user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
+to heh I should talk.
I lived in a white housing project until I was ten and I didn't know anybody who looked *THAT* f&cked up.Oh man ... must be something in the water there.
Lovelynice and Ken from Dublin get thrown out of the 9/11 whackjob moonbat nutjob convention after they get caught plagiarising everyone elses theories.
Poor man, you really don't cope with reality too well, do you Mr Not A Soldier. Here's your problem; It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because 1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario) 2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel-framed hi-rise buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your whimpy official excuses and lies? 3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001. Now considering this, there is only one conclusion - the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions. Your carrying with other excuses can't get around this.
Your response had nothing at all to do with the ballot. Do not have your arguments with someone else about other crap on my ballots or I will rate you down next time.
|
|