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

#254371 Mar 25, 2013
onemale wrote:
9/11 goes much deeper than we even know...
The collapse of building #7 is the proof of 9/11...
Building #7 contained the records of all the scandals such as Enron etc. and they all disappeared.
A lot of high ranking shysters were going meet Buba in Cell Block C.
But when you have money you can do anything.
And these were Bush's buddies he couldn't let that happen.
This is a small tip of the iceberg.
Building 7 collapsed due to damage. Proves nothing. You can go read what the firemen who were there had to say about rather than Twoofer shills selling a load of crap.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254372 Mar 25, 2013
StellarKnight wrote:
<quoted text>
and who the flip are you? The editorial board? Or a self serving importance judicial reader legendary only in your own presumptuous \platitudes?
Give me evidence rather than worthless opinions and we can talk. Your ad hominem reply is noted.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254373 Mar 25, 2013
StellarKnight wrote:
911 is the date in 1941 when ground breaking for the Pentagon got under way. DONTCHA KNOW?
NO you did not unless you have read my previous posts.
Which makes me smarter than you. huh. For I research.
911 becomes and emergency phone number.
OH REALLY?
This proves what exactly? The the hijackers were numerologists? Maybe they thought choosing that date would make it more memorable. Do we know their motives?

Interesting coincidence though.

Nice post.
ToiletWater

Charleston, WV

#254374 Mar 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me evidence rather than worthless opinions and we can talk. Your ad hominem reply is noted.
Hey ToiletWater, is there anything in the official story that you doubt? Anything at all?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254375 Mar 25, 2013
ToiletWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey ToiletWater, is there anything in the official story that you doubt? Anything at all?
Not really. It is very well done with lots of documentation, reliable evidence and credible witnesses. Twoof OTOH has nothing but speculative opinions and total lack of viable evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254376 Mar 25, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one looking for preppers. The one with no facts is the
"paranoid" - You!
McVeigh was just a fed in on the planned event. There was no Ryder truck. If there were the investigators would have found the truck at the scene of the blast and put it on the news. The evidence would be there for all to see with no debate about the facts.
I don't care. That case is closed. I am perfectly satisfied with the outcome and the investigation.

NEXT
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#254377 Mar 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Building 7 collapsed due to damage. Proves nothing. You can go read what the firemen who were there had to say about rather than Twoofer shills selling a load of crap.
What damage? Minimal damage at best.
Three other WTC buildings surrounding the towers were severely damaged and set on fire by the falling debris, but NONE of them collapsed. Building #7 was 300 feet from the nearest tower. According to the NIST report, building #7 collapsed due to normal office fires (period). Throughout history NO steel frame highrise building has ever collapsed due to fire (period). The real load of crap is the NIST report. Also the NIST report denies molten steel in the basemant, while firefighters says there were tons of it.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254378 Mar 26, 2013
9/11 was also the day of the CIA led coupe in Chile.DONTCHA KNOW?

NO you did not unless you have read my previous posts.
Which makes me smarter than you.
StellarKnight wrote:
911 is the date in 1941 when ground breaking for the Pentagon got under way. DONTCHA KNOW?
NO you did not unless you have read my previous posts.
Which makes me smarter than you. huh. For I research.
911 becomes and emergency phone number.
OH REALLY?

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254379 Mar 26, 2013
Minimal damage ??? almost the entire interior support stucture collpased .. how is tha minimal ??
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What damage? Minimal damage at best.
Three other WTC buildings surrounding the towers were severely damaged and set on fire by the falling debris, but NONE of them collapsed. Building #7 was 300 feet from the nearest tower. According to the NIST report, building #7 collapsed due to normal office fires (period). Throughout history NO steel frame highrise building has ever collapsed due to fire (period). The real load of crap is the NIST report. Also the NIST report denies molten steel in the basemant, while firefighters says there were tons of it.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254380 Mar 26, 2013
Everybody in the Enron case went to jail Stupid ..... and of course we all know sensitive documents are never backed up in multiple locations ..... and of course when I want to get rid of documents I blow up the building instead of wiping out a hard drive or shredding papers ....... DUHHHHHHHHHHHH
onemale wrote:
9/11 goes much deeper than we even know...
The collapse of building #7 is the proof of 9/11...
Building #7 contained the records of all the scandals such as Enron etc. and they all disappeared.
A lot of high ranking shysters were going meet Buba in Cell Block C.
But when you have money you can do anything.
And these were Bush's buddies he couldn't let that happen.
This is a small tip of the iceberg.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#254382 Mar 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>What damage? Minimal damage at best.
Three other WTC buildings surrounding the towers were severely damaged and set on fire by the falling debris, but NONE of them collapsed. Building #7 was 300 feet from the nearest tower. According to the NIST report, building #7 collapsed due to normal office fires (period). Throughout history NO steel frame highrise building has ever collapsed due to fire (period). The real load of crap is the NIST report. Also the NIST report denies molten steel in the basemant, while firefighters says there were tons of it.
1) The mandate of the NIST report was to find the most plausible theory for collapse initiation. Reports of molten material weeks later has no relevance to the initiation phase.

2) I've repeatedly proven that reports of molten steel in fires in very common and as such, scientifically uninteresting.

The NFPA has noted that such reports are often erroneous since one simply can tell the composition of a molten material by sight alone.

3) In 11+ years of spewing the exact same twoofer sanctioned meme, not one twoofer has ever proposed a credible mechanism which could cause collapse then be the explanation for reports of molten steel weeks later.

4) Using your own "never before" argument we can say never before has molten steel been reported in a controlled demolition.

Your own fallacious logic defeats your argument.

5) Fire has caused the collapse of steel structures and the height of a building doesn't somehow make the steel impervious to the well understood effects of heat on steel.

6) Every argument you've attempted can be summarized as an argument from authority, incredulity and/or ignorance.

Jeez, I wonder why twoofers get laughed at eh?
Amadeus

Netherlands

#254383 Mar 26, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
1) The mandate of the NIST report was to find the most plausible theory for collapse initiation. Reports of molten material weeks later has no relevance to the initiation phase.
2) I've repeatedly proven that reports of molten steel in fires in very common and as such, scientifically uninteresting.
The NFPA has noted that such reports are often erroneous since one simply can tell the composition of a molten material by sight alone.
3) In 11+ years of spewing the exact same twoofer sanctioned meme, not one twoofer has ever proposed a credible mechanism which could cause collapse then be the explanation for reports of molten steel weeks later.
4) Using your own "never before" argument we can say never before has molten steel been reported in a controlled demolition.
Your own fallacious logic defeats your argument.
5) Fire has caused the collapse of steel structures and the height of a building doesn't somehow make the steel impervious to the well understood effects of heat on steel.
6) Every argument you've attempted can be summarized as an argument from authority, incredulity and/or ignorance.
Jeez, I wonder why twoofers get laughed at eh?
The mandate of any investigation is to determine what happened. In the case of an unprecedented failure, this includes determining the failure sequence from start to finish. NIST made no attempt to chart the failure sequence in the Towers from start to finish.

Your "scientifically uninteresting" claim is an obvious lie. Determining the make up of the "molten metal" would be an indicator of temperatures achieved in the fires. For some reason, however, NIST limited itself to physical evidence that was subjected to temperatures under 250 C, with very few exceptions. Since such cool temperatures cannot result in failure, one must ask why NIST chose to preserve these "scientifically uninteresting" samples of steel from the Towers and discard the rest, more than 99.5% of the steel evidence.
Bobby Mac

Netherlands

#254385 Mar 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It was destroyed by a Ryder Truck rigged with explosives. You have no evidence to the contrary.
Around and around you go.
Your previous comment was "aimed" at evidence to the contrary, but you didnt understand the significance of the words or the building that those words referred to.

Maybe you should try again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#254386 Mar 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What damage? Minimal damage at best.
Three other WTC buildings surrounding the towers were severely damaged and set on fire by the falling debris, but NONE of them collapsed. Building #7 was 300 feet from the nearest tower. According to the NIST report, building #7 collapsed due to normal office fires (period). Throughout history NO steel frame highrise building has ever collapsed due to fire (period). The real load of crap is the NIST report. Also the NIST report denies molten steel in the basemant, while firefighters says there were tons of it.
It was hit by a huge chunk of the North Tower, there is not proof that it was molten steel and the entire metal framed part of the Windor Tower collapsed due to fire ALONE, no plane impact strutral damage needed.
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#254387 Mar 26, 2013
Amadeus wrote:
<quoted text>
The mandate of any investigation is to determine what happened. In the case of an unprecedented failure, this includes determining the failure sequence from start to finish. NIST made no attempt to chart the failure sequence in the Towers from start to finish.
It was not needed, the invitation covered everything to the point of collapse initiation, if you are investigation what caused a car crash everything after impact is irreverent.
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#254388 Mar 26, 2013
Amadeus wrote:
<quoted text>
For some reason, however, NIST limited itself to physical evidence that was subjected to temperatures under 250 C, with very few exceptions.
Not VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS, in the examination of the steel most of buildings were not exposed to high temperatures.

A handy aid, the high temperatures would be roughly where that red stuff was flickering and the black stuff was coming out of holes in the building.
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#254389 Mar 26, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
They will need to prove there was a Ryder Truck since there are conflicting news reports. Until proven there was no truck.
By tracing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of a rear axle found in the wreckage, the FBI identified the vehicle as a Ryder Rental box truck rented from Junction City, Kansas. Workers at the agency assisted an FBI artist in creating a sketch of the renter, who had used the alias "Robert Kling". The sketch was shown in the area. Lea McGown, manager of the local Dreamland Hotel, identified the sketch as Timothy McVeigh.

PS: He also confessed.
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#254390 Mar 26, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
21. FBI agents are said to have tracked down McVeigh's truck rental agency by finding a vehicle identification number (VIN) on the truck's rear axle. This axle was found either in the bomb crater, according to the mayor of Oklahoma City's initial press statement, or three blocks away according to the later FBI version. Which statement is true?
Typical twoffer, not matter where it was found is irreverent if it cam from the truck, either location does not change a material fact.

But here it is, you question is answered!

The rear axle of the Ryder truck had an identifying number on the 250 pound part, which had been blasted through the air and landed on a Ford Festival. Also found was the rear bumper from the same truck - its license plate number still legible. Both truck parts were rapidly traced to the name of the renter - Robert Kling, an alias McVeigh used on the rental agreement.

AND A PHOTO OF THE "Ford Festival" and Axel!

http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/a...
Charlie Sheen

Mooresville, NC

#254391 Mar 26, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
22. There is another problem to the Ryder truck tale. No rear axle on any vehicle manufactured in America is imprinted with a VIN, even after recent legislation forcing manufacturers to place multiple VINS on the engine, firewall, and frame to discourage chop shops. When queried, a spokesman for Ryder told reporters than it does not imprint additional VINS on its trucks. We have here another case where the FBI version of events simply COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED in the way the Bureau claims it happened. Where did the VIN story come from? Why has it been created and circulated by the media?
Who said VIN, "The rear axle of the Ryder truck had an identifying number on the 250 pound part"
fred

Hamilton, Canada

#254392 Mar 26, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
It was hit by a huge chunk of the North Tower, there is not proof that it was molten steel and the entire metal framed part of the Windor Tower collapsed due to fire ALONE, no plane impact strutral damage needed.
a falling piece of the North Tower could in no way be responsible for the perfect implosion of Building 7

you fail

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) 2 min Hangman 971,889
Bring back thd human sexuality forum? 5 min Forum Warriors 35
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min Dr Banonator 56,305
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min kent 650,701
Horny snapchat usernames 11 min Gabegrealish01 1
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 1 hr AfricaQueen 764
UK Phone Numbers for Fun 1 hr Rachel19F 4
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr NACKED TRUTH 45,001
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr bad bob 182,976
More from around the web