Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,968 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

#257802 Jul 22, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I stopped at 17secs when he said lava, molten steel
At least he didn't claim pyroclastic flow...

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

#257803 Jul 22, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing what facts a simple Australian can avoid by taking issue with a word described directly by firefighters who were on site doing their jobs.
http://youtu.be/Tw4_-4xGuHA
Magma means a mixture of elements. Iron is element. Steel is produced by mixing iron with other elements. When magma erupts and flows, its called lava.
So I'm not seeing a reason for the point or humor in taking issue with a fireman describing the molten steel was flowing like lava, like in a foundry when its being poured. But give them a break, they have a tough job and have never seen molten steel flowing in a fire before, or since.
Laughter, the idiots way to avoid thought. When coupled with the Governments promoting of alcohol, means you will never care if the egg or the chicken put you in a waking trance.
So therefor,
Insults Are Easier
Are you now asserting magma formed under the Towers and welled up to melt the steel as lava would?...

'Like' in a foundry...

'Like' lava...

We actually had a compost fire in San Antonio...

It spontaneously combusted...

No jets...no fuel

Just brush and leaves...

Yet it burned for months...

All underground...

8 stories high burned for three months...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/environment/...

Three years after the fire the Mayor of Helotes died of a Brain Tumor...

I smell a Mulchie conspiracy...

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

#257804 Jul 22, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
I've posted dozens of articles showing exactly the same thing, as a twoofer he's predisposed to ignoring reality.
Underground fires can be self sustaining as long as any combustible material is present...
onemale

Pana, IL

#257805 Jul 22, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I stopped at 17secs when he said lava, molten steel
And you were there and saw this for yourself???
So you think these eyewitnesses have lying eyes abd lying ears???
onemale

Pana, IL

#257806 Jul 22, 2013
chazmo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why what?...
Why did the FDNY not mention lava?...
Or molten steel?...
Or 3000 F?...
Why???
NIST had hundreds of videos of explosions and eyewitnesses, but didn't acknowledge any of it.
They could have at least explained why all this is untrue, but instead they ignored it... WHY???
And also why is it, when anyone questions 9/11, it is out of bounds?
Topic forbidden!
Question 9/11 and you shall be shunned by all of mankind.
Why all the secrecy ???

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#257807 Jul 23, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why???
NIST had hundreds of videos of explosions and eyewitnesses, but didn't acknowledge any of it.
They could have at least explained why all this is untrue, but instead they ignored it... WHY???
And also why is it, when anyone questions 9/11, it is out of bounds?
Topic forbidden!
Question 9/11 and you shall be shunned by all of mankind.
Why all the secrecy ???
I can find hundreds of reports of explosions from other fires, in fact I have and posted them here numerous times.

Things explode in fires and explosions don't confirm the use of explosives. Abd explosives leave behind very conclusive clues like audible signatures, visual clues like shock waves and the over pressurization of windows. None of that is witnessed in the videos and most twoofers claim it was thermite anyway which is an incendiary, not an explosive.

And anyone can question 9/11, that's a complete fallacy born of the fact that you don't seem to understand that most woofers are ridiculed not for questioning but for the fact that they'll (you in particular) accept anything regardless of how stupid as fact as long as it supports their desired conclusion.

You obvioulsy have no aptitude for science yet think, for some reason, you can discern good science from bad...that's the sole reason twoofers are ridiculed.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#257808 Jul 23, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't display cognitive dissonance any better and you epitomize why psychologists write papers about conspiracy loons!
The fact remains that you mindlessly touted Barrett's article as having meaning without doing the slightest bit of background checking into the veracity of his claim.
Now, all you have is the opinion of a rabid antisemite who applies the same flawed logic to everything as he did to become a rabid antisemite.
And his opinion has zero support.
Didn't you deny being a twoofer at one point?
Funny!
You see Mr Hat, this is what marks you as unhinged.

Any sane person would understand that this is a topical discussion forum, yet you somehow see it as a world of quantifiable right and wrong. Hilariously, I post an opinion piece from press TV and you think I'm posting facts that I believe to be quantifiable.

You clearly have no idea how far removed from reality your perception is... you've obviously been consumed by this whole topic and it's left you in a strange place where you're projecting your own twisted logic on the world around you.

Looking back at your post roll here shows how your brain is simply on loop. Ironically, you're a classic example of the sort of person Barret is referring too.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#257809 Jul 23, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why???
NIST had hundreds of videos of explosions and eyewitnesses, but didn't acknowledge any of it.
They could have at least explained why all this is untrue, but instead they ignored it... WHY???
And also why is it, when anyone questions 9/11, it is out of bounds?
Topic forbidden!
Question 9/11 and you shall be shunned by all of mankind.
Why all the secrecy ???
You sound like a three year old.

WHY?.......WHY?.......

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257810 Jul 23, 2013
What truly hilarious zealot guy is anyone can page back to your posting of Barrett's misrepresentation of the paper in question and clearly read your definitive claim something to the effect of "anyone with a modicum of sense knows...".

Now of course since I did your homework for you yet again and actually read the cited paper only to find Barrett was, in typical twoofer form, lying our his azz, you now claim there was never an intent by you to post this as fact.

And of course people did respond as is always the case on discussion forums and your position was to, yet again, ignore facts and sheepishly defend your source.

You then go on to say you agree with the premise of Barrett's misinformation article and attempt to distance yourself from the content of the article.

Which makes it obvious that in your little world it doesn't matter what you post as a source and that even though the sources your using make you look like a complete fool, it's the readers fault. Not yours.

That's quite the position zealot guy, not that you'll admit to the obvious, and one you've used as SOP when caught being a fool.

Here's the reality, you posted Barrett's article because you never thought for a second that it might be untrue even though you didn't do even a modicum of verification to confirm it. Like Ignorance is Bliss, you mindlessly agreed with the headline and thought that just once you could get those ebil rationalists backed into a corner.

Yet here you are, in a corner and fighting back with the only weapon at your limited disposal, projection.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257811 Jul 23, 2013
One other thing that strikes me as extremely funny about zealot guys projection post.

Now if I'm trying to make a serious point that supports my position, should I: a) post a source that has verified citations and could be taken seriously by my opponent

or b) post a source that's misrepresenting my position to a degree that it diminishes that position?

In zealotville "b" is the correct answer.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#257812 Jul 23, 2013
You're totally insane Mr Hat.

In the real world, rather than in your imagined one, statistics are open to interpretation and opinion pieces are - duh!- based on the opinion of the author.

It's kind of funny, I guess, that you are here day after day trying to score points and 'prove' you are right... especially since we have seen time and time again that you cannot prove your beliefs are correct. But it's also sort of sad to see someone so consumed by a belief like that.

Like the guy who wants to study conspiracy theorists. Do you not think that's a bit odd? It seems barking mad to me. To start with a broad generalising term like 'Truther' or 'Conspiracy Theorist' and then attempt to 'study' these people, I simply can't imagine why anyone would bother to do that.

Perhaps you could enlighten me Mr Hat?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257813 Jul 23, 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.
And once again your own words betray you.

Keep projecting zealot guy.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257814 Jul 23, 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.
Well a few of us have addressed his misrepresentation of the paper but your replies have been woefully inept at addressing those rebuttals.
onemale

Pana, IL

#257815 Jul 23, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like a three year old.
WHY?.......WHY?.......
Why is the questions forbidden???
Obviously you have no answers.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257816 Jul 23, 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 opinions were based on misrepresentation of a paper he failed to properly cite.

And his bias is obvious since its the only filter he used in writing his article.
onemale

Pana, IL

#257817 Jul 23, 2013
I have found the best method to determine what is the truth and what is B.S. is ask the following questions...
Is it biased or unbiased?
Is it politically driven or otherwise?
Who benefits from the statements?
What are the credentials of the delivers of the statements?
What are the facts to back-up the opinions?



Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#257818 Jul 23, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
His opinions were based on misrepresentation of a paper he failed to properly cite.
And his bias is obvious since its the only filter he used in writing his article.
No.

The author proposed that only one of Barret's points was 'flat out wrong'.

Apart from the he disagreed with Barret, but that's just his opinion... he didn't do anything to support his opinion other than say he collected the data and was certain of his opinion.

Here you are Mr Hat, supporting the opinions of someone that has chosen to study 'conspiracy theorists'.

Can you explain why anyone would deem that a subject worthy of academic study? It would seem not.

To me, that would seem like a bizarre and pointless waste of time. Hardly the sort of decision a well balanced person would take.

So come on, Mr Hat, why would anyone study 'truthers'?

Like I said, so what?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#257819 Jul 23, 2013
Zealous_Guy wrote:
You're totally insane Mr Hat.

In the real world, rather than in your imagined one, statistics are open to interpretation and opinion pieces are - duh!- based on the opinion of the author.

It's kind of funny, I guess, that you are here day after day trying to score points and 'prove' you are right... especially since we have seen time and time again that you cannot prove your beliefs are correct. But it's also sort of sad to see someone so consumed by a belief like that.

Like the guy who wants to study conspiracy theorists. Do you not think that's a bit odd? It seems barking mad to me. To start with a broad generalising term like 'Truther' or 'Conspiracy Theorist' and then attempt to 'study' these people, I simply can't imagine why anyone would bother to do that.

Perhaps you could enlighten me Mr Hat?
In the real world you lost this debate right after your opening post regarding Barrett's paper.

But you quite obviously don't live in the real world.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#257820 Jul 23, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
In the real world you lost this debate right after your opening post regarding Barrett's paper.
But you quite obviously don't live in the real world.
Barrett's paper? I don't think that's quite what you meant.

Come on then Mr Hat... I'll ask for a third time shall I.

Why would any balanced person produce an academic study of 'Conspiracy Theorists'?

And you want to talk about filter and bias... ho ho.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#257821 Jul 23, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the questions forbidden???
Obviously you have no answers.
You keep asking stupid questions like a three year old. When you ask something relevant, I'll let you know.

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) 5 min Hidingfromyou 777,731
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 19 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 441,810
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 20 min mike 605,302
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 30 min RiccardoFire 37,842
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 36 min RiccardoFire 96,845
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 1 hr Al Capone 5,151
Designer sarees Online 1 hr Priya 1
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr how g 560,316
More from around the web