Do you buy in to the news conspiracy theories?

[Jacko92]

So because I do not believe their spinning ball theory my opinion on 911 is not to be taken seriously?

 

I don't buy their theory of evolution either which is married to their spinning ball / Big Bang theory. Watch Flat Earth Live Lancashire England.

 

Anyone with commonsense can see that building 7 was a controlled demolition.

 

Are we supposed to believe that on that day amongst the confusion they hurriedly hired a team of controlled demolition experts in that eight hour period up to 5-30pm and brought the building down?

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe the world is flat you demonstrate no understanding of basic physics therefore structural engineering is clearly beyond your grasp. So is evolutionary biology.

 

You say "their spinning ball theory." Who's is it? The Zionists? Why are the Zionists telling us the world is round Mac? I'm curious. Who's evolutionary theory is it? The Zionists? How does that work?

 

You should look up what common sense is before you say anyone that doesn't agree with you lacks it!

Edited September 9, 2017 by Jacko92

[melthebell]

Nah, the winged unicorns decend and fly your craft in an instant to the other side. Voila!

i thought it was like this

 

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/flat-world_discworld_194.png

 

and it just turned around so you went the other way once reaching the end

[Guest]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology insists it was the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse as a result of fire.

But new bombshell claims suggest “office fires” could not have caused its destruction.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy

[Jacko92]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology insists it was the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse as a result of fire.

But new bombshell claims suggest “office fires” could not have caused its destruction.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy

 

Alan, if it was a controlled demolition how do you explain the large bulge seen at the side of building 7 which caused firefighters to warn the building might collapse hours before it did?

[Guest]

Alan, if it was a controlled demolition how do you explain the large bulge seen at the side of building 7 which caused firefighters to warn the building might collapse hours before it did?

 

Would a large bulge at the side of the building cause the entire structure to essentially evaporate into its own footprint at freefall speed symmetrically straight downwards in 7 seconds?

[Jacko92]

Would a large bulge at the side of the building cause the entire structure to essentially evaporate into its own footprint at freefall speed symmetrically straight downwards in 7 seconds?

 

What do you think caused the bulge? Partial collapse of the building maybe....?

 

Why don't you read the NIST report and decide for yourself? The Express article is a bit short isn't it? "Edited" for simpletons?

 

Nice use of "free-fall" and times. You are starting to sound like Mac now and we all know he hasn't an earthly clue what he's talking about

Edited September 9, 2017 by Jacko92

[melthebell]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology insists it was the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse as a result of fire.

But new bombshell claims suggest “office fires” could not have caused its destruction.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy

 

it WASNT an office fire, do you know how hot airplane fuel burns at?

 

not many skyscrapers get hit by planes

[Robin-H]

Would a large bulge at the side of the building cause the entire structure to essentially evaporate into its own footprint at freefall speed symmetrically straight downwards in 7 seconds?

 

I'll say to you what I said to MAC.

 

Read the report I posted.

 

It clearly explains why the building collapsed, and why it collapsed the way it did.

 

What part of the report do you find to be unconvincing? Why is it not possible for the events to have happened as outlined in the report? Where is the counter evidence that demonstrates why their conclusions must be wrong?

[Jacko92]

it WASNT an office fire, do you know how hot airplane fuel burns at?

 

not many skyscrapers get hit by planes

 

He's referring to building 7 here which collapsed at about 5:20pm, hours after the planes hit towers 1 and 2. Though the fire brigade had warned it might collapse hours earlier and CNN reported to viewers an hour before that it might collapse. This was due to the fires and visible bulge. Conspiracy theorists pick up on a BBC report saying it had collapsed but the reporter was stood in front of it at the time. This is a ****-up but remember there was much confusion and probably mixed messages and Chinese whispers in the pandemonium. Early media reports say a small aircraft had struck a tower. It wasn't a small aircraft, it was a Boeing jet.

[Guest]

Genuine, honest damage, enough to cause a collapse would be gradual, unseemly, uneven. This is a controlled demolition. There is what looks like explosions on every floor initiating the collapse. Just watch.

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Guest