Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,177 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

onemale

Charleston, IL

#281056 Sep 17, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a direct missile attack Fetal boy and aluminum is way softer than steel, you are rather dumb son of the town soak and jizz bank.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post ya dippy liar.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#281057 Sep 17, 2014
The debwunkers really hate this one:
New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-from-p...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281058 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
He thinks a phoney formula he found in the internet proves everything.
Can you tell us what is phoney about it mother banger?

THOUGHT NOT!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#281059 Sep 17, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe flight 77 was either raptured or went to Fantasy Island.
What would Jesus say ?
.
Drop to your knees sewerwater, squeeze your closed eyes real tight, pray really hard, and Jesus will tell you which .
.
Uh Huh Eh !

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#281061 Sep 17, 2014
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel
.
Did rubble from the WTC really cause those eutectic formations ,as we were led to believe?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VvQDFV1HINwXX#t=108
.
Uh Huh Eh !
No, like "key fuel fires melted steel", your claim that anyone says "rubble cause the eutectic formations" is just another fail since the only ones who claim that is morons like you!

Oh elevator boy-sheep-DNA 20 pilots YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST STREET CORNER JEEBUS aka Mr. I don't know what eutectic means but da ebil US gub'ment didit!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281062 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
The debwunkers really hate this one:
New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-from-p...
False offspring of the town jizz bucket, the myth is the signal is constant, it is not, the goofs though the last ping should have been when the plane was destroyed.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281063 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
The debwunkers really hate this one:
New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-from-p...
Wrong again mother lover.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281064 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
The debwunkers really hate this one:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77.
The single most important point of this entire document is to be found here: These frames represent just that: frames. The vertical axis represents the number of samples taken during that frame, not the time those samples were taken. Many conspiracy theorists, incorrectly, believe that each row of this file represents 1/8 of a second.

The flawed interpretation is quickly disposed of by realizing a few key pieces of evidence. First of all, if you look at the longitudinal acceleration data above, you will see that it is sampled 4 times, and then the other 4 rows are blank. Without getting into the technical details, sampling at 0, 1/8, 2/8 and 3/8, and then not sampling again until 8/8 is absolutely silly. In digital signal processing, sampling out-of-phase like this would result in horrible aliasing effects and poorer reconstructed signal quality. It requires the same amount of effort, and the same amount of bandwidth to sample in equally spaced intervals, and the data is far superior. There is absolutely no way that the data was sampled “out-of-phase” like the incorrect interpretation would imply.

The second major clue is that our serial multiplexed signal is a constant bit-rate signal. This means that the same amount of data flows during the same period of time, at all times. All data points in this file are squished towards the top of the frame. This would mean much more data has to travel out from 0 to 1/8 then has to travel from 6/8 to 7/8. This violates the principle of constant bit-rate.

The key point is worth reemphasizing, so I will do it again: the proper interpretation of each frame of in the CSV file is that N samples were taken during that second. We know nothing about the time of these samples other than the fact they were taken during the frame, and are equally spaced. Pressure altitude could have been sampled at 0.0 or 0.99, and they would both show up exactly the same in the CSV file.

This means we can calculate an error rate, in time, for each data point, due entirely to not knowing where in the frame this particular data-point was recorded. For a data-point sampled at 1Hz, like pressure altitude, that sample could have occurred at any point from 8:19:00 to 8:19:01. This is an error range of 1 second. A similar calculation can be done to be show that the maximum error range is equal to the time period between samples. Samples done at 8Hz have an error range of 0.125s, and 4Hz has 0.25s, and so on.

Also note that the timestamps of the major frames have been processed from the original data (the NTSB FDR report mentions this on page 3). There is no way to know the error in these timestamps, nor do we know the precision. It is a mistake to try to correlate these timestamps with the outside world (like official time of impacts).
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281065 Sep 17, 2014
The Final 1 to 2 Seconds

Given that the data was compressed, and synched, it’s very likely that any frames that were not complete would be difficult to recover, if even recoverable at all. The implication of this is quite simple, and that is the FDR data in the CSV file “runs out” well before the plane actually hits.

This means that 9:37:44 was the last, complete frame, gathered by the recorder. That puts the likely time of impact in the 9:37:45-6 range, and possibly even into the 9:37:46-7 timeframe. The presence of 9:37:46 in this data suggests that its timestamp may have made it onto the tape. How is that possible if 9:37:45 is not a complete frame? That’s a good question, but a reasonable hypothesis has to do with the storage mechanism used. Solid State Recorders, like all medium, are quite unpredictable if they fail during write operations. The actual area being used to record data can very easily be corrupted if power fails while writing. It’s plausible that the crash caused problems in and around this local area of data, causing corruption of the 9:37:45 data frame (again, changing a single bit in a synch word is enough to cause software to completely choke).

The moral of the story here is that the FDR data runs out anywhere from up to 2 seconds before the plane actually crashed into the Pentagon.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#281066 Sep 17, 2014
Sorry Charlie has proven the debwunkers really hate this one:
New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-from-p...
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281067 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
Sorry Charlie has proven the debwunkers really hate this one:
New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-from-p...
Prove any of the above wrong or ask mom when she sobers up and gets dressed.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#281068 Sep 17, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
The single most important point of this entire document is to be found here: These frames represent just that: frames. The vertical axis represents the number of samples taken during that frame, not the time those samples were taken. Many conspiracy theorists, incorrectly, believe that each row of this file represents 1/8 of a second.
The flawed interpretation is quickly disposed of by realizing a few key pieces of evidence. First of all, if you look at the longitudinal acceleration data above, you will see that it is sampled 4 times, and then the other 4 rows are blank. Without getting into the technical details, sampling at 0, 1/8, 2/8 and 3/8, and then not sampling again until 8/8 is absolutely silly. In digital signal processing, sampling out-of-phase like this would result in horrible aliasing effects and poorer reconstructed signal quality. It requires the same amount of effort, and the same amount of bandwidth to sample in equally spaced intervals, and the data is far superior. There is absolutely no way that the data was sampled “out-of-phase” like the incorrect interpretation would imply.
The second major clue is that our serial multiplexed signal is a constant bit-rate signal. This means that the same amount of data flows during the same period of time, at all times. All data points in this file are squished towards the top of the frame. This would mean much more data has to travel out from 0 to 1/8 then has to travel from 6/8 to 7/8. This violates the principle of constant bit-rate.
The key point is worth reemphasizing, so I will do it again: the proper interpretation of each frame of in the CSV file is that N samples were taken during that second. We know nothing about the time of these samples other than the fact they were taken during the frame, and are equally spaced. Pressure altitude could have been sampled at 0.0 or 0.99, and they would both show up exactly the same in the CSV file.
This means we can calculate an error rate, in time, for each data point, due entirely to not knowing where in the frame this particular data-point was recorded. For a data-point sampled at 1Hz, like pressure altitude, that sample could have occurred at any point from 8:19:00 to 8:19:01. This is an error range of 1 second. A similar calculation can be done to be show that the maximum error range is equal to the time period between samples. Samples done at 8Hz have an error range of 0.125s, and 4Hz has 0.25s, and so on.
Also note that the timestamps of the major frames have been processed from the original data (the NTSB FDR report mentions this on page 3). There is no way to know the error in these timestamps, nor do we know the precision. It is a mistake to try to correlate these timestamps with the outside world (like official time of impacts).
I will trust aviation professionals long before I trust a spies for pay" is a shill, a propaganda minister, a sell-out, a government informant, a paid troller-to generate discussion on this account, to remove any real discussion.

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281069 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
He thinks a phoney formula he found in the internet proves everything.
Can you tell us what is phoney about it mother banger?

THOUGHT NOT!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281071 Sep 17, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
I will trust aviation professionals long before I trust a spies for pay" is a shill, a propaganda minister, a sell-out, a government informant, a paid troller-to generate discussion on this account, to remove any real discussion.
Well Mr. Mom!

It is from a professional, so why is PP formula phoney again, explain in detail or have you mom get dressed and explain it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...

“SHEEN IS A LIAR”

Since: Dec 10

Lincoln, NE

#281073 Sep 17, 2014
Can you prove Tom Fontain married a 14 year old ??

THOUGHT NOT!
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell us what is phoney about it mother banger?
THOUGHT NOT!

“SHEEN IS A LIAR”

Since: Dec 10

Lincoln, NE

#281074 Sep 17, 2014
The only thing that gets you hard is a large dose of Viagra ...... Do your firends still call you "Limpy"
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
That no doubt gets you hard pedo Tommy!

“SHEEN IS A LIAR”

Since: Dec 10

Lincoln, NE

#281075 Sep 17, 2014
I again challenge Sheen to post proof Tom Fontain married a 14 year old bride ..... Should be very easy for a guy who saves every post
onemale

Charleston, IL

#281076 Sep 17, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell us what is phoney about it mother banger?
THOUGHT NOT!
You claim to an expert about everything
I will trust aviation professionals long before I trust a spies for pay" is a shill, a propaganda minister, a sell-out, a government informant, a paid troller-to generate discussion on this account, to remove any real discussion.
Aardvark Ratnick

United States

#281077 Sep 17, 2014
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking to yourself MUQ1 aka Doc?
Wow, what a macaroon..
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#281078 Sep 17, 2014
JudgeNJury wrote:
Can you prove Tom Fontain married a 14 year old ??
THOUGHT NOT!
<quoted text>
Here you go Tommy you old pedo, see the link, I can post links!

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T1V...

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Anthony MN 573,465
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 6 min Rick in Kansas 97,836
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min AN NFL FAN 121,312
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 23 min Tide with Beach 808,342
Renzenberger : STEALING MILLIONS from their dri... 26 min Pinkbrowning 11
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 34 min To Skunk BT42 608,066
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 43 min Holy Virgin Dr Sh... 33,174
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 13 hr same 199
More from around the web