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

#255948 May 29, 2013
Where did flight 77 if not into the Pentagon?

That's where all the wreckage of Flight 77 was found. Did flight 77 become Twoofer Dust?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255949 May 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever see one photograph of the buckled steel, or any physical proof that it buckled from the heat of an office fire?
Of course not Opie, because
Insults Are Easier
Yes I have seen steel buildings buckled by ordinary fires. Hell, the pellet stove reaches 1,000 degrees in a few minutes. Parts inside warp. Hi-rise buildings get up to 3,000 degrees due to updrafts.

crucifiedguy

“atheism is knowing the bible ”

Since: Jan 09

fictional hell

#255950 May 29, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I am calling you stupid, but I am.
28. Why didn’t NIST conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?
For studying the impact on a 110-story building by an actual Boeing 767 aircraft, a full-scale test was not feasible. For a test to capture the response of the towers as a system, it would have been necessary to construct a test assembly that included the core columns, exterior columns, floors and hat truss. Even to replicate experimentally the response of the floors near and above the impact zones would have required test assemblies of about 20 stories for WTC 1 and 30 stories for WTC 2. No facility exists to conduct such a test, either with fire or in the absence of fire; and, indeed, such tests are not conducted in current engineering practice.
Therefore, NIST relied on high-fidelity finite element modeling of the aircraft impact event and subsequent fires. The analyses were calibrated against the observed structural response of the towers upon impact (videos, photographs, and physical evidence) and the evolution of the ensuing fires.
NIST did not conduct reduced-scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.
Furthermore, fire test facilities with the capability to apply arbitrary fire exposures (in contrast to the standard time-temperature exposure) and arbitrary loads to structural components did not exist in the United States at the time of the investigation. Even had such a facility been existent, each large-scale structural fire test would have evaluated only a single set of conditions, e.g., structural system, fire exposure, amount of fireproofing, etc. Even a modest parametric series of such tests would have been prohibitively expensive.
NIST did conduct full-scale fire tests of single and multiple workstations. These tests were of sufficient size to properly capture the combustion physics. These tests established burning histories, mass burning rates, and heat release rates. The results were used to validate the fire dynamics calculations for fire growth and spread (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5E). NIST also conducted full-scale fire tests exposing insulated and bare structural elements to real fires to validate the fire and thermal modeling approaches (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5B).
Thank you for clarifying the ncstar 1 report was an educated guess. Using simulation software to produce an answer is not absolute . It can be manipulated easier than any size scale model.
They only assume insulation was "knocked off" , assume the heat caused the failure , and assume these core columns were severed.

An educated guess. Call me whatever makes you feel superior .I don't care . I read the report , I got my facts straight out of the report, and any thing you try to debunk it with only shows the report to be contradictive or fabricated. Why would nist claim plausible deniability from the start. Read the description of the first tower being hit . The first paragraph will suffice.

crucifiedguy

“atheism is knowing the bible ”

Since: Jan 09

fictional hell

#255951 May 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a well known fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
NEXT
Show me the fuselage , a tail section with numbers on it , or maybe remains of passengers. Or did they burn up do to the fires caused by the jet fuel and office furniture fires?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255952 May 29, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text> Show me the fuselage , a tail section with numbers on it , or maybe remains of passengers. Or did they burn up do to the fires caused by the jet fuel and office furniture fires?
Don't need too. The flight boxes were recovered. Besides, where could flight 77 have gone if not into the Pentagon? The C-130 pilot saw it happen. So did a whole bunch of other people.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255953 May 29, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text> Show me the fuselage , a tail section with numbers on it , or maybe remains of passengers. Or did they burn up do to the fires caused by the jet fuel and office furniture fires?
BTW, charred passengers were still strapped into their seats. Other witnesses verified this information.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255954 May 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I have seen steel buildings buckled by ordinary fires. Hell, the pellet stove reaches 1,000 degrees in a few minutes. Parts inside warp. Hi-rise buildings get up to 3,000 degrees due to updrafts.
According to architects there were no updrafts the towers were designed to prevent that.
Commonsense tells us that sheet metal may buckle with a 1000 degree fire but not massive steel beams.
The exhaust valve in your auto engine normally run around 1500 degrees, it doesn't warp or melt.
Furthermore, there were nothing that was flammable in the core columns.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255955 May 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need too. The flight boxes were recovered. Besides, where could flight 77 have gone if not into the Pentagon? The C-130 pilot saw it happen. So did a whole bunch of other people.
We were told they identified the passengers by fingerprints and DNA... What kind of fire vaporizes aluminum and tempered steel but leaves bodies in tack???
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255956 May 29, 2013
Yellow Star Seed is Back wrote:
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Charlie went from Mr. Knowledgeable to Mr. Yawn in one post, and now he is Mr. Spam.
What a pathetic tool he is, he is here to occupy you and frustrate you as you beat him like a dead horse. His cohorts will then shine the spotlight on you and try to make you look unhinged.
I already know your playbook.
AMEN to that... so true
The Spelling Otter

Groveland, CA

#255957 May 30, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
We were told they identified the passengers by fingerprints and DNA... What kind of fire vaporizes aluminum and tempered steel but leaves bodies in tack???
That's "intact".

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255958 May 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Thats some good copy/paste Opie, but when it comes to organizing and analyzing the facts before reaching a conclusion, not your strength.

James R. Cissell claimed to see the commercial plane fly into and strike the Pentagon in a "perfectly straight line" while sitting in traffic.

Perfectly straight lines indicate an aircraft without wing wobble, course correcting, almost GPS like - all by an amateur pilot. But never mind, because this witness is lying.

He states he saw a blur, and an aircraft traveling 500 mph and low its what you expect him to see, but he goes on to say this.

"That is a big plane.'Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,"

From seeing a blur, to seeing faces, is a clear sign this witness is embellishing, either because he just wants attention, or was coerced like the cab driver who admitted coercion. Had this testimony been given under oath, would have been ripped apart by even the most novice of attorney's on cross.

How many other of your frantic copy/pastes contain equally as flawed information?

But I'm sure for you

Insults Are Easier
There's just so much irony in a poster who uses multiple yourubes as his basis for evidunce criticizing another poster posting a first hand witness account of an event.

The fact is he saw a plane dippy.

Embellishment to include faces is irrelevant and the sighting of the plane is in accordance with other accounts and the evidence.

No planers are the most idiotic of all twoofers.

All you've accomplished is proving once again that,

[Your] Ignorance is [Your] Bliss

Steel plating.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255959 May 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Did you ever see one photograph of the buckled steel, or any physical proof that it buckled from the heat of an office fire?

Of course not Opie, because

Insults Are Easier
Have you seen one piece of steel which was blown apart by explosives?

Awww.... Your failed logic suits you.

Because,

[Your] Ignorance is [Your] Bliss

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#255960 May 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
None of this is true, and my opinions are clearly stated on the Boston thread.
Its was a Boston Strong flag and the guy was celebrating 20 days after such a traumatic event. I just found the behavior odd and nowhere did I say it was conclusive of anything.
But all you can do is "twoofer" people, because you find the mere questioning of authority offensive, as true subjects of the crown generally do.
Your ignorance is my bliss, and for you without truth
Insults Are Easier
Of course you'll lie and claim it's not true, but the body of your posts taken as a whole says something completely different.

You did clam his flag waving had something to do with your idiotic belief that the bombing was a false flag.

Your OP ties your "feelings" of the bombing to your ridiculous beliefs about 911.

You posted a yourube video which had exactly zero purpose other than to mock a person who's legs were blown off.

Everything you post is of the exact same variety...and always a yourube made by some little idiot with no clue about the subject matter but a bias matching your own.

You must have tons of eperience with double amputees behavioural patterns to claim anything was odd right Ignorance?

And questioning authority is worlds apart from making up stupid conspiracies then trying to pass them off as reality. I've repeatedly stated that I'd accept 911 being an inside job IF the evidence existed and that the Iraq war was wrong and I'm quite proud my country said no when asked to join forces.

Sorry Ignorance but as walways all you do is re-confirm that,

[Your] Ignorance is [Your] Bliss

Molten steel.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#255961 May 30, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, charred passengers were still strapped into their seats. Other witnesses verified this information.
There's also pictures confirming in the Moussoui trial exhibits.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#255962 May 30, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects there were no updrafts the towers were designed to prevent that.
Commonsense tells us that sheet metal may buckle with a 1000 degree fire but not massive steel beams.
The exhaust valve in your auto engine normally run around 1500 degrees, it doesn't warp or melt.
Furthermore, there were nothing that was flammable in the core columns.
You're so clueless it's funny!

Heat alone doesn't cause steel to buckle...and believe or not, there's different grades of steel which are applicable to different conditions.

The valves in your car engine are not A36 steel you dippy little useless idiot.

"To increase high temperature strength and corrosion resistance, various elements may be added to the steel. On some passenger car and light truck engines, the original equipment intake valves are 1541 carbon steel with manganese added to improve corrosion resistance. For higher heat applications, a 8440 alloy may be used that contains chromium to add high temperature strength. For many late model engines (and performance engines), the intake valves are made of an alloy called "Silchrome 1" (Sil 1) that contains 8.5 percent chromium."

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/1171/...

Good grief twoofers are fools!

crucifiedguy

“atheism is knowing the bible ”

Since: Jan 09

fictional hell

#255963 May 30, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need too. The flight boxes were recovered. Besides, where could flight 77 have gone if not into the Pentagon? The C-130 pilot saw it happen. So did a whole bunch of other people.


Well I totally believe the Official story now that you've put it that way.Your answer has given me everything I asked for and more. Well except for the proof portion of my question. What exactly is a c130 's purpose in u.s. military?

I don't know what I was thinking , flight 77 had to have hit the pentagon cause a whole bunch of people saw it.Even a government pilot paid by the very people that can't show any records of the whereabouts of the 2.3 trillion bucks provided by tax payers. I'm just silly to think our government would try to hide any type of financial discrepancies .

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255964 May 30, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for clarifying the ncstar 1 report was an educated guess. Using simulation software to produce an answer is not absolute . It can be manipulated easier than any size scale model.
They only assume insulation was "knocked off" , assume the heat caused the failure , and assume these core columns were severed.

An educated guess. Call me whatever makes you feel superior .I don't care . I read the report , I got my facts straight out of the report, and any thing you try to debunk it with only shows the report to be contradictive or fabricated. Why would nist claim plausible deniability from the start. Read the description of the first tower being hit . The first paragraph will suffice.
Still at it eh?

The NIST report was as much of a guess as a medical professional stating a .45 cal bullet fired at close range to the cerebral cortex would be fatal is an educated guess.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255965 May 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, huh? He copy/pasted that response so fast he forgot what my original question was about
Was it about 20 pilots who could not fly?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255966 May 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
aircraft seconds before it crashed into the Pentagon?
Ahh. It flew very low and hit lampposts?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255967 May 30, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
They only assume insulation was "knocked off" , assume the heat caused the failure , and assume these core columns were severed.
An educated guess.
Yes, The planes go through the buildings, come out the other side but don't hit the core, like sawing a lady in half, it's magic! They did flew around the core, INSIDE THE BUILDINGS!

PS: There is visual proof that the coating had been falling off for years.

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 32 min Vlad 2,631
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 hr Trump Worshiper 119,201
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr Trump Worshiper 679,123
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr earthly science f... 445,839
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 5 hr Holy Jehowa Witness 46,214
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 5 hr Trumps worshiper 33,216
Melania Trump's hair shines in Saudi sun 5 hr Trumps worshiper 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) Thu UMAKEWORLDPEACEUM... 982,141
More from around the web