Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,951 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#253005 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>
Thermite found at the WTC
https://www.google.com/search...
.
https://www.google.com/search...
.
For the 10th time telling you....
Los Alamos and NIST created explosive Nano-thermite. So is it any wonder NIST wants to distance itself from any type of explosives investigation or discussion.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
.
Wake up silly shilly
More Spam, no evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#253006 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
More spam. All the claims have been debunked.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#253007 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
Ever hear the words...
I am not at Liberty to say
.
No comment.
.
I cannot answer because it is a matter/interest of National Security.
.
You must not confer with anyone one these matters. Do you understand
.
If the CIA/FBI/MIB said Do not speak to anyone of what you saw and heard here, would you tell everyone?
.
I doubt it...for fear of your life, family and livehood. You would take it to the grave no doubt.
YOU would, you chickenshid. No agency can force you to be silent if you have knowledge of a crime.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#253008 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
What an assclown!!

BTW, what is a "Q"?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253009 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
All BS moobs, pick one and I will shred it.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253010 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>
All the proof I need is right here, Moob#2
http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/TKP2UIE8OP5DPN...
The article written by randy lavello is also slander as he has me saying that woolsey former CIA Director Woolsey was passing a gag order down the rank and file of the FDNY. That statement was never made in that context, It was said in humor ,and as a matter of fact that so-called reporter was fired by Alex Jones for making **** up on alot of people. The only reason I didn't go through the legal channels is because lawyers cost to damn much.

----------

LOL, Go over to JEF and ask for him, his exact words!

If its the wingtv article its ********. They slandered me last year when I read them the riot act about their behavior.

The article" Fireman admits again 9-11 was an inside job" is slander.

The article written by randy lavello is also slander as he has me saying that woolsey former CIA Director Woolsey was passing a gag order down the rank and file of the FDNY. That statement was never made in that context, It was said in humor ,and as a matter of fact that so-called reporter was fired by Alex Jones for making **** up on alot of people. The only reason I didn't go through the legal channels is because lawyers cost to damn much.

So the true statement was the that I heard Explosions not bombs as I couldn't tell what the sounds were as I was blocks away and can not confirm what the noise was. As I was aproaching City Hall the North Tower began the collapse I heard what sounded like thunder just prior to the collapse then the Popping as the tower fell. I had my radio scanner and there were reports of explsions within the conplex over the PD and PAPD frequencies. As I made my way closer I could pick up on the FD Handie Talkie frequencies and it sounded like hell. No one new what the was going to happen next but when the second tower began its fall there were what sounded like loud popping coming from the tower as well as a sucking sound like reveres air pressure.

Its seems the people at 911Truth have some problems with credibility as I had approached them on this issue for clarification. No need to say they never returned my messages.

They are tools of the trade.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253011 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
Also...CBS posted this for me. They seem to think it credible enough to post.
CBS runs credibility checks on blog comments? LMFAO! prove it!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253012 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
<quoted text>
Thermite found at the WTC
https://www.google.com/search...
Oil based paint you 60 year old welfare cheat!
onemale

Pana, IL

#253013 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
More Spam, no evidence.
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.

What are your credentials???
onemale

Pana, IL

#253014 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
More spam. All the claims have been debunked.
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...

How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.

Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253015 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash.
And they did, but the person that conducted the study and wrote the report, Robertson said fire was never taken into account. So did the building survive the impacts or did they fall as soon as they were hit?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#253016 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
Even though I can not start to explain how stupid that statement is perhaps for a start ramming planes into buildings to structurally weaken them then setting them on fire seems .... well, less than practical.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#253017 Feb 11, 2013
Timesten wrote:
Let the readers decide who is the troll here
.
I'd say you all have proven, by your own words, that you are the forum trolls here...
.
Say the Truth, RADEKT, Abraxas, Pork Pie Hat, TrinstanM .....Are forum trolls and there is no use trying to converse with them, for they are always right and everyone else is wrong....as one poster said it..." they must be gods."
.
Read their profile....
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Real scholars eh?
.
Now compare their rhetoric with this... This will tell it all of who they are
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Their posts tells a lot, that whoever posts on here and isn't pro government, these two with their side kicks buds jump in and start name calling and ranting denials, to try and discourage newcomers from posting... They are so obvious....
Hired trolls, no doubt about it...
http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/israel...
.
http://www.thejidf.org/
.
Every one is wrong, if they say the Official Reports are questionable, according to these few sheeple ranters...
http://www.google.com/images...
.
Professor Say the Truth, opens his speech on 911...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Professor ASSbarax comments on 911 also..
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Professor Porktard wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
.
Professor RADEKT and his thesis on 911
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TJ5J5IP...
.
A bunch of college grads if ever there were... lmaowttty
.
*** Place Your Votes Here***
.
Pork Pie Hat
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TL9HUAC...
.
Say the Truth....
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T7ORUIL...
.
TristanM....
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T7B0A6B...
.
RADEKT...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TJ5J5IP...
.
Abraxas..
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TMTCBTJ...
.
Waste water aka Asbarax/TrinstanM
May the best troll win. I vote yes to all of them.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
Dead links prove what wendy?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#253019 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.
What are your credentials???
Where is the chain of custody? Whre are the "control" samples? Where are the peer (non pay-to-play) reviews?
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#253020 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
There are so many idiotic things there that it's not even worth "debunking"
nothing to debunk

Winchester, KY

#253021 Feb 11, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
There are so many idiotic things there that it's not even worth "debunking"
translation: "I'm speechless. There is nothing I can say to refute or debunk anything you just said."

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#253023 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are saying came from a professor who collected a sample of the dust and a chemical engineer, and a scientist agreed.
What are your credentials???
Not credible evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#253024 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
Looks like their design failed the fire test. Gotta give them credit, the towers stood up for a period of time. Just like the "unsinkable Titanic." She remained afoat for quite a few hours.

No building has ever been hit by a fully fueled commercial airliner flying at top speed. Demolition is an invasive job. Somebody would have noticed and lots of evidence would have been left behind.

Nice try though.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#253025 Feb 11, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects the towers were designed to withstand a 707 airplane crash. Yes a 767 (the jet that crashed into the south tower) is bigger but here are figures from structural engineers:
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. A Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-...
How could a heavier plane cause less damage? Due to better aerodynamics of the 767 the designer engineers could use thinner metal and secondary parts were made from carbon fiber. They did this to improve energy efficiency. Higher efficiency planes helped to keep the airlines afloat.
Airplanes have crashed into high-rise buildings in the past. Throughout world history, no metal frame high-rise building has ever collapsed by airplane crashes or by fire. Why do you think they use metal? Why do they pay demolition firms big bucks to demolish old buildings? According to the NIST report, just set a few fires and it will come straight down.
The buildings withstood the initial impact. What more do you want?
jet fuel

Winchester, KY

#253026 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The buildings withstood the initial impact. What more do you want?
Then if they survived the initial impact there would have been no reason why they shouldn't have remained standing. Otherwise, you're implying that jet fuel (most of which burned off on impact)was able to bring the entire building down. So next time they want to do a controlled demolition why not just splash some jet fuel all over the building and light it and see what happens.

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) 7 min pusherman_ 775,305
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 7 min Johnny 1,027
Moses never existed 12 min KiMare 752
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 12 min Lyndi 175,642
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 18 min jethro8 559,507
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 36 min truth 605,020
Is A Race War Brewing? 37 min yon 51
More from around the web