wasnt the twin towers supposed to be able to withstand fire?
and plane attacks?
yes i believe
u continue to say everything is outlandish without even reading the website
wasnt the twin towers supposed to be able to withstand fire?yes fire, but its a diffrent thing when part of the structured are shattered from impact with a plane that exploded. The impact created a weaknes they didnt really anrticipate, and the planes actually got a bit bigger since the WTC was planed
Originally posted by dean7879
not my claims...did i make this up myself? no...next
Are you fronting them? Yes. And are they ridiculous? Yes. So why bother trying to present them? You are only demoloshing the credibility of the conspiracy cause you espouse. Trying to distance yourself from all you just posted like that is a fruitless exercise.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Are you fronting them? Yes. And are they ridiculous? Yes. So why bother trying to present them? You are only demoloshing the credibility of the conspiracy cause you espouse. Trying to distance yourself from all you just posted like that is a fruitless exercise.
so what if im fronting them?
does it matter to you?
explosives in the twin towers....i dont think its ridiculous...why is it? explain...it could have happened....but then again...maybe it collapsed because of the plane...thats what probably happened but .no need to get at me cos i present the info
i could start making sexual innuendo threads..everyone seems to like them 🙂
You are trying to present them as credible alternatives when they are not, and you cannot prove anything you say. The only evidence you have is some half-crazed nonsense that it couldn't have been planes that did it. Well... yes it could, and then where does that leave anything else?
Nonsensical ideas like this can, as I say, only bring your cause harm.
that im a human being capable of being wrong are you so big headed that you are saying u are always right?if you cared to read a couple of posts I admitted the mistake KharmaDog referred to.
And as a matter of fact there are two rules I go by.
rule 1: I am never wrong
rule 2: if I was to be wrong then rule #1 complies
just a semi-related thought
con·spir·a·cy
1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act [syn: confederacy]
2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) [syn: cabal]
3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose [syn: confederacy]
this shit happens every day, i know. so why has it become socially appropriate to smirk when the word 'conspiracy' is spoken? who unofficially changed the meaning of the word, so that instead of thinking of the word's defenition we instantly think of mel gibson in 'conspiracy theory?'
Originally posted by finti
if you cared to read a couple of posts I admitted the mistake KharmaDog referred to.And as a matter of fact there are two rules I go by.
rule 1: I am never wrong
rule 2: if I was to be wrong then rule #1 complies
so if u admitted the mistake...then u was wrong yes....so u have broke both rules yes? try not to contradict 🙂