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

Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261932 Nov 5, 2013
h3kt0r wrote:
Bill Cooper Radio Broadcast 1997
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rf7xHh2BhEYXX
Kennedy assassination

In Behold a Pale Horse, Cooper asserted that John F. Kennedy was assassinated because he was about to reveal that extraterrestrials were in the process of taking over the Earth. According to a "top secret" video of the assassination that Cooper claimed to have discovered, the driver of Kennedy's limousine, William Greer, used “a gas pressure device developed by aliens from the Trilateral Commission” to shoot the president from the driver's seat.[12] The Zapruder film shows Greer twice turning to look into the back seat of the car; Cooper theorized that Greer first turned to assess Kennedy's status after the external attack, and then to fire the fatal shot. Conspiracy theories implicating Greer reportedly "snowballed" after publication of Behold a Pale Horse.[17] Cooper's video purporting to prove his theory was analyzed by several television stations, according to one source, and was found to be "... a poor-quality fake using chunks of the ... Zapruder film."[12]
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261933 Nov 5, 2013
h3kt0r wrote:
Bill Cooper Radio Broadcast 1997
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rf7xHh2BhEYXX
AND A BIG SHOCK!

Death

As Cooper moved away from the UFOlogy community in the late 1990s and toward the militia and anti-government group subculture, he became convinced that he was being personally targeted by President Bill Clinton and the IRS. In July 1998 he was charged with tax evasion and an arrest warrant was issued but not executed, resulting in his being named a "major fugitive" by the US Marshals Service in 2000.[6]

On November 5, 2001 Apache County sheriff's deputies attempted to arrest Cooper at his Eagar, Arizona home on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment stemming from earlier disputes with local residents. After an exchange of gunfire during which Cooper shot one of the deputies in the head, Cooper was fatally shot. Federal authorities reported that Cooper had spent years trying to avoid capture on the 1998 tax evasion arrest warrant, and according to a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, he had vowed that "he would not be taken alive".[1]

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#261934 Nov 5, 2013
Stay inside, sit in your wheelchair and type furiously all day long sorry charlie. Its good for you. Or are you cut n pasting?

Link or Lie

Got any PROOF of all that SPAM? LOL

Huh eh !
hunter

Norwich, UK

#261936 Nov 5, 2013
Pegasus wrote:
<quoted text>Take a thimble of gasoline and set it off, right away you will see rich black smoke as it burns.....why because gasoline is loaded with hydrocarbons.
Jet fuel commonly known as Jet-A is more of a highly refined kerosene also loaded with hydrocarbons .....more than gasoline.
Steel need not melt to fail.
Strip away the fireproofing on LOAD carrying bar joists and introduce a fire where the flames do not have to lick at the bar joists but increase the heat dramatically and through the steel wanting to slowly expand the steel will also start to soften.
I often wonder if harmonic frequency played any part in complete building damage well before either of the two twins dropped.
A jet airliner of approx 200 tons or 400,000 pounds striking a building of that size must have sent shock-wave from point of contact......downward, upward......downward....upward .....having some critical effect overall.
The towers were fireproofed with asbestos,
the towers were constructed to take the impact of possibly two jet airliners.
There was no way the heat generated would have weakened the steel.
What about the woman who was standing waving out of the whole of impact? What's your answer on this. Please don't say it was a figment of our imagination .
YOU still keep avoiding BUILDING 7!
HELLO! BUILDING 7
Don't keep rambling on with typical STOOGE answers!
TRY thinking for yourself and not what you have been programmed to do!
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261937 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
The towers were fireproofed with asbestos,
the towers were constructed to take the impact of possibly two jet airliners.
There was no way the heat generated would have weakened the steel.
What about the woman who was standing waving out of the whole of impact? What's your answer on this. Please don't say it was a figment of our imagination .
YOU still keep avoiding BUILDING 7!
HELLO! BUILDING 7
Don't keep rambling on with typical STOOGE answers!
TRY thinking for yourself and not what you have been programmed to do!
PICK ONE and I shall debunk it.
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261938 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
the towers were constructed to take the impact of possibly two jet airliners.
They did survive the impact.

But NOT TWO PLANES, One flying slow in the fog but not the fires, this would be directly from the person who both did the study and designed the towers.

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed.''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com
/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition% 20Part%20Four.pdf

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#261940 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
The towers were fireproofed with asbestos,
the towers were constructed to take the impact of possibly two jet airliners.
There was no way the heat generated would have weakened the steel.
What about the woman who was standing waving out of the whole of impact? What's your answer on this. Please don't say it was a figment of our imagination .
YOU still keep avoiding BUILDING 7!
HELLO! BUILDING 7
Don't keep rambling on with typical STOOGE answers!
TRY thinking for yourself and not what you have been programmed to do!
If what you are thinking, is what you call thinking for yourself.
Then you need adult supervision and professional help.
Because what you actually are doing is....
Parroting a sub culture of quasi religion like conspiracy freaks that have the understanding of grade school kids and are a lunatic following of zombie like little minions that believe anything but the truth. Parroting the likes of Judy Woods and other fringe freaks that are cashing in on your stupidity.

Go get some education kid!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261942 Nov 5, 2013
h3kt0r wrote:
Its a f**kin disgrace that 9/11 is still a matter of debate. Don't give government shills the time.
You want to spend more money investigation what exactly? Who would be in charge of such an investigation.

Stop taking drugs dude.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261943 Nov 5, 2013
onemale wrote:
What Happened to the Planes and Passengers on 9/11?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Ue-MLMnlTzYXX
They got destroyed.

NEXT

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261944 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
The towers were fireproofed with asbestos,
the towers were constructed to take the impact of possibly two jet airliners.
There was no way the heat generated would have weakened the steel.
What about the woman who was standing waving out of the whole of impact? What's your answer on this. Please don't say it was a figment of our imagination .
YOU still keep avoiding BUILDING 7!
HELLO! BUILDING 7
Don't keep rambling on with typical STOOGE answers!
TRY thinking for yourself and not what you have been programmed to do!
False.

False.

False.

She was on a different floor that the fireball floor.

Damaged by a huge chunk from the upper part of the Tower.

NEXT
hunter

Norwich, UK

#261945 Nov 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If what you are thinking, is what you call thinking for yourself.
Then you need adult supervision and professional help.
Because what you actually are doing is....
Parroting a sub culture of quasi religion like conspiracy freaks that have the understanding of grade school kids and are a lunatic following of zombie like little minions that believe anything but the truth. Parroting the likes of Judy Woods and other fringe freaks that are cashing in on your stupidity.
Go get some education kid!
I am not a conspiracy theorist but you cannot convince me or others,
The official version is true, You lying BASTARD!
You're the PARROT MY FRIEND!
YOU are on the losing side, POLLY!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261946 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a conspiracy theorist but you cannot convince me or others,
The official version is true, You lying BASTARD!
You're the PARROT MY FRIEND!
YOU are on the losing side, POLLY!
Why would anyone care to convince an idiot of anything?
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261947 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
The towers were fireproofed with asbestos,
Only one Tower, not even a third of it and no where near the fires.

The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 .

"Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 13, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D"

NIST NCSTAR 1-6A

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#261948 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a conspiracy theorist but you cannot convince me or others,
The official version is true, You lying BASTARD!
You're the PARROT MY FRIEND!
YOU are on the losing side, POLLY!
I do not prescribe to any official version of anything.
I do however describe the scientific facts of the collapse forensics done by the many pronounced and prestigious organizations and schools who objectively studied the disaster modeled it tested it and offered the explanatory power of scientific investigation.
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261949 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the woman who was standing waving out of the whole of impact?
Edna, She was not near the fires, and there were tons of jumpers that day, you know, people that tried to get air in a last attempt to live, she jumped.

Be sure and zoom in!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WCD7QcxGTYM/UEPYVRd...
hunter

Norwich, UK

#261950 Nov 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
False.
False.
She was on a different floor that the fireball floor.
Damaged by a huge chunk from the upper part of the Tower.
NEXT
LIAR!
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261952 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR!
Care to debunk my facts, thought not TOM!
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#261953 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR!
I love your radio!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261954 Nov 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR!
Nice.

Thanks for your display of total ignorance on the subject.

GREAT

Try again.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#261955 Nov 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not prescribe to any official version of anything.
I do however describe the scientific facts of the collapse forensics done by the many pronounced and prestigious organizations and schools who objectively studied the disaster modeled it tested it and offered the explanatory power of scientific investigation.
Yes they also did that.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Joe Fortuna 101,326
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 15 min Sky Writer 31 184,324
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min Pres Mr Donald J ... 670,587
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 19 min Pres Mr Donald J ... 980,336
Ted Bundy's Daughter (Jul '14) 3 hr Poppy _36 6
I love you sister Joyce Meyer 6 hr lightbeamrider 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 6 hr Jehova Witness 445,674
More from around the web