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

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#259521 Sep 20, 2013
Impeach the Kenyan-born POTUS

Barbeque the pig

Yeah sumpun I can get behind

Huh eh !

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#259522 Sep 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Impeach the Kenyan-born POTUS

Barbeque the pig

Yeah sumpun I can get behind

Huh eh !
Check out WasteOfWater bro, repeating exactly the same thing she did yesterday. Doing anything she can to push the thread along in her little cover-up campaign of lies and ignorance.

Of all the people who have ever posted here, I would vote for her to be the dullest of all. The idea that someone like her actually exists is terrifying. I really hope she's just a sock of a hateful troll idiot, whose mission is to bore people away from this subject. It would be too sad for me to think she does this for her own amusement or intellectual stimulation. And you know it isn't out of any misplaced patriotism, because she has made it clear she cares nothing about anything.

Indeed, bingo, next, fun!

Really?

Whats worse, being her or the person she agrees with? Thank god we'll never know.

But step right up and watch the dull repeater amaze you with her dullness.

Then step right up and watch the DoWrong blame you for his own ever growing list of misperceptions. He'll even quote them out of context.

So step right up and believe anything an obvious crazy person says who compiles lists on people and copies them year after year on an internet forum.

http://youtu.be/kjZCG2PmiHE

Its only a quarter !

Insults Are Easier

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259523 Sep 20, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawd you're clueless!
Lets be fair,a student is only as good as the teacher and in this case a fooking lair

The teacher,
Tower and Fundamental Physics by David Chandler

Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Thereforethe falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver."

Onemale or any other twoofer,get a set of kitchen scales and do the experiment your self
Results
a)Dave Thomas is right
b)David Chandler is a complete imbecile and should have no access to teaching high school Physics
c)David Chandler is an out right lair and only protecting his income,sorry I did I say income, I meant charity.

Predicts excuses

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#259524 Sep 20, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>Lets be fair,a student is only as good as the teacher and in this case a fooking lair

The teacher,
Tower and Fundamental Physics by David Chandler

Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Thereforethe falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver."

Onemale or any other twoofer,get a set of kitchen scales and do the experiment your self
Results
a)Dave Thomas is right
b)David Chandler is a complete imbecile and should have no access to teaching high school Physics
c)David Chandler is an out right lair and only protecting his income,sorry I did I say income, I meant charity.

Predicts excuses
Quiet! American's are talking.

When we want your biased anti-American opinion, we'll come to an Austrian forum and ask.

Insults Are Easier

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259525 Sep 20, 2013
Forgot
d)Dave Thomas is wrong
e)David Chandler is correct

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#259526 Sep 20, 2013
Have another pint mate and shut the fuhk up.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#259527 Sep 20, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets be fair,a student is only as good as the teacher and in this case a fooking lair
The teacher,
Tower and Fundamental Physics by David Chandler
Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper
block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Thereforethe falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver."
Onemale or any other twoofer,get a set of kitchen scales and do the experiment your self
Results
a)Dave Thomas is right
b)David Chandler is a complete imbecile and should have no access to teaching high school Physics
c)David Chandler is an out right lair and only protecting his income,sorry I did I say income, I meant charity.
Predicts excuses
I agree, Chandler is an idiot. Anyone can see the large chucks descending at a much faster rate than the rest of the building.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259528 Sep 20, 2013
Looks like the results are in
Its neck and neck b and c

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259529 Sep 20, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, Chandler is an idiot. Anyone can see the large chucks descending at a much faster rate than the rest of the building.
downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block,

A set of scales will prove this or debunk it?.

But Id like to try another way of proving this wrong.
So I need one twoofer's head and one 10lb balling ball.
Place balling ball on twoofer head ,static weight
Drop balling ball on twoofer head from 1 meter,Dynamic

According to Chandler "force exerted by the falling block/balling ball must also have been less than its weight.

And twoofers want to put your hand up?Its david chandler the physics professor Vs the drunk aussie

"No explosive" used in the total collapse

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#259530 Sep 20, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
Looks like the results are in
Its neck and neck b and c
.

Cool, we'll log that under nobody read it far enough to care what you are talking about. And truthfully, what little we did read, couldn't really make out what you were getting at.

Maybe it's the language barrier, Austrian is a tough.

But give me your opinion on WasteOfWater. When she agrees with you, does it

A. completely destroy your credibility?

B. somewhat destroy your credibility?

C. not affect your credibility at all regardless of the amount of times she reveals she has no character or dignity?

Insults Are Easier

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259531 Sep 20, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>.
Cool, we'll log that under nobody read it far enough to care what you are talking about. And truthfully, what little we did read, couldn't really make out what you were getting at.
Maybe it's the language barrier, Austrian is a tough.
But give me your opinion on WasteOfWater. When she agrees with you, does it
A. completely destroy your credibility?
B. somewhat destroy your credibility?
C. not affect your credibility at all regardless of the amount of times she reveals she has no character or dignity?
Insults Are Easier
Like I said
Predicts excuses

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259532 Sep 20, 2013
Insults Are Easier do you have a balling ball?

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259533 Sep 20, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>.
Cool, we'll log that under nobody read it far enough to care what you are talking about. And truthfully, what little we did read, couldn't really make out what you were getting at.
Ok
Get a set of scales and rest a object on them and note the weight.
Drop the same object from and height and if the weight/force is more than the object at rest on the scale,you have debunked David Chandler

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#259534 Sep 20, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block,

A set of scales will prove this or debunk it?.

But Id like to try another way of proving this wrong.
So I need one twoofer's head and one 10lb balling ball.
Place balling ball on twoofer head ,static weight
Drop balling ball on twoofer head from 1 meter,Dynamic

According to Chandler "force exerted by the falling block/balling ball must also have been less than its weight.

And twoofers want to put your hand up?Its david chandler the physics professor Vs the drunk aussie

"No explosive" used in the total collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =syzKBBB_THEXX
You say and think "twoofer" so much you have destroyed your own ability to analyze information.

But without looking at your extremely biased, and I'm sure pointless video. Let me simply tell you that your assertion of some upper block exerting force on the lower block is simply not true on its face. The was no upper block once a few floors had made contact with each other (the crush down, crush up effect), there was simply a mass of exploding, disintegrating blocks (plural) no longer exerting as much force a single, undamaged block would. Because all that laterally ejecting mass and twisting blocks in the exploding descending rubble as the building collapsed, was no longer exerting downward force equal to the total mass of the intact upper floors as a whole.

To understand this event you have to look at it critically with your eyes, and not with your indoctrinated brain that makes you interpret the information the way the propagandists want you to.

So have another drink, rummy, and answer my WasteOfWater question!

Insults Are Easier

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259535 Sep 21, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
The was no upper block once a few floors had made contact with each other (the crush down, crush up effect), there was simply a mass of exploding, disintegrating blocks (plural) no longer exerting as much force a single, undamaged block would. Because all that laterally ejecting mass and twisting blocks in the exploding descending rubble as the building collapsed, was no longer exerting downward force equal to the total mass of the intact upper floors as a whole.
Wrong
9/11 Truth and Impacts: Does Rubble Pack a Punch?

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#259536 Sep 21, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong
9/11 Truth and Impacts: Does Rubble Pack a Punch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EKTL12wpBYYXX
Really, you have no words of your own? Just gonna cling to this notion that laterally ejecting mass is still exerting equal downward force as the entire block, huh?

Nothing?

Bueller?

What about my WasteOfWater question?

Nothing?

Bueller?

Ah, don 't worry, I'm sure your dishonest Canadian hero will show up tomorrow and tell you what to think.

You try really hard, I commend your work ethic. Ive always admired Austrians for that.

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#259537 Sep 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>I agree, Chandler is an idiot. Anyone can see the large chucks descending at a much faster rate than the rest of the building.
You are dishonest and entered this topic by pretending to be a "twoofer" and presented straw-man arguments to have easily refuted, while exhibiting no logic or critical thinking skills. All in a weak attempt to discredit the conspiracy.

You started out lying about your position and acting classless by calling people "jackasses", to attempt to smear by association the "truthers." You then went on to change positions on a dime to falsely make the claim you suddenly found logic in the official story.

At the time (November 2012, remember when you told the Nebraskan meth head that you just liked messing with people haha) you performed this act, the discussion on the thread was the fact that 9/11 truth grows because people discover it as the truth in direct contrast of the official story. That simple fact meant people who believed the official story could be convinced to change their minds, while people who believed the conspiracy could not. Your subterfuge was an intentional effort to make this fact look false.

But even in your attempt to pretend to be a truth seeker, you showed your ignorance and complete shallowness by claiming straw-man arguments that only fringe truthers cling to. Arguments at the time I thought was just a stupid act, but over this year you have revealed were not.

So you are obviously a characterless liar and a person who lacks enough personal dignity to even apologize after being confronted with your soulless actions.

My question to you is why? Why would someone who claims to represent the official story and has truth and sanity on their side, need to resort to such subterfuge to paint one side as wrong and the other side as right? Why would anyone who represents truth, as you say you do, need to conduct a smear campaign against other people in order to present your own position?

Im asking for your help here, WasteOfWater. You see, I really don't want to believe my own government can be manipulated to kill its own people and cover it up. But when I see actions like smear campaigns and covered up investigations, that tends to lend credence to the conspiracy theory - as people representing truth don't need to employ such deceitful tactics.

Insults Are Easier

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#259538 Sep 21, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, you have no words of your own? Just gonna cling to this notion that laterally ejecting mass is still exerting equal downward force as the entire block, huh?

Insults Are Easier
Its in the video
A solid block and rubble still "exerting equal downward force" as each other
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#259539 Sep 21, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok
Get a set of scales and rest a object on them and note the weight.
Drop the same object from and height and if the weight/force is more than the object at rest on the scale,you have debunked David Chandler
You insist to keep showing your ignorance... most of the weight/debris from above were blown over sides of the towers.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#259540 Sep 21, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Its in the video
A solid block and rubble still "exerting equal downward force" as each other
Let me drop 10 pounds of dust on your head then I'll drop a 10 pound lead block on your head and you tell me if there is a major difference.
You can easily drive a nail with a hammer but see how long it takes by trying to use a board or a bag of feathers of the equal weight of the hammer.

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
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 10 min Seentheotherside 457
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 16 min Scaritual 87,943
Renzenberger : STEALING MILLIONS from their dri... (Feb '15) 39 min rocko 44
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Gods r Delusions ... 665,168
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr karl44 977,199
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Peace_Warrior 619,170
isibumbu esimnandi (Feb '15) 2 hr Allstylz 12
The Future of Politics in America 21 hr Insults Are Easier 176
More from around the web