Page 2 of 63 FirstFirst 123451252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 626
  1. #11
    Members The_Viper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    3,858


    1 Not allowed!
    Good of you to start such a neutral thread OP

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #12
      Mod writer Guinness Boy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
      Posts
      15,358


      0 Not allowed!
      How long until @Megazone tells us DMT should be legalized?
      Brighton But Only At Home

      It's a blog. About home games. And some other stuff.
    • #13
      living vicariously GOM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Leeds - but not the dirty bit
      Posts
      2,406


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Questions View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Most of the conspiracy theorists are mentalists
      You do know what a mentalist is don't you?
      face piles of trials, with smiles
      it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.
    • #14
      Habitual User Questions's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2006
      Location
      Worthing
      Posts
      17,366


      2 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by GOM View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      You do know what a mentalist is don't you?
      mentalist

      noun
      1. U.S. : A magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers, such as mind-reading.
      2. BRITISH informal : An eccentric or mad person.

      As we are in Britain I'll take the 2nd meaning and besides if it's good enough for Partridge .........
      now my friends have gone,
      and my hair is grey,
      and I ache in the places that I used to play.
    • #15
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      41,338


      8 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by daveinprague View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Ask them why the 'inside job' was carried out. It's hilarious
      I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

      The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

      Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
      We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
      We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
      We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
      When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
      To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

      Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #16

      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

      The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

      Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
      We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
      We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
      We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
      When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
      To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

      Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.
      all, merely opinion
    • #17
      Members GT49er's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Gloucester
      Posts
      24,689


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

      The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

      Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
      We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
      We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
      We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
      When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
      To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

      Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.
      Oh you rotten spoilsport!
    • #18

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I don't really agree with you here. I think its fair to say that some people do gain from war, so it is in some people's interests for there to be war. IMO 'They wouldn't want an attack' is not a good enough reason to prove it was real.

      The main reasons I feel we know the towers weren't destroyed by explosives are:

      Thousands of eye witnesses and live tv crews watched the jets hit the towers.
      We know that the resulting fires were huge, and burning at a high temperature.
      We know that at that temperature steel loses its strength.
      We can see the towers collapse from the top - the bottom half of the towers stay in place as the tops fall down - the opposite of buildings destroyed with explosives.
      When watching (much smaller) buildings brought down by explosives, you can hear huge explosions immediately before the collapse - those explosions are missing from the collapse of all towers in 9/11.
      To place the explosives in the towers would have taken a lot of time and visible work, which people working there would have noticed. It would also have taken a lot of people who knew they'd be murdering thousands, and they would need to be silenced. That's not realistic.

      Therefore it makes sense that the buildings were destroyed due to the jets crashing into them, and the idea of the buildings being destroyed by explosives is clearly false.
      Yeah apart from building 7 that was clearly brought down with explosives.

      Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
      Nibble@Wrong-Direction is one of the biggest idiots on this board.
    • #19
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      41,338


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by GT49er View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Oh you rotten spoilsport!
      A conspiracy theory I can get behind...
      The government knew an attack was coming, and they didn't want to stop it as they wanted an excuse for war.

      That's a little harder to disprove.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #20
      Members
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      Prague, Czech Republic
      Posts
      12,381


      0 Not allowed!
      Yep. The 'elite' destroyed one of their Financial centers, and their military hub, to give a reason for a war. Makes sense.
      The guy that invented predictive text died today, his funfair will be next fryingpan.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •