Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,590 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Axel

Lithuania

#254525 Apr 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. The trusses in the Towers were melted forming puddles of molten steel that fell through the voids during and after collapse. Those trusses were much smaller than the I-beams and easily melted in places. Proves nothing other than high temp combustion caused by updrafts.
You don't think that there was molten steel after the skyscraper fire in Beijing? Why not? It was a much bigger fire that WC-7. The updrafts looked much more significant.

But here is the Beijing skyscraper the next morning

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254526 Apr 1, 2013
Axel wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think that there was molten steel after the skyscraper fire in Beijing? Why not? It was a much bigger fire that WC-7. The updrafts looked much more significant.
But here is the Beijing skyscraper the next morning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Cut8QxM7G90XX
Bejing is irrelevant. It is a different structure and different circumstances.
Thor

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#254527 Apr 1, 2013
Axel wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think that there was molten steel after the skyscraper fire in Beijing? Why not? It was a much bigger fire that WC-7. The updrafts looked much more significant.
But here is the Beijing skyscraper the next morning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Cut8QxM7G90XX
Bejing is irrelevant. It is a different structure and different circumstances.

It was obviously a much larger fire than WTC 7, and you can even hear the fireworks that had been illegally stored in the building for the Chinese New Year celebration popping off throughout the night.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254529 Apr 1, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Bejing is irrelevant. It is a different structure and different circumstances.
It was obviously a much larger fire than WTC 7, and you can even hear the fireworks that had been illegally stored in the building for the Chinese New Year celebration popping off throughout the night.
Fireworks and thousands of gallons of jet fuel?

No comparison.

Structure?

No comparison.

Damage due to airline impact?

No comparison.

BIG FAIL

Try again.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254530 Apr 1, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Bejing is irrelevant. It is a different structure and different circumstances.
It was obviously a much larger fire than WTC 7, and you can even hear the fireworks that had been illegally stored in the building for the Chinese New Year celebration popping off throughout the night.
Oh talking off the cuff about WTC7?

WTC 7 was sitting on three vertical trusses. When several outer columns were destroyed and the central part of the building was cut by a massive part of the South Tower, it became unstable.

No comparison.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254531 Apr 1, 2013
Did the building in Beijing have tons of Con Edison transformers sitting on the 7th floor which was a cantilever design?

FAIL
Niels

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#254532 Apr 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh talking off the cuff about WTC7?
WTC 7 was sitting on three vertical trusses. When several outer columns were destroyed and the central part of the building was cut by a massive part of the South Tower, it became unstable.
No comparison.
NEXT
You are inventing fictions, yes? Why do do you lie so easily? Anyone can verify that this quote of yours is a complete lie: "central part of the building [WTC7] was cut by a massive part part of the South Tower."

Not only are you ignorant, and willfully ignorant, but you are a liar.

DISMISSED

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254535 Apr 1, 2013
Niels wrote:
<quoted text>
You are inventing fictions, yes? Why do do you lie so easily? Anyone can verify that this quote of yours is a complete lie: "central part of the building [WTC7] was cut by a massive part part of the South Tower."
Not only are you ignorant, and willfully ignorant, but you are a liar.
DISMISSED
NEXT
You haven't done any homework have you? Ever read what the firemen who were there had to say?

"A little north of Vesey I said, weíll go down, letís see whatís going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see whatís going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnít 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 didnít look good. "

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254536 Apr 1, 2013
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?
socci

Cameron, MO

#254537 Apr 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
You haven't done any homework have you? Ever read what the firemen who were there had to say?
"A little north of Vesey I said, weíll go down, letís see whatís going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see whatís going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnít 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 didnít look good. "
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

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.

Overall, 9/11 went off terrible. The entire thing was a disaster of a false flag, foiled at every turn - NYC, Pentagon, Shanksville, Penn. All a huge disaster. 50% of the entire country knows the government did it. Another 70% of the entire world knows.

9/11 is just the latest in a long history of corruption & war crimes from the district of criminals.

They are not done yet. It looks like they intend to destroy the entire United States. This is why they cause & support illegal immigration, including Islam that has increased since the wars began. They plan on civil war & crusades with Islam here in the USA, Europe, and Australia. The damage done to the USA and entire global economy as a result of NAFTA and immigration is a much bigger crime than 9/11. Although both are equally treasonous. The globalist in NY and Dc actually have some Americans supporting the immigration plans as they have them fooled about 9/11, too.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254538 Apr 1, 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.
Overall, 9/11 went off terrible. The entire thing was a disaster of a false flag, foiled at every turn - NYC, Pentagon, Shanksville, Penn. All a huge disaster. 50% of the entire country knows the government did it. Another 70% of the entire world knows.
9/11 is just the latest in a long history of corruption & war crimes from the district of criminals.
They are not done yet. It looks like they intend to destroy the entire United States. This is why they cause & support illegal immigration, including Islam that has increased since the wars began. They plan on civil war & crusades with Islam here in the USA, Europe, and Australia. The damage done to the USA and entire global economy as a result of NAFTA and immigration is a much bigger crime than 9/11. Although both are equally treasonous. The globalist in NY and Dc actually have some Americans supporting the immigration plans as they have them fooled about 9/11, too.
No, the buildings collapsed. Nobody denies that.

There is no evidence of any preplanted charges.

There is no evidence of a false flag operation.

Nobody has taken anyone to court over wrongful death because there is no evidence to prove such a preposterous claim.

Where are the statistics to back your claims?

FAIL you just presented a fantasy. Thanks for sharing your fairy-tale.
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

Malta

#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

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

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.ĖFDNY Chief Frank Fellini

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnít 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 didnít 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.Ė 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.ĖFred 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

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min USA Born 542,928
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Aura Mytha 739,880
Enabling Telepathic Communication With-In One Mind 12 min Infinite Force 3
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 32 min Eagle 12 227,708
Submissives 37 min Ellejonson 1
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 52 min Edthirty 3,142
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 54 min Chris Clearwater 173,768
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 4 hr Azphene 154

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••