you have NO argument, you were done a long time ago after you posted an article contradicting yourself //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rotflol.gif.b453361716769b8110ddefc85ff03cd2.gif
next time you want be taken seriously, try sources and facts.
Hmmm, let me think, maybe becuase throwing some TNT in it is easier than setting a fire? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif
For **** sakes, you have no logic. just end it.
you were disagreeing with me that arson was less expensive, so you were implying that demolition was cheaper and easierYou makes no sense, please go to school. Its more expensive?? how could you possibly know that? have you compared the prices between demolition with arson and explosives?? NO.
according to all the 9/11 reports it can be done.Did I ever say demolition was cheaper? NO. What point are you trying to make?Your the one arguing that 9/11 is a cover, so why dont you do the research?
BTW good luck bringing down a skyscraper with kleenex and matches.
christs you have no commen sense.
I said demolition was easier as a retort to gtmorris, I have no idea why you brought up price, I was simply pointing out that you cant comment on the price at all.you were disagreeing with me that arson was less expensive, so you were implying that demolition was cheaper and easier
an office building filled with paper ignited by jet fuel is quite a bit different than "kleenex and matches", now isnt it?according to all the 9/11 reports it can be done.
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif fire can spread really fast, especially through offices with lots of paper //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif
Are you serious? try every respected structural engineer, journalist, media outlet, eye witnessess, you name it,. Your the one with the discenting theory, and I've shown that every "source" you have is flawed has been debunked.What exactly are your "sources and facts"?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif
an office building filled with paper ignited by jet fuel is quite a bit different than "kleenex and matches", now isnt it?
the kleenex just takes longer to get goin //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gifan office building filled with paper ignited by jet fuel is quite a bit different than "kleenex and matches", now isnt it?
Apparently every respected structural engineer agrees with me //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gifSo fire made the twin towers collapse within 1 second of freefall speed?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif
They're going to think you were brainwashed by the government, you know that right?Besides all of the argument going on here. I would like to be the one on this forum to say that it was a real commercial airliner that hit the Pentagon. Not some stupid missle or a jet. I know because I was there when it happened. Therefore that video is very much discredited in my book.