9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked




2,113 views
Like (0) (1) Share Shuffle
Published by on August 13, 2013

Title:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

Category:

9/11 Conspiracies

Keywords:

9/11, Conspiracy, debunked, Theories



Checkout our top FREE Offers and Win Cool Prizes:







More from 9/11 Conspiracies

24 comments on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked

  1. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    Guess what jackass, u r Irelevant. Nobody cares what u say BECAUSE U LIE. it’s been validated and many studies have been peer reviewed and accepted by the SE’s. I listed a few and u dismissed them CUZ U R A LYING TROLL. so keep trolling jackass. Uve set the record for most persistent lies on one thread. Why do I need evidence that fire caused the g acceleration when THAT’S NOT THE CLAIM? Liar.

  2. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    “So called engineers”? Really? They are ACTUAL engineers, respected and accepted as such by the engineering community so much so some engineering organizations are awarding other engineers for VALIDATING THE DATA u lying sack of shit. NIST only claims fire initiated the collapse which began at least 7 seconds b4 the outer columns failed. Use ur imagination jackass. Dynamic collapse removed much of the internal steel. It’s obvious to everyone except petulant assholes who think they r relevant.

  3. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    “more “random names”, guys who are the most respected engineers in the business who provided you with plenty of studies to rebut.”

    go ahead…they ALL have the SAME EVIDENCE…….none!

    you can get so-called, ‘engineers’ to state what ever they want to….doesn’t mean SHIT till it’s proved….validated, verified, PEER REVIEWED!

    nothing occurs till the WTC vertical support ALLOWS it to.
    and YOU nor anyone else has ANY supporting evidence they failed from THESE fires present as claimed.

  4. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    ” the collapse scenerios that EVERYBODY ACCEPTS”

    oh SHAM..YOU omitted the MOST important part…..”accepts”..ON FAITH!

    the ‘faith’ they will do the RIGHT THING…..

    sorry bunkie…FAITH left, time to buck up and SUPPORT!

  5. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    ” the claim ISN’T THST FIRE DID IT. so stop lying about it.’

    well SHAM…falling tower debris did NOT cause WTC7 to collapse…..so unless YOU know of another agent that can GLOBALLY effect the load bearing vertical support to REMOVE 105 feet to allow the mass we see to ACCELERATE equal to g.

    since WE ALL KNOW structural mass accelerating @ g. can NOT assist in making the path it is falling into DURING the acceleration, so tell me how the FIRE did WITHIN 1.74s?

    as NIST SCIENCE found occurred

  6. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    “and what does SCIENCE tell us of g. occurring within a steel frame???

    Tell me about the internal steel supports?

    You can continue to lie about what the theory is, but thats just makes u a troll and a liar.

    Shall I provide you with more “random names”, guys who are the most respected engineers in the business who provided you with plenty of studies to rebut. Something u clearly r afraid to do. thats why u are here. cant do it in the real world.

  7. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    I know u have read the NIST final report. I know I know the claim ISN’T THAT FIRE removed 105 of support. That makes u a pathetic troll and liar. At least try and claim that what they claim is physically impossible instead of lying about fire. How does one rebut something that has never been published??? Total lie jackass. I gave u 5 peer reviewed journal articles, there are many more. All support the general conclusions.

  8. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    Jackass, the claim ISN’T THST FIRE DID IT. so stop lying about it. That IS NOT what i must do. Everyone ALREADY HAS JACKASS. go to the site and listen to the AIA guys give a tour. REMEMBER THEM? u calmed they agreed with u. And yet they give tours detailing the collapse scenerios that EVERYBODY ACCEPTS. You have proven that this is the case by failing to provide anyone who doesn’t. Ur lame attempt to show professionals who question the recommendations is further proof u have no support

  9. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    SUPPORT THE GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. remember that jackass.”

    yes…that is what YOU MUST do…..support the BULLSHIT you spew…

    NOT the ones asking you to.

    lol..btw…..GREAT job here so far huh!!!!!

  10. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    u claim the physics is “never before seen”

    NO, Shyam Sunder did at the NIST WTC7 tech briefing….shill here to lie.

    NIST tech briefing
    vimeo. com/11941571

    claim a “never before seen physics phenomenon fell 7 within the FIRST 1/3 of it’s global unified descent EQUAL to g.

    and what does SCIENCE tell us of g. occurring within a steel frame???

    that the structural mass CAN NOT BOTH, accelerate AT g, AND make the path it is falling into..

    tell me bout FIRE that made the path within 1.74s

  11. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    ” WHY DON’T YOU PUBLISH A REBUTTAL?”

    how does one ‘rebut’ something that has NEVER been published???

    i.e. the official claims?

    “NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse.”

  12. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    SUPPORT THE GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. remember that jackass. When u claimed AIA was on ur side? Failing to realize what they actually are questioning vans when I pointed out the AIA guys are giving tours of the site demonstrating the collapse scenerios u ran back to the pathetically stupid view that they are forced too or they’d lose their jobs. How’d that work out for ya numb nuts. All u proved was NOT EVERYONE is in lockstep with the recommendations but NONE are claiming the scenerios were wrong.

  13. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    The only time u attempted to provide experts who support ur stupidity, all u did was prove those who have taken issue with the recommendations SUPPORT THE GENERAL

  14. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    Prove it on there turf. I am not pushing any claim jackass. I am continually proving U HAVE ZERO SUPPORT. u verify this by FAILING TO PROVIDE ANY. game set and match. Until u provide any evidence that ANYBODY in engineering shares ur views, why would anyone else need to prove anything to you, a LIAR. ACEC , one of the largest engineering entities in the country awarded weidlinger its largest award for its wtc work. THEY VERIFIED THE DATA. You trolling on about it on YouTube proves ur an idiot,

  15. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    Well u r consistently stupid. Obviously u haven’t read the articles. Obviously u have FAILED to find a single rebuttal. So once again, YOU LOSE. the files that are exempt are proprietary. This has explained to you a thousand times and yet u continue to whine about it, once again proving to all whst a jackass you are. I’ll wait while u find a rebuttal. Here’s one for u jackass, WHY DON’T YOU PUBLISH A REBUTTAL?  u claim the physics is “never before seen”. PROVE IT TO THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY

  16. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    ” Can’t take it to the engineers can you dickhead?”

    lol…the OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIZED claims of FIRE causing a “brand new NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon” as claimed at the WTC7 tech briefing where FIRE caused 105 vertical feet to DISAPPEAR GLOBALLY, BEFORE unified decent EQUAL to g. @ 1.75s to 4.0s

    and then REFUSING TO PROVE this claim?????

    they LAUGH their ass off at that, then they are PISSED because THAT is what they have been supporting all along.

    they do NOT know.

    they ‘trust’

  17. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    ” Proves the only place for you, a certifiable liar, is YouTube.”

    well shill DUH-bunker…..this is the only avenue of media open so we can do this…

    “The data u claim weren’t released was VERIFIED BY WEIDLINGER”

    oh really…..

    ” The NIST reports were peer reviewed by “5” individual subject matter experts CONTRACTED by NIST” NCSTR1A xxxi

    …sorry moron Bunkie….you don’t have a peer review WITHIN the organization that authored it!!!

    ..and REFUSE release to the rest of the world….

  18. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    ‘They are journal articles”

    yes bunkie….”ARTICLES” void of DATA and supporting EVIDENCE!

    oh…and the DIFFERENCE bunkie SHILL here to LIE…..I have NO OFFICIAL claim I am pushing….YOU do…..YOU PROVE !

  19. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    “If the NIST doc was so deficient”

    point out the DATA that YOU claim is there to form a true PEER REVIEW!

    oh..and just so there is NO confusion….’Data’ are values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items…i.e…..what TELLS the collapse models WHAT TO do and what they DID do.

    “NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results data files of ANSYS 16 story and LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse models.”

  20. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    You know what that does for YOU? Hhmmmm? Proves the only place for you, a certifiable liar, is YouTube. Can’t take it to the engineers can you dickhead? Clearly not. The data u claim weren’t released was VERIFIED BY WEIDLINGER, Perdue, MIT, EFAA. ACEC awarded weidlinger for this jackass. Anyone with gray matter gets it. Jackass trolls don’t. (That’s you!).

  21. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    If the NIST doc was so deficient, engineers the world over would easily rebut the conclusions. You can’t provide a dingle fickin example of a relative engineering rebuttal. Not a single one. So I provide u with the conclusions of relitive engineers (there are many more jackass) and the best u can come up with is they don’t do anything for me?? Sure they do. They prove ur a jackass with ZERO support from Phd’s while I have support from thousands. ACEC awarded weidlinger assoc for its wtc work.

  22. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    They are journal articles dickhead. And the fact that YOU DON’T HAVE ANY is proof for all to see the difference between u and I. You have ZERO

  23. hgfbob

    1 year ago

    oh lookie at sham posting random names again……but WILL NOT point to ANY PEER review of the ACTUAL official story.

    the NIST HYPOTHESIS of collapse!

    tell me bunkie…..what do MAGAZINE articles do for ya???

    besides NOTHIN

    PEER REVIEW!!!

    there is NO peer reviewable data within the 10,000+ page NIST reports.

    why still NO release of the input and results DATA from the collapse models that REPRESENTING the official story?

    Hmmm???

  24. Shamrock3939

    1 year ago

    2002/10 – Weidlinger Associates Inc. (WAI), LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti, ARUPFire, Hughes Associates Inc., Hillman Environmental Group, RWDI, Z-Axis Corp – World Trade Center—Structural Engineering Investigation. The study was performed by a group of WAI. ACEC (thousands of PhD’s represented) awarded weidlinger its Grand Conceptor Award for its WTC work. Go ahead jackass, claim that they are ALL under the govt influence. Only a jackass would think so (that’s you).

Leave a Comment

All iconsv NextPrev Buttons Play icon