Trump

[BadFish]

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.

Are we ever going to see the fruits of your research on Sandy Hook? I can't help but wonder why you have chosen to swerve the original discussion and move on to 911. I assume you feel on safe ground with this one.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

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..

Because I haven't found anything suspect about the twin towers (despite the online theories), I can't really be bothered to waste time looking into another building that was nearby. I saw some tv footage where a reporter says building 7 has collapsed and apparently it hasn't. This doesn't mean anything interesting to me, and here's why: if you're going to secretly blow up a building, just blow it up, and people will notice and report on it. It would make no sense to prepare to blow it up and decide in advance to tell the news that's it's collapsed before you remember to hit the switch. That's just silly. So if reporters said building 7 was down before it was, they made a mistake, and that's about all there is to it.

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

That's clearly not the case. If he didn't agree with the popular view, but didn't want to be ridiculed, surely he'd just keep quiet, rather than say the opposite of what he really thinks. Plenty of posters here don't mind being controversial and arguing with everyone, most of us just agree on this one.

You obviously don't believe the official story. Perhaps you don't have an exact version which you are confident in (and that's not a criticism of you, because if indeed the official story is a lie, then knowing exactly what happened would still be difficult). But every time someone comes up with a theory on what happened, it seems straightforward to debunk it. Like the idea that steel doesn't collapse under heat, which it's been proven it does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Classic Trumpist Whataboutism going on here I see !

[emoji38]ol:



So, forget the ancient history, Sandy Hook wasn't it ?

 

[daveinprague]

Bit weird seeing some people who seem to blame Muslims for the worlds problems today seem to 'know' that 911 was an 'inside job', and I dont mean just on NSC

 

[Iggle Piggle]

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.

I don't know why I'm bothering, your mind is made up (classic cognitive dissonance but anyway)

Luckily, there aren’t many examples of 2 jet engines crashing into huge skyscrapers causing masses of debris which in turn causes fires, Structural damage and ultimately a nearby building to collapse to give us more data to go on with regard to steel buildings falling down. It’s not like building 7 fell to the ground whilst everyone was sat around watching Friends and eating Apple pie, there was clearly a huge amount of upheaval nearby to say the least.

Also, good use of the classic ‘It’s a government conspiracy’ defence where evidence is presented to the contrary.

 

[brighton fella]

Bit weird seeing some people who seem to blame Muslims for the worlds problems today seem to 'know' that 911 was an 'inside job', and I dont mean just on NSC

I don't blame Muslims for anything, they are simply patsies. divide and rule / order out of chaos.. or Ordo Ab Chao 33rd degree Freemasonry.

 

[brighton fella]

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.

You are only rational in your own sense of the word, and yes i don't understand any of what you have posted because it's complete shite. you don't have the ability to join dots and see the bigger picture.

 

[brighton fella]

Because I haven't found anything suspect about the twin towers (despite the online theories), I can't really be bothered to waste time looking into another building that was nearby. I saw some tv footage where a reporter says building 7 has collapsed and apparently it hasn't. This doesn't mean anything interesting to me, and here's why: if you're going to secretly blow up a building, just blow it up, and people will notice and report on it. It would make no sense to prepare to blow it up and decide in advance to tell the news that's it's collapsed before you remember to hit the switch. That's just silly. So if reporters said building 7 was down before it was, they made a mistake, and that's about all there is to it.

That's clearly not the case. If he didn't agree with the popular view, but didn't want to be ridiculed, surely he'd just keep quiet, rather than say the opposite of what he really thinks. Plenty of posters here don't mind being controversial and arguing with everyone, most of us just agree on this one.

You obviously don't believe the official story. Perhaps you don't have an exact version which you are confident in (and that's not a criticism of you, because if indeed the official story is a lie, then knowing exactly what happened would still be difficult). But every time someone comes up with a theory on what happened, it seems straightforward to debunk it. Like the idea that steel doesn't collapse under heat, which it's been proven it does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

Show that soppy clip to the 1500 architects and engineers who are campaigning for a inquest and see what they make of it.
It means nothing to you that the BBC had pre knowledge of building 7

 

[brighton fella]

Are we ever going to see the fruits of your research on Sandy Hook? I can't help but wonder why you have chosen to swerve the original discussion and move on to 911. I assume you feel on safe ground with this one.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

In order for you to be able to understand S H you need to know 9/11 first.

 

[BadFish]

In order for you to be able to understand S H you need to know 9/11 first.

Why?


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

It means nothing to you that the BBC had pre knowledge of building 7

Or misreported in a live news event where things were happening at a million miles per hour?

On the day Michael Jackson died, several news outlets announced he had died before he actually had. There's not one part of me that thinks the news outlets were in on the death of a pop star.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are only rational in your own sense of the word

I think most people here agree that he's rational.

and yes i don't understand any of what you have posted because it's complete shite.

Can you quote one of his comments that's 'complete shite', because I can't find it.

you don't have the ability to join dots and see the bigger picture.

That means that no one on here except you has that ability. You're not joining dots, you're making huge assumptions without evidence:
Fuel burns at 1500 degrees, steel melts at 2300, Grenfell tower didn't collapse = it was blown up. Journalist said TWC 7 was destroyed before it was = they were told it would be before it was blown. It's utter madness.

You claim that building 7 wasn't hit by a single thing - jesus, look at the state of whole area around the towers, there was tons of debris. The nearest tower was about a hundred metres away, and over 400 metres tall - it would be weird if it wasn't hit by anything. It was on fire for hours, but understandably no fire crew worked on putting out the flames at all.

 

[McTavish]

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

...Some perfectly credible stuff...

Come on brighton fella, keep your promise - leave us alone! Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it isn't credible...

 

[Triggaaar]

Show that soppy clip

Soppy clip? It explains that steel loses its strength at way less than the melting point, a fact overlooked by conspiracy theorists.

to the 1500 architects and engineers who are campaigning for a inquest

They want an inquest - seems fair enough to me. Some of them will no doubt want it just so that it shuts on the conspiracy theorists once and for all. For every architect/engineer that thinks it didn't collapse due to fire, there will be dozens that disagree.

It means nothing to you that the BBC had pre knowledge of building 7

They didn't have prior knowledge of it. It was on fire, so miss-communication meant it was incorrectly reported, that's all.

If you were going to secretly blow up a tower, tell me why you'd tell the news broadcasters before doing so?

 

[Triggaaar]

On the day Michael Jackson died, several news outlets announced he had died before he actually had. There's not one part of me that thinks the news outlets were in on the death of a pop star.

He was murdered and you've just proved it!

 

[BadFish]

He was murdered and you've just proved it!

Hang on, you have to go in order apparently. 9/11, Sandy Hook then Michael Jackson. You are not nearly delusional enough to deal with that one.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

If you were going to secretly blow up a tower, tell me why you'd tell the news broadcasters before doing so?

all part of the psyops from the new world order to orchestrate disinformation. they leaked it to state controlled BBC, knowing they weren't on the ground to check, all to create more distraction from the real events that day. no one saw the planes or the explosions from demolition, it was sonic weapons testing, its all to do with project Odin as a pre-run of project Blue Beam, using terrorists instead of aliens.

 

[brighton fella]

Why?


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

To recognize how manipulative they are in order to fool you, a false flag is one of their methods, keep the masses blinkered.

Do you not find it odd that the Pentagon on the day of the attack which is the most guarded place on the entire planet did not have a single security camera in use.

There were more coincidences occuring on that particular day than iv'e had hot dinners.

 

[BadFish]

To recognize how manipulative they are in order to fool you, a false flag is one of their methods, keep the masses blinkered.

Do you not find it odd that the Pentagon on the day of the attack which is the most guarded place on the entire planet did not have a single security camera in use.

There were more coincidences occuring on that particular day than iv'e had hot dinners.

So who are they and what really happened?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[daveinprague]

I think if the 'elite' wanted to raise a false flag, I doubt they would destroy one of their own financial centers to do it. Frankly, the whole conspiracy theory is bollocks. Al Qaeda had previously tried to blow the place up. They managed to destoy it the second time.