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

Porkskin

Padre Island Ntl Seashor, TX

#247698 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Address my points or make a fool of yourself.
Your choice Jackass.
U tell em big guy. Tell porker to eat shat and !!!.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247699 Nov 29, 2012
Tigermermaid wrote:
<quoted text>
"Our best soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. They would not follow such an order to abduct and kill civilians."
You ignorant, uneducated, nincompoop. REMEMBER THIS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =hkg-bzTHeAkXX
No Civilians were abducted at Kent state and though heavy handed there are shades of gray there as to what led to the gunfire, put some effort into this, what is the obvious comeback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

SLACKER!

PS: You still don't make sense due to the number of such incidents compared to total actions to imply anywhere near large numbers of the military would participate (not to mention if this is that wipe out 90% of the population total amount of civilian relatives would seem like a stumbling block, also most people have s somewhat functioning moral compass.)

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#247700 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Such delicious irony from a loser who changes her name on a regular basis to escape the trail of lies that follows here where ever she goes!
.
Eat a big fat slice of delicious irony yourself mu shu porker pig boy.
.
You are the idiot who says he is Galileo.
.
And also the guy who said that the hijacked plane’s titanium engine parts turned to dust when the WTC towers exploded, and could not be identified by serial numbers.
.
Who are you today? Da Vinci ?
.
Maybe you should try Isaac Newton. Now he could tell you how WTC came down in 12 seconds give or take a second at near free-fall acceleration, as long as there was nothing to hold it up like it had stood there for over 30 years.
.
Oh mu shu boy LOL
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ah
.
That's A Good One huh eh !
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247701 Nov 29, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Now he could tell you how WTC came down in 12 seconds give or take a second at near free-fall acceleration, as long as there was nothing to hold it up like it had stood there for over 30 years.
Freefall might mean something, NEAR FREEFALL means nothing other than you admit there was resistance on the way down.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#247704 Nov 29, 2012
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust.
.
This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest.
.
The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's Funny HUh eh !
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#247705 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Chralie Sheen.... ALL WERE REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT CAPABLE, FLY BY WIRE, AIRCRAFT
No disrespect, but what you said about the aircraft on 9/11 not being able to be controlled remotely, due to "cables and wires.... servos taking up much of the passenger compartment" is not true.
AMERICAN FLIGHT II.... was a Boeing 767-223ER.
"The 767 is equipped with three redundant hydraulic systems for operation of control surfaces, landing gear, and other equipment.[104] Each engine powers a separate hydraulic system, and the third system uses electric pumps.[104] A ram air turbine is fitted to provide power for basic controls in the event of an emergency.[105] An early form of fly-by-wire is employed for spoiler operation, utilizing electric signaling instead of traditional control cables.[6] The fly-by-wire system reduces weight and provides for the independent operation of individual spoilers.[6]"
UNITED FLIGHT 93 was a BOEING 757-222... United 93 was, also, fly by wire.
AMERICAN FLIGHT 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, was a Boeing 757-223, and was, also, fly by wire.
FLY BY WIRE.....
"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft's computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft.[1]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AWuvGoKdWFMXX
The Boeing Aircraft allegedly used in the September 11th, 2001 attacks were capable of being flown as drones.
What a fckuing idjit! the SPOILERS ONLY were electrically activated, not the entire control functionality. F'ING DOPE!!!!!!!!!
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#247706 Nov 29, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust.
.
This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest.
.
The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's Funny HUh eh !
Another math major!! LMFAO!!!!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#247708 Nov 29, 2012
???
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247710 Nov 29, 2012
Wrong, Page 11, be sure and point out where the paper is wrong.

http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Chralie Sheen.... ALL WERE REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT CAPABLE, FLY BY WIRE, AIRCRAFT
No disrespect, but what you said about the aircraft on 9/11 not being able to be controlled remotely, due to "cables and wires.... servos taking up much of the passenger compartment" is not true.
AMERICAN FLIGHT II.... was a Boeing 767-223ER.
"The 767 is equipped with three redundant hydraulic systems for operation of control surfaces, landing gear, and other equipment.[104] Each engine powers a separate hydraulic system, and the third system uses electric pumps.[104] A ram air turbine is fitted to provide power for basic controls in the event of an emergency.[105] An early form of fly-by-wire is employed for spoiler operation, utilizing electric signaling instead of traditional control cables.[6] The fly-by-wire system reduces weight and provides for the independent operation of individual spoilers.[6]"
UNITED FLIGHT 93 was a BOEING 757-222... United 93 was, also, fly by wire.
AMERICAN FLIGHT 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, was a Boeing 757-223, and was, also, fly by wire.
FLY BY WIRE.....
"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft's computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft.[1]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AWuvGoKdWFMXX
The Boeing Aircraft allegedly used in the September 11th, 2001 attacks were capable of being flown as drones.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247711 Nov 29, 2012
Yawn, you forget the fact mass built as it took out each floor one by one.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust.
.
This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest.
.
The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's Funny HUh eh !

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#247712 Nov 29, 2012
OH MY, more cut & paste from David Chandler

Chandler is assuming, whether knowingly or not, that the upper block is one rigid element. When the upper block impacts, the lower block will apply a force to the upper block equal to the maximum capacity of either the elements in the lower block or in the upper block. What really happened is that the forces between the top and bottom blocks varied with time and position, from very large in some places and at some times, to nothing at all at others. David Chandler's mistake is to assume that there was just a single average force, and that this was evenly spread across time and position. If that had been the case, there couldn't have been a collapse

The truly idiotic thing about Chandler is how he doesn't even examine his own statement for the limit case. If the lower block was actually resisting the whole weight of the upper block as he states should happen, the acceleration would thus be zero. And thus nothing can collapse, ever, by his phony logic.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust.
.
This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest.
.
The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's Funny HUh eh !
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247714 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Charlie Sheen.... OPERATION NORTHWOODS... WAS NOT REJECTED.... by the CIA.... by the NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY.... by the PENTAGON... nor, by the CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF....
OPERATION NORTHOODS... was ONLY REJECTED by PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY!
As I said it was Rejected, who had the final call. The POTUS, the others could not have rejected the plan even if they wanted to.

Evidence we reject false flags, THANKS!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247715 Nov 29, 2012
That's a 727, TRY AGAIN!

Wrong, Page 11, no fly by wire with a exploded view of the whole system, be sure and point out where the paper is wrong or where the fly by wire is in the exploded view.

http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

And then there is that huge latency issue.
Operation Northwoods wrote:
SAYING SHIT...
Did you watch the video, phuckhead?
FAA CRASH TESTS... 1984
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-TrOA9WiUWsXX
FFA CRASH TEST of an earlier model BOEING 727
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
they took the aircraft up to 2,300 feet, then, brought it in for a crash landing, all by remote control
Those aircraft are capable of being completely controlled by the ground.
"FLY BY WIRE.....
"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft's computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft.[1]"
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#247716 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
That's a 727, TRY AGAIN!
Wrong, Page 11, no fly by wire with a exploded view of the whole system, be sure and point out where the paper is wrong or where the fly by wire is in the exploded view.
http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf
And then there is that huge latency issue.
<quoted text>
thanks for the assist!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#247717 Nov 29, 2012
RADEKT wrote:
OH MY, more cut & paste from David Chandler
Chandler is assuming, whether knowingly or not, that the upper block is one rigid element. When the upper block impacts, the lower block will apply a force to the upper block equal to the maximum capacity of either the elements in the lower block or in the upper block. What really happened is that the forces between the top and bottom blocks varied with time and position, from very large in some places and at some times, to nothing at all at others. David Chandler's mistake is to assume that there was just a single average force, and that this was evenly spread across time and position. If that had been the case, there couldn't have been a collapse
The truly idiotic thing about Chandler is how he doesn't even examine his own statement for the limit case. If the lower block was actually resisting the whole weight of the upper block as he states should happen, the acceleration would thus be zero. And thus nothing can collapse, ever, by his phony logic.
<quoted text>
Says the business major suit who works on Wall Street. Where did you say you got your engineering degree again?
.
Can you explain increasing momentum directly down into the line of most resistance?(the undamaged, unheated bottom 2/3 of the towers)
.
Isn't this the first thing they teach you in business school?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha hahh
.
That's Funny Too huh eh !

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247718 Nov 29, 2012
Porkskin wrote:
<quoted text>U tell em big guy. Tell porker to eat shat and !!!.
Yelling inanities from the side lines is so much easier than trying to support your twoof with evidence eh lil guy?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247719 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>They never get it but by the very rejection of Northwoods, at most it's subjective evidence we don't engage in false flags, that said, different people in charge, it was along time ago, it's really not evidence of anything 9/11, but if you have to ram it in the evidence box it goes in the one marked offical story.
I guess when the cupboard is dry, they eat any scraps they can get;-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247720 Nov 29, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>.
Eat a big fat slice of delicious irony yourself mu shu porker pig boy.
.
You are the idiot who says he is Galileo.
.
And also the guy who said that the hijacked plane’s titanium engine parts turned to dust when the WTC towers exploded, and could not be identified by serial numbers.
.
Who are you today? Da Vinci ?
.
Maybe you should try Isaac Newton. Now he could tell you how WTC came down in 12 seconds give or take a second at near free-fall acceleration, as long as there was nothing to hold it up like it had stood there for over 30 years.
.
Oh mu shu boy LOL
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ah
.
That's A Good One huh eh !
I'm god btw, next to you.

And I have zero doubts about what side Newton would take in this discussion...because next to you, I'm also Newton.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247721 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Chralie Sheen.... ALL WERE REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT CAPABLE, FLY BY WIRE, AIRCRAFT

No disrespect, but what you said about the aircraft on 9/11 not being able to be controlled remotely, due to "cables and wires.... servos taking up much of the passenger compartment" is not true.

AMERICAN FLIGHT II.... was a Boeing 767-223ER.

"The 767 is equipped with three redundant hydraulic systems for operation of control surfaces, landing gear, and other equipment.[104] Each engine powers a separate hydraulic system, and the third system uses electric pumps.[104] A ram air turbine is fitted to provide power for basic controls in the event of an emergency.[105] An early form of fly-by-wire is employed for spoiler operation, utilizing electric signaling instead of traditional control cables.[6] The fly-by-wire system reduces weight and provides for the independent operation of individual spoilers.[6]"

UNITED FLIGHT 93 was a BOEING 757-222... United 93 was, also, fly by wire.

AMERICAN FLIGHT 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, was a Boeing 757-223, and was, also, fly by wire.

FLY BY WIRE.....
"Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the ordered response. The fly-by-wire system also allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft's computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in systems that automatically help stabilize the aircraft.[1]"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AWuvGoKdWFMXX

The Boeing Aircraft allegedly used in the September 11th, 2001 attacks were capable of being flown as drones.
You'd almost think techs who worked on these planes would notice such changes.

Oh, they were inonit too!

So far the only ones not inonit are twoofers.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247722 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess when the cupboard is dry, they eat any scraps they can get;-)
So it seems, just like when they backed off and went to "Near Freefall" Freefall might have pointed in a direction, Near free-fall means nothing for their claims.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Joe Fortuna 64,110
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min RoSesz 654,105
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Trumpisachump 973,838
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min LAWEST100 618,742
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 8 min bad bob 183,180
rajkot to chotila gey sex (Nov '15) 9 min abc 21
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 19 min Student 45,244
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 29 min RiccardoFire 106,548
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 21 hr Clive 80
More from around the web