Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247278 Nov 26, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
I've spoken to many engineers about twoof, I work with engineers all day, every day.
Not one has ever said, "they're right!". Yet every one I've spoken to has chuckled about the absolute lack of knowledge you losers possess.
I know it hurts little camper, just like finding out reports of molten steel are commonplace in large fires hurts you.
I've had the same experience speaking with fire fighters and pilots, but you read twoofer websites...then think you know more than the lot of them together.
Btw, still waiting for all those papers about nano-thermite...
How many engineers are truly willing to put their careers on the line to speak out against the official story? And as you walk up and say with a grin "Do you believe in the inside jobity job these twoofers are suggesting?", how many of them will be truly forth coming? Also, how many of them have actually studied all the reported evidence, political and scientific combined?

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247279 Nov 26, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need a thesaurus to call you what you are, Bozo.
Hows your mom? Found any leads on who your father is yet?

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247280 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Hows your mom? Found any leads on who your father is yet?
Insults Are Easier
Thought you wanted debate, not insults?

SECOND TIME!

A: Show us any test that proves it was steel

B: How would molten steel weeks latter prove explosives?

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247281 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Hows your mom? Found any leads on who your father is yet?
Insults Are Easier
Wow! Are you pulling out your 'big guns'? Astoundingly pathetic, bozo boy.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247282 Nov 26, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
A: Show us any test that proves it was steel
B: How would molten steel weeks latter prove explosives?
Show the tests where it proves molten metal was aluminum sitting in pools and running down the channel rails.

Molten steel is not suggested to be caused by explosives, it's a result of incendiaries like thermate, that was never tested officially,

So try to keep up.

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247283 Nov 26, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Are you pulling out your 'big guns'? Astoundingly pathetic, bozo boy.
Funny you should mention "pulling out" when the subject of your mom comes up.

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247284 Nov 26, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought you wanted debate, not insults?
SECOND TIME!
A: Show us any test that proves it was steel
B: How would molten steel weeks latter prove explosives?
I can't debate NFL on who his father is, because I, like him, have no idea.

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247285 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Show the tests where it proves molten metal was aluminum sitting in pools and running down the channel rails.
Molten steel is not suggested to be caused by explosives, it's a result of incendiaries like thermate, that was never tested officially,
So try to keep up.
Insults Are Easier
A: You claimed it was steel, not me, I make not claims, BACK IT UP, show us a test that it was steel.

B: How did a thermate reaction, which lasts a minute or two tops until all the heat energy is expended account for molten steel weeks and months latter?

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247286 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny you should mention "pulling out" when the subject of your mom comes up.
Insults Are Easier
Does that sort of gag elicit a hearty guffaw from your 'friends', Bozo?

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247287 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't debate NFL on who his father is, because I, like him, have no idea.
Insults Are Easier
You're on a roll! Did you pick that material up from an old Bob Hope comedy pamphlet?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247288 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The lost quote... Third times a charm.

First off, Canadians should celebrate Thanksgiving, because without the Pilgrims breaking bread with the Native Americans, then subsequently committing genocide upon them, none of what our two nations enjoy today would be possible.
Canadians do celebrate Thanksgiving although on a different date.

The difference is that we signed treaties rather than go to war with Native Canadians...regardless, a meaningless comment with no value.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
In this investigative scenario, the coroner should check for all causes of injury, especially if witnesses claimed to hear gunshots and the sound of an engine. I have a problem with any investigation not being thorough and scientific, and so should everyone.
Again, the evidence was visually examined and expecting anyone to go back a re-examine it because they didn't explicitly look for signs of explosives is asinine.

Here's a corollary in a court of law;

"Defense call coroner John Doe."

"Dr. Doe, can you please describe the wounds found on Dead Guy's body?"

"Of course...(coroner lists the various wounds and their specifics)."

Defense: "Dr. Doe, did you specifically examine the body for gun shot wounds?"

Coroner: "Not specifically, no. I examined the body in full for what may have caused death."

Defense: "Perhaps Mr. Guy succumbed to a gun shot wound?"

Coroner: "I examined the body and found no gun shot wounds."

Defense: "But you've just admitted you never examined the body specifically for gun shot wounds."

Judge: "Defense, are you drunk?"

That's your argument.

On top of that, there's an entire section of the NIST report dealing with materials and the fact that dozens of positive material identification tests, which would also show the presence of residues, done on the steel to confirm material grades and compliance to ASME Sec II.

Only in your world did NIST not practice due diligence.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247289 Nov 26, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that sort of gag elicit a hearty guffaw from your 'friends', Bozo?
It's also funny you should mention "gag" when your mom is mentioned.

Subconscious is a b*tch, eh?

I do agree with you on one thing,

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247290 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also funny you should mention "gag" when your mom is mentioned.
Subconscious is a b*tch, eh?
I do agree with you on one thing,
Insults Are Easier
A: You claimed it was steel, not me, I make no specific claims about the substance, BACK IT UP, show us a test that it was steel.

B: How did a thermate reaction, which lasts a minute or two tops until all the heat energy is expended account for molten steel weeks and months latter?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247291 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
All scientific investigations should follow the scientific method (which is taught in 5th grade), where all observations are tested. At WTC the investigators were not there to observe first hand, so witness testimony and video should have been the observation that they prove or disprove.

The NIST ignoring molten steel at WTC video shows steel in yellow hot status days and weeks after the collapse. This suggests temperatures much higher during collapse, and why explosives should have been tested, not ignored.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_r9lhQTeVJv4/S7zWJeG...
Molten steel weeks after does not suggest anything about the collapse. That's a fallacy you desperately wish was true, but you have nothing to qualify it.

Reports of molten steel in fires is common. That's an established fact.

Again, there were tests done which would have exposed any residues showing that explosives were used.

Those tests confirmed nothing aside from the material grades and their conformance to ASME Sec II.

We won't even mention dual trained search and rescue dogs all over ground zero.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The "meteorite" itself shows concrete wrapped around steel. Indicative of high heat and/or pressure. Assuming NIST didn't consider these types of recovered pieces relevant, because they assumed them to be created long after the collapse, is unscientific in itself, because science shouldn't assume, it should test and prove.
A pressure artifact from the collapse of a 110 story building is somewhat more interesting than commonplace reports of molten metal.

I highly doubt NIST concluded they were formed AFTER collapse, but you must have a citation right?
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Most of the links you provide start off with the premise that "conspiracists" are crazy and can't be convinced of anything scientific, then labels them "troothers". I tend to disregard these types of biased attack pieces intended to mislead readers into false belief systems.
The links I provided were from the ASCE and the company hired to manage the land fill sites, they don't mention twoofers at all.

But I can see why you'd want to hand wave them away, they prove you're wrong on multiple accounts.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
One article actually compares questioning government accounts to questioning the sun rise, even though government has been shown to mislead on countless occasions, while the sun rising has always been truthful.

Facts do not require character attacks, but

Insults Are Easier
Right, find a mirror.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247293 Nov 26, 2012
RADEKT wrote:
<quoted text>"I have a problem with any investigation not being thorough and scientific"

CAN ANYBODY SAY .... IRONIC !!!!!!!!!!
Ya, especially given that the molten material is conclusively called steel by the same poster when no evidence for that conclusion exists.

Pure irony.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247294 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>How many engineers are truly willing to put their careers on the line to speak out against the official story? And as you walk up and say with a grin "Do you believe in the inside jobity job these twoofers are suggesting?", how many of them will be truly forth coming? Also, how many of them have actually studied all the reported evidence, political and scientific combined?

Insults Are Easier
The engineers I've discussed thus with were shown what you and other twoofers base your conclusions on, not one has bought it.

And seriously, the fallacious argument that all the engineers all over the world are somehow scared for their jobs and beholden to the US government?

I know at least a couple who hated Bush to a degree that they would've sacrificed their first born to see him exposed for something like 911.

That's not an argument, it's obfuscation.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247295 Nov 26, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>Thought you wanted debate, not insults?

SECOND TIME!

A: Show us any test that proves it was steel

B: How would molten steel weeks latter prove explosives?
I'd also like to see reports of molten aluminum.

Since it has a lower melting point and was in abundance AND can be identified by sight alone, there must be tons of those reports!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247296 Nov 26, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Show the tests where it proves molten metal was aluminum sitting in pools and running down the channel rails.

Molten steel is not suggested to be caused by explosives, it's a result of incendiaries like thermate, that was never tested officially,

So try to keep up.

Insults Are Easier
But it was officially tested during PMI testing for material chemistry.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247297 Nov 26, 2012
_Abraxas_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Mostly the tires, some got broken windows from falling debris and the interiors caught fire.
This slide show shows the vehicle fires started after the first collapse.
http://smg.beta.photobucket.com/user/DoYouEve...
Yea I saw that one. Must have caught from a direct hit of really hot debris. The others could have caught from hot debris blowing out of the collapsing buildings. See, we can agree on many things if we look at the existing footage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247298 Nov 26, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
First you'd have to show the damage was anomalous.
You know, the phase of actually proving your idiotic claim had merit.
Funny how twoof always avoids that part...oh and the damage is consistant with all car fires and if you can't figure out what caused the fires, you're a bigger fool than the idiot who originally claimed it was pyroclastic flows.
I see you are not a CSI fan.

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
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 9 min Ricky F 53,937
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 min Bongo 71,041
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Phooey 658,881
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 24 min Ricky F 183,466
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 25 min Concerned Adult 445,536
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 1 hr Your Ex 260
Trump is un-American... 1 hr Tony 6
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Brandy trujillo 974,842
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 6 hr gundee123 5,059
More from around the web