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

#271290 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
..well according to the chairmen anyway.
"Set up to fail" I believe they said, same goes for the credibility of that report too.
Solomon:
YOU WRITE.. THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BOOK IS 'THE COMMISSION WAS SET UP TO FAIL.'- my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?

Hamilton:
SO THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF REASONS WE THOUGHT WE WERE SET UP TO FAIL. WE DECIDED THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ANY SUCCESS, WE HAD TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS REPORT, OTHERWISE THE COMMISSION REPORT WOULD SIMPLY BE FILED.

HAMILTON:
I DO NOT KNOW AT THIS POINT OF ANY FACTUAL ERROR IN OUR REPORT, THAT I WOULD ABSOLUTELY SAY 'WE JUST PLAIN MISSED IT.' NOW, MAYBE I NEED TO REVIEW IT MORE CAREFULLY, BUT I CANNOT RECALL RIGHT NOW AT THIS INSTANCE ANY FACT THAT WE JUST PLAIN MISSED.

HTTP://WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG/WEB/20070108233707/HTT...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271292 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
There were 118 reports of secondary explosions from first responders in the oral histories thing.
LINK and explosions does not mean explosives, you don't think many ordinary object bow blow up in fire?

This is what a CD sounds like, half of NYC would have reported this.,,,,

controlled demolition
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271293 May 29, 2014
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271294 May 29, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your NIST report is unscientific, dubious, and deceitful at best.
Everybody knows it is totally false.
Uh Huh Eh !
YAWN!

Still waiting minimale ...

What part of the NIST report is "unscientific, dubious, and deceitful at best" page number and specific reason minimale.
Nipples the Cat

Modesto, CA

#271295 May 29, 2014
The Dr.'s right.

He's always right..
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271296 May 29, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your NIST report is unscientific, dubious, and deceitful at best.
Everybody knows it is totally false.
Uh Huh Eh !
Still waiting, I guess you have nothing Uh Huh Eh!

What part of the NIST report is "unscientific, dubious, and deceitful at bes" page number and specific reason minimale.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#271297 May 29, 2014
OR MAYBE, the experts at NIST know that molten METALS (copper, aluminum) are common in LARGE fires and dont have anything to do with the building collapse
who wrote:
<quoted text>
For me it's not about page numbers, it's more to do with the way they investigated the incident.
NIST failed to check for explosives despite multiple reports of secondary explosions, a number of reports of molten steel and a shit load of pulverized concrete. I've even seen a NIST muppet claim that he knew of no reports of molten steel, but I can find several.
The man was lying......why?
As far as I'm concerned the above diminishes the credibility of the entire report.
The 911 commission was bollocks too........well according to the chairmen anyway.
"Set up to fail" I believe they said, same goes for the credibility of that report too.
Maybe you're just easy to please Charles.
who

Reading, UK

#271298 May 29, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
LINK and explosions does not mean explosives, you don't think many ordinary object bow blow up in fire?
This is what a CD sounds like, half of NYC would have reported this.,,,,
controlled demolition
You're missing the point Charles.
It is a fact that there were reports of molten steel, secondary explosions and we all saw pulverized concrete.
SOP according to this guy who's quoting the manual would have triggered a test for explosives.
NIST did no such test......fact.


Once again your opinion is irrelevant as far as this is concerned..........we'll get to the 911 commission in due course
who

Reading, UK

#271299 May 29, 2014
RADEKT wrote:
OR MAYBE, the experts at NIST know that molten METALS (copper, aluminum) are common in LARGE fires and dont have anything to do with the building collapse
<quoted text>
Irrelevant Radish, what's important is the fact that there were reports in the first place and they weren't acted upon within the investigation.
This is not SOP according to this guy quoting the manual.


Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271300 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again your opinion is irrelevant as far as this is concerned..........we'll get to the 911 commission in due course
That was not my opinion, that was a quote from the man who said "it was destined to fail" and the fact that he at the end said that was not the case at all.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271301 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point Charles.
It is a fact that there were reports of molten steel, secondary explosions and we all saw pulverized concrete.
There is NO proof it was steel, show me a test and prove me wrong, and if there was, what does it even prove.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271302 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
SOP according to this guy who's quoting the manual would have triggered a test for explosives.
NIST did no such test......fact.
YAWN!

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271303 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
There were 118 reports of secondary explosions from first responders in the oral histories thing.
Still waiting for that link.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271304 May 29, 2014
Some figures:

WTC1/2 each had 110 floor, 46 core columns. Does this mean that there were 2*46*110 = 9200 explosive charges installed in the towers?

How were they set off with such incredible precision? 9,200 individual radio controlled detonators? 9,200 digital timers? Lots of wire?

What about the exterior columns? Wouldn't the also have to be destroyed to ensure near-free fall speed, according to AE911? Each side had 20 three column sections. How many need to be cut to remove all the resistance? That's 3*20*4*2*110 = another 52,800 individual column segments. How many were cut?

And what was used to cut them? Thermite burns too slow, thermate does a better job, but not really, but it's noisy and toxic, regular explosives are noisy.

What would your proposed quantity weigh? 10 lb per column? 50? A pound or so for the radio and battery? Any wires? That's at least 100,000 pounds just to wire all the core columns. And if you are using thermate you'll probably need at 50 pound rig per column based on Johnathon Cole's experiments. So really we are talking about 1,000,000 pounds of explosive and gear.

Truthers, what do you think is the smallest amount of explosives, the smallest number, and how would they be installed?

In addition, the number of explosives affects the detonation method. One can quite easily rig a bomb to go off with a cell phone, however even this single bomb setup has problems, as most cell phones do not have more than a few days of battery life. A very large number of cell phones is not practical.

Remote detonation by radio is problematic, but seems at least technically possible. In order to avoid accidental triggering, the detonation device must have a receiver that is activated by a code, and then separately activates the detonator, possibly with a timer. But then you've got the problem of having 10,000 custom coded detonation devices, and their batteries. 100% detonation would be highly unlikely, leaving a lot of evidence.
who

Reading, UK

#271305 May 29, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not my opinion, that was a quote from the man who said "it was destined to fail" and the fact that he at the end said that was not the case at all.
We're talking about the NIST report still....try to keep up.
We can talk about the 911 commission in the near future.
who

Reading, UK

#271306 May 29, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO proof it was steel, show me a test and prove me wrong, and if there was, what does it even prove.
Again you're missing the point.
NIST should have acted upon reports as of SOP......they did not.

The rest of your post are a tad spammy......just saying.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271307 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about the NIST report still....try to keep up.
We can talk about the 911 commission in the near future.
We are?, From two hours ago and I responded!
who wrote:
<quoted text>
The 911 commission was bollocks too........well according to the chairmen anyway.
"Set up to fail" I believe they said,
who

Reading, UK

#271309 May 29, 2014
Anyway I'm outta here for today.....maybe we can continue tomorrow.
I've enjoyed our little exchange.
Laters.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271310 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
There were 118 reports of secondary explosions from first responders in the oral histories thing.
Are you ever going to link to this or do you just hear something and take it as fact without reading each statement?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#271311 May 29, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you're missing the point.
NIST should have acted upon reports as of SOP......they did not.
The rest of your post are a tad spammy......just saying.
Spammy =Twoofer speak for detailed and concise!

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 min Steve III 618,739
Just chatt 8 min Alone 2
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 18 min Buck Crick 63,241
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min Liamm 653,566
Katie mitchell 22 min Cuziknow 1
girls, when is the first time u saw a penis (Feb '14) 1 hr 13yokinkygirl 12
UK Phone Numbers for Fun 2 hr Marcen18064742 13
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 973,529
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 5 hr DebraE 106,460
More from around the web