Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,187 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273908 Jun 30, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>well said mr wastewater....keep pulling that plug!
Why thank you very much..... thank you very much.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273909 Jun 30, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever....I'm just happy that we have reached the day where it is now more common to laugh at those that still believe the official story.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/12/new-poll-...
Now this is exactly what we need, 46% did not know WTC 7 fell, they they were shown a short youtube video and decided it was controlled demolition.

We need 2 minutes of youtube, Not science!

---

46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;

After seeing video footage of Building 7&#8242;s collapse:

46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7&#8242;s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.

----------

Youtube is the end all arbitrator of the truth!

The proof is right here!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273910 Jun 30, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
I so agree!
Brief Overview of our Reptilian Overlords
I think it is pretty widely accepted that many genetic markers come from non-human entities. Many world leaders such as Akhenaten and even US president Abraham Lincoln show symptoms of genetic disorders which may in fact have originated in non-human entities. Akhenaten and Lincoln both show signs of an elongated cranium, hallmark of Marfan's syndrome. It is possible that Barrack Obama's genetic sequence contains stretches similar to Akhenaten and Loncoln as well as non-human entities and also displays a similarly elongated cranium.
But see that's just it, they haven't! Here is the detailed evidence for the following celebrities and world leaders who are confirmed[5] positive reptilians:
Donald Rumsfeld
George W Bush and Queen Elizabeth the Second
William ("Bill") Clinton
important international pop star Madonna
our own Queen of Hearts, Britney Spears
"The People's Pope", Benedict XVI Ratzinger of Rome
Angelina Jolie == obvious cracks in her human 'skull mask'
Katy Perry (even youth up and coming are in the conspiracy)
Hillary Clinton
http://www.metafilter.com/113034/Brief-Overvi...
Good golly, you left out Sarah Palin.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273911 Jun 30, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Aside from the opinions of pretend out of work lawyers who aren't even able to lie well in a profession that requires it, idiots who ignore every question, multiple nics of the smear campaign, and Catfish without logic, the lack of an official real scientific investigation into the official propaganda of 9/11 still stands, which is why you see them talking in absurdities.
They enjoy talking nonsense, because they have no sense to talk.
They want proof of the cover-up, when the cover-up provides no proof to begin with - NIST's own conclusions are expressed in probabilities based on cherry picked evidence that was not destroyed.
What does a cover-up look like?
1. It destroys evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/e...
2. It then ignores that destruction of evidence and provides a fraudulent study based on what wasn't destroyed and calls it science.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
3. It then restricts independent investigations from access to the evidence and only allows itself to investigate itself, which is clearly a conflict of interest, and does not follow the protocols of the scientific method.
If you don't understand what the scientific method is?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/...
4. It engages in smear campaigns against anyone who questions it, and removes any professor from public academia that disagrees - claiming the mere disagreement is proof of incompetence.
Nobody needs to be an expert in physics, nor do they need any degree in anything to understand it, all they need is something that can't really be taught, and that's logic.
9/11 is but a small part of whats really going on with the systematic destruction of individual rights that once made America great.
http://youtu.be/fJSp1skVIkA
Yet the smear campaign cares nothing about America, they only care about themselves, which is why
Insults Are Easier
ROTFLMAO

Got more jokes like that?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273912 Jun 30, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Good golly, you left out Sarah Palin.
Hey, if it's on youtube it true!



That actually may explain quite a bit.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273913 Jun 30, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
George W Bush is more space cadet than space alien.
Not according to youtube!

GEORGE BUSH REPTILIAN SHAPESHIFTER!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273914 Jun 30, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, if it's on youtube it true!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =GFheFTEuGnwXX
That actually may explain quite a bit.
YouTube is more important than the Bible.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273915 Jun 30, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
YouTube is more important than the Bible.
So true, I would not have believed it but I saw it on youtube.
who

Basingstoke, UK

#273916 Jun 30, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this is exactly what we need, 46% did not know WTC 7 fell, they they were shown a short youtube video and decided it was controlled demolition.
We need 2 minutes of youtube, Not science!
---
46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
After seeing video footage of Building 7&#8242;s collapse:
46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7&#8242;s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.
----------
Youtube is the end all arbitrator of the truth!
The proof is right here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-NpyKfQdyR8XX
Well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck Charles.
People are unaware of the collapse of wtc7 because the media never shows it.
I think that's going to change.
Reports of molten steel, reports of secondary explosions, a shit load of pulverized concrete, yet no simple test for explosives.
But don't take it up with me...send an email to Erik.......LOL!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273917 Jun 30, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
So true, I would not have believed it but I saw it on youtube.
No kidding?
WTC7 must have been a demolition. It says so on YouTube.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273918 Jun 30, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck Charles.
People are unaware of the collapse of wtc7 because the media never shows it.
Well, other than a million times, it's also available for a limited time on YOUTUBE!

“Bright Waters House ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#273919 Jun 30, 2014
...... it's a bible for numbskulls & simpletons
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
YouTube is more important than the Bible.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#273920 Jun 30, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever....I'm just happy that we have reached the day where it is now more common to laugh at those that still believe the official story.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/12/new-poll-...
It's refreshing to see truth having an effect, and anti-truth being seen as the smear campaign that it is.

Who's not on first, he just hit a grand slam.

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273921 Jun 30, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Reports of molten steel, reports of secondary explosions, a shit load of pulverized concrete, yet no simple test for explosives.
Show me a test to prove it was steel and tell me even if it was why would that matter?

Show me proof of explosives, not explosions.(not all explosions stem from "explosives")

Do you expect 220 floors made of concrete smashing into each other to not be a bit dusty.

Please, Only in the form of a youtube video, we don't want science hindering our investigation.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273922 Jun 30, 2014
who wrote:
<quoted text>
But don't take it up with me...send an email to Erik.......LOL!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uor8NhUr_90XX
the first problem he has is that NFPA is not a law or a state code. It is a guide, a model, or a best practice, for the investigation of Fires and Explosions. Nowhere does it ever say that it is a law, or that this is the only way to do it.

In fact, NFPA says specifically
Originally Posted by NFPA 921
NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides, of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus
on fire and other safety issues. While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its codes and standards.
It goes on to say

Originally Posted by NFPA 921
The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document... Users of this document should consult applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of this document, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and this document may not be construed as doing so.
It is very clear that is not a law enforcement agency, and as such, cannot enforce any of the recommendations in their guides.
So, we have determined that this is NOT a law, nor is it considered any kind of Formal guideline. So, whenever Mr. Lawyer says "They didn't follow the guidelines" remember this.
It is not a law.
Now, onto the video!

At about: 27 seconds in, he basically calls anyone who hasn't signed the petition a coward. Way to win ‘em over Erik! Woot!(Roll eyes here)

At: 39 seconds in, he asked for an investigation that follows the standards and has contempt and subpoena powers. The "Standards" he is referring to, is NFPA's guidelines. Well, as we have already established, NFPA is not a law enforcement agency, and makes no laws. See above.

At about: 40 seconds in, he says that “This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested and thorough investigation in world history."

Well, you see it was. Fresh Kills rings a bell. The FDNY and NYPD could not logically say that nobody was to try to rescue anyone, or move anything, until this scene was completely documented. To ask that is asinine at best.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273923 Jun 30, 2014
Most of the evidence was destroyed."

Really? Fresh Kills didn't exist? Amazing! Tell that to the guys from Phillips and Jordan out of Zephyrhills Florida. Here is their account.
http://911depository.info/PDFs/Other...20Reco...
Pretty cool eh?

At 1:00 he says " I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life."

No **** Sherlock! Neither had 99.9% of the world’s population. Well, except maybe those guys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! They got us beat.

1:22 "Evidence was being destroyed when it was being shipped off."

Really? Again, Fresh Kills ring a bell? Sure, some of the steel that was nowhere near the collapse initiation zone was not saved, but do I need the entire football team to undergo physical exams when one player hurts himself? Of course not.

1:32 "NIST investigation into Tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you have destroyed all the evidence?"

Well, considering nobody died in 7WTC, and there was no crime committed, it was not necessary to save the physical evidence

At 1:38”They also refused to test for explosives....or residue of thermite"

No, they decided against it, as there was no physical evidence of any explosive, and no records of any of the recovery workers reporting any suspicious pieces in 7WTC.
Thermite? Do I really need to discuss this?

Here is what NFPA 921 19.2.4 says about thermite
Originally Posted by NFPA 921 19.2.4
19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981–1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.
Even NFPA classified thermite as an accelerant. Not explosive. It also goes on to say that you would see EXCEEDINGLY RAPID FIRE RATE (Not witnessed in 7WTC) BRILLIANT FLARES (Not witnessed in 7WTC) AND MELTED STEEL or concrete.(Also not found at 7WTC)

No steel melted. No flares and no rapid fire growth.

1:46 "There are standards for an investigation."

Yeah, too bad they are not from the NFPA. NFPA is, as we have already discussed, a guideline, a model. Not STANDARD.

1:52 "And holds people accountable."

NIST nor NFPA have that type of jurisdiction, as neither of them are a law enforcement agency. That is what the FBI, and the ATF do. 5711
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273924 Jun 30, 2014
The legal considerations contained in this chapter and elsewhere in this guide pertain to the law in the United States. This chapter does not attempt to state the law as it is applied in each country or other jurisdiction. Such a task exceeds the scope of this guide.
2:38 "The steel was melted down. We know this by their own admission"

Again, I ask, what crime was suspected of happening in 7WTC? None.

At 2:42 he brings up exotic accelerants. We have already gone over exotic accelerants.

at 3:00 he states "Even on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we test for it."

Yes, where you do not know the cause of the fire, and there is physical evidence of an accelerant. None was found. Well, except for the giant diesel fuel tanks that was contained in 7WTC. But, we know they were there.

3:17 "There is no excuse not to test for it."

Well, in a normal routine house fire, yes. But we knew the cause of 7WTC's fire before lunch time. The firefighters around the scene noted no brilliant light sources, no rapid spread of fire, and no melted steel or concrete. So, tell me, why should they have tested for it? To waste time and resources? For practice?

At 3:20, he talks about NFPA 18.15. This is a doozie! You'll get a kick out of this!
Here is what NFPA 921 18.15 says.

Originally Posted by NFPA
18.15 Analyze Fuel Source. Once the origin or epicenter of the explosion has been identified, the investigator should determine the fuel. This is done by a comparison of the nature and type of damage to the known available fuels at the scene. All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if the epicenter of the explosion is identified as a 6 ft (1.8 m) crater of pulverized concrete in the center of the floor, fugitive natural gas can be eliminated as the fuel, and only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered.
IT'S TALKING ABOUT EXPLOSIONS THAT CAUSE FIRES!!! Please learn to read the ENTIRE text Mr. Lawyer...

At 3:32 Notice he stumbles a little and almost says craters.....Wonder why he left that out?!?!?
He then says "If you find cra - If you find pulverized concrete, which we all know was in all 3 buildings there was pulverized concrete"

Say it ain't so? You mean to tell me that hundreds if not thousands of tons of building collapsing on a concrete slab will pulverize concrete? Derpa. Again, this is STILL referring to EXPLOSIONS!!
who

Basingstoke, UK

#273925 Jun 30, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, other than a million times, it's also available for a limited time on YOUTUBE!
If it had been on a million times the public would know about wouldn't they.
I've seen it once on British tv......some years ago.
See Charles, even you can be amusing.

“Bright Waters House ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#273926 Jun 30, 2014
Bring back your MUQ sock at least he was semi interesting
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
It's refreshing to see truth having an effect, and anti-truth being seen as the smear campaign that it is.
Who's not on first, he just hit a grand slam.
Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273927 Jun 30, 2014
At 3:43 or so, he says "Only fuels that create seated explosions should be considered. So they should not be considering fire, they shouldn't be doing that, it doesn't account for pulverized concrete" (NFPA def. of a seated explosion
Quote:
Only specific types or configurations of explosive fuels can produce seated explosions. These include explosives, steam boilers, tightly confined fuel gases or liquid fuel vapors, and BLEVEs occurring in relatively small containers, such as cans or barrels.
This is VERY misleading and blatantly dishonest Mr. Lawyer. This is, again, referring to EXPLOSIONS. Of course the fire did not cause the pulverized concrete, the collapse of the enormous building caused the pulverized concrete.

At 3:51 he says " 19.4.8.2.6 Extremism "The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal." We know they used them in 1993, why would we not test for them now?"

Because the terrorists parked the fire and explosion in the side of the building at ~500 MPH. Everyone saw it, and everyone knew where the "bomb" was planted.

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
Moses never existed 9 min Khatru 1,260
Do u nd money? Get Conneted wit a Rich gay who ... 19 min Agent Larry 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 24 min Liam 39,600
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 33 min spider1954 809,042
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Epiphany2 608,140
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Liam 573,730
asking a friend for a spanking (Mar '12) 2 hr princessddlife 10
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr My name is Ashok ... 5,624
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 8 hr hehehe7385 17
More from around the web