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

“Taste great in milk!”

Since: Aug 08

.

#275638 Jul 24, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
He's you but we already knew that. Now lets see if you have enough faith in your cut and paste to pick a single one for me to debunk.
He's NOT Me, nor am I the Doctor.
He live in, well "that State", and I live in the middle of a National Forest in this State.
Besides He's got one of those Uber-expensive vaporizers, whereas I'm stuck with my lowly RooRs

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275639 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh sewerwater you are sooo helpful
STUPITY IS AS STUPITY DOES LOL Howling With Laughter at your STUPITY
Doncha have little red squiggly lines to tell you you're being STUPID?
Uh Huh Eh !
You are the expert.

Carry on.

GLAD I COULD HELP

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275640 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Recent Findings by Independent Researchers and Engineers
Researchers who examined NIST’s WTC7 theory had, for many years, no detailed information about the building or NIST’s computer model of the collapse mechanism. In 2011, however, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Ronald H. Brookman, a structural engineer affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, resulted in the release by NIST of a large number of structural, erection, and shop fabrication drawings for the steel frame of the building. Independent examination of these drawings has led to the discovery of significant errors of fact and omission by NIST in its final report on WTC7.
This work was carried out over a two year period by an international group of engineers and researchers affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This group includes Ronald Brookman, David Cole, Tony Szamboti and others. See the article by Dennis P. McMahon, Esq for more information.
Ronald H. Brookman
Ronald H. Brookman
Structural Engineer
During the past two years, the following error and two omissions came to light. The NIST report:
gave an incorrect value for the width of the seat for girder A2001 at column 79
failed to mention stiffeners that provided support for girder A2001
failed to mention lateral support beams which supported beam G3005 (connected to girder A2001) which allegedly buckled.
You can see here engineering drawings with the stiffener plates added as well as other views of girder A2001's connection to column 79.
http://scientistsfor911truth.org/otherphotos/...
The locations of the preceding structural elements can be seen in figure 1
in William Pepper’s letter to Todd J. Zinser. Pepper states that the opinion
of independent structural engineers is that, if included, the combined effect
of this error and omissions by NIST is to “unambiguously” rule out NIST’s
“probable collapse sequence.”
Attorney Pepper ends his letter by calling on Todd Zinser, OIG, to open an investigation into potential negligence and misconduct by the NIST investigators of WTC7, and raises the possibility of legal action should this request be rejected.
At the same time, Pepper suggests that Zinser and NIST officials meet with a repesentative group of structural engineers who have studied the flaws in NIST’s analysis. Thusfar, the only response of the OIG has been to refer the matter back to NIST.
Stalling , obfuscation, deception. What one should expect from a govie with something to hide EH !
http://scientistsfor911truth.org/
Uh Huh Eh !
The firemen who were there, said it fell down due to damage. Makes your theories look pretty stupid don't you think?

You never read the NIST report. That makes you uninformed, yet you rely on unreliable information to support your biased opinion. That makes you stupid.

PROVING ONCE AGAIN, STUPITIY IS EASIER
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275641 Jul 24, 2014
So ya is yellow and know it's all been debunked!

Pick your favorite below and I will debunk it or is ya yellow.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Anecdotal Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
1. Larry Silverstein’s remarks about the decision to “pull” are clear enough. The arguments about the meaning of “pull” are beside the point. There is a causal relationship between “and they made that decision to pull” and “then we watched the building collapse.” The latter follows the former. The decision to “pull” resulted in the fall of WTC 7. This could only take place with controlled demolition.
2. When Barry Jennings and Hess arrived at the OEM, Floor 23, in WTC 7 around 9 am, they found it empty. Why?$13 million dollars was expended to create this impregnable floor, and the towers had not yet fallen! The food and coffee showed the occupants had left in a hurry. Then Jennings made a phone call and was told he must “get out of there.” Why? The only plausible answer is that the pre-demolition blasts were about to begin.
3. The BBC and CNN early announcements of the complete collapse of WTC 7 have never been satisfactorily explained. Obviously, the pre-knowledge of the demolition was handled badly by these news outlets.
Circumstantial Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
1. Removal and destruction of WTC 7 steel before examination is the most compelling evidence of fraud. It is inconceivable that, if WTC 7 fell as the result of office fires, the steel would be quickly removed and shipped away to be destroyed before examination.
This fact alone is enough to convince anyone that there was something to hide.
The action of the government in this respect defies all the norms of civilization itself, were the collapse to be a truly natural and unexpected event.
2. Real examination of the steel was denied to all. Instead, it was shipped away like garbage. But, with GPS tracking, no truck was allowed to lose its way to the dump or the dock. No independent party was to have access to the steel. Again, this suggests fraud.
3. Omission from the 9/11 Commission Report of any mention of WTC 7 also points to fraud. The complete collapse of a 47-story building is not trivial.
4. NIST’s failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses strongly suggests government interference in a scientific process, and points to a selective and thereby fraudulent investigation. The standards for fire investigations call for tests for explosives. No such tests were made.
5. The entire 9/11 “official” story appears to be a litany of impossible and improbable events, accompanied by a brazen suppression of evidence. Your investigation of WTC 7’s collapse must be seen within this context. In this respect, your selective approach to the collapse of WTC 7 continues the pattern of obfuscation.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/wyn...
Uh Huh Eh !
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275642 Jul 24, 2014
Commander Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>I wouldn't be saying that if I were you.
Let's just leave it at that.
I said it again Zordo, Ya chicken!

Pick your favorite below and I will debunk it or is ya yellow.
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275643 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
However it was conceived, the value (purchasing power) of the USD has plummeted 96% in the 100 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve System Central Bank which is totally private and is Federal in name only.
Uh Huh Eh !
No, the dollar did NOT really lose 95% of its value since 1913

There is a chart making the rounds lately, that claims the dollar lost 96.2% of it value since 1900. One of Ron Paul's fav talking points. Though technically true in a very narrow sense, if you look at average incomes during the same period, it is clear why this is deceptive. Additionally, the way the line chart is presented is highly deceptive. It makes it seem that there has been higher inflation in the last 40 years. But if you look at the actual numbers in the chart, that is clearly not the case. See the last 2 paragraphs for more detail.

Let us take at the period from 1913-2006, where we have complete data. So what do they mean, when they say the dollar lost 95.1% of its value in those 93 years? Essentially, an average good/service that cost $1 in 2006, used to be priced at 4.9 cents in 1913. In other words, the average price level of goods/services increased by 1930% since 1913. True, but guess what, average earned income increased by 6560% during the same time period. Average earned income rose from $740/yr in 1913 to $49,300/yr in 2006. Adjusting for inflation,$740/yr in 1913 is $15,000/yr in 2006 dollars. Average incomes, not only kept pace, but beat price inflation by 230%.

So does it make any sense all to say the dollar lost value? In reality, the REAL purchasing power of the average American, has increased by 230% in the past century. Sure, prices were cheap in 1913, but $740/yr doesn't buy you a whole lot, not anymore than 15,000/yr today. Even this statistic doesn't fully capture the quality of life gains of the last century. A household making $15,000/yr today is well below the poverty line, but yet, they are highly likely to have a refrigerator, indoor plumbing, electricity, tv, cell phone and maybe even heating and cooling. They are highly likely to have government help in making ends meet - food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid etc:. And yeah, thanks to advances in medicine, they don't have to worry about half their children dying before the age of 5. Their analogue in 1913, making $740/yr had none of these "luxuries". And that was the average income... Can you imagine what the poverty line looked like then?

Anyone who says the dollar lost value, is really trying to sell the false point of view, that somehow things were better off in 1913. Seriously?? Maybe we should send them back in time to live in the slums of New York. Yeah, we had actual slums back then. Update 3/2/2012: Yes, technically, in the parlance of mainstream economics, the dollar dropped in value. But, anytime Ron Paul says the dollar lost 95% of it value, but conveniently ignores the fact that average incomes and average savings beat price inflation, he is deceiving the American public. The fact the incomes and savings beat inflation, it makes the "fall" in the dollar completely irrelevant. What I am saying is we need a change in terminology.
http://realfactbias.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-d...
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275644 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Barry Jennings & Michael Hess claim to have seen dead bodies
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008...
Nowhere in your link does it say Hess saw dead bodies in WTC7 and....

"The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."

BARRY JENNINGS HIMSELF DISAGREES WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION OF HIS WORDS. BARRY JENNINGS TOLD THE BBC: "I DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY YOU KNOW I WAS PORTRAYED. THEY PORTRAYED ME AS SEEING DEAD BODIES. I NEVER SAW DEAD BODIES"

Dylan Avery is adamant that he didn't take anything out of context. He played The Conspiracy Files a recording of Barry Jennings words: "The fire fighter who took us down kept saying do not look down. And I kept saying why.

"He said do not look down. And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people."

HOWEVER, BARRY JENNINGS TOLD THE BBC: "I SAID IT FELT LIKE I WAS STEPPING OVER THEM BUT I NEVER SAW ANY.

"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275645 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
On the same day,(9/11 2001) the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days.
These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity (September 12th) without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.
Do you even know what 12k is, it's the total opposite of what you say, ANOTHER LIE OF TWOOF!

Definition of 'Suspended Trading'

A stoppage in the trading of a security for an extended period of time that normally occurs when there is a lack of material financial information on the security. Once the security is suspended, shares of that security cannot be traded on the market until the suspension is lifted or lapses. The exact amount of time for the suspension will be determined on on a case-by-case basis.

Investopedia explains 'Suspended Trading'

THE SEC HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE TRADING OF A SECURITY FOR UP TO 10 TRADING DAYS TO PROTECT INVESTORS.

The SEC has this ability under Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC will make the decision to do this based on an investigation and will then issue a press release detailing the reason for the suspension. The most common reason for suspension is due to a lack of publicly available, relevant and current financial information.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/suspended...
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275646 Jul 24, 2014
A lot of the 9-11 Deniers like to point out that the first chapter of Thomas Kean and LEE HAMILTON'S BOOK WITHOUT PRECEDENT WAS ENTITLED "SET UP TO FAIL". OF COURSE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE TRUTHERS INABILITY TO READ (perhaps that is why they like videos so much?). I borrowed the book from the local library the other day and will be giving my thoughts over the next few days.

WHY WAS THE COMMISSION SET UP TO FAIL? THE BOOK (PAGE 15) EXPLAINS:

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation."

BUT THE PARAGRAPH CONTINUES:

"WHAT WE COULD NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED WERE THE REMARKABLE PEOPLE AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD COALESCE WITHIN AND AROUND THE 9/11 COMMISSION OVER THE COMING TWENTY MONTHS TO ENABLE OUR SUCCESS."

Uh Huh Eh !
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
"LEE AND I WRITE IN OUR BOOK, that uh, we think that the Commission in many ways was set up to fail."
Direct quote from Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission Chairman at the National Press Club 9/11/2006.
https://www.youtube.com/watch ...
There is no context here. THIS IS NOT FROM ANY BOOK.
You can not deny he said this on camera.
Sure he might have said words before and after he said this sentence.
Uh Huh Eh !
Sheensane

Virginia Beach, VA

#275647 Jul 24, 2014
Carlie Sheen is netting from Lincoln, Nebraska, people!
Sheensane

Virginia Beach, VA

#275648 Jul 24, 2014
Charlie Sheen is netting from Lincoln, Nebraska, people!

reposted to fix typo of the misspelled name
Sheensane

Virginia Beach, VA

#275649 Jul 24, 2014
Too many people are either too dumb or actually prefer to believe the lies for the truth to be able to be accepted (not come out, it has come out), during this time, our time, now. It probably will become increasingly accepted as truth, but that will take multiple decades for the truth to finally be acknowledged generally by a majority of people. For now, it is still too soon, and the official bullshit and lies are more comfortable to believe is true by the masses of simpletons, who, for, the truth would rock their world, and upset their world view far to much for them to be able to withstand. What happens, is ridiculing people who talk straight about 9/11 as being nutters, in that way, to make the truth seem nutty, that it cannot possibly be true because it is so hard to believe that it could be true. As if that is how truth is determined. It is if you are a weak minded sheeple, barely above a simpleton, which too many people are.
Sheensane

Virginia Beach, VA

#275650 Jul 24, 2014
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." (Wizard of Oz)

You know, come to think of it, a reference to the Wizard of Oz is somewhat pertinent, here, and for more reason than the line I already showed, which, itself is relevant, as well, of course.

But my point is that it seems like that a majority of people share characteristics with the characters the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion.

Too many people share those characteristics (lacking brains, heart, or courage), and are "like" the corresponding characters enough, for the truth to be able to be openly discussed concerning such a very sensitive, highly controversial hot button topic of immense significance, such as this ("Nine Eleven"), without people who are clearly not well informed, ridiculing others simply because the scenario presented is too scary to contemplate could possibly be real and true.

If the truth is too hard to take, does that mean it cannot be true?

That's the way it seems to work, and until enough people can be more and better than the characters the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion, i.e. lacking brains, heart, and courage, then all the official bullshit and lies, that is, the official story, which is easier and more comfortable to believe is true, rather than the reality, which is too hard to take for most people, will continue to be the outwardly held prevailing view and interpretation of the supposed truth of the watershed event in history, that 9/11 is.

The conspiracy theory that is way too ridiculous to believe, is that a number of men with box cutters hijacking airplanes made all of it happen.

If I were to make reference to the "Hegelian dialectic", or even simply to what "false flag events" are, I would be talking over the heads of the majority of people, it really gets discouraging trying to convince willingly ignorant sheeple of anything which is true and makes sense, if it happens to be a little over their level of intelligence.

"Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" &#8213; Dick Cheney

Lies, lies, and damnable lies.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." &#8213; Arthur Schopenhauer

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” &#8213; Samuel Adams

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275651 Jul 24, 2014
Very pathetic rant.

ROTFLMAO

GLAD I COULD HELP
dubble dubya

Virginia Beach, VA

#275652 Jul 24, 2014
OMG ELEVEN11!!
dude ur post was too long I did not read it
I can act like a 'tard and feel like I have won an argument or sumthin!
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
i did it for the lulz
keep trollin,'tard

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275653 Jul 24, 2014
dubble dubya wrote:
OMG ELEVEN11!!
dude ur post was too long I did not read it
I can act like a 'tard and feel like I have won an argument or sumthin!
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
i did it for the lulz
keep trollin,'tard
Keep on trolling Putts.

GLAD I COULD HELP

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275654 Jul 24, 2014
Oh elevator boy-sheep-DNA 20 pilots YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST STREET CORNER JEEBUS aka Mr. Gullible is on yet another canned stupid spamming spree I see!

"6.5 seconds"

"Pull it"

"Sounded like a bomb!"

Jeez Oh elevator boy-sheep-DNA 20 pilots YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST STREET CORNER JEEBUS aka Mr. Gullible, it's not like every claim you've mindlessly spammed hasn't been before!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275655 Jul 24, 2014
Sheensane wrote:
Too many people are either too dumb or actually prefer to believe the lies for the truth to be able to be accepted (not come out, it has come out), during this time, our time, now. It probably will become increasingly accepted as truth, but that will take multiple decades for the truth to finally be acknowledged generally by a majority of people. For now, it is still too soon, and the official bullshit and lies are more comfortable to believe is true by the masses of simpletons, who, for, the truth would rock their world, and upset their world view far to much for them to be able to withstand. What happens, is ridiculing people who talk straight about 9/11 as being nutters, in that way, to make the truth seem nutty, that it cannot possibly be true because it is so hard to believe that it could be true. As if that is how truth is determined. It is if you are a weak minded sheeple, barely above a simpleton, which too many people are.
Nice rant socky!

Oh and 911 "nutters" are kooks.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275657 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Recent Findings by Independent Researchers and Engineers
Researchers who examined NIST’s WTC7 theory had, for many years, no detailed information about the building or NIST’s computer model of the collapse mechanism.
In 2011, however only after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Ronald H. Brookman, a structural engineer affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, resulted in the release by NIST of a large number of structural, erection, and shop fabrication drawings for the steel frame of the building. Independent examination of these drawings has led to the discovery of significant errors of fact and omission by NIST in its final report on WTC7.
This work was carried out over a two year period by an international group of engineers and researchers affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
This group includes Ronald Brookman, David Cole, Tony Szamboti and others. See the article by Dennis P. McMahon, Esq for more information.
Ronald H. Brookman Structural Engineer
During the past two years, the following error and two omissions came to light. The NIST report: gave an incorrect value for the width of the seat for girder A2001 at column 79
Failed to mention stiffeners that provided support for girder A2001
Failed to mention lateral support beams which supported beam G3005 (connected to girder A2001) which allegedly buckled.
So much for a scientific forensic investigation hey! Folks.
http://scientistsfor911truth.org/
Uh Huh Eh !
Oooh. Scientists and engineers. Are they like the twenty pilots who couldn't hit a barn if they tried?

The firemen who were on the scene already debunked them before they even started.

So did the Popular Mechanics article.

GLAD I COULD HELP
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275658 Jul 24, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Failed to mention lateral support beams which supported beam G3005 (connected to girder A2001) which allegedly buckled.
They are not even relative, what were they made out of. tell us, why they are relevant to thermal expansion.

EH Bunny!

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 4 min Freebird USA 7,696
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Gabriel 982,341
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 13 min Squirrel Pot Pie 123,773
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 29 min ECT 4Troll Heretics 681,916
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 40 min Tony 6,371
Exit the Jewtrix-Free Conspiracy Documentary 2 hr Sparrow 1
News Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 9 hr Ron Paul Liberty 170
More from around the web