The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread

[jake]

ame="jake" post="6256628" timestamp="1505335116"]

 

 

 

 

 

Well thanks for actually giving your theory. It's refreshing to see the alternate theory a poster believes in. I'll stick with the terrorist highjack planes theory but fair play for sticking your neck on the line.

 

Hey ive no proof.

I am merely posting my assumptions.

 

But if i had none i or no one did does not mean you have to believe a lie.

[jake]

I agree, refreshing change for this thread.

 

As fantastical as Jake considers the ov, is how fantastical I find his version. There is no point in me trying to debunk Jake as I don't think we will change anyone's opinion.

 

However I will say that I don't think there were many people who gained from 9/11, plenty who gained from fabricating WMD reports for the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well at least we agree to disagree.

 

And thanks to everyone who argued against me.

It at least didnt descend into any abuse which ive been guilty of before.

Edited September 13, 2017 by jake

[Maple Leaf]

Well at least we agree to disagree.

 

And thanks to everyone who argued against me.

It at least didnt descend into any abuse which ive been guilty of before.

You've posted your views in a reasonable manner.

 

I don't agree with your conclusions, but that's what discussions are all about.

 

Fair play to you.   

 

But see yon Kennedy thing ....

[151]

.

[jake]

You've posted your views in a reasonable manner.

 

I don't agree with your conclusions, but that's what discussions are all about.

 

Fair play to you.

 

But see yon Kennedy thing ....

 

Aw mate.

Lee harvey oswald.

 

Super imposed pictures

 

Press revealations about him and his life instantly .

 

No no i wont.....

[Sidelight]

And it's quite incredible that those who do not believe the official narrative have yet to put forward a reasonable alternative hypothesis

And it's quite incredible that those who do not believe the official narrative have yet to put forward a reasonable alternative hypothesis. 

In my defence the comment was rhetorical and a response to Jake?s post.

Having said that it does come across as being disingenuous towards sane and intelligent people who believe that the official narrative is reliable. 

I rub it out, not sure about the RAH comment, depends on ones interpretation of reasonable, I suppose. 

 

 

John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, and Hearts a man without doubt, writes,

?With respect to the Twin Towers,"  ?the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings ? their steel-columned cores.

And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave.

Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally ? given the eccentric damage".

 

The South Tower's top tilted 22 degrees to the left, then disintegrated straight down into the rubble cloud.

?How can that be? How did that happen? I don't know.

?Anyway MP I take your point, sometimes, I should think more before I speak.

Edited September 14, 2017 by alfajambo

[Sharpie]

I know absolutely nothing about engineering architecture, or even basic construction.  But quite often in these discussions the phrase how did it happen comes up. When the Twin Towers were designed was there in the plans and designs anything that considered trhe possibility of a fairly large commercial aircraft colliding with them.  I ask because around 1992, I flew red eye from Vancouver to Toronto.  I then got on an early morningh flight  Toronto to Newark.  One of the things I have never forgotten about that flight was having a window seat on the left side of the plane looking out at the heavy white solid fluffy clouds below us as we started descent over New York City to Newark.  Suddenly to my front left jutting through the clouds were a number of the top floors of the Two Towers, it was an awesome sight, it was like they were part of the sky and as if they were growing out of the clouds.  I now wonder if there was ever any consideration given to a plane crashing into the Towers and if the result and what would happen ever considered in the design. If so there must be an explanation why they fell as they did.

 

During the visit we visited the area of the Towers, not too long after there was an explosive device set off there. So 9/11 was not the first time the were attacked.

Edited September 14, 2017 by bobsharp

[Maple Leaf]

 

In my defence the comment was rhetorical and a response to Jake?s post.

Having said that it does come across as being disingenuous towards sane and intelligent people who believe that the official narrative is reliable. 

I rub it out, not sure about the RAH comment, depends on ones interpretation of reasonable, I suppose.  

?Anyway ML I take your point, sometimes, I should think more before I speak.

 

Don't be too hard on yourself.

 

I admire scepticism.  It's a valuable quality to have, and an important component of critical thinking.  I like to think of myself as a sceptic.

 

Many times, the official version of events is flawed.  Sometimes officials even lie, with the Gulf of Tonkin incident a good example of that.

 

Sometimes it's wrong, with the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination being a good example of that.  It has been proven to be nothing more than a whitewash of the FBI.

 

But, when the o.v. of events is challenged, it's incumbent upon the sceptics to put forward an alternative theory, in my opinion.  That has yet to happen with 9/11, and that is where I have my difficulties.

 

The official version is that a group of Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes, two of which were crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field.  After 16 years of scrutiny and examination of minute detail, no-one has proposed a better explanation.

 

To me, all the comments about how buildings should collapse, or the temperature required to melt steel, or unbroken windows at the Pentagon, or the manoeuvrability of passenger jets, or whether cellphones work in planes, is all background noise.  There is no alternative explanation to the o.v.

 

And until such an alternative is presented, and I can analyse it, the sceptic in me says that the official version of events is the best we've got. 

[Maple Leaf]

I know absolutely nothing about engineering architecture, or even basic construction.  But quite often in these discussions the phrase how did it happen comes up. When the Twin Towers were designed was there in the plans and designs anything that considered trhe possibility of a fairly large commercial aircraft colliding with them.  I ask because around 1992, I flew red eye from Vancouver to Toronto.  I then got on an early morningh flight  Toronto to Newark.  One of the things I have never forgotten about that flight was having a window seat on the left side of the plane looking out at the heavy white solid fluffy clouds below us as we started descent over New York City to Newark.  Suddenly to my front left jutting through the clouds were a number of the top floors of the Two Towers, it was an awesome sight, it was like they were part of the sky and as if they were growing out of the clouds.  I now wonder if there was ever any consideration given to a plane crashing into the Towers and if the result and what would happen ever considered in the design. If so there must be an explanation why they fell as they did.

 

During the visit we visited the area of the Towers, not too long after there was an explosive device set off there. So 9/11 was not the first time the were attacked.

In 1945, a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building.  Fog was the main factor.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that the architects of the Twin Towers knew about that, but there is likely no way you can make the buildings invulnerable.  

[jake]

Don't be too hard on yourself.

 

I admire scepticism. It's a valuable quality to have, and an important component of critical thinking. I like to think of myself as a sceptic.

 

Many times, the official version of events is flawed. Sometimes officials even lie, with the Gulf of Tonkin incident a good example of that.

 

Sometimes it's wrong, with the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination being a good example of that. It has been proven to be nothing more than a whitewash of the FBI.

 

But, when the o.v. of events is challenged, it's incumbent upon the sceptics to put forward an alternative theory, in my opinion. That has yet to happen with 9/11, and that is where I have my difficulties.

 

The official version is that a group of Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes, two of which were crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field. After 16 years of scrutiny and examination of minute detail, no-one has proposed a better explanation.

 

To me, all the comments about how buildings should collapse, or the temperature required to melt steel, or unbroken windows at the Pentagon, or the manoeuvrability of passenger jets, or whether cellphones work in planes, is all background noise. There is no alternative explanation to the o.v.

 

And until such an alternative is presented, and I can analyse it, the sceptic in me says that the official version of events is the best we've got.

 

I cant tell you how much im itching to take on this post.

Hahaha.

 

Especially saying och no no no

[jake]

Don't be too hard on yourself.

 

I admire scepticism. It's a valuable quality to have, and an important component of critical thinking. I like to think of myself as a sceptic.

 

Many times, the official version of events is flawed. Sometimes officials even lie, with the Gulf of Tonkin incident a good example of that.

 

Sometimes it's wrong, with the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination being a good example of that. It has been proven to be nothing more than a whitewash of the FBI.

 

But, when the o.v. of events is challenged, it's incumbent upon the sceptics to put forward an alternative theory, in my opinion. That has yet to happen with 9/11, and that is where I have my difficulties.

 

The official version is that a group of Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes, two of which were crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field. After 16 years of scrutiny and examination of minute detail, no-one has proposed a better explanation.

 

To me, all the comments about how buildings should collapse, or the temperature required to melt steel, or unbroken windows at the Pentagon, or the manoeuvrability of passenger jets, or whether cellphones work in planes, is all background noise. There is no alternative explanation to the o.v.

 

And until such an alternative is presented, and I can analyse it, the sceptic in me says that the official version of events is the best we've got.

 

Ok fek it.

 

Maple you talk of whitewash regarding jfk.

 

Does it not ring alarm bells that the 5 men accused of masterminding 9/11 who have been held in custody for 15 years.

That they have still never been brought to trial.

 

How many "issues" does there have to be ?

 

 

Sorry i cant help it.

[Judge Fudge]

The real problem with conspiracy theories over the last few years has been governments using the term to make hay. Questioning govts is our right. But in recent times anyone who does is a conspiracy nut. They are winning both ways. common knowledge that off the back of 9/11 they are sewing up the oil pipe line to the Mediterranean. North Korea is just another smoke and mirrors operation. Give the people something to worry about while you pick the pocket. peaceful protest would be gd if we didn't have to worry about someone turning up in a burka eh!

[Ulysses]

Well thanks for actually giving your theory. It's refreshing to see the alternate theory a poster believes in. I'll stick with the terrorist highjack planes theory but fair play for sticking your neck on the line.

 

 

What happened to Ruth Clifford McCourt, and her daughter Juliana?

 

 

 

 

 

They died that morning. 

 

Ron Clifford was Ruth's brother and Juliana's uncle.  He was on his way into the World Trade Center lobby when the first aircraft hit the North Tower.   While he was taking care of a person who had been injured, the second aircraft hit the South Tower.  His sister and his niece were on that plane.

 

The "theory" is that no-one flew any passenger planes that day.  For the "theory" to be right, the "theorist" has to explain what happened to Ruth Clifford McCourt and her daughter Juliana.  Where are they now?  Who hid them?  Or who got rid of them? How?   A "theory" that claims they weren't on those planes has to show exactly what happened and how those people were made to disappear.  No half-arsed stories, no gaps, no cat-farting about, no "I dunno, so conspiracy must be true".

 

Without a concrete, logical and evidence-based explanation for those disappearances there is no alternative theory, just someone's deluded fantasy.

 

Don't forget, the "theorist" also has to explain how the other 244 named passengers and crew of those flights disappeared.  Anyone who can't explain that does not have an alternative theory.

 

And people who have no alternative theory need to grow up, learn to behave like civilised people and stop disrespecting the dead and those who mourn them.

[The Internet]

Pretty sure they were part of the secret crew who wired the demolition mate.

[Ulysses]

Pretty sure they were part of the secret crew who wired the demolition mate.

 

 

Shite.  Never thought of that. 

[jake]

What happened to Ruth Clifford McCourt, and her daughter Juliana?

 

 

 

 

 

They died that morning.

 

Ron Clifford was Ruth's brother and Juliana's uncle. He was on his way into the World Trade Center lobby when the first aircraft hit the North Tower. While he was taking care of a person who had been injured, the second aircraft hit the South Tower. His sister and his niece were on that plane.

 

The "theory" is that no-one flew any passenger planes that day. For the "theory" to be right, the "theorist" has to explain what happened to Ruth Clifford McCourt and her daughter Juliana. Where are they now? Who hid them? Or who got rid of them? How? A "theory" that claims they weren't on those planes has to show exactly what happened and how those people were made to disappear. No half-arsed stories, no gaps, no cat-farting about, no "I dunno, so conspiracy must be true".

 

Without a concrete, logical and evidence-based explanation for those disappearances there is no alternative theory, just someone's deluded fantasy.

 

Don't forget, the "theorist" also has to explain how the other 244 named passengers and crew of those flights disappeared. Anyone who can't explain that does not have an alternative theory.

 

And people who have no alternative theory need to grow up, learn to behave like civilised people and stop disrespecting the dead and those who mourn them.

 

Would that include the former chair of the 9/11 commision.

Scholars for truth.

Engineers for truth and the other campaigners who also lost relatives.

The hispanic movement who were instrumental in having the 9/11 commision set up .

Should they all grow up.

Should the 50 % at least of americans who do not believe the o.v grow up.

 

I apologised for my post on 9/11 thread.

 

I do not feel im being immature in questionong along with many decent intelligent and knowledgeable people.

 

I answered when asked my views.

 

Ive posted why i think there is pertinent questions on the matter.

Going by your recent stalking of niblick i think you should heed your own advice.

[Space Mackerel]

I see I've been mentioned in this thread...

 

 

2 commercial planes took down 3 skyscrapers?

 

Makes you wonder why BAE and Lockheed pour millions and billions and trillions into weapon development eh?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Space Mackerel

[Space Mackerel]

If only the Emperor of Japan had instructed his Kamikaze pilots to load the Zeros with Avtur instead of explosive, he could have melted the American carriers.

 

[emoji849]

[Ulysses]

I can't fathom what sort of person would claim that the deaths of those 244 people did not happen.

 

These people were murdered, and there's no excuse for disrespecting them and the families and friends left behind when they died.

[Space Mackerel]

I can't fathom what sort of person would claim that the deaths of those 244 people did not happen.

 

These people were murdered, and there's no excuse for disrespecting them and the families and friends left behind when they died.

What 244 people?

[Ulysses]

What 244 people?

 

 

The named passengers and crew of American Airlines flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines flights 93 and 175. 

 

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=6257632

[The Internet]

I see I've been mentioned in this thread...

 

 

2 commercial planes took down 3 skyscrapers?

 

Makes you wonder why BAE and Lockheed pour millions and billions and trillions into weapon development eh?

What do you think happened? Were the planes something else? Were the buildings brought down in a controlled demolition? Were the buildings even there to begin with? How far does it go?

[jake]

I can't fathom what sort of person would claim that the deaths of those 244 people did not happen.

 

These people were murdered, and there's no excuse for disrespecting them and the families and friends left behind when they died.

 

I dont disagree with any of that.

 

Although i do not believe the explanation of how they were murdered.

 

And if that offends you because of personal reasons or any other that is not my intention.

And i think it best that i no longer post about this subject on here anymore.

[Space Mackerel]

What do you think happened? Were the planes something else? Were the buildings brought down in a controlled demolition? Were the buildings even there to begin with? How far does it go?

I've no idea what happened. I certainly don't believe the official narrative and subsequent inquiry.

 

It's lucky that hijacker opened a window of pressurised aircraft and lobbed his passport out just before he ploughed into one of the towers though.

[niblick1874]

?INCOMING.

 

??Do not view if you want to stay in your safe space.

 

[Sharpie]

?INCOMING.

 

??Do not view if you want to stay in your safe space.

 

 

I started to read this, listened to it, listened for a few more minutes and figured here is a guy trying to make a couple of bucks,  his phone going off people following him, and his moaning personality and I immediately thought this is a disgruntled employee, what happened to him. I carried on and again gained the opinion that here was a man trying to supplement his income.  Sure enough I Googled him and he had problems with his employer, he sued, was granted  $400,000 settlement, the CIA then reneged on that settlement.  When he had agreed to it though he signed a non disclosure agreement, so he was quite prepared if the pay off was sufficient to keep his mouth shut and not do what he is doing now, I am sure for payment.

 

How anyone, and I am definitely not one listen to this story teller rambling on is well beyond my ken, but to each his own, if he was as dangerous with his information as he states, and as afraid as he mentions, and there was a realistic danger, he would be gone by now, his memorial service would have praised him as a good servant and patriot, but he would now be shutup, and unable to say anything.  Would have to be easy after all this is the government that destroyed two buildings, killed many and are according to some still living the lie, but they have a problem getting rid of a nut, sorry but I doubt it.

 

In total for me is that the greatest individual damage to me is that I spent about three minutes listening to this and its three minutes of my life I can never get back.

[niblick1874]

Shipp held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner. He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force.

Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program. He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations. He is the author of From the Company of Shadows?CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism.

[Sharpie]

Shipp held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner. He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force.

Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program. He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations. He is the author of From the Company of Shadows?CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism.

 

That is quite a record of functions within the C.I.A. I think it is twelve of them. They are quite eclectic in what they do, polygraph examiner, protective agent, I assume security person for the Director, a manager of high risk operations, having worked most of in fact all of my career in organisations with multiple tasks, I don't know the man but it almost seems that they had a problem placing him in a slot where he was a fit.  Was his last job the one where he was sent to the old army base where his house was built on expired ammunition, and he and his family ended up sick which was the root of his lawsuit. I have no idea and cannot be bothered to look for his length of service, but quite often in the CIA and FBI 21 years is a common figure, it would seem he changed jobs a lot in that period.

 

My natural reaction when reading or listening to persons who left their employment in less than perfect circumstances is to just look at their attitude, the veracity of their stories, and to see in my own mind if I believe them, if they seem credible, and probably above all if their story reasonable.  I regret to say that the small part I did listen to on the link was neither credible or reasonable.  Why would the CIA, who if I understand it cannot operate on home soil, follow, tap phones, read and intercept mail. when the man they are surveilling is according to the job records you quote is a highly trained, experienced, knowledgeable former agent, who knows every move they can make call, correspond or meet with any individuals or groups to discuss, act with anything that he could be acted against criminally or legally. So why would they bother especially when it is made so easy for him to see.

[Ulysses]

How anyone, and I am definitely not one listen to this story teller rambling on is well beyond my ken, but to each his own, if he was as dangerous with his information as he states, and as afraid as he mentions, and there was a realistic danger, he would be gone by now, his memorial service would have praised him as a good servant and patriot, but he would now be shutup, and unable to say anything.  Would have to be easy after all this is the government that destroyed two buildings, killed many and are according to some still living the lie, but they have a problem getting rid of a nut, sorry but I doubt it.

 

 

Yep, that's the trouble with the tinfoil hatters.  In their la-la-land world the authorities have super powers so they can carry out a breathtakingly elaborate plot to kill thousands of their own people, using thousands of participants and with thousands more potential witnesses without a leak ever happening - but they can't threaten, bribe or eliminate one easy to get at story teller.

 

Yeah, right. 

[Space Mackerel]

Yep, that's the trouble with the tinfoil hatters. In their la-la-land world the authorities have super powers so they can carry out a breathtakingly elaborate plot to kill thousands of their own people, using thousands of participants and with thousands more potential witnesses without a leak ever happening - but they can't threaten, bribe or eliminate one easy to get at story teller.

 

Yeah, right.

2 commercial jets taking down 3 skyscrapers. [emoji16]

 

Another one puncturing through 5 or 6 walls of the the most defended building on the planet with super reinforced walls too (no CCTV afterwards) Pilot is a novice and manages to hit a 75 foot target smack on from a 270 degree banking turn starting at 8000 feet using nothing but visual aids and instruments. [emoji16]

 

Flight 93's impact zone looks like somebody has been up early and scattered scrap metal about. [emoji16]

[Ulysses]

^^^^

 

Like I said, that's the trouble with the bacofoilers.  In their la-la-land world the authorities have super powers so they can carry out a breathtakingly elaborate plot to kill thousands of their own people, using thousands of participants and with thousands more potential witnesses without a leak ever happening - but they can't threaten, bribe or eliminate one easy to get at story teller.

[Space Mackerel]

^^^^

 

Like I said, that's the trouble with the bacofoilers. In their la-la-land world the authorities have super powers so they can carry out a breathtakingly elaborate plot to kill thousands of their own people, using thousands of participants and with thousands more potential witnesses without a leak ever happening - but they can't threaten, bribe or eliminate one easy to get at story teller.

I'm using the official narrative.

 

No Bacofoil here.

 

 

 

 

3 skyscrapers with 2 planes though, think about it for a moment. [emoji16]

[Ulysses]

I'm using the official narrative.

 

No Bacofoil here.

 

 

 

 

3 skyscrapers with 2 planes though, think about it for a moment. [emoji16]

 

 

Like I said, the conspiracy theorists are happy to create a world in which a supposedly all-powerful government can do something so big and so secret even though it would have to be impossible to hide, but can't get rid of one troublemaker.

 

Fantasists, the lot of them.  They're like fanatical Christians or Muslims.  As soon as they see a piece of evidence that screws up their logic they just put their fingers in their ears and hum as loudly as possible.

[Space Mackerel]

Like I said, the conspiracy theorists are happy to create a world in which a supposedly all-powerful government can do something so big and so secret even though it would have to be impossible to hide, but can't get rid of one troublemaker.

 

Fantasists, the lot of them. They're like fanatical Christians or Muslims. As soon as they see a piece of evidence that screws up their logic they just put their fingers in their ears and hum as loudly as possible.

You really do think 2 planes brought down 3 skyscrapers? You actually believe that?

Planes that are built for LIGHTNESS so companies pay less money for fuel. Skeletons made from stringers and spars.

 

Can't wait when they go full carbon composite. [emoji16]

[jake]

You really do think 2 planes brought down 3 skyscrapers? You actually believe that?

Planes that are built for LIGHTNESS so companies pay less money for fuel. Skeletons made from stringers and spars.

 

Can't wait when they go full carbon composite. [emoji16]

 

Space if you look at any twin tower plane impact the nose of it goes through it .

 

Have you ever seen the impact a single feathered friend does to the nose of a plane.

Just google damage done to planes by birds.

 

 

 

But hey you carry on insulting the relatives of the victims by wondering htf a plane cuts through steel and concrete.

Because its you that lives in lala land.

 

Never mind the armys own tests which slammed fighter jets into walls to watch them obliterate the jets.

 

You would think people would at least admit there are glaring issues about the o.v.

Instead they put their fingers in their ears and dont want to hear .

 

Said id keep of this but the insults as argument on what is a conspiracy thread done my head in.

 

Should really not bite because said poster is always at it.

[Tazio]

The famous video of a fighter plane being slammed into a concrete wall on a sled isn't just a plane hitting a wall. It's testing a specially designed block that was for nuclear power stations.

 

[jake]

Hold on, as usual this thread is bouncing about so it is hard to keep grasp of what people do and do not believe.

 

Are you saying that what we saw with our own eyes in regards to the planes hitting the WTC didn't actually happen? Or at least not in the way we all saw it?

 

Please stick to the WTC impact when replying, thanks.

 

The plane hitting the wtc tower yes.

Now do you accept a plane slamming through concrete and steel would come through the other side of that building with its nose still intact.

Have a look at any video of it.

[jake]

The famous video of a fighter plane being slammed into a concrete wall on a sled isn't just a plane hitting a wall. It's testing a specially designed block that was for nuclear power stations.

 

 

Yes a pretty thick wall no doubt reinforced with steel.

 

And the plane was travelling at the same speed as the one which hit the towers.

 

Would you say that it seems plausible given that a passenger plane weighs heavier than a jet .

That the thickness of the wtc is at least x10.

Would you say its plausible that the integrity of the planes nose would be as viewed on exiting the wtc.

Edited September 18, 2017 by jake

[jake]

For a guide on the structural strength of the nose of a passenger airplane.

Just google.

Images of plane hitting birds.

[The Internet]

2 commercial jets taking down 3 skyscrapers. [emoji16]

 

Another one puncturing through 5 or 6 walls of the the most defended building on the planet with super reinforced walls too (no CCTV afterwards) Pilot is a novice and manages to hit a 75 foot target smack on from a 270 degree banking turn starting at 8000 feet using nothing but visual aids and instruments. [emoji16]

 

Flight 93's impact zone looks like somebody has been up early and scattered scrap metal about. [emoji16]

 

It's more believable than literally anything else.

[Space Mackerel]

It's more believable than literally anything else.

Just think, all the demolishment companies that have been wasting their time and money using special type designed explosives and man hours to take down steel structures, when all they needed was to saturate it aviation fuel and flick a match at it. [emoji16] Edited September 18, 2017 by Space Mackerel

[Space Mackerel]

The famous video of a fighter plane being slammed into a concrete wall on a sled isn't just a plane hitting a wall. It's testing a specially designed block that was for nuclear power stations.

 

Just a hunch, I'll stick a tenner on that the good old US of A's military command centre, i.e. The Pentagon, was made of similar material. [emoji16]

[Geoff the Mince]

Just a hunch, I'll stick a tenner on that the good old US of A's military command centre, i.e. The Pentagon, was made of similar material. [emoji16]

What happened to the bodies which were stored in the missile which hit the Pentagon ?

[Space Mackerel]

What happened to the bodies which were stored in the missile which hit the Pentagon ?

 

They're all here, can't you see them [emoji16]

[jake]

Just think, all the demolishment companies that have been wasting their time and money using special type designed explosives and man hours to take down steel structures, when all they needed was to saturate it aviation fuel and flick a match at it. [emoji16]

 

Not forgetting the fire which in 1975 which burned through ten floors from 9 to 19 if i recollect.

No structural damage .

But hey if you dont know you must believe.

 

That same logic has meant religion ruled for a long time.

Ignore the science believe the o.v

[Geoff the Mince]

They're all here, can't you see them [emoji16]

Do you get some thrill by being a classless welt ?

[jake]

Just a hunch, I'll stick a tenner on that the good old US of A's military command centre, i.e. The Pentagon, was made of similar material. [emoji16]

 

3 metre thich steel reinforced.

 

Aye nae bother to a passenger plane flown inches from the ground.

By a novice pilot.

 

But im from la la land .

[Space Mackerel]

Not forgetting the fire which in 1975 which burned through ten floors from 9 to 19 if i recollect.

No structural damage .

But hey if you dont know you must believe.

 

That same logic has meant religion ruled for a long time.

Ignore the science believe the o.v

Bearing in mind most the aviation fuel burnt off outside the tower [emoji16]

[The Internet]

Just think, all the demolishment companies that have been wasting their time and money using special type designed explosives and man hours to take down steel structures, when all they needed was to saturate it aviation fuel and flick a match at it. [emoji16]

Indeed. As long as they leather it with a 747 first.

[jake]

Indeed. As long as they leather it with a 747 first.

 

How many times.

 

If you as i suspect believe the official version.

Then it is not the impact that caused the collapse and destruction into virtually it own footstep reducing it to dust and rubble.

But the heat from the fire.

Causing trusses to fail.

Oh and one of the buildings was not by any plane.

This fell at freefall (denied at first) due to heat generated by office equipment.

 

It also fell virtually in its own footprint in a heap of rubble.

 

Thats the official versions.

 

Pentagon a passenger plane punched a hole through a combined thickness of 3 metres with reinforced steel.

 

Twin towers and wtc7 collapsed due to heat.

 

Two helped by aviation fuel

The other down to office furniture.

 

Thee o.v