Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,091 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

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

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#261408 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes and you're the expert...
Their opinions outweigh yours, 100 to none.
What opinion are you talking about? The dude never designed the building for what happened on 9/11. That's a fact.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#261409 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the figured the jet fuel, how else would the jet get there???
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.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#261410 Oct 26, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, then suddenly they crumbled into fine dust in mid-air in about free fall speed.
Suddenly? False

Crumbled into dust? False

Free fall? False

Strike out. Try again.
onemale

Pana, IL

#261411 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Suddenly? False
Crumbled into dust? False
Free fall? False
Strike out. Try again.
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???
onemale

Pana, 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

Pana, 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

Pana, 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

Pana, IL

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

onemale

Pana, IL

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

Pegasus

Brooklyn, 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.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 568,451
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 3 min Edthirty 5,431
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Stilgar Fifrawi 796,302
IRA fading away, analysts say (Sep '08) 6 min Jeremy 22
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 10 min lil whispers 607,254
Is colin powell a traitor??? (Oct '08) 24 min swedenforever 537
6 Signs You Have a FOOD ADDICTION and What You ... 26 min The Addictions Coach 1
Scientific proof for God's existence 9 hr Make World peace ... 617
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 9 hr Ntakudyaunya 12
More from around the web