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

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255280 Apr 30, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that mean you aren't smart enough to click on the link?
I don't ponder on any one pace of evidence I have looked at hundreds. Like Jesse Ventura, I go where the evidence leads
You have a link to Olsens clone wife in the hive, Infowars or Worldnet?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255281 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, then. We will work on subtraction in tomorrow's lesson.
Lets work with negative numbers,

911 was an inside job" - One IQ point =?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255283 Apr 30, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>Logic doesn't dictate anything. probable means it is possible ,not the only or even the best solution to solving a problem , but possibly.
After all if every possible scenario has not been entered into an equation to solve the problem then the answer is incomplete.
Its a matter of grammatical structuring . Understanding the literal meaning of the words and using them to confuse the reader . But anyone with a fourth grade education can actually look them up to yield their absolute definition .Not "probable " definition . Yes some words can mean different things when used in different contexts but it doesn't make a bit of difference how you use the word probable it will always mean it is possible and nothing more. I can give you a more probable alternative , Two planes hit the towers setting off a chain of brilliantly placed demolition charges causing the buildings to collapse into rubble. But this scenario was not included in the nist ncstar 1 report nor the building 7 report making these incomplete .
Wow!

So your more plausible explanation includes an unheard of degree of precision resulting in the pin point accuracy of a plane hitting a building in exactly the right spot going exactly the right speed at exactly the right attitude and angle to cause predictable damage to the building it hit as well as WTC 7...but miss these alleged "brilliantly placed explosives".

And the explosives in the towers delayed exploding about an hour each for the towers and 8 hours for WTC 7.

The explosives leave no audible or visual traces.

That's more plausible to you than impact>fire>creep/deform ation>structural failure>collapse.

Hmmm....

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#255284 Apr 30, 2013
WOW, That's pretty good for guys who allegedly couldn't fly the planes
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!
So your more plausible explanation includes an unheard of degree of precision resulting in the pin point accuracy of a plane hitting a building in exactly the right spot going exactly the right speed at exactly the right attitude and angle to cause predictable damage to the building it hit as well as WTC 7...but miss these alleged "brilliantly placed explosives".
And the explosives in the towers delayed exploding about an hour each for the towers and 8 hours for WTC 7.
The explosives leave no audible or visual traces.
That's more plausible to you than impact>fire>creep/deform ation>structural failure>collapse.
Hmmm....

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255285 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>I'm guessing neither you nor the Canadian tried to solve the simple algebra problem I gave you for homework, huh? No doubt you would have LYFAO all over your keyboard.

Here it is again... Porkpie's equation and a second simple one, so that we don't have to stare into the infinite abyss of possible solutions that Porkpie's equation alone yields:

----------
Given x+y=2 and x-2y=1. Solve for x and y.
----------

From Porkpie's equation, we can solve for y --> y=2-x
Then we can substitute this into the second equation, like so:
x-2(2-x)=1 --> x-4+2x=1 -->3x=5 ==> x=5/3 and y=1/3

So x=1.666...(Holy Mary Mother of God! An infinitely repeating decimal AND the Mark of the Beast!)
and y=0.333...(Yikes!! A pair of infinities! What to do?!)

That just "defies logic and reality and is a totally unreasonable assumption and violates the accuracy implied in the original problem", huh?!

Porkpie is reaching for his FINITE element analysis first aid kit now, and you're LYFAO again...

Maybe we need to go back and review addition and subtraction tomorrow. You boys won't ever get up to speed without a grasp of the fundamentals.
What defies logic is your attempts to win cheap, irrelevant points by extrapolating a meaning to a simple explanation into something it was never intended for.

But it keeps you from having to prove your claim about the NIST report and is great for a laugh so carry on!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255286 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, then. We will work on subtraction in tomorrow's lesson. Maybe I'll even give you some real-world applications...

... although that might make your little head explode.

(and Charles is most definitely at risk...)
First you'll have to get through grade school math.

Let us know when you've finally passed!
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#255287 Apr 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
What defies logic is your attempts to win cheap, irrelevant points by extrapolating a meaning to a simple explanation into something it was never intended for.
...
Your simple explanation was 100% wrong. No doubt that was unintended, as was the clear demonstration of your complete lack of understanding of elementary mathematics, never mind physics.
Your Real Dad

Lincoln, NE

#255288 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Charles, the energy that a part has immediately upon leaving the Towers is actually very relevant -- and it's a real shame you keep losing your ass like that.
You said the energy upon building exit "were not available for
severing/deforming the steel columns!"

So please explain how they are relevant to "severing/deforming the steel columns" outside the building?

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#255289 Apr 30, 2013
RADEKT wrote:
<quoted text>WOW, That's pretty good for guys who allegedly couldn't fly the planes
http://m.blogs.computerworld.com/cybercrime-a...

Its called remotely hijacking an aircraft and guiding with GPS precision into target. You know, the way precision guided missiles or bombs work? And most likely they missed the evidence of this the same way they missed that landing gear with a rope around it, that was found wedged between two buildings without leaving an impact mark a decade later, catfish.

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#255290 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>Your simple explanation was 100% wrong. No doubt that was unintended, as was the clear demonstration of your complete lack of understanding of elementary mathematics, never mind physics.
X+Y=2 and your break down of the Canadians flawed math and logic was a wonderful example of the way coincidence theorists who use bias to evaluate information think. Instead of solving for the answer, they assume the answer and solve for the equation. The exact opposite of the scientific method.

The Freudian slip of X+Y=2 - where 2 = the planes and resulting fire obviously caused the buildings collapse. So destroy the evidence and theoretically try to describe the math that can explain that preconceived conclusion. Then claim scientific peer review checked the math, while ignoring the fact that those reviews ignored the fact the investigation itself was inherently flawed, and all resulting data should not be trusted.

A real scientific investigation uses the formula A+B=C. Where C would have precluded the investigators from needing to cover-up A and B.

Now watch him mischaracterize what he said the way he mischaracterizes what others say. Watch him back pedal, insult and laugh to cover his own failure to grasp concepts.

And we know the reason is because

Insults Are Easier
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#255291 Apr 30, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
You claimed it had depleted so much it could not damage a column, show your math hole digging twoofer.
I claimed that? Really? I think you are misremembering something, which isn't a surprise.

Here's an example you might appreciate. Remember back when you accidentally shot yourself in the forehead with your daddy's nail gun? No, you probably don't remember that, poor boy. Anyway, the energy that the nail still had upon exiting your skull COULD have been expended rearanging bone and brains, had you actually had any brains. Fortunately, since you had no brains, and since the back of your skull already had a gaping hole from that time when you were playing with your daddy's gun, the nail encountered little resistance and was able to sail through without inflicting more damage...(until it hit the family gerbil and tacked her to the wall, but that's another story).

Anyway, the energy that that nail had upon exiting your skull is VERY relevant to you in that it represents damage that COULD HAVE diminished your functional capacity even further.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255292 Apr 30, 2013
No. 9/11 was not a government conspiracy.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255293 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
I claimed that? Really? I think you are misremembering something, which isn't a surprise.
And the twoofer 2 second attention span is cemented.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255294 Apr 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
A real scientific investigation uses the formula A+B=C. Where C would have precluded the investigators from needing to cover-up A and B.
As one in the legal field you could not be more wrong, what the heck would A and B even be, at most you start with A, the evidence and see where it leads you, you don't assume that the answer is C or anything else.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255295 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
I claimed that? Really? I think you are misremembering something, which isn't a surprise.
LOL, You do anything to avoid backing up your actual point.
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
In its explanation for the tower collapse initiation, NIST relied on the unfounded and faulty assumption that most of the fire insulation was somehow removed from the steel in the impact zone, rendering the structure much more vulnerable, but this already requires more energy that was available in the impacts.
Show your math on the claim dislodging fireproofing " requires more energy that was available in the impacts."

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255296 Apr 30, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>Your simple explanation was 100% wrong. No doubt that was unintended, as was the clear demonstration of your complete lack of understanding of elementary mathematics, never mind physics.
No, your knowledge of mathematics and physics is 100% incorrect.

Infinite finite element analysis.

Wow...just wow!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255297 Apr 30, 2013
Your Real Dad wrote:
<quoted text>You said the energy upon building exit "were not available for
severing/deforming the steel columns!"

So please explain how they are relevant to "severing/deforming the steel columns" outside the building?
It's like twoofers really do come from another planet with completely different laws of physics!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255298 Apr 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>X+Y=2 and your break down of the Canadians flawed math and logic was a wonderful example of the way coincidence theorists who use bias to evaluate information think. Instead of solving for the answer, they assume the answer and solve for the equation. The exact opposite of the scientific method.

The Freudian slip of X+Y=2 - where 2 = the planes and resulting fire obviously caused the buildings collapse. So destroy the evidence and theoretically try to describe the math that can explain that preconceived conclusion. Then claim scientific peer review checked the math, while ignoring the fact that those reviews ignored the fact the investigation itself was inherently flawed, and all resulting data should not be trusted.

A real scientific investigation uses the formula A+B=C. Where C would have precluded the investigators from needing to cover-up A and B.

Now watch him mischaracterize what he said the way he mischaracterizes what others say. Watch him back pedal, insult and laugh to cover his own failure to grasp concepts.

And we know the reason is because

Insults Are Easier
Such wonderful irony!

Steel plating.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255299 Apr 30, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>As one in the legal field you could not be more wrong, what the heck would A and B even be, at most you start with A, the evidence and see where it leads you, you don't assume that the answer is C or anything else.
We must remember that we're dealing with idiots who start with the conclusion that "911 was an inside job" then try fitting the evidence around it.

Their failure is imminent based on the flawed logic they started with.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255302 Apr 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
We must remember that we're dealing with idiots who start with the conclusion that "911 was an inside job" then try fitting the evidence around it.
Their failure is imminent based on the flawed logic they started with.
Yea, Don't know if you ever listen to the podcast Skeptoid but it's short and entertaining, they have had them on the truth movement.

I thought this was interesting.

First of all, the phrase "official story" has become problematic. All it really refers to is the generally accepted explanation or definition. For example, the "official story" is that the human body has 206 bones. The "official story" is that an atom of radon contains 86 protons. The "official story" is that Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy atomic bomb in 1945. Just by referring to any observation or result as the "official story", it makes it seem to be shrouded in doubt or tainted by political corruption. Thus, virtually all web sites promoting an alternative version of the September 11 attacks will start by dismissing all observations and evidence as the "official story". In this sense, "official story" is what we call a weasel word; terminology intended to communicate something other than what the words actually mean. In the strict sense, the official story is the one that's most authoritative and best supported; but in common usage, it's only employed when the intent is to cast doubt.

And casting doubt seems to be the strongest reason to believe that it was a missile and not an airliner. There are mountains of evidence confirming what so many people witnessed on that day, evidence that's all rock solid and that has no real flaws. This is the case with a lot of conspiracy theories, yet it never detracts from the popularity of the conspiracy theory. It's not possible in one show to cover all the many objections raised to the official story, but we will look at a handful that are representative of the whole. With the exception of a couple claims that are simply factually wrong, each specific objection is based simply on the possibility that some observation might be consistent with an alternate version of events. Unfortunately, "consistent with" is not "evidence of".

------

AND THEN it led to what we see here, any theory goes as long as the "offical story" is ruled out. All evidence supporting the offical story is planted or the strawman "Do you believe everything you are told?" is used.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354

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 7 min Jeb Stewart 24,926
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 14 min DENG 39,257
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 17 min Anthony MN 685,532
Got any good jokes?? (Mar '07) 59 min Gray Box 1,830
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Aerobatty 985,597
Sade and Mel Blanc 1 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr curtjester1 46,285
More from around the web