Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,511 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246271 Nov 16, 2012
But then, omigod, that CREATURE was born. i was completely disgusted by the whole scene (not in a BAD I-hate-this-book sort of way, but in a Ew-Bella-is-leaking-all-over-t he-cullen-house sort of way) They named her, Renesmee, and i laughed, thinking that is exactly what a 12 year old fanfic writer would name the Bella/Edward lovechild. AND THEN,*triumphant trumpets sounding* Jacob imprints! I literally laughed for 10 minutes! It was weird and kinda lame, but totally unexpected, and for that, I applaud SM.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246272 Nov 16, 2012
My Breaking Dawn Review **Spoilers**(DO NOT READ UNTIL YOU ARE FINISHED!)
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246273 Nov 16, 2012
I honestly didn't hate it, but i was dissappointed. The whole thing read like fanfiction to me: cute, but not the conclusion i wanted to hear for my beloved Bella and Edward. The wedding/honeymoon business was very cute. i really loved it. The second Carlisle said Bella was pregnant my heart just sank. How could SM do that to me?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246274 Nov 16, 2012
I turned the page to see Jacob's perspective,*groan*. I like Jacob, but i didn't want to spend the final installment of the twilight saga in the mind of "what could have been". Surprisingly enough, Jacob was quite funny and i enjoyed his part a lot. I thought it was lame how he just gave up fighting for bella and his hatred for vampires in like ONE chapter. My Jacob wouldn't do that. After that, Jacob was painted as a spineless and lovesick character who inevitably loses. Also, i can't lie, i was totally rooting for a Leah/Jacob hookup. During these chapters, I felt like Bella was nothing more than a stupid, weak, little human. Her "self sacrificing" proctectivness put a strain on her and Edward's relationship (namely, deleting any edward/bella time completely except for a brief hand holding session). Rosalie was utterly obnoxious in her baby-frenzy. I am surprised Emmett didn't twist her into a pretzel.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246275 Nov 16, 2012
But then, omigod, that CREATURE was born. i was completely disgusted by the whole scene (not in a BAD I-hate-this-book sort of way, but in a Ew-Bella-is-leaking-all-over-t he-cullen-house sort of way) They named her, Renesmee, and i laughed, thinking that is exactly what a 12 year old fanfic writer would name the Bella/Edward lovechild. AND THEN,*triumphant trumpets sounding* Jacob imprints! I literally laughed for 10 minutes! It was weird and kinda lame, but totally unexpected, and for that, I applaud SM.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246276 Nov 16, 2012
Then, Bella was changed. During this part i was brought back to last summer, reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when Harry "died". After her transformation, i truly was proud of Bella. Afterall, she'd gotten what she'd wanted. An eternity with Edward and a child for both of them to love. Not to mention intense beauty, super speed and strength, and no "newborn cravings" to control. Wasn't this what i'd expected for breaking dawn? Wasn't this what I, an obsessed Edward/Bella fan, dreamed of? It was. But it didn't feel the same. They would be happy, i knew that, but the wonder of Bella and Edward's awe-striking relationship was that all they needed to be happy was one another. But now they had a child to focus on, and i felt like i didn't get to see the happily married couple who could conquer the world as long as they had eachother.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246277 Nov 16, 2012
During the period directly after Bella's transformation, i began to feel whole again. The Thing hadn't been mentioned in a while and i was home-free to enjoy some quality B/E time. The hunting chapter was very cute, and i enjoyed Bella's birthday too. Bella and Edward finally had safe (by every meaning of the word) and unyielded sex. I was happy for them because i'd feared their physical relationship would be less strong after the...."baby". Next came Emmett's sexual innuendos, which were honestly some of the funniest quotes of the twilight saga. It was good to see a more human sex-craved side of my favorite immortal (and old-fashioned) family.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246278 Nov 16, 2012
Dr_Zorderz

The final Twilight, being a total 14 year old chick flick, how did you like the midnight showing?
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246279 Nov 16, 2012
For 30 years the steel framework of the towers survived
winds that put a lot of stress on the structure. According to
the engineering sites that describe these towers, the shaking
and stress from a severe winter storm was more intense and
of a much longer duration than the stress produced by the
airplane crashes. If those engineers are correct, the towers
were not flimsy, and the design limits of the towers were not
exceeded by the airplane crashes. That would explain why
both towers survived the airplane crashes; the airplanes did
nothing more than shake the towers for a brief moment.
As Chapter 4 explained, the fires did not seem severe
enough to explain the disintegration of the buildings. So if
not the fires or the airplane crashes, what would cause the
towers to shatter?
FEMA and other “experts” promote the theory that the
floors fell down like pancakes, but none of the floors simply
“fell down.” Hundreds of corrugated steel pans were
shredded during the collapse of the towers, and thousands of
steel beams were broken at their joints.What can cause such
total destruction of hundreds of thousands of tons of steel
assemblies and concrete?
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246280 Nov 16, 2012
A summary of the main reasons why the 9-11 attack
appears to be a scam:
• The destruction of the rubble. The destruction
proceeded at frantic rate, and most importantly, it
was a violation of our laws to destroy the rubble.
• An enormous amount of concrete turned to
powder and flew out of the building with a very
high velocity. All steel beams in the building
broke, mainly at their joints and welds. I think this
required an energy source, such as explosives.
• The steel beams from the towers dropped at the
rate objects fall in gravity. This means they did
not encounter any resistance along the way, which
means they never hit any of the concrete floors.
This means the concrete floors shattered into
powder without being touched by those beams. I
think the floors were shattered by explosives, not
by falling debris.
• The overhanging section of the South Tower
never fell out of the clouds of dust. I think
explosives were destroying the floors as fast as that
overhanging section fell down.
• The temperature of the rubble was above the
melting point of aluminum in some areas, even
after it was sprayed with water. I think the
explosives added a lot of heat to the rubble.
• Nobody wants to investigate. President Bush and
Cheney wanted to “limit” the investigation;
investigators were hampered; and the FBI, FEMA,
and other agencies either refused to investigate, or
they did only a minimal, pathetic investigation.
Furthermore, most members of our media, who
boast that they are “watchdogs,” have no interest
in understanding what happened, nor do they
care that our government violated our laws.
Instead they encourage us to hate Al-Qaeda and
support President Bush. This is not because these
people never support investigations; after all,
many of them demanded an investigation of the
Clinton / Lewinsky affair. Why would these people
not want an investigation of the 9-11 attack, which
is the biggest crime the USA has ever experienced?
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246281 Nov 16, 2012
Some people suspect that Building 7 was destroyed by
explosives, but not the towers. There are also people who
believe that the decision to blow up Building 7 was made
after the towers were attacked. According to that theory,
somebody decided to take advantage of the chaos that day
by destroying Building 7.
However, anybody who suspects Building 7 was
destroyed by explosives would have to come to the
conclusion that explosives were used in the towers. To
understand why, let’s begin by considering the theory that
somebody made the decision to blow up Building 7 after
they saw the towers collapse.
This theory requires that several people get together and
very quickly agree to a serious crime. At least one of them
must have experience with demolitions in order figure out
how many packages of explosives they needed. Then they
would have to purchase the explosives, have them delivered,
and install them in a 47-story building. All this would have to
be accomplished within the span of a few hours. However, it
was virtually impossible to drive a car into lower Manhattan
after the planes hit, which means that it was virtually
impossible for somebody to ask for a shipment of explosives
to be delivered to the building by that afternoon. The only
way they could acquire the explosives would be if there was
a store within walking distance of Building 7 that sold
packages of explosives for demolitions. Or, if a truck full of
demolition explosives had been caught in the traffic jam near
Building 7, they could break into the truck and steal the
explosives.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246282 Nov 16, 2012
This now leads us to the conclusion that whoever
destroyed Building 7 was either part of the group that was
planning the attack, or they had acquired information that
the attack was coming and decided to take advantage of it.
In either case they installed explosives in Building 7 in
preparation for the attack. They then waited for the attack to
occur. Their plan was to destroy the building and claim that
the fire was the reason it fell down.
The question I have for you is: what would happen if the
airplanes hit the towers but the towers did not fall down?
Imagine the following scenario: The airplanes crash into
towers; tremendous fires burn in the towers; after a few
hours the fires are extinguished by the firemen and the
towers remain standing; and then Building 7 collapses into a
small pile of rubble.
Wouldn’t it be suspicious if Building 7 crumbles from a
fire if the towers survived much more severe fires?
Remember, never in history has a fire caused a steel building
to crumble. Therefore, if somebody blew up Building 7 with
explosives and then claimed that a fire caused the collapse,
the firemen would respond that fires do not cause steel
buildings to collapse.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246283 Nov 16, 2012
To better understand this issue, imagining yourself back
in time to any year prior to 2001. Next imagine that a fire
breaks out in Building 7, or some other steel building. Finally,
imagine that after a few hours the small fires cause the entire
building to crumble into a small pile of rubble. If such an
event had occurred prior to 2001, it would have been the
very first time a fire caused a steel-framed building to
crumble. Such an unusual event would attract the attention
of the entire world.
Scientists and engineers would want to analyze the steel
beams to see how the fire did what no fire had done before.
Universities would want information on the collapse so that
they could use it in their engineering classes as an example of
lousy engineering. Newspapers and television stations
around the world would report it as the most bizarre fire
anybody has ever seen. I also suspect that there would be
thousands of lawsuits. Newspapers would be full of reports
like those in Figure 8-2.
The point I am making is that it would not be safe to
destroy Building 7 unless the towers collapse first. After the
towers collapse, the collapse of Building 7 would appear to
be just another weird event of that day’s bizarre disasters.
Therefore, whoever destroyed Building 7 would want to
guarantee that the towers collapse first. This requires that
they put explosives into the towers, also.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246284 Nov 16, 2012
So now let’s look at where we are with this scenario: A
group of people have discovered that the attack is going to
82
occur, so they put explosives in both towers and Building 7,
and then they patiently wait for the attack.
This brings us to a dilemma. Putting explosives into
Building 7 and both towers requires a lot of time, effort, and
money. Furthermore, they would be risking severe criminal
charges. What if somebody catches them installing the
explosives? What if they get caught after they blow up the
buildings? Would anybody be willing to go to all this trouble
and take such a risk when they have no guarantee that the
attacks will even take place? What if the hijackers are caught
before they get on the plane? Or what if the hijackers decide
that they are not competent as pilots and switch to a simpler
attack, such as leaving a truck bomb in front of a government
building? Or what if the hijackers decide to switch from
hitting the World Trade Center to hitting the US Capitol? Or
what if the hijackers turn out to be so incompetent as pilots
that they crash on the way to the World Trade Center, or
they miss the towers and hit some other buildings?
It is also possible that the hijackers would abandon the
suicide mission simply because they decided they did not
want to die yet. Certainly there have been people who were
angry enough to join a suicide plot, but after a few months
their anger diminished and they decided they would rather
remain alive.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246285 Nov 16, 2012
This now leads us to the conclusion that whoever
destroyed Building 7 was either part of the group that was
planning the attack, or they had acquired information that
the attack was coming and decided to take advantage of it.
In either case they installed explosives in Building 7 in
preparation for the attack. They then waited for the attack to
occur. Their plan was to destroy the building and claim that
the fire was the reason it fell down.
The question I have for you is: what would happen if the
airplanes hit the towers but the towers did not fall down?
Imagine the following scenario: The airplanes crash into
towers; tremendous fires burn in the towers; after a few
hours the fires are extinguished by the firemen and the
towers remain standing; and then Building 7 collapses into a
small pile of rubble.
Wouldn’t it be suspicious if Building 7 crumbles from a
fire if the towers survived much more severe fires?
Remember, never in history has a fire caused a steel building
to crumble. Therefore, if somebody blew up Building 7 with
explosives and then claimed that a fire caused the collapse,
the firemen would respond that fires do not cause steel
buildings to collapse.
To better understand this issue, imagining yourself back
in time to any year prior to 2001. Next imagine that a fire
breaks out in Building 7, or some other steel building. Finally,
imagine that after a few hours the small fires cause the entire
building to crumble into a small pile of rubble. If such an
event had occurred prior to 2001, it would have been the
very first time a fire caused a steel-framed building to
crumble. Such an unusual event would attract the attention
of the entire world.
Scientists and engineers would want to analyze the steel
beams to see how the fire did what no fire had done before.
Universities would want information on the collapse so that
they could use it in their engineering classes as an example of
lousy engineering. Newspapers and television stations
around the world would report it as the most bizarre fire
anybody has ever seen. I also suspect that there would be
thousands of lawsuits. Newspapers would be full of reports
like those in Figure 8-2.
The point I am making is that it would not be safe to
destroy Building 7 unless the towers collapse first. After the
towers collapse, the collapse of Building 7 would appear to
be just another weird event of that day’s bizarre disasters.
Therefore, whoever destroyed Building 7 would want to
guarantee that the towers collapse first. This requires that
they put explosives into the towers, also.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246286 Nov 16, 2012
Skyscraper crumbles to
dust!
Is your building safe? Yesterday in
Manhattan, a 47 story tall, steel and concrete
skyscraper collapsed into a small pile of
rubble. What could cause such a total and
complete destruction of a skyscraper? A
nuclear bomb? An earthquake? An asteroid?
No! According to experts, an ordinary fire!
Diesel fuel used to power emergency
generators caught on fire. Hospitals and
many other buildings have backup
generators and large tanks of diesel fuel.
How many of these buildings will crumble if
those tanks catch on fire? Is the building that
you work in safe?
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246287 Nov 16, 2012
NewWorld Record!
1 fire; 347,000 lawsuits!
Angry citizens are overwhelming the
New York court system after a fire caused a
steel building to crumble to dust! Most
lawsuits have been filed against the
designers of the building and the
construction companies involved in the
project, but the landlord has also been hit
with thousands of lawsuits. The landlord is
being accused of not properly maintaining
the sprinkler system or the fireproofing.
Lawsuits have also been filed against the
New York City government for allowing
unsafe buildings.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246288 Nov 16, 2012
Is our Government
Inept, or Corrupt?
While I was writing this book, many people complained
to me that our government merely appears to be involved in
the September 11th attack because they are incompetent. So
I decided to include information about the assassination of
President Kennedy to show that our government was just as
“incompetent” in 1963. Or, did our government kill
Kennedy? Can you figure it out by looking at the Warren
Report? Furthermore, if our government is incompetent,
how is an incompetent government any better than a
government of criminals? Either way, we have a serious
problem.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246289 Nov 16, 2012
Jacob and Nessie's relationship continued to blossom. It was cute to see a compassionate side of Jacob, but I always saw him as the "Smart-alecky-sex-appeal " of the series. To say the least, i was Jacob-starved.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246290 Nov 16, 2012
Then the whole Volturi business began. Their return seemed inevitable, but it just added to the many reasons i despised the..."child". As soon as i'd read that Alice and Jasper (went and r-u-n-n-o-f-t) bolted, i felt betrayed. Dear Alice, the purest of the loyal, headstrong characters i'd grown to admire, left her family at the news of their death sentence. I just wanted to pull out her stupid, spiky, little hair and gag Jasper with it. But who needs 'em? certainly not me. so i read on.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min StarC 600,218
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Hidingfromyou 866,083
White Lives MATTER 4 min Johnny 124
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 4 min middleman1 2,795
The Christian Atheist debate 7 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 2,128
News Iran deal foes spend big, get little so far 19 min discocrisco 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 31 min RiccardoFire 40,917
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 3 hr RainbowLength 47
More from around the web