Trump

[Triggaaar]

What is the obsession with Trump and analysing absolutely everything, don't some people over there have a life.

People can make good money from fooling people into believing their nonsense.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Apologies if its been discussed before but i only recently came across the Youtube clip of `Andy Serkis reading a trump tweet with the voice of Gollum ..priceless

 

[Motogull]

Do you remember when we thought Dubya was a bit suspect? Well, he positively seems proper presidential in his conduct now doesn't he.



All the pissing about with that North Korean fool seems bloody dangerous to me.

 

[brighton fella]

I expect most believe that jets flew into the towers though, which is all I said.


I've already seen the theories about building 7.

Show me a steel tower that's been hit by a jumbo jet and stayed standing.

.

Building 7 by the way was not struck by anything . again this was the first time ever for a steel building to collapse. Grenfell Tower is how a building should end up looking after a fire.. with the steel intact
Regards the twin towers, Jets are made from aluminum, aluminum does not cut through steel , and the wing most definitely wouldn't be able to work it's way through the building like a hot knife through butter. Upon impact you should expect to see the wing break up in to large sections... there is not a single bit of footage to suggest this.
Pilot's with years of experience behind them have all said.... to accomplish a manoeuvre like that of all 3 jets is a 1 in a thousand chance ..especially the one that hit the pentagon. . . .

 

[LlcoolJ]

Building 7 by the way was not struck by anything . again this was the first time ever for a steel building to collapse. Grenfell Tower is how a building should end up looking after a fire.. with the steel intact
Regards the twin towers, Jets are made from aluminum, aluminum does not cut through steel , and the wing most definitely wouldn't be able to work it's way through the building like a hot knife through butter. Upon impact you should expect to see the wing break up in to large sections... there is not a single bit of footage to suggest this.
Pilot's with years of experience behind them have all said.... to accomplish a manoeuvre like that of all 3 jets is a 1 in a thousand chance ..especially the one that hit the pentagon. . . .

Again, again and again. All this shit has been disproved. It was done years ago. Does your search engine only go back to about 2007 or something?

Grenfell didn't get hit by a plane btw. Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[brighton fella]

Why don't you engage your brain?

You are trying to imply that Silverstein only took out terrorism cover two months before the attack. You may be right because he only acquired the lease a couple of months before so would have taken out all kinds of insurance at the same time, including the standard terrorism. He didn't collect double the value of the two buildings but you think that because the intricacies of the insurance cover at the time are above your pay scale (intelligence). For the record, the policy had a limit per act of terrorism which, for argument sake was equivalent to the value of one building (ie no one anticipated that both buildings would go in one incident). Insurers argued that there was only one incident and the limit applied where as Silverstein argued there were two incidents and there double the limit applied. It's quite simple but if you only read your fellow morons websites you will forever remain uneducated.

How does a bright spark such as yourself come to know all of this, did you see Silversteins final pay cheque ? no you didn't you are just speculating the same as the pathetic information you rely upon is.
Anyway what makes you so cock sure that your info is kosher ...have you any proof that it is,..bright spark.?
. .

 

[brighton fella]

Grenfell didn't get hit by a plane btw.

Neither did building 7 you wally.

 

[drew]

How does a bright spark such as yourself come to know all of this, did you see Silversteins final pay cheque ? no you didn't you are just speculating the same as the pathetic information you rely upon is.
Anyway what makes you so cock sure that your info is kosher ...have you any proof that it is,..bright spark.?
. .

I was working in insurance at the time and this was the talking point everywhere. There were court cases so you can look them up if you're interested. Thought it was common knowledge he only acquired the leases a few months before the attacks. Again, look it up. Would you insure a car before you bought it so why would someone insure a building before they have to. It's a no brainer!!!

Don't have to be a bright spark to check things properly but if you're gormless then stick with the conspiracies.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Neither did building 7 you wally.

It actually concerns me that you have children. If nothing else then please, just read this whole thread again, look at the FACTS vs conjecture and have a think.

If you could respect yourself a bit more and then do some actual research maybe you'd start seeing the wood for the nonsense. I realise I'm talking to a brick wall of ignorance but I'd actually like to try to help rather than just pile in on calling you a moron.

No cheap shots or insults. I just think you need to dig a bit deeper before dishing out "sheep" type attacks.

The theories you are talking about were debunked YEARS ago. They are nonsense. Nobody believes them any more because they are wrong, insane and never made sense in the first place.

You haven't found out something new, you've just dug up an old turd and smeared it all over your face.

It's not a good look.

 

[Triggaaar]

Building 7 by the way was not struck by anything

I wasn't talking about building 7, I was talking about the twin towers.

Grenfell Tower is how a building should end up looking after a fire.. with the steel intact

Was that hit by a jet?

Regards the twin towers, Jets are made from aluminum, aluminum does not cut through steel , and the wing most definitely wouldn't be able to work it's way through the building like a hot knife through butter.

Not every inch of the towers were made from steel, just the structure, which the jets did not go through. The jets broke up and went through the open plan rooms etc. Just like people can walk through the buildings.

Upon impact you should expect to see the wing break up in to large sections... there is not a single bit of footage to suggest this.

What? The whole aircraft gets smashed to bits inside the tower.

Pilot's with years of experience behind them have all said.... to accomplish a manoeuvre like that of all 3 jets is a 1 in a thousand chance ..especially the one that hit the pentagon. . . .

All of them? That's what they've all said? Well that's not true, because I know a very experienced pilot who hasn't said anything like that. Flying a jet into one of the towers would be a piece of piss. Presumably hitting the Pentagon would be harder, but hardly too difficult for someone who could fly.

So do you think no jets flew into the towers?

 

[Triggaaar]

World Trade Center Leaseholder Larry Silverstein brought terrorism insurance two months before 9/11, then collected double it's value on the grounds that there were two attacks.

He didn't collect double the value of the two buildings but you think that because the intricacies of the insurance cover at the time are above your pay scale (intelligence). For the record, the policy had a limit per act of terrorism which, for argument sake was equivalent to the value of one building (ie no one anticipated that both buildings would go in one incident). Insurers argued that there was only one incident and the limit applied where as Silverstein argued there were two incidents and there double the limit applied.

How does a bright spark such as yourself come to know all of this, did you see Silversteins final pay cheque ? no you didn't you are just speculating the same as the pathetic information you rely upon is.
Anyway what makes you so cock sure that your info is kosher ...have you any proof that it is,..bright spark.?
. .

You claimed that Silverstein collected double the insurance value, drew explained that he didn't, and now you're questioning whether drew saw the final pay cheque or had proof What about you, did you see the pay cheque to back up your allegation?

What about just using your brain - why would an insurance company want to pay double? They obviously want to pay as little as possible.

 

[LlcoolJ]

You claimed that Silverstein collected double the insurance value, drew explained that he didn't, and now you're questioning whether drew saw the final pay cheque or had proof What about you, did you see the pay cheque to back up your allegation?

What about just using your brain - why would an insurance company want to pay double? They obviously want to pay as little as possible.

SHUT UP I SAW STUFF THAT MADE ME FEEL CLEVER SO YORE AN IDIOT COS.....


Oh.

 

[brighton fella]

It actually concerns me that you have children. If nothing else then please, just read this whole thread again, look at the FACTS vs conjecture and have a think.

If you could respect yourself a bit more and then do some actual research maybe you'd start seeing the wood for the nonsense. I realise I'm talking to a brick wall of ignorance but I'd actually like to try to help rather than just pile in on calling you a moron.

No cheap shots or insults. I just think you need to dig a bit deeper before dishing out "sheep" type attacks.

The theories you are talking about were debunked YEARS ago. They are nonsense. Nobody believes them any more because they are wrong, insane and never made sense in the first place.

You haven't found out something new, you've just dug up an old turd and smeared it all over your face.

It's not a good look.

You didn't explain how building 7 came down without being struck by a single thing, instead you seem more concerned that i have children. ffsyou are most odd.

 

[brighton fella]

I wasn't talking about building 7, I was talking about the twin towers.
Was that hit by a jet?
Not every inch of the towers were made from steel, just the structure, which the jets did not go through. The jets broke up and went through the open plan rooms etc. Just like people can walk through the buildings.
What? The whole aircraft gets smashed to bits inside the tower.
All of them? That's what they've all said? Well that's not true, because I know a very experienced pilot who hasn't said anything like that. Flying a jet into one of the towers would be a piece of piss. Presumably hitting the Pentagon would be harder, but hardly too difficult for someone who could fly.

So do you think no jets flew into the towers?

Why keep avoiding building 7 ? all a need is a credible explanation as to how it collapsed and i will leave you all alone.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Why keep avoiding building 7 ? all a need is a credible explanation as to how it collapsed and i will leave you all alone.

From the link I posted a page ago

WTC 7 COLLAPSE

Claim:*Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm:*WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT:*Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

[Triggaaar]

Why keep avoiding building 7 ?

I've not said so much about building 7 because I don't know much about building 7. Instead I'll concentrate on the bits I do know.
I'm confident that passenger jets flew into each of the twin towers, because the live footage looked real and many thousands of people in New York watched the second one go in with their own eyes. I also understand that steel becomes very weak when heated to the sort of temperatures that jet fuel would create. I also know that to have destroyed the towers with explosives would have taken a big effort and been impossible to do without people noticing.

Now if you were saying that you believe the towers were destroyed by the jets and nothing else, but you find the circumstances of building 7 very odd, we'd just be discussing building 7, and I may even bother to learn more about it (and no, I don't mean watch another CT video on it), but since you don't even believe the basic stuff about the twin towers I can't be bothered to go further than that.

 

[brighton fella]

From the link I posted a page ago

WTC 7 COLLAPSE

Claim:*Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm:*WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT:*Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

The footage suggests otherwise, when put side by side with that of a controlled demolition job the collapse of the pair was identical, the chances of that happening would have been near on impossible according to a team of architects and engineers led by Richard Gage .

NIST were assigned in by the government, they are not exactly a trustworthy source, they are most certainly not independent as first claimed they were and have most likely been paid colossal.amounts. in order to fit the governments story ..

Never before in the history of steel buildings has this happened, never...and now all of a sudden they blame shoddy workmanship and poor engineering for it's downfall, i somehow doubt builders would have skimped on a building of that importance,, Grenfell Tower yes but building 7 definitely not.

 

[brighton fella]

I've not said so much about building 7 because I don't know much about building 7. Instead I'll concentrate on the bits I do know.
I'm confident that passenger jets flew into each of the twin towers, because the live footage looked real and many thousands of people in New York watched the second one go in with their own eyes. I also understand that steel becomes very weak when heated to the sort of temperatures that jet fuel would create. I also know that to have destroyed the towers with explosives would have taken a big effort and been impossible to do without people noticing.

Now if you were saying that you believe the towers were destroyed by the jets and nothing else, but you find the circumstances of building 7 very odd, we'd just be discussing building 7, and I may even bother to learn more about it (and no, I don't mean watch another CT video on it), but since you don't even believe the basic stuff about the twin towers I can't be bothered to go further than that.

Regardless of whatever views i hold should not deter you from wanting to explore building 7. this suggests that you are not confident.with the official story concerning building 7..

 

[brighton fella]

In this case "research" seems to equal "looking at stuff on the internet which has already been proved to be complete nonsense".

A mate of mine was into all this stuff years ago. 9/11, David Icke (seriously), the Mayan calendar end of the world thing etc.

It usually took about five minutes of looking things up to disprove the theories but (unsurprisingly) he would never accept the facts. Well, I guess he had to accept the end of the world one as it didn't happen, but by then we weren't mates anymore (so perhaps he's still hiding in a bunker somewhere with his tinfoil hat on).

He also supported Man United.

The thing that annoys me the most with these fools is that they think that everyone else is some sort of dimwit who never questions anything. When in reality, the conspiracy theory nutters are the ones obscuring the real injustices and government crimes (see Alex Jones and Trump) behind a smokescreen of wildly idiotic claims and "fake news".

I'm skeptical on most things and try to find out as much as I can on issues that interest me. Believing crap about 9/11 or Sandy Hook is the definition of being a "sheep" as you're just following what some attention seeking or politically motivated dick has put on the internet instead of thinking for yourself.

That's not research as if you did actual research you'd already know that this stuff was bollocks.

You are like a big kid in a school playground backing the most popular view for fear of being ridiculed, grow up and grow a pair, think for yourself instead of making all kinds of shite up about a subject you know f*ck all about.. the only thing that's been debunked is you.you soppy wally.

 

[LlcoolJ]

You are like a big kid in a school playground backing the most popular view for fear of being ridiculed, grow up and grow a pair, think for yourself instead of making all kinds of shite up about a subject you know f*ck all about.. the only thing that's been debunked is you.you soppy wally.

No, I'm not. I'm just capable of rational thought, unlike you. You haven't even read what I posted, or perhaps you just don't understand it.