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

#260280 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. The plane entered the building in a fraction of a second. It was going 733.33 feet per second. Fuel ignition would not have taken place until the plane was completely lodged in the building. What's more, the fuel tanks were in the wings which penetrated the building and ruptured filling the immediate area with fuel well inside the building. The fuel spilled down the elevator shaft burning people in the lobby. You don't appear to know much about fires and flame fronts do you. Was your so called expert at the scene or is he just another street corner junkie?
YOU weren't there either asshole. And it has been shown time and time again that you just spew claims without any links as to where you got your erroneous information.

You're not smart enough to come up with any thing real yourself so how about slipping in a link or two to back up your bullshit.

Huh eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260281 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Once initiated, there was no "dynamic" impact and cumulative weight loading.
Just the opposite in fact.
So as the progression continued, at near total free fall speed in air, the ejecting fountain-like debris plume chasing those outer perimeter steel frame pieces all the way to the ground, to within a mere second or two, the total load became increasingly weight-LESS!- relative to, an increasingly stronger steel core structure + perimeter support, since everything was tapered ever thicker toward the bottom, to handle the entire load of the rest of the building.
Think about that, and then explain continual momentum at about free fall speed, in air...?
You cannot. Not without altering the laws of physics, and nullifying the work of Newton and Gallileo in the process.
That's who you're up against, the moment you try to explain the actual collapse itself.
http://911blogger.com/node/9154
Where's the piledriver?
I know someone who will give it a try.
Huh Eh !
False. Nowhere near free fall speed.

Ejection of parts is what happens when structures fail. Numerous models have been constructed at various universities proving this fact.

False. It is obvious the upper stories pounded each successive piece into failure. The bottom did not drop out as in controlled demolitions.

Of course all this has been debunked numerous times, but welcome to your personal delusion. Don't expect intelligent people to buy it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260282 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU weren't there either asshole. And it has been shown time and time again that you just spew claims without any links as to where you got your erroneous information.
You're not smart enough to come up with any thing real yourself so how about slipping in a link or two to back up your bullshit.
Huh eh !
Getting defensive and posting ad hominem statements. Looks like insults are easier for you too. You have failed to refute even one point I made.

Try a little harder next time.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260283 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Carefully edited film proves nothing. The plane was inside the building.
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?

Do you have a heavily edited video of that?

The plane took off without any passengers and could have landed at a hundred unused airfields unnoticed. I explained that days ago. You're not keeping up waste of water.

Nobody has anything to prove to you or anybody else.

Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260284 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?
Do you have a heavily edited video of that?
The plane took off without any passengers and could have landed at a hundred unused airfields unnoticed. I explained that days ago. You're not keeping up waste of water.
Nobody has anything to prove to you or anybody else.
Huh Eh !
At 733.33 feet per second, where else would they go. The wall was full of windows. The building was built in the 40s and is hardly impenetrable.

The plane was seen being boarded by hundreds of people. Airline personnel collected the tickets. The pilots got on the plane. It took off and was tracked as well as having routine communications. Then things went wrong. Olsen made a phone call explaining what was happening. The Air National Guard C130 pilot saw the maneuver and the crash. Hundreds of people also saw the American Airlines plane. How can you explain all this away? Your scenario is rather unconvincing and flies in the face of factual evidence, but thanks for sharing you implausible opinion.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260285 Oct 4, 2013
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?

Did it all go through the sort of round hole exactly at ground level where cruise missiles are designed to hit?

For the body of a plane that size to hit at that point on the ground the engines would be many feet below ground level, and there were no marks on the grass.

We can argue this till our cycles synchronize.

You will still lose.

No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260286 Oct 4, 2013
The wall was full of windows. The building was built in the 40s and is hardly impenetrable.

Sure windows that didn't break.

Penetration of a Boeing 757 implies leaving a hole where once there was none.

There was only one hole that was not big enough for the wings, engines or tail section.

Penetration, however slight is sufficient to complete the offense. Only in this case there was no offense.

None taken.

Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260287 Oct 4, 2013
waste of water you are a planted shill. Why are you still at work? Your shift doesn't even start till 0300 hours.

Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260288 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
How did the wings and the engines and the tail section get into the building?
Did it all go through the sort of round hole exactly at ground level where cruise missiles are designed to hit?
For the body of a plane that size to hit at that point on the ground the engines would be many feet below ground level, and there were no marks on the grass.
We can argue this till our cycles synchronize.
You will still lose.
No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Huh Eh !
False. There was no round hole but many windows on several levels. The round hole picture is a brick wall in the courtyard. You are still talking nonsense. Hundreds of people saw what happened. Where did the plane go if not into the Pentagon?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260289 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
waste of water you are a planted shill. Why are you still at work? Your shift doesn't even start till 0300 hours.
Huh Eh !
Another ad hominem statement. It is easy to see that flight 77 went into the Pentagon. How could it have gone anywhere else? It was boarded and took off. It was tracked. The C130 pilot saw it crash as did hundreds of other people. You are still talking pure nonsense.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260290 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The wall was full of windows. The building was built in the 40s and is hardly impenetrable.
Sure windows that didn't break.
Penetration of a Boeing 757 implies leaving a hole where once there was none.
There was only one hole that was not big enough for the wings, engines or tail section.
Penetration, however slight is sufficient to complete the offense. Only in this case there was no offense.
None taken.
Huh eh !
Many windows were destroyed and 125 people working in those offices were killed. Why not show us the brick wall going into the court yard again so we can laugh at you once more.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260291 Oct 4, 2013
If I am a well paid Govie shill, how can I get paid when the government is shut down? What a stupid supposition that is. ROTFLMAO. Who pays you shit for brains?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260292 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
If I am a well paid Govie shill, how can I get paid when the government is shut down? What a stupid supposition that is. ROTFLMAO. Who pays you shit for brains?
That's why I was wondering why you were still working honey. Cause you won't get paid. You must do it for the sheer thrill of the job.

Huh eh

You still can't prove an airplane went into the Pentagon no matter how many people You say saw it.

Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260293 Oct 4, 2013
The official theory states that AA Flight 77 Boeing 757-223, tail number N644AA took of from Gate D26 at Dulles Airport at 8:20AM, ten minutes later than scheduled.
.
In spite of the lack of documentation in the BTS archives, there are solid reasons to believe that a plane identified as Flight 77 was airborne on 9/11/01. The expected sources, the Washington Air Traffic Control Center, the Indianapolis Control Center, the Herndon Command Center and the FAA have all been cited as having identified and/or contacted the flight while it was airborne.
.
The issue is not the existence of the plane, but rather of the passengers boarding. There are apparently no credible sources that account for sightings of passengers, either waiting for the plane or boarding it. Attempts by a leading researcher to obtain permission from American Airlines to interview employees who saw the passengers off have been declined by the airline for reasons of privacy.
.
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Noeviden...
.
The Armed Forces has released a document as to the number of people whose remains they identified among the AA 77 passengers, but has never released names.
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/pub_pres/Eds...
.
It is hard to accept that a need for privacy could be more important than informing the public as to one of the reasons the US went to war in the MidEast. Viewing the passengers as people rather than the accumulation of numbers would be much stronger evidence that they were on the plane.
.
A look at the backgrounds of the alleged passengers reveal some interesting facts. At least sixteen of the alleged 58 passengers worked in classified positions in the defense sector. This should make us wonder if these passengers were perhaps blackmailed into their participation in the plot or if they had the confidence of the plotters not to reveal their true roles.
.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article163908.html
.
According to declassified data obtained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth a data parameter known as “CI” recorded no movements from the cockpit door throughout the flight. This means that no one could have gotten inside the cockpit during the flight. No one could have hi-jacked it.
.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article163151.html
.
In fact the 9/11 Commission on pages 32-33 acknowledges that no ATC’s ever identified AA Flight 77 as a hi-jacked plane while it was airborne.
.
Two unidentified military aircraft (one an EB4 ) were tracked on radar and flew near the Pentagon at the time the Pentagon was struck. What were these planes doing so close to the Pentagon and did they have anything to do with the plot? If the official theory is true, it would seem that this information should not be a secret.
.
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.j...
.
A photography expert (Jack White) has identified inconsistencies in pictures purportedly taken at the Pentagon shortly after the crash and those taken a few days later. In one comparison, he shows differences in the shade of the color of the grass on the lawn outside the building and in another he demonstrates that a steel guard rail was either retouched or that photos were composites. White also identifies objects that were most likely planted or inserted into photos after the fact. He raised the obvious question as to why the Pentagon would tamper with the scene or the pictures if Flight 77 had indeed struck the building.

The conclusion that best fits the facts is that AA Flight 77 made it into the air on 9/11/01 without passengers and did not strike the Pentagon.

Besides if the plane don't fit, it didn't hit!

Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260294 Oct 4, 2013
"I am disgusted, disgusted with the structural engineers who know the truth about this and are keeping their mouth shut. There’s a special place in Hell reserved for them. And they are going to deserve it." –"Scholar for 9/11 Truth" James Fetzer

Huh Eh !
insultsreasier

Padre Island Ntl Seashor, TX

#260295 Oct 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
So in case you missed it Aussy booby, Dudley claims truth only wants billboards, yet heres a letter from Steven E. Jones requesting computer modeling data to peer review NISTs 9/11 probable theory.
"To: Senator Mike Lee (Utah)
From:
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics, Ret.
[address given]
1. The key to good science is independent verification.
2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged by Congress to explain the complete collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 (the 47-story building that was not hit by a plane).
3. NIST developed a computer model with adjustable parameters to explain the WTC 7 collapse.
4. I request that this WTC7-fall computer model be released immediately in a computer-ready form so that independent testing/verification can proceed. This model was developed using taxpayer funds.
5. In particular, NIST states in their 2008 report,
“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” I challenge that assumption, and wish to insert into the computer model the known physical value for thermal conductivity, to see how this changes things.
6. There are now over 1,700 engineers and architects in the AE911Truth.org society, and I am confident that our combined expertise will permit us to perform the independent verification of the NIST WTC7 computer model, once that computer simulation is released in full to us, in computer-ready form.
7. Contact information for NIST:
Sincerely,
Dr. Steven E. Jones"
So why if NIST wants to be peer reviewed, does NIST not release the modeling software and data to be peer reviewed.
Is it because
Insults Are Easier?
u copypaste while u sacking cack very good talent bud u fit in good wit obamacare
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260296 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. The plane entered the building in a fraction of a second. It was going 733.33 feet per second. Fuel ignition would not have taken place until the plane was completely lodged in the building. What's more, the fuel tanks were in the wings which penetrated the building and ruptured filling the immediate area with fuel well inside the building. The fuel spilled down the elevator shaft burning people in the lobby. You don't appear to know much about fires and flame fronts do you. Was your so called expert at the scene or is he just another street corner junkie?
Speaking of a street corner junkie. LOL
WOW talk a conspiracy theory
There was no fire in the lobby, the first firefighters to arrive at the seen walked right in and it was blown to bits.
The real experts make much more sense.

onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260297 Oct 4, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain where flight 77 went if not into the Pentagon.
Where? Who knows!
The evidence show it wasn't at the Pentagon.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260298 Oct 5, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
"I am disgusted, disgusted with the structural engineers who know the truth about this and are keeping their mouth shut. There’s a special place in Hell reserved for them. And they are going to deserve it." –"Scholar for 9/11 Truth" James Fetzer
Huh Eh !
And no doubt, Bush along with his cronies have a real hot spot in Hell, reserved with their name on it.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260299 Oct 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Nowhere near free fall speed.
Ejection of parts is what happens when structures fail. Numerous models have been constructed at various universities proving this fact.
False. It is obvious the upper stories pounded each successive piece into failure. The bottom did not drop out as in controlled demolitions.
Of course all this has been debunked numerous times, but welcome to your personal delusion. Don't expect intelligent people to buy it.
WOW what a real conspiracy theory:
When the top broke off of tower 2, where was the weight to crush the undamaged part of the building???
When multi-ton beams were blown out as far as two football fields away, most of the weight above was removed.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 13 min Aura Mytha 119,267
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 45 min kent 679,299
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Peter Ross 445,843
Any mature gay men wanting to Skype? (Jul '12) 2 hr Byscotty69 11
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 2 hr real 33,217
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr democrat punisher 2,784
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr nanoanomaly 982,144
More from around the web