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

#255903 May 28, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
The stills from Aman Zafar...
http://amanzafar.com/WTC/
This is the first of his sequence...after the second plane hit
The close ups are extremely high res...and can be zoomed in
What can be seen is the conflagration apparently engulfing one complete floor and above and below...
http://amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-9.jpg
Here the First Tower collapse is in progress...
Obviously there is differing speeds at which the Tower is progressing...
Debris from the Towers that is free from the structure is obviously falling with the 'speed of gravity'...
While the Tower itself resists collapse...in essence, falling slower than freefall
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-40.jpg
I'll skip straight on down to the second Tower collapse...
Where after the outer shell has fallen away...
The inner core is still plainly visible...
You can even make out what appears to be a survivor in a stairwell...
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-69.jpg
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-71.jpg
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-72.jpg
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-73.jpg
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-74.jpg
amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-75.jpg
If you have the bandwidth...this is an incredible sequence of pics
Even showing debris being launched toward WTC7...
No bombs
No freefall or faster than freefall...
Just 19 islamofascist murdering cowardly terrorist that flew four planes into three buildings...
And murdered nearly 3000 innocent souls...
Exactly!!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255904 May 28, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
But but but
SuperDuperNanoThermite mysteriously showed up in dust particles 9 years after the collapse of the Towers...
Some mistakenly claim this proof of SuperDuperNanaThermite...
Is just rust
http://www.bollyn.com/game-over-evidence-of-s...
http://investigate911.org/Nano-thermite.htm
And TWENTY FIVE military officers agree 9-11 impossible (out of 236,826 TOTAL OFFICERS)
Would never meet the minimum chain of custody standards in any court of law.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255905 May 28, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Well to be fair, he's so delusional that he's willing to believe the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was a "false flag" because the guy who had both legs blown off was showing tenacity and character a few weeks later by being upbeat and positive.
He also waved a US flag and in twooferdumb, that's a no-no.
We must believe the US is inherently evil and any outward showing of patriotism is a sign of the devil himself!
Of course,
[His] Ignorance is [His] Bliss
The only false flag is the counterfeit American Flag made in China covering his window.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255906 May 28, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, He was not a manager he was a water tester and was fired for rigging tests. Also he was debunking the jet fuel melts can't melt steel strawman, very dishonest of him.
One of the BIG lies in the "truth" movement is that UL certifies steel. An ex-employee named Kevin Ryan, who worked as a water tester at UL, said "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." He says he knows this because UL certified steel components of the World Trade Center and that someone from the company who was connected with the UL testing told him this fact.
Now for some facts the "truth" movement doesn't tell you.
UL doesn't certify steel components like a steel truss or column. They certify assemblies. That means they certified the total assembly, all put together. They also didn't replicate the impact levels. They replicated a floor system with fireproofing as it would have been before the impact. They also tested it with various fireproofing thicknesses.(See above UL test results) The test trusses were physically undamaged and had intact fireproofing for the purpose of standard rating. What this means is that Mr. Ryan doesn't even know what his former employer does, much less what it did during the World Trade Center investigation. Maybe that's why they fired him...
The other lie in the "truth" movement is the characterization of what the NIST said was the cause of the collapse.
1) The NIST NEVER said burning jet fuel was the cause of the collapse. Only that it was a factor
2) If the assembly stayed together, it only SUPPORTS the NIST hypothesis that the trusses pulled the columns in.
3) The UL test caused the test trusses to sag even with fireproofing
What is your source of information?
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255907 May 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Lost billions of dollars and came out saying he participated in a criminal act.
Are you kidding me?
He leased the building from the federal government for $15 million and received $7 billion in insurance claims. I call that rather profitable.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255908 May 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Twenty pilots who couldn't hit the side of a barn? LMAO
Just one example: Robert Bowman flew 101 combat missions over Vietnam, I would say he had to be a pretty good shot to live to tell about that. As Lieutenant Major, he also flew the intercept jets many times.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255910 May 28, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one example: Robert Bowman flew 101 combat missions over Vietnam, I would say he had to be a pretty good shot to live to tell about that. As Lieutenant Major, he also flew the intercept jets many times.
He said the maneuver couldn't be done right?

This C-130 pilot proves his theory false.

onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255911 May 28, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Federal Reserve does not trade in Gold but please tell me more about how they are controlled by Satan so I can laugh at you.
PS: Did your the mother of your kids leave you because your were totally insane and just made up lie after lie?
Of course they don't openly admit to that, and they don't openly admit they give trillions to the world banks.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255912 May 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He said the maneuver couldn't be done right?
This C-130 pilot proves his theory false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =HFTNPEmZHXEXX
You Tube ?
Don't you have an official website from the us airforce?
Not that they aren't "doctored " also, but the government should have better physicians . You know look more "official" ,right ?

The Gloop

Since: Sep 08

.

#255913 May 28, 2013
Gloop.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255914 May 29, 2013
Wow!

"Silverstein made a killing"

"Impossible maneuvers"

Nice to see the sheep of twoof are still using such long debunked myths in their futile attempts to dumb others down to their pathetic level!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#255915 May 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The only false flag is the counterfeit American Flag made in China covering his window.
*touche*
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255916 May 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your source of information?
I'd be glad to give it to you when you show me your sources which I have asked for in these matters.

1. 100 percent of intercepts have been successful and Norad over North America has intercepted at least one plane in less than a hour and twenty minutes.

2. Ever inch of the Pentagon is filmed.

3. The FR participates in gold transactions.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255917 May 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they don't openly admit to that, and they don't openly admit they give trillions to the world banks.
They don't! LMFAO, That is one lame attempt at a rebuttal. Any proof, of course not.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255918 May 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one example: Robert Bowman flew 101 combat missions over Vietnam, I would say he had to be a pretty good shot to live to tell about that. As Lieutenant Major, he also flew the intercept jets many times.
A: Any link on that, show one over North America, by him or anyone else that took less that 1H20M.

B: Try to pay attention, one of you fellow tin foilers claims that there was a test of 20 commercial pilots and 19 of them could not hit the WTC (but oddly could land).
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255919 May 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
He leased the building from the federal government for $15 million and received $7 billion in insurance claims. I call that rather profitable.
LOL

Silverstein has lost 1.6 Billion and counting.

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911si...

The actual court ruling awarded Silverstein 4.68 Billion, not factoring in attorneys fees.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Si...

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006)

$4.7 billion in insurance money,$6.3 billion in costs?

Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverste...

$120 million dollars a year? So in the five years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $600 million on rent alone

6.3 billion in costs, 600 million in rent for ground with no building or revenue, almost 7 Billion in cost and 4.7 Billion in a insurance payout,

In a recent settlement the Port Authority agreed to pay half of the rebuilding cost which results in…..

A loss of about 1.6 billion for Larry Silverstein what a moneymaker!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255920 May 29, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
You Tube ?
Don't you have an official website from the us airforce?
Not that they aren't "doctored " also, but the government should have better physicians . You know look more "official" ,right ?
Hey that's the pilot talking. Why do you take exception too this site? It gives part of the picture. Besides, your post is just a typical straw-man meant to divert attention from the facts.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255921 May 29, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Silverstein has lost 1.6 Billion and counting.
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911si...
The actual court ruling awarded Silverstein 4.68 Billion, not factoring in attorneys fees.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Si...
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006)
$4.7 billion in insurance money,$6.3 billion in costs?
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverste...
$120 million dollars a year? So in the five years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $600 million on rent alone
6.3 billion in costs, 600 million in rent for ground with no building or revenue, almost 7 Billion in cost and 4.7 Billion in a insurance payout,
In a recent settlement the Port Authority agreed to pay half of the rebuilding cost which results in…..
A loss of about 1.6 billion for Larry Silverstein what a moneymaker!
Yea, real moneymakers there. For the lawyers.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255923 May 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey that's the pilot talking. Why do you take exception too this site? It gives part of the picture. Besides, your post is just a typical straw-man meant to divert attention from the facts.
Ok ,you want to talk facts .
Fact , nist factually states their ncstar 1 report is fabricated from evidence not directly related to the structures being investigated .
Fact ,Simulations from a computer do not qualify as real world investigation.
Fact , "Probable collapse sequence " in no way means "real world collapse" nor does it mean "only collapse sequence" . It means "possible collapse sequence "
Fact , nist states because congressional funding took to long, most of the evidence was destroyed or removed and discarded.
Fact , the ncstar 1 report specifically says all damage to the core columns and any interior damage such as fire proof insulation being knock the trusses ,were determined by computer driven "simulations" of which they used the ones that support their theory.
Fact, the ncstar 1 report is incomplete. At best it's an educated Guess.
Fact ,The ncstar 1 reports purpose was to determine the order of events from "impact" to "collapse initiation ", then provide recommendations for safer more structurally sound high rise buildings.
Fact once the planes "impacted the towers " nist had their "impact to initiation " requirements fulfilled . Everything they wrote after the impact of the planes would be an eminence front for the sake of the controlled , entertained masses foolish enough to believe this fictional literature. 1200 pages of bullshit may look impressive but when it comes to the nut cutting it fails miserably as the official story.
Fact , You cannot prove flight 77 hit the pentagon.If you have verifiable proof I'll be glad to look into it but as of yet every fu*kin one of ya'll saying this alleged aircraft impacted the pentagon have not provided any thing but circumstantial evidence. Not one picture of said plane has been produced , no one has provided an "official " link to these "witnesses" interviews .

Fact , any one supporting the official story do not live in a real world society and should stay home in their computerized virtual world where two planes can cause the "global collapse " of two 110 story high rises and a forty seven story structurally reinforced building.And ya'll say twoofers are stupid?


Feel free to debunk anything I stated here . Please refer to the ncstar1 report for references ,Aside from the pentagon statements ,as this is where I got most of my information .
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255924 May 29, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact , You cannot prove flight 77 hit the pentagon.If you have verifiable proof I'll be glad to look into it but as of yet every fu*kin one of ya'll saying this alleged aircraft impacted the pentagon have not provided any thing but circumstantial evidence. Not one picture of said plane has been produced , no one has provided an "official " link to these "witnesses" interviews .
LMFAO, All evidence points to 77, nothing points to anything else and you are going with something else.

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
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 2 min RiversideRedneck 113
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min Clearwater 88,081
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 12 min Peter Ross 531
topic sex forum gone? 15 min Cookie9904 59
How To Download Facebook and YouTube Videos in HD 19 min Hotty7564 2
Royal Holiday Timeshare Fraud 23 min Rose9858 2
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 27 min Tulip298 282
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Just Think 665,281
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr karl44 977,272
More from around the web