World Trade Centre 7.

Clever people often believe stupid things.

Some clever people with an ego problem get annoyed when they are not the first to come up with the true reason(s) why an incident happened so they create an ego inflating alternative set of reasons.

It doesn't mean they believe their reasons are valid, it just means they get some publicity
 
Sponsored Links
It doesn't mean they believe their reasons are valid, it just means they get some publicity

Yep, that is pretty much the definition of s conspiracy theorist, and also troll.
 
Some clever people with an ego problem get annoyed when they are not the first to come up with the true reason(s) why an incident happened so they create an ego inflating alternative set of reasons.

It doesn't mean they believe their reasons are valid, it just means they get some publicity

There's one or two events in history that personally worry me. I remember watching those towers fall on live TV & I remember thinking "somethings wrong here". The way those towers fell defies physics, it defied logic & I clearly remember thinking "something doesn't add up here". I thought all of that within the few seconds it took those towers to fall.

I'm not a qualified architect & I'm not a Qualified structural engineer, but I'm relieved to know that many qualified architects & many qualified structural engineers find that event just as strange as I do.

Whilst I've met a few architects who are batshit crazy & some with mahoosive ego's, I have never met a structural engineer, who was qualified at skyscraper level, to be anything other than a sane & logical person.

Again, lots of very qualified people think that something other than the 'official narrative' happened that day. Are we all nutjob conspiracy theorists with ego's that need to be fed by questioning anything & everything?

I think not.
 
Again, lots of very qualified people think that something other than the 'official narrative' happened that day. Are we all nutjob conspiracy theorists with ego's that need to be fed by questioning anything & everything
If you or they haven't actually read the official narrative, then you or they definitely count as lazy, and probably close minded.

The classic 'freefall' line is fairly symptomatic, as is the footprint comment. Neither are true but both get repeated a lot by people too lazy to know what they're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
There's one or two events in history that personally worry me. I remember watching those towers fall on live TV & I remember thinking "somethings wrong here". The way those towers fell defies physics, it defied logic & I clearly remember thinking "something doesn't add up here". I thought all of that within the few seconds it took those towers to fall.

I'm not a qualified architect & I'm not a Qualified structural engineer, but I'm relieved to know that many qualified architects & many qualified structural engineers find that event just as strange as I do.

Whilst I've met a few architects who are batshit crazy & some with mahoosive ego's, I have never met a structural engineer, who was qualified at skyscraper level, to be anything other than a sane & logical person.

Again, lots of very qualified people think that something other than the 'official narrative' happened that day. Are we all nutjob conspiracy theorists with ego's that need to be fed by questioning anything & everything?

I think not.

So, you are completely ignoring the detailed explanations of why the 3 towers collapsed, and just going with "something doesn't add up here ... I thought all of that within the few seconds"?

That, is the definition of a conspiracy theorists right there. You don't have to be a qualified architect to read a report into why they fell.
 
There's one or two events in history that personally worry me.
A few things have lead me to look at the available information

The way those towers fell defies physics, it defied logic & I clearly remember thinking "something doesn't add up here"

It does not defy physics. The collapse started with a stack of several undamaged floors falling as a block into a void created when a floor below collapsed.

This "intact" block had only the vertical force of gravity acting on it, hence straight down. The mass of the block had inertia which, in the absence of any external horizontal forces, maintained it upright as it descended crushing the floors below as it fell.
 
Conspiracy theories :)

generaly bandied around by fruit cakes imo

this 9 / 11 attack the rubbish
Nonsense and twaddle that has bandied around by fruit cakes about that :ROFLMAO:

some how they are all experts on tower block construction :ROFLMAO:

Experts on aviation fuel fires :ROFLMAO:

most of em could not find there backside in the dark with both hands and a torch

some make a fortune by spouting this conspiracy nonsense

blimey conspiracies

JFK assassination
Marlyn monro
Americans landing on the moon
Covid vaccinations
Stonehenge
That scientist who cut his wrists
Trump
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
I'm not qualified to define what happened to make those towers fall, but I am qualified to follow my instincts.

How do the proffessional truth disrupters counter the fact that very many qualified architects & structural engineers question the official narrative?

They do it like they have always done it. They simply dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory by nutjob conspiracy theorists.

There are some very, very qualified people who do not accept the official narrative about exactly what happened on 9/11. If they are all nutjob conspiracy theorists with ulterior motives, then we have some severe problems that extend well beyond 9/11 & encompass all of the work done by these highly qualified architects & structural engineers.

I don't know exactly what happened, but I do know it didn't happen the way they try to tell me.
 
I'm not qualified to define what happened to make those towers fall, but I am qualified to follow my instincts.

How do the proffessional truth disrupters counter the fact that very many qualified architects & structural engineers question the official narrative?

They do it like they have always done it. They simply dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory by nutjob conspiracy theorists.

There are some very, very qualified people who do not accept the official narrative about exactly what happened on 9/11. If they are all nutjob conspiracy theorists with ulterior motives, then we have some severe problems that extend well beyond 9/11 & encompass all of the work done by these highly qualified architects & structural engineers.

I don't know exactly what happened, but I do know it didn't happen the way they try to tell me.
So, you haven't read the report, put together by very many qualified experts with full access to all data.

Shocker.
 
And a church right next to the twin towers only had a few windows broken.

I visited the site in 2007 there was one mahoosive hole - a fair few stories down.
 
I'm not qualified to define what happened to make those towers fall, but I am qualified to follow my instincts.

How do the proffessional truth disrupters counter the fact that very many qualified architects & structural engineers question the official narrative?

They do it like they have always done it. They simply dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory by nutjob conspiracy theorists.

There are some very, very qualified people who do not accept the official narrative about exactly what happened on 9/11. If they are all nutjob conspiracy theorists with ulterior motives, then we have some severe problems that extend well beyond 9/11 & encompass all of the work done by these highly qualified architects & structural engineers.

I don't know exactly what happened, but I do know it didn't happen the way they try to tell me.

Ok. Let's start from the basics ..

If the towers were blown up with explosives, why fly 2 planes into them? It was witnessed by tens of thousands of people, New York is a big city.

If done by the government, why do it during they day, and not at night, with a warning to evacuate?

If it was a show, why demolish the third tower?

What was the purpose of flying into the pentagon, if it was just about the towers?

No motives for any of this.
 
True story. I've been married a couple of times, albeit to the same woman, and I've always had something of a blind spot for birthdays, anniversaries, just can't remember them and it's never occurred to me to write them down, she does it, and will occasionally say something like it's your sister's birthday next week.

Anyway, 9\11 I was sitting in a bar in a yacht club in Poole having just bought a boat, watching the telly over the bar and seeing the planes crash into the buildings I asked the barman what the film was, no mate, that's the news. **** me I think it took an hour for the reality of the situation to sink in, it's a moment in time I think most of us will never forget.

Fast forward 51 weeks, all you would hear on the radio was red/black alerts about an impending terrorist atrocity on 9/11 to mark the anniversary of the attack on the twin towers. Every western government was on high alert expecting a major incident to mark the anniversary of 9/11 and all week the words 9/11, twin towers, anniversary kept ringing out over the airwaves.

On the morning of 9\11 I was woken up by the radio alarm, no incidents so far but again they were talking about a likely attack to mark the anniversary of 9/11.

So, eventually 'she' woke up and said 'happy anniversary'.

I swear to God my blood ran cold and I just lay there thinking 'what a f*****g strange thing to say'

Anyway, after about 5 minutes the full horror of the situation dawned on me, it was our wedding anniversary, or one of 'em at least, no card, no present.
I haven't forgotten since.
 
If a qualified architect questions the official narrative, dismisses the NIST report as "nonsense" & demands a proper & full inquiry into exactly what happened that day, then by default they are a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't have a clue about how buildings are designed & how they react when planes full of fuel are flown into them.

Should these architects be allowed to continue in practice? They're out there now, constructing buildings while they're obviously mentally ill.
 
If a qualified architect questions the official narrative, dismisses the NIST report as "nonsense" & demands a proper & full inquiry into exactly what happened that day, then by default they are a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't have a clue about how buildings are designed & how they react when planes full of fuel are flown into them.

Should these architects be allowed to continue in practice? They're out there now, constructing buildings while they're obviously mentally ill.
If you or they haven't actually read the official narrative, then you or they definitely count as lazy, and probably close minded.

The classic 'freefall' line is fairly symptomatic, as is the footprint comment. Neither are true but both get repeated a lot by people too lazy to know what they're talking about.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top