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

Lincoln, NE

#268002 Mar 31, 2014
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, none of these things are even slightly believable, except by the most gullible of intellectual cowards.
This could be you issue, just saying.
John the Revelator wrote:
FYI, WW and Charlie, I do not consult links, and I do not read copy-pasted mumbo-jumbo if it looks like it's going to take more than 30 seconds or so.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268003 Mar 31, 2014
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, Aura, what do you consider "conspiracy minded?"
Well, That and dishonest.
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
But someone in the FBI hierarchy decided, 6 months before the attack, to pull out their informant.
In other words, they supplied the terrorists with enough money to carry out their attack, then canceled their ALLEGED plan to supply inert explosives, stopped monitoring the terrorists' movements, and allowed them to actually carry it out.
This is all well-documented, Chuck, by the New York Times even.
Sorry, Not seeing anything about money going to terrorists on the New Your TImes website.
LINK TO THE TIMES STORY ON THE MONEY OR ARE YOU LYING?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268004 Mar 31, 2014
Never Before Have So Many Words Led To So little Meaning.
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
I nearly coughed up my breakfast when I thought about how much time you spent copy-pasting all those "blah's."
I guess if I could summarize what you have contributed to the conversation thus far, PH, I'd have to give you a few points:
1. Your incessant use of "Twoofer" instead of "Truther" is hitting my self-esteem pretty hard.
2. Your repeated denial of facts and blind adherence to the hilarious impossibilities portrayed in the 9/11 Commission Report has reminded me of that line from that Doors movie, where they talk about perception being reality. Pretty sure they were talking about drug use.
3. Your non-stop verbal diarrhea makes me glad you are a prolific Anti-Truther. We (people with 3-digit IQ's and a reasonable amount of observational function) need all the Anti-Truthers like you we can get. With your volume of posts, you are the equivalent of 10 mouth-breathers to the average reader.
I don't think you have made any other points, or at least none come to mind. Feel free to correct me on this. I guess you have educated many of us on the extent to which the government says it's not lying. I have a lot of collected links from you and a few others to demonstrate government propaganda in more demanding debates on this subject - ones in which the opposition isn't in full-on denial/name-calling mode, and actually attempts to rebut information instead of mocking it.
That's something anyway. Keep up the good work, PH. You, WW, Pegasus, and Charlie are the best case for 9/11 Truth I've ever encountered.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268005 Mar 31, 2014
It's like tourettes lite, Half the cussing, all the Gibberish.
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
All commentary on your negligent failure to master the English language prior to attempting to argue in it aside, traction is exactly what the Truther argument has.
It's a time-tested phenomenon, brought to light by the progressive public perception of the JFK assassination.
In the 60's, the argument against the Warren Report was enough to elicit anger in its brainwashed proponents.
In the 70's, this anger transformed into mockery, and "conspiracy theorist" began being promoted by the corporate-owned media as a reference to anyone who didn't blindly accept the government's integrity - thereby consigning any study of a singular, actual conspiracy to a the shitheap of a broad stereotype of anti-American insanity.
In the 80's, the Warren Report began to come under fire just a little as a new generation of Americans began to reach adulthood, but the JFK "Truthers" were still in the minority.
In the 90's, as this new generation came to power, prepared to look objectively at the mistakes of their predecessors, the conspiracy theory of JFK's assassination gained quite a LOT of "traction."
And now, if you still believe Oswald was some "lone nut," it's actually YOU who are the nut.
Funny thing, though - the bullshit was always the same bullshit. It just took a long time for people to get past the media brainwashing, and it had to be accomplished by those who were born after the bulk of it took place.
Of course, this was all well before the Information Age, which has sped up the process of questioning the lies our government tells by quite a few years.
Polls show that more and more Americans are feeling manipulated by the media's hardline stance regarding 9/11. The government story doesn't wash, but it's never questioned by any mainstream sources. People are living in fear, and starting to question why.
The next generation of power-brokers is going to be much, much younger than the last, BTW.
If only you could return to the media's fear-mongering heyday of the early '00's, Peg, your words might not sound so vapid, self-deceiving, and hollow.
But alas, though science conjectures that we may one day achieve speeds capable of propelling us into the future, time-travel into the past is projected to be eternally out of our grasp.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268006 Mar 31, 2014
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
So the first step is to get a new investigation going.
Will the investigation be this thorough?
John the Revelator wrote:
FYI, WW and Charlie, I do not consult links, and I do not read copy-pasted mumbo-jumbo if it looks like it's going to take more than 30 seconds or so.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
John the Revelator

Gallatin, TN

#268007 Mar 31, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
dis·in·te·grate
disˈintəˌgrāt/
verb
1.
break up into small parts, typically as the result of impact or decay.
"when the missile struck, the car disintegrated in a sheet of searing flame"
synonyms: break up, break apart, fall apart, fall to pieces, fragment, fracture, shatter, splinter; More
Of course in twooferdumb, disintegrate means to bog down discussion with irrelevant minutia and avoid all answers by asking more stupid questions.
go
twoof
gone...
Ah, the Canadian with the unexplainable interest in backing the government's indefensible story of the events of 9/11/01.

Yes, PH, I'm aware of what "disintegration" is, particularly since that's, what, the 3rd time you've used that dictionary definition as some kind of rebuttal?

But the point is not what "disintegration" means. The point is what "disintegration" was used to imply, by the government.

Essentially: "There's no airplane debris at either of these sites because the planes DISINTEGRATED ON IMPACT."

Have you ever seen photographs of a real plane crash, PH? Definitely some "disintegration" going on there, yet you can still easily identify that a plane crashed. There are large pieces of airplane, and small pieces of airplane. There are bodies, and pieces of bodies.

Some airplane parts, and body parts, are capable of disintegrating beyond recognition, and some simply aren't, no matter how fast the plane was traveling or how solid the object with which it ultimately collided.

At only two crash sites in the history of aviation has any investigative body been compelled to use the phrase "disintegrated on impact." After all, why would you have to? If a plane crashed there, anybody can see that's what happened. Anybody can see to what extent the plane "disintegrated."

I'll tell you exactly in what scenario you'd be compelled to use that phrase: A scenario in which you were LYING.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a 200-ton passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon, and there is no evidence whatsoever that a 200-ton passenger jet crashed into a grassy field in Pennsylvania. There is evidence that there SHOULD be photographs and video of what crashed into the Pentagon, there is massive evidence that the government lies about a lot of things, and there is plenty of evidence that they had a strong motive to lie on that day.

The evidence is NOT on your side, PH, never has been. You are deluded. Or possibly just stupid, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "deluded."

The burden of proof is on he who is making the extraordinary claim, PH, and the 9/11 Commission Report is nothing if not "an extraordinary claim."
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268008 Mar 31, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
The question still remains... where is the Boeing in the five frames they showed us? There was no Boeing.
.. or missile, Mother Diddler
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268009 Mar 31, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Many families of the victims do NOT believe the official story, but we don't hear that on the nightly news. They even barred them from ground zero because they didn't believe the fairytale.
How does the video benefit me personally???
Appeal to Authority and Emotion,
John the Revelator

Gallatin, TN

#268010 Mar 31, 2014
LMAO at all the spamming.

Yes, Anti-Truthers, spam your way to the next page and everything will be O-TAY!!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#268011 Mar 31, 2014
Pegasus wrote:
<quoted text>C'mon Johnny ........more fluff?
You are the king of the heap , that is of nutjobs.

Run your spiel by a board certified psychiatrist and a couple boys dressed like the Good Humor Man just may block your assumed exit and whisk you off to do the best shuffle you can.

Johnny doing the Thorozine Shuffle.....a dance Johnny knows all to well.
Doesn't the great Regurgitator just have such a peachy way with werds?

His lips flap endlessly yet he says nothing at all!

Reminds me of a song;

"Nothing on the top but a bucket and a mop and an illustrated book about birds.

You see a lot up there but don't be scared, who needs action when you got werds!"
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268012 Mar 31, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
How does defending the official fairytale help the victims or their families???
How did this help your family?

ONEMALE regarding his MOTHER!
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
She would have never do such a thing.... not ever... not in this lifetime or the next.
As a teen, I would have thought I died and went to heaven.
But now that I'm older, I'm glad it never happened.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268013 Mar 31, 2014
onemale wrote:
The bwunkers are losing ground:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-attacks-...
To stuff like this?
onemale wrote:
THE NEW WORLD ORDER - A 6000 Year History
To see the future, one must first know history.
A future prediction can be disputed. but history is carved in stone
A detailed and complete 6000 year history of the New World Order and the Illuminati. Includes the history of the Secret Societies, Ancient Beliefs and the Matrix of Control that has shaped human history for thousands of years. Also includes for the first time, a documented history of the true birth of the Illuminati and finally, its affect on the world today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-klNO-AjW6MXX
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268014 Mar 31, 2014
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
As for money being funneled to the 1993 terrorists, the reason I'm not particularly interested in engaging a direct debate on that slippery slope is that the internet was not nearly as prominent in the early-to-mid 90's as it is now, or even in 2001, and many of the news stories from that era are not easily linkable.
Would it not be easier to admit you lied?
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>
But someone in the FBI hierarchy decided, 6 months before the attack, to pull out their informant.
In other words, they supplied the terrorists with enough money to carry out their attack, then canceled their ALLEGED plan to supply inert explosives, stopped monitoring the terrorists' movements, and allowed them to actually carry it out.
This is all well-documented, Chuck, by the New York Times even.
Sorry, Not seeing anything about money going to terrorists on the New Your TImes website.

LINK TO THE TIMES STORY ON THE MONEY OR ARE YOU LYING?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268015 Mar 31, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Your investigating skills leaves much to be desired.
If you decide to be an investigator... don't quit your day job.
LMFAO, Say the daddy diddling self debunker.
onemale wrote:
The jet engine found at the Pentagon does not match that of 757.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspira...
DUMBMALE SELFDEBUNKS WITH A LINK!

LMFO! PANTYSNIFFER, DO YOU EVEN READ!

FROM YOUR LINK!

In summary, we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines.

The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the compressor stages of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211.

There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268016 Mar 31, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
... it must really suck to be a bwunker.
Or a random male in your presence, it it was the best you ever had you sure you don't want to switch teams?
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...
John the Revelator

Gallatin, TN

#268017 Mar 31, 2014
I've really got you guys riled up now. You're foaming at the mouth like rabid squirrels. But like squirrels, you're relatively harmless and easily squashed.

Tell me, Anti-Truthers, do you feel that? It's a bit of an ego blow, kind of a helpless anger.

That's the feeling of the debate slipping forever beyond your control.

Rage on, proles.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#268018 Mar 31, 2014
John the Revelator wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, the Canadian with the unexplainable interest in backing the government's indefensible story of the events of 9/11/01.

Yes, PH, I'm aware of what "disintegration" is, particularly since that's, what, the 3rd time you've used that dictionary definition as some kind of rebuttal?

But the point is not what "disintegration" means. The point is what "disintegration" was used to imply, by the government.

Essentially: "There's no airplane debris at either of these sites because the planes DISINTEGRATED ON IMPACT."

Have you ever seen photographs of a real plane crash, PH? Definitely some "disintegration" going on there, yet you can still easily identify that a plane crashed. There are large pieces of airplane, and small pieces of airplane. There are bodies, and pieces of bodies.

Some airplane parts, and body parts, are capable of disintegrating beyond recognition, and some simply aren't, no matter how fast the plane was traveling or how solid the object with which it ultimately collided.

At only two crash sites in the history of aviation has any investigative body been compelled to use the phrase "disintegrated on impact." After all, why would you have to? If a plane crashed there, anybody can see that's what happened. Anybody can see to what extent the plane "disintegrated."

I'll tell you exactly in what scenario you'd be compelled to use that phrase: A scenario in which you were LYING.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a 200-ton passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon, and there is no evidence whatsoever that a 200-ton passenger jet crashed into a grassy field in Pennsylvania. There is evidence that there SHOULD be photographs and video of what crashed into the Pentagon, there is massive evidence that the government lies about a lot of things, and there is plenty of evidence that they had a strong motive to lie on that day.

The evidence is NOT on your side, PH, never has been. You are deluded. Or possibly just stupid, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "deluded."

The burden of proof is on he who is making the extraordinary claim, PH, and the 9/11 Commission Report is nothing if not "an extraordinary claim."
Maybe you should have your seeing eye dog review pictures of the crash sites for you Mr. Regurgitator.

Because all sites had plane parts consisting of sections that were used to positively identify the planes as their type and the FDR, radar tracks and the fact that 4 planes went missing that day supports the reality you so want to deny.

And let's be honest, the Rube Goldberg-esque nonsense of no planes just further reiterates the kind of irrelevant bs twoofers will believe in order to support their chosen religion of ignorance and avoid the fact that using planes would be the simplest way to ensure any allegedly nefarious plan would not be uncovered.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#268019 Mar 31, 2014
John the Revelator wrote:
I've really got you guys riled up now. You're foaming at the mouth like rabid squirrels. But like squirrels, you're relatively harmless and easily squashed.
Tell me, Anti-Truthers, do you feel that? It's a bit of an ego blow, kind of a helpless anger.
That's the feeling of the debate slipping forever beyond your control.
Rage on, proles.
Is Mr. Liberal Art crying, Would you like a Flinstones Chewable or oral favors from onemale?
onemale

Charleston, IL

#268020 Mar 31, 2014
Peggy on here keeps harping that truthers disrespect the 9/11 victims, in the next week I'm launching numerous reports to hand his ass to him. The reality is the bwunkers are the ones disrespecting the victims:

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

http://www.911truth.org/911-truth-statement/

John the Revelator

Gallatin, TN

#268021 Mar 31, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
Is Mr. Liberal Art crying, Would you like a Flinstones Chewable or oral favors from onemale?
Thank God you're not a Truther, Charlie. I've never seen someone cram so much slime, spam, mouth-breathing ignorance, and transparent self-glorification into his side of an argument before. Usually the scumbuckets in a given thread are at least smart in their own little malicious way, but you've made an art form out of being somehow tactless AND stupid.

Maybe the internet isn't the place for you, Charlie. Think about it.

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 2 min Lyndi 6,512
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Pres Donald J Tru... 122,616
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 22 min confrinting with ... 681,514
O.J. and Paula...June 11,1994: Malice Aforethou... 40 min Pres Donald J Tru... 9
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Here For Now 619,432
Why are most white people so arrogant? (Apr '10) 8 hr Daniel 1,024
Why was Orenthal mad enuff to commit murder??! 11 hr Trump Saves Dead ... 10
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 hr Gabriel 982,157
More from around the web