Reply With Quote
Doubtful.
Conspiracy theorists that buy into twooferdom, as you may have noticed, are some of the lazy-est people on the planet.
Maybe our new conspiracy theorist out of the closet will read the thread.
Doubtful.
Conspiracy theorists that buy into twooferdom, as you may have noticed, are some of the lazy-est people on the planet.
Classic.......12 years later and NIST still won't release its WTC7 data for peer review and RG is alright with that...
Classic.......12 years later and dan still doesn't hasn't posted what he thinks really happened on 9/11.
12 years later Chump still has his head in the sand.
At least I can say what I believe really happened on 9/11.
None of you conspiracy theorist wannabes ever did.
In 12 years. You've had enough time. It's obvious you don't believe any other theory than the official one.
Posers.
Chumpy logic..
The burden of proof is on the Commission report skeptics...
Applying Chumpy logic to the religion thread...the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with atheists!
No the proof is already there -- you can't believe the events of 9/11 didn't happen. They did.
It's merely a matter of what you think caused it.
Apply that to religion, and you have something like creationism versus evolution -- competing theories, each with its own evidence, however dubious one might think that evidence is.
With 9/11, we already have one theory with a substantial amount of evidence to back it up
What is your competing theory, dan?
Anyway....the final NIST report on wTC7 is much like religion....neither has passed the scientific method...
What is your competing theory, dan?
Is yours based on the scientific method?
Are any?
Is there even one competing theory that has been developed to the point of providing a narrative explanation of the events of 9/11?
It's been 12 years.
The 911 Commission report and the NIST report are wrong...there is my theory...
My theory is you actually believe the accepted narrative.
The proof is in every post you make about 9/11.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...ecture/4278874The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings:
What do you think was the actual culprit, dan?
I don't see why that is so funny.
You don't think that burning office furniture collapsing a steel frame building in funny? Have you no sense of humor!
So you don't think the burning paper, plastic, wood, and whatever else flammable materials you find on multiple stories of humongous building contributed to the destruction of the building?
Never seen it happen before....have you?So you don't think the burning paper, plastic, wood, and whatever else flammable materials you find on multiple stories of humongous building contributed to the destruction of the building?
Nope. me either...in fact, it was the first steel framed building to collapse because of fire...another 911 coincidink....
They were also the first buildings to be struck by 767s and a World Trade Center tower.
Also, you're wrong.
Read the report Chumpy....NIST themselves said that the building did not collapse because of debris damage from towers one or two....hey were also the first buildings to be struck by 767s and a World Trade Center tower.
Read the post, danny. No one said it did.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
