Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,978 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#257629 Jul 14, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it ever really go anywhere?...
:-)
Not really.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#257630 Jul 14, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Barrett sounds very objective to me...
http://www.infowars.com/cia-killed-phillip-ma...
As far as conspiracy theorists go...
:-)
Iv seen far better.
CIA killed Malcom X grandson.
Saudi's and Zionists are working together to destroy Islamic history in Mecca..Not joking on this one.

But he has a Dr in front of his name.How can I debate a Dr?

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#257631 Jul 14, 2013
Gotta love it pushing buttons makes the kooks come out !!!!

Huh rad ? fuktard ? You chicken shit !!
sock puppets are funny !
where's charlie?

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#257632 Jul 14, 2013
Hey w.w. how bout that double dipped stuff ?

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#257633 Jul 14, 2013
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you disagree with his opinion, why don't you explain why you think he is wrong - instead of slyly attempting to attack him?
Oh... that must be because his opinion is solid.
Govie shils(note the lack of bias here)
According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.
Vs Twoofism
Belief in multiple conflicting 911 theories, without evidence to support any,but believe all to be true at the same time,and the naysayers sheeple are in on it
onemale

Pana, IL

#257634 Jul 14, 2013
Well said, well said indeed.
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
And your a marine that has been there ?
So what did afghanistan have to do with 9/11 genius ?
Please watch your mouth you un patriotic jackass !
If it wasn't over oil you just put down someone that fought for your national security you piece of shit ! Maybe you should move to another country since you think the very people fighting for your freedom are idiots!
How many bases did the usa build in afghanistan? Where are they located ? What do they protect?
What a dumbass you are !! ha ha ha ha
Go back to sleep shit for brains !!
onemale

Pana, IL

#257635 Jul 14, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you've been there ? Or are you talking out your ass?
He still thinks Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257636 Jul 15, 2013
Zealous_Guy wrote:
What anyone with a modicum of intelligence has known for a long time:
"In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it."
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/31339...
And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see you're displaying the stereotypical intellectual laziness twoofers have become known for.

1) PressTV is the propaganda wing of the Iranian government. Not really a source that shows honest intent in searching for truth.

(And the hypocrisy is that twoofers continue to blindly "trust" governments known for disseminating pure propaganda biased to their ideology and yet dismiss anything they percieve as coming from a western government.)

2) You've once again mindlessly accepted the opinion of a true scumbag just because that opinion is in congruence with your belief system.

That's the very definition of confirmation bias.

3) You didn't read the paper (which is quite interesting) to verify the drivel Barrett claims about about it.

http://academia.edu/1207098/Dead_and_alive_Be...

That's the very definition of intellectual laziness.

4) Barrett gets everything wrong...so worng even the writers of the article decide to respond to his lunacy.

"Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication,“What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion. I’m often guilty of this too – reading the headline and moving on – because who has the time to read every original source of every news story? In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings."

"I could spend a long time picking apart this reasoning but suffice it to say that this a completely bogus interpretation, and the original error in the article still hasn’t been corrected despite Barrett’s obvious awareness of the problem."

http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting...

If you were after a failing grade in comrehension and research zealot guy, you got it!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257637 Jul 15, 2013
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, it's an opinion piece backed by research and refers to three publications.
Which leaves you guys with nothing but snide remarks about the author.
Yet Barrett doesn't give any links to any of the papers he's citing.

And in true twoofer form, you don't see that as an issue...

Thanks for playing!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257638 Jul 15, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would Dr. Kevin Barrett be bias?
As long as Barrett can condense it down to "da jooo's didit", he's happy!

*que the idiots claiming he didn't mention Jews*

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257639 Jul 15, 2013
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to smear Dr. Kevin Barrett rather than address his opinions or the article in question.
You don't have to agree with him, but simply saying his opinion is bias shows you are not able to challenge the piece.
I think he's bang on. In fact, it's obvious to anyone that has debated 9/11.
His bias interpreted the paper as saying something it didn't.

Your bias allowed you to accept that without verification.

Perhaps you should try actually reading something other than drivel written by conspirasheep?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257640 Jul 15, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
They probably studied this thread.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/31339...
Insults Are Easier
*guffaw*

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257641 Jul 15, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like he had a poor system...
The bags are not supposed to deploy at oblique angles...
Nor at slow speeds (about 15mph)...the G-force of the impact is key
Unless the seat belt is unfastened...then a much lower G-force (or speed) deploys the bag
New bags are adaptive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Triggerin...
My son broadsided a Dodge Ram pickup at 40mph...
Neither bag deployed...he hit at about a 30 degree angle
But the seatbelt squibs fired...
Two summers ago I watched a 1988 chevy 1/2 ton t-bone a Smart car at about 35 mph.

Thought for sure the guy in the smart car was dead, or at least severely injured.

Went over to the car and helped him get out. He was covered in dust and there were depleted airbags hanging everywhere but he walked away. Shaken but very much alive.

I still don't trust my kids travelling in small vehicles, but have to admit I was impressed by how well that little car protected its driver!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257642 Jul 15, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>Part II of his assertion...

''To reach the steel melting point of 1500 degrees C
requires about 400% air combustion
and additional use of an effective energy source such as methane.
These were not the natural circumstances on 911
which proves the use of explosives or similar.''

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php...

...

He begins with an improper assertion inferring that the steel in the Towers melted at the collapse points...

When any real structural engineer will verify that steel does not need to melt to lose it's strength...

But will lose strength as it is heated...

As seen by this engineeringtoolbox.com graph...

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-tempe...

As can be seen...

Structural steel loses about 40% of its strength at 800 F and 50% at under 1000 F

A far cry from the claimed 1500 C (2700 F)

Then the 400% air combustion using methane is a thermodynamic model considering the % of air that contains oxygen...

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~kenneth-westo...

Why would he even include methane in his comment?...

Just as an example?...

Why not use a realistic component that he believes was used?...

To increase the temps to melting?...

When clearly to any engineer...

Melting was not required to cause collapse...

His final conclusion is clearly flawed...

As even if his assertion of introduced methane into the Towers were indeed true...

That clearly is not 'proof of explosives or similar'...

Which now adds this Swede to the disingenuous pile...

Sometimes I believe this truther crapp is merely an online way for engineering students to hone their real life skills...
Perhaps some of those who produce such fine examples of straw men as you've shown above are eng students...but as we can see here, it doesn't matter that what they say is utter dreck, twoofers will believe it lock, stock and barrel as long as it confirms their bias.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#257643 Jul 15, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Govie shils(note the lack of bias here)
According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.
Vs Twoofism
Belief in multiple conflicting 911 theories, without evidence to support any,but believe all to be true at the same time,and the naysayers sheeple are in on it
But this is just the same old nonsense argument that's been rolled out for years.

As the article points out, people who dispute the official version of events are less likely to subscribe to any particular alternative theory. Further, I would argue that terms like 'sheeple' are more likely to be used by people like yourself who have nothing to contribute but ridicule.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/31339...

As I've pointed out many times, the term 'Truther' is more accurately applied to people like you who have a belief in 'The Truth' of this particular situation... and will defend it despite that fact that you simply cannot know you are correct.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#257644 Jul 15, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see you're displaying the stereotypical intellectual laziness twoofers have become known for.
1) PressTV is the propaganda wing of the Iranian government. Not really a source that shows honest intent in searching for truth.
(And the hypocrisy is that twoofers continue to blindly "trust" governments known for disseminating pure propaganda biased to their ideology and yet dismiss anything they percieve as coming from a western government.)
2) You've once again mindlessly accepted the opinion of a true scumbag just because that opinion is in congruence with your belief system.
That's the very definition of confirmation bias.
3) You didn't read the paper (which is quite interesting) to verify the drivel Barrett claims about about it.
http://academia.edu/1207098/Dead_and_alive_Be...
That's the very definition of intellectual laziness.
4) Barrett gets everything wrong...so worng even the writers of the article decide to respond to his lunacy.
"Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication,“What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion. I’m often guilty of this too – reading the headline and moving on – because who has the time to read every original source of every news story? In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings."
"I could spend a long time picking apart this reasoning but suffice it to say that this a completely bogus interpretation, and the original error in the article still hasn’t been corrected despite Barrett’s obvious awareness of the problem."
http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting...
If you were after a failing grade in comrehension and research zealot guy, you got it!
You of all people should know about the literal meaning / comprehension of words there big guy . Must I post anything more ?
No offense meant here . But reading comprehension is part of grammatical structure which in a government report trumps any "scientific" ( and I say this with respect to the scientific community ) data used.
Still reading the baseline performance report (taking a little longer than expected as I was entertaining a Norwegian guest Saturday and sunday) but should be able to do some research later today .

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#257645 Jul 15, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like the same judge that allowed the case to forward has dismissed the case against United...
The cost to rebuild WTC7 was $1 Billion...
The cost to raise One World Trade Center will be over $3.8 Billion...
Plus the $120 Million annual lease payments Silverstein has paid out since 9-11...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/21/us-...
Although I do enjoy looking all this crap up...
Please vet better...
Siverstein will continue to pursue a case against American...
I didn't say anything about united being in the suit . Please be more comprehensive when reading .

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#257646 Jul 15, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>As long as Barrett can condense it down to "da jooo's didit", he's happy!
*que the idiots claiming he didn't mention Jews*
You mentioned jews.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#257647 Jul 15, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you considering that Silverstein has to continue his annual lease payments of $102 million and pay legal council for the 5 year battle and he ceded certain monies to the Port Authority and the monies were 2006 (or whenever he received them) value rather than 2001 value...
How much did Silverstein receive and when...maybe 60% it appears
60% of $7 Billion is $4.2 Billion
Winning in court means little to reality...
As we see in the Zimmerman/Martin court case...
Tower One is estimated at some $4 Billion to complete...
Silverstein the Jew's profit
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
What is it with the jew thing? Are you and pph anti semitic ?

He signed a lease for 99 years , he is required by law to fulfill this lease so whats the bitch about ?
If you rent an apt and sign a 6 month lease aren't you expected to complete it ?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257648 Jul 15, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>You of all people should know about the literal meaning / comprehension of words there big guy . Must I post anything more ?
No offense meant here . But reading comprehension is part of grammatical structure which in a government report trumps any "scientific" ( and I say this with respect to the scientific community ) data used.
Still reading the baseline performance report (taking a little longer than expected as I was entertaining a Norwegian guest Saturday and sunday) but should be able to do some research later today .
Well I don't have the hang ups you do over grammar so it really isn't an issue to me.

In fact when I posted excerpts from many well accepted scientific theories showing you the language was extremely similar to that of the NIST report, you balked then changed the subject.

Sorry buddy but you're speaking about a language I speak and interpret for a living.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Insults Are Easier 779,186
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Chess 560,743
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 min UMAKEWORLDPEACEUI... 175,796
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 441,826
Is the price is right fixed for blacks? (Jun '12) 23 min cowboy 58
Are our soldiers traitors? 27 min UMAKEWORLDPEACEUI... 19
Gay snapchat names 2 hr joe_n07 185
Moses never existed 2 hr feces for jesus 860
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr Innocent Holy dr ... 605,384
How do I ask my dad for sex? (Oct '13) 9 hr daveo69 72
More from around the web