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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276258 Jul 31, 2014
The hole, the hole?

Look at the picture moron. The nose knocked out a bricked in opening. You can do that very easily with a sledge hammer.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#276260 Jul 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
How ironic you would bring up science and logic.
Science starts with an observation, forms a hypothesis, and proves it using readily verifiable and tangible information. To do otherwise is both unscientific and illogical.
The point where 9/11 is observable is where it takes place. For example, the planes were observed hitting the Towers. Everything starts right there. Working backwards all the events lead up to that event and the demise of the WTC. You start elsewhere with a false hypothesis and try to make things fit. It doesn't.
GLAD I COULD HELP
"molten steel = cd"

"free fall = cd"

"symmetry = cd"

Of course he only pretends his "conspira-terpretation " of science is valid when discussing an engineering report which he can't hope to understand....then completely ignores science to accept silly canards with no substance in order to confirm his obvious bias.
Pegasus

Plainville, MA

#276261 Jul 31, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
We have all run into them. All over the Internet, there are horrible trolls that seem to delight in making life miserable for other people. But the worst trolls of all are the government trolls...
I wonder who this reminds me of?
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the...
Insults Are Easier
Speaking of trolls.....your about as worrisome as a cloudy day.

You know it really would be quite a feat if the other two jackasses you hang with would bring some evidence.....tangible if you please.

Awwwww what then hell, I'm getting way ahead of myself.....you clowns will take dirt naps and still never prove a goddamn thing and that my fucked-up friend is not the way to go through life,..if you want to call your existence a life....hey but keep up the shitty work and don't forget to have Zip Zorderz give the Junior Anarchists Start up kit because you really suck...LMAO!!!!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#276262 Jul 31, 2014
Oh and of curse his flir video which showed the device set at 0M...and where he doesn't seem to understand that flame temps on the outside of the building would be much lower than temp inside the building.

And of course there's the obvious issue that the materials burning all burn much hotter than 120C which proves the device is not properly set or calibrated....oh but he "understands" science....uh huh...right...mhmmm.

In twooferdumb, they believe idiots like that. The rest of the world....not so much.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276264 Jul 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't see it.
I understand how you might feel that way. I can't either.
Uh Huh Eh !
Why should anyone be able to see a plane dumbass.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276265 Jul 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Oh so its in such tiny pieces. That is why you can't see it.
OK you can't see the Boeing cause it crashed into such timy small pieces.
So how about the marks or holes in the walls where the wings would have hit if it had somehow managed to fly into the side of this building ?
Wing Span 124,8 ft, Length 155,2 ft, Tail Height 44,5 ft
Uh Huh Eh !
All the planes disintegrated. That's what planes do when flown into hard objects dumb ass.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#276266 Jul 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Oh so its in such tiny pieces. That is why you can't see it.
OK you can't see the Boeing cause it crashed into such timy small pieces.
So how about the marks or holes in the walls where the wings would have hit if it had somehow managed to fly into the side of this building ?
Wing Span 124,8 ft, Length 155,2 ft, Tail Height 44,5 ft
Uh Huh Eh !
You could try asking people who did see it and who did see the wreckage inside...oh but that would require something you'll never have.

Courage and conviction!

Oh elevator boy-sheep-DNA 20 pilots YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST STREET CORNER JEEBUS aka Mr. Gutless!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#276267 Jul 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
All the planes disintegrated. That's what planes do when flown into hard objects dumb ass.
You mean the cartoon fiziks of twooferdumb don't apply in the real world!



Too frikking funny!
Pegasus

Plainville, MA

#276268 Jul 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Oh so its in such tiny pieces. That is why you can't see it.
OK you can't see the Boeing cause it crashed into such timy small pieces.
So how about the marks or holes in the walls where the wings would have hit if it had somehow managed to fly into the side of this building ?
Wing Span 124,8 ft, Length 155,2 ft, Tail Height 44,5 ft
Uh Huh Eh !
Running this gig again ....here's a twist howsabout you tell us what hit the Pentagon if not a jet airliner.

You see moron usually when you counter a claim you have proof to alter that very claim.....I know...I know....the wheels on the Conspiretard Clownmobile go round and round...round and round ....sing along now jackass!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#276269 Jul 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
So how about the marks or holes in the walls where the wings would have hit if it had somehow managed to fly into the side of this building ?
Right here!

"There was a memorial held on October 11 for the people who were killed," Bartram notes. "On October 12, we started taking the stone off the building. We took down approximately 2,400 pieces of stone, a lot of which had melted aluminum from the plane embedded in it. We took it all down in about 13 days.

http://www.masonrymagazine.com/8-02/rising.ht...

Wing scars

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixe...

http://www.gamelogos.com/temp/starboard-wing....

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentWi...

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#276270 Jul 31, 2014
Flame temperatures in room fires

"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

But what do fire scientists know about fires that anonymous idiots on youRube videos don't....right?

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Oh Ignorance, you just can`t open your mouth without shoving a foot or two in it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276271 Jul 31, 2014
Where's the plane dumb ass?

Plane Crashes Into Austin Texas Office Building
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/a...

Cory Lidle plane crash

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/27/trial-...

This Day in History | 1945
US Army B-25 Bomber Crashes into Empire State Bldg

http://orangemercury.blogspot.com/2012_07_22_...

Here is a piece of it dumb ass.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Trade Center.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/file...

GLAD I COULD HELP DUMB ASS
MUQ1

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#276272 Jul 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Any rational person could see the top part of the building above the damaged area moved first, then successively collapsed. It is obvious just in watching collapse videos. Your post is utterly pointless.
GLAD I COULD HELP
I asked How Much Explovies arre needed to Bring WTC towers in a straight fall...answer the question and do not give Explanation.

Make a 1:100 Model of WTC and experiment with it.

If you could bring in straight fall in 1000 attempts, You have earned yourself a Million US Dollars!!

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#276273 Jul 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Oh so its in such tiny pieces. That is why you can't see it.
OK you can't see the Boeing cause it crashed into such timy small pieces.
So how about the marks or holes in the walls where the wings would have hit if it had somehow managed to fly into the side of this building ?
Wing Span 124,8 ft, Length 155,2 ft, Tail Height 44,5 ft
Uh Huh Eh !
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/tai...
ERROR:'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole'
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhol...
MUQ1

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#276274 Jul 31, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
So there is no such thing as a Controlled Demolition since a straight drop is the goal.
WAY TO DEBUNK YOURSELF SPANKY!
Of course there is a thing like "Controlled Demolition" and that is WHAT was used to bring down WTC-1 and 2. and WTC-7.

But controlled demolition does not use putting all Explosives at Bottom. It uses explosives placed at "strategic locations" and then let them go in a "pre-defined" matter.

Your are the Dumbass and not me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276276 Jul 31, 2014
MUQ1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked How Much Explovies arre needed to Bring WTC towers in a straight fall...answer the question and do not give Explanation.
Make a 1:100 Model of WTC and experiment with it.
If you could bring in straight fall in 1000 attempts, You have earned yourself a Million US Dollars!!
A huge amount of well directed and synchronized explosives. Elevator shafts and stairwells would need to be cut. It would take tons of steel plating to direct the charges. It would also be an impractical idea given the size of those structures. What's the point? There was no controlled demolition of anything in the World Trade Center.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276277 Jul 31, 2014
MUQ1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is a thing like "Controlled Demolition" and that is WHAT was used to bring down WTC-1 and 2. and WTC-7.
But controlled demolition does not use putting all Explosives at Bottom. It uses explosives placed at "strategic locations" and then let them go in a "pre-defined" matter.
Your are the Dumbass and not me.
Why? Because you say so? That is not a reason.

What's wrong with what actually happened? How about structural failure?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#276278 Jul 31, 2014
MUQ1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is a thing like "Controlled Demolition" and that is WHAT was used to bring down WTC-1 and 2. and WTC-7.
But controlled demolition does not use putting all Explosives at Bottom. It uses explosives placed at "strategic locations" and then let them go in a "pre-defined" matter.
Your are the Dumbass and not me.
Not according to the peer-reviewed study done on the subject of collapse.

“Turn left at pub Number 42”

Since: Dec 08

Homehill,QLD

#276280 Jul 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
A huge amount of well directed and synchronized explosives. Elevator shafts and stairwells would need to be cut. It would take tons of steel plating to direct the charges. It would also be an impractical idea given the size of those structures. What's the point? There was no controlled demolition of anything in the World Trade Center.
What a lucky day.
There is so much you have to believe to say it was an inside job.

You have to believe
Months or a year of installing explosives without getting caught and all relying on the terrorists to get of those flights on that day on that hour.
The NYFD are in on it
A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel
from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology are in on it
NORAD are in on it.
NIST are in on it
There are a cast of thousands and not one leak not one has owned up to this day
Despite the abundance evidence of a 757 at the pentagon and none for a missile,it was a missile
and so on and so on.

I think a full list of "what you have to believe" should be made Vs terrorist flying planes on 911
passing by

Salina, KS

#276281 Jul 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Two more things.
1. The video IS proof that a plane hit the Pentagon given the huge fireball which has all the characteristics of a jet fuel explosion. It clearly shows the reddish orange color and sooty black smoke.
2. The camera angle was directly from the side so it catching the plane entering would be improbable given the precise sync and slow resolution speed.
In truth, if the Pentagon video was the ONLY evidence that a Boeing had hit the building, there would be serious room for reasonable doubt. A jet fuel explosion doesn't require the presence of a jet. But it's far from the only evidence that a Boeing hit the building, which kind of kills off the reasonableness of doubting what the video shows and doesn't.

Truthers only imagine they see some sort of bigger picture, because none of them can actually describe it so it makes any sense. They endlessly obsess over bits and pieces, kinda like Bible thumpers regurgitating their favorite scriptural chunklets.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min nanoanomaly 974,651
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Catcher1 70,203
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 10 min ImFree2Choose 2,999
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 11 min Internet Reality 618,840
News Bush, First Lady Lay Wreaths At Ground Zero (Sep '06) 21 min Ole Miss Heroin 66
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 24 min kent 658,431
Breaking The KING JAMES BIBLE (KJV) CODE 30 min James 2
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 4 hr gundee123 4,940
More from around the web