school has pointed out the defects. Curious that.

    psik
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "weeks of careful action"? You have obviously never been involved in construction.
     
  12. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (the above) = Personal Incredulity.
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obvious defects according to whom?

    You don't believe theNIST,and you don't believe purdue

    So it doesn't matter to you.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    did you actually read my post, its not construction,
    its about demolition. and yes CD takes weeks of careful engineering
    to plan and put into action the plan so as to do a successful CD.
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So by that standard, if the owners of an old building that needs to
    be removed wanted to save some money, they could simply go
    with a plan that includes creating random damage & fires and
    the building will just "COLLAPSE" and that will be that(?)
    or?
     
  16. saultrain

    saultrain New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It could have been an inside job, but seems like it was more of an outdoor activity.
     
  17. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Show how your comment makes any sense or is relevant to the discussion? Again, your claim, because you are unable to proved the math or list the laws of physics that you claim were broken, is based on personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    it is alleged that fire & chaotic damage caused the total destruction
    of WTC 1, 2 & 7 and I say that this is so completely improbable that
    the evidence points to CD rather than "collapse" caused by the damage
    & fire. This isn't rocket science!
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of the evidence points to CD. None.
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Note that WTC1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed,
    and complete destruction is an indication of intent.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry, but you're wrong. You have provided zero engineering data OR evidence to show that it WAS demolition. All you have right now is that it LOOKED like a CD.

    Nice try.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you are going to assert that destruction was not complete
    where is YOUR documentation as to exactly how much of
    either WTC 1, 2 or 7 was left after the demolition of said building(s)?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I never said it wasn't complete did I?

    I have continually said that you have no proof whatsoever containing any physical evidence nor do you have any calculations showing CD.

    You have nothing.

    Your engineers have failed for almost 13 years.
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you totally deny the significance of total destruction of
    WTC 1, 2 & 7 (?) is that what you are doing?
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Significant to you because you think it means controlled demolition. You think that the only way for that kind of destruction to happen is via controlled demolition. That's the only way you vision it happening so your belief is biased.

    I have a background in construction, design, and project management. I understand structures and how they function. You don't. That's why I can understand how this can happen.

    Here's the kicker. You have been presented engineering data SHOWING that planes and fires could cause what had happened. On the other hand, where's your engineering evidence that CD could have done the same thing?

    You believe what you want based on your lack of structural engineering and your dislike of the government. Your belief in the CD garbage is purely faith based. Why is this true? Because when asked for hard evidence, you provide nothing. Only your canned "it's not probable" crap.
     

Share This Page