News of the day...

Out of context: Reply #2148

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 4,969 Responses
  • GeorgesIV0

    ok, http://www.nist.gov/el/disasters…

    fire and jet fuel bring building down, all the examples I will post had fire burning for longer and hotter than the twin towers,
    off course none of them were it by plane, that apparently severed the central column and causing the now famous pancake effect...

    china


    spain


    shangai


    note that the WTC were hot enough to create massive fireballs, weaken the steel around the impact area but not hot enough for people to be standing and leaning on the red hot melting steel beams


    official pancake theory

    GeorgesIV 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • So an amateur YouTube video by "thermite911" debunks the entire possibility that planes could bring down a building?yuekit
    • but it is not scientifically possible ukit, you just can't change the laws of physics whenever you want, plane hits building, building falls down perfectlyGeorgesIV
    • we're so past the plane brought down the WTC building, http://www.amazon.co…GeorgesIV
    • Without any technical knowledge yourself, what convinces you that the Loose Change people are right and all the people arguing the other side are wrong?yuekit
    • good question ukit, how about you stick to the official story and tell me how the buildings toppled on their own footprint after getting hit by planesGeorgesIV
    • means you have to become an export. all you need is a high school degree because this is high school physics.yurimon
    • ^expertyurimon
    • So a building hit by two planes (which never happened before) is easily predictable and you just need a HS degree to figure it out. Got it.yuekit
    • can you explain building 7 please? that should require a junior hs degree at least.yurimon
    • plus physics always happens and is consistent there was not enough factors that something so out of ordinary would happen like the building falling at freefallyurimon
    • speeds if you just based it on a plane, jet fuel fire, steel concrete reinforced. the building turned to ash at freefall speeds. nothing out the ordinary?yurimon
    • Except that it didn't fall at freefall speeds :/
      http://www.debunking…
      Now ask yourself what else you got wrong      yuekit
    • ic its true, debunking.com of course. and concrete turns to ash when exposed to air. got it.yurimon
    • so i've been going to the wrong urls, guess if i go to conspiracy.com as apposed to debunking.com, it would make a big difference. dang.yurimon
    • Watch the video at bottom of the page.
      https://www.youtube.…
      Clearly shows that it didn't collapse at free fall/ demolition speed      yuekit
    • so what? a clandestine crew snuck in at night and set up charges when no one was looking? then timed the whole thing to coincide with the jet strikes? lol_niko
    • they had access to the structral elements and got i there without disturbing any of the offices and nobody noticed? was it bush or cheney that rigged it?_niko
    • ...or Bruce willis? come on man after all thee years, this bullshit is cool for my 9 year old just discovering the world but not for thinking adults._niko
    • I think bush knew about what was going to happen 100% but just turned a blind eye, let events play out to justify the master plan of a mid east war._niko
    • but there were no explosions, tons of scientific research and models to support the pancake theory. Occams Razor. Simplest explanation is the best._niko
    • motherfuckers on both sides won't be happy until we build full size models and crash planes into them to see what would happen offs_niko
    • yeah niko, that is the logic apparently. Just flying planes into buildings would not be good enough, for a generation raised on Michael Bay movies.yuekit
    • if planes can't possibly bring down towers then why bother false flagging this shit? why not say that terrorists rigged the building with explosives like in '93_niko
    • ...but this time succeeded? much easier than bothering with planes that only do superficial damage then having to rig the building anyway..._niko
    • ...because JET FUEL CAN'T MELT BEAMS lol_niko
    • you cant just fly a plane into a building, you have to know the trajectory at those speeds if you are off by a few feet you can miss by a long shot. explain.yurimon
    • second the jet fuel burned those steel beams for days, explain and explain building 7. derpyurimon
    • come on, caused by falling debris. explain it better than this
      http://debunking911.…      _niko
    • don't buy the barefooted terrorists in caves pulled this off alone, but I don't have to believe the rest of the bullshit. Thermite? pfff._niko
    • and what's this trajectory bullshit? jet fighters do insane things in the air with pinpoint accuracy at speeds way faster than commercial airliners,_niko
    • who by the way almost missed the building, seems like they just clipped the edge, definitely not a pin-point computer aided strike lol_niko
    • how do pilots possibly hit the runway and not always end up in a fireball on the side of the field, because runways are so narrow and trajectories and..._niko
    • you have to know the trajectory at those speeds if you are off by a few feet you can miss by a long shot. explain._niko
    • its still a thoery. im going to make a website called truth-debunked-fo-re... its all theory as far as i can see on this.yurimon
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread