created by: djhixx | Oct 13, 2007

Top Stories

53,444 votes

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Click on an option to vote

  • yes
  • no
  • well, im not sure
Comments
236,761 - 236,780 of 259,392 Comments Last updated 6 min ago
onemale

Pana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255015
Apr 20, 2013
 
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.


Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255016
Apr 21, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What proof do you have of this?
That facts speak for themselves.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255017
Apr 21, 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
Yea Bush. Who cares about that stumble-bum? He couldn't get two facts straight.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255018
Apr 21, 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
What were your alleged explosives supposed to accomplish? The fact is the explosions were secondary explosions explained by fire investigators investigating qualified people who were at the scene and other evidence. Still looking for Twoof?
youtube

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255019
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

.

100% PROOF Pope Francis is ANTICHRIST_______



.

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255020
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Your Ginn Martini is coming out Fontain
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
A pretty fken creepy coincidence, don't ya think, b!tch.
onemale

Pana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255021
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's some delicious irony!
Just as I thought you have NO CREDENTIALS
onemale

Pana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255022
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What were your alleged explosives supposed to accomplish? The fact is the explosions were secondary explosions explained by fire investigators investigating qualified people who were at the scene and other evidence. Still looking for Twoof?
While the NIST report didn't include secondary explosions.
onemale

Pana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255023
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

According to a Former CIA Official
the Bush Administration Committed Fraud

&fe ature=endscreen&NR=1


We didn't hear this on the mainstream media,
where is the so-called liberal media when you need it???

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255029
Apr 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uh-Huh

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255032
Apr 22, 2013
 
No it wasn't.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255035
Apr 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255036
Apr 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min ChristINSANITY is... 730,928
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Catcher1 225,728
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 6 min well 94,425
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min Truth 537,423
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min WildWeirdWillie 173,012
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 12 min Wordsworth 4,268
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 13 min Faith 117,887
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 13 hr monu chauhan 104

Search the Top Stories Forum:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••