• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

You're not even trying to address the other claim? Last chance before proving that you're a liar, once again. Go right ahead, Docker.

OK I retract the other claim. Now tell me why you're writing papers concluding 7 fell because of fire and damage when NIST is still investigating.
 
Air Force Generals that are explosives experts. There are also numerous news clips showing bomb squad removing bombs. You really do believe anything the government tells you.

Reality check: Governments do bad things

Though OKC may be worthy of discussion (I would be interested in seeing the clips mentioned), it belongs in a different thread.
 
Air Force Generals that are explosives experts. There are also numerous news clips showing bomb squad removing bombs. You really do believe anything the government tells you.

Reality check: Governments do bad things
yes but most of the time they don't do it in secracy.
 
This thread is all over the place. Docker is on to a different topic before he backs anything up legit evidence.
 
That's exactly how they do it. Ever heard of National Security? By the way its secrecy. Corrected for you.
China does bad things in the open
North Korea
Iran
Israel
Syria
France
Russia
Sudan
Saddam's Iraq
Soviet Union

I am not buying the super secret easily disprovable conspiracy theory against their own citizens to get support from those very same citizens for war.
 
but clearly that means nothing to you since the vast majority of structural engineers say WTC1+2 came down due to impact danage and fires

Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fire, even though he is not an engineer and NIST have not concluded their inquiry.
 
Yes. He isn't a structural engineer.

How can you take fault with Gravy doing his own investigation, based upon his career, when you yourself are making various claims that would require multiple fields of expertise in order to meet the same qualifications to which you are holding Gravy?
 
Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fire, even though he is not an engineer and NIST have not concluded their inquiry.

Show where he is (1) claiming to be a structural engineer or (2) where he is presenting evidence that would require the expertise of a structural engineer and failing to source one.
 
How can you take fault with Gravy doing his own investigation, based upon his career, when you yourself are making various claims that would require multiple fields of expertise in order to meet the same qualifications to which you are holding Gravy?

I have written no papers nor have I reached conclusions. I'm doing what gravy should be doing. Waiting for the experts to conclude.
 

Back
Top Bottom