• 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.

Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

RedIbis said:
I'm sorry, what? I yawned and then took a sip of Guinness.
Click to expand...

What disturbs me more than your blatant dishonesty is that for something you seem to believe involves severe malpractice or blatant criminal obstruction on the part of NIST you certainly aren't inclined to take it seriously. I guess it's true, you know full well your claims are full of crap and get a kick out seeing the poor gullibles eat up your deceptive claims like pop rocks.
 
bill smith said:
Do you want to play the game as outlined ?
Click to expand...

Just played it. It looked like a building collapsed. I could argue it looked like a CD but I can't conclude that it's a CD because those pesky features of an adjacent disaster and that unfought fire that burned for 7 hours keep getting in the way. And I can't lower myself to your instinct's level of stupidity and paranoia because of that pesky college education which tells me without a doubt that every single aspect of the collapse can be explained without ever touching demolition.

People who can't even read a report or an engineer's simplified model properly have no authoritative place in arguing against this matter
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
You know who else can terminate all my rights with no warning?
<snip>
Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Word, puttin it in perspective. Plus also the government, if it really wanted to, could always disappear someone as a british turncoat, Spanish saboteur, German spy, Soviet mole, etc. Just don't get on their list. If you fall for teh 9/11 twoof crud, you go on their list of people so hopelessly sidetracked and obfuscated they'll probably never be a threat. Bill Smith is on a government list but he still bravely demands a new investigation into why his brain is wired wrong.
 
Looking like something, and being the something it looks like are two different things.
 
RedIbis said:
Is that really how you interpreted my statement?
Click to expand...

How would we ever know how to interpret your statement.

I mean after all you have stated that "exposed as fabrication" means that you think it is false, but there is NO proof of it

So with horrendous english language skills, who knows what you EVEN said...

I just take it that you are a lying sack who still hasn't provided any support to the "explosed as fabrication" or who has provided a single peer reviewed engineering journal FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD which says that NIST is wrong.

I'm still waiting for those.
 
TruthersLie said:
How would we ever know how to interpret your statement.
[...]

So with horrendous english language skills, who knows what you EVEN said...
Click to expand...

When criticizing someone's language skills, make sure you end your question with a question mark.
 
RedIbis said:
When criticizing someone's language skills, make sure you end your question with a question mark.
Click to expand...

Oh poor twoof... Is that it? Really?

like always the troll...

I'm still waiting for that apology to Tri, or for you to clarify your statement about your LIE.

Or waiting for any SINGLE engineering paper which refutes NIST.

why can't you provide either?

moral coward? Intellectual midget? Ethically bankrupt? Or just a troll?
 
triforcharity said:
The fact that I saw the huge roaring fires in WTC 7. I saw the bulge in the building with my own two eyes, and knew IMMEADIATLY that it would fall.

Is that good enough?? Personal eyewitness testimony??
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Nope. I'd ask you for support for your claims, but I think I know how that would go.
Click to expand...

FdF said:
Are you saying there were no fires or no bulge?
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Is that really how you interpreted my statement?
Click to expand...


Lets see shall we? His claims in the first post. "huge roaring fires" and "bulge in the building" and "saw with my own two eyes"

Your reply? "I'd ask you for support for your claims"

My reply "Are you saying there were no fires or no bulge?". Directly linked to two of his claims.

So what evidence does he have to provide? That there were huge fires? That there was a bulge in the building? That he saw it with his owns eyes?
 
RedIbis said:
When criticizing someone's language skills, make sure you end your question with a question mark.
Click to expand...

When telling lies on an internet forum, do not shame yourself by trying to weasel out of it when it is in black and white on the page.

A grown up would have admitted the mistake then apologised and then clarified what they really meant to say.
 
RedIbis said:
Both you and TruthersLie can take your derails to the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...

Derails?

You are the one who claims that TRI won't provide proof of his claims... based on your BS about the "exposed as a fabrication" LIE.

So my reply is NOT a derail.

Try again twoof.
 
RedIbis said:
I don't think we'll ever know what the true target for Flight 93 was.
Click to expand...

I know what the true target for Flight 93 was. It's real purpose on Sept. 11, 2001.

It was to safely deliver its passengers to San Francisco International airport.
 
EnJaySee said:
I know what the true target for Flight 93 was. It's real purpose on Sept. 11, 2001.

It was to safely deliver its passengers to San Francisco International airport.
Click to expand...
Well, that is what the pilots would have said. They were clearly not in on the plot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom