ProfessionalMackem
Striker
Aye mate, best up your game like. You are in danger of being out-mentalled by this aukq character.![]()
Actually it's rather encouraging to see a few more people not afraid to voice their opinions.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Aye mate, best up your game like. You are in danger of being out-mentalled by this aukq character.![]()
It's not a competition for who's got the biggest tin foil hat marra!
Actually it's rather encouraging to see a few more people not afraid to voice their opinions.
It's not a competition for who's got the biggest tin foil hat marra!
Actually it's rather encouraging to see a few more people not afraid to voice their opinions.
To any sane observer the Guardian article would simply reinforce their already held opinion that George W Bush had difficulty distinguishing his arse from his elbow and not that he was watching 'some live secret feed'.
I'm of the opinion the lad was on one big wind-up to bring ProfessionalMackem back into the fore.any more proof on WTC being built to withstand multiple 747 strikes?
I just want to see 100 pages.I'm of the opinion the lad was on one big wind-up to bring ProfessionalMackem back into the fore.
It's worked a treat mind tbf to the lad.
any more proof on WTC being built to withstand multiple 747 strikes?
Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but this isn't some man off the street getting mixed up, this is the commander in chief of the country that was attacked.
I'd think it was prudent to see what his reaction was to the attacks, not just making stuff up as he goes along ffs.
So did he see any of the planes hit live? Why would he feel he has to lie about this fundamental aspect of that day.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa
Bush says he saw the 1st plane hit live. He was in a classroom reading a book for the 2nd so the only live one he could've recalled had to be the 1st one hitting, the footage not being released until days afterwards.
Bush recollects watching a plane hit the towers on a tv before he joins the kids on that day and thinks pilot error (his words). He can't be talking about the 2nd one, because anyone who see's the 2nd plane hit, knows its not pilot error. Ergo he was watching some live secret feed that wasn't available to anybody else. How can that be explained away?
So in his own words....
-He watches the 1st plane hit on tv, thinks pilot error.
-Walks into the classroom, starts reading an upside down book.
-Gets whispered into the ear by the chief of staff informing of the 2nd one hitting.
-Stays there, finishes the talk with the kids and then pays attention to the attack afterwards.
I have nothing to add, but this post is one step closer to striker status plus nearer the magic 100 pages. Win all over it.I just want to see 100 pages.
any more proof on WTC being built to withstand multiple 747 strikes?
Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but this isn't some man off the street getting mixed up, this is the commander in chief of the country that was attacked.
I'd think it was prudent to see what his reaction was to the attacks, not just making stuff up as he goes along ffs.
So did he see any of the planes hit live? Why would he feel he has to lie about this fundamental aspect of that day.
Sympathy bump.I just want to see 100 pages.
You don't know that, it is only in your imaginaton. That is just bollocks. Provide evidence please.
Seriously though, until you start to write like anything other than a 10 year old kid nobody is going to take you seriously. I mean, where else other than their own footprint would you expect tall buildings to fall?
any more proof on WTC being built to withstand multiple 747 strikes?
i actually think you're clueless. don't think for a minute I'm bothered who thinks what about me and views on this thread. its you who need convince me to take you seriously - you've done no research into the structural monstrosity that were the world trade centre towers - 200'000 tonnes of steel and 780 million kg of concrete https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM would not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speed, identical to controlled demolitions - it would be a mangled and twisted - you only need to have a normal level of intelligence to come to this conclusion
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times
i don't appreciate you attempt to belittle me in your response as you've done no research at all in my opinion
There isn't any proof of that for 747's, but rather the towers were built to withstand multiple 707 strikes. Lots of studies and white papers wrote about it in the 60's.
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
Still waiting for anybody to explain away the molten pools of lava at the bases for towers 1, 2 and 7 after the collapses.
Snap.
You've just made that up.
i actually think you're clueless. don't think for a minute I'm bothered who thinks what about me and views on this thread. its you who need convince me to take you seriously - you've done no research into the structural monstrosity that were the world trade centre towers - 200'000 tonnes of steel and 780 million kg of concrete https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM would not collapse into its own footprint at free fall speed, identical to controlled demolitions - it would be a mangled and twisted - you only need to have a normal level of intelligence to come to this conclusion
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times
i don't appreciate you attempt to belittle me in your response as you've done no research at all in my opinion
So if it wasn't flight 77, then what was it?
![]()
I'd love to see that evidence. And not some hocus pocus internet ranter