Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

53,967 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#261388 Oct 25, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects who designed the towers designed them to withstand jet crashes. A jet crash is a jet crash it doesn't change the result if it is purposely or an accident.
Right. I suppose he designed them for a well fueled jetliner to crash into them at 500mph.

Are you kidding me?

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#261389 Oct 25, 2013
How many buildings did the architect test his theory on? In reality, the buildings did remarkably well to remain standing as long as they did.
A tree

Modesto, CA

#261390 Oct 26, 2013
I'm pretty thirsty, can I get some water please?

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#261391 Oct 26, 2013
A tree wrote:
I'm pretty thirsty, can I get some water please?
With or without mind controlling fluoride parasites ?
onemale

Pana, IL

#261392 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?
Oh yes and you're the expert...
Their opinions outweigh yours, 100 to none.
onemale

Pana, IL

#261393 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?
Of course the figured the jet fuel, how else would the jet get there???
onemale

Pana, IL

#261394 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
How many buildings did the architect test his theory on? In reality, the buildings did remarkably well to remain standing as long as they did.
Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#261395 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
According to architects who designed the towers designed them to withstand jet crashes. A jet crash is a jet crash it doesn't change the result if it is purposely or an accident.
Yea, They did, he also said there was not study to determine the results of a fire.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261396 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
What are you talking about? Are you on drugs?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#261397 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
About freefall speed, SO THERE WAS RESISTANCE, that did not come from fine dust.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#261398 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes and you're the expert...
Their opinions outweigh yours, 100 to none.
Well, Since these two are mutually exclusive one is wrong, which one!
onemale wrote:
Dr. Judy Wood is an engineer who is ending all speculation of 9/11
Her credentals:
* Batchlor's degree in Science & Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering)
* Master's degree in Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics)
* PHD in Materials Engineering Science
With expertise in image analyses, optical methods, applied mechanics and over 35 years experience in this area.
This is a very long clip but well worth the view.
If your willing to listen to the same 911 story for over a decade, you should be willing to hear all new evidence backed up by a 500 page book that has never been challenged or redacted . That alone should tell you SHE IS THE REAL DEAL and is a true patriot who is demonized but never discussed by 9/11 community, but i can assure you those days are limited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sRlYwyqDA3YXX
----------

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...
Anonymous

Sharon Springs, NY

#261399 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Jessie Ventura's son has some flying experience and when he tried the flight simulator of flying a 757 into the Pentagon, after several tries he couldn't do it, therefore if you have no flying experience it is a safe bet to say you can't do it.
That is so stupid considering eyewitnesses SAW (YEA I SAID SAW LIKE MEANING WITH THEIR TWO&#128064;) a plane clearly hit the pentagon (from some highway into/out of Washington) and security videos also catch the plane barely 10 feet above the ground ram into the pentagon
Anonymous

Sharon Springs, NY

#261400 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
They didn't crumble into fine dust, if they did then none of the tower would remain, yet at least once a month the Port Authority of Albany, and the Port Authority of NY/NJ process pieces of the towers that still come in, as I would know this because my father is a boss at the port authority of albany
Anonymous

Sharon Springs, NY

#261401 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?
Well actually he designed them to withstand a crash by a Boeing 767, but as these planes were 787s it was no use
Pegasus

Brooklyn, NY

#261402 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
"In about freefall speed".

Onemale you really are changing for the better,......you now realize the twins did not drop at freefall speed.
Pay no mind to Dr. Dipshit .....I see you finally caught on to his/her/its grooming tactics.

Soon you will step into the light and all the conspiracy crap will seem like one long bad dream.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#261403 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>Of course the figured the jet fuel, how else would the jet get there???
Of course you don't really listen to experts, how else would you become a mindless twoofbot!
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The WTC towers were designed withstand the impact of two, count them, two 707's. 707's are considerably smaller then those aircraft that struck the towers, yet not considerably lighter due to the composite materials the newer aircraft are constructed with.
I said,

Porkpie Hat wrote, "<quoted text>
You've been shown time after time that the designer of the buildings did a few calculations to prove the buildings would survive a hit from a slow moving 707 lost in fog and no fuel loading was taken into account.
But then there's the fact that the buildings did survive the impacts..,.d'oh!
"

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."

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

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#261404 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
Right, nothing but dust.

Of course you've never done even an image search for ground zero after the buildings fell so that's just another tidbit of stupid you've mindlessly fell for.

Go back to sleep moron.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#261405 Oct 26, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you don't really listen to experts, how else would you become a mindless twoofbot!
<quoted text>
I said,
Porkpie Hat wrote, "<quoted text>
You've been shown time after time that the designer of the buildings did a few calculations to prove the buildings would survive a hit from a slow moving 707 lost in fog and no fuel loading was taken into account.
But then there's the fact that the buildings did survive the impacts..,.d'oh!
"
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."
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/Engine...
Please don't confuse the nuts with facts.

It ain't fair.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#261406 Oct 26, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you don't really listen to experts, how else would you become a mindless twoofbot!
<quoted text>
I said,
Porkpie Hat wrote, "<quoted text>
You've been shown time after time that the designer of the buildings did a few calculations to prove the buildings would survive a hit from a slow moving 707 lost in fog and no fuel loading was taken into account.
But then there's the fact that the buildings did survive the impacts..,.d'oh!
"
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."
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/Engine...
Besides the FAA speed restriction over populated areas.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

A 757 has a take off/stall speed of 160 mph, A 747 180 mph the concorde at 225 mph... so a little leeway is given above these figures to cover all aircraft. But over cities a passenger plane will be flying at not much over the speed needed to stay flying.
Because they will be either trying to take off or land.

So design criteria of buildings can't foresee a 500 mph impact, it's just not in the sane persons vocabulary or rather mindset to do so. But 9/11 has brought attention to this being a real world possibility, one sadly which there prolly is no design criteria that can compensate for .

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#261407 Oct 26, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you don't really listen to experts, how else would you become a mindless twoofbot!

Insults Are Easier wrote, "The WTC towers were designed withstand the impact of two, count them, two 707's. 707's are considerably smaller then those aircraft that struck the towers, yet not considerably lighter due to the composite materials the newer aircraft are constructed with."

But Im gonna copy/paste my delusions that the engineers did not know jets require fuel to fly in the late '60's because Im an insane dis-info agent who only cares about my own prosperity and actually hate America if you can read between the lines. I'm counting on you not being able to see what my real agenda is.- Dudley DoWrong
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

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min feces for jesus 777,473
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min June VanDerMark 560,153
Big titties (Sep '10) 44 min TittySucker 19
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 56 min Classic 1,922
Moses never existed 1 hr bacon hater 794
Scientific proof for God's existence 1 hr HipGnosis 44
women should be slaves to men (Dec '13) 1 hr lcwo i rho 33
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Atheist girl 605,279
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Dolphin 441,808
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 hr Freebird USA 175,775
More from around the web