created by: djhixx | Oct 13, 2007

Top Stories

53,028 votes

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Click on an option to vote

  • yes
  • no
  • well, im not sure

Comments (Page 11,834)

Showing posts 236,661 - 236,680 of250,278
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

http://www.booksbychildren.com/
Yuri

Malta

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254548
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

The BIG Apple, NYC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254549
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254550
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...
You believe in speculative nonsense.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...
There was no free fall. WTC7 took around 18 seconds to come down start to finish.

GIANT FAIL

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254555
Apr 2, 2013
 
How were tons of steel plating necessary required to direct explosive charges concealed in WTC7?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254559
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

4

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
behold the lonely shills

Logan, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254563
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

in the past 10 hours 13 out of 14 posts from the govie shills...you guys seem awfully lonely now that most of the truthers are gone and don't even want to bother arguing with you anymore. I guess in your puny delusional minds that means you have won this debate, eh shills?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254564
Apr 2, 2013
 
behold the lonely shills wrote:
in the past 10 hours 13 out of 14 posts from the govie shills...you guys seem awfully lonely now that most of the truthers are gone and don't even want to bother arguing with you anymore. I guess in your puny delusional minds that means you have won this debate, eh shills?
Go play in your sandbox with the other Twoofer shills child.
Don

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254565
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no free fall. WTC7 took around 18 seconds to come down start to finish.
GIANT FAIL
There was a period of free-fall for the entire visible perimeter of WTC-7. This can be easily verified by anyone who understands how to determine free-fall acceleration in a video (and physics teacher David Chandler provides lessons to anyone who needs schooling -- including the NIST "investigators"!) Yes, even NIST has conceded a period of free fall for WTC-7.

You are an unrepentant and shameless liar. You accuse others of speculating, and yet your links are at best speculative (as is evident from the prominent role of words like "may have" and "probable" and "hypothesized." On the other hand, you deny FACTS (like the period of symmetric free-fall of the WTC-7 roof line) that undermine these speculations.

Here are actual experiments done with conventional thermite as a way of cutting through steel beams. You will see first hand that it is possible.

The fact that sophisticated thermitic pyrotechnic material has been found in the World Trade Center dust confirms demolition beyond all doubt.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/e...

Demolition means that 9/11 was an inside job.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254566
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Remember back in November 2012, when WasteOfWater graced us with her presence.

Ladies and gentleman, I present to you the actions of a disinfo agent, or a crazy person. Credibility has no importance to these people and their supporters of the official story.
WasteWater wrote:
FEMA lied about WTC7. The owner himself said it was "pulled" meaning demoed. What's more, just prior to the demolition, an official on the street told others to clear the area because the building was full of explosives. Cars in the same area were incinerated by a pyroclastic flow. The official FEMA report said the 46 story building collapsed due to fire. Pure BS.
What a Jackass.
WasteWater wrote:
I have no idea who's job it was. What I do know is that there are many lies and inconsistencies in the official reports and media coverage. There are too many unanswered questions.
My conclusion is that it was staged as part of a huge power play to side-step the United Nations and establish control of the Middle East along with the oil resources. It failed and backfired. We are now in the middle of WWIII which is being fought with drones, espionage, and counter espionage. We have suspended human rights and our Constitutional rights. People have become insane and paranoid. Most of our leaders are powerless to control what has been unleashed.
WasteWater wrote:
BS. Refute the evidence troll. Your reply is nothing but a pointless ad hominem statement.
What's the matter? Can't face the possibly that the government isn't protecting you and providing for national security?
Can't face the fact that people are telling lies, especially those entrusted to tell the truth?
I provided factual evidence with links. You have failed to refute one of them.
WasteWater wrote:
Larry Silverstein stated very clearly that they decided to "pull" the building. Then they watched it fall down. The Fire Chief on the ground told everyone to clear out just before they detonated the building. It takes at least three weeks to prepare a 67 story building for demolition.
Why did FEMA lie about it saying it fell down due to fire?
What a bunch of morons. Come on trolls. Refute the facts. I double dog dare you.
WasteWater wrote:
The firemen were pissed as hell. They knew blasts had been set off inside the building.
Interesting to note is the fact that controlled demolition requires cutting both the elevator shafts and stairwells along with weakening all structural members where the initial failure is planned. Afterward, precise sequential failures must be carried out in order to implode a structure.(This is what I understand from the experts and why they dismiss the notion that these buildings were brought down by aircraft.)
WasteWater wrote:
Carefully placed non-thermite charges with programmed RC activated timers. Do your research, don't ask stupid questions.
WasteWater wrote:
Brain-washing was easy to accomplish due to the fact that the media kept running the limited footage over and over. All that was required was to inject a false story into and superimposed upon that footage.
For example, the so called FEMA expert arrived and imposed the offical explanation upon the collapse of the towers. How would he have any amount of educated knowledge of such a complicated matter? The fact is he had part of the equation and lies to cover the other part. Yes, the building did collapse downward in a kind of pancake pile driver scenario. This was part of the demolition plan. What he left out were the parts where the stairways and elevator shafts were severed along with the weakening of other major supports prior to the demolition. He also left out the sequential charges. The planes alone could not take down any of the buildings.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 236,661 - 236,680 of250,278
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

579 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min RiversideRedneck 679,366
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min June VanDerMark 511,682
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 13 min KiMare 89,389
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min RiversideRedneck 216,343
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 15 min Jturner4643 217
Gay Snapchat Names 27 min BigBoy_x 1,296
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 36 min yon 37,991
teen snapchat nudes 39 min tomyybb 104
•••
•••
•••