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

#254902 Apr 15, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
I have posted evidence in the past, I'm not going back to find it. I doesn't matter you will dispute in anyway.
I've never seen anything which would be considered evidence.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254903 Apr 15, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Cant retract facts. Its already out there. They would need to disprove their facts which they have not done. Why? Because the alleged hijackers were never on the planes.
http://zero911movie.com
http://youtu.be/8XRMrMdn0NQ
Military Tanker kc767
http://youtu.be/jRC4lCQuBmc
Nonsense. They were seen passing though airport security and caught on tape. They were processed by airline personnel boarding the planes. They were one the manifests but separated out due to the fact they were identified as hijackers which was communicated from the aircraft by airline personnel who were on board and perished. Your links are silly.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254904 Apr 15, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
There is plenty of reason to hate the crimes committed by those in the Govt. We all have to have a government, but we expect one to obey their own founding documents.
Some of those Govt crimes:
-Assassination of various presidents.
-Civil War to take over the states.
-Funding wars to found the globalist United Nations.
-Locating the UN on US soil.
-Failing to protect US borders.
-Adulterating the food with known toxins.
-Geoengineering.
-False flags such as 9/11.
There are many others. We would all be better off if DC slid into the ocean and took the UN with it. But im not going to make it happen. In fact im certain the tyranny will continue until the very end of time, on this earth. Ive read the last chapter and it does not end well for you with the mark of the beast.
Hatred and anti-government propaganda is not evidence.
the official story

Charleston, WV

#254907 Apr 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never seen anything which would be considered evidence.
slurping the official story in its entirety doesn't require you to look at evidence, you just have to suspend all doubt and reason and accept everything the government says.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#254908 Apr 15, 2013
the official story wrote:
<quoted text>
slurping the official story in its entirety doesn't require you to look at evidence, you just have to suspend all doubt and reason and accept everything the government says.
Come up with some real evidence to invalidate any of the Official Story yet?

No?

I didn't think so.

ROTFLMAO
the official story

Charleston, WV

#254909 Apr 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Come up with some real evidence to invalidate any of the Official Story yet?
No?
I didn't think so.
ROTFLMAO
Come up with some real evidence to validate any of the Official Story yet?
No?
I didn't think so.
ROTFLMAO

Charleston, WV

#254910 Apr 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Come up with some real evidence to invalidate any of the Official Story yet?
No?
I didn't think so.
ROTFLMAO
by the way, adults don't use the silly internet acronyms like ROTFLMAO. How old are you sonny? Are you out of your teens yet?

crucifiedguy

“atheism is knowing the bible ”

Since: Jan 09

fictional hell

#254911 Apr 15, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Any reference material cited in the report will be included as evidence.
It just isn't an issue on any level.
The reason procedures are included as evidence is because they are quite literally the evidence that the collected evidence was done to an acceptable standard or code.
Any referenced material wouldn't be considered non-disclosed .
Unless it has to do with the "impact to initiation " theory ,it's not evidence. The nist "investigators" were required to determine the probable sequence of events from the time the plane hit the building to the initiation of collapse sequence. Nothing more.

Your final statement would be confusing but false none the less.
Disclaimer 4 -- Basically it says "due to the destruction" of the wtc , nist takes no position as to whether the wtc buildings were compliant with ANY codes when it was built or anytime after that. Then it says verification of compliance wasn't possible in any circumstance unless documentation or anecdotal evidence is provided or independent tests were performed by nist.

You are mistaken about undisclosed ,conceptual, anecdotal, "evidence " not being an issue on any level. These disclaimers are in place to relinquish all investigators and all parties participating in the investigation of liabilities and accountability.

But other than plausible deniability you did access the issues of procedures, undisclosed evidence , conceptual evidence etc correctly. None of these types of "evidence" are of any significance to the actual investigation.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#254912 Apr 16, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>Any referenced material wouldn't be considered non-disclosed .
Unless it has to do with the "impact to initiation " theory ,it's not evidence. The nist "investigators" were required to determine the probable sequence of events from the time the plane hit the building to the initiation of collapse sequence. Nothing more.
No, I have one project on the go where the file exceeds 2500 pages. About 300 of those will become part of the final report and the rest are just supporting documents that need not be included.

NIST has no requirement to disclose or include third party procedures that were utilized during the discovery phase of their report.

You're so biased you don't understand that all you're doing is tilting at windmills.
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text> Your final statement would be confusing but false none the less.
Disclaimer 4 -- Basically it says "due to the destruction" of the wtc , nist takes no position as to whether the wtc buildings were compliant with ANY codes when it was built or anytime after that. Then it says verification of compliance wasn't possible in any circumstance unless documentation or anecdotal evidence is provided or independent tests were performed by nist.
I didn't say anything about the original construction being in or not in compliance with building codes. What I said was testing, safety and data collection procedures for the report itself would have to meet some code or standard.

An example would be the fire testing on trusses. The report itself cites ASTM E119 as the applicable standard but the procedures of the company doing these tests would not be included in the report.

crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text> You are mistaken about undisclosed ,conceptual, anecdotal, "evidence " not being an issue on any level. These disclaimers are in place to relinquish all investigators and all parties participating in the investigation of liabilities and accountability.

But other than plausible deniability you did access the issues of procedures, undisclosed evidence , conceptual evidence etc correctly. None of these types of "evidence" are of any significance to the actual investigation.
The disclaimers do nothing if the sort and sorry to say but you're completely oblivious to how engineering based reports are written.
time tells-truth prevails

Winchester, KY

#254913 Apr 16, 2013
I need a job, how much does shilling pay now?
:)
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#254914 Apr 16, 2013
time tells-truth prevails wrote:
I need a job, how much does shilling pay now?
:)
Back to your old "nick", eh?
Charlie Sheen

Matthews, NC

#254915 Apr 16, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
-Assassination of various presidents.
-Civil War to take over the states.
-Funding wars to found the globalist United Nations.
-Locating the UN on US soil.
-Failing to protect US borders.
-Adulterating the food with known toxins.
-Geoengineering.
-False flags such as 9/11.
LOL, Get to the fluoride moonbat!
Charlie Sheen

Matthews, NC

#254916 Apr 16, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Cant retract facts. Its already out there. They would need to disprove their facts which they have not done. Why? Because the alleged hijackers were never on the planes.
Actually the did Tin Foil king, give me a name and I will prove there is no evidence they are alive Fluoride boy!

crucifiedguy

“atheism is knowing the bible ”

Since: Jan 09

fictional hell

#254917 Apr 16, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>No, I have one project on the go where the file exceeds 2500 pages. About 300 of those will become part of the final report and the rest are just supporting documents that need not be included.
NIST has no requirement to disclose or include third party procedures that were utilized during the discovery phase of their report.
You're so biased you don't understand that all you're doing is tilting at windmills.
<quoted text>I didn't say anything about the original construction being in or not in compliance with building codes. What I said was testing, safety and data collection procedures for the report itself would have to meet some code or standard.
An example would be the fire testing on trusses. The report itself cites ASTM E119 as the applicable standard but the procedures of the company doing these tests would not be included in the report.
<quoted text>The disclaimers do nothing if the sort and sorry to say but you're completely oblivious to how engineering based reports are written.
okay , I guess my position on anything to do with the largest legalized organized crime family the the world (u.s. govt.)could be viewed as biased , but it's not really . I do know us govt us best money can buy. The u.s.a. is ruled by money,but its population is ruled by threats of foreign invasion and war or fear of incarceration for something as insignificant as spitting on the sidewalk or possessing a plant that's deemed to be against the law ,because without a war (on drugs , terror ,etc)there can't be a defense budget increase.

So you mean nist had a code or specific procedures used to test the way they collected there evidence.

Reading an engineering based report is no different than reading the newspaper . Understanding the meaning of the words used makes all the difference in the world. I believe the third definition applies to my previous statement regarding liability,accountability.


disclaimer
1.
the act of disclaiming; the renouncing, repudiating, or denying of a claim; disavowal.
2.
a person who disclaims.
3.
a statement, document, or assertion that disclaims responsibility, affiliation, etc.; disavowal; denial.

peace ...

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the authors of any report/study/research can manipulate the language of the document so they are free of responsibility for the content being pushed.
This way they can embellish the research to provide a desired predetermined outcome.
time tells-truth prevails

Winchester, KY

#254919 Apr 16, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to your old "nick", eh?
nah, it's just that you have to be a shill...what else is keeping you here for all these years?
it's okay, really...do you have to have college to be a shill?
I need a job bad!
time tells-truth prevails

Winchester, KY

#254920 Apr 16, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the did Tin Foil king, give me a name and I will prove there is no evidence they are alive Fluoride boy!
now now Charlie, you do know that fluoride is bad for ya?
look into aluminum toxicity....honestly, I think 75% of the country's population is suffering the effects.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#254921 Apr 16, 2013
Did you get fired from your job as a Gay Male Prostitute ??
time tells-truth prevails wrote:
<quoted text>nah, it's just that you have to be a shill...what else is keeping you here for all these years?
it's okay, really...do you have to have college to be a shill?
I need a job bad!
time tells-truth prevails

Winchester, KY

#254922 Apr 16, 2013
I'm female sugar.
it's just that after the bush era, jobs are scarce.
time tells-truth prevails

Winchester, KY

#254923 Apr 16, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Did you get fired from your job as a Gay Male Prostitute ??
<quoted text>
do you like Obama better the Bush?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#254924 Apr 16, 2013
i think it was a deal. thats when muslims came in to news. and america started wars. before nobody knew about them much..

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min Cat 41,936
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min Rabbis on the Run 690,433
Charles Mansion Died Last Night 1 hr Rider on the Storm 5
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 3 hr Rabbis on the Run 124
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 4 hr Big Al 598
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 hr Rabbis on the Run 989,722
Sometimes I like Louis Farrakhan's "sermons"...... 10 hr Paul is dead 105
More from around the web