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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#252290 Jan 26, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Is that from one of those 9/11 govie loving sites? They are all hogwash and not worth the time to look.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good Govie Disinfo Website Huh eh !
No, it has actual pictures and real explanations. I dare you to look at it.

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
Bill

Austin, TX

#252291 Jan 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it has actual pictures and real explanations. I dare you to look at it.
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
How would they explain the perfect building implosion of WTC-7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001?



My eyes see very difficult demolition requiring a great deal of planning, building access, and talent.
voter

Elgin, TX

#252292 Jan 26, 2013
CitizenX wrote:
<quoted text>
They described the need for it in the PNAC documents.
They were warned by something like 16 different countries and intelligence agencies that something like 9/11 was going to happen. bush was warned on august 6th that something like this was going to happen.
bin Laden denied he had anything to do with it.
From "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", there's the recognition that the American people would rather pay less taxes and maintain this nation's infrastructure than fund a monster military: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#252295 Jan 26, 2013
voter wrote:
<quoted text>
From "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", there's the recognition that the American people would rather pay less taxes and maintain this nation's infrastructure than fund a monster military: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Aaaa, what's up...DOC?
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252297 Jan 26, 2013
If you still need convincing that the angled cut was done by workers cleaning up ground zero then please read his excellent page on the subject.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real...

He also explains the method used in cutting steel in ground zero.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/tech...

Jones continues to defend the indefensible. In a reply to Screw Loose Change Blog, Jones defends this deception by quote and photo mining while pointing out the obvious.

Jones writes:

The angle-cut beam in the first photo above has been the subject of much discussion. Recently, a first-responder has stated that he saw this particular cut-column (it is rather remarkable in appearance) when he arrived at the GZ scene on 9/11/2001. We are seeking a written statement from him to this effect to hopefully settle this issue. An analysis of the slag seen clinging to the inside and the outside (both) of this angle-cut column would also do much to answer questions about what did the cutting. I think you will agree that in the second photo, the worker is using an oxyacetylene torch to cut the steel.

INCREDIBLE! His argument for using the top photo as evidence seems to be that he has no evidence it's made without thermite... Incredibly, he argues that the photo of the iron worker cutting the column I uncovered is all the evidence he needs for THAT column and that column only. With his absurd logic he is at the same time suggesting that because there is no photo of the iron worker cutting the iron in his original photo, the original photo is evidence of thermite! To put it plainly, if it walk and talks like a duck that doesn't mean it isn't thermite. He doesn't even have a source for the quote from the alleged first responder saying the photo was taken on 9/11, never mind evidence that he was actually there. Because we all know, if there is no photo on the internet then he wasn't there using Jones' logic. And yet this passes Kevin Ryan's peer review!(Editor of "scholars for 9/11 studies.") I say again, INCREDIBLE!

Had he been just an average internet poster I would let this go as gross ignorance of how the scientific method works, but not a professor. I am left to draw no other conclusion than Steven Jones is purposely deceiving his flock or he has a serious mental disease. What other conclusion can a one draw?

Listen to "Demo Dave" Griffin and his crew talk about ground zero and evidence of pancaking.

"For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."

He also points to perimeter columns with angled cuts which he says his men cut.

"You can see where they made the cuts along -[Dave points to columns with angled cuts] right above - that's the bow tie connection they're cutting at about 3 to 5 foot above the bow tie connection before it starts in to the forming of the candle stick. They've got three candles left to cut."

Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...

Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252298 Jan 26, 2013
Does anyone know why there appears to be open water near the North Pole in the NCOF charts? See a chart collection at https://sites.google.com/site/apocalypse4real... , which indicate that the open water developed about Dec 24. Thanks

2David B. Benson says:
1 Jan 2013 at 5:43 PM
Donald @1 — Probably because there is open water at that spot. But it is a looong way from there to the North Pole.

3Ron Broberg says:
1 Jan 2013 at 6:37 PM
US CO2 emissions continue to decline
http://rhinohide.org/energy/analysis/eia/img/...

4Donald says:
1 Jan 2013 at 7:37 PM
David, the charts I mentioned show dark blue right next to the ’90 N’ label. Not that long a distance.

5Hank Roberts says:
1 Jan 2013 at 8:48 PM
Donald, I’d guess there’s something odd with the imagery they generate around the pole at that”apocalypse4realseaice…” page, I’d guess; all its images have something odd around at the pole.

You might want to compare the sources that page cites, it says it gets the first image’s data from
http://data.ncof.co.uk :8080/ncWMS/godiva2.html
which generates a Mercator (I think) rather than a polar projection. Or dig deeper and find the data set they’re using. Remember no “polar orbiting” satellites track directly over the poles: http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~djohnson/satellite/c...
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/~djohnson/satellite/f...
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252299 Jan 26, 2013
This is a guest post from Professor David B. Benson (retired), who is a regular commenter on The Big Biofuels Blog.
David's contact details: [email protected]
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252300 Jan 26, 2013
Amid the questions about how to prevent another 9/11, we were all still curious about what set off the collapse of the towers. We talked to the a civil engineer who headed the investigation into the towers’ destruction. Even before his team began its work, they were hopeful that computer programs capable of modeling impact, fire, and structural performance would reveal the points of failure.
Remote sensing techniques were relied upon by search and recovery teams to assess what was inside the mountains of rubble at Ground Zero even when it was clearly to dangerous for humans to traverse the piles of twisted steel and concrete. A plane flying 1500 meters above lower Manhattan scanned the scene and generated detailed images of the composition of the debris down as far as 9 meters below street level. But sophisticated as lidar, radar, sonar, and a host of other technologies have become, they still haven’t been able to help ferret out antipersonnel landmines and improvised explosive devices before they kill.
Also on hand shortly after the attacks were more than a dozen remote-controlled robots that used lights, video cameras, two-way audio, and night vision to give rescue teams an idea of where to search, as well as an up-close glimpse of the obstacles separating them from any survivors. Robotics is always advancing. But as we saw this year in the aftermath of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima power plant in northern Japan, robots still have limitations that still vex designers.
In the weeks after the terror attacks, U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) introduced a bill aimed at making encrypted data accessible to law enforcement. The measure would have required that codes for breaking encryption be stored with a government or other agency and made available to law enforcement by court order. But who at this point trusts government agencies to keep this information secure when we hear of incidents involving laptops containing sensitive information going missing, hackers invading computer systems, or employees selling information.
XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Washington, D.C., became the first company to launch a satellite radio service when it debuted on 25 September 2001 in San Diego and Dallas. Programming originated from XM’s Washington, D.C., studios. The launch came a week after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission granted XM and then-rival Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.(which launched later that year) temporary approval to operate its repeater stations–a move strongly opposed by wireless telephone carriers, who argued that the service would interfere with their portion of the spectrum. In 2008, the two companies merged.
As we learned more about what happened in the minutes before the planes slammed into the buildings, a troubling question emerged: Would U.S. military commanders really have given the order to shoot down commercial jets with civilians on board if the fighter planes had arrived in time to intercept them? Another nagging question is why it took so long to figure out that something had gone terribly wrong.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/se...
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252301 Jan 26, 2013
On 9/11 Flight 11 plowed into WTC 1 at 470 mph, the inner core of the building bore the brunt of the 150+ ton airliner's impact.

'Truss theory' trusses failing
If the 'truss theory' were true then the force of the plane's impact would have knocked the inner core backwards, this would have crushed numerous trusses on the opposite side of the building and sheared off a massive number of truss connecting bolts.
Airliner & debris weight + bolt failures + catastrophic truss failures = immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors (but not the core).

History shows this didn't happen.

“The Biggest Liar on Topix”

Since: Jan 11

Pittsfield, MA

#252302 Jan 26, 2013
GO TO BED JAcKASS !!!!!!
rider wrote:
On 9/11 Flight 11 plowed into WTC 1 at 470 mph, the inner core of the building bore the brunt of the 150+ ton airliner's impact.
'Truss theory' trusses failing
If the 'truss theory' were true then the force of the plane's impact would have knocked the inner core backwards, this would have crushed numerous trusses on the opposite side of the building and sheared off a massive number of truss connecting bolts.
Airliner & debris weight + bolt failures + catastrophic truss failures = immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors (but not the core).
History shows this didn't happen.
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252303 Jan 26, 2013
In 2006 NIST revised the "truss theory" because it did not withstand scrutiny.
In the revised "sagging truss theory" the WTC floor truss system has changed.
On the one hand we are being told that the steel of the trusses was weakened by the heat of fires, and on the other hand we are being told that this weakened steel was strong enough to pull the perimeter walls inwards until the structure failed.
This is self-contradicting nonsense.
Also, the 5/8" bolts would have failed long before the perimeter walls.
To illustrate this point the left figure below shows a perimeter wall column section from near a tower's top, where the steel was thinnest, and the right figure shows a section of a column in the lower part of a tower, where the steel was much thicker.
It is laughable to suggest 5/8" bolts could pull these walls inwards until they explosively failed.
Stating the trusses pulled the perimeter walls inwards until they failed is equivalent to saying an oak tree can be pulled down with a piece of string.
When Flight 11 flew into WTC 1, one of two things should have happened:
If the building had nothing more than steel trusses bolted between the inner core and perimeter walls there should have been an immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors (but the core should have remained intact).
If the building was solidly constructed it should have remained standing.
Neither of the above occurred.
The "truss theory" is a fantasy concocted to conceal a demolition.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#252304 Jan 26, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
How would they explain the perfect building implosion of WTC-7 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
My eyes see very difficult demolition requiring a great deal of planning, building access, and talent.
WTC was heavily damaged by falling debris. Go take a look at the aerial photos and the other side of the building. Take a look at how the building was supported by three trusses up to the seventh floor. You are correct, demolition takes time and planning. It would be a criminal act to allow buildings to be occupied with explosives. It would also be against the law to demolish a building without the proper permits. Nobody would do that.
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252305 Jan 26, 2013
Goldman Sachs Forewarned
– On Sep 10, 2001, the Tokyo branch of Goldman Sachs warned its American employees to steer clear of American buildings.

Israeli ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Forewarned

- ZIM, an Israeli company, vacated its office(10,000 square feet) in the North WTC tower a week before 9/11, breaking its lease. 49% of this company is owned by the Israeli government. The lease ran till the end of 2001, and the company lost $50,000 by breaking the lease. Later, FBI agent Michael Dick, who was investigating Israeli spying before and after 9/11 and looking into the suspicious move, was removed from his duties by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Michael Chertoff.

According to a non-official cover or N.O.C. CIA source who worked closely with Dick, the Israeli movers moved in explosives when ZIM moved out.

With ZIM Israel bailing out just in time, this left one Israeli company, Clearforest, with 19 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. Of the five employees in the building all managed to escape.

U.S. Army Study: On Mossad

An elite U.S. Army study center had devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state.

The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.

Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say:

"Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

The amazing thing about this is that this story was reported in the Washington Post on September 10, 2001.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#252306 Jan 26, 2013
The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared.
.
A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block.
.
Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight.
.
Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building.
.
Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.
.
So how do you explain downward acceleration in the direction of the MOST resistance?
.
This cannot have been a gravity only collapse.
.
Where's the piledriver?
.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/201...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
.
That's A Good One Huh eh

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#252307 Jan 26, 2013
voter wrote:
<quoted text>
From "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", there's the recognition that the American people would rather pay less taxes and maintain this nation's infrastructure than fund a monster military: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
So what? That doesn't contradict all the evidence of what actually happened. It does explain why Bush rushed into invading Iraq.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#252308 Jan 26, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared.
.
A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block.
.
Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight.
.
Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building.
.
Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building.
.
So how do you explain downward acceleration in the direction of the MOST resistance?
.
This cannot have been a gravity only collapse.
.
Where's the piledriver?
.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/201...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
.
That's A Good One Huh eh
You don't even understand how 5/8" bolts failed, yet you want us to believe your worthless opinions about how buildings fall?

Get outta town!!!!
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252309 Jan 26, 2013
.9/11 Whodunnitt? You Decide..
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252310 Jan 26, 2013
Alan Sabrosky 100% Sure Israel did 9-11 follow up interview .
rider

Gwinn, MI

#252311 Jan 26, 2013
Israel did 9/11 - All the Proof in the World

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#252312 Jan 26, 2013
YAWN

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) 2 min Steve III 646,404
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 23 min Steve III 44,647
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 43 min Aura Mytha 48,211
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 56 min Brian_G 445,701
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 971,606
Incest 1 hr LetsRoleplayThen 5
topic sex forum gone? 1 hr LetsRoleplayThen 17
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Brian_G 618,560
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 4 hr Annaleigh 105,560
More from around the web