Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,539 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Olds, Canada

#236150 Sep 7, 2012
Porkie Path wrote:
<quoted text>
so what you're saying is obviously the folding wings phenomenon would ensure the reality of two wings on either side of the plane entering one central hole, eh pork?
Look at the pictures you dolt.

I can string you idiots along for days with your imbecilic, semantic argument and the reality of a plane hitting the Pentagon won't change one iota.

There's plenty of room for the engines to enter the building anywhere from the centerline of the fuselage to the centerline of the engine itself.

Then there's MOMENTUM.

Have you ever heard of it drunken ducky?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Olds, Canada

#236151 Sep 7, 2012
the folding wings wrote:
<quoted text>
okay gotcha, but now can you explain why the wings of the planes that hit the towers didn't fold up and get "swepted back into the fuselage" like they did at the Pentagon?
Prove they could withstand the force of impact rock bangin' duck.

If you can't, what point are you trying to make?

That your skull is thicker than a concrete reinforced wall?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#236152 Sep 7, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
Boger, Sean Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." The crew, Boger and Spc. Jacqueline Kidd, air traffic controller and training supervisor, prepared for President George W. Bush to arrive from Florida around 12:30 p.m.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_46...
These idiots here don't do reality , it's their faith in the conspiracy religion that trumps reality.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Olds, Canada

#236153 Sep 7, 2012
_Abraxas_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Momentum.
You may want to look into it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment...
Momentum carried him from slightly ignorant to completely braindead.

But that's common with twoof cultists.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#236154 Sep 7, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
No evidence for explosives=no reason to test specifically for explosives.
This ain't rocket science.
All steel was visually inspected, no evidence for explosives was found.
Samples were examined by metallurgists, no evidence for explosives was found.
The buildings collapsed from the point of impact, a precluded by buckling of steel members as seen in video.
Until twoof cult members can posit a credible claim of how these alleged explosives survived the impact of high speed jet impacts and subsequent fires, twoof will fail anywhere rational thought is the norm.
Exactly visual, audio , and examination of the materials combined with the collapse points orginating from the impact points ruled out explosives. It's sorta like seeing a guy getting run over finding the tire tracks over him ,and him laying in the road will make you investigate his drowning every time?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#236155 Sep 7, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>You're just seriously stupid aren't you?
First of all, the physics of the Hudson river crash are not even similar to an impact with a building.
The engines wouldn't have made contact with the building until the plane has passed into the building sufficiently to allow the engines to make direct contact.
Look at the shape of the wings wingnut, are they perpendicular to the fuselage?
No, they're swept back.
Would the wings survive ad impact without the connecting joints failing?
No nimrod, they simply aren't designed to do it.
Wind load, yes.
Building load, no.
The Hudson river crash involved the engines making contact with the water facilitating the shearing of the bolts before the wings and fuselage made contact with the river.
Honestly, it's like trying to explain astrophysics to a plant!
Again, witnesses saw the event.
You've done nothing to disprove that reality.
Debris, including fan sections of the engines in question, were found in and around the building.
You've done nothing to disprove that.
The pictures show obvious impact damage by the wings.
The hole was much larger than the fuselage.
You actually thing cartoon physics is real!
Do you honestly think the center to center dimension of the engines remained consistant as the plane entered the building????
You're arguing for flat earth dumbension boy.

You mean aircraft are not certified reinforced concrete building impact resistant?
ROFLMAO!
Porkie Path

Richmond, KY

#236156 Sep 7, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Prove they could withstand the force of impact rock bangin' duck.
If you can't, what point are you trying to make?
That your skull is thicker than a concrete reinforced wall?
Do you think your skull would make it through a concrete wall if we fired you out of a cannon, want to give it a try?
Porkie Path

Richmond, KY

#236157 Sep 7, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Look at the pictures you dolt.
I can string you idiots along for days with your imbecilic, semantic argument and the reality of a plane hitting the Pentagon won't change one iota.
There's plenty of room for the engines to enter the building anywhere from the centerline of the fuselage to the centerline of the engine itself.
Then there's MOMENTUM.
Have you ever heard of it drunken ducky?
so did you ever take care of your perianal pruritis problem?
As as Bar

Richmond, KY

#236158 Sep 7, 2012
_Abraxas_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Momentum.
You may want to look into it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment...
Missile.
You may want to look into it
&fe ature=related
As as Bar

Richmond, KY

#236159 Sep 7, 2012
_Abraxas_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean aircraft are not certified reinforced concrete building impact resistant?
ROFLMAO!
so you have no ass?
Ax as Bar

Richmond, KY

#236160 Sep 7, 2012
_Abraxas_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly visual, audio , and examination of the materials combined with the collapse points orginating from the impact points ruled out explosives. It's sorta like seeing a guy getting run over finding the tire tracks over him ,and him laying in the road will make you investigate his drowning every time?
so all the fire fighters who reported hearing explosions was not enough reason to test for explosives.
Porkie Path

Richmond, KY

#236161 Sep 7, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Prove they could withstand the force of impact rock bangin' duck.
I never said they could. Now prove how the wings folded up and got 'swept into the fuselage'

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#236162 Sep 7, 2012
Ax as Bar wrote:
<quoted text>
so all the fire fighters who reported hearing explosions was not enough reason to test for explosives.

Not when audio evidence reveals the decibel level of any said percieved as "explosions" do not meet the criteria of an actual explosion. Which is 120-140 db at a half a mile from the source.
This would be embeded and present in about every video with sound
taken if explosives were used. But it is in fact not present , negating the possibility of explosives having been present.

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Santa Fe, NM

#236163 Sep 8, 2012
It's only a matter of time before one of these conspiratards spends the day throwing sticks of butter at a butter knife to prove their theory.

Velocity, force, and momentum.....they seem like magic until you realize they are verifiable.

;)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#236165 Sep 8, 2012
Tygermermaid wrote:
<quoted text>What's funny is you losers still can't figure out that you've fallen for a sham perpetrated by charlatans who don't give a crap how dumb you look at the end of the day.
And you believe the crap presented by morons who not only look
but really really are dumb all damn day.
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#236166 Sep 8, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
NEW YORK – Thick mud, menacing currents and bone-chilling temperatures stymied investigators Friday as they scoured the Hudson River for the two missing engines from a US Airways jetliner that crash-landed in the water after colliding with birds. The investigation ran into a series of obstacles one day after the pilot ditched the plane carrying 155 people. The collision apparently caused both of the engines to fail, forcing the aircraft to go down just a few hundred yards from the Manhattan skyline. All aboard survived.
Sometime after the plane hit the water, the engines broke off and sank to the bottom, forcing investigators to use sonar to search for them.
Experts said the wreckage could be nearly impossible to find because it is probably 30 to 50 feet down, stuck in mud and obscured by thick sediment. Conditions are so murky that police and fire department divers will have to feel about by hand.
Question: Why does a planes engines fall off when hitting water, yet we are to believe that a planes engines remained on the aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon?
Cartoon sheer/fold that follows the fuselage into a structure just isn't science.
And its why...
Insults Are Easier
great post! don't wait for any logical explaination by all the 9=11 cover-up enablers,

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Santa Fe, NM

#236167 Sep 8, 2012
We've not "fallen" for anything. The problem is that you blog reading tin foil hat wearing clowns have failed miserably to prove your point. I'll take science over speculation any day. Prove your point with the same science that proves you wrong, or just accept the fact that you've lost this one.
Tygermermaid wrote:
<quoted text>What's funny is you losers still can't figure out that you've fallen for a sham perpetrated by charlatans who don't give a crap how dumb you look at the end of the day.
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#236168 Sep 8, 2012
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#236169 Sep 8, 2012
the doubters argue there is no conspiracey, how do they explain media reports of explosions? one way or another 9-11 is a conspiracey, either the by the Bush administration and the media or Bush opposition and the media. A fact which cannot be denied there was a conspiracey! I would love to see the evidence linking the opposition to 9-11! lmao,
rider

Ishpeming, MI

#236170 Sep 8, 2012
All those eating up the 9-11 commission report have been quite silent since bin-laden was taken out. As I recall just after 9-11, we were all out-raged and couldn,t wait to get after him. If I had no doubt bin laden and al-quaida were the sole criminals of 9-11, I would be still celebrating binnys death and praising Obama. Isn't it funny we are not seeing and hearing much about Obama being a hero? just saying! LMFAO!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poppy Seed Tom's LOL! (May '14) 5 min The Turtle 27
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min It aint necessari... 877,593
not man enough 43 min WasteWater 2
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 48 min WasteWater 7,901
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Robert F 603,120
The Christian Atheist debate 1 hr Critical Eye 3,779
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... (Feb '15) 1 hr Cholan87 993
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr sangili karuppan 7,612
More from around the web