Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,282 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#247936 Dec 1, 2012
TODAY is the day of your salvation!!!!,for the Lord Jesus Christ has not promised to tomorrow!!:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search... http://www.bing.com/videos/search...
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#247937 Dec 1, 2012
Muslimamomma wrote:
<quoted text> No reason??? Oh, I beg to differ.
In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center. The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers. This led to the alternative naming of the building as the Salomon Brothers building. Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building – and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2)(64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45. Other major tenants included
*ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²),
*American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²),*Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the **Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).
Smaller tenants included
***The Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²)
****The United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).
*The New York City Office of Emergency Management,
*National Association of Insurance Commissioners,
*Federal Home Loan Bank,*
First State Management Group Inc.,*
Provident Financial Management,
*The Immigration and Naturalization Service.*
*******The Department of Defense (DOD)
and *** The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the ***IRS.
Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.
Noooooo, no reason at all. LMAO!
Is there a "reason" in your tally of Wiki factoids?

Gotta love twoofer "logik"...
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#247938 Dec 1, 2012
Woe unto the inhabitants of the earth!!!,for the adversary of your SOUL,Satan the devil,has been thrown out of heaven like lightniing,and he has come down among you,being FULL OF WRATH,for he knows that his time is short!!!:
phones

Georgetown, KY

#247939 Dec 1, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't correct anyone, SCHMUCK. I AGREED with him since cell calls made from airliners at low altitude back in the pre-digital days were much more likely to go through. Besides, almost (if not all) of the calls were from AIRPHONES, you DOLT, so the argument is moot. I know you guys HATE to lose to reality, but tough shit.
BTW, you just exposed yourself as the Kentucky Klown with your reference to the sanitation analogy. DUMBASS SOCK PUPPET!!!
how could Barbara Olson have made a call from a seatback airfone if, according to Ted Olson's conversation with Barbara, they were all herded to the back of the plane with no access to the airfones. That's why he said that she used her cell phone to call him, and from that altitude it is impossible to make that call.

An analysis of the cellphone and “airfone” calls must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a “fluke” that so many calls reached their destinations. In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a “miracle” that any of the calls got through from altitude.(See the recent proposal to install equipment to make cellphone calls possible from aircraft.) An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.

Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot:“The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal.”(AVWeb, 1999)
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#247940 Dec 1, 2012
demolition

Georgetown, KY

#247941 Dec 1, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>It takes months to prepare a building for demolition and pulling the fire fighting efforts on a building that has been deemed unstable is hardly surprising.
And "pull" in demolition terms is the act of attaching cables to a portion of a building then "pulling" it down by mechanical means.
Still no evidence for explosives...
if it takes so much planning and explosives to bring a building down, why don't they just set a fires on a few floors using office furniture and paper, that seems so much easier as proven by WTC 7.

“Bright Waters House ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#247942 Dec 1, 2012
FAA Commissions Safety Study of In-Air Cell Phones

By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 20, 2003

An FCC study in 2000 found that the biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That's why wireless calls from jetliners don't last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.
phones wrote:
<quoted text>
how could Barbara Olson have made a call from a seatback airfone if, according to Ted Olson's conversation with Barbara, they were all herded to the back of the plane with no access to the airfones. That's why he said that she used her cell phone to call him, and from that altitude it is impossible to make that call.
An analysis of the cellphone and “airfone” calls must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a “fluke” that so many calls reached their destinations. In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a “miracle” that any of the calls got through from altitude.(See the recent proposal to install equipment to make cellphone calls possible from aircraft.) An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.
Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot:“The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal.”(AVWeb, 1999)

“Bright Waters House ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#247943 Dec 1, 2012
because MAYBE they dont want to damage all the other buildings around it like the WTC did ...... Logical thinking .... try it some time
demolition wrote:
<quoted text>
if it takes so much planning and explosives to bring a building down, why don't they just set a fires on a few floors using office furniture and paper, that seems so much easier as proven by WTC 7.

Since: Feb 11

THE WORLD IS MY OYSTER

#247944 Dec 1, 2012
People actually want to pull Captain John O Dung's finger !!!!
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Pull THIS, Momma.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247945 Dec 1, 2012
demolition wrote:
<quoted text>
if it takes so much planning and explosives to bring a building down, why don't they just set a fires on a few floors using office furniture and paper, that seems so much easier as proven by WTC 7.
Because you also have to drop a multi ton chunck of the North Tower on it which just is not cost effective in every day demolition.

Since: Feb 11

THE WORLD IS MY OYSTER

#247946 Dec 1, 2012
Captain John O Dung Let The Dogs Out
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247947 Dec 1, 2012
phones wrote:
<quoted text>
how could Barbara Olson have made a call from a seatback airfone if, according to Ted Olson's conversation with Barbara, they were all herded to the back of the plane with no access to the airfones.
There are no seats in the back of the plane?

(Ted) Olson doesn't know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the telephone on the plane. She always has her cell phone with her.

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/74/Team7-Box...

AND WOW, Seems she tried many times!

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Barbara_Ols...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247950 Dec 1, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Charlie,
Just because you say something, does not make it so.
There were no cell phone platforms on those aircraft.
What do you consider low altitude? How many cell phone towers along their alleged route? How many cell towers flying over Pennsylvania woodlands?
You want a list of all towers on the route, LMFAO! Why don't you point out a call made where it could not reach a tower instead of asking me for 1,000's of tower locations.
And you don't need a "platform" to make a cell call from a plane.
When it comes to land and air, the capabilities of a cell phone don’t change. But what makes it possible to use a handheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood?
It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council.“Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so.“Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says.“At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph.“They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
http://www.sandiegometro.com/2001/oct/sdscene...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#247952 Dec 1, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Charlie,
Just because you say something, does not make it so.
DUDE, So true, so who were those 20 pilots that could not hit the WTC again?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#247953 Dec 1, 2012
medal wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with Insults Are Easier. You are the winner on this thread in making a complete jackass out of yourself. In recognition of your accomplishment, I would like to award you this medal of honor, however I am having difficulty getting this turd to hang on the ribbon. I will notify you when I do and will let you know when and where the awards ceremony will take place.
Great!

Thanks socky!

I'll file that under, "Like I Give a Shit What Some Gullible Loser on the Internet Thinks".

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247954 Dec 1, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>So what? The people made calls some of which were even answered by others. What are you trying to say? Where did the people go who placed those calls? What about the aircraft? What about Air Traffic Control? You theory doesn't fly. I have already found people who have used cell phones and had them work. With a theory, it only takes one instance to prove it wrong. Cell phones work under various circumstances and have already been proven to do so.

Your theory?

FAIL
Look buddy, I don't have to know every single answer, or have a theory for every single thing, to understand the inherent unlikeliness of the overall 9/11 scenario. From the rapid, symmetric, complete collapses A Pentagon crash undocumented by any surveillance, from the most secure, high profile military structure on the planet. To the military prepositioning assets around Afghanistan before 9/11, a strategy following PNAC,s outline. NORAD running drills of hijacked aircraft exactly when an actual hijacking occurred and preventing efficient response measures.

You know a plane has already crashed directly in a building, others are hijacked, yet you can't protect the Pentagon against approaching hijacked jets after you already ran drills that hypothesized exactly that? Did you at least get an few images that shows a commercial airliner striking the building? No? At least tell me you fired people for being incompetent then. Not a one?

But they knew it was Bin Laden day 1. Zero'd in on him like Oswald watching a movie. They didn't know how to protect the Pentagon, but quickly knew who planned it. Just so happens, Bin Laden was hangin in a place we wanted to build a oil pipeline, and the assets where already there, and the plan was all PNAC.

Every country our guns are pointing at today is following the policies PNAC articulated. Each country has more then terrorists as common, the have oil.

Isn't it amazing that a guy from a family with large financial partnerships with the Bush family, just happens to provide the exact catalyzing event they needed to implement their own political and financial interests.

But you were pre-programmed to believe all things are coincidences.

A good investigation should know these things, consider that it may face manipulation, and not just blindly trust what it's being shown as complete without verifying complete chains of custody while thoroughly testing more hypotheticals then normal, not less.

NIST, and the debunkers who support blind allegiance to corrupt bureaucracies, investigated this like a naive utopian fanatic, blissfully unaware of the world and how it functions.

So what was you question? Can radars be tricked, can aircraft be diverted where evidence is erased, can witnesses be compelled to fabricate testimony? Can a phone call be faked? Can the most powerful people on the planet accomplish these frauds? Yes, so wake the f*ck up, and stop try to convince others to sleep like a Canadian.

I thought I was talking to Charlie Sheen, its just so damn hard to tell, eh? Birds of a straw-man feather lie together.

Insults Are Easier

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#247955 Dec 1, 2012
demolition wrote:
<quoted text>if it takes so much planning and explosives to bring a building down, why don't they just set a fires on a few floors using office furniture and paper, that seems so much easier as proven by WTC 7.
If it doesn't require knowledge and physics to understand structural dynamics, why don't they hire mindless twoofers like you to do it?

Fire has always been a threat to any structural steel assembly, that's why there's an entire industry dedicated to it.

The only resemblance to industrial demolitions the collapse of either the towers or WTC 7 shared was the buildings reaction to gravitational forces.

Derpa twoof.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#247956 Dec 1, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
Whatever happened to that pristine passport that "fell out" of the blazing inferno of the towers, inside a plane, down through the resulting debris and crap, and landed on the street, unburned, in ideal condition?
I wanna see that one again, that was a divine mystery. LOL
"Experimental Worms Survived Reentry Break-Up and Crash of Space Shuttle Columbia, According to a Report in the Journal Astrobiology

New Rochelle, December 29, 2005 – On board the Space Shuttle Columbia mission STS-107, researchers were studying the growth and reproductive behavior of the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, but the mission ended in tragedy in 2003 when the shuttle broke up during reentry. Remarkably, the worms, housed in specially designed canisters, survived the virtually unprotected reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere and were recovered alive during the extensive recovery effort following the crash, as reported in the December 2005 (Volume 5, Number 6) issue of Astrobiology, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. The paper is available free online at www.liebertpub.com/ast .

A team of scientists comprised of Nathaniel Szewczyk, Rocco Mancinelli, and Catharine Conley from the NASA Ames Research Center (Moffett Field, CA), William McLamb and David Reed from Bionetics Corporation (Kennedy Space Center, FL) and Nobel Laureate Baruch Blumberg from Fox Chase Cancer Center have co-authored a paper entitled,“Caenorhabditis elegans Survives Atmospheric Breakup of STS-107, Space Shuttle Columbia” that documents the amazing recovery of the experimental worms, which are commonly used in biological studies and are being developed as a model system for space biology research.

The scientists were studying a novel liquid growth medium called CeMM and its potential for use in enabling automated experiments on C. elegans during future spaceflights. The organisms not only fared well during the planned spaceflight, but live C. elegans were also present in canisters recovered from the shuttle crash site in Texas, despite exiting the spacecraft at a height of 32-42 kilometers above the Earth’s surface and traveling at velocities ranging from 660-1,050 km/hour.

“This is a very exciting result. It's the first demonstration that animals can survive a reentry event similar to what would be experienced inside a meteorite. It shows directly that even complex small creatures originating on one planet could survive landing on another without the protection of a spacecraft,” says Catharine Conley, Ph.D., Biologist AST at the NASA Ames Research Center and Principal Investigator on this experiment.

“The authors of this important work have demonstrated the tenacity with which we all must pursue our goals to further our understanding of the Universe,” says journal Editor, Sherry L. Cady, Ph.D., Associate Professor in the Department of Geology at Portland State University."

http://www.liebertpub.com/global/pressrelease...

Your personal incredulity is worth what?

Oh ya, nothing.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#247957 Dec 1, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Look buddy, I don't have to know every single answer, or have a theory for every single thing, to understand the inherent unlikeliness of the overall 9/11 scenario. From the rapid, symmetric, complete collapses A Pentagon crash undocumented by any surveillance, from the most secure, high profile military structure on the planet. To the military prepositioning assets around Afghanistan before 9/11, a strategy following PNAC,s outline. NORAD running drills of hijacked aircraft exactly when an actual hijacking occurred and preventing efficient response measures.
You know a plane has already crashed directly in a building, others are hijacked, yet you can't protect the Pentagon against approaching hijacked jets after you already ran drills that hypothesized exactly that? Did you at least get an few images that shows a commercial airliner striking the building? No? At least tell me you fired people for being incompetent then. Not a one?
But they knew it was Bin Laden day 1. Zero'd in on him like Oswald watching a movie. They didn't know how to protect the Pentagon, but quickly knew who planned it. Just so happens, Bin Laden was hangin in a place we wanted to build a oil pipeline, and the assets where already there, and the plan was all PNAC.
Every country our guns are pointing at today is following the policies PNAC articulated. Each country has more then terrorists as common, the have oil.
Isn't it amazing that a guy from a family with large financial partnerships with the Bush family, just happens to provide the exact catalyzing event they needed to implement their own political and financial interests.
But you were pre-programmed to believe all things are coincidences.
A good investigation should know these things, consider that it may face manipulation, and not just blindly trust what it's being shown as complete without verifying complete chains of custody while thoroughly testing more hypotheticals then normal, not less.
NIST, and the debunkers who support blind allegiance to corrupt bureaucracies, investigated this like a naive utopian fanatic, blissfully unaware of the world and how it functions.
So what was you question? Can radars be tricked, can aircraft be diverted where evidence is erased, can witnesses be compelled to fabricate testimony? Can a phone call be faked? Can the most powerful people on the planet accomplish these frauds? Yes, so wake the f*ck up, and stop try to convince others to sleep like a Canadian.
I thought I was talking to Charlie Sheen, its just so damn hard to tell, eh? Birds of a straw-man feather lie together.
Insults Are Easier
Actually you have no answers, just the talking points you mindlessly bought into.

Unfortunately for you that's only useful in twooferdumb.

If you think we're hard, try going up in front of a panel of relevant experts and defending your idiotic fantasy.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#247958 Dec 1, 2012
"An American flag on loan from Boy Scout Troop 514 from Monument, CO was onboard the Challenger when it broke apart, and salvage efforts recovered it from the Atlantic Ocean completely intact inside its sealed plastic container.

Now known as the Challenger Flag, it has enjoyed some storied exploits since its discovery during the Challenger wreckage recovery efforts. The Challenger Flag found its way into the mission flight kit thanks to Troop 514's scoutmaster, Major William Tolbert, an officer attached to the United States Air Force Space Command.

Prior to its NASA submission, Tolbert also managed to have the flag flown above the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 25, 1985. Though explosion all but destroyed the flag's commemorative case and a group of silver medallions along with the Challenger, the flag itself survived to fly at many notable events and locations.

(Technically, Challenger itself did not explode—rather, extreme g-forces caused by a severe malfunction in one of the spacecraft's solid rocket boosters tore it apart. As such, the disaster wrought surprisingly little fire damage on the cargo.)

NASA returned the flag to Troop 514 in late 1986, but it did not remain with them long. In early 1987, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger designated the Challenger Flag as the official flag of the U.S. Constitution's Bicentennial celebrations. On Sept. 17, 1987, the Challenger Flag served as a featured part of the Constitutional Parade in Philadelphia, and the following day it flew once again above the U.S. Capitol."

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-triv...

Oh my, everything's a conspiracy!

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) 6 min New Age Spiritual... 818,586
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min June VanDerMark 579,513
News Former NH gov.: Obama is 'inciting' birthers wi... 16 min cXc 1
sexy 30 min sexygirl 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 36 min trifecta1 610,004
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 39 min RiccardoFire 2,062
R u 40 min sexygirl 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 39,988
More from around the web