Right.
They've provably covered up paedophiles and rape gangs for decades (including murders).
But they wouldn't go that far. Got it.
Lanzo pointed out that they are riddled with masons. They are also riddled with intelligence operatives.
Which conspiracy theories do you believe?
- Topic starter Eddie Moliano
- Start date
Right.
They've provably covered up paedophiles and rape gangs for decades (including murders).
But they wouldn't go that far. Got it.
Lanzo pointed out that they are riddled with masons. They are also riddled with intelligence operatives.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
England
If we are going to reduce that topic down to a sentence we can say that obviously they did what they did for self interest.
What would be their interest in covering up for the Bush administration?
Ok.....Are the Masons ok with mass murder then?
Again, where are the Wikileaks? Or are they in on it too?
Is it Masons all the way down?
Intelligence fore-knowledge I can accept (how much and how extensive I don't know).....because evidence actually exists for it.
Last edited:
Eh?
We've all watched them with our own eyes collapse completely into their own footprints, with all four corners collapsing simultaneously. Other buildings that have collapsed elsewhere have collapsed on one side first.
Building 7 was a different design to the twin towers, but collapsed in the same manner.
The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
So you watched the towers collapse and you think that's freefall? Seriously?
Internal structures mean freefall only happens shortly at the beginning before crap hits other crap.....dude come on.
As for 'completely into their own footprints'.....why do you write this stuff. Even on its own the amount of damage caused to buildings near it should call BS on that....but you obviously believe it.
Here is a photo of the area on September 17th showing the extensive debris field and heavy damage to surrounding buildings. Does that look like completely into their own footprints to you?
Structural engineer Leslie E. Robertson (and the design team) explicitly analyzed the scenario of a Boeing 707 (the largest passenger jet in service when the towers were designed in the 1960s) striking the building.....and that, to quote, 'and would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact'.
The actual aircraft on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which were larger and heavier (roughly 20% bigger) than a 707. Their high impact speeds delivered significantly more energy (Robertson later estimated 3–6 times what had been considered). The planes also stripped fireproofing from steel and ignited intense, widespread fires that burned for about an hour, which the original design did not fully account for.
I meant they collapsed fully vertically - which they undeniably did.
Obviously, buildings that size are going to produce a lot of dust and debris (We've all seen the dust cloud images), even with the main structure collapsing vertically into its own footprint.
And, obviously there will be damage and debris spreading across a wider area at ground level.
But a completely organic collapse of any tower would typically lean one way high up from the point of impact, and from where the first structural collapse takes place.