Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,987 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255025 Apr 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Credentials are meaningless. Does anyone of your links provide something other than an unsubstantiated opinion? The evidence speaks for itself. It is both tangible and verifiable as are the numerous people who were there and involved. Arm-chair quarterbacks have nothing useful to add.
In your own words from above quoted statement.
If you weren't there or involved that would technically make you an A.C. quarterback, therefore nothing you add here would be useful.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken.And to be honest the nist ncstar 1 report (official govt story ) is admittedly only an educated guess
(probable collapse sequence) derived from "evidence" both related to and not related to the two buildings being investigated(disclaimer ). I said educated as the authors of the ncstar1 report do have a higher education than me . Just no common sense.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255026 Apr 21, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
While the NIST report didn't include secondary explosions.
Who cares? Still means nothing. The hijacked planes hit the buildings. The buildings eventually collapsed. End of story.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255027 Apr 21, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
In your own words from above quoted statement.
If you weren't there or involved that would technically make you an A.C. quarterback, therefore nothing you add here would be useful.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken.And to be honest the nist ncstar 1 report (official govt story ) is admittedly only an educated guess
(probable collapse sequence) derived from "evidence" both related to and not related to the two buildings being investigated(disclaimer ). I said educated as the authors of the ncstar1 report do have a higher education than me . Just no common sense.
The evidence fits the official report. Therefore it is more than an educated guess. A common sense approach to what happened also fits. Education means little if it is misused in a speculative manner devoid of practical input.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255028 Apr 21, 2013
onemale wrote:
According to a Former CIA Official
the Bush Administration Committed Fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =7a3Bfox0k4gXX&feature=end screen&NR=1
We didn't hear this on the mainstream media,
where is the so-called liberal media when you need it???
Still doesn't alter the fact that the hijacked airliners caused the buildings to collapse.
THIS THREAD IS DEAD

Santa Cruz, CA

#255029 Apr 21, 2013
Uh-Huh

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255030 Apr 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence fits the official report. Therefore it is more than an educated guess. A common sense approach to what happened also fits. Education means little if it is misused in a speculative manner devoid of practical input.
Yes I agree the evidence fits the (official )" report". To bad the evidence wasn't contained to just the structures being investigated. More than an educated guess would be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Please provide the page number of the ncstar 1 report that states the verifiable actual collapse sequence. Input by any means is only as good as the information being used to produce it. Manipulated information will almost always produce a desired outcome. How did nist determine the baseline performance of these towers when they were already destroyed? Couldn't very well perform tests to arrive at the equation . Had to use computer simulations. You might want to understand what a simulation actually is before saying the report is more than an educated guess (which nist admits the ncstar 1 report to be ) by using the term "probable collapse sequence ". If it wasn't a guess it would say only "collapse sequence" .

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#255031 Apr 22, 2013
onemale wrote:
I try to keep politics out of 9/11 but it keeps popping up.
Bush talked about explosives in buildings on 9/11
That's interesting because a NIST report spokesperson denied any explosives, and they admitted they didn't even check for explosives or evidence of them.
These liars aren't keeping their stories straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =USnxe7hxP4IXX
Good grief!

Funny how you call someone a liar in a post where you're spewing lies yourself.

NIST didn't directly test for explosives residues. They did however visually examine the steel as well as do positive material identification.

Saying they didn't check for explosives does nothing but expose your personal ignorance and verifies your need to avoid fact.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#255032 Apr 22, 2013
No it wasn't.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#255034 Apr 22, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I agree the evidence fits the (official )" report". To bad the evidence wasn't contained to just the structures being investigated. More than an educated guess would be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Please provide the page number of the ncstar 1 report that states the verifiable actual collapse sequence. Input by any means is only as good as the information being used to produce it. Manipulated information will almost always produce a desired outcome. How did nist determine the baseline performance of these towers when they were already destroyed? Couldn't very well perform tests to arrive at the equation . Had to use computer simulations. You might want to understand what a simulation actually is before saying the report is more than an educated guess (which nist admits the ncstar 1 report to be ) by using the term "probable collapse sequence ". If it wasn't a guess it would say only "collapse sequence" .
You might want to know what an FEA is before hand waving it away as simply an educated guess.

If that's the case then every engineered product produced after about 1975 was based on nothing more than a guess that it would stand/work/operate.

Obviously a ridiculous statement.
anon

Minneapolis, MN

#255035 Apr 22, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief!
Funny how you call someone a liar in a post where you're spewing lies yourself.
NIST didn't directly test for explosives residues. They did however visually examine the steel as well as do positive material identification.
Saying they didn't check for explosives does nothing but expose your personal ignorance and verifies your need to avoid fact.
Good grief!
"Visually examine steel" for explosives.
"Nist didn't directly test for explosive residue" which is REQUIRED in all fires in buildings.

Saying they didn't check? THEY DIDNT CHECK. They 'visually' checked?

GOOD GRIEF!

nothing but morons out in the world.

No wonder elites can conspire to do what they will.
You people are dumb as shit
anon

Minneapolis, MN

#255036 Apr 22, 2013
Rest of the world knows why Saudis were used on 911 to justify intervention in middle east.
Along with the patriot act.
Along with homeland security.

You idiots can deny the obvious all you want.

No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire.
Especially one like WTC7, which was reinforced to be a COMMAND CENTER.
anon

Minneapolis, MN

#255037 Apr 22, 2013
http://m.youtube.com/index...

Stupid people filled with ignorance and apathy allowed this to happen.
Just look around you...

See how many clueless and ignorant people go about their daily unexamined lives.

Ignorance of these people is what caused 911.

Stupid people force elites to lie to them.

"does this dress look fat on me?"

"No, sweetie, you look great. "
anon

Minneapolis, MN

#255038 Apr 22, 2013
Hows that $250 mil for al-qaeda "freedom fighters " working out for you?

Hows that liberation of women in middle east working out for you?
Egypt sure did well electing "Muslim brotherhood" hardliners into office.

No talk of "liberating" women in Saudi Arabia....
I wonder if that's because Saudi is our bitch who agreed to only sell oil in u.s. printed currency?

Stupid morons...
there's so many of you out there
onemale

Pana, IL

#255039 Apr 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares? Still means nothing. The hijacked planes hit the buildings. The buildings eventually collapsed. End of story.
Where are the videos showing a 757 hitting the Pentgon???
What happened to the 100 ton aircraft? With a length of 156', with a wing span of 124' and a tail section four stories high.
With indestructible landing gear, indestructible titanium engines???

The initial hole in the Pentagon was only 16' in diameter, most people don't know that because that video was only aired once.
The wreckage at the Pentagon ls totally inconsistent with the wreckage at the twin towers.


onemale

Pana, IL

#255040 Apr 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Still doesn't alter the fact that the hijacked airliners caused the buildings to collapse.
It does show how the Bush Administration lied. Bush wanted to sell us on a war with Iran, after Iran asked to negotiate with the U.S. If Bush is that corrupt, what else are they hiding??? He (and Obama) has lost all credibility. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. The Bush family is blood thirsty satanists.
onemale

Pana, IL

#255043 Apr 22, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief!
Funny how you call someone a liar in a post where you're spewing lies yourself.
NIST didn't directly test for explosives residues. They did however visually examine the steel as well as do positive material identification.
Saying they didn't check for explosives does nothing but expose your personal ignorance and verifies your need to avoid fact.
In addition too... firefighters reported tons of molten steel. While a NIST spokesperson said their were none. I know these were real firefighters because just before 9/11 a reporter was doing a documentary about the New York firefighters and I recognized the faces.
quible

Austin, TX

#255044 Apr 22, 2013
anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief!
"Visually examine steel" for explosives.
"Nist didn't directly test for explosive residue" which is REQUIRED in all fires in buildings.
Saying they didn't check? THEY DIDNT CHECK. They 'visually' checked?
GOOD GRIEF!
nothing but morons out in the world.
No wonder elites can conspire to do what they will.
You people are dumb as shit
I'd like to point out a logical error in your post. You were responding to a person goes by the name of "Porkpie Hat." You can make a case that this "Hat" person is dumb as shit, but you have no basis for generalizing that this conclusion applies to ALL people.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#255046 Apr 22, 2013
required by who ?!?!?!
anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief!
"Visually examine steel" for explosives.
"Nist didn't directly test for explosive residue" which is REQUIRED in all fires in buildings.
Saying they didn't check? THEY DIDNT CHECK. They 'visually' checked?
GOOD GRIEF!
nothing but morons out in the world.
No wonder elites can conspire to do what they will.
You people are dumb as shit

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255047 Apr 22, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are the videos showing a 757 hitting the Pentgon???
What happened to the 100 ton aircraft? With a length of 156', with a wing span of 124' and a tail section four stories high.
With indestructible landing gear, indestructible titanium engines???
The initial hole in the Pentagon was only 16' in diameter, most people don't know that because that video was only aired once.
The wreckage at the Pentagon ls totally inconsistent with the wreckage at the twin towers.
BS. You are still looking at the hole in the Pentagon courtyard.

Please don't embarrass yourself any more.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255048 Apr 22, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are the videos showing a 757 hitting the Pentgon???
What happened to the 100 ton aircraft? With a length of 156', with a wing span of 124' and a tail section four stories high.
With indestructible landing gear, indestructible titanium engines???
The initial hole in the Pentagon was only 16' in diameter, most people don't know that because that video was only aired once.
The wreckage at the Pentagon ls totally inconsistent with the wreckage at the twin towers.
The pilot of the C-131 say the plane hit the Pentagon as well as many others who also saw the plane just before it hit. Ted Olsen's wife died on that plane.

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
"Bad News: 71% of Women do NOT Reach An Orgasm... 21 min dethmetalchick 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 34 min Peace_Warrior 615,721
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 42 min MUQ2 42,229
Muslims go home 46 min reality check 13
White women what do you fantasize about doing t... (Jun '10) 1 hr Johnny 37
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Spider1954 950,248
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 1 hr Frank Merton 698
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Rosesz 627,239
More from around the web