Agent Orange Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Soviet Russia around 60 million. Hitler around 50 million. Where are your figures? The voices in their heads told them I find it convenient that the so called truthers can never back up their claims when questioned. Odd, that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Demon Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 hitler was punching above his weight then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 hitler was punching above his weight then He took advantage of German efficiency, what a terrible world we live in eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 As they showed 10 years ago. You are the maestro of the one line statements. All of them rubbish without a scrap of evidence to back it up. If You-Tube ever replaces libraries then mankind will be back up the trees again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Building 7, The fact that jet fuel cant melt steel, but some how it did The fact that the only 3 steel structured building to be demolished by fire in the history of man were all on the same day and all pretty close to each other. Yup, you got it, the twin towers and building 7. Amercia should hang its head in shame for what it did on that day. You really hit the nail on the head with that user name didn't you... No one apart from you conspiracy nut jobs believe that jet fuel melted the main steel supports. All it did was weaken them. If you could be bothered to look in to it you would also find that hundreds of steel framed buildings collapse during fires. The reason building #7 collapsed was just the same except it was on fire for a lot longer. All these rocks being thrown but none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to how America went about bringing the towers down Right. I'm off to take pictures of the fairies down the bottom of my garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen66 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Its funny how people who believe the official line consider themselves superior and call others who do not believe the official line nut jobs. By the way hundreds of steel framed skyscraper type buildings collapse due to fires do they. Wow, hundreds? really? You really hit the nail on the head with that user name didn't you... No one apart from you conspiracy nut jobs believe that jet fuel melted the main steel supports. All it did was weaken them. If you could be bothered to look in to it you would also find that hundreds of steel framed buildings collapse during fires. The reason building #7 collapsed was just the same except it was on fire for a lot longer. All these rocks being thrown but none of you can come up with a reasoned argument as to how America went about bringing the towers down Right. I'm off to take pictures of the fairies down the bottom of my garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Its funny how people who believe the official line consider themselves superior and call others who do not believe the official line nut jobs. By the way hundreds of steel framed skyscraper type buildings collapse due to fires do they. Wow, hundreds? really? Funny how those who don't consider themselves superior and refer to everyone as 'sheep'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Its funny how people who believe the official line consider themselves superior and call others who do not believe the official line nut jobs. By the way hundreds of steel framed skyscraper type buildings collapse due to fires do they. Wow, hundreds? really? Can you name any steel framed skyscrapers that was left to burn, without any attempt to fight the fire, that didn't collapse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen66 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 So I presume you also mean that all columns weakened at the same time with some miraculous non resistance Why is it that only 911 conspiracy sheep believers only ever claim that the building collapsed due to the steel melting. It collapsed because the steel was weakened, not melted. Also could any 911 conspiracy sheep believers point out the existence of any modern buildings that were left to burn, without any fire crews fighting the fires that didn't collapse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 So I presume you also mean that all columns weakened at the same time with some miraculous non resistance Nope, the report does explain the collapse, and it never suggested that the fire weakened all the steel at the same time. Why not read it, it'll save you from inventing reasons as to why you think it never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.