Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,987 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#194964 Apr 13, 2011
And of course the lying tard, brainfart of the universe, doesn't link to the original source and leaves out this little gem,

"The lead prosecutor in the German case told the AP he also was unaware of the FBI report, but said he has no doubts about the evidence. Hans-Joachim Lutz acknowledged the ID card was only shown — not turned over — to American investigators at the time of the 1985 report, but said court experts in Israel and Germany later obtained access to the original, and testified that they believe it to be genuine.

"Now it has been determined to have been genuine, so for us 1985 is relatively uninteresting," he said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/A...

As usual, brainfarts reesurch is best described as half assed....and that's being very generous.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#194965 Apr 13, 2011
very easy to find pictures of Flight 77 wreckage when you want to

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetr...

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Pentago...

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stann...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_so...

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2...
Say the Truth to power wrote:
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Protection of the Institution is More Important Than Learning the Truth
The title is the words of 9/11 commission member Janice Kephart. It may be one of the most truthful statements ever to come out of the mouth of an accessory to the cover up.
IranContraScumDid911 has a couple of new videos on the Pentagon. Where is Flight 77?
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/
Say the Truth

Caldwell, NJ

#194966 Apr 13, 2011
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Ummmm....you do realise how dumb you are right?
Right brainfart?
Or are you so dumb you just don't see it?
Now brainfart, who was prosecuting Demjamjuk?
Was it the US?
Was it the FBI?
Are you fully alert?
Would you like to sober up before responding?
That's what happens when you're serving tropical cocktails at 5AM

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#194967 Apr 13, 2011
Run away...again... wittle wee-tard!

Run!!!!!

“Or die on your knees...”

Since: Feb 11

The Universe

#194968 Apr 13, 2011
all been debunked

Q: Hasn't all of this been debunked already, by Popular Mechanics, NOVA, the BBC, etc.?

Well, what do you mean by "all of this"? Let's suppose we focus for the time being on the question of whether or not there were explosives involved in the destruction of the twin towers and building 7. While there exists a substantial body of evidence indicating the presence of explosives in the buildings, it is generally ignored in most attempts to debunk "9/11 conspiracy theories".

Instead, the producers of "debunker" materials (we prefer to call them rebunkers? respond to claims of their choosing, selecting the ones that are easiest to refute - often choosing claims that no serious 9/11 skeptics actually make. They therefore leave a number of the most relevant problems with the official account unchallenged, while giving the impression that they've "answered all the questions".

In the case of the explosives, all would-be debunkers fail to prove that explosives were not used. Since proving a negative can be difficult if not sometimes impossible, it would make sense that the issue be settled through testing of the debris for traces of explosives, incendiaries or anything else that may shed light on the fate of the 3 towers. No such tests were ever conducted on the debris from the WTC, a fact that the NIST freely admits and the "debunkers" do not challenge. Given that it is standard procedure in the case of property destruction investigations to rule out foul play by means of these very tests, the failure to conduct any such tests on the remains of the WTC is strange.

For anyone to dismiss evidence of explosions and at the same time not support chemical testing of the debris may reflect poor judgment or something worse — either way it is an untenable position in a crime as consequential as 9/11. So far from having been debunked, the possible role played by explosives in the destruction of the WTC remains inadequately addressed.

Recommended reading: Debunking 9-11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin esp. chapter on Popular Mechanics?
Jesse Ventura Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#194969 Apr 13, 2011
Say the Truth to power wrote:
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Protection of the Institution is More Important Than Learning the Truth
The title is the words of 9/11 commission member Janice Kephart. It may be one of the most truthful statements ever to come out of the mouth of an accessory to the cover up.
IranContraScumDid911 has a couple of new videos on the Pentagon. Where is Flight 77?
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/
Ahh, 200 people saw it hit the Pentagon?
Jesse Ventura Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#194970 Apr 13, 2011
Say the Truth to power wrote:
<quoted text>You pustulent maggot did you READ this:
"An FBI report kept secret for 25 years"
Why would they keep it secret?
TWENTY FIVE YEARS!!!!
Secret or internal, the FBI does not publish all its internal documents on the web, why? Gosh, I just can't figure that one out?
Jesse Ventura Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#194971 Apr 13, 2011
Say the Truth to power wrote:
Well, what do you mean by "all of this"? Let's suppose we focus for the time being on the question of whether or not there were explosives involved in the destruction of the twin towers and building 7.
OK, I'm focusing, none were used. Next!

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#194973 Apr 13, 2011
"According to the seismic data there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," - Arthur Lerner Lam , Asscociate Director, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

USE OF EXPLOSIVES DEBUNKED ...... MORON!!!!!
Say the Truth to power wrote:
all been debunked
Q: Hasn't all of this been debunked already, by Popular Mechanics, NOVA, the BBC, etc.?
Well, what do you mean by "all of this"? Let's suppose we focus for the time being on the question of whether or not there were explosives involved in the destruction of the twin towers and building 7. While there exists a substantial body of evidence indicating the presence of explosives in the buildings, it is generally ignored in most attempts to debunk "9/11 conspiracy theories".
Instead, the producers of "debunker" materials (we prefer to call them rebunkers? respond to claims of their choosing, selecting the ones that are easiest to refute - often choosing claims that no serious 9/11 skeptics actually make. They therefore leave a number of the most relevant problems with the official account unchallenged, while giving the impression that they've "answered all the questions".
In the case of the explosives, all would-be debunkers fail to prove that explosives were not used. Since proving a negative can be difficult if not sometimes impossible, it would make sense that the issue be settled through testing of the debris for traces of explosives, incendiaries or anything else that may shed light on the fate of the 3 towers. No such tests were ever conducted on the debris from the WTC, a fact that the NIST freely admits and the "debunkers" do not challenge. Given that it is standard procedure in the case of property destruction investigations to rule out foul play by means of these very tests, the failure to conduct any such tests on the remains of the WTC is strange.
For anyone to dismiss evidence of explosions and at the same time not support chemical testing of the debris may reflect poor judgment or something worse — either way it is an untenable position in a crime as consequential as 9/11. So far from having been debunked, the possible role played by explosives in the destruction of the WTC remains inadequately addressed.
Recommended reading: Debunking 9-11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin esp. chapter on Popular Mechanics?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#194974 Apr 13, 2011
Hurry brainfart, change the subject...the real truthers are onto ya!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#194975 Apr 13, 2011

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#194976 Apr 13, 2011
they are all government plants
Jesse Ventura Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, 200 people saw it hit the Pentagon?

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#194977 Apr 13, 2011
..... except for "I want to be Clueless and Misinformed !!!!

Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Twoofers tend to fail epically in the "want" department.

“9/11 Twoof = STUPID ”

Since: Jun 07

Manhattan, New York

#194978 Apr 13, 2011
it's interesting hat the FireFightersfor911 Truth website has not been updated since March 2010 ..... but you can still buy a t-shirt !!!!!!
Jesse Ventura Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#194979 Apr 13, 2011
RADEKT wrote:
they are all government plants
<quoted text>
No doubt, no one can see holo-planes, except supertroofer!

“Or die on your knees...”

Since: Feb 11

The Universe

#194980 Apr 13, 2011
&fe ature=player_embedded

WTC#7

Structural collapse????
ROTFFLMAO!!!
Say the Truth

Caldwell, NJ

#194981 Apr 13, 2011
Say the Truth to power wrote:
all been debunked
Q: Hasn't all of this been debunked already, by Popular Mechanics, NOVA, the BBC, etc.?
Well, what do you mean by "all of this"? Let's suppose we focus for the time being on the question of whether or not there were explosives involved in the destruction of the twin towers and building 7. While there exists a substantial body of evidence indicating the presence of explosives in the buildings, it is generally ignored in most attempts to debunk "9/11 conspiracy theories".
Instead, the producers of "debunker" materials (we prefer to call them rebunkers? respond to claims of their choosing, selecting the ones that are easiest to refute - often choosing claims that no serious 9/11 skeptics actually make. They therefore leave a number of the most relevant problems with the official account unchallenged, while giving the impression that they've "answered all the questions".
In the case of the explosives, all would-be debunkers fail to prove that explosives were not used. Since proving a negative can be difficult if not sometimes impossible, it would make sense that the issue be settled through testing of the debris for traces of explosives, incendiaries or anything else that may shed light on the fate of the 3 towers. No such tests were ever conducted on the debris from the WTC, a fact that the NIST freely admits and the "debunkers" do not challenge. Given that it is standard procedure in the case of property destruction investigations to rule out foul play by means of these very tests, the failure to conduct any such tests on the remains of the WTC is strange.
For anyone to dismiss evidence of explosions and at the same time not support chemical testing of the debris may reflect poor judgment or something worse — either way it is an untenable position in a crime as consequential as 9/11. So far from having been debunked, the possible role played by explosives in the destruction of the WTC remains inadequately addressed.
Recommended reading: Debunking 9-11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin esp. chapter on Popular Mechanics?
Why can't twoofers write their own material?
Say the Truth

Caldwell, NJ

#194982 Apr 13, 2011
Say the Truth to power wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =l183LaNay0AXX&feature=pla yer_embedded
WTC#7
Structural collapse????
ROTFFLMAO!!!
RTQ, amended: "Everything I know I learned from reading blogs and watching youtube.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#194983 Apr 13, 2011
Keep changing subjects wittle wee-tard!!!

Run ffs, runnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!

Oh and say hi to gramps for me:-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#194984 Apr 13, 2011
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't twoofers write their own material?
Because twooferdumb only has one brain and they all share it?

Just a guess.

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) 5 min Aerobatty 950,447
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 10 min Adam 102,982
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Anthony MN 627,364
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min LAWEST100 615,735
Play "end of the word" part 2 34 min WasteWater 682
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 35 min WasteWater 223,072
Muslims go home 42 min reality check 15
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 49 min Earthling 14,223
More from around the web