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

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275615 Jul 24, 2014
Twooferdumb: the only place where failing to move so much as a millimetre in 13 years is deemed a success!

go
twoof
go

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275616 Jul 24, 2014
AussieBobby wrote:
<quoted text>After getting debunked by Dr_Zorderz and what seems a growing number within the truth movement,Insults Are Easier will still cling to the thermite fantasy
And at the same time claim sounds of explosions in a building fire proves his conspiracy true....then wonder why people at laughing at him!

"The explosive force of thermite"

Too bloody funny!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275617 Jul 24, 2014
MUQ1 wrote:
<quoted text>SELF CLAIMED victory? Huh

What he writes are genuine points, what you post are DENIALS, without any proofs.
He posted a youRube video of people asserting there was thermite.

Twoofers still don't know there's a difference between evidence and opinion!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275618 Jul 24, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Thats because themitic explosive force was not accounted for. They compared it only to a commercial controlled demolition, when what we saw at wtc was a military controlled destruction meant to shock the public into giving up their own constitutional rights.

Your ignorance is my bliss, catfish. And you are so unoriginal you can only copy somebody else's insults, loser.

Porkies wife is a fat hog, because

Insults Are Easier
Porkpie Hat wrote:
"“One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects."

Wow!

Is that what Ignorance meant by "themitic explosive force"?

It must be since that's from the article he linked to support his assertion!
Hilarity always ensues when Ignorance is Bliss is around!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275619 Jul 24, 2014
And then there's the hypocrisy of his chosen moniker,
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>

Nah, your an idiot who has no idea what hes doing.

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Porkies wife is a fat hog, because

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>

This dummy

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Your wife's a hog, because

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Oh nano means very small like your brain or your character?

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text> you still don't know why you are an idiot and thats why I'm calling you an idiot with the mentality of a child.

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a boyfriend.

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Because braindead,

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
But one thing is not a myth, and that is Dudley only eats Spam and that makes his wife ugly, because

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Bur still, Spam is bad for you and makes you fat like Porkies fat wife, and all because

Insults Are Easier
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
And your wife is ugly, because

Insults Are Easier
Wow! Just wow!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#275620 Jul 24, 2014
go
twoof
go

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#275621 Jul 24, 2014
MUQ1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are writing with the Hindsight, on the eve of attack in 2003, it was claimed by USA:
1. Iraq has WMD and Nuclear capability which is a THREAT to USA!!
2. Iraq has had close link with Al Qaeda, and therefore it is threat to world peace.
Both these charges were false, BEFORE the attack and proven to be false after that attack.
It was only LATER that Democracy and saving country from Saddam were ADDED to save the face.
I know it is very difficult to swallow that your country did a mistake and your President mislead the whole nation, but if you are honest, you should admit that your nation did do mistake and your President lied to his people (knowingly lied, because he would not listen to the truth, only what satisfies his own conviction).
Unless of course you consider your nation as God and believe it could do no wrong.

I already said we likely jumped the gun, and yes there were misleading reports taken to congress, by several key players, but the actual legal reason for the invasion was noncompliance.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564...

But IMHO , it was that Saddam pissed Washington off past it's limit.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#275622 Jul 24, 2014
That wouldn't happen if they had a cohesive narrative !!!
AussieBobby wrote:
Insults Are Easier the super duper nano thermite Vs Dr_Zorderz the mini-nuker
Twoofer fight

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275623 Jul 24, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Insanity is disregarding evidence and still expecting it to be scientific.
Poor Porkie, can't debunk thermite, can't debunk NIST conducting a fraud investigation that disregarded witness testimony and the destruction of evidence, and conducted willful negligence by not following NFPA 921 guidelines calling for the chemical testing for explosives in total building collapses.
NIST did not have access to all of the forensic evidence and still chose not to test for explosive residue, a complete dereliction of scientific protocol.
We have prior examples of events other than 9/11, where it is clearly shown the FBI actively engaged in investigative fraud to achieve political objectives.
Late 90's, the TWA Flight 800 investigation, controlled by the FBI, tampered with evidence, misrepresented and pressured witness testimony, and covered up that aircraft was hit by a proximity fuse missile. All these facts came out later in documents and testimony by the lead NTSB investigators who had to wait until they retired to be able to speak out against that FBI cover up.
That investigation, just like the one by NIST, presented a probable scenario based on tampered and lost evidence. It used similar disinfo techniques, such as narrowly focusing on one type of missile to rule it out all types of missiles (much like NIST focusing on the sounds of normal explosives, to rule out exotics and incendiaries.
This is also why
Insults Are Easier
Thermite is a joke. Too bad you fail to seek reliable information.

False. NIST did a though investigation. Too bad you never read any of the official reports which contain all the pertinent information. Again, you rely on unreliable information.

You can't prove any of your allegations.

That's why, STUPITY IS EASIER

GLAD I COULD HELP

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275625 Jul 24, 2014
Want to hear two really good jokes?

1. Nano thermite.

2. Pentagon missile theory.
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275629 Jul 24, 2014
Pick your favorite below and I will debunk it or is ya yellow.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Millions of people worldwide are in ready possession of this evidence. Allow me to briefly review this evidence for you.
Physical Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
1. The rapid onset of collapse indicates controlled demolition. Natural collapses begin slowly as the steel deforms (but this has never before led to collapse from office fires).
2. The symmetrical, straight-down nature of the collapse. In a natural collapse, the building would tend to topple or show asymmetries.
3. The time taken by the collapse, approximately 6.5 seconds. This is almost free-fall acceleration and indicates little resistance, which is incomprehensible if natural.
Your theory of a slower collapse within the outer frame of the building is outrageous speculation.
4. The neat, tidy debris pile, a few stories high, with adjoining buildings essentially untouched. Such a debris pile is the main objective and hallmark of a successful controlled demolition.
5. The molten metal and high temperatures observed for weeks afterwards in the debris pile. Only incendiary and explosive materials, such as thermite, thermate, and nano-thermites could produce these temperatures.
Particles found in the dust indicate these materials.
6. The evidence of corroded steel with sulfur found by FEMA. Again, sulfur is a product of a thermate reaction.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/wyn...
Uh Huh Eh !

“Taste great in milk!”

Since: Aug 08

.

#275630 Jul 24, 2014
^ He's right again.

But then, You guys already knew that, right?
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275631 Jul 24, 2014
DITTO! Pick your favorite below and I will debunk it or is ya yellow.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Eye-witness Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
1. The testimony of Barry Jennings. Mr. Jennings timeline is crucial and unassailable. The essentials of his story were told to Eye-Witness Channel 7 News shortly after 1 pm on 9/11/01, and later elaborated on in taped interviews. BEFORE either tower fell, he was blown back, by an explosion, from the sixth floor to the eighth floor in a stairwell in WTC 7. The sixth floor landing was destroyed. Help came twice and ran away when each tower collapsed. He was in the dark for several hours. He heard explosions from that time (before 9:58 am) until he was found and led to safety around 1 pm. At that time the lobby of WTC 7 was completely destroyed. None of this could have happened because of the tower collapses. All his eye-witness evidence points to pre-demolition blasts in WTC 7.
2. The video-taped statements of various firemen and policemen before 5:20 pm on 9/11/01 to the effect that WTC 7 was “coming down” or “about to blow up.” This pre-knowledge indicates controlled demolition.
3. The video-taped statement of a witness who overheard a “count-down” for WTC 7 on a worker’s radio.
4. The many videos showing the actual collapse of WTC 7, with various evidences of controlled demolition such as a kink in the roof, exploding charges at upper stories, and so on.
5. Audible explosions heard by eye-witnesses just before and during the collapse of WTC 7.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/wyn...
Uh Huh Eh !
Charlie Sheen

Weeping Water, NE

#275632 Jul 24, 2014
Commander Bunny wrote:
^ He's right again.
But then, You guys already knew that, right?
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.

“Taste great in milk!”

Since: Aug 08

.

#275637 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.
I wouldn't be saying that if I were you.
Let's just leave it at that.

“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.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Buck Crick 64,044
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 24 min Steve III 653,999
I prefer women's satin panties over men's under... 49 min Clive 27
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 52 min Clive 80
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 56 min Rosa_Winkel 106,508
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Aura Mytha 973,802
I want to masturebate with my friend 2 hr Bbflip 1
More from around the web