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

onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261412 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
If you actually did your research, he designed the building to withstand a 707 off course coming in for a landing. This would mean the plane was low on fuel and flying slightly above stall speed.
And if you did your research, you would know that a 767 isn't built as heavy as the older 707. In other words the 707 would do more damage.
Just like today's cars made from plastic. Ram an older heavier car into an new car and the older car will win.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261413 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. I suppose he designed them for a well fueled jetliner to crash into them at 500mph.
Are you kidding me?
The crusing speed of a 707 is faster than the crusing speed of the 767 or a 757
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261414 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. I suppose he designed them for a well fueled jetliner to crash into them at 500mph.
Are you kidding me?
And airline pilots have said a commercial cannot go 500 mph at those altitudes. The engines don't have the thrust and the structure would fly a part.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261415 Oct 26, 2013
Impossible Airplane Speed 9/11

onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261416 Oct 26, 2013
What Happened to WTC Building 6

Pegasus

Bronx, NY

#261417 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
Impossible Airplane Speed 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =zz_3_CBCRvsXX
Just when I thought you were snapping out of conspiracrap.....you go and post this shit!!!!!!

Zorderz the Zipperhead has really got his hook into you.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261418 Oct 26, 2013
Pegasus wrote:
<quoted text>Just when I thought you were snapping out of conspiracrap.....you go and post this shit!!!!!!
Zorderz the Zipperhead has really got his hook into you.
What makes you an expert?
Are you an airline pilot?
How do you know more than airline pilots?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261419 Oct 26, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>The smear campaign can't learn because its only intent in life is to deceive by spam and repetition. The more you repeat the lie, the more who will be influenced by it.

Take 39 seconds to realize the designers took into account jets require fuel to fly.

http://youtu.be/6qv7Oc9OFwg

This is why for sheeple

Insults Are Easier
And it took less that one second to figure out Frank DiMartini wasn't a designer of the towers.

And that he died on 911 meaning he can't have the opportunity for a sober second look at his own claim.

But hey, nice try at spreading disinformation....again!

Leslie Robertson, lead designer of WTC 1 & 2 said,

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."

Steel plating....all over again.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261420 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>Did you not see all the dust on the ground and in the air???
Do you think architects and engineers aren't smart enough to know a free fall when they see it???
The simple fact is it's quite easy to see it wasn't free fall.

You're just less than simple.

Another fact is no twoofer charlatan master has yet been able to prove free fall means anything...it's a buzz word to get idiots like you drooling.

Oh and you do drool!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261421 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>And if you did your research, you would know that a 767 isn't built as heavy as the older 707. In other words the 707 would do more damage.
Just like today's cars made from plastic. Ram an older heavier car into an new car and the older car will win.
Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft."

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/Engine...

Sorry spanky, you just fail every time your greasy fingers touch the key board.

Oh but you know better than the designer of the towers right?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261422 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>And airline pilots have said a commercial cannot go 500 mph at those altitudes. The engines don't have the thrust and the structure would fly a part.
And you've been shown videos of 757's doing exactly what you claim they can't do.

And you've been shown that aerospace engineers...people who design planes...find your fact free drivel to be inane and pointless.

But no matter how badly you're beat into the ground with reality you still choose to slurp from the trough of stupid.

And THAT's what makes you such a great chew toy!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261423 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you an expert?
Are you an airline pilot?
How do you know more than airline pilots?
Oh the delicious irony!

You won't get it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261424 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not see all the dust on the ground and in the air???
Do you think architects and engineers aren't smart enough to know a free fall when they see it???
It is very obvious there is no free fall. Just watch the chucks which are ejected. They descend at a much higher rate of speed. There is nothing odd about dust, have you ever done construction work in your life? Buildings have Sheetrock and all kinds of coatings which disintegrate during demolition. Your engineers and architects are really stupid which is evidenced by the amount of time they wasted on pure speculation and unfounded nonsense rather than going to a job and doing something worthwhile with their lives.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261425 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you did your research, you would know that a 767 isn't built as heavy as the older 707. In other words the 707 would do more damage.
Just like today's cars made from plastic. Ram an older heavier car into an new car and the older car will win.
Not if it were flying slower. Older cars win huh? Check this out.

2011 Maibu wipes out 1959 BelAire in a crash test.



How about this one? I won't spoil it for you.

Fifth Gear - Renault Modus vs Volvo 940 crash test

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
pupcia osrana

Baltimore, MD

#261426 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It is very obvious there is no free fall. Just watch the chucks which are ejected. They descend at a much higher rate of speed. There is nothing odd about dust, have you ever done construction work in your life? Buildings have Sheetrock and all kinds of coatings which disintegrate during demolition. Your engineers and architects are really stupid which is evidenced by the amount of time they wasted on pure speculation and unfounded nonsense rather than going to a job and doing something worthwhile with their lives.
your halucinations everyday are worse and worse,urgently you need to call 911 and allow you quickly to take you under evaluation of dr Shrink warriors

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261427 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
And airline pilots have said a commercial cannot go 500 mph at those altitudes. The engines don't have the thrust and the structure would fly a part.
Yes they can in a crash dive with no regard for the consequences. They don't just fly apart because there is a margin of error designed into the structure to exceed normal operation parameters for a short period of time. In fact, Why did you say the plane cannot go 500mph when it is designed to cruise at 533mph? That is kind of silly don't you think?

"The wings are largely identical across all 757 variants, swept at 25 degrees, and optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h).[24][27] "

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#261428 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
What Happened to WTC Building 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =509xQgcoMN8XX
Win every 9/11 debate with this one fact !

Space beams again?

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#261430 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if it were flying slower. Older cars win huh? Check this out.
2011 Maibu wipes out 1959 BelAire in a crash test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cJrXViFfMGkXX
How about this one? I won't spoil it for you.
Fifth Gear - Renault Modus vs Volvo 940 crash test
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

They pretty much demolished each other but...
Wow , that shows you just how far designs have made it possible to survive serious impacts. It looks like the Impala driver wouldn't have survived it,
but the Malibu driver would likely walk away unscathed.
Pegasus

Chicago, IL

#261431 Oct 27, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you an expert?
Are you an airline pilot?
How do you know more than airline pilots?
I don't claim to be a pilot nor a co-pilot but I can logically reason that a jet is designed to fulfill it's function safely with integrity and to do so the aircraft must be built beyond it's rated expectations AND specifications.

Google up Tex Johnson and learn how he could take an aircraft and push the envelope.

The weight to wing area of a bumble bee technically should not allow the bee to fly but they do.

Your problem is you succumb to the power of suggestion which will lead to a washed brain where then you have your mind "learned" or perhaps programmed to except no other possible conclusion.

I have looked at pretty every item you conspirists have drummed up and because I find your links and what not are clearly doctored and dubbed to appear as if they are realistic.

I have looked at the whole of 911 with an open mind and every concievable angle and will not be swayed from my decision by such the likes of an Alex Jones sideshow just short of him having circus music in the background.

You are simply too narrow minded and chasing a lost cause.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261432 Oct 27, 2013
Pegasus wrote:
<quoted text>I don't claim to be a pilot nor a co-pilot but I can logically reason that a jet is designed to fulfill it's function safely with integrity and to do so the aircraft must be built beyond it's rated expectations AND specifications.
Google up Tex Johnson and learn how he could take an aircraft and push the envelope.
The weight to wing area of a bumble bee technically should not allow the bee to fly but they do.
Your problem is you succumb to the power of suggestion which will lead to a washed brain where then you have your mind "learned" or perhaps programmed to except no other possible conclusion.
I have looked at pretty every item you conspirists have drummed up and because I find your links and what not are clearly doctored and dubbed to appear as if they are realistic.
I have looked at the whole of 911 with an open mind and every concievable angle and will not be swayed from my decision by such the likes of an Alex Jones sideshow just short of him having circus music in the background.
You are simply too narrow minded and chasing a lost cause.
Exactly. The editing of many conspiracy sites makes things appear differently. Here are three examples to illustrate my point.

1. WTC7 is only viewed from the relatively undamaged side and often run numerous times with some kind of free-fall verbiage. The fact is damage on the other side and internal damage caused by both fire and debris destroyed the structural integrity causing a collapse which was less than free-fall speed.

2. The fireman bomb verbiage is often cut into WTC7 but actually comes from an undetermined explosive situation in one of the towers.

3. The hole in the Pentagon wall is often displayed as an entry point. It is a bricked in wall into the courtyard punched by the nose of the aircraft. This brick wall is very weak due to the fact that it is constructed of bricks and mortar rather than structural concrete.

Conclusion. Conspiracy sites are nothing more than propaganda promoted by discontented, paranoid people looking for attention. They come from all walks of life, especially academic fringes of society.

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
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 9 min truth 181,962
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Insults Are Easier 30,133
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min macumazahn 968,910
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 44 min truth 638,067
REPORT: Prince's red blood cell count was EXTRE... 1 hr Purple Fan 2
Play "end of the word" part 2 1 hr andet1987 1,471
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 2 hr Halle Berry Sister 3,558
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 2 hr An NFL Fan 38,053
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr good advice 43,922
More from around the web