911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?

911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?

Author
Discussion

jmorgan

36,010 posts

285 months

Tuesday 4th October 2016
quotequote all
But but but but.... but... freefall readit


Say no more.

Europa1

10,923 posts

189 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
To save me going through the last umpteen pages, was the question about how all the explosive charged and miles of cabling were smuggled in and placed without anyone noticing ever answered?

Shakermaker

11,317 posts

101 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Europa1 said:
To save me going through the last umpteen pages, was the question about how all the explosive charged and miles of cabling were smuggled in and placed without anyone noticing ever answered?
Yes, it was.

Just not in a convincing manner.

Hugo a Gogo

23,378 posts

234 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
so were the other buildings also controlled demolition too?

did the planes actually hit at all?

why did they supposedly blow up this WTC7 in particular? just to hide some scary secret files?

Zod

35,295 posts

259 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Hugo a Gogo said:
so were the other buildings also controlled demolition too?

did the planes actually hit at all?

why did they supposedly blow up this WTC7 in particular? just to hide some scary secret files?
I think it was to destroy one of Hilary's email servers.

peter tdci

1,772 posts

151 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Zod said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
so were the other buildings also controlled demolition too?

did the planes actually hit at all?

why did they supposedly blow up this WTC7 in particular? just to hide some scary secret files?
I think it was to destroy one of Hilary's email servers.
I heard it was Trump's tax returns.

Zod

35,295 posts

259 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
peter tdci said:
Zod said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
so were the other buildings also controlled demolition too?

did the planes actually hit at all?

why did they supposedly blow up this WTC7 in particular? just to hide some scary secret files?
I think it was to destroy one of Hilary's email servers.
I heard it was Trump's tax returns.
That doesn't make sense; he has nothing to hide, they're just being audited and, in any case, they show how brilliant he is.

jmorgan

36,010 posts

285 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
peter tdci said:
I heard it was Trump's tax returns.
Takes in a deep breath in shock what if they are in it together!

Hugo a Gogo

23,378 posts

234 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
you mean... what if Trump emailed his tax returns to Hillary, and she stored them in WTC7!?

deckster

9,630 posts

256 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Hugo a Gogo said:
you mean... what if Trump emailed his tax returns to Hillary, and she stored them in WTC7!?
Well I've just read it on the internet, so it must be true.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

240 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
A44RON said:
GreigM said:
scherzkeks said:
And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.
NIST addressed this extensively. There were effectively 3 phases in the fall of the building, the middle of which approached the speed of "free fall" as you say, but the initial stage was not as quick, which indicates the buckling of structures underneath rather than any sort of explosion theory. Add to that the COMPLETE lack of sound - if the "freefall" theory had any merit whatsoever, the explosives involved would have to detonate simultaneously and that would generate a sound wave unmissable within a half mile radius (i.e. ear-bleeding loud), but there was absolutely no sound of that nature heard or recorded.

The theory has no merit whatsoever. Repeating easily disprovable stuff marks you out as a crackpot.
Complete lack of sound eh? Wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Plenty of eye witnesses to "heavy duty explosions" around WTC7:
He's off on the NIST bit, too. NIST revised its findings to include freefall after first pretending it didn't occur. In addition their 3-stage theory is nonsense when you see how it is calculated. All addressed extensively at A&E (who also can take credit for NIST reversing their claim on freefall to begin with).
They've let you out again have they?

I'll ask this every time you post, every single friggin' time until you provide a plausible answer.

"How were the buildings rigged for detonation"?

Zod

35,295 posts

259 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
scherzkeks said:
A44RON said:
GreigM said:
scherzkeks said:
And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.
NIST addressed this extensively. There were effectively 3 phases in the fall of the building, the middle of which approached the speed of "free fall" as you say, but the initial stage was not as quick, which indicates the buckling of structures underneath rather than any sort of explosion theory. Add to that the COMPLETE lack of sound - if the "freefall" theory had any merit whatsoever, the explosives involved would have to detonate simultaneously and that would generate a sound wave unmissable within a half mile radius (i.e. ear-bleeding loud), but there was absolutely no sound of that nature heard or recorded.

The theory has no merit whatsoever. Repeating easily disprovable stuff marks you out as a crackpot.
Complete lack of sound eh? Wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Plenty of eye witnesses to "heavy duty explosions" around WTC7:
He's off on the NIST bit, too. NIST revised its findings to include freefall after first pretending it didn't occur. In addition their 3-stage theory is nonsense when you see how it is calculated. All addressed extensively at A&E (who also can take credit for NIST reversing their claim on freefall to begin with).
They've let you out again have they?

I'll ask this every time you post, every single friggin' time until you provide a plausible answer.

"How were the buildings rigged for detonation"?
Freefall - that's all that matters.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

240 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Zod said:
WinstonWolf said:
scherzkeks said:
A44RON said:
GreigM said:
scherzkeks said:
And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.
NIST addressed this extensively. There were effectively 3 phases in the fall of the building, the middle of which approached the speed of "free fall" as you say, but the initial stage was not as quick, which indicates the buckling of structures underneath rather than any sort of explosion theory. Add to that the COMPLETE lack of sound - if the "freefall" theory had any merit whatsoever, the explosives involved would have to detonate simultaneously and that would generate a sound wave unmissable within a half mile radius (i.e. ear-bleeding loud), but there was absolutely no sound of that nature heard or recorded.

The theory has no merit whatsoever. Repeating easily disprovable stuff marks you out as a crackpot.
Complete lack of sound eh? Wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Plenty of eye witnesses to "heavy duty explosions" around WTC7:
He's off on the NIST bit, too. NIST revised its findings to include freefall after first pretending it didn't occur. In addition their 3-stage theory is nonsense when you see how it is calculated. All addressed extensively at A&E (who also can take credit for NIST reversing their claim on freefall to begin with).
They've let you out again have they?

I'll ask this every time you post, every single friggin' time until you provide a plausible answer.

"How were the buildings rigged for detonation"?
Freefall - that's all that matters.
Also commonly known as 'gravity'.

jmorgan

36,010 posts

285 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
deckster said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
you mean... what if Trump emailed his tax returns to Hillary, and she stored them in WTC7!?
Well I've just read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Yeah, There is an organisation called tax inspectors for truth, it is all over their website..... they say his taxes were in free fall, free fall man,

Gandahar

9,600 posts

129 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RD1sxZ4tsp8gc&a...


And now some muzik, musikIsIS sorry musikkk, what like those young Ben Elton stlyee "young adults" like to listen to before dashing off to get a window seat on a British rail Inter City 125 whilst barging past old folk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sxZ4tsp8gc&li...



Gandahar

9,600 posts

129 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
I think the problem here is that US folk have a lot of time on theirs hands and are bored.




Legacywr

12,151 posts

189 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
My CT FB friend posted this today!?




And posted this to authenticate it...

https://www.rt.com/usa/361385-pentagon-pr-firm-ter...

jshell

11,039 posts

206 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
I think the problem here is that US folk have a lot of time on theirs hands and are bored.
...demise of religion. The fkwits need some belief system, so they cling to other fantasies. Simples!

Zod

35,295 posts

259 months

Wednesday 5th October 2016
quotequote all
Legacywr said:
My CT FB friend posted this today!?




And posted this to authenticate it...

https://www.rt.com/usa/361385-pentagon-pr-firm-ter...
It must be true - it's on Russia Today. Bell Pottinger paid $500m? Utter bks.

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

135 months

Sunday 16th October 2016
quotequote all
Zod said:
Freefall - that's all that matters.
Yes, many engineers agree.