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

#266433 Mar 6, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
As Commissioned and Non-commissioned Officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility as citizens, it is our duty as officers to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us.
We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed.
It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes.
It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies and military actions resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.
We join with others, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11.
Numbers are not important. The mere fact that some military officers and other educated people are aware that the official Bush Administration's story of 9/11 is total hogwash and dare to speak up and question the party line is significant. Despite what pigboy says in dismissal of these brave men and women and their search for the TRUTH of 9/11.
http://www.mo911truth.org/
How bout it pigboy what do you have to say?
Uh Huh Eh !
Interesting the dwunkers ignore this one.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266434 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who believes a 757 can run over 500 mph at low altitudes, when numerous airline pilots say it is impossible.
Any proof of that, LINK or Lie mommy banger.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#266435 Mar 6, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Aside from the fact that you're dumb as a bloody stump, have you figured out yet that the final conclusion did not involve "pancake collapse" so your entire shtick is about as useless as the logical fallacy generating mush enclosed inside the pumpkin that sits atop your shoulders.
Oh and,
For those not prone to heavy drooling,
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =jC3JgWkNNIQXX
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphy...
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eag...
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king...
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://11-settembre.blogspot.ca/2007/04/engli...
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php...
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2012/...
More govie BS
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266436 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't the point, it was meant for an example of the resistance involved in a real pancake.
But it was not a pancake and I agree, apples and oranges, it's irreverent mother didler!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266437 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
When nothing worth saying about the post, you always return to your childish ridicule. Who do you think you are fooling?
You won't pick one of the others for me to debunk, are you scared, just like incest laws frighten you.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#266438 Mar 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>If you don't think 200,000 lbs driven by 80,000 lbs thrust can't descend at over 500 mph you are dumber than dirt. It has a cruise speed of 80% the speed of sound, that means it could well exceed the speed of sound in a dive, so a well under sub sonic speed would be easily attainable.
Technically, if you don't understand how ground effects work on a plane traveling at 500 mph at 10 feet agl, then you are as dumb as the dirt you claim others are.

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266439 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
More govie BS
Any proof of that or is that the level of your debating skills?
onemale wrote:
I consider myself as straight, but let a guy give me a bj and it was the best I ever had. It was a one time thing, he just wanted to know what it was like. No, I did NOT return the favor.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/T7HGJ9UHL...

PS: STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PICK ONE FROM YOUR LINK SO I CAN DEBUNK IT MOMMY DIDDLER!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#266440 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're going to crash land a jet like a missle, altitude would not be a factor.
Thousands of people saw what happened. There are numerous pictures proving their stories to be correct.

You lose. Proves what an ignoramus you are.

BTW I have already posted the links. You are debunked before you even get started.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#266441 Mar 6, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, if you don't understand how ground effects work on a plane traveling at 500 mph at 10 feet agl, then you are as dumb as the dirt you claim others are.
Insults Are Easier
Debunked long ago.

Guess insults are all you have huh?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266442 Mar 6, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, if you don't understand how ground effects work on a plane traveling at 500 mph at 10 feet agl, then you are as dumb as the dirt you claim others are.
Insults Are Easier
It came in at an angle so it was higher than that till the last second and pilots disagree due to the AFDS!

----

In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces.

THE AFDS NOT ONLY CONTROLS THE PLANE WHEN THE AUTOPILOT IS ENABLED, BUT BOEING RECOMMENDS THAT THESE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEMS ALWAYS BE IN OPERATION TO ADVISE THE PILOTS ON HOW TO BEST FLY THE AIRCRAFT. THE PRIMARY ADVANTAGE OF COMPUTERIZED CONTROL SYSTEMS IS THAT THEY CAN MAKE CORRECTIONS TO AN AIRCRAFT'S FLIGHT PATH AND HELP PREVENT THE PILOT FROM ACCIDENTALLY PUTTING THE PLANE INTO AN UNCONTROLLABLE CONDITION. THE 757'S FLIGHT AUGMENTATION SYSTEM IS ALSO DESIGNED TO DAMP OUT AERODYNAMIC INSTABILITIES, AND COMPUTERIZED CONTROL SYSTEMS OFTEN AUTOMATICALLY ACCOUNT FOR GROUND EFFECT BY MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PLANE'S CONTROL SURFACES TO CANCEL IT OUT.

THESE FACTORS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT GROUND EFFECT COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A BOEING 757 FROM STRIKING THE PENTAGON IN THE WAY THAT FLIGHT 77 DID ON SEPTEMBER 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspira...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266443 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting the dwunkers ignore this one.
Interesting you posted a link and, claim it's fact and won't pull out any claim it made to debate, CHICKEN MOTHER BANGER!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#266444 Mar 6, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
It came in at an angle so it was higher than that till the last second and pilots disagree due to the AFDS!
----
In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces.
THE AFDS NOT ONLY CONTROLS THE PLANE WHEN THE AUTOPILOT IS ENABLED, BUT BOEING RECOMMENDS THAT THESE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEMS ALWAYS BE IN OPERATION TO ADVISE THE PILOTS ON HOW TO BEST FLY THE AIRCRAFT. THE PRIMARY ADVANTAGE OF COMPUTERIZED CONTROL SYSTEMS IS THAT THEY CAN MAKE CORRECTIONS TO AN AIRCRAFT'S FLIGHT PATH AND HELP PREVENT THE PILOT FROM ACCIDENTALLY PUTTING THE PLANE INTO AN UNCONTROLLABLE CONDITION. THE 757'S FLIGHT AUGMENTATION SYSTEM IS ALSO DESIGNED TO DAMP OUT AERODYNAMIC INSTABILITIES, AND COMPUTERIZED CONTROL SYSTEMS OFTEN AUTOMATICALLY ACCOUNT FOR GROUND EFFECT BY MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PLANE'S CONTROL SURFACES TO CANCEL IT OUT.
THESE FACTORS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT GROUND EFFECT COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A BOEING 757 FROM STRIKING THE PENTAGON IN THE WAY THAT FLIGHT 77 DID ON SEPTEMBER 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspira...
... besides. One man had to dive to the ground to avoid being hit by the low flying airplane. Another dived under a van. A light pole was knocked down onto a taxi. Hundreds of people witnessed the event. There are numerous pictures to back this up and news reports as well.

I have posted links already. These guys are beating a totally dead horse here. ROTFLMAO
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266445 Mar 6, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who believes a 757 can run over 500 mph at low altitudes, when numerous airline pilots say it is impossible.
Even though you are wrong on that I take it your changing of the subject is an admission there was not a turn to hit a different side of the Pentagon, WRONG AGAIN AS ALWAYS FATHER OF THE WANG INSPECTOR GENERAL!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#266446 Mar 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
These guys are beating a totally dead horse here. ROTFLMAO
Yea, They just work in a loop and start over with long debunked claims. Work with a lost, run out of claims, start over even though they were shot down.

Though please don't use the words "Beating a Dead Horse" around onemale, it could lead to strange sexual activities.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#266447 Mar 6, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, if you don't understand how ground effects work on a plane traveling at 500 mph at 10 feet agl, then you are as dumb as the dirt you claim others are.
Insults Are Easier
Actually you can't support your claim at all in reality, in order for ground effects to be in place we have to be talking about sustaining distances at less than 5 ft above the ground for prolonged periods.
This was not even a dilemma in the crash of flight 77 , I'm also quite aware of wigcraft design function and theory. So your claim has no basis in reality nor does it reflect the reality, as any aircraft can skirt the ground at high speed for the short distance required to strike the pentagon so.....
Go ahead and be an idiot some more, you do it so well.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#266450 Mar 6, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
But it was not a pancake and I agree, apples and oranges, it's irreverent mother didler!
So you were not there, but you know all about it?
You are debunking yourself on this one.
The fact of the matter is, the example shows the resistance involved in a pancake
A pancake is a pancake anyway you turn it.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#266451 Mar 6, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, They just work in a loop and start over with long debunked claims. Work with a lost, run out of claims, start over even though they were shot down.
Though please don't use the words "Beating a Dead Horse" around onemale, it could lead to strange sexual activities.
And all you have is what the govie told you
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#266452 Mar 6, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Any proof of that or is that the level of your debating skills?
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/T7HGJ9UHL...
PS: STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO PICK ONE FROM YOUR LINK SO I CAN DEBUNK IT MOMMY DIDDLER!
Talk about changing the subject... you are king at that.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#266453 Mar 6, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Who do you think you are to "shoot" down any claim. To date Nothing has been "proven" to support the Bush Administrations claim of the events of 9/11.
Project much sorry charlie but the bwunkers are all bwunk.
Granted you have won a couple of default winners trophys. But they don't count for much. I hope you're proud of them, you sure earned them.
Uh Huh Eh !
Amen to that amen
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#266454 Mar 6, 2014
My updated version:

On 9/11 we were told how smart the terrorists were:
I guess that is true... after all, they defeated our multi-trillion dollar air defense system. A system that has successfully protected our skies for the past 47 years, but on 9/11 it failed miserably, three consecutive times, all on the same day, and within minutes of each failure.

Also why did the terrorist go out of their way, and make a dangerous high banked 270 degree turn to hit the side the side of the Pentagon with just civilian workers???(And where the records were to track the $2.3 trillion dollars that is still unaccounted for.) It would have been much easier to have hit to the side (that they approached from) with all the high up officials and officers. Why would these very smart terrorist take such a chance to jeopardize their mission to prevent killing any high up officers???

It is understandable why they would want to attack the Pentagon but why the towers??? Why not send the first plane to the White House??? If they can get to the Pentagon they could get to Washington DC. Wouldn't it make more sense to first take out the Commander in Chief???

Once again, why the towers? Yeah, yeah we heard the spin about how the towers represented America blah blah... I used to buy into that spin... but no more... that is their fabricated cover story. Just like saying that Islam extremists terrorist are very smart.(Eye roll)

Since I have questions, I am this crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that shall be shunned by all of humanity. You can question anything, but god forbid you don't question 9/11.


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
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 4 min anonymous 43
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 14 min RiversideRedneck 49,438
i need a man to get me pregnant no strings atta... (Dec '12) 1 hr Breedu 69
Illegal to hoard or store extra food under USA ... (Jun '08) 1 hr Darkbolt500 22
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Annaleigh 105,683
Maturbating now 1 hr Johny 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr truth 646,943
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr The Hangman 971,805
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 4 hr WasteWater 27
More from around the web