Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,951 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

HEADLINE

Mill Valley, CA

#257889 Jul 26, 2013
SHITTY PILOT CRASHES PLANE

BUILDING BLOWS UP AND FALLS DOWN

The "Rest Of The Story" next post.

HEADLINE

Mill Valley, CA

#257890 Jul 26, 2013
Govie creates phony hi-jack scenario, blows up buildings and blames "terrorists" as a reason to push the Patriot Act through Congress and use as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, conveniently encircling Iran with US troops.

Read all about it. Despite the pig's shortcomings.
onemale

Pana, IL

#257891 Jul 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
FALSE WTC7 had major damage.
FALSE WTC7 had a unique construction and heavy loading on the seventh floor.
WTC 7 had very minor damage compared to WTC 3, 4 and 5 none of which collapsed. Multi-ton beams were stuck in other building and none of them collapsed. According to you the high rise buildings are built like a house of cards.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#257893 Jul 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
WTC 7 had very minor damage compared to WTC 3, 4 and 5 none of which collapsed. Multi-ton beams were stuck in other building and none of them collapsed. According to you the high rise buildings are built like a house of cards.
They are indeed built like a house of cards. Think about it. The vertical members are stress loaded. These outside members would bow out due to the forces if not held together by horizontal floor trusses. When these trusses fail, the vertical members deflect outward at the weakest point. The downward thrust takes over and everything comes down like a house of cards due to structural failure. As a machinist you should appreciate these kind of things. Have you ever used a 20ton bearing press and had things come apart with explosive force? When the parts give up, watch out.
onemale

Pana, IL

#257894 Jul 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
FALSE WTC7 had major damage.
FALSE WTC7 had a unique construction and heavy loading on the seventh floor.
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.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#257896 Jul 27, 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.
Why would they? It's quite obvious that it came down due to damage. It is quite clear that a huge chunk of WTC 1. So much for controlled demolition huh? WTC 1 tilted into the hole cut by the airliner and then broke apart on the way down. Obvious stuff huh?

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

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257898 Jul 28, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it then.
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

“the summer home in Cape Cod”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#257899 Jul 28, 2013
You're really starting to bore the hell out of everybody
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

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#257900 Jul 28, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Barrett accomplished nothing and the only thing he was effective at was once again showing how mindless the average twoofer is in that none bothered to verify what Barrett claimed the paper said.
That's you, the mindless useful idiot.
Barrett was not discussing the data from the paper, he intentionally lied about its conclusions knowing full well his target audience of malcontents have always been as intellectually lazy as you've shown yourself to be.
<quoted text>Why would I need to take either side?
I never used the paper or anyone's opinion of what it said to support anything.
You really don't get it do you zealot guy?
<quoted text>Studying abnormal behaviour is a perfectly valid reason.
I've pointed out many times the crippled epistemology you all share as a crutch. In your case, your posting Barrett's article without ever reading the source and "uncritically" accepting Barrett's word of what the article concluded is a perfect example.
Other great examples would be the one I pointed out yesterday where a twoofer who very obviously doesn't understand materials or emissivity is making a definitively incorrect claim that he'll never accept as incorrect regardless of fact.
Just like you when you claimed the majority don't believe in "the official 911 fairy tale" and posted a poll that didn't support your claim as proof.
In both cases you display irrationality and lack of understanding of the disciplines required to understand the material.
That's the definition of a crippled epistemology and more than adequate reason for psychologists to want to understand what makes you twoofers tick.
<quoted text>The point is that you all display the same irrational behaviour.
<quoted text>Sorry, not interested.
But hey, we have the CAP here in Canada and its run by a loon who thinks 911 was an inside job...you should join!
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.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#257901 Jul 28, 2013
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.

So what do these studies actually tell us? They tell us nothing, because the opposite is also true, even though they wont mention it, because a person who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories tends not to believe any of them.

Psychologists and researchers are affected by normalcy bias as much as anyone else.

A more accurate study would be do people that believe in conspiracy theories do so with no regard to evidence. A psychologist would need to be well versed in all the available evidence regarding each theory to be able to judge if that belief is based on delusion or not.

Not all conspiracies are equal, which is why

Insults Are Easier
onemale

Pana, IL

#257902 Jul 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would they? It's quite obvious that it came down due to damage. It is quite clear that a huge chunk of WTC 1. So much for controlled demolition huh? WTC 1 tilted into the hole cut by the airliner and then broke apart on the way down. Obvious stuff huh?
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
But NIST said WTC 7 was destroyed by normal office fires???
onemale

Pana, IL

#257903 Jul 28, 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 said Zealous Guy, well said indeed.
He probably still thinks Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

onemale

Pana, IL

#257904 Jul 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would they? It's quite obvious that it came down due to damage. It is quite clear that a huge chunk of WTC 1. So much for controlled demolition huh? WTC 1 tilted into the hole cut by the airliner and then broke apart on the way down. Obvious stuff huh?
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
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.

“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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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, well go down, lets see whats 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 whats going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnt 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 didnt 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, nobodys going into 7, theres 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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock 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

Edmonton, 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.

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
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 8 min Johnny 1,017
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min truth 605,018
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min pusherman_ 775,295
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 13 min Clearwater 175,635
bless the jews (Nov '08) 38 min happy blessed se... 7,058
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 41 min Tony17 559,502
Zekeriyaky ( General Electric Servisi ) 2O2 8O... 48 min gnelectric 1
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 4 hr royal kannadiga 1,269
More from around the web