closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 867

Thread: 911 Conspiracy Theorists - the controlled explosion

  1. #51
    Well, it's always amusing to see people with no understanding of physics attempt to use it in the defence of things they make up.

  2. #52
    Why do you think that? Why is it amusing?
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 12:45.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by gollUM View Post
    Why do you think that? Why is it amusing?
    Good point. Though the more-accurate "fundamentally damaging to my faith in humanity" did seem like a bit of a downer. :(

  4. #54
    Grand Master hogthrob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by gollUM View Post
    1. Speed of aircraft at the moment of impact, as established by NIST report, is impossible at sea level - for the aircraft that suposedly hit the buildings. For them it was important as stated in the report because of the energy input in buildings that would support the theory they established. Why it is impossible? Every aircraft within pilot's manual has, so called, velocity vs. height diagram. This diagram shows the maximum velocity reacheable at different heights of flight to keep structural integrity of aircraft intact and jet engine(s) operation kept within limits of normal operation. Lower the flight, due to the air density, lower the maximum permissible speed of flight. That is why almost all commercial flights are operated at higher altitudes. This enables higher speed of flight than at the sea level and less fuel consumptions for the engines. At the moment of impact both aircraft had speed outside of the diagram.
    My bold. Are you saying that the planes were said to have reached impossible speeds, or speeds that were possible, but outside the plane's normal​ safe operating parameters?

  5. #55
    I am saying that planes could not fly at this speeds and stay structuraly intact at sea level. And also this speeds are not reachable with engines installed on aircraft of the type in question at the sea level.
    I can not say this more precisely than that. :)

    So yes... they were way out of the operating limit! Not safe operating parameters, operating limit!
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 13:05.

  6. #56
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Smith View Post
    You may think of a bird as a bundle of feathers but it is still made of bone, muscles etc. Ever been hit by a bee when on a motorbike?
    I've seen plenty of bird-strike damage on fast jets and in general they deflect off curved surfaces and the wall of air being pushed in front of the plane.The whole purpose of a jet engine is to suck and blow so you see the problem. It's unlucky when a bird (or any object) gets sucked into jet engines and a single engine jet is worse off obviously.

    However in the case of WTC an alleged aluminum (mostly) plane hits a solid steel and concrete building, purposely built to withstand aircraft strikes and cuts through into it like a knife into butter. No debris? And this happens twice in exactly the same way? Aviation fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F) although it is posited that the steel in WTC did not need to melt but just be weakened and bring down a 500,000 ton building, twice.

    This and many other bizarre facts(?) is why the conspiracy goes on and on.
    Yes - I've been hit it in the eye by a bee on a motorbike. That is, I was on the motorbike, and the bee hit me. It hurt. A lot. And my aircraft had a airstrike at a relatively low speed (~90 kts), that did enough damage to ground it for a month.

    I don't know that the WTC was specifically designed to withstand aircraft strikes. It'd be rather difficult to test for, anyway. Given that modern buildings are mostly concrete slabs with steel piles, and clad in glass, and concrete can presumably oxidise at high enough temperatures, I'd have thought that weakening of the slabs would tend to weaken the whole structure.

  7. #57
    Yes, WTC were designed to withstand the aircraft impact, of the aircraft size of Boeing 707.

  8. #58
    Grand Master seikopath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    29,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    Well, it's always amusing to see people with no understanding of physics attempt to use it in the defence of things they make up.
    I don't know anything about physics. I have got an o level in it, but that's the sum extent of my knowledge.

    I also don't know anything about flying a commercial jet liner. But people who do say that it is just not possible to do some of the manoeuvres that are said to have taken place on 911.

    Whether they are making those things up, or have an agenda I don't know. But I do find it interesting.
    Good luck everybody. Have a good one.

  9. #59
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,383
    Quote Originally Posted by gollUM View Post
    I am saying that planes could not fly at this speeds and stay structuraly intact at sea level. And also this speeds are not reachable with engines installed on aircraft of the type in question at the sea level.
    I can not say this more precisely than that. :)

    So yes... they were way out of the operating limit! Not safe operating parameters, operating limit!
    VNe (Velocity Never Exceed) is Mach 0.84 in a 767. Since The speed of sound depends on altitude and temperature at that altitude - Mach 0.84 at sea level is about 640 mph, or about 570 mph at 30,000 feet. A dive will add speed to anything the engines can provide. I don't imagine the hijackers were much concerned about the structural integrity of an aircraft they were about to fly into a building, but VNe is designed to protect the airframe; it's not a speed which physically can't be achieved.

  10. #60
    OK... not to get mathematical, let us hear what actual B 767 pilots have to say about the matter:
    https://youtu.be/HdbBly5iz0E

    Btw, there was no dive, straight level flight just... although some of the TV footage from that day may suggest it NTSB presented radar data shows no dive!
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 13:30.

  11. #61
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,383
    Quote Originally Posted by gollUM View Post
    Yes, WTC were designed to withstand the aircraft impact, of the aircraft size of Boeing 707.
    Perhaps during normal operating airspeeds expected on approach or departure - i.e. < 240 mph - but not at any speed. Kinetic energy varies with the square of the speed. Double the speed, and kinetic energy increases fourfold; at slightly more than triple the speed, the kinetic energy increases tenfold. I've already pointed out that VNe is a lot higher than the approach speed, and a pilot in a dive and unconcerned about limiting speed would ensure that his aircraft packed a punch far greater than any design spec intended to cope with an air crash.

  12. #62
    OK HappyJack... perhaps... :)
    So, actualy you think that structural engineers during the project phase considered optimal scenario not a worst case. They are to blame for everything that happened that day then. Why are they not... blamed!?
    Btw, officialy estimated speed of aircraft before impact was 510 mph, 150 mph bellow speed of sound at sea level... for commercial jetliner... C'moooon! :)
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 14:25.

  13. #63
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,383
    Quote Originally Posted by gollUM View Post
    OK HappyJack... perhaps... :)
    So, actualy you think that structural engineers during the project phase considered optimal scenario not a worst case. They are to blame for everything that happened that day then. Why are they not... blamed!?
    I know more about ship design than tower block construction, but even warships, designed to go into harm's way, are not designed for worst case scenarios, but to survive a limited amount of damage, through subdivision into watertight compartments, etc. Even then, hit them with enough missiles or torpedoes, and they will eventually sink.

    I very much doubt that the WTC architects were thinking in terms of protecting against a deliberate impact 5-10 x what would be experienced in normal flight, gone wrong.

  14. #64
    OK... and this is mentioned in NIST report, or publicly, where!?
    Because, this fact should change the way how we construct tall steel buildings! It is important!
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 13:46.

  15. #65
    Might be wrong here, but I thought it wasn't the impact of the planes that brought the towers down, but rather the ensuing fire fuelled by the planes' aviation fuel.

  16. #66
    We will come to that! :)

  17. #67
    Grand Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    14,534
    I thought this was going be about the mid-engined '911' Porsche are now racing as a GT!

    If the engine's ahead of the rear axle, it's not a 911 and you can't pretend it's the same car you sell the public!

    M

  18. #68
    Master mickylall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    ..
    Posts
    2,768
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by robcat View Post
    Might be wrong here, but I thought it wasn't the impact of the planes that brought the towers down, but rather the ensuing fire fuelled by the planes' aviation fuel.
    Didn't Tower 7 collapse because office furniture caught fire from the other 2 towers that were burning?
    Fairly sure that was a recent official report

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by snowman View Post
    I thought this was going be about the mid-engined '911' Porsche are now racing as a GT!

    If the engine's ahead of the rear axle, it's not a 911 and you can't pretend it's the same car you sell the public!

    M
    But that's what they want you to believe, isn't it? Did you know that the 911 was designed by Elvis and JFK, and Lee Harvey Oswald was the test driver? He thought it was "a bit twitchy" and they were going to go public.

  20. #70
    I rest my case! :)

  21. #71
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    East Midlands
    Posts
    459
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/

    I got no time for the tin foil hat brigade. If anybody thinks the government (which is not a faceless entity but consists of actual people who would have been involved) orchestrated 9/11 for whatever reasons they might as well believe in fairies and Santa Claus.

  22. #72
    Yes, I agree... popular mechanics is VERY reliable and thrustworthy source! You just do that... continue not having time. It is much easier than to think by yourself! Because, what if you conclude something different than everybody else!? You will stand alone... and what then!? It is warmer in the herd! :)
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 15:06.

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/

    I got no time for the tin foil hat brigade. If anybody thinks the government (which is not a faceless entity but consists of actual people who would have been involved) orchestrated 9/11 for whatever reasons they might as well believe in fairies and Santa Claus.
    Agreed; it takes a similar type of deliberate ignorance to cling to conspiracy beliefs that are so trivially disproven.

  24. #74
    Grand Master seikopath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    29,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/

    I got no time for the tin foil hat brigade. If anybody thinks the government (which is not a faceless entity but consists of actual people who would have been involved) orchestrated 9/11 for whatever reasons they might as well believe in fairies and Santa Claus.
    Tony Blair took us into Gulf War One on a premise that has been demonstrably shown to be based on falsehood.
    He is also a person. Why do you think he did that?
    Good luck everybody. Have a good one.

  25. #75
    He was just concentrated on oil. It is (was) not that important... :)
    Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 15:12.

  26. #76
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sheffield - England
    Posts
    1,545
    I still believe the TV footage was fake and that there were no commercial aircraft at either of the crash sites and that it was a demolition job to justify going to war in The Middle East to bolster the US arms industry.
    It could be of course that all the evidence I have seen and read to reach that conclusion are completely fake but on balance I doubt it.
    I also believe the moon landings were faked,Diana was murdered and JFK was an inside job but to be honest I thought that was taken as read now.

    Just hope I live long enough to prove the doubters were wrong all along.

  27. #77
    ^
    There's no chance of that happening.

  28. #78
    Grand Master Raffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lėtzebuerg
    Posts
    38,754

  29. #79
    Grand Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    14,534
    Quote Originally Posted by robcat View Post
    But that's what they want you to believe, isn't it? Did you know that the 911 was designed by Elvis and JFK, and Lee Harvey Oswald was the test driver? He thought it was "a bit twitchy" and they were going to go public.
    As I've always suspected!

    Jack Ruby, my aunt sally, that was Ferdinand Porsche!

    M.

  30. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by SeePee View Post
    I still believe the TV footage was fake and that there were no commercial aircraft at either of the crash sites and that it was a demolition job
    Population of Manhatten is 1.6m, many of those saw it. I visited a six months after and the ground zero site was eerie. Debris and dust still visible on many of the nearby buildings and I spoke with a guy who's job it was to remove all directional street signage referring to the world trade centres.

    We stayed with friends who had an apartment in Jersey on the shore of the Hudson river near the Colgate Clock, with a view overlooking downtown Manhatten, they didn't have to watch TV to see the events unfold.

    ---

    As for a demolition job, that's perfectly plausible. I'm sure US gov had intel that an attack on one or several of New York's tall towers was imminent. They likely knew how and who by. The only way to prevent it would be to ground all flights indefinitely to NY, create a no fly zone or evacuate all tall towers and surround NY with war ships armed with anti-aircraft missiles until the threat is no longer there. That could take months or years, loose billions of dollars from the US economy and create a state of panic in NY.

    So what else could be done?
    Minimise the risk of damage to downtown NY by controlling how the twin towers might fall, a pre-planned controlled explosion could have been in the City's best interest as damage limitation.

    I don't believe that the whole ting was a set-up to create justification to invade Iraq, the government didn't need to take such action for the Gulf War so why would they in 2011.

  31. #81
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sheffield - England
    Posts
    1,545
    I didn't say there weren't any planes just no commercial aircraft.
    There were probably hundreds of eye witnesses with completely different accounts of what they thought actually happened.
    Again unless they were faked many of the firefighters spoke of explosions.

  32. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by SeePee View Post
    I didn't say there weren't any planes just no commercial aircraft.
    There were probably hundreds of eye witnesses with completely different accounts of what they thought actually happened.
    Again unless they were faked many of the firefighters spoke of explosions.
    So the people who went missing on the flights boarded non-commercial aircraft? or are they held-up in area 51.

    Ofcourse fire fighters would have heard explosions; servers, computers, cell phones, fridges, aircon units and many other things in those buildings would go with a bang when set alight.

  33. #83
    Grand Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    14,534
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisparker View Post
    So the people who went missing on the flights boarded non-commercial aircraft? or are they held-up in area 51.

    Ofcourse fire fighters would have heard explosions; servers, computers, cell phones, fridges, aircon units and many other things in those buildings would go with a bang when set alight.
    I'm not sure if he's just trying to wind people up, but don't encourage him either way

    Obviously the easiest way to 'fake' such an event to make it look like planes crashed into the twin towers was to get some nutters to do it.

    Even if you wonder who was behind the events, the events themselves were pretty clear to anyone, whether watching the 'fake' TV footage or the numerous phone shot videos around the world or standing on the ground (as a colleague of mine was), and it would be much easier to fund a bunch of terrorists to carry out an atrocity believing the money came from wherever than to fake such an event...

    M

  34. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    ^
    There's no chance of that happening.
    I think you might be taking this all rather too seriously!

  35. #85
    Grand Master seikopath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    29,758
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisparker View Post
    So the people who went missing on the flights boarded non-commercial aircraft? or are they held-up in area 51.

    Ofcourse fire fighters would have heard explosions; servers, computers, cell phones, fridges, aircon units and many other things in those buildings would go with a bang when set alight.
    It's well worth checking out the work of researcher Rebekah Roth. I think she has had alot of success in joining the dots together and supplying possible answers to unanswered questions.

    Regarding the explosions, the eye witness account of the janitor who was at work that day in the WTC, William Rodriguez is well worth a watch. He knew the building better than most.

    As I said before, you need an open mind. But if you genuinely want to understand what happened that day then I suggest that these are useful sources of information.
    Good luck everybody. Have a good one.

  36. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by catch21 View Post
    I think you might be taking this all rather too seriously!
    You're quite right; that's more response effort than such an imbecilic opinion deserves. :)

  37. #87
    Grand Master seikopath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    29,758
    If you have a spare five hours, you could do alot worse than watch 'September 11, the new Pearl Harbor'. It's probably one of the most comprehensive overviews covering all the reasons why alot of people think there is room for a 9/11 conspiracy theory in the first place.
    Good luck everybody. Have a good one.

  38. #88
    I remember reading somewhere that before 9/11 there was weeks of work carried out inside the lift shafts of the WTC

  39. #89
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    london, uk
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/

    I got no time for the tin foil hat brigade. If anybody thinks the government (which is not a faceless entity but consists of actual people who would have been involved) orchestrated 9/11 for whatever reasons they might as well believe in fairies and Santa Claus.
    The issue with the 911 attack, even if you completely disreagrd the buildings, the fact that Bin Ladens realtive was allowed to leave the US at the time of the airspace grounding, the fact that Obama repeatedly blocked any legal action against Saudi Arabia ( if you have nothing to hide etc etc etc ) yada yada yada.

    There is one issue that has never been explained to any reasonable satisfaction..."This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed"

    So we are to belive that the body disintergrated but the pasport some how shot out of his pocket, out of the plane, to be found by an un known passer by, of course nothing else survived shooting out of the plane, no wallet, no phone, no watches, just one single paper passport....

    Things like this make the 911 less than a conspiracy as there are stated "facts" that dont add up.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM
    Last edited by kas9t82; 4th August 2017 at 17:40. Reason: link added

  40. #90
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    3,405
    My god what have I done! At least the debate hasn't descended to petty insults as it seems to on FB.

    Quote Originally Posted by seikopath View Post
    But if you genuinely want to understand what happened that day then I suggest that these are useful sources of information.
    I think the problem Dave is that it's impossible to truly understand what happened that day, but some of the suggestions I've seen are completely ridiculous and are blatant unconscious processes of wanting to feel superior by believing 'the truth' that the little sheep are too scared to believe.

  41. #91
    Grand Master seikopath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    29,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Schofie View Post
    My god what have I done! At least the debate hasn't descended to petty insults as it seems to on FB.



    I think the problem Dave is that it's impossible to truly understand what happened that day, but some of the suggestions I've seen are completely ridiculous and are blatant unconscious processes of wanting to feel superior by believing 'the truth' that the little sheep are too scared to believe.
    I agree Mark, but you must agree that in this particular thread, the majority of sneering and superiority seems to have come from those who think all the conspiracy stuff is a load of twaddle!
    Good luck everybody. Have a good one.

  42. #92
    Master Harry Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Wolverhampton
    Posts
    4,227
    Quote Originally Posted by catch21 View Post
    I think like most things this isn't black and white. Sure, there are people at each end of the spectrum who respectively believe it is all a complete set up and those who believe the aircraft theory as presented must be correct, that no conspiracy happened and that anyone who thinks there might be must be barking mad loons.

    For me, I'm somewhere in between the two extremes. There do seem to be enough strange aspects to all this to make it worth thinking about.
    I am one of the most hard-ass skeptics you could meet. I think all religion is utter garbage. There are no ghosts,spirits, fairys or any other invisible floaty things. No paranormal stuff, nothing has ever been proven, no bets collected and no one ever come back from death.
    I believe what I see with my own eyes or clear cut unequivocal evidence from indisputable source(s).
    Like many others here I watched the WTC disaster unfold live on TV and I believed what I saw with my own eyes. It was probably a few years later that I saw the first unexplainable theories and I was just as skeptical as the most prolific nay-sayer on here as everywhere else.
    But the more you look into it you realise that 'Official' explanation is so utterly silly and we will probably never in our lifetimes know the truth.
    Last edited by Harry Smith; 4th August 2017 at 17:54. Reason: bonehead

  43. #93
    Regrets; read Schofie's remark out of context.
    Last edited by Belligero; 5th August 2017 at 00:33.

  44. #94
    Master bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,067
    Blog Entries
    1

    911 Conspiracy Theorists - the controlled explosion

    I started to watch the theory videos that the planes were a) military drones with projected holograms or b) actually a hologram c) speakers to imitate jet engines ..all of it quite far fetched. Although the disappearing plane part was puzzling . It does appear to just disappear into the building like into a warp hole. There is no impact debris only on exit . Well whatever people think it isn't totally cut and dry. They had pilots saying they have hundreds of thousands of hours of air miles and simulations , that one pilot tried all his co pilots on a manhatten programme and not one could hit the tower. It was nigh on impossible at that decent to do it. He did it once after repeated attempts. No one is saying it was remote controlled or gps located to land at those towers but he said a couple of recruits in Al-Queda could not of pulled off those manoeuvres. I'm wide open on the whole thing . I watched reports of the fireman, dedicated ex chief of police and high ranking chief fireman go on record to say it was controlled demolition. This chap lost his men, was broken in what he saw and has zero credibility of his assertion of the events . Does his 30 years as senior fire inspector not count for nothing ?

    The building 7 pancaked on itself in free fall from fallouts from the other towers collapsing .


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by bond; 4th August 2017 at 18:24.

  45. #95
    Master bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,067
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Smith View Post
    I am one of the most hard-ass skeptics you could meet. I think all religion is utter garbage. There are no ghosts,spirits, fairys or any other invisible floaty things. No paranormal stuff, nothing has ever been proven, no bets collected and no one ever come back from death.
    I believe what I see with my own eyes or clear cut unequivocal evidence from indisputable source(s).
    Like many others here I watched the WTC disaster unfold live on TV and I believed what I saw with my own eyes. It was probably a few years later that I saw the first unexplainable theories and I was just as skeptical as the most prolific nay-sayer on here as everywhere else.
    But the more you look into it you realise that 'Official' explanation is so utterly silly and we will probably never in our lifetimes know the truth.
    I agree, I think it will stay in the realms of JFK lore. But it needs challenging and in a comparatively different way challenged like the hillsborough disaster. If nobody bothered there arses to fight it , those 96 fans would of been denied justice.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  46. #96
    @Schofie
    On the contrary, it is absolutely possible to comprehend what happened that day... if all chain of the events is looked upon without one's own prejudices and without influences based on general remarks.

    Different people invested thousands of hours into that and, what is funny, all of this people have credibility in their respective proffesions established long before the events took place. To call them "tin hat people" is really hilarious and arogant.

    But, it is how it goes through history. This event is not exception. It is easier to smear people than to learn and accept the facts that are possibly asking you to change your perspective. :)

  47. #97
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    3,405
    Quote Originally Posted by seikopath View Post
    I agree Mark, but you must agree that in this particular thread, the majority of sneering and superiority seems to have come from those who think all the conspiracy stuff is a load of twaddle!
    Haha point well made Dave!

  48. #98
    Master mickylall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    ..
    Posts
    2,768
    Blog Entries
    1
    I like a good conspiracy theory as long as there is something to question but I have yet to see one where I don't agree with the official story.
    9/11 was just a shot in a million where everything worked for the bad guys BUT building 7 just falling over because it was on fire ( the only building of it's size to do so, ever) and the Pentagon hit by a plane of that size skimming in at ground level
    Nothing wrong with questioning the official line without referring to tin hats but there are some awful theories which really are offensive like the Sandy Hook and other mass shootings not being real, those idiots really want a slap round the ear

  49. #99
    Grand Master Raffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lėtzebuerg
    Posts
    38,754
    Quote Originally Posted by mickylall View Post
    I like a good conspiracy theory as long as there is something to question but I have yet to see one where I don't agree with the official story.
    9/11 was just a shot in a million where everything worked for the bad guys BUT building 7 just falling over because it was on fire ( the only building of it's size to do so, ever) and the Pentagon hit by a plane of that size skimming in at ground level
    Nothing wrong with questioning the official line without referring to tin hats but there are some awful theories which really are offensive like the Sandy Hook and other mass shootings not being real, those idiots really want a slap round the ear
    Don't forget the Bowling Green massacre, it was swept under the carpet by Obama and we wouldn't know anything about it if it wasn't for Kellyanne Conway.

  50. #100
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    :-)
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by seikopath View Post
    you have to change your whole view of history... .
    Pretty much the beginning and the end of this thread, right there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information