Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 12:40:55 GMT -5
come on what? thousands of professional architects and engineers call absolute bullshit, and give detailed science/physics-based reasons with evidence, it's at least worth thinking about
So their proof is evidence and the original report is bullshit? Ed Asner had to be the host because he is a leftwing conspiracy nut, he also hates cops. The bullshit he has done on behalf of Mumia is a disgrace fuck that guy. |
|
|
|
Post by shakin on Sept 4, 2019 13:15:20 GMT -5
come on what? thousands of professional architects and engineers call absolute bullshit, and give detailed science/physics-based reasons with evidence, it's at least worth thinking about
So their proof is evidence and the original report is bullshit? Ed Asner had to be the host because he is a leftwing conspiracy nut, he also hates cops. The bullshit he has done on behalf of Mumia is a disgrace fuck that guy. the nist report claims the building fell at freefall speed (zero resistance!), uniformly, from the failure of a single column out of hundreds of columns.
fuck ed asner is right, has nothing to do with science and physics and 100 years of steel framed skyscraper fires resulting in exactly zero previous collapses, not even partial collapses. i'm talking about 7, not the towers.
i mocked truthers and frankly still do for the most part, but the physics around the collapse of building 7 is fucked up, big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Sept 4, 2019 15:22:10 GMT -5
come on what? thousands of professional architects and engineers call absolute bullshit, and give detailed science/physics-based reasons with evidence, it's at least worth thinking about
1000's?...plz... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 16:21:23 GMT -5
So their proof is evidence and the original report is bullshit? Ed Asner had to be the host because he is a leftwing conspiracy nut, he also hates cops. The bullshit he has done on behalf of Mumia is a disgrace fuck that guy. the nist report claims the building fell at freefall speed (zero resistance!), uniformly, from the failure of a single column out of hundreds of columns.
fuck ed asner is right, has nothing to do with science and physics and 100 years of steel framed skyscraper fires resulting in exactly zero previous collapses, not even partial collapses. i'm talking about 7, not the towers.
i mocked truthers and frankly still do for the most part, but the physics around the collapse of building 7 is fucked up, big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 6, 2019 21:06:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jets Things on Sept 6, 2019 22:29:40 GMT -5
Those of us who don't subscribe to The_Donald can't see the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 6, 2019 22:51:41 GMT -5
Those of us who don't subscribe to The_Donald can't see the thread. Thats weird, I'm not a Reddit/Donald member. |
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 6, 2019 23:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shakin on Sept 6, 2019 23:33:47 GMT -5
the nist report claims the building fell at freefall speed (zero resistance!), uniformly, from the failure of a single column out of hundreds of columns.
fuck ed asner is right, has nothing to do with science and physics and 100 years of steel framed skyscraper fires resulting in exactly zero previous collapses, not even partial collapses. i'm talking about 7, not the towers.
i mocked truthers and frankly still do for the most part, but the physics around the collapse of building 7 is fucked up, big time.
nist guy: "nobody heard any explosions." lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 8:38:28 GMT -5
nist guy: "nobody heard any explosions." lol What was the motive to blow up WTC 7? Also no one witnessed anyone taking explosives onto snd into WTC? Ignore the evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by shakin on Sept 7, 2019 9:04:05 GMT -5
nist guy: "nobody heard any explosions." lol What was the motive to blow up WTC 7? Also no one witnessed anyone taking explosives onto snd into WTC? Ignore the evidence? science doesn't get into motives. i'm not a conspiracy guy, i have no idea what/why happened, there's just a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. the nist report broadly ignores evidence, both scientific and anecdotal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 9:38:04 GMT -5
What was the motive to blow up WTC 7? Also no one witnessed anyone taking explosives onto snd into WTC? Ignore the evidence? science doesn't get into motives. i'm not a conspiracy guy, i have no idea what/why happened, there's just a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. the nist report broadly ignores evidence, both scientific and anecdotal. If you by science the 3 year study shows what happened. Hearing random explosions is not science. |
|
|
|
Post by shakin on Sept 7, 2019 9:50:39 GMT -5
science doesn't get into motives. i'm not a conspiracy guy, i have no idea what/why happened, there's just a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. the nist report broadly ignores evidence, both scientific and anecdotal. Hearing random explosions is not science. correct, in many of the cases that would be considered anecdotal evidence. how would you explain the presence of nanothermite and molten iron in 100% of the dust samples collected from the scene. or that nist admits it didnt test for that or for any other evidence of explosives in its 3 year investigation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 13:52:09 GMT -5
Hearing random explosions is not science. correct, in many of the cases that would be considered anecdotal evidence. how would you explain the presence of nanothermite and molten iron in 100% of the dust samples collected from the scene. or that nist admits it didnt test for that or for any other evidence of explosives in its 3 year investigation For this theory to be true, the persons responsible for imploding WTC 7 would have pre-wired the building undetected prior to 9-11, then lie in wait for the perfect opportunity. Also why would they want do it? Makes zero sense. |
|
|
|
Post by shakin on Sept 7, 2019 14:06:03 GMT -5
correct, in many of the cases that would be considered anecdotal evidence. how would you explain the presence of nanothermite and molten iron in 100% of the dust samples collected from the scene. or that nist admits it didnt test for that or for any other evidence of explosives in its 3 year investigation Makes zero sense. neither does invading afghanistan when the saudis were responsible. a lot of shit about that day and the aftermath make zero sense anyway the science and physics and independent expert findings and witness accounts are what i'm curious about. gun to my head forcing me to come up with a conspiracy theory and i'd have to go with false flag. |
|
