I believe the 9/11 attacks were extremely similar to the attacks in Germany very near to the beginning of ww2. Find out about them.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
there was no moon landing .... discus
- Thread starter Pevenseagull
- Start date
I believe the 9/11 attacks were extremely similar to the attacks in Germany very near to the beginning of ww2. Find out about them.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
This is what I'd like to know too
readingstockport
New member
I am. Degree level applied physics to be precise. Which is why I know the bollocks colinz has dribbled about newtonian mechanics is utter utter shite.
I also hold a pilots licence. Which is why i know the drivvle spouted about the planes is utter utter shite.
I speak regularly to a civil engineer who is involved in building skyscrapers. Which is why I know the drivvle spouted about the sky scrapers is utter utter shite.
And your qualifications and the list of scientists and engineers you regularly speak to in order for you to nay say those who actually do know what they are speaking about is how long precisely? Youtube conspiracy theorists and wingnut website DO NOT count as sources.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
We know about them, why would you assume we don't ?
what do you know?
I did.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
You're talking about hitlers burning of the riechstag (spelling ?)
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
So was there a plane or was it CGI ?
You are either stupid or deliberately choosing to avoid the question so I will repeat.
Tell me Falmer, just so we know your position on this, are you in agreement with Colinz view that no planes struck the buildings and that they were CGI on the footage?
Well, as your the local scientist, fancy explaining to me the science in planes melting skyscrapers and a building collapsing more than a 1km away from the scene? Then explain to me why the most wanted man in the world gets chucked of a Helicpter when found? and why 80% of New Yorkers don't believe the bullshit you do?
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I'm glad you said that, because the inference in your post was that I think that the continuing violence in Afghanistan is a good thing. It clearly is not, whether it was perpertrated during the Russian occupation, during the Taliban regime, or under the current democracy. I'd hate to think of the total amount of people killed there during my lifetime.
As for your "excuse to invaded Afganistan" claim, at the time George Bush jr was desparetly hoping that the attack was linked to Iraq, so if it was an "excuse" it was an extremely reluctant one.
If you knew the history I mentioned, you'd know what my answer is. History will tell you whats going on right now.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
I think there are things we don't know but my problem is you lot calling thousands of people who saw something hit the towers lyres..... So were there planes or was it cgi ?
readingstockport
New member
No, because I am a scientist. I am not a civil or structural engineer. So I speak to them and they assure me that the towers could have collapsed due to the internal damage caused by both the impact and the burning fuel.
Please explain to me why I should believe a wingnut like you instead of someone who has studied the subject in depth and has after finishing his study worked in the field for 30 years?
And as for 80% of New Yorkers. Citation or you are talking utter shite. Citation to the poll/study now.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
I knew what you were on about & you still won't answer me
And you still won't answer my question. What is wrong with you?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,992
the point is that the towers collapsed slower than "freefall" speed, claimed as indication of controlled demolition. if you remove the speed of collapse, you remove the initial point from which that argument begins. I dont know the exact times, im not going to rake of these old coals again, i'm pretty sure theres a video that times the collapse and compares to "freefall" speed and they are clearly not falling that fast.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
He don't want to commit to disagreeing with Collinz it's obvious
Let me get this straight right? You claim to know for a fact that the towers could melt? but yet you need to ask engineers to clarify this? surely if your this star studied super brain you've clearly stated (oops! forgot about your 30 years experience too). Then why do you need to go asking engineers what temperture steel melts at? Being a scientist of your level shouldn't it be you, who knows wether jet fuel can melt reinforced steel holding a skyscraper together. why do you need to ask them?
As you know so much, why do the people who helped design and construct the actual towers all claim it impossible for it to have fallen down as if it were a tower made of matches. Were they just as delusional as me, hey professor?
For someone who claims to be a scientist, you sure know alot.