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

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#261604 Oct 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>

And they never checked any of the physical evidence for explosives? Are you kidding me?
You right,Niels Harrit didn't test the twoofer dust for physical evidence for explosives either.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261605 Oct 29, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
So now you are equating what a bunch of murderous muslim thugs are supposed to have done with courage?
Who'd a thunk it?
Huh Eh !
Think about it my friend. Would you have enough courage to fly a plane into a building at top speed? That's what I'm I'm talking about. It's about purposely being a bug on a windshield. Besides. You said previously they didn't do it. Now you say they did. Which is it?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261606 Oct 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Look up the scientific method and perhaps you will grasp what Im saying.
Insults Are Easier
There is nothing scientific about dismissing facts and evidence due to personal prejudice.

Here is a typical definition of scientific method.

1. Problem solving: Step-by-step approach consisting of (1) identifying and defining a problem,(2) accumulating relevant data,(3) formulating a tentative hypothesis,(4) conducting experiments to test the hypothesis,(5) interpreting the results objectively, and (6) repeating the steps until an acceptable solution is found.
2. Sciences: Rigorous, systematic approach, designed to eliminate bias and other subjective influences in the search, identification, and measurement or validation of facts and cause-effect relationships, and from which scientific laws may be deduced.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/...

1. You define the problem within the confines of your personal bias.

2. You collect irrelevant and unreliable data.

3. You formulate a preposterous hypothesis.

4. You have no means to test your hypothesis nor evidence to support it.

5. You avoid objectivity due to personal bias.

6. You keep repeating your mistakes.

Yep. That's really scientific Bub.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261607 Oct 29, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us again about the low carbon aluminum Manyfails!
What does that have to do with the statements made by members on the NIST commission???
Do you think by firing shots me... this debunks the post???
It is sign you are getting desperate.
When you have lost you resort to insults... like that debunks everything??? I fail to see the logic.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261608 Oct 29, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course two weeks ago among the evidunce they cited was the hole in the pentagon....which is the size of a 757.
Oh but that's not important anymore....
Two weeks ago???
It took a decade to prove it, there is no logic here.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261609 Oct 29, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Your fellow twoofers scientists say that, so I guess they and about 90% of your claims must be wrong!
<quoted text>
----------
WELL THEN ALL THOSE EXPERTS YOU LIKE TO QUOTE ARE WRONG PANTYSNIFFER!
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH DEBUNK JUDY WOOD
Fortunately, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have recently made their position very clear on this matter regarding Directed Energy Weapon theories. A new article written by Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage and Gregg Roberts shows many of the absurdities of Judy Wood's claims. The article is reproduced here, with some extra links I have added:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/arch...
I already explained this once, if you can't keep up stay out.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261610 Oct 29, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
LINK or LIE SELF DEBUNKER!
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with the statements made by members on the NIST commission???
Do you think by firing shots me... this debunks the link???
I fail to see the logic there.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261611 Oct 29, 2013
If Islamic Extremest wants to kill themselves to go to heaven with their virgins. Why don't they all do it and why doesn't their leaders do it???
The story we are told just doesn't add up here.
What country are these Extremest from??? Why don't we attack that country???
They are not from Iraq.
Who are we fighting in Afghanistan???
I can't be Al Qaeda because we helped them in Libya and in Syria until Russia stepped in.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261612 Oct 29, 2013

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#261613 Oct 29, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Look up the scientific method and perhaps you will grasp what Im saying.
Insults Are Easier
Being your assertion is as hollow as the evidence, it means you've nothing but conjecture.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261614 Oct 30, 2013
onemale wrote:
Bush Admits Lying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tSBgGXoNgrQXX
Everyone knows Bush told lies, forgot things and was a general bumbler. How does any of this indicate some massive conspiracy? You really think Bush would be a capable conspirator? I seriously doubt that.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#261615 Oct 30, 2013
onemale wrote:
Bush Admits Lying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tSBgGXoNgrQXX
A politician lying..OMFG

Tell me something.
Bill clinton couldn't even get a headjob on the sly without getting busted,and there were only two involved, so how did GWB pull 911 off with out one single leak?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261616 Oct 30, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Many airplanes will be used for different ’flights’ out of airports each day. "A particular aircraft may fly several different flights in one day, and different aircraft may be used for the same flight number on successive days." Source
Flight number (or flight code) is different from the plane identification number. It would take a short investigation to match a particular plane with a flight route that day.
Further, almost every single part on an airplane, down to the tiniest component, has identifying marks or serial numbers. This is industry standard, and certainly was the case on 9/11. It should be no problem to put together a forensic investigation with the remaining airplane parts to match up the parts with the planes with the flight numbers.

And yet, Boeing insists this is impossible.

Firstly, who is giving out this statement from Boeing, and secondly, why aren’t these details important to either Boeing, the police, or the relatives of victims who died on 9/11?

Perhaps it’s a can of worms that officials do not want to open, so it’s deemed "impossible".

What happens if they read the serial numbers on the parts, cross reference it with the numbers that were supposed to be on the planes from the day of the attack, and find they don’t match?

If they do match, well that’s evidence to make a case for the official story. If they DON’T match however, that leads to questions about which planes exactly impacted the Twin Towers that day? If not the Boeing planes that were allegedly carrying passengers booked on Flights 11 and 175, then which?

There are some researchers who theorize that the original planes carrying the passengers booked on 11 and 175 took off as expected from the corresponding gates, but different planes impacted the towers.

The key to this comes with the fact that the plane’s transponders (electronic location device) were turned off mid-flight. The official story says the hijackers did this to go ’invisible’ to radar.

On the PilotsFor911Truth forum, pilots speculate on this by suggesting:

"I believe that a more likely explanation is that the 3020 and 3321 transponder codes were part of a multiple plane, "Northwoods" scenario ’swap’ where two planes occupy the same radar ’space’-- one descends to land, one continues. in this scenario, UA175 is not the craft that hits the towers. a different aircraft is the one seen in the videos, but , per "northwoods" painted as in the livery of the commercial craft."

Ultimately, the way to prove or disprove this theory is by investigating the part number - indeed ALL the part numbers from the pieces of evidence that were gathered from the crime scene. Something that officials call ’impossible’.

A commenter, "Rebel", on the AP story provided his take on what Boeing had to say about it:

"I work for a tiny aerospace supplier that makes non-flight-critical aircraft components and we - and the aircraft completion facility that buys our stuff -[are] required by the FAA to keep meticulous records so that between us, even a circuit panel inside a single button switch panel used to turn on a coffee pot in the back of the plane can be matched to a particular plane.

But this can only happen if everybody is willing to co-operate. And no one is co-operating on this point of matching the serial numbers of wreckage debris found at the crime scene to maintenance records.

So the only conclusion any sane inquisitive person can come up with is:

"They’re lying."

http://redicecreations.com/article.php...

Huh Eh !
More mindless cut and paste word salad from oh elevator boy-sheep 30 pilots YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST STREET CORNER JEEBUS!

Well when you don't have anything to say yourself or evidence to support you, serve salad!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261617 Oct 30, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>Still abusing and ridiculing i see.What qualification's really do you have?
You would not know what true evidence was if it hit you in the face!

Oh Porkfart,
You are just a little stooge SHITHEAD!
With all the comment's you have posted,You still have'nt
convinced one person.

A bit of a waste of time,Don't you think!
More along the lines of pointing and laughing but hey, thanks for the irony dipsht!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Okotoks, Canada

#261618 Oct 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
He also can't be manipulated into playing ball with the official story to further his career or go along with what is politically expedient, now that he is deceased.

So it cuts both ways.
No failure, it certainly doesn't "cut both ways".

#1 You lied and claimed he was a designer which her certainly was not. He was construction manager of an existing building he neither helped build nor design.

#2 He's an architect. As is always the case, you're most likely completely ignorant to the role an architect plays in the design of buildings.

Architects are not structural engineers and their purpose is aethstetics, not engineer the structure. Do are architects have a basic knowledge of structural engineering? Yes, they must. Can architects make off the cuff remarks that negate the lead engineering designers in depth knowledge? Only in twooferdumb.

Leslie Robertson's commentary on what the building was designed to withstand was made via his very in depth knowledge of the structures as the person that either did the majority of the engineering itself, or reviewed then signed off on it.

Frank DiMartini's is based on a hunch.

Hunches don't generally include the kinds of calculations Robertson did and was privy to in regards to the design of the towers.

This is just another example of low life morons like yourself grasping desperately at straws and telling lies you hope will convince others dumb and gullible enough to fall for a facade of truth but and smart enough to actually verify it themselves.

DiMartini was not a designer.

DiMartini based his statement on thin air.

The towers did withstand the force of impact.

You, as always, haven't got a point that helps you in anyway shape or form.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#261619 Oct 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Planes can crash taking off or landing, and the architect I linked said he believed two fully loaded 707's could impact each tower. Fully loaded in aviation refers to total weight including passengers, cargo, and fuel. A fully loaded aircraft has full fuel tanks.

But you pretend architects just draw pictures without working side by side with engineers to complete projects, as you pretend every engineer is beyond reproach, as long as they support your agenda.

Statistically, planes are far more likely to crash on take-off then landing, but you readily believe one quote by an engineer because it fits your preconceived belief that everything a government says is true. You worship authority, because you were taught to.

The idea that designers only considered a landing aircraft without fuel in a building so tall defies logic. But one must have logic to know it, and you have none.
More of your "let's go on a pointless tangent idiocy"!

It didn't defy any logic since the scenario was based on the reality of it happening at the Empire State Building the consideration wasn't based on statistics but a very real fear.

Regardless, your ignorant, pointless tangent ignores that the lead engineer on the project t has already supported my claim and debunked yours.

Although that's not entirely accurate. It's more along the lines of me doing research into how the towers were constructed and what considerations were taken into account and you mindlessly spewing twoofer canards then lying about DiMartini being a designer of the towers...because twoof is just a lie that can only be defended by telling more lies all told by liars like you!

Good luck with that!
Pegasus

Bronx, NY

#261621 Oct 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>More of your "let's go on a pointless tangent idiocy"!
It didn't defy any logic since the scenario was based on the reality of it happening at the Empire State Building the consideration wasn't based on statistics but a very real fear.
Regardless, your ignorant, pointless tangent ignores that the lead engineer on the project t has already supported my claim and debunked yours.
Although that's not entirely accurate. It's more along the lines of me doing research into how the towers were constructed and what considerations were taken into account and you mindlessly spewing twoofer canards then lying about DiMartini being a designer of the towers...because twoof is just a lie that can only be defended by telling more lies all told by liars like you!
Good luck with that!
These clowns justl love/desire the bunk from the web, anything they find negates itself ....in prior posts and posts yet to come.

One big circle jerk on a carousel!
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261622 Oct 30, 2013
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>
A politician lying..OMFG
Tell me something.
Bill clinton couldn't even get a headjob on the sly without getting busted,and there were only two involved, so how did GWB pull 911 off with out one single leak?
The sleazy slut blew and told, my theory is she was paid off. Why else would she admit to the world she is slut? She was considering opening a restaurant... how could an intern have that kind of money?
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261623 Oct 30, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone knows Bush told lies, forgot things and was a general bumbler. How does any of this indicate some massive conspiracy? You really think Bush would be a capable conspirator? I seriously doubt that.
And this is the government you trust.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#261624 Oct 30, 2013
Pegasus wrote:
<quoted text>There's just one little problem Einstein.......nada.....zip... ....ZERO .....proof.
Let's go for two decades ........you can be much wiser but just as goddamn gullible.
Step away from that Alex Jones trash you will do yourself wonders.
And this is the testimony that never saw the light of day in the NIST report.
A testimony of the Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, which indicates Cheney ordered the stand down order of NORAD.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 41 min Travesty 53,380
3 Word Game (Feb '12) 41 min quilterqueen 4,680
Is God a "Bully" sometimes? 41 min psychiatrist Shrink 61
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 42 min nanoanomaly 992,496
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 51 min quilterqueen 1,506
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 59 min Unsolved Mistery 693,594
Got my ex pregnant before break up. What do I do? 3 hr onemale1 3
Skype gay sex (Dec '14) Mon dirtyguy34 35
More from around the web