Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
in [Physics]
|
Prev: FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: AllYou! on 12 Jan 2010 13:21 In news:7992bf83-0537-489b-943a-1b00bde77c6e(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, pv+use...(a)pobox.com (PV) wrote: >> Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>> Why would a BOTCHED demolition look like WTC? BTW, the Chinese >>> building was 22 stories tall - not anywhere close to the size >>> of the WTC. Each of the airplane strikes was higher than the >>> ENTIRE height of the CHinese building, so your example is not >>> very applicable. >> >> We've told chewie before that no controlled demolition has ever >> been attempted on buildings even close to this tall (the record >> is under 500 feet), but it doesn't matter, he's write-only. * >> -- >> * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and >> something like corkscrews. > > Oh? > Since something has "never been done before" it can't happen. > That's rich. What's rich is that you so entirley missed the point. The point is that YOU are the one who brings up examples of events that you proport to have relevance to 911 when, in fact, they do not.
From: Peter Webb on 12 Jan 2010 19:09 You have obviously researched this topic a lot. What is the most plausible explanation of the events of 9/11 that you have heard?
From: Peter Webb on 12 Jan 2010 19:10 What do you believed happened on 9/11, exactly?
From: Peter Webb on 12 Jan 2010 19:12 > Or is the official story the most plausible explanation you have heard for > the events of 9/11 ? No. Never will be. ___________________________ Ohh, OK, if the official story is not the most plausible explanation of the events of 9/11 that you have heard, you have heard a more plausible explanation. What is it exactly?
From: Peter Webb on 12 Jan 2010 19:21
>> Now please document your alternative explanation in detail, so we can >> compare it to the official story to see which is more plausible. >> >> You can start with explaining whether there were hijackers on board, and >> who they were. > > I am not here to submit to your demands. You may discard my opinion or > ask reasonable questions which I will respond to as my patience permits. > Sorry. I thought you were interested in people knowing the truth about 9/11. And I thought you might consider telling us what it is. Please, please, I really want to know the truth about 9/11. In your alternate explanation of the events of 9/11 were there hijackers on the plane? |