Not going to do that. Just state your whole theory explicitly. Don't be afraid.
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...the_facts.htmlShut up you ing pussy. I got 3k architects and engineers saying otherwise. I suggest you stick to being a ing peasant when you don't know on the subject.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Those are real engineers and architects.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
Meh.
More tired stuff, that ignores the dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the collapse.
Debunked years, and years ago.
At a certain point, though, debating science and theory and ideas is an exercise in futility, because the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world. "This sounds really mean," says Erik Sofge, a reporter on the original Popular Mechanics piece and an occasional contributor to Slate. "But really, it's like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits."
Why are you afraid to just say it?
What do you think really happened on 9/11?
That's a smiley, not an explanation as to what happened on 9-11. Just sayin'.
I'm not here to push you to one side or another. You already made your decision and stick by it. I like to stay with the intellectuals.
I replied with a previous comment, got. What did you not understand, pussy.
I'm open to an argument if it's persuasive. What do you think really happened on 9/11?
The towers fell to controlled demolition. It was basically in free-fall speed. All those people helping out after 911 had cancer from inhaling poison from something that was not acknowledged by the government.
The towers fell into their own footprint. ing crazy if you ask me.
"mental picture of stone wall"
oops
i spoke out of turn.
well, at least you put "controlled demolition" right up there.
You don't have the intelligence (engineering background) to really have a ground opinion on anything. Amirite or amirite?
that controlled demolition was flawless.
It was actually. It was a masterpiece.
the silence of those involved is the masterpiece.
I've never seen a controlled demolition that looked like the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. How was the controlled demolition carried out?
No. It wasn't. "Basically" isn't a scientific term. If you're claiming the intellectual high ground, you're going to have to be much more detailed.It was basically in free-fall speed.
Except it was.All those people helping out after 911 had cancer from inhaling poison from something that was not acknowledged by the government.
Nice chatting with ya guys. I've said it a million times, if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, must be a duck.
Since they destroyed the buildings around them when they fell, it is crazy to say they fell into their own footprints.
You don't quack like an engineer at all tbh.
idk, thats a pretty convincing argument.
Ad hominem's.
The political forum is filled with trash "smartypants".
Don't get defensive. Just tell us how you think this controlled demolition was carried out. WTC 1 and 2 don't look like any controlled demolition I have ever seen. Should be a piece of cake for an engineer.
Question after question, is this ChumpDumper or whatever that got is called.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote