Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,192 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

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.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246291 Nov 16, 2012
The gathering of the "witnesses" was quite interesting, and i especially enjoyed the part where Renesmee referred to Edward as "Daddy" for the first time. Maybe this kid wasn't so bad afterall? The Voluri arrived and within 5 minutes automatically believed Bella and Edward's story. Then why the hell are they sticking around?! It made absolutely no sense. Sure they claimed to want "justice" and everyone knew that but honestly, we all knew how it would end. get on with it. Finally, it looked like the Cullens weren't going to win afterall. Bella's pessimistic assesment of the situation and tearful goodbye to Edward, Jacob, and Nessie had me bawling. Why? this wasn't the goodbye i was anticipating at all! Before i began the book i had prepared myself for a different one. Bella was supposed to be leaving Jacob and all of Forks to live as a vampire with edward! that was the emotion i was ready for. But no, lame as it was, SM's magical words had me emotional for a character i didn't even care for. Yeah, i was impressed too.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246292 Nov 16, 2012
The “Warren Report” is the US government’s official
investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy. It is
analogous to the FEMA report about theWorld Trade Center
collapse, but the Warren Report has much more detail. It
contains the testimony of 552 witnesses, and it contains our
government’s analysis of that testimony. A lot of people put a
lot of time and effort into the Warren Report.
As is typical of crimes, the testimony in the Warren
Report is full of contradictions. The government had to pass
judgement on which testimony was the most accurate, and
which testimony should be ignored. They ended up
concluding that Oswald killed Kennedy. However, some
people looked at the same conflicting testimony, decided to
ignore different bits, and ended up concluding the FBI killed
Kennedy. Other people ignored still other bits and found a
military or CIA killing. Some people found a Soviet killing.
How do we determine whose theory is more accurate?
This chapter will discuss the testimony of the doctors
who treated Kennedy at the hospital.(Unless specified
otherwise, the quoted material is from the Warren Report.)
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246293 Nov 16, 2012
Just as the pressure was building up, the lovely Alice and Jasper arrive gracefully.(of course.) I was so glad. Even though Bella had been following Alice's "clues" i still couldn't get out of my brain that she up and left town! Super Alice saves all of vampire-(and 'shape-shifter') kind and everyone lives happily ever after.
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246294 Nov 16, 2012
The hospital was only a few miles from the location
Kennedy was shot, so he arrived within a few minutes. The
Warren Report does not provide details about what was
happening at the hospital at the moment Kennedy arrived,
but we can assume that most experienced doctors were busy
with patients. Some doctors may have been in surgery and
could not stop what they were doing. Who were the first
doctors to see Kennedy? Were they the best doctors the
hospital had? Or were the trainees the first to see him?
In case some of you are unaware of what goes on in
hospitals, after a medical student gets out of school he often
gets on-the-job training at a hospital. These students are
often referred to as “interns,” and sometimes as “doctors,”
but they could be referred to as “trainees” or “students.”
Also, in 1963 there were fewer concerns about malpractice
because Americans did not file nearly as many lawsuits in
that era, and monetary awards were much smaller. One of
the reasons malpractice cases have since become so
numerous is that there were occasional abuses in that era,
such as when nurses, interns, and medical equipment
salesmen assisted with medical treatments when the doctors
were busy. Today hospitals are careful not to allow anybody
to do something they were not specifically trained for.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246295 Nov 16, 2012
Right? Bella and Edward can live at peace with their family and co exist with their human friends. Bella has perfected her talent and is now unstoppable! Edward finally finds a way to read Bella's mind, and the two (err....three) of them are free to live in a cutesy little cottage in Forks (which Bella and Edward will hopefully 'knock down' according to Emmett)
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#246296 Nov 16, 2012
So Now, that i've ranted for ages over why i didn't care for this book, i'd figure i'd break it down nice-n-easy for those who are very err....human, as Edward would say:
Sorry Charlie

San Anselmo, CA

#246297 Nov 16, 2012
As the Warren Report explains, Doctor Carrico noted
that Kennedy had some serious medical problems:
Dr. Carrico noted two wounds: a small bullet
wound in the front lower neck, and an extensive
wound in the President’s head where a sizable
portion of the skull was missing. He observed
shredded brain tissue and “considerable slow
oozing” from the latter wound,...
In Appendix 8 we find more details:
Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow,
agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a
heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure
to be present.
People such as myself, who lack medical training, would
assume the lack of pulse and blood pressure means that
Kennedy’s heart was not beating, which in turn means there
was only a few minutes before irreversible brain damage
occurs. Since I don’t know how to start a heart beating, if I
had to deal with Kennedy I would have given up and
announced that Kennedy was dead. But Dr. Carrico did not
consider him dead yet:
He noted that the President was blue-white or
ashen in color; had slow, spasmodic, agonal
respiration without any coordination; made no
voluntary movements; had his eyes open with
the pupils dilated without any reaction to light;
evidenced no palpable pulse; and had a few
chest sounds which were thought to be heart
beats. On the basis of these findings, Dr.
Carrico concluded that President Kennedy was
still alive.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 809,578
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min WasteWater 574,052
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 8 min TheNorthRemembers 97,885
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 34 min Seentheotherside 608,189
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 36 min Grunt56 221,736
This ~ or ~ That? (game) (Dec '12) 46 min End Times 1,628
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 52 min cheer the f up 121,330
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 1 hr yes lover 162
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 7 hr Coco 203
More from around the web