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

Carlos

New York, NY

#254539 Apr 1, 2013
This thread is...disgusting.

There was NO conspiracy behind 9/11. Get over it. Stop blaming the GOVERNMENT for everything, like little kids do.

Neither the government nor Jews nor Reptilians were responsible - but Osama bin Laden.

I am an American, and that is my opinion. We have only ourselves to blame for electing leaders that made poor choices subsequently. What about Bush's re-election, after the Iraq War?

Was that a "conspiracy" as well?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254541 Apr 1, 2013
Carlos wrote:
This thread is...disgusting.
There was NO conspiracy behind 9/11. Get over it. Stop blaming the GOVERNMENT for everything, like little kids do.
Neither the government nor Jews nor Reptilians were responsible - but Osama bin Laden.
I am an American, and that is my opinion. We have only ourselves to blame for electing leaders that made poor choices subsequently. What about Bush's re-election, after the Iraq War?
Was that a "conspiracy" as well?
Exactly. This thread is about Twoof.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254542 Apr 1, 2013
zander714 wrote:
Was 9/11 a conspiracy??........ NO!
Well sort of but those guys died like a bug on a windshield didn't they?
Brother Charlie

Santa Cruz, CA

#254543 Apr 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Here are references of how WTC was constructed.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/...
Looks like Neils likes to eat crow. LMAO
Go find some more Twoof Neils. Which do you prefer? Crow or ass on a platter?
Ass on a platter sounds good too me.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#254544 Apr 2, 2013
Axel wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a much bigger fire that WC-7. The updrafts looked much more significant.
LOOKED?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#254545 Apr 2, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Seen it before. The building had some damage. So what! It was still standing. The link makes no claim the damage caused WTC7 to fall. They claim it was DEMOLISHED with a cable pull demolition --- this is a scientific impossibility. It takes weeks to preposition charges. There is no such thing as a cable pull e.g. WTC7 was demolished with preplanted charges as were WTC 1 & 2.
Explain how these pre-planted charges survived the intense fires in the impact areas of tower 1 and 2 since that is the collapses origin.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#254547 Apr 2, 2013
StellarKnight wrote:
now, my research will be published.
Let me help!

http://www.booksbychildren.com/
Yuri

Sweden

#254548 Apr 2, 2013
Carlos wrote:
This thread is...disgusting.
There was NO conspiracy behind 9/11. Get over it. Stop blaming the GOVERNMENT for everything, like little kids do.
Neither the government nor Jews nor Reptilians were responsible - but Osama bin Laden.
I am an American, and that is my opinion. We have only ourselves to blame for electing leaders that made poor choices subsequently. What about Bush's re-election, after the Iraq War?
Was that a "conspiracy" as well?
You are ignorant American. It is disgusting your government is involved in lie. It is disgusting that family of victims are not getting honesty from USA gov and have to ask for new investigaton

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#254549 Apr 2, 2013
speculation!?!?!?!?! I think NOT Proxy Sox Puppet

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good - FDNY Capt. Chris Boyle

Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.– FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us.–Fred Marsilla, FDNY Fire Fighter

BUT HEY LET'S IGNORE THE GUYS WHO WERE ON THE SCENE
Rachel wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, when I read the bit about the South Tower damage, I had the same reaction. "Waste Water" doesn't know the material and is just making things up!
I followed the link to the "Structure Magazine" article and found the graphic on the top of page 44 showing "possible damage" from the North Tower, but no mention of South Tower damage. The key word, of course, is "possible," indicating speculation. It is also interesting to see the relative position of the famous column 79 to these areas of damage. The one area of damage that is confirmed is the Southwest corner, about as far from column 79 as you can get! Even the theorized areas of damage do not directly affect column 79.
The story in "Structure Magazine" is very revealing to the careful reader. Again, a look at the top graphic on page 44 shows that column 79 is at the northeast corner of the core columns (in other words, far off-center), and yet the authors (and NIST) speculate that the failure of this single column brought the entire WTC-7 down. I use the word "speculate" because the authors have titled the article "Single Point of Failure: How the loss of one column MAY have led to the collapse of WTC-7"
I emphasize again: "MAY HAVE LED" = speculation
The hypothesized failure of a column far off center, column 79, being responsible for the demise of the entire WTC-7, is a bit of a stretch... and completely without precedent. However, when the symmetric and free-fall drop of the roof are included as conditions that must be met by any theoretical failure sequence, the far-off center single-point failure hypothesis is impossible. But the article mentions neither the period of free fall nor the symmetry of collapse, and this is also telling. These characteristics are readily apparent in any video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#254550 Apr 2, 2013
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? No it wasn't. That's stupid. Seems there are a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorist posting their utter-babble.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#254551 Apr 2, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>what up wildman? Mandate was to determine the "probable" collapse sequence from impact to initiation . Everything after the official jet fuel/office fire "heat" collapse theory is purely written for the entertainment of the people . Or to baffle the people with bullshit . What the hell is "global collapse" lol.

Once the NIST puppets stated fire started the "collapse" their mission was complete ..The "pancaking,floor buckling , thermite, bombs , terrorist flatulence etc... could be added to this book as a filler.No need to say or look into why these steel buildings looked like a controlled demolition, wasn't their job.

Impact to initiation.
A Plane impacted the building , a fire was started , it initiated collapse.The rest is only speculative. Government red tape. Filler if you please.
It is possible that fire caused floors to buckle because the Professionals employed by prick chaney said so ,but, it is also possible the fires started a chain of preset explosives helping these floors to give way because it sure the hell looked that way to a lot of people ,me included. Can you honestly say it didn't?
Yes I admit looks can be deceiving (I've been to Bourbon Street topless bars and experienced it first hand, scarred me for life! lol) but three buildings falling with such grace and perfection aren't the same as "hiding a prick" unless he was in the white house the whole time...

I'm not twoofing merely stating the obvious.
Peace
Life's been quite busy with work and family lately but very good.

You?

Global collapse is defined as a collapse to completion or total collapse...the roof met the ground.

The whole "it looked like a controlled demolition" is nothing but another twoof sanctioned red herring. It fell down following the direction of gravity.

That's the only aspect of the tower collapses that we can say "looked like" controlled demolition.

Controlled demolitions don't cause catastrophic damage to surrounding buildings.

Controlled demolitions done initiate on the upper third of the building.

It's a pathetically weak argument along the lines of seeing a jet crash and proclaiming that it ran out of fuel because it looked like the plane just ran out of fuel.

Regarding what you refer to as speculation, if the science of materials and fire applied to an FEA along with known parameters is junk, then every engineering decision made over the last 25 years is junk...which is obviously false.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254552 Apr 2, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how these pre-planted charges survived the intense fires in the impact areas of tower 1 and 2 since that is the collapses origin.
I wonder how they concealed tons of steel plating necessary to direct the charges into the girders.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254553 Apr 2, 2013
Rachel wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, when I read the bit about the South Tower damage, I had the same reaction. "Waste Water" doesn't know the material and is just making things up!
I followed the link to the "Structure Magazine" article and found the graphic on the top of page 44 showing "possible damage" from the North Tower, but no mention of South Tower damage. The key word, of course, is "possible," indicating speculation. It is also interesting to see the relative position of the famous column 79 to these areas of damage. The one area of damage that is confirmed is the Southwest corner, about as far from column 79 as you can get! Even the theorized areas of damage do not directly affect column 79.
The story in "Structure Magazine" is very revealing to the careful reader. Again, a look at the top graphic on page 44 shows that column 79 is at the northeast corner of the core columns (in other words, far off-center), and yet the authors (and NIST) speculate that the failure of this single column brought the entire WTC-7 down. I use the word "speculate" because the authors have titled the article "Single Point of Failure: How the loss of one column MAY have led to the collapse of WTC-7"
I emphasize again: "MAY HAVE LED" = speculation
The hypothesized failure of a column far off center, column 79, being responsible for the demise of the entire WTC-7, is a bit of a stretch... and completely without precedent. However, when the symmetric and free-fall drop of the roof are included as conditions that must be met by any theoretical failure sequence, the far-off center single-point failure hypothesis is impossible. But the article mentions neither the period of free fall nor the symmetry of collapse, and this is also telling. These characteristics are readily apparent in any video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
You believe in speculative nonsense.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254554 Apr 2, 2013
Rachel wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, when I read the bit about the South Tower damage, I had the same reaction. "Waste Water" doesn't know the material and is just making things up!
I followed the link to the "Structure Magazine" article and found the graphic on the top of page 44 showing "possible damage" from the North Tower, but no mention of South Tower damage. The key word, of course, is "possible," indicating speculation. It is also interesting to see the relative position of the famous column 79 to these areas of damage. The one area of damage that is confirmed is the Southwest corner, about as far from column 79 as you can get! Even the theorized areas of damage do not directly affect column 79.
The story in "Structure Magazine" is very revealing to the careful reader. Again, a look at the top graphic on page 44 shows that column 79 is at the northeast corner of the core columns (in other words, far off-center), and yet the authors (and NIST) speculate that the failure of this single column brought the entire WTC-7 down. I use the word "speculate" because the authors have titled the article "Single Point of Failure: How the loss of one column MAY have led to the collapse of WTC-7"
I emphasize again: "MAY HAVE LED" = speculation
The hypothesized failure of a column far off center, column 79, being responsible for the demise of the entire WTC-7, is a bit of a stretch... and completely without precedent. However, when the symmetric and free-fall drop of the roof are included as conditions that must be met by any theoretical failure sequence, the far-off center single-point failure hypothesis is impossible. But the article mentions neither the period of free fall nor the symmetry of collapse, and this is also telling. These characteristics are readily apparent in any video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX
There was no free fall. WTC7 took around 18 seconds to come down start to finish.

GIANT FAIL

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254555 Apr 2, 2013
How were tons of steel plating necessary required to direct explosive charges concealed in WTC7?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254556 Apr 2, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
speculation!?!?!?!?! I think NOT Proxy Sox Puppet
The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good - FDNY Capt. Chris Boyle
Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.– FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler
At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us.–Fred Marsilla, FDNY Fire Fighter
BUT HEY LET'S IGNORE THE GUYS WHO WERE ON THE SCENE
<quoted text>
Exactly. Twoofs say, "Let's take the word of armchair quarter backs looking for attention."

Clueless paranoid conspiracy shills.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#254558 Apr 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you. Structure fires often have extreme heat due to up drafts. It is a proven fact that drafted fire a capable of melting steel.
It's funny how twoofers accept silly little memes that are so easily debunked.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#254559 Apr 2, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>Bejing is irrelevant. It is a different structure and different circumstances.
Ironically that building was designed with the lessons learned from the WTC collapses.

Twoofers, getting everything wrong since 2001!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254561 Apr 2, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny how twoofers accept silly little memes that are so easily debunked.
Also silly little memes which have been debunked a long time ago.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254562 Apr 2, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically that building was designed with the lessons learned from the WTC collapses.
Twoofers, getting everything wrong since 2001!
I suppose. That's interesting. I find the most overlooked point is how steel is destroyed in a controlled demolition. It requires heavy steel plating on each side of the charge. Thermite works like a cutting torch which would be unsuitable for controlled demolition due to the time it takes to cut through the steel. The arm chair twoofer experts have no experience in the field. They know mathematical formulas but nothing of the real world.

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