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

Pegasus

Arlington, VA

#279759 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
sewerwater are you crying cause you got caught lying ?
.
You lie - you will cry !?!?!?!?
.
Oh Yeah ROFLMFAO Laughing Out Loud
.
Uh Huh Eh !
Zordick you seem to suffer from a complex brought on by women.

Waste Water constantly emasculates you with your far fetched posts and she leaves you face planted everytime.

Oh and Zip drop the technical jargon ......you are as dumb as a stump,

If you were not so vain and arrogant you could drop the Dr. Zorderz dink and invent something where you might have a fighting chance......but you can't let go.......and that my fine fucked up friend is one of your weaknesses

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#279760 Aug 31, 2014
Is the 9/11 Commission Report
.
Right ?
.
Or
.
Wrong ?
.
That is the question .
.
Uh Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#279761 Aug 31, 2014
Was it
.
Ten seconds ?
.
Or
.
Twelve seconds ?
.
Or
.
Fifteen seconds ?
.
Or
.
Less for the huge chunks ?
.
Uh Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#279762 Aug 31, 2014
RADEKT wrote:
Didn't you say that the 9/11 Commission Report was all wrong ???<quoted text>
Prove it ratdick !?!?!?!?
.
Uh Huh Eh !
Pegasus

Paterson, NJ

#279763 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it ratdick !?!?!?!?
.
Uh Huh Eh !
The goading bit still isn't cutting the mustard hey Zordick?

Now this question is going to go up one side of you and down the other......where is your PROOF of a controlled demolition?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279765 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
.
The huge chunks descended faster than the smaller chunks.
.
So how much faster than 10 seconds did the huge chunks take to descend ?
.
What is your best guess sewerwater ? The more you post YOU look more and more foolish.
.
So you are calling the 9/11 Commission Report a lie when it says 10seconds !?!?!?
.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds".(That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it was deverticalized unnaturally, if not precisely that, quickly. See for yourself:
.
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/TooFast1stColl ...
.
But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.
.
But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.
.
So which is it ratdick ?:
.
Govie .....10 seconds
.
Seismic signal ... 12 seconds
.
9/11 Review ........15 seconds
.
Who is lying ?
.
Does 5 seconds either way really matter much ?
.
How could any of the collapse times be correct when the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower that "should" have slowed the overall collapse ?
.
Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. And despite what sorry charlie says there was lots of air in NYC on 9/11.
.
Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the entire mass of the towers for 30 years.
.
Uh Huh Eh !
Proves your free-fall claim to be false.

The damage caused the collapse. There was no demolition.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279766 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Is the 9/11 Commission Report
.
Right ?
.
Or
.
Wrong ?
.
That is the question .
.
Uh Huh Eh !
Right.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279767 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
.
The towers failed all the way to the ground in less than 10 seconds due to damage and intense heat. That's a fact.
.
Do you agree sewerwater ? Or are you going to dodge this one cause you are wrong ?
The 9/11 Commission Report says so right on page 305
"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds".(That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it was deverticalized unnaturally, if not precisely that, quickly.
.
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.s...
.
But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.
.
But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.
As explained earlier. Dynamic loads.

No it isn't free-fall speed.

Here is why you are incorrect.

Free-falling objects are in a state of acceleration. Specifically, they are accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. This is to say that the velocity of a free-falling object is changing by 9.8 m/s every second. If dropped from a position of rest, the object will be traveling 9.8 m/s (approximately 10 m/s) at the end of the first second, 19.6 m/s (approximately 20 m/s) at the end of the second second, 29.4 m/s (approximately 30 m/s) at the end of the third second, etc. Thus, the velocity of a free-falling object that has been dropped from a position of rest is dependent upon the time that it has fallen. The formula for determining the velocity of a falling object after a time of t seconds is

vf = g * t

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279768 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Free-falling from WTC heights
.
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
.
or
.
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
.
Time(squared)=(2 x Distance)/ Gravity
.
Time(squared)= 2710 / 32 = 84.7
.
Time = 9.2
.
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents.(Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.(source)
.
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
.
So was the 9/11 Commission right when they said 10 seconds for the complete collapse of the South tower ?
.
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.s...
.
Uh Huh Eh !
Your formula is wrong.

Garbage in, garbage out.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#279770 Aug 31, 2014
"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds".(That's the government's official number.
.
If you have a superior formula than Sir Isaac Newton's or the 9/11 Commission's by all means tell us what your formula says respective to how long it took for the South tower to fall down .
.
Please sewerwater !?!?!?
.
Uh Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279771 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds".(That's the government's official number.
.
If you have a superior formula than Sir Isaac Newton's or the 9/11 Commission's by all means tell us what your formula says respective to how long it took for the South tower to fall down .
.
Please sewerwater !?!?!?
.
Uh Huh Eh !
I already posted it. You really should pay more attention. Besides, it makes no difference to the outcome. The buildings collapsed due to excessive damage. You need to ask yourself the following questions with regard to the concept of demolition.

1. What would be the point? The buildings were already seriously damaged to the point of collapse.

2. How would any demolition be done undetected given the fact it would require tons of explosives as well as steel plate to direct charges.

3. It would take tons of your mythical thermite to burn through key members.

4. Much of the structure was supported on the exterior frame. How would cutting through be undetected?

5. How would placement of demolitions charges be coordinated with the exact point of plane impact?

6 How do you explain the fact that the upper parts disintegrated on the way down rather than before collapse?

7. Why would anyone be involved in such criminal activity which could not be concealed?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279772 Aug 31, 2014
And the even bigger question Dr. Z.

Assuming your calculations are correct. Let's see you prove that a structural failure would be any slower once in motion.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279773 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Was it
.
Ten seconds ?
.
Or
.
Twelve seconds ?
.
Or
.
Fifteen seconds ?
.
Or
.
Less for the huge chunks ?
.
Uh Huh Eh !
Seismic calculations would probably be the most accurate. Of course there would be a lag in the time between the start of collapse and detection due to many factors such as the amount of time the shock wave took to reach the seismic detector. Therefore 15 seconds is accurate. The 10 second would be an estimation watching the collapse with videos. The dust cloud would obscure the final part of the event. The huge chunks descended at free-fall speed much faster. Proves your premise to be totally false.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#279774 Aug 31, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
sewerwater you claim to have read the official 9/11 Commission Report . Did you just skip over page 305 where, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds.
.
Here is the exact quote on page 305: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed [sic] in ten seconds".(That's the government's official number.)
Hey, iCarly, Could you show me where page 305 is in the report that is 248 pages by NIST's numbering or 298 if you take the appendix and non numerical labeled pages.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#279775 Aug 31, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, iCarly, Could you show me where page 305 is in the report that is 248 pages by NIST's numbering or 298 if you take the appendix and non numerical labeled pages.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm...
He correctly quoted the 9/11 commission Official Report which he cherry picked.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#279776 Aug 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He correctly quoted the 9/11 commission Official Report which he cherry picked.
What page and where?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#279777 Aug 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>.
1. What would be the point? The buildings were already seriously damaged to the point of collapse.
2. How would any demolition be done undetected given the fact it would require tons of explosives as well as steel plate to direct charges.
3. It would take tons of your mythical thermite to burn through key members.
4. Much of the structure was supported on the exterior frame. How would cutting through be undetected?
5. How would placement of demolitions charges be coordinated with the exact point of plane impact?
6 How do you explain the fact that the upper parts disintegrated on the way down rather than before collapse?
7. Why would anyone be involved in such criminal activity which could not be concealed?
iCarly gave that one up a few days ago.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote from Dr Zorderz
sorry charlie you forgot:

the Jews Did It

the WTC towers were NUKED

the WTC towers were victims of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON

NOBODY DIED ON 9/11

Uh Huh Eh !
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#279778 Aug 31, 2014
It doesn't matter , we know debris was falling ahead of the collapse field so the collapse was not at free fall acceleration
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Like your 9/11 conspiracy, it would be a very unlikely event with one-million to one odds.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#279779 Aug 31, 2014
Let me try being a debunker for a moment.

C'mon moron, what about this? No, what about that? Remember when you said this out of context? If not, what else?

Twoofer.

Makes no sense, paranoid, tinfoil, incest, jobless, lol, I'm successful.

You are just a phoney, pedophile because the government is always right and wrong, everyone knows that, because I wouldn't do it that way, and it's already been debunked, so I'm just here to make fun of you, moron.

Insults Are Easier
Patriot

Denver, CO

#279780 Aug 31, 2014
We have been so lied to -

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) 4 min nanoanomaly 64,932
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 18 min marge 654,532
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 22 min Gabriel 973,980
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 31 min Peace_Warrior 618,750
women watching men naked on webcam (Mar '12) 46 min Ableviking 60
Israel End is Near (Feb '15) 46 min MUQ2 515
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 45,313
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr bad bob 183,224
More from around the web