Boston bombing

[Edbear]

So all those other experts are wrong but you're right?

You're an incredibly stupid man Ed.

Once again you prove me right about you...

[Maha]

Well, where's your proof?

This thread is proof enough and substantiates what I said.

[Katman]

This thread is proof enough and substantiates what I said.

So you've got nothing then?

You become more like Ed every day.

[Maha]

So you've got nothing then?

Why would I? I am not the one who started a thread questioning the validity of a bombing event by adding their own spin on it. Then try to turn it over to when the anaemic argument fails.....Next

[Katman]

Why would I? I am not the one who started a thread questioning the validity of a bombing event by adding their own spin on it. Then try to turn it over to when the anaemic argument fails.....Next

It always amuses me the vehemence that many show towards the questioning of an official story.

Is it the thinking that scares you Mark?

Perhaps you should stick to threads that are closer matched to your level of intellect - if you know what I mean.

[oneofsix]

It always amuses me the vehemence that many show towards the questioning of an official story.

Is it the thinking that scares you Mark?

Perhaps you should stick to threads that are closer matched to your level of intellect - if you know what I mean.

yeah stay away from these dumb ones

[Katman]

yeah stay away from these dumb ones

But you can't, can you?

It's like that little itch you can't stop scratching.

[oneofsix]

But you can't, can you?

It's like that little itch you can't stop scratching.

True, Too much fodder for comment from both sides.

[mashman]

This thread is proof enough and substantiates what I said.

Only for you.

[Maha]

Only for you.

Ultimately, that's all that matters.. from this end.
You and Katman have absolutely no proof the bombing was anything but real. Your opinion based on a few photos and is like that of the defence, rather than the prosecution at a trial...you both have failed to convince anyone to the contrary.
Those of us that do not conform to your view on the matter, can only sit and ponder as to when you'll finally realise at how humiliating it is now looking.

[Katman]

Your opinion based on a few photos and is like that of the defence, rather than the prosecution at a trial...

What a ridiculous statement Mark.

Are you saying that the prosecution argument is always right and the defence argument is always wrong?

You'd make a fucking useless juror.

[avgas]

So your opinion is more qualified than all those structural engineering experts?
What exactly are your structural engineering qualifications Ed?

I have major unanswered questions about 911 when it comes to the collapse of buildings. As do many of my colleagues.
But being qualified doesn't mean you don't get shot.

Too many engineers have disappeared off the face of the earth for less. Too many have been discredited for less. So becoming a tinfoil hat wearer isn't an option.

We just go home and pray that we are wrong.

But if you want to truth - ask the engineer who built that brick shithouse if it should have collapsed like that. Or ask a demo expert if they could land a building that perfectly.
If they are wise, they will ignore your question - go home and hug their family. I do.

[Maha]

What a ridiculous statement Mark.

Are you saying that the prosecution argument is always right and the defence argument is always wrong?

You'd make a fucking useless juror.

Not say that at all, what I am saying is you and your wingman have a laughable viewpoint on the subject matter . A laughable viewpoint that was dreamed up via a few photos in the internet. Would they (the photos) sway a jury up in a court? I doubt it.

[oneofsix]

I have major unanswered questions about 911 when it comes to the collapse of buildings. As do many of my colleagues.
But being qualified doesn't mean you don't get shot.

Too many engineers have disappeared off the face of the earth for less. Too many have been discredited for less. So becoming a tinfoil hat wearer isn't an option.

We just go home and pray that we are wrong.

But if you want to truth - ask the engineer who built that brick shithouse if it should have collapsed like that. Or ask a demo expert if they could land a building that perfectly.
If they are wise, they will ignore your question - go home and hug their family. I do.

I've seen many explanations as to why those main buildings collapsed the way they did, as I suspect you and Ed have. Mainly around the age of the design (that's how I some it up) and quantity of gas on board. Trouble is it is hard to get all the facts and nothing but them. More interesting to my mind is the Pentagon, seen some interesting explanations of the disappearing plane wreckage.

[Katman]

I've seen many explanations as to why those main buildings collapsed the way they did, as I suspect you and Ed have. Mainly around the age of the design (that's how I some it up) and quantity of gas on board.

The building I've been referring to was Building 7.

No plane hit that building.

It supposedly collapsed due to a few localised fires from burning office debris.

You should watch the video I linked to in post #311.