Another Scottish thread in the making........................
Forum whore
Another Scottish thread in the making........................
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Loud and Uncouth
Sums up the majority of posts on this thread...Originally Posted by Katman
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Hardcore Biker
And that is what you base your opinion on?
Can't have been a demolition job because tens of thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to be used.
Yet it fell down without any explosives being used according to the links you just posted.
Don't these two things contradict each other in your world?
Atheism and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head, while the other relies on tales.
Bogeyman
They do in yours?
You might want to review those statements.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Forum whore
He is competing with Katman to see who can be the most inane. You may need to spell it out in simple words but I don't rate your chances...
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Forum whore
It's well worth setting a couple of hours aside to watch this.
It addresses virtually every point that has been raised in this thread.
(Doesn't mention the ANZACs though).
Hardcore Biker
Ed's debunking theory proof:
1/ The towers could not have been blown up as it would have taken tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives to do it.
Ed's reason for the towers coming down:
2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.
If the towers came down because of a kerosene fire, does that not then put a lie to the first statement?
ie. If the second statement is true then the first cannot be true.
Equally, if the towers needed tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive to demolish them then the second statement must be false.
You can't have it both ways.
Simple logic.
Atheism and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head, while the other relies on tales.
Hardcore Biker
Paraphrasing David Griffin '911 The Myth and the Reality'
The truth of the Myth is taken on faith.
If some people have the bad taste to question the truth, the keepers of the faith do not enter the debate rather they ignore them or denounce them.
Any questioning of the sacred Myth is seen as Sacrilege.
This is precisely what we see here on this thread.
Atheism and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head, while the other relies on tales.
Forum whore
I call a tie between Hinny and Katman...
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
SH1 rider
I thought Hinny was referring to Katman and other conspiracy theorists when he posted that to question them was considered Sacrilege.
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. --- Unknown sage
Anarchic Wild Child
Bwhahaha .. yeah .. leave them in the corner to compare consiracy theories ...I call a tie between Hinny and Katman...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Forum whore
Perhaps you should watch the video that I linked to above.
Plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions and plenty of accounts of the presence of molten metal in the rubble - a fact that NIST tried to deny.
Anarchic Wild Child
Yeah ... and plenty of people heard a third gunman on grassy knoll .. I suppose you know who that was ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Forum whore
And in case anyone thinks that the twin towers couldn't possibly have been controlled demolitions because they collapse from top to bottom (instead of the more common practice of demolishing the lower floors first) here's a couple of examples using that method.
http://youtu.be/syzKBBB_THE
http://youtu.be/GVQaVgJne6c
Forum whore
Well, you could always watch the video and thus avoid arguing from a position of ignorance.
(And it's probably not wise using as an example, an event that also has many serious questions surrounding the official story, when trying to discredit a post).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks