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

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#249029 Dec 13, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Twoofer world, where the obvious is perplexing.
You never answered my question Charlie.

Why did the firefighters not realize that the WTC was going to collapse, since the event made it so obvious that NIST failed to check for explosives and accelerants?

Insults Are Easier

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#249030 Dec 13, 2012
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard the same comments from fire fighters who laugh at the imbecilely simplistic crap twoofers find so convincing;-)
I know what you mean. Firefighters I know say the same thing. Building fires are a bitch and they get really hot due to drafting.
Charlie Sheen

Bennet, NE

#249031 Dec 13, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
You never answered my question Charlie.
Why did the firefighters not realize that the WTC was going to collapse, since the event made it so obvious that NIST failed to check for explosives and accelerants?
Insults Are Easier
That's really not a question but an erroneous conclusion oddly tied to an unrelated question but here is a question without bias.

What were the names of those 20 pilots you claim could not hit the broad side of a barn?
Charlie Sheen

Bennet, NE

#249032 Dec 13, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be so hard on yourself, you might understand the complexities of the situation one day.
Sorry Charlie.
Insults Are Easier
You mean such complexities like legible paper and carpet stick to an object you claim is molten steel?
Charlie Sheen

Bennet, NE

#249033 Dec 13, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Well anti-truth, plated steel has melted in office fires, but the point is steel never has.
Still LMFAO!

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#249034 Dec 13, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's really not a question but an erroneous conclusion oddly tied to an unrelated question but here is a question without bias.
What were the names of those 20 pilots you claim could not hit the broad side of a barn?
I didn't claim to know the names of 20 pilots, I simply know flying a jet for the first time at top speed into target is extremely difficult, x3 is virtually impossible, and I've said that before.

You have OCD and a painkiller addiction huh?

Trying to communicate with a parrot is as pointless as it is boring.

Try laying off the pills and get outside a little, it'll do you good.

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Bennet, NE

#249035 Dec 13, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't claim to know the names of 20 pilots, I simply know flying a jet for the first time at top speed into target is extremely difficult, x3 is virtually impossible, and I've said that before.
You have OCD and a painkiller addiction huh?
So the 20 pilots were imaginary, great fact checking and veracity on your part.

Oddly real pilots with names say you are wrong.

And how do you know it is extremely difficult or virtually impossible, was that some of the material in the four hour course called "How to be a Wall Mart Greater".

Do go into great detail on you claim as I watch holograms of those fake WWII Kamikaze pilots.
Charlie Sheen

Bennet, NE

#249036 Dec 13, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't claim to know the names of 20 pilots, I simply know flying a jet for the first time at top speed into target is extremely difficult, x3 is virtually impossible, and I've said that before.
And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn't have required all the skills of a regular pilot:

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.h...

People will still say that the Pentagon attack was too difficult for Hanjour to have pulled off (see here), however other debunking articles quote pilots saying that isn’t the case (see here). Salon produced a recent example of the second type, written by an airline pilot (below):

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.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/1...
Charlie Sheen

Bennet, NE

#249037 Dec 13, 2012
Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.
blah blah blah

Richmond, KY

#249039 Dec 13, 2012
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn't have required all the skills of a regular pilot:
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.h...
People will still say that the Pentagon attack was too difficult for Hanjour to have pulled off (see here), however other debunking articles quote pilots saying that isn’t the case (see here). Salon produced a recent example of the second type, written by an airline pilot (below):
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.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/1...
no one is reading your blather, you're just wasting your time now
Laughing

Richmond, KY

#249040 Dec 13, 2012
in the last 3 pages there have been a total of 47 post. Of those posts 40 are from the shills who are still trying so desperately to engage in debate which they lost long ago. It's like trying to pick a fight with someone who is laughing at you. You guys are just looking ridiculous now.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#249041 Dec 13, 2012
Laughing wrote:
in the last 3 pages there have been a total of 47 post. Of those posts 40 are from the shills who are still trying so desperately to engage in debate which they lost long ago. It's like trying to pick a fight with someone who is laughing at you. You guys are just looking ridiculous now.
Where did flight 77 go Jackass?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#249043 Dec 13, 2012
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't claim to know the names of 20 pilots, I simply know flying a jet for the first time at top speed into target is extremely difficult, x3 is virtually impossible, and I've said that before.
You have OCD and a painkiller addiction huh?
Trying to communicate with a parrot is as pointless as it is boring.
Try laying off the pills and get outside a little, it'll do you good.
Insults Are Easier
How do you know they didn't kill the airline pilots 2 minutes before the crashes?

"I simply know flying a jet for the first time at top speed into target is extremely difficult"

AND YOU 'KNOW' THIS HOW, EXACTLY?

"x3 is virtually impossible"

YOU FAILED STATS 101 AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY.

"Try laying off the pills"

OH THE TWOOFING IRONY!!!!
Laughing

Richmond, KY

#249044 Dec 13, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did flight 77 go Jackass?
stick your head in your ass and see if it's there
Laughing

Richmond, KY

#249045 Dec 13, 2012
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know they didn't kill the airline pilots 2 minutes before the crashes?
"I simply know flying a jet for the first time at top speed into target is extremely difficult"
AND YOU 'KNOW' THIS HOW, EXACTLY?
"x3 is virtually impossible"
YOU FAILED STATS 101 AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY.
"Try laying off the pills"
OH THE TWOOFING IRONY!!!!
using the caps lock is a sure sign of frustration and loss of composure. You need to take a chill pill.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#249046 Dec 13, 2012
Laughing wrote:
<quoted text>
stick your head in your ass and see if it's there
Where did flight 77 go Jackass?
Laughing

Richmond, KY

#249047 Dec 13, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did flight 77 go Jackass?
keep looking, it's gotta be somewhere up your ass
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#249048 Dec 13, 2012
FUCKINGDOUCHEBAG wrote:
<quoted text>
using the caps lock is a sure sign of frustration and loss of composure. You need to take a chill pill.
IT IS??

To me it's a clear way, considering the limitations of Topix's text editor, to delineate referenced text and responses.

Now provide your responses to my assertions.

YOUFUCKINGDOUCHEBAG!!!

HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#249049 Dec 13, 2012
Laughing wrote:
<quoted text>
keep looking, it's gotta be somewhere up your ass
Keep twooofing Jackass.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#249051 Dec 13, 2012
What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Take, for example, the claim that one or more passengers on Flight 77, with the help of the U.S. Government, faked their deaths on September 11, 2001?
.
Let’s start with what we know. That would require a high degree of evidence because accepting this claim would require some changes within our view of an event that affects us today.
.
Let’s separate the events of September 11 into causes and results. In the minds of most Americans, the results of 9/11 are beyond question. Around 3,000 people died (more or less), three buildings were destroyed, one other building—the Pentagon—was damaged, and three commercial airliners are no longer in service, at least not under the same call signs.
.
Causes are another matter. Of the hundreds, if not thousands, of events (apart from what was then the usual routine) causing 9/11, not one of them has been honestly reported by the 9/11 Commission. Not one of them actually happened.
.
Let’s look at only two of them. Flight 77 was supposedly hijacked by Muslims shouting Hollywood-style “Islamic extremist” slogans.
.
The truth is, the flight manifest revealed that there were no Arabs or passengers with Muslim-sounding names on Flight 77.
.
(Note: Since then, efforts have been made to indicate Muslim-sounding names on Flight 77 even though they weren’t on the manifest.)
.
Secondly, Flight 77 supposedly crashed into the Pentagon. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not by an airliner.
.
That brings us to an uncomfortable question: If Flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon, where is it now, and where are the passengers?
.
For years, I had supposed that they probably were murdered and their bodies hidden where they’d never be found.
.
Believing that Dick Cheney, Halliburton, Blackwater, and others would do something like that must sound crazy to some people.
.
It would be as crazy as supposing that they had deliberately lied about Iraq in order to get us into (for them) a highly profitable war that, incidentally, claimed the lives of over a million civilians, killed thousands of American servicemen, and ruined the emotional health of tens of thousands of other servicemen and their families.
.
In the pages of the Vatic Project, I ran across an article that suggested that one of the passengers, Barbara Kay Bracher Olson (attorney at law), has resurfaced as Lady Evelyn Booth Olson, attorney at law.
.
http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha
.
That's As Funny As an airplane hitting the pentagon
huh eh !

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Michael 665,471
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 8 min Peter Ross 625
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 20 min Seentheotherside 45,847
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 28 min Ricky F 184,769
Liberals say INCEST marriage is okay 45 min guest 5
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 49 min Clearwater 619,143
Electing a president.......with NO POLITICAL EX... 1 hr Doctor REALITY 6
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 977,432
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr truth 88,379
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 2 hr Lonestar 255
More from around the web