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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247751 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
It's considered the other side since many things said are not true, play on words since you can't really call many of them that know they are lying "truthers".
Even Avery, the grandfather of the truth movement and creator of endless Loose Change Videos admitted they got the whole cell phone thing wrong and calls could be made from planes, he also ditched the whole inside job viewpoint and seems to hold the same views you do. LIHOP.
Thanks for the explanation.

An NFL Fan

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247754 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Nutless wrote:
tead of JFK, we would have been at war with Cuba.
You forgot to mention that this same Pentagon, had considered launching a nuke at the Moon to scare the Russian... damn, you all have shit for brains.
You're from New Jersey, aren't you?
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#247755 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Bill Northwoods wrote:
...Bush brought in a rogues gallery of NEOCONS and Jews hell bent for war with Iraq.....
Ah, of course, da joooos!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247756 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>There is another problem. They don't need hijackers either. It is so easy to debunk the cell phone problem.

1. Some people have used cell phones on planes. Verizon seems to work better.

2. Some phone calls were made from the "in-flight" phones on the seats.

3. Phone calls were recorded and some received by loved ones.

4. Most of the flights were at lower altitudes.

5. The phone call that went through the United Airlines office involved several employees. They would all need to be part of a cover-story. Makes no sense.

6. If real passengers did not get killed on the planes, there is no reasonable explanation at to where they went.

Ooops!

Huge Conspiracy FAIL
All good points and when you start to add all the variables up that would be required for the conspiracy to be viable, you end up with something that makes a Rube Goldberg machine look like a child's ball and cup game.

Insanely complicated with way too many unnecessary risks of exposure.

My first journey man when I started apprenticing many years back had one main philosophy that I still use to this day.

The easiest way is the best way.

It wasn't done out of laziness, but because the easiest way typically involves making the least amount of mistakes.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247758 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Charlie Sheen,
Wow, you sure want to parse this don't you?
Yes, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the NSA... could have rejected such a plan, but they are the ones that created it, so, naturally, they are not going to reject their own plan that they were seriously advancing to have it enacted.
Yes, the President of the US, JFK, did reject it.
Yea, It was rejected, it goes in the evidence box called we don't do inside jobs.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247760 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>Yes he is. What's a twoofer?
Lol!

A twoofer is someone who pushes their agenda by claiming they're telling or searching for the truth when the reality is they'll accept nothing that goes against their personal bias.

It's an abrogation of truth.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247761 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Hey forgive my spelling. I type fast and Topix fails to keep up which means letters get dropped.
My iPhone frequently changes words altogether;-)
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247762 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
WASTEWATER...
You posted above in response to my post that the Boeings flown on September 11th, 2001, were fly by wire aircraft, not mechanical systems as Charlie Sheen stated.
Common myth, only a very small part was fly by wire (spoilers), not enough to fly the plane via remote, but lets look at those that service the planes.

Nothing at all that you would call a fly by wire plane.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-207...

An NFL Fan

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247763 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Mostly, Lakehurst, though.
You're formerly of Jersey city.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247764 Nov 29, 2012
"Ask the Pilot

Reality: As I’ve explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour’s flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757′s autopilot. Striking a stationary object — even a large one like the Pentagon — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.

It’s true there’s only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes’ navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won’t be good, but you’ll be good enough."

http://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot18...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247765 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Common myth, only a very small part was fly by wire (spoilers), not enough to fly the plane via remote, but lets look at those that service the planes.
Nothing at all that you would call a fly by wire plane.
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-207...
PS: The Spoilers are more or less the brakes, your mindless claim is the rough equivalent to claim one can fully drive a car though remote control via only having control of the brakes.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247766 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
WASTEWATER...
You posted above in response to my post that the Boeings flown on September 11th, 2001, were fly by wire aircraft, not mechanical systems as Charlie Sheen stated.
You said...
"Requires additional equipment and secret installations. Sorry there is no evidence whatsoever to validate your claim. "
My post is below... I made no such "claim" as to the planes being piloted by remote control on September 11th, I merely posted as to their fly by wire capability. I do wonder why you would jump to the conclusion and post that I was "claiming" that they were being flown remotely? Disinformation specialist?
However, being flown by remote control, would account for a CBS reporter on scene near the Pentagon, described how the plane came in near the White House, turned and flew to the Pentagon, then... "it made a very complicated turn" at altitude and flew into the side of the Pentagon.
The CBS reporter is not the only one who commented on how complicated that turn over the Pentagon to line it up with the side of the Pentagon which was under remodeling and had the least people in it, was hit.
Given what we are told about these alleged hijackers, their instructors say that they couldn't even fly a Cessna. How could they make such a maneuver? I would have been greatly impressed, if they could have found the Pentagon, then, dive bombed onto the roof, but to be at altitude, then make a "very complicated" turn and come in almost on the deck and hit that side of the Pentagon, is really and unbelievable task. The key word is... "unbelievable."
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 ...
The Boeing Aircraft allegedly used in the September 11th, 2001 attacks were capable of being flown as drones.
You are repeating yourself. What about the phone calls saying otherwise? Unless you can prove these phone calls never happened you have no case.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247768 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol!
A twoofer is someone who pushes their agenda by claiming they're telling or searching for the truth when the reality is they'll accept nothing that goes against their personal bias.
It's an abrogation of truth.
Funny thing. I was actually looking for the truth all along. I see what you mean though. When I present the questions which did not fit and could not be answered, they conspiracy proponents ran away, made personal comments or presented red herrings. None have addressed the issues I brought forward.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247769 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
All good points and when you start to add all the variables up that would be required for the conspiracy to be viable, you end up with something that makes a Rube Goldberg machine look like a child's ball and cup game.
Insanely complicated with way too many unnecessary risks of exposure.
My first journey man when I started apprenticing many years back had one main philosophy that I still use to this day.
The easiest way is the best way.
It wasn't done out of laziness, but because the easiest way typically involves making the least amount of mistakes.
That's my conclusion also.

1. Larry Silverstein. Too much risk exposure.

2. The telephone calls negate all theories of modified or substitute aircraft.

3. Rigged buildings is also too much risk exposure.

4. Pentagon cruise missile theory requires too many outside players and variables. Again, the phone call negates it along with the fact all other scenarios would have been detected by Air Traffic Control who would then become accomplices in a cover-up. Too much risk exposure, too many players. The plane did not evaporate into thin air. It went into the building like a straw through a tree in a tornado.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247770 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
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]
From your post above.

An early form of fly-by-wire is employed for spoiler .... and provides for the independent operation of individual spoilers.[6]

I guess you could remote control the brakes, so much for turning, ascending, accelerating, decelerating or anything else but I bet you could descend like a brick.

This may help

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Ima...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247771 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
From your post above.
An early form of fly-by-wire is employed for spoiler .... and provides for the independent operation of individual spoilers.[6]
I guess you could remote control the brakes, so much for turning, ascending, accelerating, decelerating or anything else but I bet you could descend like a brick.
This may help
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Ima...
Who turned off the transponders? Who broke down the cabin doors and took over the cockpit?

Fly by wire is a non-issue. It never happened.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247772 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Who turned off the transponders? Who broke down the cabin doors and took over the cockpit?
Fly by wire is a non-issue. It never happened.
LOL. True, well, it kind of is an issue for North.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247776 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
WasteWater,
It could have been done remotely.
By just controlling the brakes?

An NFL Fan

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#247777 Nov 29, 2012
'Scar left forearm, Chest Tattoo'
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247779 Nov 29, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
How the hell do you know what risk Larry Silverstein was willing to take to make Billions, plus, ultimately get his original lease payment of $133 million refunded to him?
Silverstein has lost 1.6 Billion and counting.

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911si...

The actual court ruling awarded Silverstein 4.68 Billion, not factoring in attorneys fees.[b]CREDIT TO JINGPAW,. THANKS!
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Si...

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006)

$4.7 billion in insurance money,$6.3 billion in costs?[/red]

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.[red]The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverste...

$120 million dollars a year? So in the five years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $600 million on rent alone

6.3 billion in costs, 600 million in rent for ground with no building or revenue, almost 7 Billion in cost and 4.7 Billion in a insurance payout,

In a recent settlement the Port Authority agreed to pay half of the rebuilding cost which results in…..

A loss of about 1.6 billion for Larry Silverstein what a moneymaker!

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) 7 min Trumpler 983,265
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 11 min Star Wars 17,490
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 31 min hojo 683,935
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 43 min lil whispers 619,711
Girl snapchat names (Feb '15) 59 min eli_mitchell137 2
Looking for girls to snapchat 2 hr aldenmorgan737 3
Blindfolded, hands tied and forced to their kne... 3 hr Leave None Alive 1
More from around the web