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

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.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247723 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 !
Resistance and weight are not comparable units elevator boy.

Perhaps you should opt for education over pseudoscience.

And honestly, subtracting percentage of free fall from 100 to derive resistance????

Gotta love twoofer fiziks!

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

Oh elevator boy-sheep!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247724 Nov 29, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain increasing momentum directly down into the line of most resistance?(the undamaged, unheated bottom 2/3 of the towers)
Gravity, Seriously, It exists no matter how many times you have been told it was a jewish hoax.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247725 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LOL, Yea, Like electrical motors in the passenger compartment.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#247726 Nov 29, 2012
unlike you I am smart enough to understand basic science and physics
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<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 !
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#247727 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yelling inanities from the side lines is so much easier than trying to support your twoof with evidence eh lil guy?
Insults are Easier

OH the IRONY!!!!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247728 Nov 29, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Insults are Easier
OH the IRONY!!!!
I agree, Insults are a cheap tactic for children who can't debate. Oh, And why I am thinking of it I miss someone. Timesten, Timesten, you illiterate unemployed truck driver with manboobs, come out and Playay!(Insert clinking beer bottles)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247729 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I know, it's like they think moving the goal posts is their inherent right yet expect lily white perfection from every source that refutes them.

And not understanding that terms like "near free fall" have no intrinsic meaning is just icing on the cake.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247730 Nov 29, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<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 !
The path of most resistance was up elevator boy-sheep.

Don't worry, at some point you'll copy and paste something that's correct.

Although today's not your day...again.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247731 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>Gravity, Seriously, It exists no matter how many times you have been told it was a jewish hoax.
Yup, acceleration due to gravity and

P=mv

An increase in mass will always cause an increase in momentum...elevator boy-sheep obviously doesn't get what momentum is.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247732 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, Yea, Like electrical motors in the passenger compartment.
Wasn't there an old commercial with OJ Simpson jumping over some of those?

Oh no, that was luggage...they look so similar;-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#247733 Nov 29, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>Insults are Easier

OH the IRONY!!!!
Yup!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247734 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
The path of most resistance was up elevator boy-sheep.
Don't worry, at some point you'll copy and paste something that's correct.
Although today's not your day...again.
LOL, Insight of the week, that never occurred to me, has anyone ever answered your question of why water is not wet.

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 NoStress4me 30,460
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 4 min lil whispers 3,563
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 6 min Paul is dead sinc... 3,707
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 min WildWeirdWillie 181,971
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min Oath Keeper 968,924
Play "end of the word" part 2 20 min Athena18 1,480
Ihaveagod.com - Christian Network - Connecting ... 48 min israel96 4
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Rosesz 638,120
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Memorial Day Sock 617,994
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 6 hr RiccardoFire 43,941
More from around the web