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

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#257905 Jul 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
So lets play the game you like others to play, but lets do it different than you normally do, lets make it fair...
Lets play Prove It!
AussieBobby wrote:
Its time for you to put up or shut up
Melt 50 liters of steel for 24 hours and keep it MOLTEN STEEL using thermite and keep a note of how much thermite was used as we will need this data for the 6 month experiment.
Predicts excuses
waiting

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257907 Jul 29, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>AussieBobby wrote, "
Its time for you to put up or shut up
Melt 50 liters of steel for 24 hours and keep it MOLTEN STEEL using thermite and keep a note of how much thermite was used as we will need this data for the 6 month experiment.
Predicts excuses
"

waiting
Ok Rugby, what would you call that puddle of stuff in that brush fire you claimed was also an inside job?

Insults Are Easier
RogerThat

AOL

#257908 Jul 29, 2013
.

OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA --

http://youtu.be/1tFxM_Vsg5g

.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#257909 Jul 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking from both sides of your mouth.
First you said a huge chunk of WTC 1, damaged it...
Then you said the huge chunk broke apart on the way down...
which one is it?
Why didn't WTC 3, 4 and 5 collapse?
They had severe damage, one was almost cut in half.
They didn't fall down like WTC 1&2&7 because the govie didn't install explosives in those buildings previously like they did with the ones that Did fall down.

Anybody can see that!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#257910 Jul 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
But NIST said WTC 7 was destroyed by normal office fires???
Sorry, WTC7 was hit by a huge chunk of Trade Tower knocking out some perimeter supports. The sprinklers were not operational.

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."

"So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned."

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#257911 Jul 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking from both sides of your mouth.
First you said a huge chunk of WTC 1, damaged it...
Then you said the huge chunk broke apart on the way down...
which one is it?
Why didn't WTC 3, 4 and 5 collapse?
They had severe damage, one was almost cut in half.
Both are correct.

Different type of construction and loading.

"Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Here is how WTC7 was constructed:

"The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[7]"

(With illustrations if you are interested)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Ce...

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257914 Jul 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>So lets play the game you like others to play, but lets do it different than you normally do, lets make it fair...

Lets play Prove It!

1. Prove firefighters did not have temperature measuring equipment on 9/11.

2. Prove Kevin Barrett is a racist.

3. Prove the Iranian government produced the Barrett conspiracy study video hosted by Press TV.

Remember, if you don't play then you're just repeating.

Insults Are Easier
Yes let's!

And yes, lets make it fair!

So you've implied that the determination of material type as being steel was based on colour under ambient lighting and temperature.

Now conversely, I'm saying there's zero proof that temperature was used in such a determination and since a negative cannot be proved, you must supply your source that proves temperature was used by the firefighters!

You really fail at logic and reality!

As for your other fallacious comments, I never called Barrett a racist and never claimed the Iranian government produced anything.

Comprehension ain't your bag either.

Now, prove the fire fighters measured the temperature of the molten material then we can move onto the fact that it would still prove none of your claims correct.

And maybe you can address the fact that you, like zealot guy, mindlessly posted Barrett's bs without ever reading the cited material in his article.

It's amazing how you losers so easily accuse others of being exactly what you prove time and again you are.

A mindless shill for ignorance and stupidity.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257915 Jul 29, 2013
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>Mr Hat, you think it's normal to study 'conspiracy theorists' because they exhibit 'abnormal behaviour'? Seriously?

How about defining 'abnormal behaviour' first?

As we've just seen, your pitiful definition can be applied to all manner of people... and your OCD contribution to this website can hardly be described as 'normal'. Perhaps you would consider it 'normal' for someone to decide to carry out an academic study of your behaviour?

I guess you'd probably be quite pleased.

The very fact your willing to openly generalise in this way shows just how blinkered your world view is.

...but, most of your posts show that.

The fact your virtually creaming your pants over all this supposed 'intellectual laziness' is nothing short of hilarious.

Barrett asserts that you and your ilk are unhinged, you're not doing a very good job of proving him wrong.
Well rather than actually trying to discuss your views on 911 and supporting them with what you believe is legitimate citations, you've spent over a year failing to one up me, a poster.

That pretty fking bizarre!

And well worth study.

Perhaps you pick up a few extra quid by volunteering as one of their case studies!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257916 Jul 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>NIST didn't bother to explian WTC 7 in their report.
But you know all about it??? HOw???
When they were pressed, they said it fell due to normal office fires.
NIST wrote an entire report on WTC 7.

I'm not surprised you never heard of it.
Charlie Sheen

Manchester, KY

#257917 Jul 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
NIST didn't bother to explian WTC 7 in their report.
YAWN, I have posted this many times, why do twofers lie? This would be the third time I have linked you to the WTC7 report.

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257918 Jul 29, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Yes let's!

And yes, lets make it fair!

So you've implied that the determination of material type as being steel was based on colour under ambient lighting and temperature.

Now conversely, I'm saying there's zero proof that temperature was used in such a determination and since a negative cannot be proved, you must supply your source that proves temperature was used by the firefighters!

You really fail at logic and reality!

As for your other fallacious comments, I never called Barrett a racist and never claimed the Iranian government produced anything.

Comprehension ain't your bag either.

Now, prove the fire fighters measured the temperature of the molten material then we can move onto the fact that it would still prove none of your claims correct.

And maybe you can address the fact that you, like zealot guy, mindlessly posted Barrett's bs without ever reading the cited material in his article.

It's amazing how you losers so easily accuse others of being exactly what you prove time and again you are.

A mindless shill for ignorance and stupidity.
I said color and temperature is used to determine type.

Logic and documentation states firefighters had thermal measuring equipment at the time. Why is there no video of interviews of the first responders claiming aluminum? What temperature does aluminum need to be to attain a yellow glow? Why does NIST claim the molten material seen dripping yellow before the collapse contained other material to give it its color without any physical testing. Why do you think they went out of their way to claim orange colored molten aluminum was not seen?

But you have only tried to contest only 1 of my 3 original questions... That still isnt fair hostile one.

Barretts assertions come from 4 studies, you only show 1 author who asserts Barretts conclusions are in error regarding his study, while you neglect the other 3.

And you lifted your opinion from 1 article, you didn't read the entire 4 studies either.

So now address Barretts racism and and the Iranian governments producing of the article.

I'll wait...

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257919 Jul 29, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>NIST wrote an entire report on WTC 7.

I'm not surprised you never heard of it.
Based on zero physical evidence.

Canadian science at its finest.

Insults Are Easier

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257920 Jul 29, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>Well said Zealous Guy, well said indeed.
He probably still thinks Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
Ummm...no, but then again in not addicted to stupid like you obviously are.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257921 Jul 29, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Ummm...no, but then again in not addicted to stupid like you obviously are.
Check out the hostility!

Thats one conclusion Barrett was obviously right about.

Insults Are Easier

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257924 Jul 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>I said color and temperature is used to determine type.

Logic and documentation states firefighters had thermal measuring equipment at the time. Why is there no video of interviews of the first responders claiming aluminum? What temperature does aluminum need to be to attain a yellow glow? Why does NIST claim the molten material seen dripping yellow before the collapse contained other material to give it its color without any physical testing. Why do you think they went out of their way to claim orange colored molten aluminum was not seen?

But you have only tried to contest only 1 of my 3 original questions... That still isnt fair hostile one.

Barretts assertions come from 4 studies, you only show 1 author who asserts Barretts conclusions are in error regarding his study, while you neglect the other 3.

And you lifted your opinion from 1 article, you didn't read the entire 4 studies either.

So now address Barretts racism and and the Iranian governments producing of the article.

I'll wait...

Insults Are Easier
You're not very good at this.

Probably because you're just another scientifically illiterate fool.

Now, provide the documentation you used to determined that fire fighters used to measure the temperature of the molten material in question, then we'll get to the rest of your fallacious nonsense.

Quit embarrassing yourself by playing the old, but accepted in twooferdumb, game of shifting the burden of proof and support your claims .

Oh and perhaps you could also show how molten metal=cd by application of the scientific method.

Until then,

[Your] Ignorance is [Still][Your] Bliss

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257925 Jul 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Based on zero physical evidence.

Canadian science at its finest.

Insults Are Easier
And we've been through this many times before with you making an idiot if yourself.

Wanna do it again lil twoofbot?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257926 Jul 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Check out the hostility!

Thats one conclusion Barrett was obviously right about.

Insults Are Easier
It's called mocking.

You can check out oh elevator boy sheep STREET CORNER JEEBUS's posts for a great example of hostility.

Or your own for that matter:-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#257927 Jul 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Check out the hostility!

Thats one conclusion Barrett was obviously right about.

Insults Are Easier
Btw, if Barrett was right why did he have to lie about the paper he was citing?

Oh right, twoofer SOP!

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257928 Jul 29, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Btw, if Barrett was right why did he have to lie about the paper he was citing?

Oh right, twoofer SOP!
He didn't lie, he simply made a conclusion different than than the author of 1, and used 3 other studies to back up his conclusion.

A lie would be what you did saying the Iranian government was responsible for his paper. Another lie would be you claiming hes a racist.

You are so illiterate, you don't even know the difference, kid.

Insults Are Easier
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#257929 Jul 29, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
YAWN, I have posted this many times, why do twofers lie? This would be the third time I have linked you to the WTC7 report.
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...
According to witnesses and fire fighters there were molten steel in the basement for weeks. But NIST denies any of this... and you still believe NIST?

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
Hillary can win! 3 min Nipz8146 17
Ladies, do u wear minis to get touched up or pu... (Nov '12) 6 min Lucy 1979 95
The Fake News About Fake News 7 min Lollypop4364 2
Selling a controlled substance 11 min Squirtzzz2572 5
Hey girls add jbibby35 for fat cock 14 min Mints5312 2
College girls sleepin' with 'Sugar Daddys' are ... 18 min Charm3950 2
Moronnz eavsdropping on my phone calls 22 min Rose3664 2
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 1 hr gundee123 1,226
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 2 hr Glitter7145 63
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 hr karl44 87,900
More from around the web