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

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#260264 Oct 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I like the one where she says large chunks from wtc are free falling.
Then Dudley brings up his static vs. dynamic load bit, then hits up his p=mv equation to attempt to act like everyone else is an idiot, except her of course.
Oh the irony, huh eh?
Insults Are Easier
Oh my....I think you just out dumbed yourself!

How does loose debris free falling negate my comments about momentum or static vs. dynamic loading of the upper and lower blocks of the building????

Or relate for that matter!

Seriously, get a grip Ignorance...you're trying so hard to insult me that you no longer see the forest through the trees!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#260265 Oct 4, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't wonder why you call people scientifically illiterate at all, you do it to smear because fact based debate is outside of your intelligence.
Thats a wonderful example of how you smear people, Dudley. I said something inarticulately, you jumped all over it not wanting a clarification so you could pretend I was wrong and continue to do it to smear me - even though I clarified it countless times since that moment.
In that post, I did say steel plating has been confused with steel melting in office fires, what I intended to convey was the material plated upon the outside of the steel has been confused with the steel itself melting in office fires.
You have twisted that remark for a year in every way imaginable, because that is the essence of a smear campaign, and how sick, twisted people like you operate. Had you been honest, and not hell bent on smearing, you would have asked what I meant and accepted I made an honest mistake of language, and not of science.
Steel does not melt in office fires, jet fuel initiated or not, and you need to smear people personally to avoid the fact that on 9/11, it did.
Thats why
Insults Are Easier
Are there any twoofers that aren't whiners?

You smear yourself everytime you open your gaping maw Ignorance.

And here's what you said;
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Well anti-truth, plated steel has melted in office fires, but the point is steel never has.
It's pretty obvious you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about....well not to a twoofer, but to a normal person, it's clear. There's no twisting necessary and all I've done is pos your post in context and pointed out how dumb it is.

And of course after realizing how utterly ignorant your comment made you look, the excuses started.

Just like your claim that many articles you read referenced steel plating melting in fires...which was just a lie you, to this day, can't support.

Thanks for playing!

You may return to crying like a baby now:-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#260266 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
The thing that puzzles me is... the fuel didn't explode until the plane was well into the building. The fuel tanks should have ruptured upon impact therefore most of the fuel and fire should have been on the entry point and on the side of the buildings. Instead the biggest explosion was on the opposite side of the building which is impossible if it was jet fuel from the plane.
According to a military demolition expert; the color of the flame was the wrong color for jet fuel. He said it was the correct color for explosives.
Look up the terms;

LEL

UEL

It's called physics, you won't get it.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260267 Oct 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Look up the terms;
LEL
UEL
It's called physics, you won't get it.
Your taking about physics???
The official story defies physics in the first degree... according to several physicists.
You stepped on your own dick... again... if you have one.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260268 Oct 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>For one thing, I don't need to agree with everything everyone with a functioning brain does.
For another, I said pre-weakened and WW could clarify her statement to include weakening of the lower structure by the stress wave that preceeded the collapse.
Plus there's the fact that she didn't claim the lower part required pre-weakening.
I know oh elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS, you don't get it...at all.
The lower part of the building was weakened???
Where did that come from???
According to NIST the lower part of the building was undamaged.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#260269 Oct 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Oh my....I think you just out dumbed yourself!

How does loose debris free falling negate my comments about momentum or static vs. dynamic loading of the upper and lower blocks of the building????

Or relate for that matter!

Seriously, get a grip Ignorance...you're trying so hard to insult me that you no longer see the forest through the trees!
Really, you dont see how large chunks in free fall are no longer having resistance act upon them? And you don't see how objects ejected outside the buildings footprint no longer exert the same downward force as an object inside of it?

Of course not, because you are not a man of science, you are simply a man of the perpetual smear campaign. You can't debate without insults and straw-men, so no wonder you are here and the anti-spoon benders don't want you at the jref forum.

Here's an intelligent discussion about the NIST WTC 7 investigation, unlike the one here that has just become Dudley and friends smear campaign against people and reason.

http://www.metabunk.org/threads/does-nist-not...

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#260270 Oct 4, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>For one thing, I don't need to agree with everything everyone with a functioning brain does.
What? You don't need to agree with everything everyone with a functioning brain does?

Well thats been obvious for years, Dudley, because you would need a functioning brain to that, and thats why for you

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#260271 Oct 4, 2013
And its Friday, Dudley, so enjoy the thermate music. Id like to hear your uncreative stuff btw. Dudley plays cover music badly!

http://youtu.be/jSgyDq_Q8J8

Insults Are Easier
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#260272 Oct 4, 2013
Once again our government has been caught red handed in a LIE. The following link was just released as of 3/2013 and it proves beyond all and any doubt that there was most certainly NO PLANE that crashed into the Pentagon or Shanksville.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260273 Oct 4, 2013

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260274 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
The lower part of the building was weakened???
Where did that come from???
According to NIST the lower part of the building was undamaged.
Right, but it crumbled to the ground anyway. Oh yeah the invisible stress wave that preceded it pre-weakened the lower part of the undamaged building. But it wasn't required pig says.

Oh now I got it. Yeah that's it. The invisible stress wave that porker pig boy imagined. Everybody knows before buildings fall down there is an invisible stress wave that weakens the lower part, but not necessarily according to pig boy .

Very good debwunking porker pig boy.

Huh eh !

You are a total embarrassment to pigs everywhere.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260275 Oct 4, 2013
Maybe porker pig boy will tell us where he got the idea for the invisible stress wave from.

From Bazant maybe? Yeah Bazant probably can come up with an algebraic formula for invisible stress waves.

Hey looky I found it! Here it is.

Invisible Stress Wave

D dt (Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)s&#729;(S)dS ) &#8722; g Z z(t) 0 &#956;(S)dS = &#8722; Fc(z, z&#729;)(1) 3 where t = time, z = vertical (Lagrangian) coordinate = distance of the current crushing front from the initial position of the tower top; the superior dots denote time derivatives; &#956;(S)= initial specific mass of tower (mass of a story divided by its height) at point of initial coordinate S; s&#729;(S)= velocity of material point with initial coordinate S. It will suffice to consider the velocity, as well as the momentum density, to be distributed throughout the compacted layer linearly.

Cool Huh

EH !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260276 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
The thing that puzzles me is... the fuel didn't explode until the plane was well into the building. The fuel tanks should have ruptured upon impact therefore most of the fuel and fire should have been on the entry point and on the side of the buildings. Instead the biggest explosion was on the opposite side of the building which is impossible if it was jet fuel from the plane.
According to a military demolition expert; the color of the flame was the wrong color for jet fuel. He said it was the correct color for explosives.
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?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260277 Oct 4, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?a nnotation_id=annotation_93898 &feature=iv&index=1 &list=PL4FT2q1bKC4pczjrm7i PmpaCZnq0LpsCC&src_vid=XJx Pg95SxbU&v=aSod8QAnRow
Where's the Boeing 757?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Carefully edited film proves nothing. The plane was inside the building.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#260278 Oct 4, 2013
onemale wrote:
Once again our government has been caught red handed in a LIE. The following link was just released as of 3/2013 and it proves beyond all and any doubt that there was most certainly NO PLANE that crashed into the Pentagon or Shanksville.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XJxPg95SxbUXX
Explain where flight 77 went if not into the Pentagon.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#260279 Oct 4, 2013
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 !

“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 !

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) 1 min Mr Wiggley 38,207
Play "end of the word" part 2 2 min WasteWater 1,727
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Catholic24 641,591
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 min Peace_Warrior 618,400
bhai bon ki sex korte chan ba korsen (Feb '15) 12 min Shamim khan 108
News Viagra May Help Women (Jul '08) 32 min Gentleness Unders... 12
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 33 min WasteWater 18,700
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 35 min Just Think 104,697
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 51 min good true observa... 44,388
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr The Hangman 969,969
More from around the web