Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,497 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

onemale

Pana, IL

#255993 May 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Structural steel used in high rise building is no run-of-the-mill cheap metal, it is a specified ASTM standard. My source is
Underwriters Laboratories.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255995 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
so are you implicating silverstein in some sort of negligence suit for being a slum lord ? Maybe an insurance fraud claim ? Better yet an involuntary manslaughter charge 3000 times for not maintaining saftey regulations?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#255996 May 31, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>Structural steel used in high rise building is no run-of-the-mill cheap metal, it is a specified ASTM standard. My source is
Underwriters Laboratories.
You're an imbecile.

The grade used was typical for all structural steel.

A36.

And UL doesn't certify or classify steel.

Another thing about your idiotic car engine analogy...what temp does your liquid cooled engine run at?

From the "quality" of your posts I'm thinking you're another govie shill who's purpose is to make twoofers look as dumb and ignorant as possible.

You're doing a fantastic job!
Anonymous

Japan

#255997 May 31, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief twoofers are fools!
This. I have taken more than a few fire science and technology classes in college. Objects are branded all the time as beng fire "retardant" or resistant, but that's only because of their molecular structure. When something that isn't made to ignite and burn it can still warp, bend, shapeshift, & buckle. Don't believe me just have a little self-initiative to walk to a fire house and ask questions. Arson has possible scenarios that are limitless.
Anonymous

Japan

#255998 May 31, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice rant!!!
U MAD bro?
I don't know whether he was mad or not. But some people sure like to copy and paste.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#255999 May 31, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>This. I have taken more than a few fire science and technology classes in college. Objects are branded all the time as beng fire "retardant" or resistant, but that's only because of their molecular structure. When something that isn't made to ignite and burn it can still warp, bend, shapeshift, & buckle. Don't believe me just have a little self-initiative to walk to a fire house and ask questions. Arson has possible scenarios that are limitless.
Self initiative would result in their little bubbles bursting.

The last thing a twoofer wants is knowledge about the subject matter they argue about.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#256000 May 31, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't what the report said.
There you go again over in left field.
LOL, Well link me then, all you claimed was DNA had to come from intact bodies. And that is the TWOOF!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#256001 May 31, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Structural steel used in high rise building is no run-of-the-mill cheap metal, it is a specified ASTM standard. My source is
Underwriters Laboratories.
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
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#256002 May 31, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
so are you implicating silverstein in some sort of negligence suit for being a slum lord ? Maybe an insurance fraud claim ? Better yet an involuntary manslaughter charge 3000 times for not maintaining saftey regulations?
Ahh, You got that, From the below (when you claimed there is no reason to believe the planes hit the central tube of the tower)?

-----

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.

-----

Reading comprehension, it's what's for dinner.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256003 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, You got that, From the below (when you claimed there is no reason to believe the planes hit the central tube of the tower)?
-----
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.
-----
Reading comprehension, it's what's for dinner.
Lol !! Although I never said there is no reason to believe the plane hit the central tube , all I've said is the ncstar 1 report , just like everyone else , can only assume these planes severed these cores columns and knocked the fire retardant insulation off .

Well , are you implicating neglect on silverstein properties ?
Although he is brilliant if this was his doing ( which I'm not saying it was ) because asbestos removal alone would've cost a fortune. But I'm not accusing ,speculating ,or promoting this idea .

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256004 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
So your basic argument is flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, DUE TO UNRELATED ACCOUNTING DISCREPANCIES?
No ,I'm saying something striking the pentagon in a particular section housing the accounting records containing these "unrelated accounting discrepancies" ( or 2.3 trillion dollar theft of tax payers money, fraud , money laundering ,etc ) seems a little convenient , coincidental maybe. Especially when the previous day , the man responsible for the defense of our nations security, donald scumfield, was on tv telling the nation of this minor" discrepancy " as you called it. I'm sorry but to me it's blatant fu*king theft at the highest level and everyone responsible for this oversight should be tried and when and if convicted , serve the maximum sentence allowed. And each and everyone of them should loose govt benefits ,pay restitution and pay back any financial gain acquired during their time employed by the people.Of course this is just my opinion of justice.
Hell half of congress and a lot of military rank would be disenfranchised!!

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256005 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, Raise that bar to 11 on the ludicrous level.
Pictures with the pentagon in background on a snowy July at midnight taken by elves that live in a hollow tree and cook Meth with Heisenberg?
Where's that hollow tree that little bastard owes me money !!

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256006 May 31, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The plane was inside the structure. Evidence pictures exist. Go back to Twoof Land.
Gotta link to these existing pictures from inside the structure ?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#256007 May 31, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta link to these existing pictures from inside the structure ?
Yea, That's where the corpse was you wanted drug outside so the Pentagon is in the background. I think that's SOP! You better get on why that was not done.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#256008 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
UL certifies electrical appliances using destructive methodology. UL does not certify structures of steel.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#256009 May 31, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta link to these existing pictures from inside the structure ?
Go look for yourself. I did. If you are really nice, Charlie will send those links.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256010 May 31, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, I know it won't change anything but I at least have to make an effort.
And actually a .45 caliber bullet fired at close range to the brain isn't always fatal , most of the time I'm sure it is , but not all the time. Therefore it is an educated guess.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#256011 May 31, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well , are you implicating neglect on silverstein properties ?
Although he is brilliant if this was his doing ( which I'm not saying it was ) because asbestos removal alone would've cost a fortune. But I'm not accusing ,speculating ,or promoting this idea .
Big hint, the planes entry and exit holes for a straight line, but hey, in your world a huge airliner just circleed the core inside the building.

AND ON THE ASBESTOS, LMAO, ANOTHER TIN FOIL TWOOF!

The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated.

There was no asbestos in WTC2 .

"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"

There was no clean up order or need for one!

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256012 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, That's where the corpse was you wanted drug outside so the Pentagon is in the background. I think that's SOP! You better get on why that was not done.


So you don't have a link ?
I didn't ask you what you think ,I asked for your source to these pictures you or one of your cohorts stated existed.
Dragging the bodies of charred dead people outside for a photo
shoot is pretty damn morbid . By even presuming thats what I meant you are a sick individual. Please get help ...
Inside where you state these charred bodies were recovered would be part of the pentagon. So why would you drag their bodies outside for pictures to document it. Most law enforcement investigations take pictures before moving or removing any evidence for referencing at a later date . Why would this investigation be any different ?

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#256013 May 31, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Big hint, the planes entry and exit holes for a straight line, but hey, in your world a huge airliner just circleed the core inside the building.
AND ON THE ASBESTOS, LMAO, ANOTHER TIN FOIL TWOOF!
The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated.
There was no asbestos in WTC2 .
"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"
There was no clean up order or need for one!
So you don't deny silverstein is a slum lord ,huh?

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
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 11 min Truth 6,369
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 15 min nanoanomaly 863,881
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 21 min Grunt56 221,979
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 28 min The Ghost Rider 24,114
How are lithuanian men? (Jun '08) 41 min Jay 35
Ugly light skin girl over so called good lookin... (Jul '14) 46 min PrettyRedBone 12
Black people are more evolved then white people? (May '13) 46 min Johnny 132
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Michael 599,390
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr Critical Eye 1,927
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,891
More from around the web