9/11 Debate

[LP]

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

;D No, it was fire, much like the Japanese Tsunami, which was really man-made to cover up a nuclear accident! You know this well! :

The failure of the Twin Towers is so obvious it's not worth debating, the 3rd is the target of conspiracists because that is their want given the organisations that it held.

We will ignore or discount the real facts, like the one that says most high-rise fires have hundreds of firefighters available to continue the fight, they hadn't been decimated by the deaths of 340+ firefighters, destroyed fire fighting appliances , and water pressure dwindling, in the minutes and hours before they collapsed! We must ignore these things, or we'll have nothing left to question! :o

[LP]

Annabelle Tuckfield, a clot doctor, was on the wireless this morning and it was interesting to hear her analysis of the AstraZeneca vaccine situation.

She pointed out that 20M AZ vaccines have now been administered and there have been 18 cases of blood clots (that’s 0.00009%).  She also pointed out that blood clots are one of the more common consequences of COVID-19 infections. In fact, data from France and the Netherlands indicates that 30-70% of patients with coronavirus who are admitted to intensive care units develop blood clots in the deep veins of the legs, or in the lungs.  One in four COVID patients in ICU will develop pulmonary embolisms.  Dr Tuckfield made it very clear that the AstraZeneca vaccine significantly reduces one’s chances of developing blood clots.

Dr Tuckfield also pointed out the contraceptive pill significantly increases the probability of blood clots - but most of us don’t have to worry about that.

Now now [member=324]DJC[/member]‍  you're being mischievous, this is no place for facts! :o

PS: I'll send you some tinfoil, I've got plenty apparently which seems ironic given the last couple of days in this thread! :

[Baggers]

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

Not really about the aeroplane but more about aviation fuel/heat. And no steel framed building (plus all steel is treated with heat resistant coverings), has ever collapsed due to fire. In fact the only way to bring down a steel framed building is through professional demolition... and they use a variety of products and methods to collapse a steel framed building onto its own footprint.

[capcom]

None [member=39]northernblue[/member]

But look what a small commuter plane did to this not so far back.  I saw it.

A fully loaded 767 jet at cruising altitude of 850 kph per hour with 90,000 litres of fuel?

khttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/five-passenger-plane-crashes-near-melbournes-essendon-airport/8288964h ?

[LP]

Not really about the aeroplane but more about aviation fuel/heat. And no steel framed building (plus all steel is treated with heat resistant coverings), has ever collapsed due to fire. In fact the only way to bring down a steel framed building is through professional demolition... and they use a variety of products and methods to collapse a steel framed building onto its own footprint.

Perhaps, I'm not sure how many tall buildings have had an even far taller building right next door collapse next to them, then had pretty much nobody there of any consequence left to fight the fire.

[Baggers]

Now now [member=61]Baggers[/member]‍ you're being mischievous, this is no place for facts! :o

Mistaken identity... David deserves the credit for providing such overwhelming, scientific evidence.    ;D  ;D

[LP]

Mistaken identity... David deserves the credit for providing such overwhelming, scientific evidence.    ;D  ;D

 Oopps, my bad!

Sorry [member=324]DJC[/member]‍ 

[Baggers]

Perhaps, I'm not sure how many tall buildings have had an even far taller building right next door collapse next to them, then had pretty much nobody there of any consequence left to fight the fire.

If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Again, I don't offer any explanation other than the official versions do not stack up... and that leads folks, as Wing Man Mav might say, heading down all kinds of 'rabbit holes' and emerging with some 'tantalizing' theories to feed the vulnerable.

[Mav]

Baggers, all good then. Nothing wrong with being curious. I tend to go with the “truth is stranger than fiction” approach. Trying to analyse individual parts of a problem and then synthesising the likely results in order to reach the conclusion an event is impossible is problematic.

One example is the problem of “fat tails” in financial maths. How do you account for extremely unlikely events which nevertheless happen from time to time such as the mortgage crisis? A lot of work is put into analysing convergence and divergence of improper integrals describing financial markets. Financial analysts whinge about fat tails after such crises rather than resorting to claims of nefarious shadowy plots.

[LP]

If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Have you checked that?

I'm not being facetious, but if you search all you'll get is the conspiracies at the top of the results if you spent the last few hours reading about that stuff from earlier searches. The search engines preferentially give you what they think you'll read and click through.

You can try searching while the browser is in private mode, that can often that will give you very different search results.