• Sections
Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

# Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#261065 Oct 20, 2013
Yellow Star Seed is Back wrote:
I don't know who judged my last post "nuts"...., but YOU can chew on these nuts.......
An 8'x8' jet turbine is likely circular in design rather than square so if you wanted to estimate the surface area you would use the Pi formula......reducing the surface area estimate from 64 sq ft to 50 1/4 sq ft, or 22% less surface area if you will. That is significant and way outside the boundaries of tolerances I deal with which are set by professional engineers, that's nearly twice the factor of safety calculated into structural concrete in building designs.
The information about the planes, angle of deflection at impact, air speed from flight data, etc, etc, along with the design of the pentagon walls(thickness, reinforcing, design strength, etc) along with testing and inspection data can be used to run a "scientific" mathematical calculation to determine whether or not A(plane) caused B(damage to pentagon), I haven't seen anyone even attempt to seriously answer that question.
Now that would certainly answer some questions, but where is it???
I know why don't you find answers to your questions in the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST Report or the FBI Report or any number of govie "reports".

NIST's fall guy Dr. Zdenek Bazant has got some nifty "scientific" mathematical calculations. You could look them up and maybe that would help you in your calculations.

"But where is it?"

The answer is it isn't because it never was.

Huh Eh

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#261066 Oct 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> But can you say with certainty the impact wasn't at an angle yes this could be calculated in a more refined way, but as a general estimate it will do. There are many hidden variables here , specifically the angle of attack on impact changes the area. But the C ring impact by the landing gear was @ 90 degrees.
I can't say anything for certain, neither can 99.999% of the population and 100% of topix members, that IS the point I have been making over and over here.

PS- Some people grow anxious with not "knowing" like sheep to slaughter......while others embrace and enjoy the journey of discovery like children at play.
Pegasus
#261067 Oct 20, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Alex Jones is the number one investigative news reporter who have the balls to seek the truth, no matter where it leads, popular or unpopular.
He is also the man paying you to repeat his nonsense all of which has nevet been provenin the least bit.

Now why don't you cough up that interview with Atta......why because you are a liar and a farce.

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#261068 Oct 20, 2013
Pegasus wrote:
Hey, it's PegAnus! Where's batman?!?

translation: you're just a sidekick, but you do make me laugh.....in a "dumb and dumber" sort of way.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#261069 Oct 20, 2013
Yellow Star Seed is Back wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't say anything for certain, neither can 99.999% of the population and 100% of topix members, that IS the point I have been making over and over here.
PS- Some people grow anxious with not "knowing" like sheep to slaughter......while others embrace and enjoy the journey of discovery like children at play.
My numbers maybe somewhat shewed , but yours are so terribly inaccurate they don't even attempt to offer realism .

Pegasus
#261070 Oct 20, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
Lies can't last forever. The REAL truth about American Airlines flight 77 is that is was intercepted and shot down over an unpopulated area.....then a missle was flown into an unoccupied section of the Pentagon for the purpose of covering up the flight 77 shootdown. They shot down flights 77 and 93 because they knew the passengers on those planes were going to die anyway....so they had to stop those evil islamic cowards from murdering thousands of people on the ground. Yeah, we know the REAL DEAL.
You fools can't even keep your varying concocted lies in the right order nor believe if there were planes or not.mannequins or actual passengers.

Either way, over a decade later, Truthers have failed to prove any of their wildest dreams.
Apparently Truthers can't rub two nickels together after Alex Jones continually cleans losers such as Zorderz and Onemales financial clocks.

Suckers areborn every minute.......howevet during slowdowns....Zorderz and Onemale pick up the slack.

For each will be a farce and you can rely on them to lie.
Pegasus
#261071 Oct 20, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, same old story just a different day and no answers just insults, but what else is new???
Pegasus
#261072 Oct 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
To this date no one can tell me who Alex Jones is.
Is he a saint in your religion?
What say you bwunkers?
Huh eh !
The guy who dupes Truthers into conspiracies, sells you and yor ilk junk keychains, pencils, pens, coffee mugs, notebooks, tee shirts, baseball caps ....trinkets...and baubles for what and why?

All in the name of truth.......What freaking saps!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#261073 Oct 20, 2013
Predetermined Conclusion

To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11; fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse.

Many were convinced that this was the most obvious explanation. Unfortunately, not all of the evidence was known, therefore our conclusions were based on an incomplete examination of the evidence.[12]

Scientists are trained to think differently.[13] They prefer to look at all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion to avoid unnecessary speculation.

This approach results from using the Scientific Method. The NIST scientists did not behave like normal scientists. Just days after 9/11, NIST scientists had already come to a predetermined conclusion without examining any of the physical evidence:

Â“Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.Â”[14]

Â“I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didnÂ’t know when it was going to happen.Â”[15]

Â“We all know what caused the collapse.Â”[16]

How could these NIST scientists confidently know exactly what caused the buildings to collapse just days after 9/11?

These statements indicate that NIST scientists reached a predetermined conclusion before looking at any of the physical evidence.

Was there another possible explanation for why the towers collapsed?

Not everyone agreed with the predetermined conclusion of NIST.

Even NIST contributor Ronald HamburgerÂ’s first impression was that Â“[explosive] charges had been placed in the building.Â”[17]

News anchors[18] and other credible people had thought of this possibility too, so why wasnÂ’t this theory examined in the NIST report?

Peter Jennings[19] of ABC News said:Â“anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it downÂ”

http://911blogger.com/node/4324

In a controlled demolition it is possible to make the collapse look like anything you want. That's why they call it a CONTROLLED demolition. But the physics are the same. If the upper part of the building was weakened by the alleged aircraft impact and subsequent jet fuel and office furnishing fires, how does that explain the breaking of the succeeding larger and larger steel columns in the lower part of the building that were designed to hold up to 4 times the weight of the building above and did not suffer any fire damage and were not weakened.

Where's the piledriver?

Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261074 Oct 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Predetermined Conclusion
To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11; fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse.
Many were convinced that this was the most obvious explanation. Unfortunately, not all of the evidence was known, therefore our conclusions were based on an incomplete examination of the evidence.[12]
Scientists are trained to think differently.[13] They prefer to look at all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion to avoid unnecessary speculation.
This approach results from using the Scientific Method. The NIST scientists did not behave like normal scientists. Just days after 9/11, NIST scientists had already come to a predetermined conclusion without examining any of the physical evidence:
Â“Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.Â”[14]
Â“I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didnÂ’t know when it was going to happen.Â”[15]
Â“We all know what caused the collapse.Â”[16]
How could these NIST scientists confidently know exactly what caused the buildings to collapse just days after 9/11?
These statements indicate that NIST scientists reached a predetermined conclusion before looking at any of the physical evidence.
Was there another possible explanation for why the towers collapsed?
Not everyone agreed with the predetermined conclusion of NIST.
Even NIST contributor Ronald HamburgerÂ’s first impression was that Â“[explosive] charges had been placed in the building.Â”[17]
News anchors[18] and other credible people had thought of this possibility too, so why wasnÂ’t this theory examined in the NIST report?
Peter Jennings[19] of ABC News said:Â“anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it downÂ”
http://911blogger.com/node/4324
In a controlled demolition it is possible to make the collapse look like anything you want. That's why they call it a CONTROLLED demolition. But the physics are the same. If the upper part of the building was weakened by the alleged aircraft impact and subsequent jet fuel and office furnishing fires, how does that explain the breaking of the succeeding larger and larger steel columns in the lower part of the building that were designed to hold up to 4 times the weight of the building above and did not suffer any fire damage and were not weakened.
Where's the piledriver?
Huh Eh !
Not just fires but many factors. Structures can collapse if enough things go wrong. Does the term structural failure ring a bell?

Where is the tangible evidence of those so called other factors?

Agreement is irrelevant.

No evidence of explosive devices was ever found. Structural failures are in and of themselves explosive in nature.

Facts and evidence were examined rather than opinions.

Yes and no. What does Peter Jennings really know of actual building demolition?
Pegasus
#261075 Oct 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Predetermined Conclusion
To make a predetermined conclusion is to accept a theory without examining all of the relevant evidence. I, like most had a predetermined conclusion about the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11; fires and damage from the planes caused the WTC towers to collapse.
Many were convinced that this was the most obvious explanation. Unfortunately, not all of the evidence was known, therefore our conclusions were based on an incomplete examination of the evidence.[12]
Scientists are trained to think differently.[13] They prefer to look at all of the relevant evidence before coming to a conclusion to avoid unnecessary speculation.
This approach results from using the Scientific Method. The NIST scientists did not behave like normal scientists. Just days after 9/11, NIST scientists had already come to a predetermined conclusion without examining any of the physical evidence:
Â“Already, there is near consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.Â”[14]
Â“I knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, I just didnÂ’t know when it was going to happen.Â”[15]
Â“We all know what caused the collapse.Â”[16]
How could these NIST scientists confidently know exactly what caused the buildings to collapse just days after 9/11?
These statements indicate that NIST scientists reached a predetermined conclusion before looking at any of the physical evidence.
Was there another possible explanation for why the towers collapsed?
Not everyone agreed with the predetermined conclusion of NIST.
Even NIST contributor Ronald HamburgerÂ’s first impression was that Â“[explosive] charges had been placed in the building.Â”[17]
News anchors[18] and other credible people had thought of this possibility too, so why wasnÂ’t this theory examined in the NIST report?
Peter Jennings[19] of ABC News said:Â“anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it downÂ”
http://911blogger.com/node/4324
In a controlled demolition it is possible to make the collapse look like anything you want. That's why they call it a CONTROLLED demolition. But the physics are the same. If the upper part of the building was weakened by the alleged aircraft impact and subsequent jet fuel and office furnishing fires, how does that explain the breaking of the succeeding larger and larger steel columns in the lower part of the building that were designed to hold up to 4 times the weight of the building above and did not suffer any fire damage and were not weakened.
Where's the piledriver?
Huh Eh !
Cough up photos of those 18' diameter .
You are a liar and a farce.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#261076 Oct 20, 2013
Yellow Star Seed is Back wrote:
<quoted text>I can't say anything for certain, neither can 99.999% of the population and 100% of topix members, that IS the point I have been making over and over here.

PS- Some people grow anxious with not "knowing" like sheep to slaughter......while others embrace and enjoy the journey of discovery like children at play.
You could apply that yo anything and everything that happens everyday. It doesn't mean anything though and it's exactly what twoof has been trying to do right from September 12 2001.

Miring any discussion in minutia that requires a degree of accuracy not expected for any event just means the arguments are endless.

I tried to explain to one twoofer that an FEA is not infinitely accurate and can't account for the movement of every atom in a chaotic event.

He didn't get it.

Regarding the plane impact at the pentagon, there's just too much eye witness and physical evidence available to deny what happened and miring discussion in minutia is pointless.

Someone could show through modelling that the possibility exists for the plane to cause the damage we can see in pictures taken after the fact, but what's the point?

And it's not like the but cases accept legitimate models anyway...that's already been proven.

“"Tanners Flat" U dummy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#261077 Oct 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
My numbers maybe somewhat shewed , but yours are so terribly inaccurate they don't even attempt to offer realism .
So you are saying that your estimation of 64 sq ft of surface area for a jet turbine about 8' wide and 8' tall, or 8' in diameter, is more accurate than my 50 1/4 sq ft of surface area estimate?

You've gone mad! The only way your numbers are more accurate is if the face(front/intake) of jet engines are square rather than circular.
http://irishenergynews.com/home/wp-content/up...

PS- That was just the beginning in determining forces and area and the relationship because it doesn't have a machined flat solid surface, different amounts of the motor's surface would impact at different points at different instances, rather at all at once.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#261078 Oct 20, 2013
Pegasus wrote:
<quoted text>Cough up photos of those 18' diameter .
You are a liar and a farce.
What's so funny is the young EARTG creationist claims NIST applied faulty logic and bad science to the reports they issued yet idiots like him can't tell good science from bad.
Pegasus
#261079 Oct 20, 2013
Truthers why do you bother to rehash your same old unproven tripe .....sorry...Jones driven tripe......because you are paronoid, borderline psychopaths or on the Jones's payroll.

Whatever the case may be 10 years later, Jones or not, no ground has been taken.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

#261080 Oct 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>But can you say with certainty the impact wasn't at an angle yes this could be calculated in a more refined way, but as a general estimate it will do. There are many hidden variables here , specifically the angle of attack on impact changes the area. But the C ring impact by the landing gear was @ 90 degrees.
And wouldn't design account for the shape of the hole as well?

If the wall was made of square or rectangular cast blocks and fastened at the joints by a grout, the joints would no doubt be the weakest part and therefor fail in the same pattern as it was assembled.

Although that's just common sense so it doesn't apply to half baked claims...

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#261081 Oct 20, 2013
I just think the official story is not true.

I came here and found you guys fighting among yourselves more than anything.

I wonder if these internet truth forums have people posting to intentionally cause internal arguing and confusion in an attempt to stop the truth movement.

I think there are people intentionally trying to cause this in-fighting.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
kenya

#261082 Oct 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
pegassus
Maybe you should be more interested in what your master, Kenyan born closet muslim "Hussein" bama has in his itinerary for You!
Huh Eh !
do u honestly belive obama is a muslim African? prove Dr. Zorderz

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#261083 Oct 20, 2013
Yellow Star Seed is Back wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that your estimation of 64 sq ft of surface area for a jet turbine about 8' wide and 8' tall, or 8' in diameter, is more accurate than my 50 1/4 sq ft of surface area estimate?
You've gone mad! The only way your numbers are more accurate is if the face(front/intake) of jet engines are square rather than circular.
http://irishenergynews.com/home/wp-content/up...
PS- That was just the beginning in determining forces and area and the relationship because it doesn't have a machined flat solid surface, different amounts of the motor's surface would impact at different points at different instances, rather at all at once.
It didn't hit at 90 degrees, that's your problem

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#261084 Oct 20, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
And wouldn't design account for the shape of the hole as well?
If the wall was made of square or rectangular cast blocks and fastened at the joints by a grout, the joints would no doubt be the weakest part and therefor fail in the same pattern as it was assembled.
Although that's just common sense so it doesn't apply to half baked claims...

Something like that, but all we can do here is guesstimate , it isn't like we can go measure the hole and weigh in the planes engine.

But it was clear the holes made were square and between the steel columns.

It was also thought the right engine dislodged after hitting the construction trailer and entered the building above the rest of the plane.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.