Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,548 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

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.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#247735 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 !
Just for the record elevator boy-sheep, an increase in mass and/or velocity will cause an increase in momentum.

You agree the building fell at a positive percentage of gravity which means an increase in velocity.

So why are you asking for someone to explain an increase in momentum?

P=mv

Oh ya, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about!

Oh elevator boy-sheep, perhaps you shouldn't try appearing to be smart!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#247736 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, Insight of the week, that never occurred to me, has anyone ever answered your question of why water is not wet.
No, they avoid it for some reason!

Can't figure that one out;-)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247737 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
In twooferdumb, everything they can't twist into their delusional fantasy is faked.
It's formulaic.
They claim they are looking at facts and answers. The fact is there is no scenario other than real planes with real people and hijackers flying into buildings that fits.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#247738 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they avoid it for some reason!
Can't figure that one out;-)
Thats easy.. just like the Sun isn't dry. Same principle.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247739 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.
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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247740 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.
Also the last link you sent spoke of a transit placed by firemen to measure how much the building tilted. If it went beyond a certain amount they pulled their search and rescue people out of the building as Larry Silverstein explained. Furthermore, Wiki gives details of how WTC7 was built. It was built over a Con-Edison power installation in a complicated manner which appears to be some kind of cantilever design. IMHO under normal circumstances it would hold up, but with uneven loads it looks like it would fail.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247741 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when you lose 1.7 billion, NET and growing.
He lost a great deal of rent-able floor space for sure.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247742 Nov 29, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Charlie is a good guy.
Yes he is. What's a twoofer?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247743 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.
Requires additional equipment and secret installations. Sorry there is no evidence whatsoever to validate your claim.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247744 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He lost a great deal of rent-able floor space for sure.
That's the amount he was under-insured compared to the value of his property. Unlike those that say he made a profit, he knew how under-insured he was (his board made him up the policy) but at the end of the day, even after the two attack case where he doubled his proceeds and the bigger policy he lost 1.7 billion.

Since insurance was a known factor the real claim on profit is Larry blew up the towers in order to lose a about two billion.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247745 Nov 29, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the amount he was under-insured compared to the value of his property. Unlike those that say he made a profit, he knew how under-insured he was (his board made him up the policy) but at the end of the day, even after the two attack case where he doubled his proceeds and the bigger policy he lost 1.7 billion.
Since insurance was a known factor the real claim on profit is Larry blew up the towers in order to lose a about two billion.
Yea, nice move. Even Donald Trump wouldn't do that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247746 Nov 29, 2012
RC planes require that the phone called be invalidated. The claim at cell phones were impossible and huge conspiracies formed to fake those calls if ridiculous. What's more, how did the transponders get turned off? I suppose they were rigged too? How about manual over-rides? They were all disconnected? The claim is a huge FAIL.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247747 Nov 29, 2012
Hey forgive my spelling. I type fast and Topix fails to keep up which means letters get dropped.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247748 Nov 29, 2012
Yup and all high altitude calls were made from back seat "in flights" and for whatever it is worth on trips I used to take a 1,000 channel Icom R2 police scanner with me and a earbud, normally already programed by a computer with the police, hotel security and so forth for my destination to keep me amused. It was about the size of a cell, this is it ...

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTI4MFg5NjA=/ $T2eC16h,!)0E9s37IeLdBQUgwZKEY !~~60_35.JPG

.. it was unblocked, ordered out of Canada and at the peak altitude as we flew across the country I could endlessly lock on to cell calls for about three minutes (which actually was boring and pointless, though listening to people in the hotel call their wives and say they were going out to eat for a few hours or had a late meeting then phoning up an escort a minute latter.
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
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247749 Nov 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he is. What's a twoofer?
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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#247750 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.
Those phone calls reveal a great deal. When we look at facts and what ever evidence we can find, there is only one scenario which works. Obama was correct to say the planes were hijacked. Once we have that information, everything else becomes impossibly complex and convoluted. The conspirators become very large groups of people, e.g. the whole White House Staff, Air Traffic Control, Aircraft maintenance staff, and the Airlines themselves. It was a big deal to shoot down a civilian aircraft. Bush gave the order for flight 93 but it was never carried out as that plane crashed. The other three all reached their targets because the defense of such an occurrence was not in place yet. I believe they got lucky. Had they tried a week later I doubt it would have been successful.

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.

“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

Eatontown, NJ

#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!

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) 5 min Critical Eye 881,890
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min Freebird USA 177,911
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 17 min Wondering 62
The Christian Atheist debate 19 min Critical Eye 4,206
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 26 min Michael 603,848
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 37 min Cholan87 7,717
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 45 min andet1987 6,421
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 8,459
More from around the web