Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,268 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#279407 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you imply the planes were hijacked. You previously posted they were not hijacked.
Which is it? Were the planes hijacked? YES OR NO.
.
Well sewerwater .....YES and NO .
.
Yeah Jet Fuel...ha ha ha...That's A Good One
.
Oh BTW How's your pelvic mesh surgery complication suit with sheen Law Office going ?
.
Uh Huh Eh !
onemale

Charleston, IL

#279408 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Proves nothing.
TRY AGAIN
Do you still enjoy lying???
onemale

Charleston, IL

#279409 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you imply the planes were hijacked. You previously posted they were not hijacked.
Which is it? Were the planes hijacked? YES OR NO.
It is clear your comprehension level is non-exist

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279410 Aug 28, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Well sewerwater .....YES and NO .
.
Yeah Jet Fuel...ha ha ha...That's A Good One
.
Oh BTW How's your pelvic mesh surgery complication suit with sheen Law Office going ?
.
Uh Huh Eh !
What do you mean yes and no? Either the planes were hijacked or not.

Hundreds of witnesses smelled jet fuel. Jet fuel burns orange and sooty. All the explosions were consistent with jet fuel burning.

You are babbling again.

GLAD I COULD HELP

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279411 Aug 28, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
It is clear your comprehension level is non-exist
Not true. Why did you previously ridicule the fact that the planes were hijacked? Its time to make up you mind. Were the planes hijacked? Yes or no.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279412 Aug 28, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you still enjoy lying???
No but you sure do.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#279413 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Hundreds of witnesses smelled jet fuel dummy.
It is a good one proving your foolishness.
GLAD I COULD CLEAR THAT UP
Obviously you don't know that Jet Fuel is 90% diesel fuel, and it does not get hot enough to do any damage to massive beams. Besides NIST admitted it was mostly burned up in the fireball, and the rest was burned up the first 15 minutes.
There were fire resistant building materials with sprinklers... the videos prove it wasn't a blazing inferno.
weed on here.
It is clear your comprehension level is non-exist

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279414 Aug 28, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you don't know that Jet Fuel is 90% diesel fuel, and it does not get hot enough to do any damage to massive beams. Besides NIST admitted it was mostly burned up in the fireball, and the rest was burned up the first 15 minutes.
There were fire resistant building materials with sprinklers... the videos prove it wasn't a blazing inferno.
weed on here.
It is clear your comprehension level is non-exist
So now you claim that jet fuel doesn't burn. Besides, all these issues have been debunked.

1. Jet fuel burned for around ten minutes.

2. Planes pushed a huge debris pile up which ignited.

3. Planes brought a good deal of flammable material e.g. plastics, tires, insulation, luggage, seats etc.

4. Fire was intensified by updrafts.

5. Trusses deflected bowing outer structure causing structural failure.

GLAD I COULD HELP. ANY MORE STUPID STUFF?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#279415 Aug 28, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>How does your BS post have anything what to do with my post you are responding too???
Your own posing prove you are without a doubt the dumbest dickweed on here.
It is clear your comphenseion is non-existent.
Of course you're too dumb to figure out why its relevant Manyfails!

See moron, all you do is spam and troll.

I've refuted many of the childishly stupid posts you've made yet you've never even attempted to address my refutations.

That post refuted your claim that the 707 which hit the Sears tower was comparable to the impacts at the towers.

You have no clue whether the garbage you mindlessly regurgitate has any validity and it shows.

That's why it's relevant dummy.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#279416 Aug 28, 2014
JudgeNJury wrote:
<quoted text>Unlike you and your little band of shill, neo-nazi wanna be's I don't belong to any movement
That reminds me, I should look for some of the posts where you used neo nazi citations!

Fougera!

Hahahahahaha!!!!

Oh pedo-tommy, you've left a trail of stupid so wide and long that you just can't win!

“SHEEN IS A LIAR”

Since: Dec 10

Lincoln, NE

#279417 Aug 28, 2014
Shouldn't be too hard for you using your govie sponsored database
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
That reminds me, I should look for some of the posts where you used neo nazi citations!
Fougera!
Hahahahahaha!!!!
Oh pedo-tommy, you've left a trail of stupid so wide and long that you just can't win!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#279418 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you claim that jet fuel doesn't burn. Besides, all these issues have been debunked.
1. Jet fuel burned for around ten minutes.
2. Planes pushed a huge debris pile up which ignited.
3. Planes brought a good deal of flammable material e.g. plastics, tires, insulation, luggage, seats etc.
4. Fire was intensified by updrafts.
5. Trusses deflected bowing outer structure causing structural failure.
GLAD I COULD HELP. ANY MORE STUPID STUFF?
.
Yeah ...ALL THE ABOVE !
.
Maybe the planes were hijacked and maybe they weren't . There is no absolute proof either way !
.
But keep asking anyway sewerwater. Its very entertaining.
.
Jet Fuel...ha...ha...ha...Thats a good one !
,
Uh Huh Eh !

“I'll paint any car,”

Since: Aug 08

For $99.99

#279419 Aug 28, 2014
Is everybody good on their tea?
onemale

Charleston, IL

#279420 Aug 28, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you're too dumb to figure out why its relevant Manyfails!
See moron, all you do is spam and troll.
I've refuted many of the childishly stupid posts you've made yet you've never even attempted to address my refutations.
That post refuted your claim that the 707 which hit the Sears tower was comparable to the impacts at the towers.
You have no clue whether the garbage you mindlessly regurgitate has any validity and it shows.
That's why it's relevant dummy.
Your own postings prove you are without a doubt the dumbest dick-weed on here.
It is clear your comprehension is non-exist
onemale

Charleston, IL

#279421 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you claim that jet fuel doesn't burn. Besides, all these issues have been debunked.
1. Jet fuel burned for around ten minutes.
2. Planes pushed a huge debris pile up which ignited.
3. Planes brought a good deal of flammable material e.g. plastics, tires, insulation, luggage, seats etc.
4. Fire was intensified by updrafts.
5. Trusses deflected bowing outer structure causing structural failure.
GLAD I COULD HELP. ANY MORE STUPID STUFF?
1. But it took around two hours for the North Tower to come down, therefore the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant.
2. I didn't know a plane hit building #7, again totally irrelevant.
3. This is a repeat of number 3, making another irrelevant point.
4. According to architects who designed the buildings said the towers were designed to prevent up drafts, making your point a LIE.
5. You and NIST are ignoring the 47 inter core columns, even if the outer beams buckled and fell, the core columns should have remained standing. You are merely repeating NIST's lies.
Either your comprehension is non-exist or you like to lie.
Either way you are not very good at this... go back and play with yourself, if you screw that up the whole world won't see it.
Pegasus

Paterson, NJ

#279422 Aug 28, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Twoof? Were is your pwoof?
Prove that Bush knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do?
Besides, you have claimed the planes were never hijacked in the first place. Prove that dumb ass.
Truthers suffer from selective amnesia.....and they deflect....twist and contort...misconstrue.....but above all they lie like a friggin rug.
Of course you already know all this.

“SHEEN IS A LIAR”

Since: Dec 10

Lincoln, NE

#279423 Aug 28, 2014
I wonder where Sheen is ??.... could he have been banned for his pedophilia allegations ??

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279424 Aug 28, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you're too dumb to figure out why its relevant Manyfails!
See moron, all you do is spam and troll.
I've refuted many of the childishly stupid posts you've made yet you've never even attempted to address my refutations.
That post refuted your claim that the 707 which hit the Sears tower was comparable to the impacts at the towers.
You have no clue whether the garbage you mindlessly regurgitate has any validity and it shows.
That's why it's relevant dummy.
Exactly.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#279425 Aug 28, 2014
JudgeNJury wrote:
I wonder where Sheen is ??.... could he have been banned for his pedophilia allegations ??
Or perhaps the govie fired him for being such a cluster flop.
Or he is busy researching gay travel and gay destinations as he has done in the past.
Or he is at one of his gay destinations.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279426 Aug 28, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
1. But it took around two hours for the North Tower to come down, therefore the jet fuel argument is totally irrelevant.
2. I didn't know a plane hit building #7, again totally irrelevant.
3. This is a repeat of number 3, making another irrelevant point.
4. According to architects who designed the buildings said the towers were designed to prevent up drafts, making your point a LIE.
5. You and NIST are ignoring the 47 inter core columns, even if the outer beams buckled and fell, the core columns should have remained standing. You are merely repeating NIST's lies.
Either your comprehension is non-exist or you like to lie.
Either way you are not very good at this... go back and play with yourself, if you screw that up the whole world won't see it.
Thanks for replying to specific issues.

1. False. It is a proven fact that the floor trusses deflected over a period of time. When the floor trusses deflected, they pulled the exterior supports inward to the point of failure.

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

2. WTC 6 & 7 were hit by huge chucks of the north tower as it collapsed.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

3. False. The planes brought flammable material other than fuel to the fire. Why lie about it?

4. False. The buildings were never designed to be hit by a jet liner fueled for cross-country travel or flying at around 500mph. What's more, the design parameters were theoretical and untested. Finally, the design did indeed withstand the initial impact allowing many people to escape.

5. Many core columns were severed along with sprinkler system stand pipes. Prove that any of the NIST report which you have not read, is false. Calling the NIST report lies only shows your stupidity.

Here is what NIST has to say.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse...

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/fa...

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) 8 min River Tam 817,469
Poll Are you sick of seeing interracial dating ads? (Jul '08) 42 min poman 42
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Tony17 578,915
Poll Do misspelling and bad grammar bother you? (Dec '07) 1 hr stemaxgizmo 14
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 1,961
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr stemaxgizmo 2,185
Why is Pakistan a world superpower (Dec '08) 1 hr Hamad 36
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr LAWEST100 609,821
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr MUQ2 39,952
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Roberta G 176,202
More from around the web