Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
    #5620717 - 05/12/06 10:46 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Flawed isn't the correct term. An odd phenomena has occurred with large construction projects as engineering has progressed; things have gotten weaker. In the old days, engineers made good guesses as to how strong something needed to be. Since they didn't have computers to do structural analysis, and since they didn't want things to fall apart, they built stuff extra strong. Because modern engineers are so good, they can specify the absolute minimum material needed to meet the required safety margins. Less material equals less cost equals higher return on the investment.

> Even the Empire state building was hit by a B-25 bomber was on fire for awhile and held.

B-25 Bomber:

33,000 pounds take off weight with a fuel capacity of 974 gallons and a maximum speed of 322 MPH.

Boeing 767:

312,000 pounds take off weight with a fuel capacity of 24,000 gallons and a maximum speed of 550 MPH.


The two planes are not even in the same ballpark... like comparing a sail boat to a cruise liner.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
    #5620918 - 05/12/06 11:42 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

> Because modern engineers are so good, they can specify the absolute minimum material needed to meet the required safety margins.

So good their buildings can't hold their own when a simple fire takes place, hmm real good....So, your saying buildings now are weaker and less safe than 30 years ago?


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
    #5621203 - 05/12/06 12:50 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

bellylard said:
> Because modern engineers are so good, they can specify the absolute minimum material needed to meet the required safety margins.

So good their buildings can't hold their own when a simple fire takes place, hmm real good....So, your saying buildings now are weaker and less safe than 30 years ago?




I hope you're joking. Simple fire? lol......


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: d33p]
    #5621219 - 05/12/06 12:55 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

He's not joking, he's trolling


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
    #5621892 - 05/12/06 05:07 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

> So, your saying buildings now are weaker and less safe than 30 years ago?

No. I am saying that large construction projects, such as buildings and bridges, are no longer over built. Look at cars for example. Sixty years ago, cars were big hunks of moving steel that could smash into a boulder at 100 mph and barely get dented. (Ok, a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea.) Today, cars are these little, light, platic and aluminum things that crumple. A modern car is not less safe than an older car, but it also doesn't stand up to abuse as well, either. Weaker does not have to mean less safe.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
    #5621933 - 05/12/06 05:22 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Very true. Old cadillacs are tough mofos.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
    #5621976 - 05/12/06 05:37 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Still doesn't explain building #7.


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
    #5637413 - 05/16/06 01:07 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

bellylard said:
Still doesn't explain building #7.




The physical damage wtc 7 received is always understated. This combined with the fires sustained from falling debris and the tanks of diesel fuel within the building led to the collapse.
















--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: d33p]
    #5638151 - 05/16/06 03:59 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

d33p said:
This combined with the fires sustained from falling debris and the tanks of diesel fuel within the building led to the [sudden and perfectly symmetrical] collapse [at almost freefall speed].


:rofl2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
    #5638215 - 05/16/06 04:13 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

> sudden and perfectly symmetrical

Most collapses are sudden...

The building most certainly did not collapse "perfectly symmetrical", at least not by any definition of perfect and symmetric that I have ever seen.

> at almost freefall speed

Yeah, I can't understand why people would think that gravity would cause something to fall at nearly freefall speed. Amazing. Whenever I see something fall, it is always in slow motion.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03 Happy 21st Shroomiversary!
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
    #5638267 - 05/16/06 04:25 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:

> at almost freefall speed

Yeah, I can't understand why people would think that gravity would cause something to fall at nearly freefall speed. Amazing. Whenever I see something fall, it is always in slow motion.




Because a building falling without demolition charges encounters alot of resistance.....


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
    #5638726 - 05/16/06 06:19 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

freefall speed
>reallly?? don't you think there would be some resistance caused from the falling floors hitting other floors that havent even been harmed by the "collision" or fires near the colision. It doesn't make sense to say that falling debris hitting the perfectly stable floors below would not slow down the collision by at least a few seconds.


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
    #5638785 - 05/16/06 06:30 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Quote:

d33p said:
This combined with the fires sustained from falling debris and the tanks of diesel fuel within the building led to the [sudden and perfectly symmetrical] collapse [at almost freefall speed].


:rofl2:




Complete and utter bullshit. You're either lying or just blind. That is not what happened in the video. Look at page 26 of this pdf. Do you doubt that the 8.2 seconds described on that page happened before the collapse of the whole building? The collapse was neither perfectly symmetrical nor at free speeds.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Anyone have a video of the wtc7 collapse starting from at least 30 seconds before it is collapsed?


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: d33p]
    #5640735 - 05/17/06 02:12 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I am perfectly aware that part of the inner core started to collapse seconds earlier, you can see it on some of the videos. I am also aware that most videos are taken from the same angle (roughly from north to south), so that one always sees the same side of the building. In the rare video where you can see the south face, you realize the building was significantly damaged on that side, or at least that it looked black and smoke was coming from it. That does not explain any collapse, let alone a collapse that was symmetrical. If the south face was (let's say) really heavily damaged and the north face practically intact, you still wouldn't expect a collapse, but if one did happen for supernatural reasons, the building would have at least slightly toppled southwards. Quod non.

Back to the actual collapse. Seconds after part of the inner core collapsed, I maintain that the main body of the building did collapse suddenly (by which I mean in one smooth move without a pause or irregularity in movement between beginning and end of the collapse), perfectly symmetrically (by which I mean that throughout the collapse, the building remained as perfectly vertical as when it still stood, until the top floors hit ground level), and at near freefall speed (meaning there was no significant resistance from the structure of a building that had been standing for decades).

All these features are not only consistent with controlled demolition by explosives, they are characteristic of a perfectly carried out building implosion. They're not consistent, however, with any feature in the history of steel frame buildings destroyed by fire (and since the building stood for at least seven hours after the damage it suffered on one of four sides only, absent any explosives, it's the fire that would be responsible for the collapse).

Also, part of the inner core starting to collapse earlier is consistent with demolition as well. Just watch some demolition videos, those buildings don't start collapsing as soon as they're detonated, and some parts may go before others. The tough part, which never happens by mere chance - i.e. imploding the building right in its footprint - was perfectly achieved in WTC7.

Nuff said...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
    #5640895 - 05/17/06 05:34 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

> let alone a collapse that was symmetrical.

The collapse was not symmetrical.  This is obvious if you watch the building fall.  Even if the collapse was symmetrical, what would that indicate?  Only that the load bearing supports holding the building up gave way at the same time.

> If the south face was (let's say) really heavily damaged and the north face practically intact, you still wouldn't expect a collapse,

You cannot tell anything from the face of a building.  Remember, these are steel frames covered in glass.  The side of the building does nothing to add support to the structure.  Your statement is pure nonsense.

> perfectly symmetrically

Back to perfectly symmetrical... you just can't give this one up, can you?  :rolleyes:  Again, the collapse was not "perfectly symmetrical" by any means of the imagination.  Lie to yourself all you like, but it doesn't change facts.

> and at near freefall speed

Yep, when stuff falls, it falls at nearly freefall speed.  Amazing, isn't it?

> All these features are not only consistent with controlled demolition by explosives,

Again, ignorance raises it's ugly head.  There are many different types of controlled demolitions done with explosives.  The footprint implosion is done the least often because it is the most difficult to pull off.  Have you worked in the explosives industry?  I have. Have you done demolition with explosives? I have.

> They're not consistent, however, with any feature in the history of steel frame buildings destroyed by fire

Good thing this building didn't get hit by the debris from the perfect implosion of the twin towers falling because it would be both ignorant and asinine to compare other buildings that suffered fires with a building that suffered both structural damage and fires.

> meaning there was no significant resistance from the structure of a building that had been standing for decades

Yes, standing for decades before another building fell into it and it caught on fire and burned.

Using your own words to show your lack of logic in this debate:

> I am perfectly aware that part of the inner core started to collapse seconds earlier

... and ...

> within the building led to the [sudden and perfectly symmetrical] collapse [at almost freefall speed].

So which is it, did the building suddenly fall or did the part of the building start to collapse seconds before the rest of the building?


Finally, there seems to be a lot of ignorance on the manner in which explosive demolition works.  For those that want to be couch experts, read up.  A big, huge misunderstanding... the explosives don't blow up the building.  The explosives don't even cause the building to fall!  A big pile of explosives in the middle of a building is not going to do a damn thing.  Not all explosive demolitions are done the same way.  A building must be severely weakened before an explosives demolition will work.  It takes literally months of preparation for a building demolition using explosives.

This is important, Aldous, so read it slow: When using explosives for demolition, the explosives DO NOT cause the building to fall.  The explosives have one purpose, and one purpose only... to cut the structure holding the building up.  Thats right, the explosives cut the I-beams that support the buildings weight.  When the support goes away, the building PULLS ITSELF DOWN at *gasp* nearly freefall speed.  The trick to getting a footprint implosion is cutting the correct supports so that the building pulls itself down into its footprint.

Why does it take months to prepare for an explosives demolition?  Because the building is first weakened to the point that it is barely able to hold itself up.  Next, the proper I-beams must be uncovered in the building and the sides cut with a torch leaving just the center bearing weight.  Next, two shaped charges are placed exactly opposite of each other on the center of the I-beam.  These charges will work together to cut the I-beam and must be timed to go off exactly together.  Hundreds of these paired charges are placed in exact locations though out the structure of the building, generally towards the bottom.  This is not something that can be done without people taking notice or done in a few hours or even a few days.

I am not a civil engineer, nor am I a demolition expert.  However, I have done a lot of work with explosives, both in the lab and in the field.  In the lab, I have tested the properties experimental explosives for the US military.  In the field, I have worked on sites that were doing explosive demolitions, both buildings and a bridge.  I was amazed by explosives as a child and studied the field and industry growing up.  I knew the basic steps of making nitroglycerin in second grade although I didn't actually make it until my junior year in high school.  I have over 180 hours of college credit from an accredited engineering university.  What is your background, relavent to this discussion?

> Nuff said...

Hardly.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
    #5640941 - 05/17/06 06:18 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Listen Suess, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on you, both for reasons I stated before (regarding the twisted way in which you choose to debate), and for obvious reasons stated below.

Let me just give 2 examples of why I'm not taking you seriously and thus won't reply to every detail.

Example 1:
Quote:

Seuss wrote:
The collapse was not symmetrical. This is obvious if you watch the building fall.
[...]
Back to perfectly symmetrical... you just can't give this one up, can you? Again, the collapse was not "perfectly symmetrical" by any means of the imagination.


Now I'd like anyone who follows this discussion to look at this footage and notice with me that the vertical line of the rightmost wall remains perfectly vertical more or less until the roof hits the rubble. Similarly, the horizontal line of the roof remains horizontal more or less until it hits the rubble. Indicating, as I stated, that the onset of the collapse was perfectly symmetrical.

To you, Seuss: do we speak the same language? Do all these words have the same meaning on my planet as on yours? Do you contend the building toppled over? If yes, to which side(s)? Should I doubt my eyes? Can such a straight (hey, maybe I should just use "straight" instead of "symmetrical"? let's try...), I said: can such a straight and neat footprint collapse be a consequence of mere chance?

Example 2:
Quote:

Have you worked in the explosives industry? I have. Have you done demolition with explosives? I have. [...] It takes literally months of preparation for a building demolition using explosives. [...]This is not something that can be done without people taking notice or done in a few hours or even a few days.



And now read what these couch expert have to say on the subject:
Quote:

from: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=11
Half of the 17-story Sheikh A. Alakl Apartment Building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia collapsed when portions of the new reinforced concrete facility were overloaded during final stages of construction. At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations.


Well, in my book, or on my planet, 96 hours equals 4 days, not "literally months".

Quote:

Again, ignorance raises it's ugly head. [...] there seems to be a lot of ignorance on the manner in which explosive demolition works


So true...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
    #5641019 - 05/17/06 07:17 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

> To you, Seuss: do we speak the same language?

Obviously not. From webster:

Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect
Symmetric: affecting corresponding parts simultaneously and similarly

Therefore, "perfectly symmetric" would mean: "entirely affecting all corresponding parts simultaneously and similarly without fault of defect"

Now, using your own words of the event:

"notice with me that the vertical line of the rightmost wall remains perfectly vertical more or less until the roof hits the rubble. Similarly, the horizontal line of the roof remains horizontal more or less until it hits the rubble."

Which is it, perfectly symmetrical or more or less symmetrical? Oh wait, I know, it is perfectly symmetrical, more or less! I am curious... how can something be more (or less) than perfectly symmetrical?

Now, had you used the wording "mostly symmetrical" or "almost symmetrical" or "nearly symmetrical" or anything other than "perfectly symmetrical" then I wouldn't have a gripe. However, by using "prefect" you are wrong and there is nothing to argue. Even your own wording shows that you know you are wrong... "more or less". But we all know that "prefectly symmetrical" makes a much stronger argument than "more or less symmetrical".

To be honest, the symmetry or lack thereof is pointless without knowing how the building was designed. If the loads of the building are well distributed (which they will be in any modern highrise structure), and the collapse of the building begins lower down, even a single corner, the top of the building will still fall (be pulled down) "more or less symmetrical" because of the way the load bearing members transfer forces to balance load. In order to get an asymmetric collapse, the explosives are timed so that one edge is weakened before another while most support members that would translate lateral load have been removed or cut.

> Well, in my book, or on my planet, 96 hours equals 4 days, not "literally months"

And the reason they are bragging about it is because it was a nearly impossible feat. They didn't have to design a footprint implosion, they only had to bring down the remaining portion of a building that had already mostly fallen. Only 17 stories, not 50+ stories. Do you go out of your way to find apples to compare with oranges, or do you really not see the difference in what you are comparing?

> And now read what these couch expert have to say on the subject:

I gave my background... how much college engineering and explosives work do you have on your resume?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
    #5641972 - 05/17/06 01:40 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
Now, had you used the wording "mostly symmetrical" or "almost symmetrical" or "nearly symmetrical" or anything other than "perfectly symmetrical" then I wouldn't have a gripe. However, by using "prefect" [sic] you are wrong and there is nothing to argue.



Quote:

The same Seuss wrote:
The collapse was not symmetrical. This is obvious if you watch the building fall.



Quote:

The same Seuss also wrote:
Again, the collapse was not "perfectly symmetrical" by any means of the imagination[my emphasis].


You really seem to be grasping at straws here. Sheer nit-picking. Phred comes to mind as an inspiration.
But I'll let everyone judge that for themselves. It's becoming tiringly obvious.  :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
    #5642058 - 05/17/06 02:17 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Aldous, it's pretty obvious that any time your assertions are refuted, you take refuge in whining about how your opponent presents his facts rather than addressing the facts he presented. You've done it to me, now you're doing it to Seuss. Seuss was by no stretch of the imagination indulging in "twisted" debate. His responses were straightforward and directly addressed the points being discussed. No hemming and hawing, no weasel wording.

And no, it's neither "nitpicking" nor "grasping at straws" to accept the words you use as they are normally used. Words have meaning -- that's why we have so many different ones. His points on your use of "perfectly symmetrical" are bang on. If you didn't mean to say the collapse was perfectly symmetrical, that's your problem, not Seuss's. I doubt very much Seuss can read minds -- he accepts your statements at face value and goes from there.

If the best you can do is whine about being misunderstood, maybe it's time to concede defeat and move on.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
    #5642252 - 05/17/06 03:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I have too many friends who were near the WTC when it was attacked to believe it was anything other than airplaines.

My friend Eddie saw the planes hit, saw the buildings sway from the impact, and was covered in wreckage after the towers fell, while helping people escape. He was not hurt.

My friend Pattie cut the steel off the buildings, after they collapsed, to aid in recovery. He is a STEEL WORKER. He saw nothing abnormal, except the large loss of life.

My friend Mary died in the attack.

I was less than a mile away. I smelled the JET FUEL burning for three months... and saw the buildings weakening at THE POINT OF IMPACT, with my own eyes. Then they collapsed.

If there was enough GASOLINE to burn for three months (a unique scent, I assure you) I believe the fire was indeed hot enough to melt metal.

Nobody from the govt. asked me or any of my friends (especially Mary) to conspire to keep the actual events a secret.

Question: If you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives, or thermite anyway, why fly perfectly good airplaines into them?

Doesn't that ruin the element of surprise?

This is perhaps the dumbest 9-11 conspiracy I've yet heard... no... actually the "Little tiny nuke" theory was the dumbest. This is a close second.

Sometimes I wish Mary had died in a car wreck, then people unwilling to DO A LITTLE RESEARCH, would just accept the facts surrounding her death.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Edited by Rose (05/18/06 04:13 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* WTC 7: How did it fall?
( 1 2 all )
SquattingMarmot 2,451 26 01/04/04 02:16 PM
by iamhimheisme
* Government's 911 Coverup Falling Apart MAIA 1,588 15 12/23/03 01:22 PM
by Adden
* THE PERFECT STORM RonoS 1,155 9 03/26/03 11:23 AM
by Evolving
* Thousands of US troops fall sick from unexplained illness SquattingMarmot 1,057 14 09/10/03 11:12 AM
by afoaf
* FBI/WTC mm. 1,014 6 10/28/01 11:03 AM
by mm.
* Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack wingnutx 409 2 09/18/03 01:53 PM
by wingnutx
* What 2 do with the WTC site? GabbaDjS 835 4 01/14/02 02:19 PM
by nugsarenice
* Sen John Kerry statement=Fall of the democratic party
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 3,668 47 04/06/03 06:46 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,827 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.