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

#248113 Dec 2, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a strange claim considering Payne Stewart's jet was intercepted in 20 minutes with only a relatively small number of people in the FAA and air force involved, when on 9/11 the entire FAA and military apparatus were focused on this huge event.
LMFAO, You might want to LOOK AT THE TIME ZONE CHANGE, JUST BECAUSE YOU CROSS FROM EDT to CDT does not shave an hour off of flight time, FOR TWOOFERS, IN A TIME ZONE CHANGE THE CLOCK MAY SHIFT BACK FROM SAY 4:00 PM to 3:00 PM WHEN YOU CROSS THE TIME ZONE BUT THAT DID NOT SHAVE A HOUR OFF OF FLIGHT TIME.

These accounts tell a similar story: only 20 minutes after contact is lost, and the air traffic controllers realise there’s a problem, Air Force jets are on the scene. This sounds impressive, but unfortunately it isn’t true. A quick look at the NTSB accident report reveals why. Here's the timeline.

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
-www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AA B0001.htm-

Looks good at first, but read it carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so contact was regarded as lost at around 09:38, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's roughly 76 minutes from the controllers realizing there’s a problem, to intercept taking place.

Press reports from the time give more details.

The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m...

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground.

-http://www.washingtonpost.com /wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/c rash26.htm-

Putting these together with the NTSB report suggests the following points.

First, it takes time before ATC consider they’ve lost contact with a plane. The absence of any radio response was first noted at 9:34, but the controller continued trying to make contact for another four minutes, and the press report suggests contact wasn’t considered lost until six minutes after that, ten minutes after the problem was noted.

And second, NORAD don’t always have the capability to respond in a few minutes. The intercept didn’t begin for another 24 minutes, actually a fast response because the plane was already in the air.
Say the Truth

San Rafael, CA

#248116 Dec 2, 2012
Sorry charlie, twofers won't get you any gold stars.
Say the Truth

San Rafael, CA

#248117 Dec 2, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
At the time, I checked the airline manifests. No where was their an Arab name.
But.... let's say that the lists now available do show Arab names.
9 of the 19 alleged hijackers who's names appear on those new passenger lists, are alive.
It FBI identified these men by both photo, and by name, very quickly after 9/11.
Problem is.... NINE....NINE... NINE of the alleged NINETEEN hijackers.... identified by name and photo by the FBI... are still alive...
Either it is a MIRACLE from Heaven, or, 9/11 was an inside job...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =N2oLt5RGrFsXX
Miracle of miracles it was an inside jobbity job job
Say the Truth

San Rafael, CA

#248118 Dec 2, 2012
Can't wait to get back to PA. Cali is so, er, so progressive. Be glad to be back on bum fuhk eastern US where everybody is not so pretentious.
Say the Truth

San Rafael, CA

#248119 Dec 2, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
One would think everything would burn here, since nothing can shoot out the front of the plane like a shotgun ahead of the fireball.
MAIL FROM THE HIDENBURG!
Postal officials salvaged approximately 358 pieces from the 17,609 estimated pieces of mail on the flight. Of these, 176 salvaged items were unburned
http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/museum/1d_hind...
You conveniently omitted the end of the paragraph.

"Of these, 176 salvaged items were unburned (with a few exceptions) because they were stored in a protective, fireproof sealed pouch."

So much for that line of fact omitted, twisted line of bwunker rubbish.

Sorry charlie, C for effort but you failed again.
twoof

Stanton, KY

#248120 Dec 2, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The official report says so.
therefore it must be the twoof, the whole twoof, and nothing but the twoof.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#248121 Dec 2, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they were. Be sure and click on them so you may read. It even from a twoofer site!
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/p...
Of course they were. He refuses to believe all the evidence which refutes his claim.
Charlee Shine

Stanton, KY

#248122 Dec 2, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO, You might want to LOOK AT THE TIME ZONE CHANGE, JUST BECAUSE YOU CROSS FROM EDT to CDT does not shave an hour off of flight time, FOR TWOOFERS, IN A TIME ZONE CHANGE THE CLOCK MAY SHIFT BACK FROM SAY 4:00 PM to 3:00 PM WHEN YOU CROSS THE TIME ZONE BUT THAT DID NOT SHAVE A HOUR OFF OF FLIGHT TIME.
These accounts tell a similar story: only 20 minutes after contact is lost, and the air traffic controllers realise there’s a problem, Air Force jets are on the scene. This sounds impressive, but unfortunately it isn’t true. A quick look at the NTSB accident report reveals why. Here's the timeline.
"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
-www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AA B0001.htm-
Looks good at first, but read it carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so contact was regarded as lost at around 09:38, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's roughly 76 minutes from the controllers realizing there’s a problem, to intercept taking place.
Press reports from the time give more details.
The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m...
Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.
Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground.
-http://www.washingtonpost.com /wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/c rash26.htm-
Putting these together with the NTSB report suggests the following points.
First, it takes time before ATC consider they’ve lost contact with a plane. The absence of any radio response was first noted at 9:34, but the controller continued trying to make contact for another four minutes, and the press report suggests contact wasn’t considered lost until six minutes after that, ten minutes after the problem was noted.
And second, NORAD don’t always have the capability to respond in a few minutes. The intercept didn’t begin for another 24 minutes, actually a fast response because the plane was already in the air.
now c'mon Charlie, do you really believe anyone reads these long soliloquys?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#248123 Dec 2, 2012
twoof wrote:
<quoted text>
therefore it must be the twoof, the whole twoof, and nothing but the twoof.
Not really. It answers the questions unless someone can make a more plausible scenario given the facts. So far no takers, just snivelers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#248124 Dec 2, 2012
Wiki and the official report make more sense than half the nonsense on YouTube. Let's take the pilots for example. They say they couldn't make the maneuver and the plane would most likely shed parts and be sucked into the ground. Let's examine that simplified statement.

1. They are correct. They wouldn't fly like that because they would crash. Isn't that what the goal of the hijackers?

2. Did the hijacker care if the plane shed parts? No.

3. If the hijacker was aiming to hit the Pentagon, which looks like a kind of target, wouldn't they aim for the center? What happened? They got sucked into the ground and were traveling at a mighty high speed.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#248126 Dec 2, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Wiki and the official report make more sense than half the nonsense on YouTube. Let's take the pilots for example. They say they couldn't make the maneuver and the plane would most likely shed parts and be sucked into the ground. Let's examine that simplified statement.

1. They are correct. They wouldn't fly like that because they would crash. Isn't that what the goal of the hijackers?

2. Did the hijacker care if the plane shed parts? No.

3. If the hijacker was aiming to hit the Pentagon, which looks like a kind of target, wouldn't they aim for the center? What happened? They got sucked into the ground and were traveling at a mighty high speed.
Thats just flawed logic.

The hijackers goal wasn't to crash, it was to fly into and destroy. You can't do that when your ailerons are sheered off.

Flying into the center off the Pentagon clearly wasn't the target from their flight path. At that speed, they would have to have a high angle of attack meaning the nose would have to be much lower than the tail, just to maintain a level flight path, the aircraft would want to rise. This is why a high speed near to the ground run in a commercial aircraft is what some say, impossible.

The reason no pilot really can say, is because no pilot has experienced that type of insane maneuver. It's just unlikely and hard to control theoretically in an aircraft that big, especially for a person trying to fly a commercial jet for the first time.

You been indoctrinated all your life to not see the world as it is, but how they want you to perceive it. Thats why this information is hard for you to accept.

The power structure wants easily fooled docile sheep, who can be fleeced over and over again, and thats what the have made. If you think their goal is to have a nation of critical thinkers, well, then enjoy your indoctrination.

Insults Are Easier
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#248127 Dec 2, 2012
Operation Northwoods wrote:
At the time, I checked the airline manifests. No where was their an Arab name.
But.... let's say that the lists now available do show Arab names.
9 of the 19 alleged hijackers who's names appear on those new passenger lists, are alive.
It FBI identified these men by both photo, and by name, very quickly after 9/11.
Problem is.... NINE....NINE... NINE of the alleged NINETEEN hijackers.... identified by name and photo by the FBI... are still alive...
Either it is a MIRACLE from Heaven, or, 9/11 was an inside job...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =N2oLt5RGrFsXX
The passenger lists were the VICTIMS, not including the TERRORISTS. The "still alive" nonsense was debunked 10 YEARS AGO.

What an ASSCLOWN!!!!
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#248128 Dec 2, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats just flawed logic.
The hijackers goal wasn't to crash, it was to fly into and destroy. You can't do that when your ailerons are sheered off.
Flying into the center off the Pentagon clearly wasn't the target from their flight path. At that speed, they would have to have a high angle of attack meaning the nose would have to be much lower than the tail, just to maintain a level flight path, the aircraft would want to rise. This is why a high speed near to the ground run in a commercial aircraft is what some say, impossible.
The reason no pilot really can say, is because no pilot has experienced that type of insane maneuver. It's just unlikely and hard to control theoretically in an aircraft that big, especially for a person trying to fly a commercial jet for the first time.
You been indoctrinated all your life to not see the world as it is, but how they want you to perceive it. Thats why this information is hard for you to accept.
The power structure wants easily fooled docile sheep, who can be fleeced over and over again, and thats what the have made. If you think their goal is to have a nation of critical thinkers, well, then enjoy your indoctrination.
Insults Are Easier
How's the food, Bill? Is is horrible?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#248129 Dec 2, 2012
Charlee Shine wrote:
<quoted text>
now c'mon Charlie, do you really believe anyone reads these long soliloquys?
That's why you're still FUCKINGDUMB.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#248130 Dec 2, 2012
Say the Twoof wrote:
Can't wait to get back to PA. Cali is so, er, so progressive. Be glad to be back on bum fuhk eastern US where everybody is not so pretentious.
Only a buttburglar like yourself is low enough to masquerade as another poster.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#248131 Dec 2, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Actually I just paid off my 5th 7 Eleven store franchise and am making over 386K USD a year. Laugh all you want but there is a lot of money in selling burritos and slurpees. Especially when you can get dumb illegal canadians to do it for you for next to nothing. Beats your sorry ass don't it?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
That's Pretty Funny huh eh !
You meant to say that you made your 386th visit to a 7 Eleven for your 3 meals a day consisting of burritos and Slurpees.

Note that a real owner would have capitalized "slurpee".

DUMBASS!!!
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#248132 Dec 2, 2012
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Deception is the most powerful force on the planet.
.
!
And twoofers are its master.

Go eat a burrito, ASSCLOWN.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#248133 Dec 2, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats just flawed logic.
The hijackers goal wasn't to crash, it was to fly into and destroy. You can't do that when your ailerons are sheered off.
Flying into the center off the Pentagon clearly wasn't the target from their flight path. At that speed, they would have to have a high angle of attack meaning the nose would have to be much lower than the tail, just to maintain a level flight path, the aircraft would want to rise. This is why a high speed near to the ground run in a commercial aircraft is what some say, impossible.
The reason no pilot really can say, is because no pilot has experienced that type of insane maneuver. It's just unlikely and hard to control theoretically in an aircraft that big, especially for a person trying to fly a commercial jet for the first time.
You been indoctrinated all your life to not see the world as it is, but how they want you to perceive it. Thats why this information is hard for you to accept.
The power structure wants easily fooled docile sheep, who can be fleeced over and over again, and thats what the have made. If you think their goal is to have a nation of critical thinkers, well, then enjoy your indoctrination.
Insults Are Easier
Unless you can come up with an alternate scenario of where the plane and passengers went, I have no choice but to accept the fact it went into the Pentagon. Let's hear your theory of where the plane and passengers went.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#248134 Dec 2, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats just flawed logic.
The hijackers goal wasn't to crash, it was to fly into and destroy. You can't do that when your ailerons are sheered off.
Flying into the center off the Pentagon clearly wasn't the target from their flight path. At that speed, they would have to have a high angle of attack meaning the nose would have to be much lower than the tail, just to maintain a level flight path, the aircraft would want to rise. This is why a high speed near to the ground run in a commercial aircraft is what some say, impossible.
The reason no pilot really can say, is because no pilot has experienced that type of insane maneuver. It's just unlikely and hard to control theoretically in an aircraft that big, especially for a person trying to fly a commercial jet for the first time.
You been indoctrinated all your life to not see the world as it is, but how they want you to perceive it. Thats why this information is hard for you to accept.
The power structure wants easily fooled docile sheep, who can be fleeced over and over again, and thats what the have made. If you think their goal is to have a nation of critical thinkers, well, then enjoy your indoctrination.
Insults Are Easier
Your logic is flawed because you want to believe a missile hit the Pentagon so you assume any other scenario to be false. It is a plausible enough theory until you attempt to find a way of disposing of a flight which actually took off and was tracked by Air Traffic Control. This leaves you having to explain where it went if you are going to keep your missile theory viable. Yet you cannot come up with a reasonable answer can you?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#248135 Dec 3, 2012
WAKE UP wrote:
<quoted text>it wouldn't surprise me if you were tied to govt/ corp America why else would you deny truth.
Twoof, not truth.

Because there is no truth in twoof vulgar-tommy, you should know that by now.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr Mnbvc 30,865
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Wardaddy99 987,315
Anthony Bragg 3 hr Eyes open Smh 29
SEALS vs. "Green Berets"...who would win? (Jan '08) 3 hr USSF 184
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr KENTUCKY CATHOLIC 687,223
I LOVE my new LG V20 smartphone!!! 6 hr Doctor REALITY 5
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 hr Seentheotherside 619,790
More from around the web